Ultralight ops at small public fields

kyleb said:
Why? Fat ultralights have more or less the same performance as your Chief or a J-3.
Click to expand...
Most places that put a ban on ultralights or tried to keep them out had no issue with the plane itself, it was the people flying them. Most had little or no training, never followed the rules and pretty much were a PITA. Now that the FAA has stepped in and made the Sport Pilot requirement, this has helped make them more welcomed at many airports.
 
Dean said:
Most places that put a ban on ultralights or tried to keep them out had no issue with the plane itself, it was the people flying them. Most had little or no training, never followed the rules and pretty much were a PITA. Now that the FAA has stepped in and made the Sport Pilot requirement, this has helped make them more welcomed at many airports.
Click to expand...

There is a small private airport around here and there policy is something to the effect of no unlicensed pilots. Properly blaming the operator and not the machine.
 
ClimbnSink said:
There is a small private airport around here and there policy is something to the effect of no unlicensed pilots. Properly blaming the operator and not the machine.
Click to expand...

Is that a truly private airport, or a private, public use airport?


Trapper John
 
This one: http://www.airnav.com/airport/28M Listing says open to the public and there are pancake flyins in the summer. I believe I read the notice posted on a bulletin board. I'd guess they just want it in writing so they can toss idiots with less fuss.
 
ClimbnSink said:
That just seems douchy.
Click to expand...

We have a long waiting list for hangars and an FBO that we want to see be able to stay in business. We believe that requiring a current FAA registration as a prerequisite to being granted a lease is a reasonable thing. We don't rent space to people that want to store their Corvettes or antique tractors either. At that time we also had an issue with the way some of the ULs were being flown, particularly with regard to interference with the skydiving operations that are a major part of the weekend activity here. They were never banned; we just didn't want them as tenants.
 
Ultralights have the same airspace rights as the skydivers and GA aircraft. Ultralights are flying machines not boats, or cars. I call douchy. Small difference between banning them and denying them hangar space.
 
ClimbnSink said:
This one: http://www.airnav.com/airport/28M Listing says open to the public and there are pancake flyins in the summer. I believe I read the notice posted on a bulletin board. I'd guess they just want it in writing so they can toss idiots with less fuss.
Click to expand...

A bulletin board at the airport? An unlicensed pilot can only learn he's not welcome after he arrives?
 
ClimbnSink said:
Ultralights have the same airspace rights as the skydivers and GA aircraft. Ultralights are flying machines not boats, or cars. I call douchy. Small difference between banning them and denying them hangar space.
Click to expand...

Actually, they don't. Part 103 operations have restrictions that GA aircraft operating under Part 91 do not.
 
roncachamp said:
Actually, they don't. Part 103 operations have restrictions that GA aircraft operating under Part 91 do not.
Click to expand...

Sorry for purposes of airport funding ultralights, skydivers and gliders have the same rights as conventional GA. It happens but under the funding schemes airports aren't allowed to ban any of those activities if they are taking fed. money. It is douchy to kick them out aren't we supposed to be brother pilots one and all:frown2::frown2:
 
roncachamp said:
A bulletin board at the airport? An unlicensed pilot can only learn he's not welcome after he arrives?
Click to expand...

Like I said I bet it is a policy to make it easier to tell pilots deemed unsafe not to return. Arbitrary perhaps but better than banning aircraft by category.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Sorry for purposes of airport funding ultralights, skydivers and gliders have the same rights as conventional GA. It happens but under the funding schemes airports aren't allowed to ban any of those activities if they are taking fed. money. It is douchy to kick them out aren't we supposed to be brother pilots one and all:frown2::frown2:
Click to expand...

I believe the issue was "airspace rights".


§ 103.17 Operations in certain airspace.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.
[Amdt. 103–17, 56 FR 65662, Dec. 17, 1991]
 
roncachamp said:
I believe the issue was "airspace rights".


§ 103.17 Operations in certain airspace.

No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace.
[Amdt. 103–17, 56 FR 65662, Dec. 17, 1991]
Click to expand...

So? Same as everyone else. Point is a bunch of ultralights were thrown out of an airport by restricting hangar access. I call douchy on that. Jim Crow laws for ultralights. Pilot on pilot discrimination. :rofl:
 
ClimbnSink said:
So? Same as everyone else. Point is a bunch of ultralights were thrown out of an airport by restricting hangar access. I call douchy on that. Jim Crow laws for ultralights. Pilot on pilot discrimination. :rofl:
Click to expand...

Building a hangar is an investment. People, including taxpayers, like some return on their investment, like making the airport more self supporting so that it needs less taxpayer subsidy each year. An airport that has hangars available for planes attracts owners to base their airplanes there. Airplanes burn fuel and need maintenance. Why wouldn't I prefer to rent a hangar to an airplane owner instead of an ultralight owner?
 
Graueradler said:
Building a hangar is an investment. People, including taxpayers, like some return on their investment, like making the airport more self supporting so that it needs less taxpayer subsidy each year. An airport that has hangars available for planes attracts owners to base their airplanes there. Airplanes burn fuel and need maintenance. Why wouldn't I prefer to rent a hangar to an airplane owner instead of an ultralight owner?
Click to expand...

What about an experimental aircraft?
 
I don't fly ultralights and all this is going on over 1,000 miles from where I live so it doesn't affect me. But you guys are funny all happy, because this time you fell on the right side of the douchline. Next time it will be hangar space for turbines only- using the exact same reasoning. Maybe they will toss experimentals next. Live by weenie rules die by weenie rules.
 
Graueradler said:
Building a hangar is an investment. People, including taxpayers, like some return on their investment, like making the airport more self supporting so that it needs less taxpayer subsidy each year. An airport that has hangars available for planes attracts owners to base their airplanes there. Airplanes burn fuel and need maintenance. Why wouldn't I prefer to rent a hangar to an airplane owner instead of an ultralight owner?
Click to expand...
Huh? Do ultralight pilots not pay rent? A handful of GA airplanes don't produce enough income to lower the tax burden and the booted ultralight pilots now flying out of Bob's farm no longer have a vested interest in the airport staying open. Real smart. Funny thing is when the brave new bureaucratic future comes crashing down the ultralight guys have a better chance of surviving than conventional GA.
 
ClimbnSink said:
I don't fly ultralights and all this is going on over 1,000 miles from where I live so it doesn't affect me. But you guys are funny all happy, because this time you fell on the right side of the douchline. Next time it will be hangar space for turbines only- using the exact same reasoning. Maybe they will toss experimentals next. Live by weenie rules die by weenie rules.
Click to expand...

http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/Story.asp?s=8887402
 
Bob Noel said:
What about an experimental aircraft?
Click to expand...
I have heard of an airport doing something similar with experimentals. The airport manager's reasoning was that the experimentals were not using the FBO for repair services, so it would be better (i.e. more profitable) to rent hangar space just to type certified aircraft.

There are also those airports that don't allow you to build or repair your own aircraft in your own hangar for the same reason.
 
It would be interesting to know how many of those who feel that hangar lease restrictions are 'douchy' have also had to stand before their city council or other governing body for 20 years in a row and defend their airport's annual appropriation or its very existence.
 
RickH said:
It would be interesting to know how many of those who feel that hangar lease restrictions are 'douchy' have also had to stand before their city council or other governing body for 20 years in a row and defend their airport's annual appropriation or its very existence.
Click to expand...

Not me. At the last ASF seminar they were bragging about how AOPA uses zoning to protect airports and I was disgusted.
 
roncachamp said:
The SkyVector entry for LLU includes:

Ultralights Based on Field: 3
ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY ON & INVOF ARPT.
Click to expand...
That number is not accurate. There are three ultralights crammed into the hangar next to our old Skyhawk, and several more hangars with ultralights in them. More of them are based at local farms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top