Tim Aten provides a very reasoned response to J. Miller’s, perhaps uninformed, questions. Better yet, the reader comments that follow speak out very much in favor the airpark specifically and aviation in general.

Click here to read the full story.

The driver of the vehicle, a woman, 33, was crossing a runway when she
collided with a single-passenger plane that was preparing to take off,
Sgt. Tom Akeroyd said. The 54-year-old pilot and the woman were airlifted to University Hospital.

The woman’s 6-year-old son, a passenger in the vehicle, was also taken
to the hospital by a family member, officers said.

Akeroyd said the car’s driver lives in a house on the airfield grounds
and is the daughter of its owners, identified in property records as
Robert and Nancy Bruce.

An NTSB preliminary report posted on Oct 14 reads as follows:

"This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

"On October 13, 2007, about 1045 central daylight time, a single-engine Formhals RV-8 tailwheel-equipped experimental airplane, N628RV, was substantially damaged during a collision with an automobile during takeoff from the Boerne Stage Field Airport (5C1), near San Antonio, Texas. The private pilot and the occupants of the automobile were seriously injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The local flight was originating at the time of the accident.

"According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, who responded to the accident site, approximately 555-feet along the pilot’s takeoff roll from Runway 17, an automobile attempted to cross the runway. The pilot was unable to avoid the automobile which resulted in a collision. The airplane came to rest in an upright position. A post crash fire did not ensue. The pilot and automobile driver were air lifted to a local hospital.

"Photographs provided to the NTSB investigator-in-charge (IIC) revealed that the airplane’s wings and fuselage sustained structural damage."

One airpark has developed a warning light system so operators of cars will know when an aircraft is on the taxiway.

We use our CTAF (5 clicks to turn on, 7 off) to activate a rotating red beacon warning people not to open the electric access gate when the light is flashing. On the airport side, there’s a large railroad crossing style red light that homeowners look at to see if it’s safe to pull out of their driveways (taxiways) onto the runway (common road). The process of educating - reminding service people (UPS, propane truck, etc.) and other visitors is constant.

Our most serious problem remains unauthorized landings by people who see the numbers on our runway and can’t resist. Of course, these people don’t know about the light system. This doesn’t happen too often, but there have been a couple of close calls with vehicles.

For any who may be interested, Ramsey Electronics markets an inexpensive pilot controlled lighting receiver and switch.

The homeowners’ association says they are developing a set of rules, with explanatory FAQ’s, regarding the safety and right-of-way policies. It’s intended for the property owners - both pilots and non-pilots.

If you’ve tried any warning methods or are thinking about something, add your comments.

“On August 30, 1996 at 8:25 pm (CDT) a Swift, while taxiing at night after landing, was struck by a 12-year-old boy who was riding a mini bike on the taxiway…

“The pilot of the Swift reported that he landed on runway 09 and rolled out to the east mid-field taxiway. The aircraft made a left onto the cross taxiway and then entered the north taxiway and proceeded westbound. The pilot reported that an Arrow was on final approach for landing to runway 09 so he turned off the Swift’s landing lights so as not to blind the pilot. The pilot reported that he left the Swift’s position lights on. The pilot reported that seconds after the Arrow had passed behind the Swift he felt a collision with something. He shut down the engine and gout out to investigate. He reported that he discovered a 12-year-old boy and an unlighted mini bike under the aircraft…

“A witness reported that the boy had been at a friend’s house on the west end of the field. The boy was returning home on his unlighted 3.5 hp mini bike. He was wearing a helmet with a full face, clear plastic visor.

“The mini bike collected with the airplane on the center of the taxiway. The mini bike traveled underneath the aircraft’s left wing root area. The boy did about two hours later.”The examination of the accident site indicated the airplane’s engine cowling was dented above the engine exhaust stack. There were impact marks proceeding along the belly of the aircraft near the left wing root.”

Additional information in the report indicated the airpark rules had no prohibition concerning the use of bikes or motor bikes on the taxiway at night. There was also no rule concerning the use of landing lights while taxiing at night.

1. General access
a. Access to individual
b. Access to public
c. Foot access only
d. Vehicle access

2. Runway & taxiway
a. Access to taxiway
1. Airplanes
2. Vehicles
3. Foot
4. Non-motorized
b. Access to runway
1. Airplanes
2. Vehicles
3. Foot
4. Non-Motorized

3. Public areas
a. Commercial aviation operations
b. Community amenities
c. Tiedown areas
d. Restaurants

4. Individual homes
a. Driveways
b. Taxiways

5. Hangar
a. Free standing
b. Integrated into home
c. Available to Public

6.Tiedowns
a. Public areas
b. Individual homesites

7. Fences
a. From streets
b. From Individual properties
c. Around Runway and Taxiway

8. Alarms & Security systems
a. Cameras
b. Signs
c. Sirens
d. Lighting

Explanation of terms:
Controlled – a controlled access requires a gate with a fence that is kept locked or otherwise available to a restricted population
Foot access – A person can park a vehicle and walk onto the ramp or tiedown area.
Vehicle access – A person can drive to individual properties, tiedown area or elsewhere on the airport.
Non-motorized – Access to tiedown and hangar areas by means of bicycles, horses, etc.

1. General access
Residential airparks generally are secure because residents know each other, the individuals, their vehicles and airplanes. Strange individuals, vehicles and airplanes are noted in short order. Homes frequently are occupied around the clock providing additional security because of awareness.

2. Runway and taxiway
Residential airpark runways frequently are turf and relatively short, thus limiting the size of aircraft utilizing them.

3. Public areas
FBOs, restaurants, commercial business establishments are rare on residential airparks. Those having such entities need to make special arrangements to secure the runway and taxiway facility from these facilities.

4. Individual Homes (Private areas)
Homes on residential airparks usually are on relatively large lots providing open spaces between them. This allows open lines of sight for approaching or passing individuals, vehicles or airplanes.

5. Hangars
Hangars owned by airpark residents but detached and separated from the individual homes are generally considered more secure than hangars on commercial areas rented to (or owned by) non-residents.

6. Tiedown areas
Like hangar space, tiedowns occupied by airplanes of residents are generally considered more secure than tiedowns occupied by airplanes owned by non-residents.

7. Fencing
Residential airpark fencing can be of several types. Individual lots can be fenced completely. Access to the entire property can be limited by perimeter fencing.
Fencing from individual lots and commercial – public areas can limit runway and taxiway access.

8. Security and Alarm Systems
a. Security systems (in addition to fencing) can include intruder alarms connected to police, fire or alarm watch companies.
b. Private security patrol firms can survey the property on a pre-arranged basis.
c. Sirens and lighting can enhance security by announcing and revealing intruders
d. ID cards issued to residents allows verification.
e. Applying decals or some visual item makes it easier to note intruders

Self Certification suggestions:

Listed below are numerous aspects of a residential airpark and potential security concerns and answers. By examining each area with your fellow residents you should be able to agree on which areas of security you feel need to be strengthened, which are already in place and which ones you feel are not important enough to give further consideration.

A. GENERAL ACCESS
1. Perimeter fencing
2. Individual gate openers
3. On-duty gate guard
4. Clear sight lines into runway and taxiway from street
5. No public access
6. No commercial operations
7. No non-resident hangars or tiedowns

B. RUNWAY & TAXIWAY
1. Not accessible except from individual properties
2. Fenced access
3. On duty guard
4. Electronic gate openers

C. PUBLIC AREAS
1. For residents only, ie, pool, clubhouse
2. Adequate security-type lighting
3. Restricted access by fence
4. Clearly visible from street
5. No aircraft access
6. Private security patrol

D. INDIVIDUAL HOMES
1. Individual security & alarm systems
2. Completely fenced
3. Gates with locks
4. Access only to taxiway
5. Adequate outdoor lighting

E. HANGARS
1. Enclosed hangars with locks
2. No public hangars
3. Active alarms & Security systems
4. Private security patrol
5. Adequate lighting
6. Automated intrusion alarm

F. TIEDOWN AREAS
1. Adequate lighting
2. No public tiedowns
3. Fenced tiedown area
4. Private Security Patrol
5. Automated Intrusion alarm
6. Prop locks
7. Enhanced airplane cabin door locks
8. Airplane alarms

G. FENCING
1. 6-foot chain link fence with locked gate
2. Automated intrusion alarms on fence
3. Limited access points through perimeter fencing

H. AUTOMATED SECURITY SYSTEMS
1. Adequate lighting
2. Sirens
3. Alarms at individual homes
4. Alarms at public areas
5. Private security patrol
6. On site inspection by authorized official
7. Neighborhood watch organised
8. Telephone tree organized
9. Resident patrol organized
10. ID cards issued for all residents
11. Inventory all vehicles & planes
12. Decals or other visual items distributed for all vehicles and planes
13. Accurate layout of airpark with all structures posted in central spot
14. Layout distributed to local law enforcement and fire department

* Are clear zones needed at the end of a runway?
* How will taxiway location affect the number of airpark lots?
* How many lots can have direct access to the runway?
* Is it necessary to create taxiways or can all properties reach the runway directly?
* If a taxiway is required, can it be exclusively for airplanes or can aircraft and ground vehicles such as cars and bicycles jointly use it?

The last issue – joint use of a taxiway by both aircraft and cars, bikes, horses, etc. – has become an extremely controversial issue at a number of residential airparks. In some cases the controversy over joint use starts with the local governing agency or zoning agency. Sometimes the question is raised when the airpark developer talks to a firm he wants to write an insurance policy. Often would-be lot buyers protest the issue because of safety concerns.

Many individuals have contacted Living With Your Plane about this issue. Among some of the questions asked:

Are there very many airparks utilizing a joint use arrangement?

How is the safety record for airparks with joint use of taxiways?

One inquiry concerned utilizing the runway for both airplanes and access to homes for cars.

Some information was already available to us at Living With Your Plane and some wasn’t. A lot of it hadn’t been updated recently, either, so we set out to see what information could be obtained.

We’ve compiled a listing of airparks that do utilize taxiways for both planes and ground vehicles and have included them in an adjoining list. We are sure there are other airparks that also have joint use operations in place but we haven’t heard from them yet.

To get to the most critical issue first, we can report that in all the years we’ve been tracking residential airparks only one serious accident between an airplane and ground vehicle – a fatality – has come to our attention. That occurred several years ago near Chicago when a taxiing airplane and a bicycle collided on a taxiway. The youngster riding the bike was killed.

We’re certainly believe there have been other incidents – fender-benders if we were to use auto terms – at joint use airparks but they don’t have to be reported to the FAA or NTSB because no one was injured or the damage was not substantial or both.

One person in Texas told us the airpark on which he owns a lot utilizes the runway for planes and access to homes by vehicles. He didn’t realize it until after he had purchased his property and he’s none to happy about the situation. Unfortunately, the other property owners see no problem with the operation and aren’t willing to make any changes, he reported. Needless to say, he didn’t want his name or the airpark’s name and location revealed.

Jamie Treat, secretary of Kelly Airpark homeowners association in Elbert, CO, reported, “we have aircraft - auto roads that service the outer lots. They join the east/west taxiways. You can go to our website and pull up the plat”(to see the full arrangement). (http://www.Kellyairpark.com). He also pointed out that per the development plan, the county maintains the aircraft – auto roads.

Another development that has joint airplane – auto use is Mid Valley Airpark in Los Lunas, NM. Marv Kaylor sent the following information:

“Mid Valley Airpark has aircraft taxiways on which the public may travel in normal ground vehicles. Aircraft have the right of way at all times. This is posted at all entrances.
“There are no paved areas on which aircraft are prohibited. We have a taxiway parallel to the main runway as well as the runways themselves that are for aircraft only.
“All other paved areas are taxiways first and streets second. We have public vehicles such as school busses, delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, and general traffic every day. There is no through traffic and there are only 2 entry points for the airpark. Each entrance is at a railroad crossing and the boundaries of the airpark are very clearly defined.
“To my knowledge, there have not been any problems with this over the approximately 32 years of the airpark’s operation.”

Public officials, such as those who issue building permits or approve sub-division plats, rarely have much knowledge of general aviation. Because of the general lack of information, it is usually easier for a governmental office to simply prohibit things that don’t sound right to them and that happens often, we are told.

Some other comments from airpark property owners:

“Eagle Neck (1GA0), south of Savannah, GA, has combined street/taxi ways. No problems so far,” according to Dick Sipp.

“Elm Creek Estates residential airpark in Seguin, TX has a main road which is also a primary (but not the only) taxiway. It has been inhabited for more than 10 years and has 40 lots, 27 of which have both hangars and homes or combined hangar-homes,” reports a property owner. He continues:

“The road is the private property of the homeowner’s association. It is paved and maintained to county standards by ‘chip and seal’ repaving at approximately seven year intervals. Owning the road has no effect either way on property taxes,” he adds. The road is posted giving aircraft the right-of-way. No problems have arisen from the right of way. Not all lots require use of the road to reach the runway.”
Pilot Country Estates (X05) in Florida has a single paved runway (36/18) with a parallel taxiway on each side, running full length of the runway. These taxiways are also the driveways for access to the homes. There are areas too narrow for aircraft and cars to pass. There is a “mid field” turnoff from the runway to the west taxiway,” is information from Bob Gibson of Clearwater, FL

A different viewpoint on the situation comes from Deron Reynolds who is in the throes of trying to develop an airpark in Michigan. He says:

“I strongly feel that the layout of an airpark should have clear delineation between taxiways and roadways. All of the designs I have for my future airpark have grass taxiways in the backs of 5-acre properties leading to the grass strip, and paved roads in the front of properties leading to the main road.
“I feel this way for several reasons. Aesthetically, I want people to be able to walk out the back of their property and see nothing but rolling grass fields. We will be encouraging children and horses to utilize this space as well, with only the runway itself being an area to avoid. Practically, I don’t like the right of way issues associated with dual use roads, even though I understand there have been virtually no mishaps with this setup.” Reynolds concludes.

John Eney, airport manager at Chesapeake Ranch Airport (MD50) at Lusby, MD writes that there is not a joint use at his airport. “We do have an unfenced airport with the runway frequently traversed by joggers, bikers, golf carts and parents pushing babies in strollers on the runway. Pray for us!”
Finally, word from Gordon Holm of Payson, AZ:

“Mazatzal Mountain Airpark at Payson, AZ has street - taxiways designated in the plot plan and aircraft have the right of way. The only problem has been ‘looky loo’s’ with gray hair not knowing aircraft cannot back up. Given time they get the message and get out of the way. A turning prop is a good message and they turn tail and are gone.
“We had a problem with the horse folks for a while in that their assumption (as most horse people) that in Arizona horses have the right of way. With the help of some aviation interested horsemen they got the message that in the area of taxiway - streets the aircraft have the right of way.”

Most airpark developers and those who have had experience at one will probably agree that the best course of action is to keep airplanes separated from cars, bikes, horses, etc. if at all possible. However, joint use apparently can be accomplished in a manner that is safe as evidenced by numerous examples.

Here’s the list of airparks that we have been informed have joint use of streets - taxiways (arranged by state):

Mazatzal Mt. Airpark , Payson, AZ
Cameron Airpark, Shingle Springs, CA
Leeward Air Ranch, Ocala, FL
Pilot Country Estates, Springs Hill, FL
Spruce Creek, Daytona Beach FL
Eagle Neck, Shellman Bluff, GA
Lake Aero Estates, Lake Village, IN
Gold Hill Airpark, Gold Hill, NC
Aero Plantation, Wseddington, NC
Marchmont Plantation, Advance, NC
Elk Creek Estates, Seguin, TX

“Due to the rural location of the Airpark and fuel permitting, a low approach over the intended runway of use before landing is a reasonable precautionary measure.”

Since we have three runways, it is sometimes necessary to check all three to ensure the right choice is being made. (Yes, very much tongue in cheek.)

We don’t worry too much about enforcing it since most owners are willing to comply.

Terry Pierce Mojave, CA

When I first moved here I had a Glasair III, which can do an impressive flyby. I did them often at that time, usually in response to requests on the unicom frequency, which turned out to be coming only from one source. My wife (also a pilot, and qualified in the Glasair) did not like flybys. To tell the truth, I discovered I did not really enjoy doing them either, especially when I heard how many people found them annoying. I found I got much more enjoyment and more favorable show-off time by going out in the uncontrolled airspace a couple of miles away from our traffic pattern and doing aerobatics legally.

Some years ago, our Board of Trustees attempted to define how flybys should be flown at Grassy Meadows. A couple of the board members brought up the issue of FAR 91.119, which states something like “Except for purposes of take off and landing, no aircraft shall be operated closer than 500 feet to persons, vehicles, or structures.” The board decided that they risking considerable liability if they officially approved operations that violated FARs (we have several homes, including mine, that are only 200 or 250 feet from the centerline of the runway). Any mention of flybys was therefore dropped from the airport rules.

For me, the last straw came a couple of years ago when the developer invited a Lear Jet into our airpark. One problem was that our runway does not have the capacity for a Lear Jet, but that is a separate issue. On departure, he was persuaded to do a no-radio flyby at about 20ft AGL, and supposedly at less than 250KIAS, downwind (our calm wind runway is 16, and he came down 34). After the flyby (which took him over some homes at the north end of the runway and through the airspace of the Hurricane Municipal airport 2.5 miles north of us), he did a steep climb that included an aileron roll. (he denied the roll, but several people saw it) Very pretty, but really asking for trouble, which we all got.

In our case at least, most of our residents and members feel like we are not being good neighbors and are possibly jeopardizing our rights by doing “Yee Haw” flying, especially in this post 911 era of suspicion about small aircraft. We feel like we will be better served by not getting the non-flying public annoyed with us.

Sincerely,
Ray Batson