My family developed a property in Western NC known as Tusquittee Landing. It has a 1/2 mile grass landing strip. Unlike other airparks, landing rights were attached only to some lots. We currently have 4 landing rights which are not attached to a certain property and we are trying to determine their value. Can you provide us with any information that might help?

My response:

Mr. Blackwell, I don’t have a direct answer for you but hopefully some of our readers can provide some information of value. As you are aware, yours is an unusual arrangement; ie., most airparks have usage assigned directly to lots not unattached landing rights. Have any lots been sold without landing rights recently compared with some landing rights? The difference would be the value, in my thinking. Unfortunately, there are so many variables involved that this becomes art, rather than science. Anyone have any good ideas?

Located 60 miles south of Jackson Hole, Afton Municipal Airport’s (AFO) 7,023-f00t runway can accommodate most piston and turbine aircraft. Afton AirPark features dedicated taxiways, providing access to each of the 54 lots and hangars, and is serviced by Afton Flight Services FBO. Homeowners can arrange for fuel services directly to their homesite hangars. The property is unique in the fact there are no private hangars available at the Jackson Hole airport where tie down costs can run $250 to $750 per day, Burke said.

The auction, which will be at the Jackson Hole Center for the Arts at 240 S Glenwood Street, will be broadcast live on RFDTV starting at 2 p.m. on May 15 with telephone bidding available for pre-registered bidders.

Most flyin communities are private – owned and private – use but a significant number have been established over the years on property adjacent to public-owned and public-use airports. These residential airparks have provided financial support, security and even helped FBOs with their business.

Unfortunately, the FAA has taken a ridiculous stand against residential airparks at public-owned airports. The result has been threats to restrict grants for airport improvements and demands for repayment of past grants. The FAA has demanded that TTF (through the fence) agreements be canceled, causing property owners to suffer financial loss as they tried to sell a home.Under fire from the flying community, the FAA issued Airport Compliance Manual Order 5190.6b, prohibiting TTF access.

Under the leadership of Brent Blue, the residential airpark community has fought back. He has been outspoken in his attempts to get this silly piece of FAA rule reversed, especially since it was published without any input from the aviation community at all. And, using Freedom of Information requests as well as your responses to questions we published in General Aviation News and Living With Your Plane, Blue found that the FAA’s supposed reasons for the rule were completely without merit. None of the claims of the FAA were supported by their own records.

Now, the Community Airport Access and Protection Act of 2010 has been introduced in the House by Representative Sam Graves (R-Missouri) and Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa). Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), has introduced the legislation in the Senate.

I encourage you to contact your Congressional delegations and encourage their support for this legislation and I want to express my personal thanks to Blue for his untiring efforts.

APRIL 2 UPDATE FROM BRENT BLUE: The Senate amendment did not make it to the appropriations bill which recently passed.  Congressman Graves’ office has not let us know when their bill will be coming up.  I will let everyone know as soon as I know.

House Bill H.R. 8415 was introduced by Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) and Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA). On the Senate side, Senate Bill H.R. 1586 Amendement #3465 was sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and co-sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Be sure to contact your Congressmen and Senator and urge them to support this important legislation.

Brent Blue is an individual who has been aggressively fighting the FAA over the agency’s recent efforts to eliminate Through The Fence (TTF)
agreements.

He told me that “I met with the FAA today. They have been on a road trip to gather information on TTF airports and to hear from TTF hangar home owners to “possibly change policies.” They met in Erie CO, Independence OR, Sandpoint ID, and Driggs ID.”

Blue said he considers “most of their arguments against hangar homes theoretical or without valid foundation. They continually mentioned children and pets on airport operations areas, driving by unauthorized individuals on the runway (e.g. teenagers drag racing), and residential homes being built near airports because hangar homes are already there (e.g. you cannot fight off non aviation homes if you have aviation homes present).

“I think we are probably both in agreement that these are invalid arguments but as part of the process of supplying comment, I thought it would be good to give them numbers even if they were zero.”

Blue is seeking input from people on airparks relative to the issues the FAA has brought up. Please provide your personal experiences on the following issues so we can tabulate them and provide them to the FAA:

1. Are you aware of any accidents involving children or pets on taxiways or runways? If yes, please provide airpark name and city and approximate date.
2. Are you aware of any incidents of unauthorized use of the runway by autos, 4 wheelers, or other non aviation conveyance? If you are aware of such incidents, how was it dealt with by the homeowners.
3. Are you aware if zoning for single family dwellings used by the airpark encouraged any non aviation homes being built close enough to the airport to present noise issue?

“We know these numbers will be low, but given the large denominator of private airparks, we can use the results as an example of actual experience instead of theoretical risk. We will use these numbers to support our comments which we will be working on with the FAA in two weeks,” Blue concluded.

Can you help? Please send your comments right away to dave@generalaviationnews.com and I’ll tabulate them and get them to Blue.

ACM 5190.6B Chapter 20, Section 4A, is a horrific statement, “Any residential use existing on the airport or any residential use granting “through-the-fence” access is an incompatible land use.” The FAA is painting the subject with the broadest possible brush.

Same Chapter, Section 3B, “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.” The FAA offers no evidence from existing federally-funded airports with airparks that substantiate this assertion.

Chapter 12 has further language pertaining to TTF and incompatible land use, including a response to Sporty’s Pilot Shop owner Hal Shevers in his attempt to encourage the FAA to promote TTF and airparks as a way to save airports across the country. As you might imagine, he was rebuffed.

The federal docket for comments on the ACM is open until March 31, 2010. Now is the time to make your voice heard. Download chapters 12 and 20 or the entire ACM (22MB PDF) and post your comments at this page at regulations.gov by clicking on the top Submit a Comment link (next to the original FAA notice dated 10/7/2009). Should you think this issue does not apply to you, think again. For the FAA to cavalierly state residential use near an airport is an incompatible land use (with no regard to circumstance and no apparent flexibility) is beyond the scope of rational thought.