Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Interim managers step up

October 2, 2013

FAIRMONT — Tuesday was the first day on the job for Fairmont Municipal Airport’s interim managers....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(5)

taxwatch

Oct-06-13 5:03 AM

So glad you were properly trained, I would have expected the same of a city designated employee. I am also quite certain, I never stated any certificatation was ever required for moving aircraft, but it seems your training payed off, because the only reaason I posted anything here, is because the new city hired airport guys destroyed a functional aircraft on their second day, and I knew the sentinel wouldn't mention, and good luck in your piloting, yes I know that every move in aviation is a training purpose.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jmaynard

Oct-03-13 6:50 PM

I showed up out there and did it under the supervision of the folks who knew how to do it for a while, and then I just did it. There's no certification process like you seem to think there is.

As for "serving mankind" vs. "joyriding", you should know that a pilot must fly regularly to maintain proficiency for those "serving mankind" flights. They also bring business to the area, from lunch at the Channel In to car rentals to hotel rooms to attendance at other things we have here in Fairmont. Not only that, but the national airspace system makes no distinction between business aviation and "joyriding" and any other flight, as a matter of law and policy.

it's common and expected for airport employees to pump fuel for private aircraft. Yes, they make money at it; if not, they don't stay in business. Even so, this is the norm for private FBOs and public airport authorities and everyone else that runs an airport.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxwatch

Oct-03-13 11:36 AM

So you just showed up and starting moving airplanes one day? Even more reason to fear direct liability to the taxpayer, Mr. Maynard. As far as the fueling, I don't believe I implied any copmplicated nature of it, but rather why it should be funded by the taxpayer. Many who fly are not serving mankind, but merely joyriding, and if the city is paying an hourly attendant for that duty, then the city had better show a profit, or in my opinion, it is a poor use of my tax dollars.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

jmaynard

Oct-03-13 12:28 AM

There are no qualifications for handling aircraft. You either get it right or you don't. I worked out at the airport for a while a few years ago, and I moved all of the airplanes around. Yes, even Bevcomm's turboprop.

As for pumping fuel, that's how it's done at airports. There's nothing at all remarkable about employees pumping fuel for aircraft owners.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

taxwatch

Oct-02-13 5:07 PM

For those following the airport saga, it seems the new team has already severely damaged an airplane in their first week. I am curious to how the city intends to shield taxpayers from these unintended occurences, and costs? I would also ask what qualifications the new team really has for the handling of aircraft, and if Mr. Humpal really grasps what is at stake here? And my last question is, why are the taxpayers now paying government workers to pump fuel for private plane owners?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 5 of 5 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web