Re: Runway yes or no [UPDATE]

[James Robinson]

Kevin wrote:
>
> The decision to approve or deny a private runway (in Idaho) is based
> on the planning and zoning committee. This is amazing to me that a
> group of regular folks who know nothing of what it takes for an
> airplane to take off or land AND ALSO, the planning and zoning
> committee will not accept any responsibility or liability if their
> decision was wrong and planes crash.

It sounds as if the Planning commission is strictly ruling on the
principle of whether they want a runway in their community or not, and
are not ruling on the safety aspects. They are leaving the safety
aspects up to the person designing the runway. Seems perfectly
reasonable.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:36:03 -0500 (EST), "Kevin"
> wrote:

>The decision to approve or deny a private runway (in Idaho) is based
>on the planning and zoning committee. This is amazing to me that a
>group of regular folks who know nothing of what it takes for an
>airplane to take off or land AND ALSO, the planning and zoning
>committee will not accept any responsibility or liability if their
>decision was wrong and planes crash.

My opinion:

If you are putting up a private runway, it should be your business. The
planning and zoning board gets involved only because they are involved with
any kind of land use within your community.

If you want to open your runway to the public, then *you* (not the planning
board) have, and should have, the responsibility that it be safe for its
intended purpose.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Eric Rood]

The runway/property owner also bears the liability responsibility.

[Agent1]

Kevin wrote:
>[snip]
> FAA - The FAA has no interest in approving or denying a private runway
> on private land outside city limits or maybe even inside city limits.
>
> (In the state of Idaho) the Dept. of Transportation has an aeronautics
> division. That department has guidlines on runway construction which
> is 2000 feet length plus one third of the elevation. The Dept. of
> Transportation also insists they do not approve or deny a private
> runway on private land. In addition, they say a person can make a
> runway any length they want and their dept. will not oppose it in any
> way.
>
> The decision to approve or deny a private runway (in Idaho) is based
> on the planning and zoning committee. This is amazing to me that a
> group of regular folks who know nothing of what it takes for an
> airplane to take off or land AND ALSO, the planning and zoning
> committee will not accept any responsibility or liability if their
> decision was wrong and planes crash.
>[snip]

You just said the Department of Transportation sets the runway guidelines.

-Agent1

[John T]

"Kevin" > wrote in message
news:bm9yaWtv.776b3da90af75f5c14128e7e83723ba2@107 9315944.nulluser.com
>
> I called the dept and i made a comment saying, "what
> planes may use the runwy cause they didn't list any. Sure, there was a
> discussion I presume but when I addressed that issue that they did not
> specify what types of aircraft would be approved I was told first...

Why would they? It's a *private* strip.

> They told me many public runways are shorter
> than that but they also admitted those runways were likely either
> already in an area with minimal room or the city grew around them.

Key phrase: "Public".

> Still, a private runway on private property out of town
> only needs to be approved by a planning and zoning commission and NO
> ONE else.

Have you talked to your neighbor in a constructive manner, yet?

Why are you here? Are you looking for sympathy? Are you looking for help
in keeping your neighbor from building a runway? Would you want the
government telling you *everything* you can do on the land you bought with
your hard-earned money?

It looks like you're just trolling again.

> Another interesting bit of trivia the FAA told me was that when they
> DO get involved in approving runways, they do not care (not at all)
> where the owner's property line ends and the neighbor's property
> begins... I.E there is a one thousand foot safety zone according to
> Class A "FAA" runway on each end of the runway and the FAA is not
> interested if that 1000 feet is the owners property or the neighbors.
> This is what the FAA told me.

Remember, there's a difference between "public" and "private" airfields.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[[email protected]]

James Robinson > wrote in message >...
> Kevin wrote:
> >
> > The decision to approve or deny a private runway (in Idaho) is based
> > on the planning and zoning committee. This is amazing to me that a
> > group of regular folks who know nothing of what it takes for an
> > airplane to take off or land AND ALSO, the planning and zoning
> > committee will not accept any responsibility or liability if their
> > decision was wrong and planes crash.
>
> It sounds as if the Planning commission is strictly ruling on the
> principle of whether they want a runway in their community or not, and
> are not ruling on the safety aspects. They are leaving the safety
> aspects up to the person designing the runway. Seems perfectly
> reasonable.


SLightly off topic. In private airstrip law does the air over the
adjcent farmers corn field belong to the airstrip? Meaning is there an
air easement concept that would prevent the building to appear to
close the airport?

I have a feeling that the corn field used for the approach is like
trees maybe. The airstrip will close when the area builds up?

Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA

[Bill Denton]

Allow me to clarify a point that some seem to find confusing:

It is not at all unusual for an agency to develop and promulgate a
specification/recommendation as an "advisory specification/recommendation",
but not enforce the specification/recommendation in any way.

Further, it is also not unusual for another agency to reference that
recommendation/specification in a regulation, which has the force of law,
and which is enforced by this agency.

Let's take a look at an example:

"Agency A" creates a set of "Standards For Airports". The only standard is:
"All tracts of land containing an airport shall have a really big orange "A"
painted somewhere on the property." But it is strictly a standard, a
recommended method of doing something, and "Agency A" does not enforce it.

"Agency B" then creates a set of "Regulations For Airports". The only
regulation is: "All airports shall be constructed in accordance with "Agency
A"'s "Standards For Airports". And since this is a regulation, "Agency B"
will enforce the standard set by "Agency A".

I hope this makes it a bit more clear...


"Kevin" > wrote in message
news:bm9yaWtv.776b3da90af75f5c14128e7e83723ba2@107 9315944.nulluser.com...
> No I didn't. It seems too insane to try to repeat but the dept of
> trans. "has" guidlines... they do not enforce their guidlines. The
> property owner wanting the runway went to the dept of trans and they
> submitted their plans. the dept typed a letter to them commending them
> on their plan. I called the dept and i made a comment saying, "what
> planes may use the runwy cause they didn't list any. Sure, there was a
> discussion I presume but when I addressed that issue that they did not
> specify what types of aircraft would be approved I was told first...
> they do not approve or deny runways, they said a guy can build any
> length runway he wants and the dept will not jump in. their guidlines
> of 2000' plus one third elevation should work fine for a cessna but
> they did not draw the line anywhere. They agreed with me that the
> runway would not be long enough for come cases but .... then it gets
> back to their guidlines. They told me many public runways are shorter
> than that but they also admitted those runways were likely either
> already in an area with minimal room or the city grew around them.
> They also said runways built today would not be built as short as some
> older runways. Still, a private runway on private property out of town
> only needs to be approved by a planning and zoning commission and NO
> ONE else.
>
> Another interesting bit of trivia the FAA told me was that when they
> DO get involved in approving runways, they do not care (not at all)
> where the owner's property line ends and the neighbor's property
> begins... I.E there is a one thousand foot safety zone according to
> Class A "FAA" runway on each end of the runway and the FAA is not
> interested if that 1000 feet is the owners property or the neighbors.
> This is what the FAA told me.
>
>
> > You just said the Department of Transportation sets the runway
> guidelines.
> >
> > -Agent1
>
>
>

[ASJ]

>> It sounds as if the Planning commission is strictly ruling on the
>> principle of whether they want a runway in their community or not,
> and
>> are not ruling on the safety aspects. They are leaving the safety
>> aspects up to the person designing the runway. Seems perfectly
>> reasonable.
>
> There is a set of guidlines that I am told the planning and zoning
> folks are sworn to live up to. If they fall short of that it is the
> commissioner's job to turn it down regardless.
>
> I am trying very hard to understand your comment of leaving safety to
> the owner and it seeming perfectly reasonable but what I see

I understand you don't want a runway on your neighbors land, and taking off
my pilots hat I can sort of understand the fright the general public has
with it. It's scary, something lifts almost magically from the earth and
go zooming over head.

But pilots are concerned with safety, and people using airports are
concerned with safety. Why? Because it's them in the seat and it's them
who will get hurt if something goes wrong. So who do you think is more
concerned? You the guy who doesn't know how to fly or the pilot with
training and his butt in the sling? I choose _not_ to fly into a coulpe
local public airports, and most private strips because I don't believe
their safe with my plane. If I had a J-3 cub, then it would be a different
story.

Now people take risks you don't agree with, but living is about risks. I
may die of a heart attack, or have a head on collision with a car driving
home from work today. I still drive though. Maybe a horse and buggy like
the local amish would be safer? Do they view me and taking unneeded risks
with my soul and the afterlife?

My 2 cents,

-Andrew

--
Andrew Stanley-Jones | "It's kind of fun to do the impossible."
EE, LongEz N87KJ | -- Walt Disney

[G.R. Patterson III]

Kevin wrote:
>
> I guess this is new to you but concept of flying a plane is based on
> safety. There are always going to be people like you who think you can
> change the rules of safety and make a runway any dam way you please
> but the math doesn't add up. People like you may insist "I only need a
> 1000 foot runway" and one day you will found on the end of your runway
> waiting for an ambulance. If that is what you want to do, fine, but
> stay away from the rest of humanity because you are a crackpot.

So you're back to prove once again that you don't know your ass from a hole in
the ground. You are succeeding admirably.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[Cub Driver]

>In private airstrip law does the air over the
>adjcent farmers corn field belong to the airstrip? Meaning is there an
>air easement concept that would prevent the building to appear to
>close the airport?

Evidently the rule that you can't block access to a runway applies
only to public-use airports. The guy with a runway on his own
property, for his own use, had better make sure he can clear any
obstacle the neighbors might reasonably construct (or allow to grow).

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dave Buckles]

Kevin wrote:

> I guess this is new to you but concept of flying a plane is based on
> safety. There are always going to be people like you who think you can
> change the rules of safety and make a runway any dam way you please
> but the math doesn't add up. People like you may insist "I only need a
> 1000 foot runway" and one day you will found on the end of your runway
> waiting for an ambulance. If that is what you want to do, fine, but
> stay away from the rest of humanity because you are a crackpot.

I fly a Maule. If I'm found at the end of the runway, waiting for an
ambulance, it's because I called it for somebody else.

Now, if I was flying my Tampico, or the Baron, or any of several other
airplanes, yes, that'd be close.

See the difference? In the Tampico, I'd be comfortable with 2000 feet.
On those incredibly rare days when things (most likely a combination
of wind and density altitude) make that 2000 feet unsafe, I have a
really simple solution: *I don't take off.* Follow that rule, and yes,
I do only need 2000 feet of runway in that airplane. In the Maule, 1000
would be more than enough. I'd take off on a 300' strip, if I thought
it was safe to do so; I'd look at my loading, the density altitude,
wind, and runway condition, and make that determination. That number's
not arbitrary, BTW--I *have* gotten the Maule in and out of 300 feet,
and I'm by no means the best Maule driver out there. Michelle, you want
to chime in here?

The point is, just saying that he's building it x feet long doesn't
mean much without knowing the type of airplane and the type of
operation, and the pilot's attitude and decision-making process.

--Dave

--
Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:36:03 -0500 (EST), "Kevin"
> wrote:

>I started a message thread a month or two ago asking for information
>whether a person is allowed to build a runway. I think one or two
>users may have stated the answer but at the time it didn't seem
>realistic. Here is what I found out:
>
>FAA - The FAA has no interest in approving or denying a private runway
>on private land outside city limits or maybe even inside city limits.
>
If it's "Private" they do not care and have no jurisdiction as far as
the runway is concerned. They do have jurisdiction over the aircraft
that might use it though. They do not say who or what may use the
airport.

>(In the state of Idaho) the Dept. of Transportation has an aeronautics
>division. That department has guidlines on runway construction which
>is 2000 feet length plus one third of the elevation. The Dept. of
>Transportation also insists they do not approve or deny a private
>runway on private land. In addition, they say a person can make a
>runway any length they want and their dept. will not oppose it in any
>way.

As others have said, the key is private. The runway is not open to
public use.

>
>The decision to approve or deny a private runway (in Idaho) is based
>on the planning and zoning committee. This is amazing to me that a

it's pretty much the same in Michigan.

>group of regular folks who know nothing of what it takes for an
>airplane to take off or land AND ALSO, the planning and zoning
>committee will not accept any responsibility or liability if their
>decision was wrong and planes crash.

Their decision has nothing to do with how the runway is used.
A farmer can set aside a strip of hay field, keep it mowed and call it
a runway.

>
>When I talked to the FAA it was interesting they did tell me there is
>nothing to stop me from putting a tall antenna tower on the edge of my
>property. Ofcourse that is not the answer and would only contribute to
>the hazards.

And... they may not be correct. It depends on the zoning. Here we
have set back rules meaning I may not put up anything tall enough to
fall on my neighbors. OTOH I can go to 80 feet with no engineering or
permit required.

Speaking of antennas and towers. If you take off from the old
Houghton Lake airport (The one on the SW corner of the lake, not HTL)
there is a very tall tower right off the end of the runway preventing
either a straight in or straight out. You have to go around the thing
when coming in, or going out to the NW.

>
>After Planning and zoning make their decision it does go to the
>commissioner. And if a person wanted to feed lawyers I guess they
>would be your friend til your money's end and make it look like they
>were on your side.
>

Unless your neighbor decides to run a crop dusting operation it's
doubtful you'll hear much out of him any way. Course I guess he might
be able to afford a DC-3 and go camping. It's a great short field
plane, but the operating costs are tad steep for most of us and you
probably would hear him taking off over your place.

Last fall I followed a friend home. He has a farm on the south side of
a town about 25 miles from here. He has been using the strip
regularly, but it is private although maintained year round. He just
doesn't have the equipment to keep it free of snow all the time in the
winter.

The local FBO bout went out of his tree when I told him about landing
there. He thought that was terrible. I told him that other than a
bit bumpy it was a good strip. At that point he took off about
insurance and safety and.... He couldn't understand me taking the
equivalent of an old Bonanza into a short, sod strip. (I didn't need
a third of it.) The Bo makes a good short field plane, it just
doesn't handle large bumps well.

What dictates the airplanes that can use a strip are the laws of
physics. If he has a 2000 foot sod strip there are only certain
planes that can safely use the strip and of those some will depend on
the pilot's skill. The insurance companies will also limit whether
planes insured through them will be covered when landing there.
Contrary to what seems to be a general belief among the public (non
pilots), most pilots shy away from any strip that isn't at least two
to three times longer than needed to easily land and take off.

My insurance says only that the strip be maintained year round and
used regularly.

The main point is you are not talking about an airport and in
particular you are not talking about a public airport. You are
talking about some one using their land for their airplane. (and maybe
a few friends) The FAA cares only that he fly in a safe manner, not
whether he lands on a 1500 foot sod strip, his back yard, a hay field,
or a 10,000 foot paved strip. The township (parish), County, and
state may, or may not have rules regarding a person using a strip of
land for a runway. If they do not have specific restrictions there is
probably nothing to stop the person for using however much land they
want for a runway and they can take it right up to the fence line.

If I had enough room out here in the county I could easily put in my
own strip. Actually there is one less than two miles from me and I
know he uses it, but I've never seen it in use.

We used to have a strip kept mowed short in one of our fields within
the village limits of Breckenridge (MI). I used to land over there
quite often (in days gone by). There was another pilot who lived 7 or
8 miles south. He'd fly over and then walk into town.

I'm surprised that he even has to ask the county or township unless
they have a specific ordinance.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Buckles wrote:
>
> That number's
> not arbitrary, BTW--I *have* gotten the Maule in and out of 300 feet,
> and I'm by no means the best Maule driver out there.

Hey, even *I* have gotten mine off a 300' runway, and mine only has 160hp!

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

[John T]

Wow. I guess I've really been put in my place.

Come back when you actually know a thing or two about planes.

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 03:36:53 GMT, "John T" > wrote:

>Wow. I guess I've really been put in my place.
>
>Come back when you actually know a thing or two about planes.

Hey! I've landed the Deb in under 900 feet over a 50 foot obstacle
which beats the book figure by a longgg ways... Although I do have to
admit the wind was a *little* stronger and the temperature a little
lower than a standard day <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>