The beginning of the end of small private airstrips

[fleet16b]

Minister of Transport email address
Please send a letter of protest

lisa.raitt@parl.gc.ca

[PilotDAR]

I have just received the following email:

Dear Mr. -----,

Thank you for your email dated March 6, 2015 regarding the Notice of Proposed Amendments for Responsible Aerodrome Development (#2013-014). Your comments have been forwarded to our technical experts for consideration.

Thank you for your interest in this file and taking the time to submit your comments.


Sincerely,

------

[Thunderbyrd]

This seems reasonable to me, can someone explain why it is not?

[PilotDAR]

This seems reasonable to me, can someone explain why it is not?

Perhaps elaborating of the intended meaning of "This", in the context of the comment would be helpful in preventing misunderstanding....

[ctmorawetz]

Today was supposed to be the beginning of the CARAC hearings on this issue. Has anyone heard any updates about today's proceedings? Any media coverage of it?

[fleet16b]

Today was supposed to be the beginning of the CARAC hearings on this issue. Has anyone heard any updates about today's proceedings? Any media coverage of it?

The hearings are taking place
I just spoke with Doug Ronan , who is representing the Canadian Seaplane Assoc.
Doug is in Ottawa working along side COPA , UPAC, APBQ and most of the other major stake holders, all of who are representing us from the Aviation Community.
He reports this a.m. that yesterdays talks went quite well and that some really good progress was made.
This sounds encouraging, I for one am very happy that these organizations are being given a chance to voice their concerns , consult etc
Thank you to everyone there for being our voice

[ctmorawetz]

Today was supposed to be the beginning of the CARAC hearings on this issue. Has anyone heard any updates about today's proceedings? Any media coverage of it?

The hearings are taking place
I just spoke with Doug Ronan , who is representing the Canadian Seaplane Assoc.
Doug is in Ottawa working along side COPA , UPAC, APBQ and most of the other major stake holders, all of who are representing us from the Aviation Community.
He reports this a.m. that yesterdays talks went quite well and that some really good progress was made.
This sounds encouraging, I for one am very happy that these organizations are being given a chance to voice their concerns , consult etc
Thank you to everyone there for being our voice

Great news! Thanks for the update. Let's hope today goes well too.

[RatherBeFlying]

Letter sent -- feel free to plagiarise:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond on this proposal, even though the notice has been short.


EXTENSIVE CONSULTATION NEEDED

First of all I find a certain irony that an onerous public consultation process is proposed to be suddenly imposed on the aviation community when next to no, if any, outreach has been made to that community on how best to accomplish this.

In addition, this proposal is contrary to this government's many initiatives to reduce intrusion on private activities.


REQUEST 1 -- that outreach be made to the aviation community on this proposal in at least as thoroughgoing a manner as that proposed to be imposed upon this community.


BACKGROUND

We are all aware that the closure of Edmonton City Centre Airport and concomitant eviction of many long established operators at great cost to many was done with no meaningful consideration of their needs.

These people were thrown out by a short notice expropriation and were forced to find and develop a greenfield airport with no time available for the niceties of the proposed public consultation procedures if they were to continue in operation.

Closure is a change of use that deserves the same level of consultation with those affected as has been proposed.

REQUEST 2 -- When a public body decides to shut down an airport or redesignate it for another use, that that body undertake the public consultation for the establishment of alternate airport(s) to accommodate the displaced airport.

REQUEST 3 -- that the airport designated for closure be maintained in operation until completion of the public consultation process and construction of alternate facilities adequate for the needs of the displaced aviation community.


NORMAL RURAL COMMERCIAL USAGES

Because of their very nature, airports are a normal rural use. Those airports today in built up areas were initially established before residential or commercial development came near.

The problem is much less that new airports are being established as that many airports are being closed in favor of redevelopment.

REQUEST 4 -- In the spirit of nondiscrimination, public consultation requirements be limited to that locally required for common rural commercial uses such as: feedlots, pig farms, gravel pits, seed cleaning, poultry operations, junkyards, building supply, gas plants, well drilling and operation, equipment and vehicle repair, sales and storage, cheese factories, creameries, wind turbines, pet kennels, gocart and atv tracks, race tracks ...


DIFFERENT LEVELS OF USE CALL FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Today most of my flying is in my glider. It has taken decades of hard work for me to be in a position to own an aircraft -- as with most other aircraft owners. One friend has spent decades restoring a historic Tiger Moth, for which he has built a hangar and airstrip on his property.

Glider pilots generally form clubs on rural property to accommodate their aircraft and runways. Clubs have from 6 to 120 members with annual revenues ranging from $5,000 to $120,000. The cost of any public consultation process needs to be within the means of the operators.

REQUEST 5 -- Public consultation costs be limited to 5% of annual revenue or operation costs.


GRANULARITY

Airports range from strips with one based aircraft through glider clubs, small training operations, local municipalities, airports accommodating turbine traffic up to major airports -- all with quite different impacts on the neighboring community.

REQUEST 6 -- Research and consultation be performed on the different levels of impact of the many different kinds of airports and that public consultation requirements be tailored to the different levels of impact.

REQUEST 7 -- Radii requiring public consultation be tailored to the level of proposed operation.

REQUEST 8 -- The radius of 30 nautical miles from a registered or certified airport be reduced to 5 statute miles which is the current radius of the control zone of a tower controlled airport.

Kindly keep me updated on this regulatory initiative. I look forward to a constructive engagement.

[Rookie50]

Today was supposed to be the beginning of the CARAC hearings on this issue. Has anyone heard any updates about today's proceedings? Any media coverage of it?

The hearings are taking place
I just spoke with Doug Ronan , who is representing the Canadian Seaplane Assoc.
Doug is in Ottawa working along side COPA , UPAC, APBQ and most of the other major stake holders, all of who are representing us from the Aviation Community.
He reports this a.m. that yesterdays talks went quite well and that some really good progress was made.
This sounds encouraging, I for one am very happy that these organizations are being given a chance to voice their concerns , consult etc
Thank you to everyone there for being our voice

Great news! Thanks for the update. Let's hope today goes well too.

I have also heard through the grapevine the talks have gone well and aviations voice has been well heard though this process. Hopefully this is encouraging and we can do all we can to promote GA in Canada.

[rac007]

Any updates on the results of the CARAC hearings?

[dialedin]

Sorry to resurrect this old thread, but is anyone able to shed some light on how all this played out? I cant seem to find much online other than the odd newpaper article from 3+ years ago. Would love to hear what the regs are for private airstrips now, i have a farm and would really like to store my own plane here someday

[photofly]

Yes. It’s all in CAR 307. It’s not particularly onerous.

If your proposed aerodrome is away from a built up area, you need to write to your neighbours and the minister and a few other people, and solicit comments and objections. Consider the objections and comments, and prepare a report as to how you intend to accommodate them or not, then circulate the report.

See also
http://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviatio ... 7-001.html

It should be pointed out that by explicitly capturing the power to regulate the consultation over, and siting and construction of private aerodromes, TC has done us all a bit of a favour. It makes it even more obvious to local and provincial authorities that they have no regulatory say in the matter.

It also makes clear that in rural areas only the immediate neighbours need to be consulted; a petition from a thousand people in a nearby village Isn’t considered by TC.

[valleyboy]

I see that this is likely directed at airpark developments but what would govern private farm strips for personal use. I can't see this effecting those who roll their nordo cubs or their PC12's (rich farmer - haha) out amongst the meadow muffins and launch falling under this. These strips are not marked, recorded and are not open to the public. It's just another pasture field. Flying Farmers would be another group very interested in this.

[photofly]

The AC makes it clear what’s covered, or not. Private strips for personal use are included. If it’s primarily agricultural use, it’s not.

[schnitzel2k3]

"It's *not* an airstrip! I just like a 1600' lawn!"

S.

[photofly]

"It's *not* an airstrip! I just like a 1600' lawn!"

S.

The consultation exercise is prior to commencing any "work". I guess if your lawn is already flat enough to land on, then you don't need to consult.

[dialedin]

Yes. It’s all in CAR 307. It’s not particularly onerous.

If your proposed aerodrome is away from a built up area, you need to write to your neighbours and the minister and a few other people, and solicit comments and objections. Consider the objections and comments, and prepare a report as to how you intend to accommodate them or not, then circulate the report.

See also
http://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviatio ... 7-001.html

It should be pointed out that by explicitly capturing the power to regulate the consultation over, and siting and construction of private aerodromes, TC has done us all a bit of a favour. It makes it even more obvious to local and provincial authorities that they have no regulatory say in the matter.

It also makes clear that in rural areas only the immediate neighbours need to be consulted; a petition from a thousand people in a nearby village Isn’t considered by TC.

Read through it, thats not too bad. I was a bit concerned as my farm is about 3000m away from a small community along the ottawa river, but i'm pretty sure it doesnt qualitfy as a built up area as per appendix b in the link you provided.

Didnt see anything is there regarding hangars and buldings though, are they still under federal authority or did that get changed?

[Oldguystrtn2fly]

Is a advisory circular the same as a regulation?

[jakeandelwood]

I built my own house and following the local building/fire/plumbing/electrical code wasn't really a big deal. Rural areas are usually less strict when it comes to out buildings and what You can do with them. If you have enough money to afford a spread big enough to have a strip to land your plane I think you can follow the building code, I'm surprised people got away with it in the past. The public consultation might hurt though.

[digits_]

Actually, all those rules are irrelevant. Look at the bottom picture, on the left.

Unless transport objects within 30 days of your application, you are cleared to start building.

Transport will never ever reply to you within 30 days