Custer State Park Airport, Custer SD Decommissioning

Z

Z06_Mir

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
1,738
Display Name
Display name:
Radna
Hi all,

Game, Fish and Parks is seeking public comments on closing Custer State Park airport (3V0) in Western South Dakota. If you can, please take a moment to fill this out and OPPOSE this. The airport is extremely valuable to our community, it is a wonderful place for both training and visiting. The airport does have limited services but is one of the very few in this area that allows camping. Unlike what they are saying, the airport DOES get used (at the flight school I own we use it several times per week) and it is an asset to the Black Hills area. It is such a cool airport to fly and land at it would be disappointing to say the least to lose it.

Link to the form (select Custer State Park Airport Decommissioning)
gfp.sd.gov

Submit Public Comment

gfp.sd.gov

Link to the brief article about the situation
gfp.sd.gov

News

gfp.sd.gov

Thanks everyone. Let's try to keep this place open. We all know they don't replace closed airports :(
 
I'll help.
I love that place.
I was there 3 times last year
 
Sent! I usually fly into KCUT. I'll have to check out 3V0 while I still can.
 
Done! This airport/area is on my bucket list...
 
Done!

Left them this: "I'm not a SD native and I understand the desire to get the most bang-for-your-buck out of limited resources and tax-money, but I urge you to keep the airport open. It's a wonderful gateway to the area and one of the few that allows camping. Closing it would restrict people to flying into bigger and more expensive airfields.
In fact, I'll be flying there the 2nd week of September from Illinois and planned to spend a weekend here. It'd be a shame if other people were deprived of the opportunity to have a unique, welcoming airfield that makes the Black Hills so accessible."

As I'm headed west next month with the plane I planned to visit this area. Previously didn't know you could camp there. This gives me a special reason to plan my stop at 3V0!
-Tom
 
Done!

I'm not sure if these guys would be any help or not.... theraf.org
 
Kitch said:
Done!

I'm not sure if these guys would be any help or not.... theraf.org
Click to expand...
I had never heard of them before, I will send an inquiry.


Thank you everyone for submitting. I like to think anything helps in situations like these.
 
One of the odd things (which I commented on) is why push to close the airport now, when the state isn't expecting major expenses (a repave?) for 7 more years? Heck, seal the cracks and kick the can down the road 10 years. No sense in pushing to close it now...
 
kyleb said:
One of the odd things (which I commented on) is why push to close the airport now, when the state isn't expecting major expenses (a repave?) for 7 more years? Heck, seal the cracks and kick the can down the road 10 years. No sense in pushing to close it now...
Click to expand...

Not to mention that I'd bet that a lot of the aircraft using the airport could just as easily land on gravel or dirt. Perhaps a quick and inexpensive surface treatment is all that is needed.
 
Z06_Mir said:
Hi all,

Game, Fish and Parks is seeking public comments on closing Custer State Park airport (3V0) in Western South Dakota. If you can, please take a moment to fill this out and OPPOSE this. The airport is extremely valuable to our community, it is a wonderful place for both training and visiting. The airport does have limited services but is one of the very few in this area that allows camping. Unlike what they are saying, the airport DOES get used (at the flight school I own we use it several times per week) and it is an asset to the Black Hills area. It is such a cool airport to fly and land at it would be disappointing to say the least to lose it.

Link to the form (select Custer State Park Airport Decommissioning)
gfp.sd.gov

Submit Public Comment

gfp.sd.gov

Link to the brief article about the situation
gfp.sd.gov

News

gfp.sd.gov

Thanks everyone. Let's try to keep this place open. We all know they don't replace closed airports :(
Click to expand...
Done
 
"Since the airport is on state property, it is not eligible for federal funding. "

Is that correct?
 
So you guys really think the residents of SD should support this airport for you?

1691813732648.jpeg
 
Why not? Residents of every state support airports in various places. How the money flows for that varies, but there’s an awful lot of tax money spent.
 
Clip4 said:
So you guys really think the residents of SD should support this airport for you?

View attachment 119760
Click to expand...
As someone who owns a business and a home in SD, I am happy some of my tax dollars go towards 3V0. At least it’s a good use of the aeronautics fund, unlike the 100 million dollar dream airline terminal being proposed for an airport that gets like 11 flights a day.
 
Clip4 said:
Why not? Because it’s a waste of tax money.
Click to expand...
That is possibly the silliest thing I have heard today. It is admittedly early in the day. So since tax money pays for the vast majority of airports, what's your take on the cutoff where the airport should just die? 10 flights a day? 20? 5? Any airport that you personally don't use? Anywhere without scheduled airline service?
 
Racerx said:
But not because it's "on state property"...right?
Click to expand...

No idea why the FAA doesn’t include it, but there’s no services, no fuel, and no facilities there. It’s literally a landing strip; if you want to get anywhere, you’ll need somebody to pick you up and drive you three miles to the nearest campground.
 
Last edited:
Z06_Mir said:
As someone who owns a business and a home in SD, I am happy some of my tax dollars go towards 3V0. At least it’s a good use of the aeronautics fund, unlike the 100 million dollar dream airline terminal being proposed for an airport that gets like 11 flights a day.
Click to expand...

Same here. There are far worse uses of our state and local money.
 
TCABM said:
It’s literally and landing strip; if you want to get anywhere, you’ll need somebody to pick you up and drive you three miles to the nearest campground.
Click to expand...

That’s the primary reason I don’t use it. I would camp at the airport but I don’t have a big enough cabin area in my aircraft to carry a bike with me to get anywhere in the park.

But I would much rather see the airport stay than be removed. I think there are some (relatively) inexpensive rehab options that could be explored, especially since it isn’t a federally funded airport.
 
Z06_Mir said:
Hi all,

Game, Fish and Parks is seeking public comments on closing Custer State Park airport (3V0) in Western South Dakota. If you can, please take a moment to fill this out and OPPOSE this. The airport is extremely valuable to our community, it is a wonderful place for both training and visiting. The airport does have limited services but is one of the very few in this area that allows camping. Unlike what they are saying, the airport DOES get used (at the flight school I own we use it several times per week) and it is an asset to the Black Hills area. It is such a cool airport to fly and land at it would be disappointing to say the least to lose it.

Link to the form (select Custer State Park Airport Decommissioning)
gfp.sd.gov

Submit Public Comment

gfp.sd.gov

Link to the brief article about the situation
gfp.sd.gov

News

gfp.sd.gov

Thanks everyone. Let's try to keep this place open. We all know they don't replace closed airports :(
Click to expand...
Thanks! Just opposed closure. Paul
 
DaleB said:
That is possibly the silliest thing I have heard today. It is admittedly early in the day. So since tax money pays for the vast majority of airports, what's your take on the cutoff where the airport should just die? 10 flights a day? 20? 5? Any airport that you personally don't use? Anywhere without scheduled airline service?
Click to expand...
Why is it a waste of tax dollars?

1. It is owned by SD Fish, Game, and Parks and 3V0 is contrary to their mission of effective management of the state’s parks, fisheries and wildlife resources.
2. There are no facilities at the airport.
3. The county, population 8,609, is served by CUT 12 miles west.

I realize some enjoy having back country airports, but to the govt officials making budget decisions this one is a no brainer.
 
Clip4 said:
…but to the govt officials making budget decisions this one is a no brainer.
Click to expand...

Let’s not go down the rabbit hole of what should and shouldn’t be a no brainer to a politician. There are far more ridiculous things they approve funding for besides a back country airport.

I personally will never land there, but cutting funding and closing this one sets a precedence. Hey we closed that one and nobody bitched about I guess we can close this one 12 miles away.
 
Clip4 said:
I realize some enjoy having back country airports, but to the govt officials making budget decisions this one is a no brainer.
Click to expand...

Maybe, and maybe not. Perhaps you don’t realize this but the Custer state park is in a part of the state that sees high amounts of tourism and relies heavily on the revenue generated from that traffic. It would not be difficult for the GFP to justify having the airport there to offer another opportunity to enjoy the park and generate revenue.

I think the real question is how much of an added benefit the airport actually is. We have claims from a local that the airport is used fairly frequently. The GFP is saying it is infrequently used. The actual amount of use is probably somewhere in the middle. I don’t live close enough to really know how much it gets used but I’ve always suspected it is underutilized.

Regardless, I’d much rather have my state’s money be spent keeping it open. Since the federal government isn’t involved in this airport I suspect there are some fairly inexpensive options that can be employed to keep the place maintained and viable for the realistic lifespan it has.
 
mondtster said:
Maybe, and maybe not. Perhaps you don’t realize this but the Custer state park is in a part of the state that sees high amounts of tourism and relies heavily on the revenue generated from that traffic. It would not be difficult for the GFP to justify having the airport there to offer another opportunity to enjoy the park and generate revenue.

I think the real question is how much of an added benefit the airport actually is. We have claims from a local that the airport is used fairly frequently. The GFP is saying it is infrequently used. The actual amount of use is probably somewhere in the middle. I don’t live close enough to really know how much it gets used but I’ve always suspected it is underutilized.

Regardless, I’d much rather have my state’s money be spent keeping it open. Since the federal government isn’t involved in this airport I suspect there are some fairly inexpensive options that can be employed to keep the place maintained and viable for the realistic lifespan it has.
Click to expand...
Tourists aren’t coming to SD to see that airport and there are no facilities to service a GA pilot coming to that region as a tourist.

There are a lot of airports across the US that deserved to be saved, 3V0 isn’t one of them.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Tourists aren’t coming to SD to see that airport and there are no facilities to service a GA pilot coming to that region as a tourist.
Click to expand...
Probably, but you don’t know that any more than I do.
 
We've patronized the are as GA-mode visitors, and we opted for RAP because of the kid logistics and schedule limitations of wanting to have an IFR departure. The rental car was also needed for multi-point visit (Rushmore was the main intendedattraction, but we actually ended up enjoying the Hills and Custer State Park more when it was all said and done, and would return for the latter not the former).

If it was the wife and I, we would love to park somewhere like Custer State park airport and hike to the lodge. Plenty of hiking to be done, we can always uber into town if need be. In fairness KCUT would probably offer a similar benefit, though I'd prefer the elevation and location of 3V0 for DA and mountain obscuration concerns vis a vis CUT.
 
Done!

Just my 2c here but it does sound a little silly to close the Custer State Park Airport due to budget concerns. My wife grew up in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Most every year for the last 25 years we visit the park and stay either with family or at one of the State Game Lodge facilities. The Custer State Park Airport is a favorite of mine to stop by each of those trips. There is nothing there to see but knowing it is there and I could visit by air is a long time dream of mine. The park is amazing and one of the wonders of South Dakota and the US. Although I have yet to have a chance to land at 3V0 I am hoping that will be an option in the not too distant future (unless they close it!). Z06_Mir I will hit you up for an intro flight to 3V0 on my next visit - feel free to PM me your flight school's contact info.

For context, Custer State Park receives 2.2 million visitors per year obviously that number could change up or down in the future. The park brings in about $10 million per year from fees, licenses, taxes, etc. from these visitors. They need $2.2 million over 7 years according to the statement from the Game, Fish and Parks to maintain the airport. Based on the limited information in the statement it sounds like $2 million of that could be amortized over the life of the rebuilt runway. Maybe that $2.2 million should disproportionately come from GA pilots and agencies that use or plan to use it (Fire used to use it but does not now, Nat. Guard might still use it, at least one POA flight school uses it). Still even if the entire cost were not amortized and Game, Fish and Parks wanted to pay for it over 7 years, that is $0.14 per visitor per year. More realistically when amortization is added into the calculation, the cost would be less than a nickel per visitor per year. A small price to pay to keep an asset like this IMHO.
 
Clip4 said:
Tourists aren’t coming to SD to see that airport and there are no facilities to service a GA pilot coming to that region as a tourist.

There are a lot of airports across the US that deserved to be saved, 3V0 isn’t one of them.
Click to expand...
Maybe there are airports that "deserve" it more. But it isn't a "this or that" goes situation, so why would we sit back and let it close? It is used in the community, it could be used more if they added fuel and could be more self sufficient. Why don't we think of ways to keep an airport rather than close it?
 
Z06_Mir said:
Maybe there are airports that "deserve" it more. But it isn't a "this or that" goes situation, so why would we sit back and let it close? It is used in the community, it could be used more if they added fuel and could be more self sufficient. Why don't we think of ways to keep an airport rather than close it?
Click to expand...
The closest airport bases only 21 airplane and you think the Game and Fish Department should spend $50,000 for fuel pump that won’t pay for themselves. Prosecution rests.
 
Last edited:
We visited the area last year (flew into RAP and rented a car). We drove by the field, hoping to find a place that we’d like to come back to in our plane in the future. It struck us as just impractical. No transportation nearby (good luck with Uber!), maybe a bathroom but I think the gate to the airport was closed when we were there. MAYBE we could bring bikes there and get around but, frankly, the park is big and the field isn’t very close to key sites. It had the feel of fire fighter strips I’ve seen elsewhere.

I don’t like to see any airport close unnecessarily but this one hardly seems like one to fall on my sword for.

Funny how nobody wants more taxes and many people want to cut costs and “wasteful programs” until, well, it’s something they personally think they want, even if they don’t actually use it. If it can survive on the business case, then good. Otherwise, it doesn’t seem like a huge loss, from all I can see.
 
Can someone tell me this, what was the original purpose of this airport? It is located far from civilization with no facilities on the field. I always just assumed it was there as a forward base for medevac or firefighting aircraft.

I'm certainly not against this airport, and have imagined myself landing there at some future visit, but honestly KCUT or KRAP are probably more user friendly.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Funny how nobody wants more taxes and many people want to cut costs and “wasteful programs” until, well, it’s something they personally think they want, even if they don’t actually use it. If it can survive on the business case, then good. Otherwise, it doesn’t seem like a huge loss, from all I can see.
Click to expand...
Au contraire mon frère, I want to keep this airport *precisely* because the government is spending half to two thirds of my taxes on blowing people up (aka military) and the costs of caring for injured soldiers for the rest of their lives (VA benefits). You're damn right I want some of that remaining third to be spent on airports. If they want to cut something, cut military first for a decade or so, it will be budget dust that isn't even noticed. Oh, and BTW, you don't get to get VA benefits. Those men and women made a deal to do a job and the nation agreed to take care of them. So you don't get to change that deal after the fact.

Then we can talk about airports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top