Runway yes or no [UPDATE]

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.

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)

The runway/property owner also bears the liability responsibility.

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

"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_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

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

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

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

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.

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