• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

FAA to shut down Fairbanks aircraft campground?

Christina Young

Christina Young

Registered User
Andover-Aeroflex, 12N
I'm surprised that this issue hasn't come to light until now. The first I heard about it was from an EAA e-mail I just received.

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/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/

Quote from Chapter 20, page 2-7:

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.
Click to expand...

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/home.html#docketDetail?R=FAA-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. :( :bad-words:
 
Christina, Isn't this about through the fence access? The way I read it was if the hanger, camp ground, house etc. wasn't on the airport grounds and the airport takes federal funds it would cut out any through the fence agreements. I have apartments in both of my hangers and my hanger lease allows me to live in them. I am definitely going to comment on this one. Kinds like the TSA involvement in repair stations.
 
Steve Pierce said:
Christina, Isn't this about through the fence access? The way I read it was if the hanger, camp ground, house etc. wasn't on the airport grounds and the airport takes federal funds it would cut out any through the fence agreements.
Click to expand...

No, it is about public use airports. Through the fence access is just one small part of this huge 700 page behemoth. In fact, if you read the comments already posted on the comment site, most of them relate to the use of autogas on airports.

Here is the direct link to the entire document (beware 22MB):

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/media/5190_6b.pdf
 
I wonder when people are going to get tired of their liberties eroded in the name of national security?

gb
 
That airpark is one of the things that makes the Fairbanks Airport a really nice place. It will be a shame if they shut that down. I enjoy meeting folks when they camp there. Such as Christina.
 
One other thought on TTF ops at federally-funded, public use airports, Steve.... it seems to me that the result is to prevent aircraft from leaving the airport premises on the ground, as well as prevent aircraft from taxiing onto the airport from outside. This, in effect, would eliminate the "last mile" advantage of future "flying cars" such as the Terrafugia aircraft.

Think about it - say you keep your Terrafugia in your garage at home, drive it to the airport, unfold the wings and take off.... you have just committed a "through the fence" operation!

It is just asinine how short-sighted and stupid the FAA is.
 
Christina Young said:
One other thought on TTF ops at federally-funded, public use airports, Steve.... it seems to me that the result is to prevent aircraft from leaving the airport premises on the ground, as well as prevent aircraft from taxiing onto the airport from outside. This, in effect, would eliminate the "last mile" advantage of future "flying cars" such as the Terrafugia aircraft.

Think about it - say you keep your Terrafugia in your garage at home, drive it to the airport, unfold the wings and take off.... you have just committed a "through the fence" operation!

It is just asinine how short-sighted and stupid the FAA is.
Click to expand...

Good one. I would like to hear the FAA's justification.
 
So, with the "through the fence" issue, How will the FAA deal with ICON?
http://www.iconaircraft.com/news.html
The ICON is an LSA anfib designed in the USA and currently planed for USA production. It has folding wings, trailers like a boat. So, you launch the plane from a lake and than fly to the airport; sounds like "through the fence" to me. What happens if you camp near a Sea Plane base? Any Sea Plane bases get public money? I suppose the FAA never heard of camping near water? If their concern is "through the fence" operations than they will next have to ban any aircraft from flying from a private airfield to any publicly funded airports. How would that be any different? This sounds nuts!
Marty57
 
This stuff makes me want to eat my shorts, my god these people
are idiots, has anyone pointed to these morons that the best way to
ensure security on an airport is to have people living there who
know whats going on and then can report any suspicious activity.
I wonder what it's going to take to wake people up.
Every time I think I'm getting a little to paranoid, Crap like this
comes up and I realize how well adjusted I am.
Even If this is defeated by General Aviation. Its the fact that these
people are so out of touch that they would propose this.
I use to buy the stuff about special interest groups being evil, but
I come to realize that it's only the advocacy groups that are keeping
this country from turning into a Gulag. Here's my short list of people
that get my money. EAA, AOPA, NRA, GOA, AMA-motorcycles,
IMBA-Mountianbikes, BLUE RIBBON COALITION-general off-road rights.







i
 
The 'through the fence' is not a new issue, just a different approach.

From my understanding of the FAA view they are looking at budget issues for airport money, and have decided that airports not in compliance should not receive money.

The rules have different interpretations, and each administration has looked at it differently. Previously ramp space considered 'aviation' use could have an FBO with their equipment shop; today they FBO can have a hanger, but the equipment shop is preferred outside the fence. There has always been the rules against living on airports, but was allowed with the 'security watchman' thought, (no dogs, kids, etc.). Through the fence aircraft use, or access from off airport sites, is regulated by some very strict guidelines from the FAA, and can only be allowed if there is no available airport space for the operation to use.

One of the reason the regs are such is that the FAA wants airports to be as financially self supporting as possible. If everyone can buy a lot across the street and drive over, no one would lease property from the airport. (their theory). This is not new by the way.

D.C. has sent mandates, and TSA is active trying to make us safer. Save time and skip the FAA. Until we get Homeland Security under control, freedom is doomed.
 
Communities grow. Airports evolve. Things change. If Fairbanks wants to forge a compromise they'll likely find a way to do so.

SB
 
That's the logic? No one will rent/buy hangars or tie downs? How may airports in USA in total have through the fence access and folks with the ability to domicile there viz a vis the entire aggregate population? I venture to guess it will be in the 1/1000 of 1%.

Our public ways throughout the USA are federally funded or derive funding in some form from gas taxes. Forcing folks from their primary residence abutting a road is next.

Over half of what the federal government does has neither rhyme nor reason. More regulation means more jobs for hacks and incompetents. They must find a tent in which to stick their snout to justify their existence. Government is now completely out of control and beginning to intervene in every facet of our life. We must have a national third party and clean congress out and return our government to the people who do not have their hand out.
 
aktango58 said:
One of the reason the regs are such is that the FAA wants airports to be as financially self supporting as possible. If everyone can buy a lot across the street and drive over, no one would lease property from the airport. (their theory). This is not new by the way.
Click to expand...

This was cited as one of yhe reasons for Anchorage Airport's acquisition of some privately owned lake shore property on Laks Hood (Actually on Spenard lake) So that the folks who leases slips on that parcel wouldn't be "costing the state money" by using Lake Hood for "free". That might sound like reasonable logic, after all there must be a cost to having folks *not* paying like the rest of the users right? Thing is, it completely breaks apart when you examine the numbers. As I understand it, the State paid $800K plus for that parcel. (the price is a matter of public record) On that parcel, IRRC are 11 float slips. The lease rates for a LHD float slip are $105/month, so they "captured" $13,860/year of "lost revenue" Howver it they *paid out more than $800k to do that. if you look at the rate of return on that investment, it's a 1.7% ROR on the investment. (Ignoring the costs of maintaining and administering that acquired property, which is not free)

Now a business owner who spends $800K to gain $13k *gross* revenue (before deducting expenses) isn't going to be in business long.

When you consider that that $800k had to come from somewhere and has a cost that is more than 1.7%/annum, " capturing" that revenue *cost* more than it *gained*, a net loss.
 
Government and logic are antonyms.

I forgot to mention the other issue: because airport rental space is usually less than other commercial/industrial, the faa worries that hangers will become boat sheds and rv parking, driving the price up and displacing aircraft...


As far as state purchase of land abreast of airports, some of that is FAA mandated so that the state can 'control' access and use for safety reasons. Often times the mandate is: you get no more money until you own that piece of land attached to your airport!

Mrs. Tango deals with this for the state here in Southeast. she gets plenty of issues that deserve :roll: :roll: , an nothing more. But she has to do the dance to keep her airports "in compliance".

I will see if she might have more to add, she is better looking also :lol:
 
I forgot to mention the other issue: because airport rental space is usually less than other commercial/industrial, the faa worries that hangers will become boat sheds and rv parking, driving the price up and displacing aircraft...
Click to expand...

A legitimate issue. I had two hangars close to me that were being used by people who had planes but decided to restore Corvettes instead---they now house planes again.
 
Hangers full of junk and no airplanes is one of my biggest pet peeves. People call me all the time wanting a hanger to store their RV or car project in. I tell them there are self storage units all over town. The city here did all the dirt work and taxi ways for a private individual to build tee hangers and then he rented them out to people as mini storage's. Luckily there became more demand for hangers and most of the hangers have airplanes in them. A friend of mine summed it up when he stated he couldn't land his airplane on the highway and park at the self storage units. :D
 
With respect to Lake Hood, the Anchorage airport officials have had to make adjustments to comply with federal regulations and have done so with little interruption of service and in the end the airport is a better facility for users. Parking areas have been moved, taxiway security is improved, and runway standards improved. To the average user like me the net result is positive change. As far as the acquisition of Peter Bartlett's property the reason the State gave for that move was to improve the availability of float spots at a State operated airport. The same reason was given when they lobbied the City to abandon the swim beach so more shore space could be utilized to safely park airplanes. The wait list has been a sore point and the State has made efforts to address it. I have nothing but praise for my local airport managers both for trying to provide service improvements and also for minimizing the impact of federal regulation compliance measures. If Fairbanks airport managers are motivated they can find satisfactory middle ground as well.

Stewart
 
StewartB said:
As far as the acquisition of Peter Bartlett's property the reason the State gave for that move was to improve the availability of float spots at a State operated airport.
Click to expand...

And yet, there was not one single new float spot created by the acquisition of the land. All said and done, the number of float slips available to the flying public increased by precisely zero. So by your own criteria, it was a complete failure.

I think that the folks who mange LHD generally do a pretty good job of runnng it. However, it is pretty tough to spin this as a sound move.
 
My criteria? I don't have any.

I rented from Peter for a couple of years. When the State bought him out I had a slip on Spenard's southwest shore. I was offered one of the east Spenard spots. I declined. I liked my chances on the switch list and my decision worked out well.

SB
 
StewartB said:
My criteria? I don't have any.
Click to expand...

OK, by the criteria that you mentioned, then, even though it was the airport's criteria, and not your own. Point still stands that they did not increase the number of Lake Hood floatplane slips available to the Anchorage seaplane community at all. Pretty hard to rationalize that there was something gained by the expenditure of the $800k.
 
[quote="aalexander] Pretty hard to rationalize that there was something gained by the expenditure of the $800k.[/quote]



I just talked to 'she that shall be obeyed' and here is what she said:

FAA mandates that if private property on an airport becomes available, the airport should purchase it.

Also, due to accidents, (remember the beaver this summer), and non-aviation folks proximity to airport operation areas-(aoa), and to avoid incompatible uses, the state wanted to control the land to prevent future problems.

How many airports have been in existence for years, and the neighborhood grows up around it and shuts it down? (Meigs field Chicago?). Price? well, what is lakeside land worth in a city these days?

Also, by owning the property, the state can restrict access from non-aviation folks, and keep them from doing stupid stuff like FEEDING THE GEESE and attracting birds.
 
aktango58 said:
The gain may have only been the airport's ability for continued funding from the FAA.

Go in the the DOT and ask in a calm, non-aggressive manner why the purchase was needed, and see what they say. You might be surprised.
Click to expand...

Ummm, I already have. I have friendly acquaintances who were involved in an official level. I've had fairly extensive conversations on the subject. I know what the official answers are. DOT funding was never mentioned.

Regardless, even *if* DOT funding were at the root of it, it would just show the absurdity of DOT policies, which ties back to the original topic of the thread.
 
I think the answer when I asked was two parts, but the one that stood out was the need to keep that property away from a developer who could build a building that would force an expensive buy-out. Remember the original Nye Lexus building by Merrill Field? Tell me the construction of that building wasn't planned!

SB
 
StewartB said:
. Remember the original Nye Lexus building by Merrill Field? Tell me the construction of that building wasn't planned!

SB
Click to expand...
Vaguely, I recall there was some issue where they wanted to build on that lot across the highway on the approach to 33. I don't recall the particulars of how it progressed.

the Bartlet Parcel was not developable, unless a developer were able to figure out a way to fill the channel. I'm guessing permitting would have precluded that.
 
There is an airport here is southeast that the DOT ROW guys were buying a piece of Native Allotment for airport protection.

in brief, the ROW guys allowed the owner to keep a small chunk that was 'to small and to close to a fish stream to ever develop'.

move forward ten years, guess what happened????

Two houses, and many issues with the FAA.

Never say "it would never happen."
 
In regard to Lake Hood / Spenard, we have been parking there since the canal was built and the fingers were dug in the 70's. For the last 10 years the management has had their own agenda and it's not always in the interest of the lease holders. When I was a kid, we flew off the strip where the DOT building sits. Anyone else? Crash maybe.....
 
StalledOut said:
In regard to Lake Hood / Spenard, we have been parking there since the canal was built and the fingers were dug in the 70's. For the last 10 years the management has had their own agenda and it's not always in the interest of the lease holders. When I was a kid, we flew off the strip where the DOT building sits. Anyone else? Crash maybe.....
Click to expand...

considering the amount of changes in the State Airport personnel, I have a hard time seeing this.

Maybe the LHD folks stay the same, but go up the food chain and ask why. It is amazing the amount of stuff the FAA is requiring the airports to do.

On that note: Lisa and Don in DC have worked hard with some of the State folks to keep the FAA at bay... The folks in the east want to treat every airport in Alaska just like it was on whitehouse grounds... Imagine the regulations we would have then!

If I talked about excess baggich back there does this go to R&R? if so, I won't talk about it :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WindOnHisNose
Non-Aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars...Proposed Rulemaking FAA-2014-0463
2
Replies
43
Views
19K
bob turner
B
Pilawt
KVUO: New draconian airspace change, effective 10/1/12
Replies
2
Views
2K
85Mike
85Mike
Christina Young
Answer to draconian field approval process?
Replies
15
Views
4K
bob turner
B
B
Inspection Authorization
2
Replies
31
Views
16K
vanillanut
V
mike mcs repair
aircraft in Anchorage are facing a 100% increase
Replies
23
Views
9K
Icarus
Icarus
Back
Top