Touch-n-Go Ban

EDC's a great airport, and the service there is routinely excellent. I do not believe that there is any FAA grant money in the field, though.

I have only seen touch & go operations there once - a brand-new G650. It was Impressive.
 
EDC's a great airport, and the service there is routinely excellent. I do not believe that there is any FAA grant money in the field, though.

I have only seen touch & go operations there once - a brand-new G650. It was Impressive.
 
You don't need one as a pilot in the US.
 
James331 said:
Well for the saftey of flight, do what you gotta do and they can suck it, but if someone put their own bank roll into a airport and doesn't want touches and goes, I might not go there as much, but I'd honor their request.

Now if they are a publicly funded airport, I'll do touch and goes if I like.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. I'll follow their rules, but I don't have to like them! It's a cool airport to go do a few tngs at sunset when it's cool and calm. It's an easy 10 mile flight. Oh well!
 
Why wold I use a radio away from my plane?

The airport "authority" ba ha ha ha
 
James331 said:
Why wold I use a radio away from my plane?
Click to expand...

Why do you think this is about you?

Let me clarify this, since you seem to be lost regarding what you're posting about:

In post #1, the OP mentioned that the airport operator spoke to him on the radio, most likely from the ground, and perhaps from a handheld radio.

In post #21, a joke was made, suggesting that the pilot could harass the airport by reporting them to the FCC for operating an unlicensed radio.

In post #30, I remarked upon this joke, with pleasure, adding my own joke that this would frighten the airport.

In post #40, you replied with the irrelevant remark "You don't need one as a pilot in the US."

In post #47, another poster helpfully explained to you that a license was needed when using the radio away from the plane.

Finally, in post #48, as quoted above, you continued to express your thought that this is all about you and your use of a radio in your plane.
 
NoHeat said:
Why do you think this is about you?

Let me clarify this, since you seem to be lost regarding what you're posting about:

In post #1, the OP mentioned that the airport operator spoke to him on the radio, most likely from the ground, and perhaps from a handheld radio.

In post #21, a joke was made, suggesting that the pilot could harass the airport by reporting them to the FCC for operating an unlicensed radio.

In post #30, I remarked upon this joke, with pleasure, adding my own joke that this would frighten the airport.

In post #40, you replied with the irrelevant remark "You don't need one as a pilot in the US."

In post #47, another poster helpfully explained to you that a license was needed when using the radio away from the plane.

Finally, in post #48, as quoted above, you continued to express your thought that this is all about you and your use of a radio in your plane.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the effort you put, gold star for you little one!

Well as a FAA pilot you don't need a FCC cert, done

I don't think any of this has chit to do with me, heck I'm a long ways from any of you folks.

Good talk
 
Lowflynjack said:
I know there will be some people who say just leave it alone, and I may, but it just ruffled my feathers. Full disclosure, it is listed as no tngs in the AFD, which I don't read fully before going into an airport I'm already familiar with.
Click to expand...
...apparently not THAT familiar, eh? :D

On the public vs private discrepancy, I don't see a practical difference. If the prohibition is published in the AFD, I am going to start with the presumption the restriction was "vetted," whether that means no grant assurances or grant assurances with an exemption due to operational or nose issues. In which case my starting point is to operate accordingly.

Also, still "legality" aside, there are some airports, whether "legally" or not, that have restrictions in an attempt to be good neighbors in communites with noise issues. I can't think of a reason why I would want to actively make it more difficult for an airport to fight for its survival.

Of course, if I didn't like it, I could do the necessary research, find out the reasons and, if MY needs were more important, (literally) make a federal case out of it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
On the public vs private discrepancy, I don't see a practical difference. If the prohibition is published in the AFD, I am going to start with the presumption the restriction was "vetted," whether that means no grant assurances or grant assurances with an exemption due to operational or nose issues. In which case my starting point is to operate accordingly.

Also, still "legality" aside, there are some airports, whether "legally" or not, that have restrictions in an attempt to be good neighbors in communites with noise issues. I can't think of a reason why I would want to actively make it more difficult for an airport to fight for its survival.
Click to expand...
The practical difference is, if it's private you can do what you want with it. If it's funded by our tax dollars we have a voice. You can't prohibit activities at a public airport that has accepted federal funding without justification. This usually involves noise and traffic studies.

In this case, the airport is not fighting for its survival. There are no neighborhoods bordering the airport. I think they simply don't want flight schools filling their pattern. Understandable when you want the business jets and the money they bring, but as I mentioned before it was said they welcomed GA traffic. After both flying and driving in, it seems clear to me they will tolerate us, but not get excited we're there.
 
Lowflynjack said:
The practical difference is, if it's private you can do what you want with it. If it's funded by our tax dollars we have a voice. You can't prohibit activities at a public airport that has accepted federal funding without justification. This usually involves noise and traffic studies.

In this case, the airport is not fighting for its survival. There are no neighborhoods bordering the airport. I think they simply don't want flight schools filling their pattern. Understandable when you want the business jets and the money they bring, but as I mentioned before it was said they welcomed GA traffic. After both flying and driving in, it seems clear to me they will tolerate us, but not get excited we're there.
Click to expand...
A prohibition of touch & goes is way at the bottom of my personal list of discriminatory acts against small GA. If it's higher on your list, or it's just the principle of the thing, do something about it.

Find out if it's been vetted. If it hasn't, try to get the airport, informally, to retract the prohibition. File an FAR Part 16 complaint with the FAA or a civil lawsuit. Challenge the prohibition by doing touch & goes and see if there is some effort by the airport or the FAA to enforce it.
 
midlifeflyer said:
A prohibition of touch & goes is way at the bottom of my personal list of discriminatory acts against small GA. If it's higher on your list, or it's just the principle of the thing, do something about it.

Find out if it's been vetted. If it hasn't, try to get the airport, informally, to retract the prohibition. File an FAR Part 16 complaint with the FAA or a civil lawsuit. Challenge the prohibition by doing touch & goes and see if there is some effort by the airport or the FAA to enforce it.
Click to expand...
Yep, as I've now said several times, it's not my fight. I'm not going to do anything about this, not even going to try. There are too many airports to support one that doesn't want us. Most airports welcome tngs, because for one thing, it encourages activity at the airport and a lot of our local area schools stop for fuel at our airport. Exec doesn't need this revenue.

It's a 6K' runway, so I could do 3 stop-n-goes which aren't prohibited. I'm not interested in pushing their buttons though since its a private airport, they could ban me and I do need to fly in there occasionally.

Now if my local airport, which has taken a lot of our tax money tried to ban tngs, I would be deep into that fight.
 
There are a few local airports that prohibit touch & goes during a certain time period. For example KSAC bans T&G's, and practice approaches, between 2100 and 0600, which incidentally is when the tower is closed.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I think they simply don't want flight schools filling their pattern.
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly it. It can get annoying to have your pattern filled with slow student pilots speaking bad English which seems to happen a lot near the big cities in Texas if there is a nice long runway to practice at. I can understand an investor who wants to attract the high paying customers wanting to make it more convenient for them by clearing those students away. Both those airports KEDC and KTME are really great airports so I'm grateful that those investors decided to build those airports. I fly into both often.

Now in your case with your beautiful plane I have a funny feeling that if you went and spoke to the manager they may make an exception for you... It is worth a shot.
 
bikert said:
I think that's exactly it. It can get annoying to have your pattern filled with slow student pilots speaking bad English which seems to happen a lot near the big cities in Texas if there is a nice long runway to practice at. I can understand an investor who wants to attract the high paying customers wanting to make it more convenient for them by clearing those students away. Both those airports KEDC and KTME are really great airports so I'm grateful that those investors decided to build those airports. I fly into both often.

Now in your case with your beautiful plane I have a funny feeling that if you went and spoke to the manager they may make an exception for you... It is worth a shot.
Click to expand...
Nonsense, he'll get much better results whining about it on POA...:rolleyes:
 
Read the AFD and comply with any and all restrictions. Or carelessly and recklessly don't. But if you value your ticket know in advance what operations you can or can't do at any facility or airspace you plan on visiting.

A local airport by me (KOKB) had a no touch and go restriction for many years, and was publicly funded. So I wouldn't go to the FSDO and complain about your inconvenience due to not being familiar with, or complying with, Official FAA publications such as the AFD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sac Arrow said:
There are a few local airports that prohibit touch & goes during a certain time period. For example KSAC bans T&G's, and practice approaches, between 2100 and 0600, which incidentally is when the tower is closed.
Click to expand...
I don't think the practice approaches are related. At KSAC, the preferred calm wind runway is 20, and all the approaches are 2.
 
paflyer said:
Nonsense, he'll get much better results whining about it on POA...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Thanks for the great contribution to the thread!

Boomer said:
So I wouldn't go to the FSDO and complain about your inconvenience due to not being familiar with, or complying with, Official FAA publications such as the AFD.
Click to expand...
I don't understand your logic. If they're taking tax money, I do have a right to complain if I feel they have a rule that is unnecessary. The FAA has ruled in the past that airports had to lift their restrictions on tngs and other activities they deem to be normal aviation operations. I don't have the time or the desire to fight this fight, but if it was my local airport I would. You should see some of the rules our city put in place. If they tried to enforce them, we would have the FAA out as quickly as we could. No straight in landings without permission from the airport manager as an example.

flyingron said:
Privately owned, public use. It appears they have taken grant money.
Click to expand...
That's what I figured. It's a very nice airport and they originally said the owner spend $33M on it. While that's a lot of money, I can imagine most of that would have gone into the runway alone. A brand new 6025 x 100 runway.
 
Lowflynjack said:
So this will be sure to stir up some heated discussion. For those not familiar with Austin, we had an almost abandoned airport called Bird's Nest. A rich guy bought it and rebuilt the airport into Austin Executive Airport. We were happy to see the airport saved and it basically created a new airport. We were assured he loved general aviation and wasn't just trying to get the rich guys in their Gulfstreams in there.
Click to expand...

Had you checked the AFD you would have known that touch and goes are prohibited at KEDC.

Having said that, KEDC is super GA friendly. They treat us bugsmashers just as nicely as the big iron. Eat as many cookies and take all the free water bottles you want!

I understand the T&G rule. Mr Hendricks needs to pay for this airport. Having a swarm of trainers doing T&G's coming in from all over to do pattern work is just not a good mix with the business travelers that really pay for the place.

Just do a stop and go. Heck, you ought to be able to do two or three!

PS: I learned to fly at Bird's Nest, soloed there in 1970!
 
JimNtexas said:
Had you checked the AFD you would have known that touch and goes are prohibited at KEDC.
Click to expand...
Yeah, several people have mentioned this and I agree, I made a mistake. If we're all honest, how many people check the AFD at airports they've been flying to for a long time? In this case I've been going there since it was Bird's Nest. If you do look at the AFD, do you read it all the way to bottom where the remarks are? How often do you re-read it? Again, I know I'm responsible for knowing the published information on an airport before I go in there, but honestly I'm not checking and rechecking the data.

All of the pilots that say they go there, did you know it was published no tngs or did you look it up after I mentioned it? Not throwing any stones here, just wondering how far out of the norm I am! Its easy for people to pull up the AFD and tell me I missed it in hindsight.
 
Lots of public owned, public funded airports with restrictions for noise abatement such as no touch and go. SEZ is an example of one airport currently being discussed for some other reason.
 
Lake Hood has touch and go prohibitions in the published ops. Tower will still approve them since they aren't the noise abatement police.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Lots of public owned, public funded airports with restrictions for noise abatement such as no touch and go. SEZ is an example of one airport currently being discussed for some other reason.
Click to expand...
I agree, but you have the right to complain and the FAA will investigate, run studies, etc. They have told airports before they can't restrict such activities. It is allowed in situations where it's deemed a safety issue for example. Skydive operations are easily banned if you have enough traffic at your airport. Privately owned, no public funds, you have absolutely no say.
 
dans2992 said:
What I'm suggesting is a purpose built strip of pavement, purposefully placed in a far out location - easy to get to from the air, but unlikely to be high traffic from the ground.

No FBO, no buildings, no desire for "growth" just a strip built for flight training...

I totally support the "airport was here first" idea, but I can't understand why local flight schools insist on doing repetitive touch and gos over "grumpy" locals when other options are a 5-10 minute flight away, that's all.
Click to expand...

Who is going to buy, engineer, grade and pave a landing strip out in the middle of nowhere, with no means or plan to bring in revenue to offset the cost of all this, as well as the ongoing taxes on the value land and improvements? And the insurance premium on the land so when someone goes off the runway or noses over and sues the owner over the design of the field....

If I spent my lunch money on making a strip in my back yard, I'd probably want it for the exclusive use of myself and select flying buddies.. And not some flight school that is charging people by the hour to fly planes and land on my field for free....
 
I'll bet some of the noise complaining residents would pay for it.... Or the government (eliminates the liability problem).
 
Doggtyred said:
Who is going to buy, engineer, grade and pave a landing strip out in the middle of nowhere, with no means or plan to bring in revenue to offset the cost of all this, as well as the ongoing taxes on the value land and improvements?
Click to expand...
City of Denver!
 
Don't see the big deal about touch and goes anyway. I don't do them. Land, taxi back, and take of again. Problem solved.
 
Lowflynjack said:
...
All of the pilots that say they go there, did you know it was published no tngs or did you look it up after I mentioned it? Not throwing any stones here, just wondering how far out of the norm I am! Its easy for people to pull up the AFD and tell me I missed it in hindsight.
Click to expand...

When I fly to a new airport I do check the AFD, especially since Foreflight makes it so easy.
 
JimNtexas said:
When I fly to a new airport I do check the AFD, especially since Foreflight makes it so easy.
Click to expand...
Jim, that wasn't my question. I clearly asked, "how many people check the AFD at airports they've been flying to for a long time?" It wasn't a new airport to me. I've been flying there since way before it was Austin Executive.

I think we've beat this horse to death, I'm moving on. I made a mistake, I'm not upset with Exec for correcting me on it and I don't plan to fight them about it or ask for special permission to do tngs there.
 
dans2992 said:
What I'm suggesting is a purpose built strip of pavement, purposefully placed in a far out location - easy to get to from the air, but unlikely to be high traffic from the ground.

No FBO, no buildings, no desire for "growth" just a strip built for flight training...

I totally support the "airport was here first" idea, but I can't understand why local flight schools insist on doing repetitive touch and gos over "grumpy" locals when other options are a 5-10 minute flight away, that's all.
Click to expand...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimojishima_Airport

Link describing one such training airport...
 
The airport is not federally obligated, so whether they can ban touch and goes is a moot point.

http://www.gcr1.com/5010ReportRouter/EDC.pdf

So I guess the OP is still upset with the quality of the radio of the person who advised him of airport policy, and of a "authorized personnel only" sign leading out to the ramp.

If that's the worst you can come up with, consider yourself fortunate.

I also think the "gruff gruff, so and so caters to the rich jet pilots" nonsense, in this thread, and everywhereelse is rediculous. We should hug every private turbine aircraft owner we meet, because without them, we wouldn't still have the infrastructure we have. No one builds airports to take advantage of the economic benefits of a four seat Piper. No FBO makes payroll from 7 gallon 100LL purchases. We're lucky we have as many GA airports as we do, and if the FBO wants to keep those folks happy, I'm fine with that.
 
dans2992 said:
I'll bet some of the noise complaining residents would pay for it.... Or the government (eliminates the liability problem).
Click to expand...

That's a lot of credit to give to noise complaining residents...

Funny story on the topic, when I was re-assigned to Virginia Beach my prospective landlord went to great lengths to provide me documentation on the odds of my rental property being inconvenienced by noise from NAS Oceana (or atomized by a stray F-18...) All outside the realm of what he could guarantee but de rigeur in that neck of the woods that built up UNDER a Master Jet Base...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top