When not fighting the FAA created fiasco on residential through-the-fence access, Dr. Brent Blue (founder of ThroughTheFence.org and AME) was building a modified Murphy Moose that he calls “Blue Bear”. After an 11-year labor, above is a photo from an April 7 flight at Driggs, Idaho. From Brent’s email, “For those who want to know: 3500# gross weight, 360 hp Russian M14P 9 cylinder radial, cruise is about 120-130 mph, and it is set up for amphibs.” With all the focus on the myriad challenges we in the aviation world face, it is nice to remember it really is about the airplanes, and the people who fly them. Congratulations Brent.

Do you have questions about residential airparks? Are there things about possibly Living With Your Plane that you are particularly concerned about? Is your spouse questioning certain aspects of moving to a residential airpark?

I want to hear your questions and concerns or thoughts that you have so I can think about them in advance and attempt to come up with solutions. In addition, over the years, I’ve discovered that when a question is shared with the group sitting in on my program, someone usually can produce a good answer so I plan on sharing your questions with the audience.

Give me your thoughts as soon as you can. Contact me at dave@generalaviationnews.com. I look forward to seeing you all in Lakeland.

Answer from Dave Sclair: You are correct in your assumption that private-owned, public-use airports don’t seem to be affected. Accepting a state grant for improvements might not be a problem either, although before getting into such an agreement it would be highly intelligent to have the agreements checked out for attachments to the FAA.

I am looking for experiences and suggestions pertaining to residential airparks where a developer or individual owns the underlying land of the runway(s), taxiways, roads and other common areas. In my particular instance, the primary Home Owners Association (HOA) is chartered with maintaining these areas and has collectively paid for paving the runway, adding runway lights, grading and fill of graveled areas, etc. Attorneys have told the HOA that they are responsible for safety by this action of maintaining the runway and common areas, and less-so the underlying land owner.

Our underlying land owner is a resident pilot and dues-paying HOA member. However he is reluctant to relinquish his overall control. This has already caused conflicts where residents feel his actions on his land adjacent to the runway (declared right-of-way and easement) create an unsafe aviation condition, but are powerless to change it. The HOA is never consulted beforehand either. In addition, our small airpark with about 25 owners has three separate HOA/covenant boundaries which were determined when each area was sold. The irrigation and trash users are also separate entities.

I have heard some stories that had non-HOA owned underlying land, but the underlying owner had either defaulted on loan or taxes, or sold to another who was less “aviation friendly” and major legal battles have then ensued. Personal tragedy happens every day with unexpected results, so our current owner’s level of cooperation may not always be there.

Although we receive no federal funds, the recent FAA policy change for federally obligated airports and treating any airpark homeowners as “through-the-fence” (TTF) operations is also worrisome. It does not take much imagination to get TSA similarly involved and then worried about those non-vetted pilots living at an airport yet possibly being a potential national security risk. If the HOA owned the underlying land, then residents are no longer TTF.

Since our HOA owns no land and does not pay taxes, it has a limited voice when dealing with county and other government levels too. New taxes and insurance may be small price to pay for increased control with overall airpark land ownership.

So please reply if you have some thoughts or help on the subject of underlying land ownership.

ANSWER: For a long time I understood oil companies wouldn’t even consider delivering fuel to an individual with only a 1,000-gallon tank in the ground. Further, it was also my understanding that they couldn’t service such a location unless the EPA or some similar agency had certified the tank.

Recently I did some additional checking into the situation and here’s what I found:

Oil companies can sell fuel to an individual and deliver it to your underground tank in any quantity that works out for both parties. However, before the oil company can legally deliver the fuel and pump it into your underground storage tank they must see your Underground Storage Tank permit. In order to obtain such a permit, you must register your tank with the EPA (or whatever the appropriate agency is in the state). That agency will come out and check your tank to make sure there are no leaks or other problems that can contaminate the surrounding ground.

Assuming all checks out properly, they will issue you a permit which can then be forwarded to the oil company and they can then legally sell fuel to you and deliver it to your tank.

What is required to allow a complete check of the tank and what is required to maintain its integrity wasn’t clear to me in the online search that I made.

So, it appears it is possible to obtain fuel in bulk for your underground storage tank but you are the responsible party for making sure it doesn’t leak and meets all the requirements of the EPA, both state and federal requirements.

My concern about older tanks in the ground has always been the cost of removing them and performing the required remediation of the soil if the EPA requires such actions because of leakage. It appears that if there are tanks in the ground that aren’t being used and you don’t plan to try and get them approved for fuel, there is little risk of the EPA or other similar agencies finding out about the tanks and requiring removal of them.

After buying the property and moving here I discovered there are a few property owners who have failed to pay their annual assessments. The board of directors keeps talking about the situation but doesn’t appear to be doing anything.

At the last meeting I asked for the identity of those failing to meet the financial requirements of their agreement and was told that the BOD didn’t want to make that information public for fear of legal action or other problems.

My questions: should the identity of the miscreants be disclosed and what action should the board take?

ANSWER: This is a very common problem that isn’t unique for residential airparks. Recently New York Times ethics columnist Randy Cohen wrote on this issue. He quoted a condominium’s board president noting that two condo owners owe the association about $20,000. He said legal action has been initiated against the two and all other condo owners have been informed about this without identifying the two.

Cohen says there is disagreement among the directors about whether or not the two should be identified.

The ethicist goes on to say that all condo owners are entitled to information about the association’s finances, including the identity of those not meeting the financial agreements they entered into when buying the condo. The columnist goes on to write that the board should alert owners to significant developments, including legal actions. Such reports to the owners are not only ethical and legal but also commonplace. Cohen explains that an attorney with whom he consulted says most condo directors will reveal to the coop or condo owners the names of those in arrears but there is no legal requirement that the board do so. He did point out that if legal action has been taken, the names of those against whom action has been taken are probably public information already.

Legal action is usually explained in the condo CC&Rs and most likely is limited to filing a lien against the property.

At Oshkosh, I’ve been scheduled for 8:30 am on Thursday, July 31 in the NATCA Pavilion Number 8.

The Arlington times are great; before the heat of the day and prior to the airshow distractions. At Oshkosh, it’s kinda early in the morning but again, the time is before the heat and humidity builds up and well before the competition with the airshow later in the day.

At each of these events I always make sure there’s plenty of time for those attending to share their ideas and questions. Often, others in the audience can provide first-hand experience of an issue or there’s someone attending who is an expert in an area in question.

If you can’t attend but have a question or issue you want to share with the participants, please send me an e-mail and I’ll do my best to get it in front of everyone.

I read with great interest your article on homeowner dues in airparks. I live on an airpark, and I have a question about dues paid by commercial enterprises on the airpark.

In our case,  the owner of a commercial – residential lot on the airpark resides on the lot, and he operates an aircraft maintenance business on the lot.

Do other airparks charge different homeowner dues for businesses located on the airstrip? A business creates more wear and tear on the airpark facilities and a business has the most to gain by having a well-maintained airpark. Our business owner is charged the same dues as all of the strictly residential property owners in the airpark.

I am curious to know how other airparks handle this situation.

Post your thoughts below.

Jon R Shimer writes:

The average AGL (Airport General Liability) policy we see starts at $1 million combined single limit, and more can usually be written. Each policy is tailored individually for each Homeowner/Airport/Airpark so I can’t be specific on rates. However there has been some modest decreases in premiums as competition is growing for this class of business.

The Homeowner’s coverages are generally written by a local agent for the home and we would write the “Aviation” side of the exposures as most homeowner policies exclude all things related to “Aviation”.

However, we can usually write the individual hangar with an apartment built inside. Our coverage typically written is for the Premises, Hangar and Contents, and any Aircraft. I don’t write homeowners’ policies but here again rates are different for each location. Florida will be a lot tougher and expensive to write than say a home in Iowa due to hurricane and flood exposures.

We would welcome the opportunity to quote aviation insurance needs of your Living With Your Plane subscribers. Thank you for giving Aviation Insurance Resources (AIR) an opportunity to respond to your questions.

Jon R. Shimer, Jr., Aviation Insurance Resources, POBox 32, Frederick, MD 21705, Phone: 877-247-7769, website: www.AIR-PROS.com and e-mail: JShimer@AIR-PROS.com

Norma Joyce explains:

I can’t answer all of your questions, but I can tell you that Airparks are difficult to find companies that will write Premises Liability for this risk. If you have an Airpark, the underwriter will want to know details regarding the runway, the security at the airpark (for example, is it fenced), the length and width of the runway, and how many residents – homes are there. They also want to know if the roads are taxiways and what activities are conducted at the Airpark. The policies normally will exclude all commercial uses and contests. The actual policy will only cover the runway, taxiways and ramp area, they compare the policy to a regular airport Premises Policy. They do not cover the houses, individual hangars, or roads in between.

Most of the small Airparks buy $1,000,000 Premises. If the Association supplies the residents with gas and oil they should carry Product Liability coverage. The Owner of the Airpark is usually the named insured and the Association is usually an Additional Insured.

The last quote I received on a large Airpark was $10,000,000 Premises for $5,700. The premium for most $1,000,000 Premises policies for would be $1,600 – 2,000.

Norma Joyce, AUA, POBox 35289, Greensboro, NC 27425 Phone: 800-727-3823. Website: www.auaonline.com