EAA hosted, last week, a working group of interested parties in an effort to preserve residential through-the-fence (TTF) on public airports. The efforts of this group are to push back against FAA Order 5190.6B “which contained a new key policy statement: “Under no circumstances is the FAA to support any “through-the-fence” agreement associated with residential use…”.” Read EAA’s  story here.

The Snohomish County (Washington) Council has voted 4-0 to preserve (or at least try to preserve) Frontier Airpark by requiring “a special notice for any new developments within 2,500 feet of airpark communities.” Read the full HeraldNet story here.

ThroughTheFence.org is reporting legislation to reverse FAA Airport Compliance Manual (ACM) Order 5190.6b language has been submitted in both the House and Senate. ACM Order 5190.6b labeled as incompatible use any “through the fence” agreement at an airports receiving federal funds. Many in the industry called bunk to that idea. None louder than ThroughTheFence.org founder Brent Blue.

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.

Ok! All you folks now living on a residential airpark, interested in doing so or just want to make sure the right to have homes on airparks remains valid – please read the following carefully and send me your responses as soon as possible.

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.

The FAA issued Airport Compliance Manual (ACM) Order 5190.6B (link to entire Order web page) last year. In the details, the FAA has placed airparks (both existing and future) with through-the-fence (TTF) agreements or on premise at publicly-funded or granted airports squarely in its cross-hairs.

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.

Question from Dave Hamann: Been following through the fence issue. For now this does not appear to apply to privately owned, public access airports. Mid Valley Airpark (E98), NM has been open to public for 40 years. However, should we in any way shape or form accept state money, I can see we may get in a bind.

Answer from Dave Sclair: You are correct in your assumption that private-owned, public-use airports don’t seem to be affected. Accepting a state grant for improvements might not be a problem either, although before getting into such an agreement it would be highly intelligent to have the agreements checked out for attachments to the FAA.

By Brent Blue, ThroughTheFence.org

The FAA has consistently justified most of their opposition to “through the fence” residential hangars as being related to noise complaints. They have frequently stated that the FAA has spent $1.8 billion to buy land to mitigate noise sensitive neighbors. However, the FAA has never delineated residential hangars from residences which have no airport connection.

In order to find out exactly how much of a problem noise has been for the FAA from hangar home residents, ThroughTheFence.org asked to FAA, through the Freedom of Information Act, for two items related to noise.
Read the full story

The following question came from Fred Herzner:

“Can you recommend an attorney to help us form an Airport HOA in the Knoxville, TN area?”

Answer: I suggest you contact some of the condo units in your area or housing developments with HOAs and ask about the attorney they have used. Any attorney who has prepared a HOA for a condo association or residential subdivision should be able to help you.

If anyone has a personal recommendation or other advise, please post it below.

The AOPA, in a letter dated December 18, has asked the FAA for more flexibility in its “proposed ‘one size fits all’ approach to airparks and other residential through-the-fence (TTF) operations at public-use airports”. A story posted to AOPA Online notes:

“The new FAA guidance acknowledges no acceptable residential TTF agreements, a statement that AOPA considers a significant departure from the agency’s past policy.”

We received the following email from a Living With Your Plane reader today. Please post your feedback in the comment area below the letter.

I am looking for experiences and suggestions pertaining to residential airparks where a developer or individual owns the underlying land of the runway(s), taxiways, roads and other common areas. In my particular instance, the primary Home Owners Association (HOA) is chartered with maintaining these areas and has collectively paid for paving the runway, adding runway lights, grading and fill of graveled areas, etc. Attorneys have told the HOA that they are responsible for safety by this action of maintaining the runway and common areas, and less-so the underlying land owner.

Our underlying land owner is a resident pilot and dues-paying HOA member. However he is reluctant to relinquish his overall control. This has already caused conflicts where residents feel his actions on his land adjacent to the runway (declared right-of-way and easement) create an unsafe aviation condition, but are powerless to change it. The HOA is never consulted beforehand either. In addition, our small airpark with about 25 owners has three separate HOA/covenant boundaries which were determined when each area was sold. The irrigation and trash users are also separate entities. Read the full story