Taxiway/Ramp Incursion...what would you do?

[3393RP]

I called our airport's contact at the state. The reason I wanted to talk to her was I thought that she'd calm me down since I was P.O.'ed big time.

Instead of calming me down, she was more P.O.ed than I was. "That's an actionable item, big time, do you want me to do a surprise inspection next week?"

"Uhhhh...no...let us try to handle this locally first."

Oh, and the farmer has been notified repeatedly both in writing and verbally that he is to give the city 48 hours' notice before doing any planting, harvesting, fertilizing, etc. so the appropriate NOTAM can be filed for men & equipment working adjacent to the runway & taxiway.

Of course, that didn't happen last week either.

I would've much rather handled it myself (that's the way I prefer to do things) but I have no authority whatsoever since resigning last August. I'm just a peon now...okay...maybe I always have been.

The word you bolded in your post should be the clue. The farmer is jeopardizing the safety of you and your fellow aviators.

I don't understand your reluctance to involve the state. The guy is thumbing his nose at you and the aviation community, and he is breaking the law.

You say yourself you don't have any authority...how are you going to "handle it"? Going to the mayor isn't going to do anything. For all you know, the mayor is a non-confrontational weenie and hasn't made any demands for the farmer to change his behavior.

I would call the state back and ask them to drop the hammer on him. Just remember "repeatedly". All of the suggestions in this thread are silly. Poison will get you in trouble. Tractors, concrete markers, etc. mean you spend money and time trying to change the behavior. Why would you even bother when a phone call will fix the issue?

 

[Henning]

The word you bolded in your post should be the clue. The farmer is jeopardizing the safety of you and your fellow aviators.

I don't understand your reluctance to involve the state. The guy is thumbing his nose at you and the aviation community, and he is breaking the law.

You say yourself you don't have any authority...how are you going to "handle it"? Going to the mayor isn't going to do anything. For all you know, the mayor is a non-confrontational weenie and hasn't made any demands for the farmer to change his behavior.

I would call the state back and ask them to drop the hammer on him. Just remember "repeatedly". All of the suggestions in this thread are silly. Poison will get you in trouble. Tractors, concrete markers, etc. mean you spend money and time trying to change the behavior. Why would you even bother when a phone call will fix the issue?

How would applying a pesticide on airport grounds to control labelled growths get him in trouble? The airport is dutied to maintaining the property to the designated standards. 2,4-d is a commonly used broadleaf pesticide, and beans growing where they shouldn't be are a broadleaf pest, simple as that, just maintaining the property in a legal fashion.

 

[tmyers]

I think I have been called silly

 

[Skylane81E]

Salt the earth!!!

 

[denverpilot]

Why get in trouble spraying any type of poison, etc. you missed the easy way. Simply call the woman up who suggested a surprise inspection and let them handle it. If you don't feel that's called for, ( the legal easy way) then suffer.

What's easy about it? The inspection will lead to months of bureaucracy and maybe even an expensive lawsuit. Kill the crap , maybe he will sue (same outcome) but he won't because he's already over the property line and a Judge will say, "Move further back to your property line, case dismissed."

 

[Norman]

I still say 'bring in the state'. The farmer may be buddies with the mayor. The state has more leverage.

 

[timwinters]

Various comments and add'l information...

Could just wait till his crop comes up and bushhog up to the property line.

I did this last year! Except it didn't take a bush hog, my ZTR worked just fine.

If the city doesn't care enough about its airport, then maybe an advisory board of airport locals should create itself and meet on a schedule to do what you, as a former stakeholder, are doing now -- speak up when the airport management is lacking.

There are only TWO aircraft remaining at the field; a homebuilt kitfox and a tri-pacer that's in about a million pieces. Hence the current "who gives a ****" attitude towards mx and control.

Why not end his lease agreement if he's not following the terms of it?

Lease agreement? I wish. I asked the city to "formalize" his tenancy immediately upon agreeing to manage the airfield. It's been a "handshake agreement" with the same farmer since 1982.

put a large concrete, well marked post on your land, then put another one on the other side of the farmers land to document the line.

Those would be far more dangerous near the runway and taxiway than crops dontyathink?

I don't understand your reluctance to involve the state. The guy is thumbing his nose at you and the aviation community, and he is breaking the law.

It's small town "good ol' boy" rural Missouri. I'm just trying to correct the situation without pizzing everyone off. The mayor is on notice. I placed myself on the agenda for next Monday's Board of Aldermen meeting and I will reiterate everything to the full board then. Also, at this meeting, I will tell them that either they can handle it or I will ask the state to handle it...it's their choice...

The issue at this airport is that, especially since I left, it sees maybe 2 operations a week and there is only one hangar leased (the kitfox is in a trailer). So, they aren't taking it seriously. I have told them, and will again on Monday, that regardless of whether there is one operation a week or 100, they must maintain the airport with the same diligence. And, if they're not committed to do that then they should just close it because someone is going to get hurt, or worse, out there. There are many other issues besides the farmer, you should see the mole & groundhog mounds everywhere. No one is rolling it since I left. And those mounds are as hard as comanchepilot's concrete posts when the ground is frozen. I wouldn't land there right now.

The other issue, and why I've tried to bend over backwards to work with the farmer, is that HE funds the airport. The city collects $10 grand from him on a bad year...$20k on a good year. This more than pays the full cost of maintenance and upgrades at the field. All four hangars were rented until just a couple of months ago...that brought in a whopping $300/month (total!)

We'll see how it goes Monday night.

 

[Bill]

Sounds like you may be urinating into the wind on this one.

 

[Ted]

It sounds to me like it's probably effectively a lost cause, unless someone else wants to buy the land and own it as a private airport, a la 6Y9.

 

[timwinters]

Sounds like you may be urinating into the wind on this one.

I'd say it's a 50/50 chance that they'll elect to close it. IF there are no purse strings still attached to it. I don't know if there are or not.

 

[Badger]

Why doesn't the city simply jack up the rent on the few acres surrounding the airport? Like double them. When does the lease come up?

 

[timwinters]

BTW...here's a shot of it that I took about a month ago at the state's request. They wanted a new shot for their airport directory. 2600'x75', level, crowned, stays firm, (was) smooth. It's a really sweet little airfield...or was when properly maintained.

 

[timwinters]

Why doesn't the city simply jack up the rent on the few acres surrounding the airport? Like double them. When does the lease come up?

What exactly would that accomplish? Drive off the farmer and lose 100% of the income?

"The rent" is 1/4 of the crop, and that's the going rate in this area for lease land.

Typically around here the landowner takes 1/3 if he pays 1/3 the cost of seed, fertilizer, & pesti-herbicides. He takes 1/4 if he pays nothing.

 

[Clark1961]

What exactly would that accomplish? Drive off the farmer and lose 100% of the income?

"The rent" is 1/4 of the crop, and that's the going rate in this area for lease land.

Typically around here the landowner takes 1/3 if he pays 1/3 the cost of seed, fertilizer, & pesti-herbicides. He takes 1/4 if he pays nothing.

Never heard of nothing less than 1/3...1/3 to the landowner, 1/3 to the farmer, 1/3 to expenses, e.g. 2/3 to the custom farmer. Dunno what folks do in other worlds.

 

[Henning]

Never heard of nothing less than 1/3...1/3 to the landowner, 1/3 to the farmer, 1/3 to expenses, e.g. 2/3 to the custom farmer. Dunno what folks do in other worlds.

That's the way we did it in TX when I did custom hay, except one place where I only provided the tractor and operation and did the irrigation, he provided the swather, bailer, and fuel, we split half.

 

[comanchepilot]

If someone plants a tree on my land, I'm pretty sure it becomes mine, and I have the right to take it down. (Local ordinances about possible tree cutting notwithstanding.

hahahahaha

its not the cost of the tree but the cost of defending yourself from their lawsuit for destroying their property - believe it or not . . . well . . . I'll let you imagine the rest . . .

 

[comanchepilot]

He is farming the airport property, he has the lease on the dirt outside the movement areas and their FAA designated safety buffers. The farmer is operating outside the boundaries of his lease which is putting the airport in violation of their FAA charter.

This issue is strictly one property. Stakes had already been sen set, and the farmer moved them surreptitiously.

Lets let the lawyers get involved - it will take years.

Go do what I said and end the problem.

It SEEMS like a simple solution - but who wins the press war?

Farmer: "I'm just trying to earn an honest living here farming the land - its bare land and I'm making money for the taxpayers with this lease - all I did was plant a couple feet beyond the line and they destroyed my crop. . . . "

Yeah - ok. Lets see how that flies

 

[NoHeat]

it sees maybe 2 operations a week ...

Sounds like there is no strong argument for the city to keep the airport open. Just one tenant and that is for a plane that is not airworthy.

Is there a seasonal ag operation on the field? Maybe that would justify the airport's existence.

 

[ClimbnSink]

One airplane left? Time to shutter the place, it would provide more value growing food or as a soccer field.

 

[alfadog]

RoundUp, and lots of it, along the border.

Salt.

 

[Ted]

Yeah, I really have a hard time figuring out why it makes much sense to keep the airport open as an airport. Grass runway with few operations and even fewer people on field.

I hate to see an airport closed, but this sounds like one of those deals where it might be time.

 

[John Baker]

Where does the FAA fit into all of this? It seems to me that an illegal encroachment onto a public use airport, especially into taxiways and safety zones would be of great interest to them.

Another fun project might be to petition the FAA to help with funding a nice asphalt runway and taxiways, perhaps a tower. If our government can build multi million dollar highways and bridges that lead to a never used island up in Alaska, I don't see any reason that they would not want a major airport in the middle of nowhere.

You might be just a peon now in regards to your authority at that airport, but you are a pilot, so you have just as much authority over the matter as the new airport manager or the town mayor does...it's a safety issue. Hell, every pilot on this board has a vested interest in your towns little airport, what if it turned out to be "closest" on a GPS screen?

-John

 

[timwinters]

Sounds like there is no strong argument for the city to keep the airport open. Just one tenant and that is for a plane that is not airworthy.

Is there a seasonal ag operation on the field? Maybe that would justify the airport's existence.

No

One airplane left? Time to shutter the place, it would provide more value growing food or as a soccer field.

I'll find out if there are still any purse-strings attached before next Monday's meeting. If not, then I'll definitely let the city know that's an option. I hate to see any airport close but I'd rather see a closed airport than an open airport that's a hazard to aviators.

 

[N801BH]

BTW...here's a shot of it that I took about a month ago at the state's request. They wanted a new shot for their airport directory. 2600'x75', level, crowned, stays firm, (was) smooth. It's a really sweet little airfield...or was when properly maintained.

Looking at this pic it is pretty clear the new industrial park in the forefront of the pic will migrate to the airport when it closes down. This could be the grand plan from the local guvmint.. IMHO

 

[timwinters]

Looking at this pic it is pretty clear the new industrial park in the forefront of the pic will migrate to the airport when it closes down. This could be the grand plan from the local guvmint.. IMHO

This local government has no grand plan...they have no plan at all...it's a town of about 1500 that blows in the wind with no direction.

Also, about 90% of the airport grounds can't be built on. It's in the floodplain of the creek you see circling around the north and east sides. That's why the hangars are so far away from the runway; that area is on a little higher ground.

Besides, there is no demand for more industry in this area...only one of the buildings you see is active. Industry is dying here, well, with the exception of manufacturing meth!

 

[N801BH]

This local government has no grand plan...they have no plan at all...it's a town of about 1500 that blows in the wind with no direction.

Also, about 90% of the airport grounds can't be built on. It's in the floodplain of the creek you see circling around the north and east sides. That's why the hangars are so far away from the runway; that area is on a little higher ground.

Besides, there is no demand for more industry in this area...only one of the buildings you see is active. Industry is dying here, well, with the exception of manufacturing meth!

Interesting.....
Those three 10,000 -12,000 sq ft warehouses didn.t come cheap to build and the Blue topped professional building doesn't look cheaply built either..

Even the industrial park had the interior road paved and stubbed out for future expansion.....

Someone lost their ass on that one ?

 

[Ted]

Besides, there is no demand for more industry in this area...only one of the buildings you see is active. Industry is dying here, well, with the exception of manufacturing meth!

That is perhaps one of the most depressing realities of many small towns these days. If it's not meth, it's heroin.

 

[EdFred]

hahahahaha

its not the cost of the tree but the cost of defending yourself from their lawsuit for destroying their property - believe it or not . . . well . . . I'll let you imagine the rest . . .

I'll let them spend the money on lawyers. I have access to all the laws and regulations for free. They want to sue, and spend more money than it will cost them to plant a new tree, they can go right ahead. And if in the end I lose, I'm out what? The cost of a tree? Let 'em have at it. I've defended myself successfully before, and have no problem doing so again.

 

[teamcoltra]

If our government can build multi million dollar highways and bridges that lead to a never used island up in Alaska
-John

Just a few quick points

* They didn't build the bridge
* The bridge would have paid for itself, and provides a lifeline to one of the largest cities in Alaska.. hardly "no where".
* Alaska brings in far more revenue than what it takes... so when it asks for little favours, I think it's pretty fair that they should get them.

 

[Norman]

Besides, there is no demand for more industry in this area...only one of the buildings you see is active. Industry is dying here, well, with the exception of manufacturing meth!

If it's fit for farmin' you could give entirely new meaning to a "grass" runway. :wink2:

Awful close to the road though. Barney might catch on.