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

It is my contention that this is an erroneous assumption for the following reasons:

1. Persons acquiring residential airpark property are individuals who do not consider airport noise, aroma or regulations as problems. They acquire property on a residential airpark because they want to be at the airport.
2. Residential airpark property owners pay their fair share of taxes and fees by virtue of Through-the-Fence fees, real estate and personal property taxes. In studies made by Living With Your Plane property values on residential airparks usually are 10-20 percent higher than like property in the same community not on a residential airpark.
3. Airpark property deeds can include restrictions on noise and other complaints against the airport.
4. There is no evidence that residential airpark property owners complain about airport noise or other conditions.
5. Security at public airports is enhanced by the proximity of residential airpark residents who are interested and knowledgeable of aviation activities.
6. Residential airpark property owners are strong contributors to the financial success of on-airport operators through their purchases of fuel, maintenance, avionics, instruction, etc.
7. On airport hangar homes provide similar benefits to the airport and its tenants, ie, FBOs, fuel sales, rent and higher property value.

FAA cites its expenditures to purchase homes adjacent to or near airports because of noise complaints and safety issues. These issues have been created at Part 121 airports. There is no evidence that any residential airparks have been proposed or developed adjacent to or on any Part 121 airport.

It is my opinion that FAA can easily continue improving public-owned airports through AIP funding at airports without Part 121 operations without disturbing or objecting to Through-the-Fence residential airparks. Only at Part 121 Airports is there a question of incompatible land use from an adjacent residential airpark.

When FAA requires airports receiving AIP grants to zone adjacent land in a certain manner, at the same time it can require deed restrictions to enhance the compatibility of land use.

Do you have comments/thoughts? Post them below and we’ll pass them along to FAA, AOPA and EAA.

“The extension is part of a multi-pronged investment in the airport. Other initiatives will see the construction of a new 1,800 square-foot terminal building, resurfacing of the existing runway and a feasibility study on establishing an airport industrial park and airpark. The majority of the money – 90% or $2.1 million – came from the federal Community Adjustment Fund.”

Does anyone know if the Community Adjustment Fund and/or Transport Canada has any restrictions against thru-the-fence operations on a federally funded airport? If you know, comment below. Either way, click through to read the story. Hopefully some exciting things happening in Tillsonburg.

Under the proposal, 95 percent of the buyout cost would borne by FAA and the remaining 5 percent would be funded through the Panhandle Area Council or some other funding source that has not been identified yet.

“It is really frustrating that the FAA did not take any public comment or input on the topic,” Blue said. The Airport Compliance Manual states what airports must do to receive and keep Airport Improvement Grant monies.

FAA Administrator, Randy Babbitt, when asked about this issue at the AOPA Aviation Summit, only responded that the FAA is waiting to hear from the alphabet groups on their thoughts on the subject.

“Hangar residences improved airport security by having people around the airport 24/7 plus increases the economic vitality of the airport” Blue remarked at the Summit while handing out TTF buttons which display “Stop the FAA insanity” on the top. “Why the FAA thinks hangar homes near airports should be considered the same as non aviation related homes near airports is beyond rational thought.”

The new organization can be reached and comments placed on its blog at www.throughthefence.org.