Free idea:

Research the airport’s friction meter.

If you can figure out what they’re doing wrong maybe you can quietly and unofficially train the airport’s friction meter operator.

Then just quietly trudge through the rest of the local Dukes-of-Hazard-Boss-Hogg politics.

You are not wrong. The operator can influence the readings somewhat by technique. It is also supposed to be in a vehicle with the ABS disabled, which is harder and harder to do in newer vehicles.

Just looking online at the public background on this situation it seems like a lot has been omitted. I am not sure you are getting advice that will really help.

* The local press claims the Airport Board was fired in 2021 because they apparently lacked any business or fiduciary competence leaving the Airport finances a mess. Allegedly they had not conducted any financial recordkeeping or audits since 2018 which were required by the City and FAA recordkeeping.

* One article says the Airport is insolvent needing $150,000 each from the City and the County even after receiving $3 million in the past year ($1 million each from the CARES Act, Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) and the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)). It says the City had to spend $600,000 to straighten out the fianancial records and audit the past few years. It sounds like the former Board ran it on a cash basis like a big slush fund. I bet citizens are wondering if there are missing funds - which could lead to criminal charges against someone. Regardless the past Airport Board and management appear to the voting citizens as incompetent at best and potentially worse if funds are found missing.

* It looks like this has already gotten pretty personal and elevated to the State and Federal level. The local press states in that a letter signed by pilots was sent in April (you are quoted in the article giving the appearance you are part of the letter)
- "The letter, which was sent to state and local governments and the Federal Aviation Administration on Easter Sunday, outlines a slate of grievances with the airport, ranging from unexpected fee increases to lack of experience and an alleged failure to follow FAA regulations."
- Then the claims of mismanagement in the letter were retracted by the Pilot group -
* "The letter originally claimed the cancellations were caused by mismanagement of the airport, but the group later rescinded the claim after learning more about the situation."
* One of the pilots is arguing that pilots need to be on the Board but the article says the current Chair previously worked for Boeing and another member is a commercial pilot.

* You are quoted in the article about the April "Pilot's Grievance Letter" expressing concerns about how the Airport Board is going about raising fees. The January Wyoming Business Report states that your attorney attended a Board Meeting complaining about rising lease fees. If accurate, he said that your practice signed a lease in 2007 intending to stay "forever". However no-one can find a signed copy of the lease (including your attorney if true). He is quoted expressing exasperation that your practice had to sign a new lease at higher rates.

* Your earlier posts expressed that you disagreed with the Airport's "flowage fee" if you were to buy wholesale JetA and bring it in. You suggested that the FAA doesn't allow it. I am not sure if you argued this (or your attorney argued this) to the Airport Board. The Airport has the fuel franchise and they expect to get their margin whether they pump it or your pump it. To me it sounds similar to football stadiums with their "beer franchise". If you don't like it then you can find your entertainment with beer somewhere else. But if is the only game in town you pay their rates. Airports with fuel are the same.

* The last line in the June 22 article says:
- "The airport has since brought in mediators to work through some of those disagreements, Terrell (Airport Manager) said."

So now you have a third party involved - actually about the 6th party after yourself, Airport Board, City Leadership, State Aviation, FAA. And it looks like you are already "lawyered up" with your attorney involved.

And now you are in a disagreement with the Airport Manager and Lawyer over runway access

Your concerns prior to this latest issue may be more economic but you have aligned with a group of others that have broader and more personal allegations. On the economic issues I don't think you will get any sympathy from the voting citizens. They don't want to subsize a fleet of planes owned by doctors.

This is a lot like a Home Owners Association where you live. They set rules which impact what you can and cannot do with your own property. They levee fees upon you. You could run for the Board but you would have to recuse yourself from every issue and vote involving fees and leases. And you would have only one vote regardless. You would have input but that is about all.


https://www.wyomingnews.com/wyomingbusinessreport/industry_news/economy_and_labor/local-pilots-clear-the-air-with-airport-board/article_ce511672-7ae4-11ec-b58b-b3173ea3c7d6.html
https://www.thesheridanpress.com/news/regional-news/local-aviators-allege-mismanagement-at-laramie-regional-airport/article_7949d0de-c70f-11ec-96af-3bca9ef34c59.html
https://www.wyomingnews.com/laramieboomerang/news/business/laramie-regional-airport-works-to-fix-compliance-finance-issues/article_2f2bfb85-21b0-53bb-bb0c-dda95fb4fdcc.html

David,
Very well researched. As I stated, this has been going on for a while. The city wanted to take over the airport board. The prior airport manager had been there for a couple decades and the airport was doing fine. Certainly he was not great about documenting compliance for grant assurances, but they had never been withdrawn by the FAA. They were fantastic at clearing snow, fueling jets with Jet A and piston planes with 100LL (unlike the new group) and clearing snow with virtually no closures. So yes, as pilots we certainly preferred the prior arrangement. The current management says the prior management ran the airport into the ground...yet it functioned very well and I have no way to independently verify or refute their claim. In personal communication with the prior manager, that is refuted, but he can't speak to it formally due to "silence clause" required by the city when he left.
The local media here is very supportive of the city and its managers.
We were going to build a hangar many years ago for the business planes but the city told us that if they lost the lease payments they would go under and we wouldn't have an FBO. So we didn't. We should have.
They claim our planes are "commercial operations" (under Part 91) and therefore must pay landing and takeoff fees unless we buy 2000 gallons a month of fuel. A local insurance company with Pilatus (also Part 91) was faced with a similar take it or leave it deal. Their website indicates no landing fees.
Those negotiations were with my company. The letter to local legislators was from several private pilots who operate out of the field, excluding my company, and the current dispute is just with me, not my company. So the feuding has been broad but not with all the same participants.
The new manager was told by the prior board that she had to get her certification as a condition of her employment. To my knowledge, that never happened. The prior manager told her to get certified as a weather observer because the ASOS breaks frequently. She ignored that recommendation. The ASOS failed, and the airlines couldn't serve our town for a week. She claimed that no such training is available (I asked around and while I agree it is not easy to find, I found training locations) but the paper printed her side of it and nothing else.
We have had falsified surface condition reports filed in an attempt to influence how the airline pilots choose runways, plows on runways when we break out on approaches, 100LL trucks show up for turboprops (at one point I just watched until the fuel was about to be put in the plane before I stopped them). Emails that it is against federal law to have any fuel in your private hangars. And of course, closed runways all winter long.
As to the fuel flowage fees, I don't think you are describing it the way it works, but I'm not an expert. If an airport authority charges a flowage fee to local vendors selling fuel to the public, and you choose to provide fuel to your own plane on the field, they can't discriminate against the vendors selling fuel and must charge you the same flowage fee they charge the vendors. For example, in Bozeman, it is 8 cents a gallon and both private FBO's pay that to the airport authority when they fuel planes. For us it was to be $1.54/g Laramie has no vendors paying flowage fees to the city. The FBO is owned and operated by the city just like the whole airport. No self serve, no competition, just Jet fuel at $2.00/gallon more than the surrounding fields some of which are international airports (AvFuel price point).
I completely agree that there are two sides to every story.
With the press as it currently exists in this country (and my town is no exception) one side gets decidedly more "fair" treatment than the other.
But at the end of the day, with my most recent issue, they thought they had closed the runway, but failed to do so. I had complained to them in writing about similar problems in the past.
Can you imagine how things would have gone that morning if, while the airport staff was merrily running heavy equipment up and down the runway thinking the airport was closed, ATC cleared a large business jet to land (just like they had cleared me to depart). One more error in the cycle (maybe a missed digit in the cockpit when entering Unicom or a forgotten position report) and you'd have a heavy business jet popping out of the 200ft overcast. Not a good situation. We've had it happen to us, and no, we didn't forget to make our transmissions.

Why are you still at this airport? A lot of mixed reviews on AirNav.

Laramie isn't exactly dense with airport options.

Like I said this reminds me of a Home Owners Association Board. I was elected to the HOA Board at our vacation home. The Developer with undeveloped lots reasserted power and replaced the Board (including me) with his picked members (Like your City Council/Manager did to the Airport Board). My interaction with the new Board and President was tense. At one point other Owners commented about my interaction and said "This sounds personal"

* My point is that although one well meaning comment on page 3 said "it’s unlikely that this about you personally" - it is clear that this has become very emotional and personal. In a small town with a small business I am sure it is hard to separate your personal interaction and issues with the Board/Airport Mgr. from the interaction and issues between your Company and the Board/Airport Mgr.

* As suggested previously keep your arguments simple. From my HOA experience I have learned to pick my battles. The balance of power favors the HOA Board just like it favors the Airport Board. Don't waste energy arguing "gray issues" because the Board always wins. Only engage if you are absolutely correct. However at this point with so many issues with so many parties involved that is likely a challenge.

* One of the articles quoted the FAA as saying they would only get involved if a Formal Complaint was lodged. I would be cautious about that. It is like pulling on ball of string. It could open up unexpected issues. It is like my dealings with the FAA Medical in OK City. I am not young - my former AME, who was on one of the FAA OKC Medical Advisory Councils cautioned me to only provide exactly the information requested - do not provide anything additional out of caution or to be helpful. It could just lead to more questions and possible issues with unwanted consequences.

* The FAA documents make it clear that the absolute power to close a runway or airport is vested with the Airport Manager. I believe I read that it can only be delegated elsewhere in writing. ATC cannot declare a runway open or closed - they can only follow and repeat what is in the NOTAMS. I have heard of pilots disciplined for not adhering to NOTAMS. But I have never heard of an Airport disciplined for taking action without issuing a NOTAM. - possibly it does happen. You can find comments online from pilots saying a runway was closed but there was not a NOTAM.

* 150/5200-30D - Airport Field Condition Assessments and Winter Operations Safety says that the Airport "must" use NOTAMS to comply with part 139:
5.1.3 To comply with § 139.339, the airport operator must utilize the NOTAM system as the primary method for collection and dissemination of airport information to air carriers and other airport users. When disseminating airport condition information there are three methods available to airport operators. The first and preferred method is NOTAM Manager, a direct-entry system. The second alternative method is the ENII system. This system is similar to NOTAM Manager but lacks some of the direct entry functionality. The third method to issue a NOTAM is via telephone. This method is the least preferred due to the amount of time required to communicate airfield conditions to Flight Service, and the manual recording of notifications and disseminations in airport logs. When supplemental or secondary systems are used, the airport operator must ensure they are approved and consistent with part 139. A record of the dissemination (issuance and cancellation) of NOTAM information must be retained by the airport operator

* That latest Advisory also says that airports and NOTAMS no longer report or communicate Mu Friction values. It has been replaced by Runway Condition Codes RCC using the Runway Condition Assessment Matrix (RCAM) which does require friction surveys.
https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentnumber/150_5200-30
https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5200-30d.pdf

* You raised the issue of potential loss of Federal Airport funding or Grants for an airport violation. I think they follow separate paths and timing. I don't think loss of a Grant is a remedy but just consider - if you start a formal action that even indirectly leads to the loss of funding for the Laramie Airport or the City or the County you will become everyone's enemy. You may win the battle but lose the war. You will be moving to a new community and new airport.

Good luck!

For future - donate local LiveATC receiver and make sure it monitors CTAF/Ground. That way you'll have record of the communication.

Laramie isn't exactly dense with airport options.

Just FYI Thomas, you were quoted in the WSJ today...

[Link]https://www.wsj.com/articles/hunting-land-access-dispute-wyoming-11668094125?mod=hp_featst_pos5[/Link]

I have an idea to get out of this mess; you are obviously a sovereign man which is great. Buy some land, build an airstrip, get a fuel farm and be done with these people. In the meantime, pay these idiots some placating appeasements to make some peace an then free yourself. Sell your hangar when it's done.

You are going to spend less money and emotional aggravation relocating than dealing with his mess.

Difficult to fight City Hall sometimes.

Nothing to do with airports, although I live next to one, but I sued our local city for not following their own ordnance in the forced annexation of our property. I lost, the court essentially saying they could interpret their own ordinance however they wanted. Didn't have the financial or legal wherewithal to appeal.

Yes, that was a fun day.
Somehow a friend of a patient was a WSJ writer and wanted to know more about this subject. I have a Husky and my hunting partner has a backcountry C170. We each took one of them and flew them around the area, then landed on a mountain prairie on the section of land the hunters who had corner-crossed entered.
And yes, I have my own airstrip (it's the one just east of KLAR on the sectional). But it's a STOL strip and wouldn't work for my Mitsubishi or the King Airs (1000 feet long at 7600 MSL). It's great for operating the Husky.

Tarver’s comment of a private strip has merit, but I’ll add that it’s tough to fly in hard IMC off a private strip

Lighting systems and paying for approaches are pricey and time consuming

A rock and hard place. It is as poetic as it is ironic. You must be a futurist. Might a recommend a change to “Sawbones” or “Bone bender.”