I just spotted this post over at Supercubs and wondered if anyone here had seen it.


The FAA came out with a new 700 page compliance order (effective 9/30/2009) that prohibits any form of living with your airplane at public use airports that accept federal airport improvement money (what they call "residential use"). This includes camping!

The new compliance order can be found here:

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/p ... ce_5190_6/

Quote from Chapter 20, page 2-7:

Quote:
For this purpose, the FAA considers residential use to include: permanent or long-term living quarters; part-time or secondary residences; and developments known as residential hangars, hangar homes, campgrounds, fly-in communities or airpark developments – even when colocated with an aviation hangar or aeronautical facility.


The FAA is trying to sneak this past everyone and codify it into law. Fortunately, there is a comment period through March 2010, and you can comment here:

http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ ... -2009-0924

There is also a new group that was formed to fight this, their website is here:

http://www.throughthefence.org/

This 700 page assault on grass roots aviation is simply breathtaking! Of course, it is not unbelievable given all the other assaults on our liberties that the federal government is trying to ram down our throats at this time

Why would they want to do that. You would think security would be better with pilots hanging around.

How would this effect most all backcountry airstrips and airports like Austin, NV??

This is the first I've heard of this, and all I have to offer is how I read what you posted.

For this purpose, the FAA considers residential use to include: permanent or long-term living quarters; part-time or secondary residences; and developments known as residential hangars, hangar homes, campgrounds, fly-in communities or airpark developments – even when colocated with an aviation hangar or aeronautical facility.

I think there is something being misinterpreted with the wording here, regarding the type of "camping" we're interested in. While I like the idea of airport residences, airpark communities, campgrounds, etc (many of you here prob have them), the regulation they're pushing as I understand it is:

1) No residences, whether permanent, part-time, whatever. Camping is not residing. Unless they're classifying the grassy area on the boundary of the ramp as a "campground." What constitutes a campground? LIke a trailer park? KOA? Or like the Orcas Island grass transient parking area?

2) It seems many here are against federal subsidy of any one person or groups of users/people. Is FAA grant money a form of subsidy to a private residence in the case of a residential hangar on a public airport? I'm not sure, how do you guys view that?

Nowhere in there is the word "transient" used, which is a term I would expect to prohibit "airport camping."

Chapter 20 certainly is an interesting read. While I am sad to see that residential hangars for those who love aviation so much that they are interested in living next to their plane will probably go the way of the dodo at public airports, I can see their concern. Kind of hard for airport proponents and the FAA to argue against the development of a 500 unit apartment complex full of NIMBY's on property just off the approach end of runway xx when you have 50 people living next to the FBO in the hangars or have a through-the fence agreement with a subdivision on the other end of the airport.

I agree with Zane - I don't see it intending to change transient camping but it sure as heck could be written clearer and public comments could certainly help convey our concerns about that.

If they didn't intend to discourage transient camping why is campgrounds specifically mentioned in the definition of residential use in chapter 20 page 20-7

For this purpose, the FAA considers residential use to include: permanent or long-term living
quarters; part-time or secondary residences; and developments known as residential hangars,
hangar homes, campgrounds, fly-in communities or airpark developments – even when colocated
with an aviation hangar or aeronautical facility.

Of course this only applies for airports receiving federal funds. But how many don't?
There is a whole section on the EAA site devoted to this as well as throughthefence.org They are mostly concerned with airport homes but the FAA put the campgrounds in the document along with the rest of incompatible land uses.

I know it says that. I also know of plenty of campgrounds that have lots of people living in them year-round?

Townsend, MT went through this several years ago. IT seems that there are "rules" and "wants" with the FAA. As was mentioned, it was tied to grant assurance issues....sort of like our voluntary income tax...."...we can't MAKE you comply...but if you don't...." in this case they cut off funding ..or can....deeper investigation...as with many of the FAA "rules" ..revealed their concerns and they were well meaning and had "some" logical basis.....and like most regs, are based on the 1/2 of 1% that has shit for brains.....if I have a hangar home on a Fed funded taxiway and sell it to John Doe...my only potential buyer...and John doesn't have a plane, has 6 kids and 6 dogs..it could present a hazard to legit ops and safety ....kids riding bikes up and down taxiway/runways......dogs running into props etc....and our airport money having being spent on the taxiway and no aviatrion use of the hangar is not a good use of FAA money...This proposal is probably a typical knee jerk overreaction of the feds to deal with the issue. For years, many airport R&R have included a clause that states..." hangar must be used primarily for aviation"...or words to that effect.....although many airport officals have created their own definition of "primarily" , I have never seen a definitive meaning....many airports just copy others R&R and really don't give much thought to how they will define the terms....again, thhis is a grant assurance issue.Probably good intentions but as usual with the govmnt, doctrine becomes dogma that is based on "history"/ OWT....Anyway, I understand that Townsend pushed the FAA for " lets see the reg"...and there was not one...they did come to an agreement that had Townsend rewrite their leases..enforcable terms...that prohinbited the FAA-feared issues.....all based on tactic that if someone bullies and bull shits you long enough, you start to believe the BS is law.....this may be an attempt by the FAA to nationalize the issue....and..of course, create enforcement jobs for scores of otherwise unemployable beauracrats....yeah...I live in Montana ..home of the conspiricists....
Montana Aeronautis actually owns the West Yellowstone airport and the campground...so I will forward this to the top dogs there and see what they say....being a conspiricist, I wonder if the HS/TSA may be at the root of this.....after all, my 182 is a serious threat to national security...

After they shut down all camping at all airports (piss firs should love this), the only place to fly in camp will be the vast waste lands of Nevada.

Tim

RobBurson wrote:Why would they want to do that. You would think security would be better with pilots hanging around.

Not only that but,

The homeowners/ hangar owners love airplane noise so the structures buffer that noise from leaving the airport property. That would lead to less complaints and help perpetuate aviation. And if aviation lives on so does the FAA and all the government jobs that go with it. Once again I think we are seeing the "gang that can't shoot straight" syndrome.

With that said I see a ramp check in my future.

The push by the FAA against "through the fence" op's has been going on for a couple years. They're just now making it official with this report. I think all they can do is withhold future funding from airports that don't comply with their ban-- of course, (almost) all public airports desperately want that funding , so they'll jump all over themselves to comply. If they want the FAA's money, they gotta go along with that FAA oversight.
I for one don't see why the FAA has a problem with through the fence (TTF) arrangements. The argument is that the TTF'ers are getting a free ride. Not so-- in most if not all cases the TTF'ers are paying a use fee or access fee, so they're pulling their own weight. If not, the logical thing would be to mandate that they do pay an access fee. Wrong's wrong with that? What I think is that this is just a power play by the FAA -- they just can't stand something happening on or at an airport that they can't control.
From what I've heard, I don't think the FAA wants to allow existing TTF arrangements to be grandfathered in. So now a hangar home adjacent to the airport is just a house with a big garage and no airport access-- what just happened to the property value? Are the airports effected (and/or the FAA) now gonna have to buy out the access rights of those existing TTF'ers to compensate them for the loss of property value? That ain't gonna be cheap.

Eric

This forum is directly related. There are horror stories of what has really happened.

Just what I need another battle to fight. I feel overwhelmed. With ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, Avgas issues. Holy Crap Batman.

http://www.throughthefence.org/forums/1 ... hkosh.html

http://www.throughthefence.org/

http://www.throughthefence.org/news.html

When you get to this page read some of the stories from the airports listed below.

Airport Experiences

* Driggs, ID Airport
o Preliminary Injunction
o FAA Responses
o Airport Agreements
* Creswell, OR Airport
* Erie, CO Airport
* KSAC Sacramento, CA
* Lancaster, SC Airport
* Martinsburg, WV Airport
* Orcas Island Airport
* Plymouth, MA Airport
* Roundup, MT Airport
* Sandpoint, ID Airport

E Pluribus Unum..............We are all in this thing together.

Or as Ben Franklin said. "We must all hang together or we will surely hang separately"

Cheers

Hey Rob, I did read some of those stories on the Through the Fence website. Holy Crap!! I feel bad for the gentleman in MT, but good leason to never do a "Verbal" lease or rental!! Get it (agreements) in writing to protect yourself. I believe the good ole days of a handshake and verbal deals are long gone!!

I'm off next week, so I'll spend time reading the 700 page compliance order.

To clarify some concepts, "fly-in camping" on the field, is not "through the fence." You're on airport property the entire time.

A private campground operating adjacent to the airport that requires transition from airport property to some other form of owned property would be considered through-the-fence. Correct me if I am wrong.

If there's an effort being made to spin this as prohibiting on-airport camping, that's fine I suppose. It will get more pilots involved in the comment period rather than just the small number of airport residential owners and adjacent aviation property owners.

-------------------------- Edit:

All posts from here onward were political conjecture and have been moved to Hot Air. To add your thoughts there, visit that topic. To make relevant comments on the proposed FAA regulation, continue here.

Sorry Boss....... just been one of those weeks, wont happen again I'll consider myself placed in corner for "time out"

I do suggest we all voice our concerns to the folks make all these rules and attempt to slow them down at the very least.

p

"b. FAA Position. Permitting development of a residential airpark near a federally obligated
airport, through zoning approval or otherwise, would be inconsistent with Grant Assurance 21,
Compatible Land Use. The FAA expects sponsors to oppose zoning laws that would permit
residential development near airports.
For this purpose, the FAA considers residential use to include: permanent or long-term living
quarters; part-time or secondary residences; and developments known as residential hangars,
hangar homes, campgrounds, fly-in communities or airpark developments – even when colocated
with an aviation hangar or aeronautical facility."


I have been denied camping privileges at some public airports but also have had some wonderful experiences at smaller public airports. My interpretation of the campground referance would be more in line with a commercial campground such as KOA as has been previously mentioned. I also understand the concern for hangars with living areas as I am familiar with some facilities that haven't adhered to any covenents or restrictions.

I am currently managing a small privately owned airport that my folks have owned and operated for over sixty years in northwest Iowa. In the early 90's they sold four lots and my wife and I built a new home two years ago. Our hangar is in the process of being erected. We have completed the zoning process and the airport is now zoned for residential. It will always be a privately owned airport but available for public use. It is our intention to allow only permanent residential homes with hangars, either attached or detached. We have never received any federal aid of any kind and don't intend to start!

http://www.zanggervintageairpark.com

Jim Zangger

glaciercub wrote:Sorry Boss....... just been one of those weeks, wont happen again I'll consider myself placed in corner for "time out"

I do suggest we all voice our concerns to the folks make all these rules and attempt to slow them down at the very least.

p

No big deal. No reason to go on time out. Thanks for keeping the political stuff in the appropriate forum.

jrzangger wrote:We have never received any federal aid of any kind and don't intend to start!

An therein lies the clincher! No federal grants and you're in no one's pocket. I do think it's nasty though to place in effect any rule or regulation that is going to screw existing residents out of their homes, or the access that makes their airport homes worth owning without some sort of grandfathered exemption.

1SeventyZ wrote:-------------------------- Edit:

All posts from here onward were political conjecture and have been moved to Hot Air. To add your thoughts there, visit that topic. To make relevant comments on the proposed FAA regulation, continue here.

I guess I'm in a "time Out" . Hot Air say's I'm not authorized to view???

Chicken......Your in Good company


p

It is always good to look at the "enemy" from another side. The FEDS intention MAY BE well intended...flame suit on....if two planes have a mechanical problem, they will issue an AD that effects hundreds of planes and costs millions to comply with....the intentions are good..it's just the gvmnt way....could be that the proposed restrictions are actually an attempt to curtail the stream of airport closures caused by complaints about noise....folks move to areas next to airports because they like planes...then they sell to others who don't like plane noise..pretty soon there are enough non-plane types to raise enough hell to close an airport....call me Mary Poppins....and the FEDS only choice is to use a "shot gun" approach since if the tried to single out "offenders" they'd get sued for selective enforcement. The actual proposal could be a throw away CYA move on their part....."we tried but public outcry stopped out good intentions"......just like the AD that has grounded the Zeniths...if another one peeled a wing, some lawyer would sue the FAA for NOT issuing an AD when they "knew the planes were unsafe".......considering the number of airports with TTF, hangar homes, campgrounds....enforcement would be impossibel....they'd be tied up in court until the end of time........don't forget that many of the FAA folks chose their line of work because they love GA....yeah-yeah...some also just wanted a cushy job....I have friends in both camps....I still question the "noise" issue/reason/excuse......I had a fed explain the TTF issue....WE/taxpayers/fuel tax payers. fund the FAA...that money is used for AIP grants to provide runways, etc....they think that if I have a pvt hangar on private land but have TTF access, I should pay the same as my buddy who has a hangar on airport land and contributes via lease/rent to the airport income....if we both use the airport....seems logical to me....you use you pay......the FEDS have been "snipeing" at this TTF for years....could be the proposal is just an attempt to "unify" their attempts and avoid the selective enforecment issues.....

Mary Poppins..and I still believe in the Easter bunny