Chart Symbol

Greg Bockelman

Greg Bockelman

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
11,211
Location
Lone Jack, MO
Display Name
Display name:
Greg Bockelman
On the Kansas City Sectional, half way between Lee's Summit airport (LXT) and Harrisonville airport (LRY) there is a private paved east west runway that is listed as "Objectionable". What does that mean? That airport has been there almost as long as I have been flying. It just showed up as Objectionable in the last few cycles.
 
For one reason or another the Feds don't like it because of some airspace issue. As to why it's relevant to put it on a sectional I have no idea. Maybe to "penalize" the airport owner. Seems silly.

I can't really figure out what they wouldn't like about it looking at the charts for that area. I can't imagine any aircraft would be low enough that it would interfere with an approach.

Someone probably didn't line the right pockets.

An airport with an objectionable airspace will be labeled as such, "OBJECTIONABLE." This airport may adversely affect airspace use. FAA Airports Offices are responsible for airspace determinations and follow FAA Order 7400.2. If an airport owner or chart user wishes to challenge the objectionable status, he or she should contact their FAA Regional Airports Office.
Click to expand...

Call up the owner and ask him to get the scoop. (This information is from public database)
RHAN WALKER
22207 E 189TH STREET
PLEASANT HILL, MO 64080
Phone 816-812-1020
Click to expand...
 
Upon looking at this a little closer -- the only real "conflict" I can see is that the initial approach fix, FEMIL, for the RNAV 17 approach into LRY is essentially right on top of that airport.

The approach plate calls for you to be at 2,900 ft at that point, with a descent to 2,600 ft permitted as you head south. You could basically be on the approach and be directly over top of that private field at 2,600 ft which would be 1,640 AGL. I can't imagine you'd conflict with anyone using that field though.

Only a guess, but I'd guess there's some approach standard that says you can't have an approach that will have aircraft passing a few hundred feet above the traffic pattern of another airport.

Maybe someone got a TCAS alert in IMC on that approach and it kicked off a review of all the airspace and the new updated objectionable status. Who knows.
 
jesse said:
Upon looking at this a little closer -- the only real "conflict" I can see is that the initial approach fix, FEMIL, for the RNAV 17 approach into LRY is essentially right on top of that airport.

The approach plate calls for you to be at 2,900 ft at that point, with a descent to 2,600 ft permitted as you head south. You could basically be on the approach and be directly over top of that private field at 2,600 ft which would be 1,640 AGL. I can't imagine you'd conflict with anyone using that field though.

Only a guess, but I'd guess there's some approach standard that says you can't have an approach that will have aircraft passing a few hundred feet above the traffic pattern of another airport.

Maybe someone got a TCAS alert in IMC on that approach and it kicked off a review of all the airspace and the new updated objectionable status. Who knows.
Click to expand...

More likely that the traffic pattern for the airport intrudes into the safe area for the approach. But without looking at the notes, it's hard to tell.
 
Wow. That isn't who I thought owned it. I wonder if someone bought the property and doesn't care about the strip anymore.
 
wsuffa said:
More likely that the traffic pattern for the airport intrudes into the safe area for the approach. But without looking at the notes, it's hard to tell.
Click to expand...

Why would the chart makers drop the data block for the airport and replace it with the Objectionable tag? I would think both would be on the chart.
 
Maybe the problem is power lines alongside the strip. Looking at google maps, I am guessing the strip is directly alongside hwy 58, which has powerlines.

It is hardly detectable as an airstrip in the aerial photo, anyway.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Why would the chart makers drop the data block for the airport and replace it with the Objectionable tag? I would think both would be on the chart.
Click to expand...

My guess is that they don't want it to be used, but have no legal recourse to achieve it directly. So they make it more obscure, to ward off all but the most persistent.
 
The old Riordan Airport. My primary CFI used to like giving students diversion exercises to that place. Very hard to spot, the rwy looks like a long driveway. So you would divert, start the clock, get to where you thought it should be, circle until you got tired of feeding the Hobbs, and never see it.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Why would the chart makers drop the data block for the airport and replace it with the Objectionable tag? I would think both would be on the chart.
Click to expand...
I see lots of "objectionables" around. Some appear to be airspace, some are due to obstructions too close, etc. I guess it's just the FAA's way of keeping us safe by hiding information.
 
So....what does it mean to us?
 
bflynn said:
So....what does it mean to us?
Click to expand...
From a practical standpoint, it makes it harder to look up the airport in the AFD if you are stuck in weather turning to **** and need some place to set down and want to know what you are getting into (or be able to call out the airport name on CTAF). But other than that, nothing.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
On the Kansas City Sectional, half way between Lee's Summit airport (LXT) and Harrisonville airport (LRY) there is a private paved east west runway that is listed as "Objectionable". What does that mean? That airport has been there almost as long as I have been flying. It just showed up as Objectionable in the last few cycles.
Click to expand...
The strip listed as "objectionable" is 43MO - Riordan Airport.
AirspaceAnalysis:OBJECTIONABLE AN ACCEPTABLE TFC PATTERN AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED BETWEEN THE INTER-STATE ARPT AND THE RIORDAN ARPT.

So, you know that it is paved, you do not know that it is private, Estimated Elevation is 1000 feet MSL, and you don't know that Runway 08/26 is 2500 x 30 feet unless you look in the AFD which is hard to do without the airport name.

That's how the FAA keeps you safe.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
The strip listed as "objectionable" is 43MO - Riordan Airport.
AirspaceAnalysis:OBJECTIONABLE AN ACCEPTABLE TFC PATTERN AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED BETWEEN THE INTER-STATE ARPT AND THE RIORDAN ARPT.

So, you know that it is paved, you do not know that it is private, Estimated Elevation is 1000 feet MSL, and you don't know that Runway 08/26 is 2500 x 30 feet unless you look in the AFD which is hard to do without the airport name.

That's how the FAA keeps you safe.
Click to expand...

Riordan is objectionable because they can't agree on a traffic pattern with the airport next door which is NOT objectionable.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2015-03-29-20-11-52.png
    Screenshot_2015-03-29-20-11-52.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 39
Matthew said:
Riordan is objectionable because they can't agree on a traffic pattern with the airport next door which is NOT objectionable.
Click to expand...

So why, after all these years, is it an issue now? Both of those airports have been there a long time.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
So why, after all these years, is it an issue now? Both of those airports have been there a long time.
Click to expand...

Dunno. I do know that "objectionable" lable started showing up a couple years ago. I don't know why FAA started using it, and I don't know why they would take two conflicting airports and only use the lable on one.
 
NoHeat said:
Maybe the problem is power lines alongside the strip. Looking at google maps, I am guessing the strip is directly alongside hwy 58, which has powerlines.

It is hardly detectable as an airstrip in the aerial photo, anyway.
Click to expand...

It's actually 291 and they really aren't an issue.
 
Robinson airport, a couple mile west of Riordan, IS easy to find. Just look for the old missile silo site.

That airport was in the news about 10 yrs ago. Apparently there were some legal issues about it being built at that location. Something about how the Feds still own some kind of easement or something.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_2015-03-29-21-32-31.png
    Screenshot_2015-03-29-21-32-31.png
    2 MB · Views: 20
  • Screenshot_2015-03-29-21-31-27.png
    Screenshot_2015-03-29-21-31-27.png
    2.2 MB · Views: 20
it makes me want to say "objectionable traffic, travel air on left downwind for landing to the east. Any objections, please advise"
 
Heh - now I'm tempted to get my own private strip and name it "Objectionable".
 
A quick scan up the right side of Michigan and into the thumb reveals a bunch: 26W, 15W, 11G, 4Y8, E53, 29C

The excuse is not listed for some, but others AirspaceAnalysis:OBJECTIONABLE MAN-MADE OR NATURAL OBJECTS EXIST WITHIN THE AIRSPACE NEEDED TO INSURE SAFETY IN TAKEOFF & LANDING OF ACFT.

I'm thinking a good summer tour would be to visit all of the objectionable airports in the state...
 
Matthew said:
Heh - now I'm tempted to get my own private strip and name it "Objectionable".
Click to expand...


Oh, I like that idea.

Or just to muck things up even more, combine that with the name of something more familiar, like 'Objectionable O'Hare' or 'Objectionable Oshkosh,' and just wait to see who shows up!
 
Zuehl Field in the San Antonio area got labeled Objectionable recently. Ironically, Zuehl is a former auxiliary of Randolph AFB and RAFB is responsible for the Objectionable status because they don't want the little planes buzzing near their T-38s anymore.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
A quick scan up the right side of Michigan and into the thumb reveals a bunch: 26W, 15W, 11G, 4Y8, E53, 29C

The excuse is not listed for some, but others AirspaceAnalysis:OBJECTIONABLE MAN-MADE OR NATURAL OBJECTS EXIST WITHIN THE AIRSPACE NEEDED TO INSURE SAFETY IN TAKEOFF & LANDING OF ACFT.

I'm thinking a good summer tour would be to visit all of the objectionable airports in the state...
Click to expand...

Maybe Nick could set up "Go Fly Objectionable"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top