As always, we welcome your comments and ideas and of course, if your residential airpark isn’t listed or if you have information about other fly-in communities in the state for which we’re reporting, or any other state, we urge you to go the website and fill in this form.

Illinois’ 18 airparks include four that opened in the 1960s and 1970s. The oldest of the group saw its first operations in 1966 with another one in 1969. There was one started in 1986 and four in the 1990s. That indicates a good support for the movement in this upper Midwest state.

The airparks vary greatly in size, based on the number of residential lots. One airpark has only six airpark lots with another seven communities listing 15 or less homesites. However, from that point the next smallest fly-in community reports it has 30 lots and the next one up has 40. There’s one more with 45 lots and one with 47 but the next jump is to 65 homesites, then 80 individual properties. Two fly-in communities report they have 140 homesites in their project.

All of the lots are reported at an acre or more. A few fly-in communities failed to report the size of their residential lots so it is possible some have sites less than an acre.

There are no publicly owned residential airparks in Illinois. All claim to be privately owned. By the same token, only two of the Illinois fly-in communities are open to the public. All the others restrict their use to property owners and their guests.

Runways are predominately in the 2.000 to 4,000 range. Nine of the fly-in communities reported runways at least 2,000 feet long and less than 3,000 while another seven listed their runway length between 3,000 and 4,000 feet. There was one landing strip that came in between 4,000 and 5,000 feet. None were over 5,000 or less than 2,000 feet long.

The residential airparks indicated seven of the runways were paved and 11 were unpaved.

1. Day Aero-Place - Urbana
2. Riley’s Field Airport - Plainfield
3. Aero Estates - Belleville
4. Chicago Glider Club Glider port - Minooka
5. Naper Aero Club Airport - Naperville
6. Case de Aero - Hampshire
7. Metro-East Airpark - St. Jacob
8. Bel Air Estates - Poplar Grove
9. Dury Estates - Hurst
10. Woodlake Landing /Sandwich Airport - Sandwich
11. Aero Lake Estates Airport - Genoa
12. Coursen’s Landing - Galena
13. Nettle Creek Landings - Morris
14. Centennial Heights - Danforth
15. Midwest Skypark - Peru
16. Brookeridge Aero - Downers Grove
17. Meadow Creek Airpark - Monee
18. Ariel View Estates - Hurst

Question: The runway in our fly-in community isn’t a separate legal entity or tax parcel. The lots on either side of the runway go to the center of the runway and each lot owner’s deed provides an easement across their private property for the runway. This means there’s no separate tax for the runway itself since each property owner pays their tax bill which includes an equal share of the runway.

Recently we’ve been looking into obtaining liability insurance for our airpark and the question has come up about how we insure this. Is this a common practice? Have others had problems with this format? Can insurance be obtained for the runway only to be paid for by the various property owners?

Answer: Let’s tackle the easy part of the question first. There are a number of airparks around the country that operate in a similar manner. I’m not a fan of this approach at all. I would much rather short plat the individual lots and create a separate parcel for the runway, setting it up in a corporation or LLC.

Given my preference, that’s not always possible if the development is already in operation, lots have been sold and deeds filed. This is something you need a real estate attorney and good insurance agent to provide you with expert advice. In my opinion, the earlier you resolve this issue the better off you will be on that inevitable day when there’s an accident of some type and liability issues pop up.

As for obtaining liability insurance on just the runway, you’ve got to visit with a qualified insurance company. I see piles and piles of problems, however.
Some airpark developments have adopted this easement approach because it allows each lot to be larger and that might be required because of various regulations limiting the size of individual lots in a particular plat.

I’ve spoken with some people who feel this makes everyone be more aware and cautious about the runway because they are so intimately involved as a direct owner. I don’t buy that approach personally.

Most folks opt for this approach thinking they will save on property taxes. If you have a separate tax parcel for the runway property and a tax assessor sets the rate for that piece and then also hits the individuals for their property, the theory goes that the property owners are paying double or at least more then if the runway wasn’t separated out. I don’t personally buy that one either.

Let’s take a worst-case scenario: the property owner with an easment right near the middle of the runway fails to pay his taxes or doesn’t have insurance or he falls behind on mortgage payments and the property ends up in the hands of a non-aviation enthusiast. Even with your CC&Rs defining the easement and the runway uses, etc., you can still end up in a messy lawsuit or even having to step up and buy the property to protect yourselves.

Not good options!

I like to follow the KIS theory - keep it simple. Each property owner is separate and the runway (and any related taxiways) is another parcel. Taxes and insurance are then paid equally by all fly-in community property owners.

Does your airpark have issues that you’d like me to address? E-mail your question to me. Be sure to include your phone number in case I need clarification on your question.

As always, we welcome your comments and ideas and of course, if your residential airpark isn’t listed or if you have information about other fly-in communities in the state for which we’re reporting, or any other state, we urge you to use our Airpark Submission form.

California lays claim to 35 fly-in communities ranging in size from four lots to a reported 2,000 (Rancho Tehama). One other shows 325 residential lots and another is listed with 127 lots.Most airparks fall between 20 and 40 with the next largest group under 20 lots each. There’s a group of seven with lots listed between 60 and 99.

California saw two residential airparks opened in 1946 –Sierra Skypark and Borrego Air Ranch. One airpark claims history going back to 1954, one in 1956 and a third in 1957. Nine airparks opened their runway to planes in the 1960s and another six came online in the 1970s. In the 1990s there were four opened and only a couple were reported in the 90s. Since the turn of the century, only four fly-in communities are listed as having become operational.

The majority of California’s airparks report residential lots of an acre or more. Actually, the number is 2 to 1 for the lots over an acre, according to the Living With Your Plane directory.

Fourteen airparks state runway length as under 3,000 feet with another 17 showing more than 3,000 feet but less than 5,000. There were four airparks with 5,000 or longer runways listed.

Paved runways was dominant with 27 showing the hard surface.

Gillespie Field at El Cajon reported it had established hangar homes on the airpark.

Residential airparks in California include:

• Abraham Ranch Airport, Johnson Valley
• Adelanto Airport, Adelanto
• Agua Dulce Airpark Ranch, Agua Dulce
• Alta Sierra Airport Estates, Grass Valley
• Ancient Valley Airpark, Mojave
• Billy Joe Airpark, Temecula
• Blackington Airpark, Valley Center
• Blake Sky Park, Vacaville
• Borrego Air Ranch, Borrego Springs
• Brownsville Aero Pines, Brownsville
• Burmuda Dunes Airport, Burmurda Dunes
• Cameron Airpark, Cameron Park
• Eagle Ranch Estates, Ione
• El Mirage Airport, El Mirage
• Emory ranch, Ocotillo
• Ernst Airfield, Hemet
• Fuller Town, Sacramento
• Gillespie Field Hangar Homes, El Cajon
• Hesperia Airport, Hesperia
• Holiday ranch Airport, Apple Valley
• Hyampon Airport, Hyampon
• Lake California Airport, Cottonwood
• Lake Riverside Estates, Aguanga
• Lloyds Landing, Rosamond
• Paradise Lakes Estates, Bakersfield
• Pauma Valley, Pauma Valley
• Pine Mountain Lake Airport, Groveland
• Pines Airpark, Winchester
• Rancho Tehama, Corning
• Rosamond Skypark, Rosamond
• Sierra Sky Park, Fresno
• Sonoma Sky Park, Sonoma
• Squirrel Acres, Red Bluff
• Trinity Center Airport, Trinity Center
• Yucca Valley Airport, Yucca Valley

As always, we welcome your comments and ideas and of course, if your residential airpark isn’t listed or if you have information about other fly-in communities in the state for which we’re reporting, click here to and fill in as much information as you have.

We’ll look at residential airparks in the states of Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut and Delaware in this issue and next time we’ll explore the fly-in communities located in California.

The first of the seven airparks in Arkansas opened in 1962, according to the Living With Your Plane database. It was Valley Airpark at Cotter. Five of the listed developments have lots of an acre or more and the largest project has a total of 72 lots. A couple others have 40 or 45 lots and the others are 30 lots or less.

Runway length at the fly-in communities varies from 4,m800 feet at the longest to 2,600 feet at the short end. Only two of the seven airparks report paved runways while the others come in as unpaved.

Colorado has a dozen airparks and the oldest – Meadow Lake at Peyton – came on line in 1963 with 35 lots. The runner-up for the oldest airpark in Colorado is Can Aire Skypark at Brighton, a Denver suburb. It opened in 1968 and has a total of 86 lots.

All the residential properties on the airparks in the state are over one acre and the largest fly-in community, when you consider number of lots only, is Erie with 125 lots.

As you might expect, runway lengths in Colorado stretch out to 7,000 feet at the top with most in the 4,500 to 6,000-foot length. The shortest is a 2,800-foot strip in Parker, Colo. Where the airport elevation is 6200 feet.

Interestingly enough, eight of the runways are paved and four of them report grass.

Connecticut has only one reported fly-in community and Delaware has a couple.

The Salmon River Airpark in Colchester, CT was opened in 1959. The four lots are all over an acre; the unpaved runway is 2200 feet long.

Delaware’s Chandelle Estates in Dover became operational in 1962. Both the fly-in communities listed in the state claims lots of more than an acre. One airpark boats 27 lots while the other has 10. The runways, one paved and one unpaved, are 2,560 and 3,500 feet.

Arkansas:

• Fullmer Field Estates, Lonoke
• Holley Mountain Airpark, Clinton
• Tannenbaum Airpark, Drasco
• Winfield Airstrip Community, Altus
• Red Oak Airpark, Cabot
• Country Air Estates, Lonoke
• The Valley Airport, Cotter

Colorado:

• Avion Club @ Buckhorn ranch, Crested Butte
• Crawford Airpark, Crawford
• Golden Field, Gardner
• Greenbaum Valley Airport, Pueblo
• Happy Canyon Aero Ranch, Montrose
• Parkland Estates Airport, Erie
• Silver-West estates, Colorado Springs
• Van Aire Skypark, Brighton
• Kelly Airpark, Elbert
• Rocky Mountain Airpark, Parker
• Meadow Lake Airport, Peyton
• Erie Air Park, Erie

Connecticut:

• Salmon River Airfield, Colchester

Delaware:

• Chandelle Estates, Dover
• Eagle Crest Aerodrome, Milton

As always, we welcome your comments and ideas and of course, if your residential airpark isn’t listed or if you have information about other fly-in communities in the state for which we’re reporting, or any other state, we urge you to go the website (http://www.livingwithyourplane.com/apadd.lasso) and add any information you have by clicking on Register your Airpark.

Arizona: We list 25 open airparks in Arizona and one under construction.  The oldest listed airpark in Arizona was opened in 1958 – Moreton Airpark located at Wickenburg, AZ. However, six more claim to have started operations in the 1970s. Since the turn of the century, six more fly-in communities  have opened for business.

Looking at the 25 established communities plus the one under construction that we list in the Living With Your Plane directory, 18 report their individual properties are more than an acre each while only right of the airparks show residential properties of an acre or less.

Also, Arizona has the distinction of listing more large lot projects than most of the other states in the country.  Sixteen of the fly-in communities claim to have 50 or more lots and most of those are in the 100 to 175 lot range. One airpark lists 550 residential sites and another one has 300.

Only two airparks report having 10 or fewer residential sites; a couple more indicate they have between 21 and 35 lots and three list their homesites as bewteen 36 and 50.

As you might expect, the vast majority of Arizona airparks boast runways of between 2,500 and 4,000 feet.  Actually 17 of the fly-in communities report this length while another eight have more than 4,000 feet of runway.

Only six of the airparks show their runway as unpaved. All the rest are paved.

Here’s the fly-in community list:

• Castle Wells – Morristown
• Eagle Roost Airpark - Aguila
• Flying J Ranch – Pima
• Hangar Haciendas – Laveen
• Indian Hills Airpark – Salome
• LaCholla Airpark – Oro Valley
• Mogollon Airpark – Overgaard
• Montezuma Heights Airpark – Camp Verde
• Skyranch at Carefree – Carefree
• Stellar Air Park – Chandler
• Sun Valley Airport – Bullhead City
• Twin Hooks – Marana
• White Mt. Lake Airport - White Mt. Lake
• Pegasus Airpark – Empire
• Mazatzal Mountain Air Park – Payson
• Flying Diamond Airpark – Sahuarita
• Sun Valley Airpark – Fort Mohave
• Phoenix Regional Airport – Maricopa
• Moreton Airpark – Wickenburg
• High Mesa Air Park – Safford
• Wagon Bow Airpark – Kingman
• Whetstone Airpark – Whetstone
• Morning Star Airpark – Pearce
• White Mountain Lakes Airpark – Show Low
• Ruby Star Airpark – Sahuarita
• Sampley’s Airport - Aguila

It happened at every meeting of the homeowners association Bill Tuccio attended.

A resident of Yellow River Airport, an airpark in Holt, Fla., Tuccio said that one question came up every time: What do other airports do to take care of their turf runways?

“A lot of time was wasted on these constant discussions,” said Tuccio, who participates in the maintenance of the airpark’s 2,500-foot runway. That’s why he decided to conduct a Turf Airport Study as his graduate project for Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, as part of his work toward his Master’s degree in Aeronautical Science.

Turf runways account for 60% of all the runways in the U.S. with many, of course, being on airparks. Nationwide, they account for 44,165 acres of land.

“The turf quality of these airports is a direct reflection of the quality of the airport and is a factor in the real estate value of the properties adjacent to airports,” Tuccio noted in the study. While turf research has become a mature science, most of the focus has been on golf courses, athletic fields and homeowners’ lawns. No studies have been done on turf runways, according to Dr. J. Brian Unruh of the University of Florida, considered a leading expert on turfgrass management.

When Tuccio asked Unruh for his help on the study, it was the first time he’d been asked about turf runways, he noted. “In all my years of doing turf extension work, I have never heard of a colleague providing expertise in this area,” he said. The first-of-its-kind study began when Tuccio mailed surveys to about 650 airports in Georgia, Florida and Alabama in June 2007. Using an online survey, he collected data from about 200 of those airparks in the next two months.

While most of the survey was done electronically, Tuccio did get a chance to speak to about 25 people on the telephone about their turf runway maintenance practices. “One fellow even stopped by the house while passing through on his way home,” he said with delight. “A few people even invited me to stop by their airports. Meeting the people was one of the wonderful side benefits of doing the survey. Turf airport people are usually unique people.”

AND THE SURVEY SAYS…

The study’s survey asked a variety of questions ranging from turf species, soil testing, use of extension services, common pests, mowing practices and irrigation to the use of county extension services. While his hope was to discover the relationship between soil testing and turf quality, that didn’t happen, Tuccio admitted. In fact, of the airports responding, most — 108 — had never tested their soil.

That would be the first bit of advice Unruh, the turfgrass expert, would give to owners asking for help on how to best maintain their turf runways. “There’s not a simple answer to this one, but probably the best advice would be to conduct a soil analysis,” he said. “Apply fertilizer at the appropriate rate and time and employ proper mowing practices. With these in check, many of the maintenance problems will be eliminated or reduced.”

Tuccio’s study found that those who maintain turf runways are missing out on a great resource: Their county agricultural extension services. “A lot of people have questions, but they don’t go to the county extension services,” Tuccio said. “They’ll come out and give advice and it’s already paid for through our taxes. It’s a very underutilized resource.” Unruh agrees, noting that county extension agents can provide soil testing, with samples from your runway sent to the state lab. Once the results are in, the extension agent can provide recommendations on maintenance.

“County extension agents are typically the ‘first line of defense’,” noted Unruh, who is a state extension specialist. That means he provides backup to the county extension agents, writes publications and conducts other activities to increase knowledge in this area.

Tuccio’s study ends with the recommendation that more studies need to be conducted. A larger geographic area and a longer time period to collect information would be the place to start, he noted. More questions need to be asked, he said, adding that he put a lot of questions at the end of his study which, he believes, would garner valuable information for turf runway owners. Many questions he wanted to ask weren’t included, to keep the length of the survey reasonable or to avoid sensitive areas that would have caused respondents not to participate, he said. “I had to avoid financial questions,” he said. “And I was really interested in how many respondents owned aviation easements.”

Many respondents came up with questions of their own, with one noting that a question on soil types would be helpful, while others wondered what measures are taken to keep landing surfaces smooth. Unruh agrees. “We are having to extrapolate information from the golf sector and the forage sector to come up with turf runway recommendations,” he said. “It would be great to actually conduct research to determine optimal
fertilizer rates, management practices, etc., for turf runways.”

For more information: TurfAirportStudy.com or TurfPath.ifas.ufl.edu/Turfgrass.

The man behind the study

Bill Tuccio started flying in 1981 when he was 16 years old. He was a captain for American Eagle for eight years, flying Shorts and ATR aircraft. A full-time systems engineer, he also is a part-time flight instructor. His wife, Barbara, is a pilot, too, and his 15-year-old son is nearing solo in the family’s Maule.

Read the entire article by clicking here (PDF download).

Recently we got responses from different parts of the country – California and Washington State.

A California resident responded:

“In our county (the larger hangars commonly referred to as commercial buildings) are not too much of a problem … at least not yet,” reported Ralph Eschenbach of Woodside, CA.

“All of the hangars here are bigger than 2,000 square feet and we have had no compliance problems. The only issue is when there is living space above the hangar in which case they require a 2-hour fire wall … two layers of drywall.” He went on two describe hangars with living spaces they are designing. They will feature prestressed concrete floors so the firewalls won’t be an issue.

“The commercial building business seems to have started with the insurance people who want to control everything. In some cases, as I am sure you know, homes with hangars in rural areas are called barns! Funny how that makes a difference eh!”

At the Sequim, Washington Discovery Trail Farm, Dave Le Roux says “plans for the first hangar were recently submitted to Clallam County’s Building Division. The hangar is greater than 2,000 square feet and taller than 20 feet. According to the international Building Code, a residential hangar is defined by its height and square footage. If it is larger than 2,000 square feet or taller than 20 feet, it is not considered a residential hangar.

“Like many counties, Clallam County has its own fire protection standards. If the hangar’s use meets the IBC definition of residential (size and height), then the county’s fire protection policy does not affect the structure. According to county building officials, if the hangar does not meet the residential definition, the owner has a variety of fire protection options including: sprinklers, 24-hour monitored fire alarm system, structure compartmentalization, fire resistive construction that will reduce or contain the fire until emergency response arrives and building setbacks.

“For this hangar,” Le Roux continued, “the architect has kept the hangar 30 feet from the road and property lines, designed a 2-hour firewall where the hangar connects to the house and specified the hangar be constructed with exterior 1-hour firewall material. According to the architect, this type construction is adding about $5,000 to the cost of the hangar.

“The bottom line for people building hangars is the interpretation and policy of the local jurisdiction in which they are building,” Le Roux concluded.

Recently we asked these questions and others of residential airpark residents. A total of 54 persons responded to the survey and they represented airparks in 22 states.

Since safety is the primary concern to everyone in aviation we can report that 79.6% of all those responding said “there have been no mishaps on our joint use taxiways.”

Another 22.5 percent of the respondents indicated “we’ve had less than 5 mishaps in the last 10 years.”

This is pretty much what we have heard from residents of airparks as well as those who have looked into the issue on an individual basis but this is the first direct response to the specific questions that we’ve received directly.

Of course, if a residential airpark has two homes and only one J-3 is operating there, the results could possibly be considerably different from an airpark with many homes and based airplanes of a variety of sizes so we asked questions relating to the size of the airpark, number of based planes, type of operation and a few other things.

Right off the top we are happy to relate that the accident results are the total for all respondents from airparks of all sizes operating aircraft of all types.

Here are the survey questions and their answers:

How many homes are presently on your airpark ?

• Under 10 – 41.2%
• 11-20 – 11.8%
• 21-35 – 13.7%
• 36-50 – 7.8%
• Over 50 – 25.5%

How many airplanes are based at your airpark?

• Under 10 – 28.9%
• 11-20 – 23.1%
• 21-35 – 15.4%
• 36-50 – 13.5%
• Over 50 – 19.2%

What airplane types operate at the airpark?

• Singles – 100%
• Twins – 61.5%
• Helicopters – 36.5%
• Ultralights – 30.8%
• Corporate – 7.7%
• Jets – 5.8%

Is your runway lighted?

• Yes – 71.7%
• No – 28.3%

What is the status of the airpark?

• Privately owned and private use only – 69.8%
• Public use airport with residential airpark – 22.6%
• Commercial operations on airport plus residential airpark – 7.6%

Interesting statistics but the main statement behind them is that residential airparks in general are safe places and those with joint use of taxiways for planes and cars are also extremely safe.

Does anyone have a schematic or other manual for this system that they will loan us? Does anyone have any experience with this system and can help us get back into operation?

Please contact:
Gus Hertz
gushertz@peoplepc.com
Mallards Landing
770-898-5357
(cell) 404-936-0250