"Public" Airstrips

We've had some discussion on another thread about the Tuweep Airstrip in Arizona, and the RAF and Az Pilots Assn efforts to keep the airstrip open.

I commend those groups for their efforts, and wish there were more proactive groups working on these kinds of issues.

That said, I'm curious if others are concerned about the precedent that "Privately" funding a "Public" airstrip sets for the State of Arizona, and for other states.

Is seeking private funding to cover maintenance (ie: archaeologic survey) and insurance a good idea, or would it be a better idea to pursue the maintenance of these functions via the legislative route?

I know nothing about this particular instance, and believe me, I am not really second guessing the actions of these groups. I assume that they've done this research.

But, I can tell you that a LOT of states would happily close half the airports in that state if they thought that by doing so they could convince private entities to fund insurance costs.

Again, please don't take this wrong--I'm just curious as to what others think about this approach, as opposed to seeking public funding to maintain a public use facility.

MTV

Mike - I think what you describe is certainly the route that everyone would prefer and is the least expesive route as well. However, by taking that approach, those who oppose airstrips on public land always have the opportunity to influence legislation and I can assure you, there is always someone opposed to airstrips. This is the reason private acquisitions will always be the best option.

In the case of Tuweep, the State of AZ legal services department decided there was no way they would approve continued use without an insurance policy. This was really a their attemp to obtain closure. We called their bluff by providing the required policy and initiating an Archaeological Survey. Additionally, we had to enter the bidding process to obtain the lease to that section of state land.

We will still fight them in the legislative arena. But, we could not afford to sacrifice this airstrip as they hoped while we waited for the legislative wheels to turn. By allowing it to "return to nature" while we wait on legislation, we might as well just give in. The question each of us needs to ask our selves is are we willing to give this one up?

I see it like giving up our guns. Those opposed to guns will say "well you don't need an AK-47" and most people would agree. However, by giving up your AK-47, they have won a minor victory and next will be your .300 Win Mag all the way until they have your derringer.

Tuweep is a small revolver. And they will take it if they can.

If flying is our passion--and it is for many of us--then we all need to step up and donate our dollars to things like Tuweep so the freedoms we enjoy to fly in this country won't be further restricted. Even if you never intend to fly there, even if you always land on asphalt, your airport may be the next Meigs Field. To voluntarily give up an airport with the recreational value of Tuweep is not an option in my mind. The greenies would like nothing better.

Initial costs to re-open Tuweep have been around $7000 and some generous donations have already been given. More is needed, but we won't give-in and allow the greenies and the State of AZ to reposess this treasure.

Please send your tax-deductible donation to the RAF at www.recreationalaviationfoundation.org

Not one cent is spent on officer salaries. Everything goes toward obtaining and keeping our recreational airstrips in the hands of pilots.

n4873a, what a wonderful post and I just donated to save Tuweep and other backcountry strips!

Oh...another thing. The RAF is investigating a "blanket" policy for recreational airstrips in the interim until legislation is changed'

Most of you may not be aware, the RAF commissioned a study this past year to determine the recreational use statutes in each of the states to determine which are general and which specifically include aviation to eliminate liability to the state and to private landowners. In those states where aviation is alluded to but not specifically included, we are contacting legislators friendly to our cause to introduce legislation to include aviation in the recreational use statutes within each and every state.

We all know how slow the government works on these issues and this is the reason for the blanket policy referred to earlier. While expensive, it will buy us additional time to complete the legislative process without forfeiting airstrips in the interim.

The State of AZ does not require insurance for boat ramps, trailheads, ATV riding areas, etc. Aviation is the only one singled out and it is because of one person on the state committee.

While writing this I just got an email from the president of the RAF about another issue and he states: "I hate to say this, but we ned to stay in the fight on all fronts...we may just win one."

True...and I hope we all take it to heart. Why not buy yourself a life membership in the RAF this Christmas? Only $1000 and I can assure you, it will go a long way toward keeping airstrips open for you and your grandkids.

Thanks Christina! Every penny will be used toward Tuweep, not administration. Hope you have an opportunity to visit the airstrip this next year.

just keeping this post in the heap....

Okay, so my understanding is that you folks are continuing to pursue public funding for maintenance of Tuweep? That makes sense, and as I noted in my first post, I hoped you have a plan for this.

Call me paranoid, but turning truly "public" airstrips into "privately operated" airstrips may be a fine distinction, but it could be troubling.

Certainly if it's done right, AND if the airstrip really is kept open to the public, without restriction, until a legislative solution can be found, I'm all for it.

There are two concerns, though: One, this could easily become a "members only" airstrip, existing on State land. If someone wants to develop something like that from scratch, great, but to convert a truly public airport to a "club airport" would not serve the public interest. Please note that I am not suggesting that RAF or AZ Pilots will or might do this--I'm talking concepts here.

Secondly, as I noted earlier, there are states and legislators who would love to recapture airport upkeep funding for use elsewhere. After all, airports only serve a few "very wealthy" individuals, right? If these entities see this sort of opportunity, we could easily see a rush to "privatize" airstrips, particularly backcountry ones. Talk about user fees.......This could easily wind up initiating user fees on the most remote airstrips, while AOPA and EAA and others fight to prevent user fees on public airports.

I don't mean to offer offense here, so please don't consider it that way, but to a lot of pilots out here in cyberland, a "$1000, tax deductable contribution" constitutes a big chunk of annual flying costs.

Again, I commend pilot groups who are being proactive and make efforts to preserve airstrips for public use while legislative solutions are sought. That is a great strategy...

As to your AK-47 analogy--it may actually be accurate... You do know that for only $1000, almost any citizen in this country can acquire a permit to own an otherwise "prohibited" weapon? Such as a fully automatic firearm. It really isn't that hard to acquire them--just takes money..

Mike

mvivion said:

Call me paranoid, but turning truly "public" airstrips into "privately operated" airstrips may be a fine distinction, but it could be troubling.

Certainly if it's done right, AND if the airstrip really is kept open to the public, without restriction, until a legislative solution can be found, I'm all for it.

There are two concerns, though: One, this could easily become a "members only" airstrip, existing on State land. If someone wants to develop something like that from scratch, great, but to convert a truly public airport to a "club airport" would not serve the public interest. Please note that I am not suggesting that RAF or AZ Pilots will or might do this--I'm talking concepts here. Mike

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input Mike and I concur with some of your concerns. Regarding the first one shown quoted above, I agree wholeheartedly, when the RAF takes on a project such as Tuweep, it does so merely as the funding vehicle and information gathering entity. To turn it into a private airstrip or "members only" airstrip is not and will never be the purpose behind the RAF. I understand that you are not accusing them of doing so. But to clarify, their purpose is to increase public use airstrips. Once Tuweep is up and running again, it is turned over to the Arizona Pilots Association for maintenance as a public airstrip without restriction.

As an example of one thing in the last year, because of the donating capabilities through the RAF, an elderly couple gave the RAF their 153 acres near Glacier Park with an airstrip on it. We have been working on infrastructure including tie-down areas, campgrounds, toilets, courtesy car, windsocks, etc. These items will be complete this summer and it is open as a "public use" airport for all to enjoy at no cost. However, tax-dollars are not funding maintenance at this point even though it is for the public benefit. The elderly couple also gave us $100,000 which we placed in trust to fund maintenance in perpetuity. It'll never cost pilots or taxpayers a dime and it will be as nice as Big Creek when it is done.

I guess my point is that with any hobby or passion, the users will need to pay to keep their opportunities alive. Obviously $1000 is a bunch of money, yet we rarely hesitate to spend $2500 on a new GPS or $3000 on a set of Bushwheels, but we balk at spending even $50 a year toward airstrip preservation. Priorities, I guess.

Here's a final thought as we approach the end of the year: Each of us gives money to three things. First, we give to the organizations that we feel are worthwhile in society such as our local church, missionaries, Special Olympics, etc., next we give to our livelihood...organizations that are necessary for our business such as professional organizations and finally, we give to organizations that support our passion. If your passion is flying, please consider a portion of your year-end giving to that pursuit. Whether it is the RAF, or Arizona Pilots, supercub.org, or whatever, keep your passion alive and growing so that future generations can enjoy it too.

Thanks again for your great input MTV. I look forward to our annual conversations at the Montana Aviation Conference.

Mike Sidders

My sincere thanks to Mike Sidders and the remainder of the good folks at the RAF. It is great to see people ... the "doers"... volunteering time and resources out there addressing problems as they arise and improving the status quo where possible. It was great to see the RAF's well coordinated recent response to the BLM's proposals related to my local issues here (Missouri Breaks). All cub drivers profit by their activities and anyone who does not at least donate (forgive me), is a parasite. Thanks Mike ... and the RAF. I'll put you on my Christmas list. Ralph Rogers, Montana

Mike,

Again, thanks for the work RAF is doing and has done, and my comments were purely for the purpose of clarification. I appreciate your further clarification, and all your comments.

Your arguments re contributions are also appropriate. I would suggest that ANY dollar amount will help also in these endeavors.

Remote strips are tough to defend, in some ways more difficult than more "urban" airports are, so again, any way we can keep those open which make sense to keep open, I'm all for.

MTV