Covenants at the airpark state no shrubbery or trees should be planted less than 45 feet from the centerline of the taxiway. His were placed approximately 15 feet from the centerline. The covenants don’t say anything about stakes.

Who should pay for the damage to my Mooney? Me or the homeowner? The homeowner says it’s the pilot’s responsibility to see and avoid all obstacles as stated in the FARs. He basically shut down the taxiway and I couldn’t stop quick enough to avoid hitting them.

Thought you folks might have some ideas for me.

Thanks Dennis

P.S – AOPA directed me to your web site.

Answer: Unfortunately, it appears to me if you and your fellow resident can’t resolve this amicably between yourselves it will be necessary to consult an attorney to satisfy your situation.

I am not an attorney and certainly am not qualified to comment on the legal aspects of your disagreement. However, common sense makes it seems to me there probably is some negligence on both sides and you should find a way to get the issue resolved without having to resort to hiring attorneys or taking other legal steps.

Far too often maintenance and normal upkeep is put on the back burner during the winter months. That’s especially true in areas where the property gets buried in snow or other inclement weather. With that time situation, flying is often down and the net result is that problems with the runway and taxiway are missed.

Here’s a quick checklist to get your airpark into top shape for the upcoming increase in flying weather and related flying activities:

1. Paved runway – Has foul freezing and thawing created bad spots on the surface? Have cracks developed in the asphalt or concrete? Can you see any depressions on the surface, indicating a possible failure of the base under the pavement ? How about moss – this can seriously reduce braking ability if present? If you plowed the runway, were any reflectors knocked loose or lights damaged? Did the plow create any gouges in the pavement?
2. Unpaved runway – Is the turf too soft now for safe operations? Is a NOTAM needed to make sure no one tries to takeoff or land on a very soft strip? Have rocks protruded onto the surface? Are puddles of water standing on the runway or taxiways? Do some area need to be reworked to make sure they have a proper crown to allow water to drain properly? Are there bare spots in the turf that need to be reseeded?
3. Runway lighting – Are all the lights working properly? Are the covers clean? Have reflectors disappeared? If they are pilot controlled, is the control mechanism working properly? If on auto timers or photo cells have those survived the winter weather to function adequately?
4. Surrounding area – Have trees or shrubs grown into the approach corridors to the runway? Is there a need to prune bushes along the taxiway areas? Have neighbors erected new towers that should be noted? Are there any new buildings that should get special attention, ie, schools, churches, hospitals, etc.?
5. Signage –Are the airpark entry signs clean and neat appearing? Do they need updating? Are there warning signs that should be replaced, such as no trespassing or watch for airplanes, etc.?

The main thing is that you become aware of your residential airpark and its environs. Make a walking tour of all the areas that planes and cars might travel and make sure everything is in good order.

First there was the proposed rulings pertaining to aircraft over 12,500 pounds. Next the agency has been coming up with new requirements for pilots and airplane owners at airports with airline operations and finally the onerous agency actions related to those wanting to fly their own aircraft to and from Canada.

General Aviation News, AOPA and EAA recently have all published information about these issues and they all deserve prompt attention from pilots.

With all these attempts to “keep the country safe” by placing more and more restrictions on general aviation I fear it won’t be too much longer before the agency comes after residential airparks with attempts to limit actions and make flying more inconvenient.Some time ago I came up with a residential airpark self-certification plan and posted it here on Living With Your Plane.

This self-certification plan is designed to make your flyin community a safer place against all kinds of intruders, primarily burglars or vandals. I don’t honestly believe terrorists are about to invade a residential airpark to steal a plane and commit it to illicit acts of violence. But, the self-certification could keep the Homeland Security and other federal agencies off the back of airpark residents by showing we’ve already gotten everything done that is needed to keep the runways and airplanes safe.

In addition, the self-certification plan can be used to show local political entities, law enforcement agencies and others that flyin communities are responsible, law-abiding and security conscious.

Take a look at our security plan and see how you can utilize all or parts of it to improve your facility and hopefully ward off those who really don’t have a clue about general aviation but keep trying to affect us anyway.

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