Airports

that it has no objection to the proposal
that it has no objection to the proposal if certain conditions are met
that the proposal is objectionable because it would adversely affect air navigation

the FAA neither permits nor prohibits the proposed construction leaving that decision to local government having jurisdiction over zoning and the issuance of building permits in the area

14 CFR Part 91.129(e)(3)

requires that when operating in Class D airspace an airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual approach slope indicator (VASI) or precision approach path indicator (PAPI) shall maintain an attitude at or above the glideslope until a lower altitude is necessary for safe landing

Santa Monica - SMO has installed a PAPI-cam where PAPI is set to a 4 degree glideslope – incorporates a video camera and theodolite that record and measure the descent profile of every VFR approach to runway 21

Pilot receives a warning letter from the airport manager – second violation is referred to the FAA for enforcement action or counseling

Teterboro – TEB – 3 strikes and you’re out! – airport manager sends the operator a violation letter – if operator receives 3 violations in a 2-year period the aircraft is banned from the airport forever

CDA – continuous descent approaches now being widely used for fuel saving and airport area noise reduction – aircraft meeting Required Navigation Performance standards are able to begin a smooth and stable descent at reduced power from cruise altitude up to 120 miles from the airport and all the way to landing, eliminating the throttle jockeying necessitated by step down approach procedures

Prescott Airport and Land Use Development
This paper addresses some of the issues mentioned above with respect to AIP Grants, and strings attached to these grants in the City of Prescott, Arizona at Ernest Love Field - Prescott Municipal Airport (PRC).
Prescott Airport.docx
Microsoft Word document [40.2 MB]

If you are an AOPA member you have free access to the Air Safety Institute courses for WINGS credit. I highly suggest you watch the one entitled, "ASN Volunteer Orientation" to learn about the demise of general aviation airports around the nation primarily due to what has been discussed in this chapter.

20150414Phoenix_Post-Implementation_Asse[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [3.8 MB]

Air Quality_ An Emerging Issue in the Ai[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [417.2 KB]

June 15, 2016 - The FAA’s final policy on the non-aeronautical use of airport hangars appears in today’s Federal Register and will take effect on July 1, 2017. The FAA is issuing the policy to clarify how aviation facilities – including hangars can be used on airports that receive federal funds. The final policy strikes a balance between hangar use for aviation and non-aviation purposes. The policy ensures hangars are available when there is an aviation need, and if demand is low, allows hangars to be used for non-aviation activities. The FAA recognizes that non-aviation hangar space rental allows airport sponsors to be economically independent when hangars are not being used to fulfill aviation needs. Airport sponsors must receive approval from the FAA before hangars can be used for non-aviation purposes. In addition, the policy outlines the type of aircraft that can be built in a hangar, the equipment and items that can be stored in hangars, and the role of the airport sponsors to ensure tenants pay fair market value for hangar space.

Click here for 81 FR 38906 to read the Policy on the Non-aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars

NOTE: Airport/FBO "landlords" had felt compelled by the FAA to impose hangar-storage restrictions based on the so-called Glendale case. Several years ago, after FAA inspections found hangars that contained automobiles, boats, large recreational vehicles, and the like, the FAA found the city of Glendale, Arizona, in violation of an FAA grant agreement by allowing use of airport hangars for storing such nonaviation items. This final policy still contains the overarching principle that airports that have accepted federal grants (and certain surplus property airports) may use airport property only for aeronautical purposes, unless otherwise approved by the FAA. Airport sponsors should continue to manage the use of hangars through an airport leasing program that requires a written lease agreement or permit, and should continue to take steps to prevent unapproved uses. Overall, the policy is prompted by the realization that so-called 'non-aeronautical' storage or uses in hangars could interfere with or displace aeronautical use of a hangar. At the same time, the FAA recognizes that storage for some items in a hangar may not have a significant effect on the aeronautical utility of the hangar. The final policy attempts to balance the two. The policy expressly permits "maintenance, repair, or refurbishment of aircraft," although it continues to bar the indefinite storage of nonoperational aircraft. It permits "storage of aircraft handling equipment, e.g., towbars, glider tow equipment, workbenches, and tools and materials used in the servicing, maintenance, and repair or outfitting of aircraft." In general, "provided the hangar is used primarily for aeronautical purposes [housing an aircraft], an airport sponsor may permit nonaeronautical items to be stored in hangars provided the items do not interfere with the aeronautical use of the hangar." A vehicle parked in the hangar while the vehicle owner is using the aircraft is permitted. The policy allows typical pilot resting facilities and aircrew quarters, although a hangar may not be used as a residence. And of importance to the homebuilt community, the policy now more expansively permits noncommercial construction of amateur-built or kit-built aircraft in a hangar, including the final assembly of aircraft under construction. With respect to the many privately constructed and owned hangars on an airport ground lease, the form of property interest - be it a leasehold or ownership of a hangar - does not change the applicability of the policy. However, the policy does not apply to privately owned facilities located off the airport. This final policy technically does not apply to airports that have never received federal Airport Improvement Program grants or are not restricted by surplus property conveyances, but the policy likely will continue to be utilized by virtually all airports offering hangar facilities.

Thank you Zac for sharing his personal crop dusting videos below

Thank you Jordan for sharing the YouTube video below - I can't help but wonder how the deer must be traumatized!!

D.C. Circuit Rules in Favor of Petitioners Challenging Flight Procedures for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

On August 29, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion and order vacating FAA’s September 18, 2014, order implementing new flight routes and procedures at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. City of Phoenix v. Huerta, No. 15-1158, 2017 WL 3708094 (D.C. Cir.).

Two petitions for review were filed in the D.C. Circuit challenging FAA’s 2014 implementation of area navigation (RNAV) departure procedures in the Phoenix airspace. The City of Phoenix, the owner of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, filed the first petition on June 1, 2015, and a group of Phoenix historic neighborhood associations filed a second, similar petition on July 31. On FAA’s motion, the court consolidated the two cases.

FAA implemented the Phoenix RNAV procedures pursuant to the expedited environmental review mandated by the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, section 213(c)(1). Before implementing the procedures, FAA conducted an environmental analysis as required by NEPA and determined that no extraordinary circumstances existed that would preclude expedited review. However, residents of some Phoenix residential areas filed noise complaints. Although the FAA had consulted with the City of Phoenix Aviation Department during development of the procedures, the City raised new objections and demanded that the FAA return to the old routes.

In its decision, the court rejected the FAA’s argument that the petition for review was untimely, finding that while the petitioners had missed the 60-day deadline for seeking review, the petitioners had reasonable grounds for their delay. On the merits, the Court found that the FAA violated the National Historic Preservation Act by failing to notify all consulting parties of its determination that no historic structures would be adversely affected by noise. In addition, the Court found that the FAA violated NEPA because FAA did not have sufficient support for its finding that the procedures were eligible for legislatively- created expedited the NEPA review. The court based this finding on its determination that FAA did not involve or notify local citizens and community leaders about the proposed flight path changes and therefore did not have sufficient evidence to determine whether extraordinary circumstances existed that would preclude the use of the expedited review.

Finally, the court found that the FAA did not fulfill its duty under Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act to consult with the City in assessing whether the new routes would substantially impair the City’s parks and historic sites, and also found that the FAA did not gather enough information to conclude that the routes would not substantially impair these protected areas. The Court vacated the FAA’s September 18, 2014, order implementing the procedures and remanded the matter to FAA for further proceedings. Judge Sentelle dissented from the opinion, arguing that petitioners had not demonstrated “reasonable grounds” under prior D.C. Circuit precedent to excuse their late filing. FAA is considering its options to seek a panel rehearing or a rehearing en banc.

Parties Reach Agreement Regarding Flight Procedures for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport

The City of Phoenix, the owner of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, and a group of Phoenix historic neighborhood associations filed petitions challenging FAA’s 2014 implementation of area

navigation (RNAV) departure procedures in the Phoenix airspace. City of Phoenix v. Huerta, No. 15-1158 (D.C. Cir.). FAA implemented the Phoenix RNAV procedures pursuant to the expedited environmental review mandated by the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act, section 213(c)(1). Before implementing the procedures, FAA conducted an environmental analysis as required by NEPA and determined that no extraordinary circumstances existed that would preclude expedited review. However, residents of some Phoenix residential areas filed noise complaints. Although FAA consulted with the City of Phoenix Aviation Department during development of the procedures, the City raised new objections and demanded that FAA return to the old routes.

On August 29, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion and order vacating FAA’s September 18, 2014 order implementing new flight routes and procedures at Phoenix

Sky Harbor International Airport. The Court held that (1) Petitioners had reasonable grounds for their delay in filing and a decision on the merits is appropriate, (2) FAA did not fulfill its obligation under

the National Historic Preservation Act to consult with certain stakeholders in the affected area, (3) FAA’s finding that new routes were not likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds was

arbitrary and capricious, (4) FAA’s consultation with the city was arbitrarily confined and insufficient under the Transportation Act, and (5) it was unreasonable for FAA to rely on guidelines in 49 CFR Part 150 that apply to historic sites where a quiet setting is not a generally recognized purpose and attribute of the historic properties.

FAA and petitioners have reached an agreement that provides for noise relief to Petitioners in two steps: first, near-term changes to west-flow departures; and, second, the development of performance based

navigation procedures with the intent of approximating, to the extent practicable, the pre-September 2014 flight tracks. On November 30, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion with the D.C. Circuit to modify the order consistent with the agreement. The Court amended its order on February 7, 2018, applying it only to departure procedures at Phoenix and delaying the issuance of the mandate until June 15, 2018.

FAA has begun the process of developing new departure procedures to comply with the first step of the agreement.

Case 56: Int’l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992)

Case 57: City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624 (1973)

Case 58: Goodspeed Airport, LLC v. East Haddam Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Comm’n, 681 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D. Conn. 2010)

Classic Roman Law: cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos

whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to heaven and all the way to hell

Bury v. Pope (1587) Cro Eliz 118 - The owner of land was held entitled to erect a house against his neighbour's windows even though they had enjoyed light for over 30 years.

Bernstein of Leigh (Baron) v. Skyviews & General Ltd (1978) 1 QB 479 - case in English law in which a plaintiff attempted to sue for trespass when aerial photographs were taken of his property.

Case 59: United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946)

Case 60: Griggs v. County of Allegheny, 369 U.S. 84 (1962)

Airports

Contact Me

Get Social with Me