FAA Regulations obligating airport support to CAP

[Shotgun]

I was speaking with a member from another Wing this weekend and he mentioned that if an airport received federal funds it is obligated to support any local CAP units. They used that fact to leverage a very nice facility as their Wing HQ.

Of course "support" could mean anything from a closet and folding chair to a complete building with attached hanger! I also know that this may be a "CAP myth".

Has anyone else heard of this and can they cite the appropriate federal guideline or mandate?

I have not been able to track down any reference to such a law/guideline/regulation and am hoping that the great CAP collective might be able to assist!

[RiverAux]

Almost assuredly a myth. 

That being said I have heard of situations where former military airports that were transitioned to civilian control came with obligations to assist CAP. 

[Shotgun]

***UPDATE***

After a more in-depth search, I did find some guidelines regarding an Airports self-sustainability.

Apparently, airports receiving federal fund must make every effort to be self-sustaining. However, CAP and military units can be allowed nominal lease rates.

operations for the foreseeable future (i.e.,

Excerpt from FAA 5190.6B  (9/30/2009)
The FAA acknowledges that many airports provide
facilities to military units with aeronautical missions at
nominal lease rates.  The FAA does not consider this
practice inconsistent with the requirement for a self-
sustaining airport rate structure.  Military units with
aeronautical missions may include the Air National
Guard, aviation units of the Army National Guard,
U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Air Force Reserve, Civil
Air Patrol, and Naval Reserve air units operating
aircraft at the airport.

Unfortunately, this does not mean that they are obligated to support a unit.

[JeffDG]

So...bottom line, an airport can provide support, but they are under no obligation to do so.  Ask nicely.

[JC004]

"...does not consider this practice inconsistent with..." - hmm...not exactly tough language 

We did used to have the membership cards that said it was "imperative" to help us on missions.  I doubt that was backed by much either.  It was there for a very long time, though.  Oy - membership cards.  Blood pressure rising...

[JeffDG]

"...does not consider this practice inconsistent with..." - hmm...not exactly tough language 

We did used to have the membership cards that said it was "imperative" to help us on missions.  I doubt that was backed by much either.  It was there for a very long time, though.  Oy - membership cards.  Blood pressure rising...

Without that language, a flight school or FBO could claim that the airport was giving CAP an advantage if they charged less for rent or tie-down than they charge commercial tenants.  They could demand that their rent be reduced, or CAP's be increased, to ameliorate that advantage.  So that language from the FAA is crucial for the airport to be permitted to assist CAP, so it's as strong as it needs to be.

[JC004]

I see the point in it - it's just clearly not the "obligation" asked about here

[NIN]

It also has to do with "airport access" when airports are funded with federal funds.

Civilian skydiving drop zones deal with this frequently. 

Basically, if an airport takes federal funds for improvements (ILS, new taxiways, etc), then they must provide equal access to aeronautical activities.   If a banner tow operation can effectively operate from the airport without hazard, and they can pay an appropriate "rent," then they should be allowed to operate from the airport. 

One of the interesting issues surrounding airport access and federal funds is the concept of "through the fence" operations. These are mostly things like small "airpark" neighborhoods which may have had a taxiway onto a larger muni airport for use of the runway.  The airpark, however, is not part of the airport but yet it uses a federally funded facility.  There are some ramifications.  And these same kinds of issues could come up around a CAP operation if, for example, a CAP wing HQ was built adjacent to an airport, but the property was owned by CAP and there was "taxiway" access to the airport.  The FAA frowns on that.

In theory, yes, CAP is an aeronautical activity like any other and the "equal access" clauses could be used to leverage access to a federally funded airport.