What’s the safety record for residential airparks? That’s a frequent question I’m asked at forums and in other conversations.

The answer is that airparks have excellent safety records. The number of reported accidents is extremely low and that includes on airport mishaps and situations that occur off the airpark itself with planes either in the takeoff or approach to landing phase of flight.

A common fear that everyone seems to have is the joint use of streets as passageways for planes and cars or other ground-bound vehicles or pedestrians.

In actuality, that has not been a problem and once again the reports of any collisions between planes and anything else on a joint-use taxiway is non-existent.

We did learn of a fatal accident in Illinois in 1996. It occurred when a Globe GC-1B Swift struck a 12-year-old boy on a mini bike. The youngster was fatally injured.

According to the NTSB report, the accident occurred on Case de Aero Airpark at Hampshire, Ill. The NTSB report states:

“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.

Recently we heard of a light twin engine airplane off the end of a residential airpark runway. Fortunately no one was hurt, but the airplane suffered extensive damage. There was no fire. No personal property, other than the plane, was damaged or threatened. No homes on the airpark or adjacent to it were threatened in any way, nor were any individuals.

In the aftermath of the incident, several issues came up, none of which the residents and owners of the airpark had previously addressed.

After the aircraft went off the end of the runway, the local law enforcement agencies were called by someone as was the fire department. The news media, hearing the police and fire department dispatchers sending vehicles to the scene of an “airplane crash,” converged on the site.

The emergency vehicles – several police cars and a couple fire trucks – came roaring onto the airport property down the runway and taxiway. They were followed in short order by the news media, TV and newspaper reporters, and even some freelance photographers complete with video cameras and still cameras.

When they congregated in the yard of the property owner closest to the scene of the incident, the property owner asked several to move because they were tearing up his yard which was soft because of lots of rain. The police advised the individual the media could be there even if it was private property.

This particular airpark didn’t have any prepared plan for dealing with accidents or incidents on the airpark property or immediately adjacent to the property. No one individual was authorized to speak for the airpark. There was no arrangement for dealing with law enforcement agencies, fire departments or the media.

Preparing for such eventualities can help you in several ways.

We all know that non-aviation people have little if any information about general aviation aircraft. They all think aviation fuel is more volatile than regular auto gas and that airplanes will explode at any moment.

With such ideas indelibly etched into their minds because of movies and TV shows, it is no wonder that these departments step in with actions that are overkill.

With prepared disaster plans, airpark residents can have a better opportunity to address these concerns and have more input into situations. Such a plan will probably help preserve the airplane and lessen further damage that can be caused by well meaning emergency personnel.

An emergency plan should include items like who to call for specific types of emergencies. A list of authorized spokesmen. It should include plans for dealing with media and other types of vehicular traffic and pedestrians.

Contacting the fire department and police agency for their assistance in developing such a plan will probably help you get the job done more easily. Another way of preparing such a plan is to contact the manager of the nearest airport with an operating control tower. They will have a written disaster plan that you can adapt to your own uses.

Working with, the emergency crews is a given, but by having someone who is prepared to deal with them and explain different situations to them will help everyone.

At the same time, a person who is prepared and able to deal with the media in a fair and honest manner will help lessen any negative impact that might occur from such an accident. You should always be truthful with members of the media and try to provide them all the information that is pertinent. Being helpful and courteous, even though many of the TV and newspaper people seem abrupt and rude, will help insure that your coverage will be less negative.

Remember, those media people are just trying to do a job and often they are working against a tight time schedule. And, of course, the public is fascinated by airplane accidents and the reason is that they are so rare. You’ll fare much better giving members of the media immediate access and assistance rather than trying to block them out and hinder their efforts.

Has the developer of your airpark turned the runway and related properties over to the homeowner’s association? Has that been done since you’ve been involved on the airpark?

A LWYPA member says the developer of the airpark on which he has a home must soon deed over.the runway and taxiways and certain other parts of the property to the homeowners association.

While there doesn’t appear to be any conflict and the developer has been quite open and straight forward on all issues, this individual wants to make sure everything continues operating on that same level.

He has checked the CC&Rs and finds they don’t completely address all the questions that have come to his mind and that of others who have property at the airpark. For example, one of the unresolved issues is how the homeowners association will operate since the developer has more lots in his inventory than there are owned by individuals. Does the developer get to vote all his lots in such a case? Does that mean the developer caii control all actions if that occurs?

What has happened at your airpark in such situations? Can you share with other members of the association how you resolved these issues or others that occurred?

We suggested that a knowledgeable real estate attorney be secured by the homeowners association to protect their interests.

This is another of those situations where it is so critical that all aspects be considered ahead of time. Things like the homeowners association getting control of the runway and related properties needs to be included in agreements before properties are sold so everyone knows where they stand.

This is a critically important situation that needs input. Please call or write and tells us about your experiences so we can pass them on.

A member of the association asks for suggestions on how to curb the “aggressive” flying habits of an airpark resident. He describes “aggressive” as low passes; aerobatics over nearby residential areas, loud operations early on weekend mornings and other similar behavior.

The questioner says there is already friction at the airpark among several people and he wants to resolve this issue without creating a lot more tension and problems.

Of course, if there’s illegal or dangerous flying going on, you owe it to yourself and the other airpark homeowners to get that sort of stuff eliminated immediately. If friendly discussions don’t work and this is really dangerous or illegal, you might have to bring the FAA into the matter.

Most of the situations, which may not be illegal or dangerous but are highly disrupting to airpark residents and other neighbors, need to be resolved as quickly as possible. This type of trouble can result in airpark closures at the worst, lawsuits that cost a lot of money or ill feelings in the neighborhood at the least.

The best way to handle these is to enforce the covenants, conditions and restrictions, (CC&Rs). Usually there are some provisions in most of the CC&Rs that prohibit such flying activities. If there aren’t, some by-laws and operating rules need to be established and enforced.

If the matter is handled through the homeowners association, personality conflicts can be avoided best. In other words, the association is requiring the actions, rather than any individual.

If the case is really flagrant and the individual or individuals involved are really belligerent, it might even be better for the association to obtain the services of an outside third party to handle the discussion and present the details so anger isn’t directed at a neighbor.

Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and the situation can be resolved without going to such extremes. The earlier such incidents are resolved; the better off everyone is going to be. Allowing situations to grow and fester only make them worse.

Anyone got any other ideas? How about situations in which you had to solve the problems? Please submit your ideas, actions and solutions so we can share them with everyone.

Here’s a situation that is scary for most residential airparks.

Dr. Richard A. Landy, managing member of Brush Creek Airport which is developing Crested Butte Airpark in Colorado, has run into a situation in which the local fire district is insisting that he provide firefighting equipment at the airstrip.

Despite word from the FAA that no such equipment is required by them and assurances from LWYP that no other residential airpark has been required to provide such equipment for a private facility, the fire district continued to insist on the equipment.

Dr. Landy, in order to move ahead with his project, proposed to the district that he would provide, at no cost to the fire district, a site on the airpark for a fire station. Additionally, he would acquire a used fire truck suitable for an airport operation and give it to the fire district.

The fire district would be responsible for building a fire station and maintaining the equipment, in Dr. Landy’s proposal.

Has any other residential airpark been subjected to such requirements? Please give us any information you have relative to such situations.