Loading...
Item II (D) Presentation re: Use of Seaplane on Starke Lake - Joan Staker AGENDA 6-7-94 Item II D 1900 Center Drive Casselberry, Florida 32707 April 17th., 1994 Mr. Ellis Shapiro City of Ocoee Ocoee, Florida Dear Mr. Shapiro, I apologize for the delay in getting this information to you but we have had a very hectic month since last I contacted you. We were supposed to leave for vacation on April 1, but my dad went in for an emergency triple bypass on that day, so obviously we were not able to go. It is quite an experience dealing with heart critical care but thankfully he, is doing great and I am back to business. I: have enclosed the article I: spoke to you about concerning Mr. Eric Anderson and the City of Belle Isle. I have also enclosed two additional articles that I have recently found concerning this same type of thing. Last week I checked with the FAA here locally and they have no restrictions on the airspace over Starke Lake as far as our plane is concerned that would restrict us in any way from living there and keeping our plane on the lake. Since part of the lakefront is Orange County, I also checked with them and there are no airplane/seaplane restrictions from them either. As I mentioned earlier our friend lives on Frarie Lake here in Seminole County. They are listed as a seaplane base and they follow some guidelines that perhaps would be suitable for our purposes . They follow a flight path for take off and landings that is required for anyone using the lake as a take -off or landing place on a regular basis, They cannot start up the plane to take off before 9 am and they must land before sunset, They cannot do numerous touch and go landings on the lake. They need to get off the lake and go to wherever they are going and then come back, land and put the plane up in thehanger.or in the yard, We would submit to you for your consideration the following facts concerning the seaplane operation of other places; There -are commercial operations on Lake Monroe, Lake Harris and numerous: operations in the,.Hunter Raven area with. no record of safety- violations and collisions.• with boats and people. The pollution factor from our plane is non•-existant since our exhaust does not go into the water as does a boat. Our engine is small and is comparable to the noise produced by a boat with the exception that we leave and the boat stays to go around the lake and bug everyone, A plane has the added benefit of being able to get a bird's eye view. of the lake before. landing to see any obstructions and thus: seeing them divert to a different path. There is no reason to restrict plane traffic on Starke Lake since motorboat traffic is allowed. Once we land for all practical purposes, we are considered a boat, Our plane is airborn in a very short length. of water . and thus does not need to accelerate �to a high rate of speed as would a larger "'real" plane that would consider a seaplane variety, Although, technically, you would consider us a seaplane, we are an amphibious ultralight and as far as the noise pollution from our plane, it is minimal, I certainly hope that we can reach. a compromise on this since we truly were looking forward to building a. nice house on our lot, We have checked with the neighbors and they do not seem to have an objection, In fact our closest neighbor to the east in the brick house was looking forward to us- moving there as they have twin son.: the:.g:ame age as our son and they are interested in flying, Please let me. know- if there la any further information you may require and if I need to bring anything else to the meeting at the end of the. month, Thank you for the time in reading this and considering our request. Sincerely-, Goan Stakes ei ' IN THE CIRCUIT COURT!NAND AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY,FLORIDA CASE NO. CI 84-1986 ;'4 ERIK ANDERSON, Dlalnllft, r., vs - THE CITY OF BELLE ISLE, .! FLORIDA. i. Defendant T / 2647157contxt co Pt 08 39 00en 11i'26/86 f!NAL JUDOME$I 1; this action was tr led before the Court without a jury On the evidence presented I T i 5 ADJUDGED as follows i tixcMOS_OLIAct on 3©3 9 Pc 1 3 9 4 `". I The Plaintiff,Ertk Ander Sal(hereinafter "Ander on"),is en Indtvldual residing in , Or anon County,F for id! He Ise licensed seaplane pilot He desires to land on end take off from Lake Conway,Including the portions tying within the boundsrles of the City of Belle Isle,In his se ply Anderson In er lttIon to being a pilot.Mr Ar son Is a used seaplane broker and dealer,doing i business uneer the name of Lana Aero He has lost several potential sales to Belle Isle residents • upon their burning of ltdi provisions of the City CM!Set out below 2 The Defendant,City of Belle Isle(hereinafter "Belle Isle'),is a municipal aorporeltort.duly e51eO115110 unrier applicrbbe nor 141 Law A portion of Lake Conway lays within the corporate limits of Belie isle • 3 On October l 9,19 76,Belle isle adopted Ordinance 4'76-17,rattled at Section 3-7 of the City frnle,which provides a ` it Shell be unlawful for any person to use the tete;within the City for the purpose of landing or 1st ing off In any flrot,seaplane,Or other amphibious aircraft. Ordinance•76-17 In Its unmet.(mete effect Ise prohibitory one In that It ales not seek to regulate seaplane operations but(retails them. 4 On or about January S. 1983,Mr Anda on landed his aircraft,without knowledge of Section 3-7,City of Belle isle Cade of Ordinancrg,upon Lake Conway on the portion of the tete that Is within the city limits of Belle Isle. ;partly thereafter,Mr Anderson received a letter, ;i acted January 5, 1983,from the city attorney of Belle Isle,threatening him with prosecution and r Snot iot 3-7,City of Bene Isle Cale of Ordlriarnrs If In the future he landed on or trok off from lake Conway In his seeplane 5 Stibwprntty,on or about f ebrue y 27.1984,Mr.Anderson commenced this action for S. declaratory ludpment pursuant to Chapter 86,F for Ida Statutes,to determine the vel idity of Section 3-7,City of Belle Isle Code of Ordinances A copy of Mr.Mar im•f Ciotti Ion was carved on the►mower able Pnber t fixe,es State Attorney fir this ludirtal circuit,on Merck I, 1984 I thus,all stetutor y prerequisites for the Initiation and maintenance)o'This&lion hove Dean !tet isl ud e 6 Dur Ing the pendency of This action,on November 7, 1984,Belle 11110le edeptedOrdinance I . 1 likh�tt ?, r <11", ,441-f. ,.. ,,,d' i i 11 ..y ` a g i '% t. i 4tw a' tsil } e ). " 4,,,4,t,,..,..;,..�. ;:tic{;; 4. 1 t �` a 1 '4 �l�r a' I- ii," 14. 84-6,Willed et Section 3-26,City of hilt Isle Dods of OrdInence3. Section 3-26,as anteritf+d,reeds es follows The speed for watercraft on the waterway shell be 36 miles per hour. Such speed limit shall be lawfully in in a location visible to the public "Waterrcdraft"f near purposes watarwayhe or this section shall Include rnotortaets,seepleries,end any end all other craft which ere propelled or powered by any internal or external combustion engine or motor iti . t amend his petition to 7. As a result of this change in circumstances,Mr.Anderson sought and received leaveto i challenge the validity of Ordinance 84-6,emended Section 3-26,City of 80110151e Coco of Ordinances. 8 The area known es Lake Conway is state sovereignty land held in trust by the State of F for Ida for all the people of this state Con3oguent ly,Belle Isle does not own the lake 9 The evidence presented by Mr.Anderson establishes that seaplanes area safe mode of transportation and that fh y are not inherently dangerous to the general public The term inherently dangerous'Is defined in Bleck's law Dictionary as 'longer Inhering In an 1? instrumentality or Itself at all Mmes,so as to reputre special precautions to prevent injury,not • Idanger arising from the mere casual or collateral negttgsnce of others with respect thereto under particular circumstances, dangerous per se,without requiring human Intervention to 4produce harmful effects,e g,explosives' it is the Improper operation by pilots which can tt cause harm not the plane itself Consequently,seeptanes or be pieced Int the same category as tars end boats as far es dywrcusness that Is to say,that it is human Intervention which makes f them dangercut and not the vehicle itself In fart.the t"dente .h we that in several loealions 1 At .11 around the nation seaplane,,boaters,and swimmers have peacefully tomisistedon the same body of water There does not anew to be anyl.ling Inherently obnoxious or ill 1, eqe per se.about seaplanes which require a nr necessitates them bang totalty prohibited from the lakes of Delle Isle 1. 10 The etvlderioe presented by Mr Anderson Iurth!'r establishes that seaplene3 ere not e nuisance per se I I The evidence shows that seaplanes Qenerate approximately the same level of noise as sjetsk is end bares,talk of which are permitted to be operated on the tares within Delle ISle I? At present seaplanes are operated,albeit illegally,on Lake Conway These Seaplane i• Mere(ions do not Interfere with navigation of the lake,nor are they a safer hazard The Ptaint tffs evident*demonstrates'het in the event these,ordinances are declared invalid that navigation on the lake would not be adversely affected ;urthermore,the Court finds that Invalidation of these ordinances would not create a safety hazard r i ,. riRM (tilf3 Ot�i►w j 13 Mr Andersen(has standing to hr mg this action OR 3839 rc 1395 14 This Court has jurisliction over the parties hereto IS This Court hes subject metier lur'section of the Issues relied In the Plaint itis Second Amended Petition this Court further lends that there is en iv'tuel,bone fide dispute between the parties with reform°.to the validity and enfor men Ilify of these ordinances and that the parties ere In need of a ludiciel, iara%Ion with respect'herein 16 Under foists(ing statutes and erdinenceS,II is lawful for indfv! Is to operate Mets and jets&is In that part of Lake Conway which lies within the City limits of Delle Isle 17 Under exsisting statutes end ordlnencRs.II is lawful for individuals to swim,Surf, 2U9 iIJ rr a • t, i ,..4,') n 14 • 3 • *`iola$ta*a ir^f+ 1. 1 :II' \''::4,4;.;44 3{ "av,,1 i ..:'� 4!4 •, +.-2,::',,„ 'S . ! i ( .t It*i• ¢ •yt �t `J vi t.r try ark 7.G, Ni.?f; F rs,'' , •"i , ti .., •' •.-. " P' +'4, t s „v, tri. , ' t ` tly., tit,,! .a: %A :R� 4,,•.4. �- t `:�4,1r, .itrr - welersk 1,end windsurf In that pert of lake Conway which Iles within the city limits of Belle Isle. 18. Under exs!stIng statutes end ordlnuroes,It Is lawful for Individuals to operate a seaplane on those portions of lake Conway which Ile outside the city limits of Belle Isle. 19. Under exststing statutes end ordinances,it Is unlawful for individuals to operate a seaplane on that portion of lake Conway which Iles Inside the city limits of Belle Isle. 20. But for the provisions of Section 3-7 of the City of Belle Isle Code of Ordinances.It would be lawful for Mr.Anderson to operate a seaplane on that portion of Lake Conway which lies within the city limits of Belle Isle. 21 The areas of lend upon which Belle Isle attempts to regulate conduct and prohibit seaplanes ere state soverelgnity land,held In trust for all the t people of this state. McDowell v, F Jrustees of Internal Improvement Fund.90 So.2d 715(Fla 1956). The general rule Is that, subject to certain restrictions and limitations,a municipality has civil end criminal Jur isdictIon over property within Its corporate boundaries end may thus regulate and restrict certain activities reesor►ebly calculated to protect the public health,safety,end welfare Carter ), Y-Town of Palm Beata,237 5o 2d 130(Fla 1970) This municpal power Is subordinate to the 1 State's paramount power to regulate end control the use of its sovereign lands. Any attempted repletion of state-owned lend to the extent such regulation has been preempted by the State or Is Inconsistent with general law or with regulations edupte0 by the State would be Invalid. lac S 166 021,Flor Ida Statutes A further restrict ion upon a city's power to regulate activities upon and the use of slate-owned property is that such regulation must not be in violation of constitutional protections afforded to the public for the use of,and eceess to.state sovereignty lands,le, the"Public Trust Doctrine"In order to be valid,the regulations egu adopted must De reasonable end nondiscriminatory,and they must tend to promote the public health,safety, morals,end general welfare"A00 079-71 (August 10, 1979)(Wot Ung from 64 CJ 5. MunicipalCorooretiansSlalBc,p301 (19501) Ili, 22 Furthermore,under Florida lee a municipality may not prohibit an otherwise lawful 4ii ectIvlty on or the use of public lends which is not inherently dangerous to the public or e i nuisance per seer otherwise exercise itslice power In an erbitr � rY.capricious Or unreesonable manner. In the case of star v_Town of Palm Barb,=Ea.the Supreme Cour! wasconfronted with'oriel'',ielete ben of ell surfing within the municipal boundaries of the Town of pewBeech The Court ruled such a prohibition unconstitutional saying "A municipality may,under the poll s power,regulate end restrain Iactivities which threaten the public health,safety end welters' However.1 1111LI g YBLIntest<.itlll pLII egtly Itv which Is not a nutsonceper se_1 faotnotte o m h 11 .lied) (tine Town of Palm Beech may regulate and control surfing end st!taming In revs subject to Its jurisdiction end may prohibit there activities et certain pieces along the beach However,the complete prohibition of this sport from ell the beach area Is rbitry end , 1. unreasonable."I Emphasis eddedl. {; It et 131-32. Anderson v.Tedford 80 Fla 376,85 So 673(1920). ; )sp!neaps v, 1 l; &MXL, 152 So 4(Flo 1934)(holding that prohibition of skating rinks,en activity-not t, Inherently Injurious to the {� prevailing eorieeptlon of public morels.nor a nuisance per se'is unconstitutional), and A00079.71 (August 10, 1979) .. 3 an 23 the ordlnoa in Question here Is nearly saint ire'to those before the F for ida Supreme Court In Carle!,end Molls Consequently,this Court Is herd pressed to reach any conclusion but oR3839 Pc .98 r lt,'x -,-r1414+'��q 1. ,y -t 4{ .'', t...� .M t L_ i Ie - r. -: ' i..° tin :c yMy 4,)...4 )4' `.•t`W.J•a.!_ Y ,v t ,tCihR SV+4.,,,,%,-;.,`1,..t,oi %-0 tet , . tor, . iw sl';�2, {f � Jl. r'Y�P �t {' lA ai,, ,,,V r'"'•,'I. ..•.I ii.. /' �i'l,i.f� .1�,L.�C}.' ' 4 ta 1:1. Y�.. • • Y that Ordinance 76-17,Section 3-7 of the City of Belle Isle Code of Ordinances Is arbitrary, ceprious,end unreasonable end therefore INVALID. Likewise,this Curt Is forced to conclude that this pert of the Belle Isle Code of Ordinances interferes with end Improper restricts the Plaintiffs use end access to state sovereignty lends end consequently ly must be struck down, 24. Ordinance 76-17,Section 3-7 of the City of Belle Isle Code of Ordinances end x Ordinance 84-6 amended Section 3-26 of the City of Belle Isle Code of Ordinances,were adopted ed- pursuant to the provisions of S327.60,F for ide Statutes which provides In pert: 3• Nothing in these sections(S327.01 pip,)shall De construed to prevent the adoption of any ordinance or local len relating to operation end equipment of vessels,except that no such ordinance or local law may apply to the Florida Intreooeslel Waterway and except that such ordinances or local laws shell be operative only when they are not In conflict with this chapter(327)or any amendments thereto or regulations thereunder. However,seaplanes are exempt from the provisions of term"vessel"is defined In S327.02(27)as Chapter 3�7,Florida Statutes. The "synonymous with boat as referenced is s I(b),Art VII of the State Constitution and Includes every descr 1pl ion of watercraft,barge, air boat, and glfteclbeiuseopkinuniklatitaseascssatiouvintl (emphasis added) 25. It Is apparent from reading the above statutes that Belle isle exceeded the authority ranted to it when it adopted these ordinances. Thus,this Court must conclude that Section 3-7 end Section 3-26 of the City of Belle isle Cade of Ordinances are Inconsistent and conflict with Chapter 327,F for ids Statutes 26. Furthermore,given the language of Chapters 327,329,330,331,332,end 333, Florida Statutes,it Is apparent that the State Intended to reserve in Itself the power to regulate seaplanes,es well as aviation in general. Thus,it Is the conclusion of this Court that Belle Isle Is without authority to even regulate seaplane operations CONCLIMI ON 0,13839 Pc 1397 Bandon the foregoing discussion and findings,II Is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: A Section 3-7 and Section 3-26 of the City of Belle isle Code of Ordinances are declared to be Invalid B Belle isle Is permanently enjoined from enforcing the same C. The Court retains jurisdiction to make en&ward of costs upon proper motion to the Plaintiff. DON AND ORDERED In chambers in Or land),Or LE._ angeCounty,FforldaIhtt� 0eypf , 1986 . .111010 i ON S.CORNELIUS Circuit J CURL! ,. 4' • CE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true.. is roc! •,, . Mall delivery to BRIAN D. "gD1ng has been furnished by U.S • re,Meteor&Harbert,P.A.,Post Office Box 2854, Orlando,Florida 32802 and to DONALD 0 MORRISON,Esquire,F bhriak,Davis.Dominick,& Bennett, I 70 E.Washington Street,for land),F for tda 32801,this �lst,firr ori;/9j4, :11=Juguntlp.Ifii --- AI oresd14.1,4 . ............ft 'a:d,.e,ft. AsiAtianr II • k " tr, a;. . x ,. :r . a, l . • 't � ... + y,..;-4r,,,,':,,,,.4,,. t�ro , � r y%a" , • ; a + r ,i,, S !}4 `* ,y 'J;h'y ' -4 � + , .l ♦ 4 141, 7 .:.,,,,,,f } .. L , t ,;vs(4is r ! ' ' , Ji•�'i . '• +Ic_. ,1t,7� '.Z.E. *V $? C,, ?.0!:? ^ '' . rS. . h ,, '' � zt 4kie SPA Member Gustafson Wins landmark seaplane Ruling In Federal hurt by Steve Chait(SPA 6189) Attorney At Law n October 21,1993,Judge Paul tactics,by stating that the City would re- attempted in part to justify the ordinances 0 V.Gadola of the United States quest an opinion from the Michigan Bu- by stating that the mere apprehension of District Court in Detroit is- reau of Aeronautics,and would permit danger,noise and pollution from sea- sued his ruling in the case of them to decide whether the lake would planes was a legitimate reason for the Robert Gustafson vs. City of be safe for seaplanes. Without advising prohibition. During the lawsuit, the Lake Angelus,striking down the City's Bob Gustafson,the City then prepared a Mayor and Police Chief testified that the Municipal Ordinances prohibiting sea- "City Resolution"specifically requesting City had never done any research as to planes,ruling that such local Ordinances the State Bureau of Aeronautics to issue noise levels,safety or pollution. (All of are preempted by Federal Aviation Regu- their own regulation prohibiting the op- which are superior to boats,according to lations. The Ordinances made it a misde- eration of seaplanes at Lake Angelus. the U.S.Army Corps of Engineer reports). meanor crime prohibiting not only the After making a thorough inspection of In 1992,we filed Bob's lawsuit against operation of seaplanes from the surface the lake,the Michigan Bureau of Aero- the City in Federal Court,arguing that the of Lake Angelus,but also the operation nautics wrote a letter to the City stating City's Ordinances are preempted by Fed- of any type of aircraft(not just seaplanes) that there are no safety or airspace rea- eral Law and unconstitutional.In addi- within 500 feet of the surface. The Michi- sons to prohibit seaplane operations on tion to the letter from the Michigan De- gan inland lake,approximately 25 miles Lake Angelus. partment of Aeronautics,we obtained a north of Detroit,is approximately 1 1/2 On August 9,1991,shortly after the number of affidavits from the Federal miles long and 3/4 of a mile wide. Since State Bureau of Aeronautics sent their let- Aviation Administration. The City de- 1988,Lake Angelus waterfront home- ter,Bob Gustafson landed a rented Piper J- fended by claiming that Bob Gustafson owner,Robert Gustafson,(SPA 12434)has 3 Cub on Lake Angelus. While on the did not have standing to sue because the been actively working to open the lake to lake,at least one local resident threatened City had never enforced its Ordinances seaplane operations. Bob f� against anyone,and there was Gustafson is a 17,000 hour turbo J (- no proof that they ever would. jet-rated pilot and seaplane * - , ''� They also argued that seaplanes flight instructor. are noisy, unsafe and might After Bob's negotiations and bring zebra mussel parasites into appearances before the City : the lake from other lakes. Council,and many letter-writing "'_—�" ". ` ' �' Judge Gadola ruled that the campaigns to the City's residents i tkikr _ Federal Aviation Act and its reg- eorrom "ran into a brick wall", Bob f ulations deal with all aspects of Gustafson retained myself and air navigation including special my law firm,Sullivan,Ward, ' ; provisions for the operation of Bone,Tyler & Asher,P.C., of k aircraft on water.There is also an 0.0 Southfield,Michigan to assist , ? --- extensive body of case law pro- him in obtaining relief from the �4;t _ viding for such preemption,al- local criminal ordinances. In ad- though this appears to have been dition to being an attorney with Attorney Chait and pilot Gustafson(photo:Dianne L.Chait) the first federal case in which an aviation law practice,I am seaplane preemption specifically also a former professional pilot and cur- to ram the seaplane with a boat to block has been addressed. rent seaplane flight instructor. Bob's departure while the local police This is a decision which may well Bob and I attended a number of City were summoned.Bob Gustafson was con- have national significance to the general Council meetings,during which we at- tacted by a City police officer who warned aviation community. Since Judge Gadola tempted to educate the City about the ex- him that he would be prosecuted if he ever has submitted this case for publication,it cellent safety statistics of seaplanes, operated a seaplane on the lake again. now constitutes persuasive authority(al- which are operated only by specially On September 10,1991,the City Coun- though not binding authority)to any trained pilots with FAA seaplane ratings, cil,apparently reacting to Bob's landing, other United States Federal Court(and and are statistically much safer(and often issued a new resolution,which states that state or local courts)who may have occa- quieter)than the large in-board waterski the purposes of the anti-seaplane ordi- sion to consider this issue.The City of boats which are permitted on the lake. nances were"to protect the public health, Lake Angelus has now appealed to the At another Council meeting in 1991, safety and general welfare of the people United States Circuit Court of Appeals, the City Council continued its stalling and property of the City". The resolution Sixth Circuit. ❑ 16•WATER FLYING•Winter 1994 READBACK Hot New Pilot Wins Again \11Cecilia Aragon has been named the 1993 Cali- -..111411141riss. . %^'' I fomia Unlimited Aerobatic champion.She outflew all competitors in the Unlimited category in her - custom-built Sabre and turned in the best perfor- ' mance at the five California regional competitions 'Q® �p: • in 1993.The final competition in the series was �.._-.7----) held in October, 1993,at Borrego Springs,Calif. ®i:ia' , Aragon,a member of the U.S.Aerobatic Team, defeated her closest challenger,Jack Steinfeldt, by 240 points,and Robert Meyer,a fellow team • member,by 405 points. The Sabre was designed by Dan Rihn,origi- ell nally built by Remle Aviation of California and ` • - modified and upgraded with an all-composite • EDGE wing built by Zivko Aeronautics of Okla- homa.It's posy r powered by a high-comet.- ;+ jLycoming IO-540 engine an. - p4 The Feds Still Rule Local communities may not make rules for seaplanes that supersede FAA regulations,a U.S.District Court in Michigan Ii has ruled.In Gustafson v.City of Lake Angelus,the city's ordinance prohibiting seaplanes on Lake „. i s - -,,,,,!....T..--,,,,,, Angelus,a 1X-mile-long lake in southeastern Michi- 1 t u lit aa ',- ''.;,,t-it;''..,. ...:- 10' gan,was struck down.It was said that public interest ;W will be served by a uniform set of regulations governing . ---= '-� •---�- - aircraft operations;federal law preempts local ordi- - ?�`" € nances in matters concerning aircraft operations. Fes. _ . s A Lake Angelus city police officer had warned '"" '" '" waterfront homeowner Robert Gustafson he was in ,„,,_ - i violation of city ordinances after landing a J-3 Cub on ,.,,; the lake in August, 1991.Gustafson was then threat- �.. .s ened with arrest after another landing.This decisionf— �� . = may have national significance to the general aviation . -----_ z _ -- i community by constituting persuasive,although not ' `-. : binding,authority for other courts. _ X33 ` F S.r>_ Seaplanes weren't the only aircraft affected by the Lake Angelus ordinances.Citing noise,danger,pollution,con- tamination and other dangers,the ordinances also prohibited operation by any aircraft below 500 feet over the lake. 1993 AIRCRAFT SHIPMENTS BY TYPE 1993 1992 %Change Piston Sales Continue Decline Turbojets 198 171 15.8% Piston-engine aircraft deliveries continued to drop in 1993 to 547 units, Turboprops 209 177 18.1 a record low,according to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association piston 547 593 -7.8% (GAMA)."The exorbitant and unreasonable cost of product liability con- TOTAL 954 941 1.4% tinues to decimate the industry and cost this country more than 100,000 jobs in manufacturing,sales,service and related industries,"says GAMA President Edward W.Stimpson."Unless Congress enacts the proposed 15-year statute of repose for general aviation aircraft,there's little hope of truly revitaliz- ing this important segment of the aviation industry. "Without changes,the U.S.piston airplane manufacturing industry will continue to decline or move off-shore," Stimpson continues."Closely related is the record low number of student pilot certificates issued,which is in part attributable to the lack of new U.S.piston aircraft production.If Congress enacts the statute of repose legislation now under consideration,manufacturers have pledged to reopen piston airplane production lines." 4 PLANE&PILOT