How is this possible?

[Jay Honeck]

This data, from the FAA website, seems to fly in the face of the
oft-quoted statistic that "we're losing 2 airports a month in the U.S.:

(In case the formatting gets screwed up, the data is showing a net GAIN
of 243 airports from 2002 to 2004!)
************************************************** *****************
Number of U.S. Airports =B9
(As of December 31)
2004 2003 2002
Total Airports................................ 19,815 19,581 19,572
Public Use Airports.................... 5,288 5,286 5,286
# with Paved Runways....... 3,941 3,938 3,940
# with Unpaved Runways.... 1,347 1,348 1,346
# with Lighted Runways....... 4,037 4,026 4,024
# with Unlighted Runways... 1,251 1,260 1,262
Private Use Airports.................. 14,532 14,295r 14,286
# with Paved Runways........ 4,771 4,678 4,632
# with Unpaved Runways... 9,761 9,617 9,654
# with Lighted Runways...... 1,301 1,223 1,183
# with Unlighted Runways.. 13,231 13,072 13,103
Public use airports abandoned... 10 19 16
Private use airports abandoned. 117 214 121
Certificated Airports*.................. 599 628 633
Civil .................................... 542 555 558
Military ................................ 57 73 75
Source: AAS-330
As of: 12/31/04 (202) 267-8752
=B9 Includes civil and joint-use civil-military airports, heliports,
STOLports, and seaplane bases in the U.S. and its territories.
* Certificated airports serve Air Carrier Operations with aircraft
seating more than 9 passengers seats. (FAR Part 139).
************************************************** *********
Heck, even the number of public use airports appears to have risen.
Why is AOPA saying otherwise?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
This data, from the FAA website, seems to fly in the face of the
oft-quoted statistic that "we're losing 2 airports a month in the U.S.:

(In case the formatting gets screwed up, the data is showing a net GAIN
of 243 airports from 2002 to 2004!)
************************************************** *****************

If you examine the figures, the growth is in private airports. Most of those
are non-factors if you're using aviation as transportation.

KB

[Brien K. Meehan]

Almost all new airports are old airports that were not official.

Insurance is more nearly affordable if your airplane is limited to
operations at FAA designated airports. Some owners have been finding
it cheaper to make their airports official than pay for off-airport
landing insurance.

Also, lots of local governments have been putting pressure on private
airport owners to bring the facility "up to code" and make it an
official airport. Most keep them private, but some actually go public.

I'm personally aware of 3 instances of this in Michigan.

So, I'm thinking the AOPA doesn't count them because they're not new
airports, they're old airports with new paperwork. But that's a guess.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>This data, from the FAA website, seems to fly in the face of the
>oft-quoted statistic that "we're losing 2 airports a month in the U.S.:
[...]
>Heck, even the number of public use airports appears to have risen.
>Why is AOPA saying otherwise?

Well, either the FAA stats are wrong, or AOPA's wrong, or you're misquoting
AOPA (where do they say that?). (The number of public airports that closed,
according to the FAA stats, is indeed more than one per month, even though
more than that have opened.)

--Gary

[Earl Grieda]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
This data, from the FAA website, seems to fly in the face of the
oft-quoted statistic that "we're losing 2 airports a month in the U.S.:

I've often wondered about that number. It might be true but I wish it had
some type of verifiable reference, and the reference has the airport name,
location, annual operations, and closure reason.

[Chris]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>This data, from the FAA website, seems to fly in the face of the
>>oft-quoted statistic that "we're losing 2 airports a month in the U.S.:
> [...]
>>Heck, even the number of public use airports appears to have risen.
>>Why is AOPA saying otherwise?
>
> Well, either the FAA stats are wrong, or AOPA's wrong, or you're
> misquoting AOPA (where do they say that?). (The number of public airports
> that closed, according to the FAA stats, is indeed more than one per
> month, even though more than that have opened.)

Each one tell their own truth, that's politics both are right but not
correct!

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> [...]
> Heck, even the number of public use airports appears to have risen.
> Why is AOPA saying otherwise?

Off the top of my head, my recollection is that AOPA's figure is the number
of airports that are closed per time period (week, month, year...whatever
fits their current PR best). Of course, that does ignore the number of
airports that are opened. They aren't talking "net".

It appears that the 2004 numbers don't really match up with "2 airports a
month", but it's easy to see how they translated the 2003 numbers to that.

Anyway, it's just marketing. Even the numbers you post don't tell the whole
story, since they don't address questions such as runway length, proximity
to the urban area served, facilities at the airport, etc. You could open 10
unattended 2000' runways, and still not compensate for the loss of an
airport like Meigs, for example.

Pete

[Larry Dighera]

On 14 Aug 2005 09:46:36 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote
in om>::

>... the data is showing a net GAIN of 243 airports from 2002 to 2004!

It would be interesting to know how many of the new airports are
actually heliports.

[Deborah McFarland]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Insurance is more nearly affordable if your airplane is limited to
> operations at FAA designated airports. Some owners have been finding
> it cheaper to make their airports official than pay for off-airport
> landing insurance.
>

???. I don't pay more to land at grass strips and private facilities.

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

[Brien K. Meehan]

Interesting, but not really realted to what I said.

[Deborah McFarland]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Interesting, but not really realted to what I said.

I believe you stated, "Insurance is more nearly affordable if your airplane
is limited to
operations at FAA designated airports. "

That's not true. I fly out of cow pastures which are not "FAA designated
airports," and it doesn't effect my insurance.

Of course, that's my experience. Yours may differ ;-)>

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

[W P Dixon]

Deb,
Are you chasing those helpless cows around the field again?;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Deborah McFarland" > wrote in message
...
> "Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Interesting, but not really realted to what I said.
>
> I believe you stated, "Insurance is more nearly affordable if your
> airplane is limited to
> operations at FAA designated airports. "
>
> That's not true. I fly out of cow pastures which are not "FAA designated
> airports," and it doesn't effect my insurance.
>
> Of course, that's my experience. Yours may differ ;-)>
>
> Deb
>
> --
> 1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
> 1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
> 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)
>

[Brien K. Meehan]

Ah. Your comment referred to grass strips and private facilities,
which could very well be FAA certified airports.

Every insurance policy I've dealt with, prior to my current one,
excludes operations at any facility which isn't certified by the FAA as
an airport. My current one, which doesn't, is mega expensive.

Maybe this is only the case for aircraft with a hull value. Or ones
built during this millenium. ;-)

[Dale]

In article . com>,
"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote:

> Ah. Your comment referred to grass strips and private facilities,
> which could very well be FAA certified airports.
>
> Every insurance policy I've dealt with, prior to my current one,
> excludes operations at any facility which isn't certified by the FAA as
> an airport. My current one, which doesn't, is mega expensive.
>
> Maybe this is only the case for aircraft with a hull value. Or ones
> built during this millenium. ;-)
>

When I still had the 182 the insurance I had cost me $1400/year. I
could land anywhere I wanted...gravel bars, glaciers, airports...no
restrictions what so ever.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[George Patterson]

Brien K. Meehan wrote:
>
> Every insurance policy I've dealt with, prior to my current one,
> excludes operations at any facility which isn't certified by the FAA as
> an airport. My current one, which doesn't, is mega expensive.

None of my policies did. My agent once called to ask me if I ever landed on
grass fields. I told him yes, and he had the policy changed to remove an
exclusion that the underwriter had added. No difference in cost that time, either.

The aircraft was a 1995 Maule. I had it insured for hull values ranging between
$63,000 and $70,000. My last policy cost a bit over $1,200, IIRC.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Robert M. Gary]

I have no restrictions on my Mooney. I have landed on the beach in
Mexico.

-Robert

[Dave Stadt]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Ah. Your comment referred to grass strips and private facilities,
> which could very well be FAA certified airports.
>
> Every insurance policy I've dealt with, prior to my current one,
> excludes operations at any facility which isn't certified by the FAA as
> an airport. My current one, which doesn't, is mega expensive.
>
> Maybe this is only the case for aircraft with a hull value. Or ones
> built during this millenium. ;-)

Mine has never limited landing locations and my insurance costs are very
reasonable. I would find such a limitation totally unaceptable.

[Brien K. Meehan]

Hmm. I was starting to think this might be a low-time issue (which is
why it used to apply to me), but the one guy I know who certified his
airport said that insurance was an issue, and he's got a metric
boatload of hours. Hmm. Dunno.

[Deborah McFarland]

> Maybe this is only the case for aircraft with a hull value. Or ones
> built during this millennium. ;-)
>

We have full coverage on all our birds, even the project. It's actually
based on "Time in Type" and the skill of the pilot. It's not expensive
either. Mine is just over $700 a year.

Deb
--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

[Jose]

I suspect people here are confusing insurance for the airport owner, on
the airport, with insurance for the pilot, on his flying.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[W P Dixon]

WOW!,
700 a year is pretty dern good, I absolutely dread to see what mine will
cost when I get to that point! I expect it to be pretty high on a Luscombe
with very few hours in it. But really , doesn't it seem like insurance co's.
would want taildraggers at grass fields? That grass is sure alot more
forgiving ;)
Deb I got ahold to most the CFI's on the list you gave me , the one
fellow still has a Champ but no Luscombe's are available at this time. It's
actually a shorter drive for me to go to Ohio and fly the Champ there, 6.2
in it so far! Supposed to go back on the 27th and I am trying to get my
written done before I go, I feel I am ready to solo. Of course the CFI may
not feel that way! HAHA really a slow process with having to spend so much
on travel to get somewhere to fly, sure wish all that money could be put
into the plane! I'd be finished by now! ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Deborah McFarland" > wrote in message
...
>> Maybe this is only the case for aircraft with a hull value. Or ones
>> built during this millennium. ;-)
>>
>
> We have full coverage on all our birds, even the project. It's actually
> based on "Time in Type" and the skill of the pilot. It's not expensive
> either. Mine is just over $700 a year.
>
> Deb
> --
> 1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
> 1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
> 1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)
>

[Deborah McFarland]

"W P Dixon" > wrote > 700 a year is pretty
dern good, I absolutely dread to see what mine will
> cost when I get to that point! I expect it to be pretty high on a Luscombe
> with very few hours in it. But really , doesn't it seem like insurance
> co's. would want taildraggers at grass fields? That grass is sure alot
> more forgiving ;)

Forgive us for hijacking this thread but...

Patrick,

AUA, Inc. is the best source of vintage insurance. My premiums were higher
at first. I got a 5% for being a VAA member. I got another discount after
three years. Unlike most folks, our rates have been dropping. Additional
ratings are not looked at as favorable as how much time in type you have.
Fly a lot, save a lot. They also ask first, "How many hours did you fly in
this airplane over the past year?" I average 140 hours a year. More some
years, but the least has been 129. You also have to look at my family
history. My husband has been flying the same Luscombe since 1978. Time in
type!

There are folks who have bought Luscombes to use to get a PPL. They get
insured. Just don't let a CFI get in your airplane unless he has a good bit
of Luscombe time. Keep your chin up and you'll get that endorsement. Just
remember that all this time is TW time and will help those premiums go down!

Deb

--
1946 Luscombe 8A (his)
1948 Luscombe 8E (hers)
1954 Cessna 195B, restoring (ours)

in message ...

[W P Dixon]

140 A YEAR, I'm jealous! ;)

Patrick