MN is having issues with Airports -

Silver Bay Airport, MN

Hopefully some of you MN pilots and owners can get the state back on track. It sounds like (from the rumor mill) it's going to be a tough road to maintain the future for aviation.

Most all of our roads are worse then what she shows in the video, and in stark contrast to the runway she is standing on, many of the airports we use should be referred to as "originally paved". The NOTAM on this runway/airport is CLOSED PERM.

Runway view from 2016.

I've lost all faith in FAA's funding of airports.
They're bound and determined to rip up and totally rebuild the runway at my home airport--
even though it is fine shape except for some minor longitudinal cracks.
Basis for this is that "it was designed for a 20 year lifespan" and it's now 28 years old.
Our Port-authority owned airport's engineering consultant is all for it, of course--
they stand to make a considerable amount of money on a big runway project.
During the preliminary planning site visit, they "discovered" that the runway substructure is faulty and/or just plain missing in action--
this is in spite of the runway surface showing no signs of distress.
When asked about seeing the core samples taken during their site investigation, "oh we didn't take any--
we just examined the stuff that came up with the drill" which of course is long gone.

IMHO the FAA AIP is in the business of spending money-
whether the money needs to be spent where they want to spend it doesn't seem to enter the equation.
There's plenty of things that could use improvement here, for one building a 24/7 accessable public restroom and "pilot lounge",
but there's no money for that.
Since this whole debacle began, I have been looking at the "FAA to spend $200M on airport improvements in (your state here)"
announcements in GA News and AvWeb in a different light.

Oh, BTW the airport operator does zero pavement maintenance, this in spite of that being a requirement when you accept FAA AIP funding.
The minor cracking that we get should be addressed by burning out the weeds, hitting it with some roundup, then sealing.
The FAA won't fund maintenance, and the Port doesn't wanna spend the money,
so they just put that off and roll it into the every-6 or 8 - years slurry-coat project....
which the FAA does fund.

OK, sorry for the hijack, rant over.

hotrod180 said:

I've lost all faith in FAA's funding of airports.
They're bound and determined to rip up and totally rebuild the runway at my home airport--
even though it is fine shape except for some minor longitudinal cracks.
Basis for this is that "it was designed for a 20 year lifespan" and it's now 28 years old.
Our Port-authority owned airport's engineering consultant is all for it, of course--
they stand to make a considerable amount of money on a big runway project.
During the preliminary planning site visit, they "discovered" that the runway substructure is faulty and/or just plain missing in action--
this is in spite of the runway surface showing no signs of distress.
When asked about seeing the core samples taken during their site investigation, "oh we didn't take any--
we just examined the stuff that came up with the drill" which of course is long gone.

IMHO the FAA AIP is in the business of spending money-
whether the money needs to be spent where they want to spend it doesn't seem to enter the equation.
There's plenty of things that could use improvement here, for one building a 24/7 accessable public restroom and "pilot lounge",
but there's no money for that.
Since this whole debacle began, I have been looking at the "FAA to spend $200M on airport improvements in (your state here)"
announcements in GA News and AvWeb in a different light.

Oh, BTW the airport operator does zero pavement maintenance, this in spite of that being a requirement when you accept FAA AIP funding.
The minor cracking that we get should be addressed by burning out the weeds, hitting it with some roundup, then sealing.
The FAA won't fund maintenance, and the Port doesn't wanna spend the money,
so they just put that off and roll it into the every-6 or 8 - years slurry-coat project....
which the FAA does fund.

OK, sorry for the hijack, rant over.

Click to expand...

Your gripe should be with you local airport management, not with the FAA’s AIP program. Without the AIP program, there would be far fewer ga airports in this country and the ones left standing would cater only to jets. The rest would crumble and deteriorate till they had to close. Municipalities and states just don’t have the $$ to maintain airports.

So, rather than ranting on this forum, I’d suggest that you start attending Airport meetings, or if they don’t have them, go to county commission or city meetings.....whoever owns and operates the airport. Politely provide input on your concerns and suggestions.

Get to know your airport manager, and provide him/her with your thoughts.....again, in a polite and proffessional manner.

Actuall, one person CAN make a difference. Give it a try.

MTV

That sounds like great advice Mike, never thought of that. :roll:
Actually, that is what I have already been doing for many years.
In this case, city and county have no jurisdiction--
the airport is run by a Port authority, which is a municipal corporation.
I've been attending Port meetings and interacting with Port staff (hired) and commissioners (elected) for many years,
mostly with regards to pavement, hangar rental, and land lease issues.
It doesn't do any good, just raises my blood pressure to unhealthy levels.
I have learned the hard way where the expression "you can't fight city hall" comes from.
I can see why sometimes otherwise normal people "go postal" at their local bureaucrats expense.

I agree that FAA's AIP does some good things, and does keep some airports in order that would otherwise fall apart--
it's just that a lot of money is wasted too.
In this case, Mike, the FAA is definitely the driving force behind the runway project.
In effect, they've told the airport operator that it they don't go for the project now,
when we DO actually need a runway overhaul FAA will not fund it.
So it's a now-or-never deal.

Being based here for 23 years now, ever since the paved runway was 5 years old,
my layman's guess is that it's probably good for another 10 years--
esp if they to actually do some minor annual maintenance on it (which they haven't been doing).
Suggestions that everything be put on hold until the runway actually shows signs of needing major repair or replacement do no good--
it's now or never as far as the FAA is concerned.
The Port doesn't really care one way or another-- they just see it as "free money".
Even though a project would cost the Port 5% (with state funding) or 10% (with just FAA funding) of the total costs.
It would also negatively impact the airport businesses--
since so far there's been no effort by the Port's engineering outfit to avoid a 3 to 4 month long runway closure by including temporary flight ops on the parallel in the planning.
THis in spite of EXTENSIVE discussions of exactly that during a pre-planning meeting between the airport community and the Port, FAA, DOT, engineers etc.

Our local pilot association is still in there fighting, hopefully we will get the temporary flight ops thing squared away which is about the best we can hope for.
As far as wasting or at least prematurely spending $2 to 3M to fix a runway that isn't broken-- what the hell?
It's free money after all, right?

What Mike said!

fyi, the MN Pilots Assn is working on this, in conjunction with the MNDOT Aeronautics and others. One of the questions we have is where has the federal funds been utilized for the last several years? Please follow this on our Facebook/MNpilots page.

Randy

I suppose - I have skipped most of those meetings. To me they seem to be lip service to the community, and whatever will happen has already been decided. That is not always true; sometime it is so obvious that user input makes sense that those in charge actually change something to make it better.

We accept AIP. That means we must adhere to a 350 page Advisory Circular. So far we have moved hold lines 150 feet away from the runway pavement edge, confusing even King Air pilots on an hourly basis. We have paved a runway to 150 foot width using your money, then striped it down to 75' because a VFR runway cannot be more than 75' wide. We have converted a two-way taxiway to one way, because it is not quite wide enough for two 747s to safely pass.

And our main taxiway still has bumps that send my airplanes skyward at eight knots. Pity the Mooney and its prop clearance issues if they get worse.

Our other airport is getting its gorgeous concrete two mile long runway replaced with 20 year asphalt. I bet they stripe it down to 75 feet as well.

This is what happens when those in charge are not pilots and do not use the facilities. As far as I am concerned, if a person is in charge of an AC governing runway/taxiway configuration and maintenance, they should be required to actually use such regulated facilities once in a while.

bob turner said:

I suppose - I have skipped most of those meetings. To me they seem to be lip service to the community, and whatever will happen has already been decided. That is not always true; sometime it is so obvious that user input makes sense that those in charge actually change something to make it better.........
This is what happens when those in charge are not pilots and do not use the facilities. ......

Click to expand...

Another good example of mis-use of AIP funds.
A nearby airport accepted a big grant to add a bunch of ramp space....
in spite of already having way more ramp space that they need.
I don't know how they made their case to FAA as to why they needed it, but they got the dough.
Where they should have put that money is in their crosswind runway,
which has already been striped down to much less than the original length and width,
plus been allowed to deteriorate..

Well said Bob. Seems to happen everywhere. My alma mater airport of Middlebury VT used to have runway lights - click the unicom to turn them on. State didn't want to maintain them it seems and some years ago removed them. Then the State got on a kick to "fix" state airports, and spent nearly a full summer "redo-ing" 6B0. Now there are 6 foot deep ditches between runway and taxiways, guaranteeing damage on any off runway excursion, for fear of the 100 year flood on sand that you can't make wet with all the fire trucks in the state, and has never had standing water in the history of the airport. The taxiway was narrowed, so some aircraft are in danger of the mains running off the sides. The runway was repaved to include the formerly dirt overrun.... but not leveled or shaped to get it on the same plane... and not resurfaced the whole length, so now in addition to a hump it has a pavement edge change at the former overrun mark. All tie-downs were removed from between taxiway and runway, for fear of an accident involving a tied down aircraft, that hasn't ever happened in the history of the airport. The grass area that was available now has an airport weather station in it... because the 5 operations per day need that. And of course years ago the left downwind was changed to a right downwind, because someone decided the mountain was now too close to the runway, although it never was a problem before.

pb

If you are interested in how your AIP funds are spent it is critical that you ATTEND all Airport Master plan update meetings (they are required, and all comments received must be submitted) and any agenda that has "public comment" or "public hearing" in the name along with a project or plan.

Yeah, they hold these meetings so they can say they invited publjc / user input....
then they ignore the valid, common sense suggestikns and do the dumb **** they'd been planning on doing anyway.