Got this from a Helicopter driver ---- Read it it's scary and affects all pilots

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

Boy if this happens the airport I am based at will be gone for sure. No through the fence period? The runway and a few buldings on the west side are the only true airport. The rest is private through the fence. No car, RV storage, auto repair shops, boxing rings allowed. Hell, half our airport is just that!

Watch out there!

Can you give us the shorthand version of what has changed in this compliance manual? Who is coming? Is this the final version of the regs to limit through-the-fence ops?

If FAA wants it to be that way, that's the way it will be. Every GA pilot in the world can bitch their heads off, and it won't amount to a fraction of the general bad sentiment towards small airports.

A move to Alaska is in order for anyone who wishes to continue flying little planes.

gb

RobBurson wrote:Any residential use existing on the airport or any residential use granting “through-the-fence”
access is an incompatible land use.

This is crazy talk! Residential airpark is about the most airport-compatible use there is. Leave it to the feds.....

ya know, if they want to look thru the fence at my hagar, and look thru my hangar, they can damn-straight write me a check....!

I read the section on compatible use, and it seems to me that they're trying to protect GA access to public airports, not restrict it. They're worried about home owners on public airport property complaining about the noise, wanting restrictions, etc.

I think as pilots we like to assume that they wouldn't complain, but in reality they have the same rights as any other homeowner, and you can't restrict airport home ownership to only pilots. Anyway, food for thought.

FAA position. The FAA considers residential use by aircraft owners to be no different from
any residential use, and finds it incompatible with the operation of a public use airport. It is
common for private airparks to impose restrictions on the use of the airfield, such as night
curfews, because aircraft owners have the same interest as other homeowners in minimizing
noise and sleep disturbances at home. The FAA has no problem with such restrictions at private
unobligated airparks operated by the resident owners for their own benefit. At federally
obligated public-use airports, however, the existence of the incompatible land use is not
acceptable. First, aircraft owners are entitled to the same protection from airport impacts as any
other residents of the community. Second, the likelihood that residents of an airpark will seek
restrictions on the use of the airport for the benefit of their residential use is very high, whether
or not they own aircraft. A federally obligated airport must provide reasonable access to all
users. Restrictions on the use of the airport for the benefit ofwith the obligation to provide reasonable access to the public.

hotrod150 wrote:

RobBurson wrote:Any residential use existing on the airport or any residential use granting “through-the-fence”
access is an incompatible land use.

This is crazy talk! Residential airpark is about the most airport-compatible use there is. Leave it to the feds.....

As Oregon180 picked out, this document outlines compliance for airports receiving FAA grants. It doesn't prohibit residential airports. How many airparks out there that you know of get grant money?

As much as I'd like to, there's no need to move to Alaska to fly small planes.

Oregon180 wrote:I read the section on compatible use, and it seems to me that they're trying to protect GA access to public airports, not restrict it. They're worried about home owners on public airport property complaining about the noise, wanting restrictions, etc.

I think as pilots we like to assume that they wouldn't complain, but in reality they have the same rights as any other homeowner, and you can't restrict airport home ownership to only pilots. Anyway, food for thought.

FAA position. The FAA considers residential use by aircraft owners to be no different from
any residential use, and finds it incompatible with the operation of a public use airport. It is
common for private airparks to impose restrictions on the use of the airfield, such as night
curfews, because aircraft owners have the same interest as other homeowners in minimizing
noise and sleep disturbances at home. The FAA has no problem with such restrictions at private
unobligated airparks operated by the resident owners for their own benefit. At federally
obligated public-use airports, however, the existence of the incompatible land use is not
acceptable. First, aircraft owners are entitled to the same protection from airport impacts as any
other residents of the community. Second, the likelihood that residents of an airpark will seek
restrictions on the use of the airport for the benefit of their residential use is very high, whether
or not they own aircraft. A federally obligated airport must provide reasonable access to all
users. Restrictions on the use of the airport for the benefit ofwith the obligation to provide reasonable access to the public.

I thought about that also, but. I think the FAA is looking to fix a problem that does not exist. Come on, really. How many people build a hangar with living quarters and then tell the FAA to stop take offs and landings at 10PM

I live in an airpark that has a through the fence deal with a county owned airport that has received federal funding. All of us were on pins and needles. Then recently, the guy who developed the airpark and made the original deal with the county which was then accepted by the FAA requested to double the size of the airpark.

The county held several meetings to determine whether this would be permitted. The county was mostly concerned with drainage and other civil issues. I attnded the county meeting and raised the questions about the grant assurance obligations and asked if the FAA had been contacted and approved of the expansion. The answer was yes. I was the only person to ask the county these questions in a public forum. It was broadcast on local television (all of our county meetings are) and it is a matter of public record. Now it is on public record that the county, which approved both the original airpark and now the expanded phase 2 has sought approval from the FAA.

I feel pretty well protected, because the county supported and even promoted the expansion of our through the fence operation. If the FAA decides to take action, it will be to cut federal funding I suppose. Either way, my house has the same proximity to the airport and if the county decided to close the fence, then they would be immediately sued by all of the people who invested in building there for not performing due dilgence.

If the county insisted that FAA funding was necessary and compied with the grant assurnaces, they would have to buy my house and bulldoze it along with every neighbor in the airpark not to mention the several homes that are not part of the airpark, but have the same proximity to it. The state department of transportation, aviation division has also been involved as part of both the funding and through the fence approval. Time will tell how it all pans out, but for now, I am enjoying living in the airpark and not worrying about it. By the time alll of this will be sorted out, I will be retired in Alaska.

Just last week I spent some time helping a friend and neighbor, Dr Brent Blue, getting his experimental moose ready for its first flight. Turns out he is the key guy spearheading the throughthefence.org website and has filed for two freedom of infomation act releases on docs to get a grasp on the FAA's reasoning.. They himhawed around and finally furnished him with vague and incomplete docs... This battle is just beginning and the DR. ain't gonna let this BS pass without a extended and stout fight. Together us pilots can be heard if we take a minute to write our congree critters.

1SeventyZ wrote:

hotrod150 wrote:

RobBurson wrote:Any residential use existing on the airport or any residential use granting “through-the-fence”
access is an incompatible land use.

This is crazy talk! Residential airpark is about the most airport-compatible use there is. Leave it to the feds.....

As Oregon180 picked out, this document outlines compliance for airports receiving FAA grants. It doesn't prohibit residential airports. How many airparks out there that you know of get grant money?

As much as I'd like to, there's no need to move to Alaska to fly small planes.

I was just being a smart ass, you aren't safe here either.

For the record, I do not believe the F - double - A is the enemy, they receive their mandates from those further up the ladder.

This is a continuation of the campaign to get GA under a thumb, plain and simple. We are a threat to the lock-step way of thinking. Every aircraft should be behind a fence and out if sight when not on an IFR flight plan up in the flight levels where they can keep an eye on you. Over time, with more regulation, TSA, mandatory service bulletins, user fees, and airworthiness directives, expensive aviation fuel taxes, they will grind us down.

I wish I could be more positive, but I see it happening even here where I live. When I moved here 15 years ago, there was no chain link fence, no security, no hassles to build a hangar or put your boat in it if you wanted to, no brand new multi - hundred thousand dollar pieces of equipment purchased with AIP funds...and we still got a 141 air carrier in and out. Now we have all these wonderful improvements, and less than half the number of passengers we had those few years ago, and 50% fewer GA aircraft on the field.

Sure, these airports don't have to comply...that's the point. Then the purse strings can be cut and the money spent on more entitlement programs. We can all then move to an air park in Illinois and fly our kites, provided we only let them up 50 feet.

gb

I guess my thinking on the issue of building private homes on airport property is more than a little influenced by the pending closure of Barkarby airfield near my home in Sweden, where I grew up.



This public airfield was founded in 1913, one of the oldest still in use in the world. It was home to one of the most active EAA chapters in Europe. A real haven for vintage aircraft aficionados.

Long story short, the city decided to build 1,000 apartments on the property, and there's been a long legal battle between the pilots and the city. In the end, it was decided to close the airport. Believe it or not, it's pretty hard to make the case to the public that a small airport is more important than housing.

I don't pretend to understand all the ins and outs when it comes to the FAA rules, but I'm pretty happy to see that they understand that their mandate is to promote the use of public airports for aviation, not for housing or shopping malls. I'm sure the pilots at Barkarby would love to have the FAA on their side.

I would have to believe the FAA is on the GA side of this and many other GA related issues. How many FAA jobs are involved with the GA side of aviation? My guess is quite a few and I don't think most of them want to see there jobs disappear because of closing GA airports or running pilots out of flying. Less GA planes flying equals less FAA inspectors, employees needed.

Unfortunately, the FAA is just the middle man between BIG government and GA.

I'm afraid that with all the spending that's going on right now for pet projects (ie, curbing global warming, "fixing" the economy, healthcare, etc.) there will be less money in the long run for GA. I can see the feds giving less and less each year to GA, and with fixed costs, the money will need to come from somewhere (or airports will just shut down). Those costs will be passed to us through user fees, fuel tax, registration tax, etc. Just look at socialist Europe.

The FAA can only do so much. With our current government's agenda, I see GA toward the bottom of a long (and growing) list.

For what's it's worth... I hope I'm wrong.

So, long story short, our current government's agenda is to stop airplanes from rolling from private property onto federal?

Oh, by the way: http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4563

mountainmatt wrote:Unfortunately, the FAA is just the middle man between BIG government and GA.

I'm afraid that with all the spending that's going on right now for pet projects (ie, curbing global warming, "fixing" the economy, healthcare, etc.) there will be less money in the long run for GA. I can see the feds giving less and less each year to GA, and with fixed costs, the money will need to come from somewhere (or airports will just shut down). Those costs will be passed to us through user fees, fuel tax, registration tax, etc. Just look at socialist Europe.

The FAA can only do so much. With our current government's agenda, I see GA toward the bottom of a long (and growing) list.

For what's it's worth... I hope I'm wrong.

Yep, that makes since, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, we do don't know what to expect anymore. How can you blame anyone for jumping to conclusions?

deleted.