Private Airport Question

greddawn

greddawn

Pre-Flight
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Messages
71
Location
TX
Display Name
Display name:
gred
I was flying over a private airstrip yesterday and thought about doing a lap in their pattern and low approach. Their runway is right on a really nice lake against rolling hills and looked like a great view coming in. Then I decided against it, out of courtesy and ignorance of the rules.

That being said, would I have broken any FAA rules by doing that? I know we need permission to land at a private airport, but how does the FAA govern us regarding pattern work/low approach at private airports, if they do at all?
 
Can't speak to the FAR's or such, but can't hurt to contact the airport owner, compliment him on his airport, and ask permission to operate.

Likely an offer to help with some maintenance one weekend would be well received.
 
You should consult the FARs , as to the minimum altitude you can descend to if you don't intend to land.
 
frfly172 said:
You should consult the FARs , as to the minimum altitude you can descend to if you don't intend to land.
Click to expand...

So if I am with a student and I intend to practice go around procedures, and at 100 feet we execute the procedure, is that covered in FAR's?
 
Two different cases,the op is over private property. You are at an airport where go a rounds are part of the landing .
 
AggieMike88 said:
Can't speak to the FAR's or such, but can't hurt to contact the airport owner, compliment him on his airport, and ask permission to operate.

Likely an offer to help with some maintenance one weekend would be well received.
Click to expand...

I would definitely offer that or a fly in booze delivery to get out there on a nice weekend. Still curious about the regs though. I've been picking through the far/aim and my only restriction I can find so far is 500 agl minimum for VFR daytime when not landing or taking off. Don't know if this would apply, as it would render all planned go arounds illegal. I'll keep digging...
 
frfly172 said:
You should consult the FARs , as to the minimum altitude you can descend to if you don't intend to land.
Click to expand...
Intentional low approaches are exempt from those rules as long as the airport is suitable for landing and the low approach looks like a low approach (not a high speed "yee-hah" pass). Case law on point available, including a pilot burned for doing what he claimed was a practice low approach to a 2000-foot gravel strip -- in a 4-engine turboprop.

So, there are no FAR issues as long as it's a real practice approach. There are, of course, trespass issues if you touch down without permission, but that's not FAA law.
 
Last edited:
TommyG said:
So if I am with a student and I intend to practice go around procedures, and at 100 feet we execute the procedure, is that covered in FAR's?
Click to expand...
Yes, in 91.119's takeoff and landing exception, and it's legal. Even if you touched down you wouldn't be breaking any FAA rules, although there are other laws about trespass which would then come into play.
 
greddawn said:
I would definitely offer that or a fly in booze delivery to get out there on a nice weekend. Still curious about the regs though. I've been picking through the far/aim and my only restriction I can find so far is 500 agl minimum for VFR daytime when not landing or taking off. Don't know if this would apply, as it would render all planned go arounds illegal. I'll keep digging...
Click to expand...

Don't have the reg in front of me.
 
Ron Levy said:
Intentional low approaches are exempt from those rules as long as the airport is suitable for landing and the low approach looks like a low approach (not a high speed "yee-hah" pass). Case law on point available, including a pilot burned for doing what he claimed was a practice low approach to a 2000-foot gravel strip -- in a 4-engine turboprop.

So, there are no FAR issues as long as it's a real practice approach. There are, of course, trespass issues if you touch down without permission, but that's not FAA law.
Click to expand...

Say we are wanting to do the same thing at an abandoned/closed airport. Does it violate the "suitable for landing" requirement by its closure alone?

When is it considered trespassing? When a wheel hits the ground or when the pilot hops out? I assume the former...
 
greddawn said:
I was flying over a private airstrip yesterday and thought about doing a lap in their pattern and low approach. Their runway is right on a really nice lake against rolling hills and looked like a great view coming in. Then I decided against it, out of courtesy and ignorance of the rules.

That being said, would I have broken any FAA rules by doing that? I know we need permission to land at a private airport, but how does the FAA govern us regarding pattern work/low approach at private airports, if they do at all?
Click to expand...

Much of the information we need to answer the question is missing. was the private airport on the sectional, and the symbol a "R" "P" ? or was it simply a nice flat area that could be used as a landing site?
How close was the nearest building- person?
What was the airspace ?
91.119 is as close as the FARs get.

There are a few airports around Puget Sound that are private, but open to the public, and a few that are not marked on the sectional but are used as a landing site with owner permission.
 
So you're going to shoot a approach into a private strip without PA?

Or are you just going to do a low pass above person and property?

Just ask for permission.
 
ChitDisturber said:
So you're going to shoot a approach into a private strip without PA?

Or are you just going to do a low pass above person and property?

Just ask for permission.
Click to expand...

Neither, as I tried to clarify in my original post. My curiosity was regarding whether the FARAIM addresses and/or regulates pattern work including low approaches over a private airfield. (Beyond the extent of restrictions for a public class E/G)
 
greddawn said:
Say we are wanting to do the same thing at an abandoned/closed airport. Does it violate the "suitable for landing" requirement by its closure alone?
Click to expand...

Yes.

When is it considered trespassing? When a wheel hits the ground or when the pilot hops out? I assume the former...
Click to expand...

Actually, it can be considered trespassing when you get below the legal fly-over-if-no-runway-is-there altitude, it depends on how the law is written. Trespassing isn't an FAA reg, it's a state/local LAW. You can get fined over a reg, you can get jailed over a law. You can also get sued.

But seriously, if it's PRIVATE, why annoy the owner? Most guys with their own field are open to visitors who get permission ahead of time.
 
greddawn said:
Neither, as I tried to clarify in my original post. My curiosity was regarding whether the FARAIM addresses and/or regulates pattern work including low approaches over a private airfield. (Beyond the extent of restrictions for a public class E/G)
Click to expand...
...and the answer to that is that the FAA rules do not change due to the private/public status of the airport.
 
SoloEqs said:
A private airport is NOT an airport unless you have permission to operate there.
Click to expand...

:nonod::nonod:..

Every airport IS an airport when you hit the nearest key on your GPS during an emergency.... That is why I asked to have mine charted. so any pilot with a problem can find mine in the database.. For every private one you see on the sectional there is probably 2-3 you flew over and didn't see. :yes:
 
SoloEqs said:
A private airport is NOT an airport unless you have permission to operate there.
Click to expand...

Really, you'll have to show what regulation supports that. Even if you land at a private airport without permission it's not going to be a regulation bust. You may run into some local constabulatory issues for your trespassing (and you had darn be sure you didn't bust some other safety-related FAA regulation in the process).

But especially with respect to what we're talking about. If you don't intend to land you can not fly closer than 500' to a person, vessel, or structure. It makes no difference if it's ORD or NC26. There have been enforcement actions that the pilot lost on appeal. If you make a low pass you'd better not violate the minimum altitude rules nor do anything else the FAA may throw a 91.13 at you with.
 
flyingron said:
But especially with respect to what we're talking about. If you don't intend to land you can not fly closer than 500' to a person, vessel, or structure.
Click to expand...
Not so. Practice approaches with no intent to land are specifically discussed as an acceptable exception to 91.119 in the case I cited earlier as long as the airport is "suitable" in terms of length and surface.
 
flyingron said:
Really, you'll have to show what regulation supports that.
Click to expand...

Nope. Other way around -- unless you can show approval of the airport for YOUR flight operations, it's no different than the surrounding land. If you're in a KingAir, that 800' ultralight strip isn't an airport.

Here in the Western deserts, there are a LOT of places that one can land and take off -- highways, roads, dry lakebeds, bare desert, ultralight fields, model airplane strips, abandoned WWII training fields, etc. Just because something LOOKS like an airstrip doesn't make it suitable for landing, which more than one pilot has discovered. In fact, most private airstrips are unusable, and are on the charts simply because nobody has said to take them off. One near me was graded back in 1941 and hasn't had a plane (or maintenance) on it in years. It's still on the charts, because the owner likes to be able to tell people that he has his own private airstrip.

Yet another strip, graded by the Navy for pilot WWII training, isn't even marked as an abandoned field on charts or topo maps. You can see the strip for miles, but according to the FAA it's just another patch of desert.

OTOH, another poorly-maintained strip nearby is for sale, and the owner has ASKED us to use his field, to show continuing use by aircraft. A couple of us will periodically shoot approaches (none of us dares land on it, even the LSA guys).

Even if you land at a private airport without permission it's not going to be a regulation bust.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? A private airfield is controlled by the owner (according to the FAA, who approved it as a private airport in the first place) who either has or has not given you clearance to land there. Landing at a controlled airport without clearance IS a reg bust. And taking off just might not happen (nothing keeps the owner from parking his car on the runway and making you trailer your plane out, AFTER you pay whatever he decides to charge as a landing fee).

But especially with respect to what we're talking about. If you don't intend to land you can not fly closer than 500' to a person, vessel, or structure. It makes no difference if it's ORD or NC26. There have been enforcement actions that the pilot lost on appeal. If you make a low pass you'd better not violate the minimum altitude rules nor do anything else the FAA may throw a 91.13 at you with.
Click to expand...

Yep. And you have to be able to SHOW that you didn't blow the 500' rule. About the only place to be able to do that is the middle of a dry lakebed, AND if you're shooting video that shows it to be absolutely empty. ;) Otherwise, it just takes one annoyed person to say "I was walking out there and this plane came whizzing right over my head!"

There aren't many private airports which don't have a building on them, so shooting your approach, even if you abort, is likely to take you within that 500' . . .and you can pretty much assume that anyone with a private field is also likely to report unapproved low passes.
 
KW really needs to check the regulations, because nothing he wrote above is supported by anything in Title 14 of the CFR (aka Federal Air Regulations) or any FAA case law.
 
SoloEqs said:
Check http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/2150.3 B W-Chg 4.pdf

Then find Fig. B-3-j. 14 C.F.R. 91.13(a):

"(3) Landing on, or taking off from, closed runway 30-to-60-day suspension"

Private airports are CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE.
Click to expand...

If you look up the regulation cited in that figure, you'll see that it only applies when the operation is conducted in a manner "so as to endanger the life or property of another." The FAA seems to decide when life or property is endangered on a case by case basis, so without examining the enforcement history, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that operating on a closed runway always triggers that regulation.

And equating an airport's private status to the runway being closed is another assumption.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
If you look up the regulation cited in that figure, you'll see that it only applies when the operation is conducted in a manner "so as to endanger the life or proerty of another." The FAA seems to decide when life or property is endangered on a case by case basis, so without examining the enforcement history, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that operating on a closed runway always triggers that regulation.

And equating an airport's private status to the runway being closed is another assumption.
Click to expand...
One unjustified by any regulatory language or case law.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not so. Practice approaches with no intent to land are specifically discussed as an acceptable exception to 91.119 in the case I cited earlier as long as the airport is "suitable" in terms of length and surface.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what I get from the FARs as well as the case you presented.
So practice approach in a G650 to a 2000' grass strip is verboten by FARs.
While practice approach to the same field in a Cub is perfectly OK.
 
SoloEqs said:
Check http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/2150.3 B W-Chg 4.pdf

Then find Fig. B-3-j. 14 C.F.R. 91.13(a):

"(3) Landing on, or taking off from, closed runway 30-to-60-day suspension"

Private airports are CLOSED TO PUBLIC USE.
Click to expand...


But not Closed period.

What would you do when the fan quits, and the only suitable landing spot is the long paved runway with big Xs on both ends?
I guess you would land/crash into the trees rather than violate FARs by landing on the closed runway?
 
bluerooster said:
But not Closed period.

What would you do when the fan quits, and the only suitable landing spot is the long paved runway with big Xs on both ends?
I guess you would land/crash into the trees rather than violate FARs by landing on the closed runway?
Click to expand...

Is it an FAR violation to exercise your emergency authority in that case?
 
N801BH said:
Nope.... all is legal during a declared emergency....:yes:
Click to expand...
There is nothing in 91.3(b) requiring the declaration of an emergency, just that an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action exists. OTOH, not all is legal -- only what is necessary to meet the emergency.
(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
There is nothing in 91.3(b) requiring the declaration of an emergency, just that an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action exists. OTOH, not all is legal -- only what is necessary to meet the emergency.
Click to expand...

That is just downright doubletalk.....:yes::lol:..

Makes sense though since you live the DC area...:mad2::D
 
N801BH said:
That is just downright doubletalk.....:yes::lol:..

Makes sense though since you live the DC area...:mad2::D
Click to expand...

Show me the regulation that says emergencies must be declared.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top