EAA Seeks Real-Life Through-The-Fence Experiences

Here are some specific questions we'd like to see you address:  

1.       Through-The-Fence (TTF) operations:

While residential TTF operations have received FAA “approval” for tens of years, a few of those approvals have also created management problems for both the FAA and the airport management.  This new DRAFT policy wants to forbid approvals for new TTF requests and to slowing terminate existing approvals by not allowing their TTF lease renewals.  To help EAA formulate the needs of the community opinion we request you answer address three questions in your forum postings:

a)     Does your airport have residential TTF operations?
b)     Are you aware of any problems residential TTF operations have created?  And if yes, how were those problems resolved?
c)     If you could improve three items in this DRAFT document what would they be and why? 
 

2.       On-Airport Residential properties:     

While On-Airport Residential properties are less common than residential TTF operations, they still exist on several airports.  This DRAFT  FAA policy wants to forbid approvals for new On-Airport Residential property requests and to slowing terminate existing approvals by not allowing their On-Airport Residential properties lease renewals.  To help EAA formulate the needs of the community opinion we request you answer address three questions in your forum postings:

a)      Does your airport have On-Airport Residential properties (hanger/apartment combinations, etc.)?

b)      Are you aware of any problems On-Airport Residential properties operations have created?  And if yes, how were those problems resolved?

c)       If you could improve three items in this DRAFT document what would they be and why?

TTF arrangements have been good for M17.  We had a TTF arrangement with  an airplane painting company which helped both business for the FBO and SECURITY for the airport.   M17 is 3.5 miles from town.  Our only security problem was vandalism by some kids.  Watchful eyes by good TTF neighbors would provide our best security against vandals and terrorists.  I would like for local airports to have the freedom to decide which TTF arrangements are needed, rather than have more federal regulations.  Don Baker  EAA 448735

i think ttf should be allowed ---- for positive economic reasons--  like training, repair, ect.---dan

 I haven't had time to look at all of this in detail, so forgive me if I'm not clear on this. Does this mean that I, as a CFI, could not do instruction for my friends on my home field as just me, only through the FBO? What about the flying club on the field? What about airports with no FBO... how would anyone based there be able to get any flight instruction?

Did I miss something there (I'm hoping I did, actually!)?

Jim Cunningham

TTFO should be the privey of the airport manager and owner of the facility.    This regulation does not increase security or accomplish anything except further burden airport operations and cost the taxpayer for increased oversight.  Let the airports manage their own affairs. 

Many of us are concerned about the FAA's announced intention to close all residential airparks that operate through-the-fence at public airports that accept (or plan to accept) federal improvement (FAA) money.  Having a home, plane and hangar is a dream many of us have worked for all our lives and this one of the few countries where such a thing is even possible. The residential airparks may be the first to fall but then the Feds will go after commercial through-the-fence operations (FBO's, etc.) demanding higher fees, silly "security measures", etc.  We need less intrusion into our lives by the FAA, not more.  They need to focus on the zillion other things infinitely more important than airparks (for example fixing a fragile ATC system that keeps people on taxiways in airliners for 8 hours).  Residential airparks are actually an airport's best friend in most cases: Their residents usually act as ambassadors for GA flying in the region and their properties act as buffers between noisy airports and surrounding communities.  I ask that all EAA members treat this as the serious threat to GA that it is and strongly engage the FAA and all our Congressmen and Senators.  The FAA needs to drop this ill advised attack on through-the-fence residential airparks at all public airports that take Federal money.  Please read the FAA circular and officially register your objections to the sections that bother you the most.  I know I will!

A. Our airport has a very small number (average of 1 each day?) of through the fence residential airpark (TTF RA) operations via an easement and a remote-controlled gate. 

B. I am aware of no security, administrative or other problems resulting from TTF operations.  It is a smooth, safe activity here.

C.  The three changes I would make to the FAA's draft document are:

1.  Change the position that TTF RAs violate "Grant Assurance 21 Compatible Land Use":  this should be changed to show TTF RAs as a fully COMPATIBLE land use.  Then the US government is out of this issue and the States and other airport operators can set-up mutually agreeable fees and agreements with TTF RAs.  This would be the FAA's easiest solution to this problem - - - give it to the states, where it belongs.

2.  Add TTF RAs to the list of activities under Section IV. "Procedures For Establishing Through the Fence  Access", para B. (page 5)

3. Change Section 8. of the above-mentioned section IV to grant TTF RA access in perpetuity (forever), just as a land title is worded in every state.

BACKGROUND

Vashon Municipal Airport, (2S1) is an 1800 foot long grass runway on twenty acres of land owned by an entity called King County Airport District No. 1 in Washington State.  It is supported entirely from rents received from about forty hanger owners who pay a monthly fee for leasing the space their hangers occupy. Annual takeoffs probably are no more then 2000 or so.  It is the only public airport serving an island community in Puget Sound near Seattle. A private airport also exists on the island but its future existence is not assured.

The FAA has never been willing, in the fifty years I've been involved with the airport, to provide funds to improve the airport because the amount of land available would not permit meeting their minimum standards for a small community airport and it has always been assumed, probably correctly, that it would be almost impossible to overcome neighbor objections to tripling the size of the airport. 

The Washington State Aeronautics Department has, on a couple of occasions, provided funds for clearing trees from the approach and departure paths but a couple of years ago they said they would only provide funds for airports who were turned down when they applied for money from the FAA.  The elected Airport Commissioners then applied for funds from the Federal Government fully expecting to be turned down so we could resume our friendly relation with the state.

To every one's surprise, not least of all mine, the FAA said O.K. - We'll give you about 150, 000 dollars a year for twenty years to improve your little airport. in accordance with a plan prepared by a consulting engineering firm.  It is not clear to me to what extent we are required to follow the FARs and ACs that apply to FAA funded airports.  Clearly we don't have enough land to comply with many of them.  I have a vague idea that many of them are to be regarded as goals which should be aspired to when possible but are not mandatory.

For the time being I'm assuming the subject of this letter, Compliance Guidance Letter 2009-1 prohibiting "Through the Fence" operations will be applied to our airport.

CURRENT SITUATION

I live on a ten acre piece of land bordering the north boundary of the airport.  I have an easement for a forty foot wide path to the airport from my land to gain access to the airport with my airplanes for personal use.  It is a recorded easement which goes with the land in perpetuity.  It is valuable and increases the value of my land if a potential buyer wants to live on an airport with his airplanes.  I like it because my well equipped shop is on my land and I work on airplanes there.  I have a hangar on the airport but the commisioners are in the process of imposing a new lease which seems to preclude keeping tools and machinery in one's hangar on airport property.  Incidentally this easement was not a gift - I provided the airport with an easement over my road for airport acess, agreed to a tree  trimming covenant  and offerred free use of some acreage to extend the runway,  Regretfully the latter was declined.

My reading of Section VI of the referenced letter which says "FAA will not require sponsers to terminate existing TTF access agrements"  makes me think that my easement can remain in force but I'm unskilled in the ways of laywers and I am concerned.

It appears to me that the only error presently existing is the failure to include reference to the easement on the Airport Layout Plan..

GENERAL COMMENTS

a)    Does your airport have residential TTF operations?

        Only the one on my land.  However I think we would find the neighbors more supportive if others also used the airport.

        Incidentally it would seem to stretch things a bit but I wonder if towing my trailered motorglider onto the airport is allowed.

        There is no space available for more hangars on the airport.  It would probably help if I sold mine and built another TTF.

b)    Are you aware of any problems residential TTF operations have caused.

        No.

c)     Improvements to draft letter.

        Section ll - Background has all kinds of horror stories. They deserve to be balanced.  Some good can come from TTF:

        - A nearby resident, especially in an isolated rural area can prevent vandalism and theft. (I've done that)

       - A nearby resident in an isolated area can call for aid when a crash occurs.  (I've done that)

        - A nearby resident can check for missing airplanes when flight plans aren't closed.  ( I've done that).

        - More hangerage can become available if the airport runs out of space.  (Like my airport)

         -More TTF operations would remove some hostile objections from neighbors to an airport.

        I know the horror stories have all probably happened at some bigger airports but I'm addressing tiny ones.

         Additional sections of this whole document set a very high standard which wasn't in effect when this airport was

        built from a three hundred foot wide strip from the bottom of a strawberry field.  No zoning of approach and deparure

        paths was asked for or recieved and no attempt to prevent houses being built close to the field was ever considered.

        I appreciate the intent of this restrictive document but it is about five decades late.    The houses are there. They aren't

        going away.  No Safety objective is to be gained by telling the owners the airport  is full so they can't use it.  TTF is ok

        in this case.

Regards,

R L Leonard       

Our local airport has two TTF operations. Both are for commercial businesses. The most recent one is paying the airport owners a fee that is consistant with on-airport operators as close as possible.

On-airport operators pay a lease for the land and the buildings to the airport owner. At the end of the lease the operator has to renew the lease or move out. There is no incentive for the operator to make improvements to the property, and if the owner does not continue to improve the property then the property decays.

The private property owner having access to the runway has to pay taxes that the on-airport operator does not. The private owner has the potential to make money when the land is sold, but the property has to be continually maintained in order to do so. There really is no unfair advantage for the private owner versus the on-airport operator.

The TTF operators at our local airport are working to secure the area in the same manner as the airport does so that TSA requirements are met.

Private owners need to work with the airport owner to operate the same as on-airport operators by following the airports rules.

Airports can benefit from the private owner who bring aviation related businesses or corporate hangars to the airport, and if a fair fee structure is set up then it is mutually benificial.

The airport is a public facility just as the interstate highway is. It is paid for by taxes. If I flew from my private strip to any public airport, I can land and take off. I may have to pay a landing fee or a parking fee, but I can use the airport. I should be able to use the same runway if my airplane is parked on private property next the runway as long as I meet the rules and regulations of the airport.

What I can't understand is the initial resistance the FAA has to Residential TTF agreements in the first place. There is no doubt that aviation residents patronize the airport as much as those with hangars or tie downs. Most examples charge an access fee equal to their monthly tiedown fee. So the agrument that Residential TTF doesn't pay its fair share is simply wrong. Additionally, one of the greatest threats to the existance of public airports is community outcry against noise and congestion. North Las Vegas being a potential example. By developing a Residential TTF community, you create a built in aviation friendly neighborhood, certain to support the airport at all times.

This whole thing is a cautionary tale about what happens when you allow the government camel to nose into your tent.

We have a privately-owned but public use airport (with TTF easement  for several adjacent homes), and being privately owned we cannot get any government funding.  A number of our owners see other area airports similar to ours but owned by public entities raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars and have agitated for positioning us to be eligible for this "free money", which would involve forming an "Airport District" and turning the airport over to them. 

Bad idea!  Had we done this at some point our TTF neighbors would now be faced  having their airport homes turned from valuable specialty residences to just ordinary houses that are positioned in a very bad location for non-airport people...right under the approach end of our runway.

As Chris Hawley comments, these TTF neighbors secure at least the close-end portion of our final approach area and unconditionally support our airport.

From the very beginning, I think we need to figure out why the FAA considers a residential airpark an 'incompatible use'. If we don't get some level of reasoning, everything else is a waste of time. I lived in an airpark for 5 years (O61), and I can't think of a more compatible use for land near an airport. It goes along with an FBO, hangars, and anything else related to aviation.

What are they thinking here? It seems like someone at the FAA needs to be walked around a few airparks by EAA and be educated. This is the same as a real estate appraiser lowering the value of my airpark property because it's so terribly close to a 'noisy runway'.  There needs to be an education process before we can make any headway here.

Secondly, once we get past the education issue, we need to address poorly setup TTF ops. It seems like the FAA's primary issue is an airport giving up rights to meets its federal obligations. Why can't we have a better review of the agreements so this doesn't happen. Wholesale elimination of TTF agreements is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Sebastian Trost

The statement "The FAA will not approve TTF access for residential airpark purposes since that use is an incompatible land use" is false at the most basic level.  The author either does not understand the english language, has not been to a residential airpark, or both.  Therfore, the author should not be permitted to write such documents in the future.  Why should my tax dollars pay for an FAA staffmember to write things like this?  My Congressman will be informed.  Please inform yours and request the resignation of Charles C. Erhard.

I read thru this document, and noticed three general points that I feel are worthy of comment:

First, general storage is no longer a permitted use of airport hangars. That means that Al’s Body Shop can no longer operate out of an airport hangar. However I fear that is also means that you are no longer able to store your boat or extra furniture in your hangar, because this is not an aeronautical activity. The crispest reference that I am able to find about this is a photo caption on page 127; however there are numerous other references. Search the document for “storage”.

On the plus side, airports are not allowed to implement restrictions that prohibit maintenance in your own hangar – or restrictions against shade tree mechanics. “An aircraft owner or operator23 may tie down, adjust, repair, refuel, clean, and otherwise service his/her own aircraft, provided the service is performed by the aircraft owner/operator or his/her employees with resources supplied by the aircraft owner or operator.” (8.8.b, page 128)

Any residential use on an airport or residential use granting “through-the-fence” access is an incompatible land use. This includes campgrounds, so I assume that camping at Oshkosh each year will no longer be permitted. (page 267).

How incredibly ridiculous and short-sighted to take people who love airports and airplane noise and force them to move away to another field to enjoy their passion and move people in who hate airports and airplane noise.   Typical federal bureaucracy at work.

Here at KPAN we have industrial as well as residential TTF operations. At last count we had about 45 aircraft off airport property, over three-quarters of which are located in the residential airpark. At the present time we do not have space on the airport itself for that many more aircraft in either tie downs or hangars. If the airpark residents were to be denied access TTF they would leave and find another aiport to support, most likely a private airpark. There would still be the residences in the same place they are now so nothing would be solved by denying access. They are currently paying for access TTF and have no problem doing so. That is in keeping with what the FAA has directed up to this point. They contribute to our local economy as well as support the airport and help to make it self-sustaining. Without their support we would be less likely to be able to be self-sustaining at this time.

If there was a safety factor involved then the FAA could not in good conscience approve private airparks on the same basis that it would deny TTF for publicly funded airports. There should be strict avigation agreements and the assurance that appropriate access fees are paid so that we can gain the support of public airports through these efforts. If the FAA starts going backwards and denying access I believe there will be more lawsuits than the FAA can handle due to the amount of investment that has been made and no compensation for the asset that would be taken away.

The only issue that has come up in the past was the access fees paid for TTF. At this time they pay half a tie down fee for access priviledges which is more than fair and is enough to keep up the maintenance on the gate.  We depend on volunteer help in order to keep our costs down and a large part of the volunteer help comes from the airpark residents.

The TTF operations from the residential airpark have been a big asset to the airport and is in no way a detriment or hinderance to our operations. These types of operations should be ENCOURAGED in order to bring more support to the publicly funded airports as opposed to pushing them to the private airparks. We are definitely in the black for the financial benefit the airport receives as a result of the TTF operations.

Not all airports have based FBO's or on field aircraft support facilities.  In most cases TTF operations are the only support options for based or transient pilots.  These airports compete for FAA funding the same as the larger airports but often do not have the local tax base to maintain the facilities up to FAA standards.  So they rely heavily on those Federal dollars.  When the FAA attaches strings to those federal dollars they should be obligated to take into consideration the negative economic impacts of their actions.

All public use airports have a local controlling agency, board or group that is legally responsible for the use and condition of those facilities.  They have local jurisdiction to make all decisions that affect the use and development of those facilities.  They understand the local politics and economic impacts for those actions.  This includes any TTF and residential/hangar operations.  The FAA should not subvert their authority and control of the local operations.

When the FAA takes it upon themselves to decide which business can operate on public use property they are essentially creating a monopoly.   TTF operations are still required to posess the same permits and licenses as on field repair facilities.  When they use the excuse that they need to protect on field business from TTF operations all they accomplish is giving the on field operation a green light to charge exorbitant fees for their product or service.   There is no competition.

As we all know aircraft ownership is a very expensive luxury.  Few GA pilots have the ability to write off the costs of aircraft ownership.  We are always looking for the least expensive fuel and maintenance options.  When we find a better deal the word spreads through the local pilot community.  Also when we experience less than expected service or unnecessary enflated costs that information is also spread through the local pilot community.  The reality is that the local control through the controlling agency and pilot use will weed out the undesirable TTF and on field operations through economic influences. 

The FAA is a typical government run program.  They continue to create more regulation so they can add more jobs to enforce the regulations and justify higher budgets.  They have a one size fits all mentality.   The answer to most percieved problems is solutions through local control not bigger government.

I currently own a hangar at David Wayne Hooks Airport.  My hangar is located mid field with a terrific view of the main runways.  My wife and 4 year daughter live upstairs in the main apartment.  I am not sure that I understand why the FAA has a problem with people living on the airport.  Personally, I feel that my being there adds another level of safety due to the fact that I am there at night.  Though we do have crime, I cannot imagine how much worse it be out there if people were'nt there at night to thwart off thieves and mischief makers that would flock to the airport without people living on the field.  Even during the day, I feel that the airport is a safer place because the people who live there care about the airport and the neighbors who live there.  The airport would become sterile without the residences.  I sure hope that my airport doesnt become caught up in this mess with the FAA.

Like most FAA drafts, there are many questions without answers. Our airpark is Privately owned, but public access. So is it considered Private or Public?  We are currently working toward a Lease with the County in order to receive State aviation funds.. How is that affected?

KW

MidValleyAirpark@aol.com