The beginning of the end of small private airstrips
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:17 pm
The end of private recreational airports??
Posted by the EAA. Here is a clip from the top explaining what the document is about:
Transport of Canada has proposed a consulting process for the establishment or expansion of all
aerodromes within Canada. If you fly, it will affect you. It is an onerous and expensive process that will
not only restrict aviation, but will add substantial costs to the operating expense of each and every
aerodrome or airport. The NPA (Notice of proposed amendment) is titled “Responsible Aerodrome
Development.”
Full document here:
http://spirit.eaa.org/News/2015/pdfs/20 ... Canada.pdf
Makes me wonder if I'll ever get flying again
Transport of Canada has proposed a consulting process for the establishment or expansion of all
aerodromes within Canada. If you fly, it will affect you. It is an onerous and expensive process that will
not only restrict aviation, but will add substantial costs to the operating expense of each and every
aerodrome or airport. The NPA (Notice of proposed amendment) is titled “Responsible Aerodrome
Development.”
Full document here:
http://spirit.eaa.org/News/2015/pdfs/20 ... Canada.pdf
Makes me wonder if I'll ever get flying again
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1485
- Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:30 am
- Location: the stars playground
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
Only if the people allow it to happen.
- Panama Jack
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3255
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:10 am
- Location: Back here
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
Thanks for posting! Mods: this thread SHOULD become a sticky.
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.”
-President Ronald Reagan
-President Ronald Reagan
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:17 pm
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
We NEED to get the word out to everyone ASAP. Please send this information to all your aviation contacts by whatever means necessary.
This HAS to be stopped. Write, call, door knock your local MP.
This HAS to be stopped. Write, call, door knock your local MP.
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
Discussed previously in these threads as well:
AvCanada: The beginning of the end of small private airstrips
AvCanada: Getting involved to preserve our future...
The comment period on the regulatory change ends on April 8th, 2015:
CARAC Activity Details: Responsible Aerodrome Development / 2013-014
AvCanada: The beginning of the end of small private airstrips
AvCanada: Getting involved to preserve our future...
The comment period on the regulatory change ends on April 8th, 2015:
CARAC Activity Details: Responsible Aerodrome Development / 2013-014
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
I Have sent a comment to my MP, the Minister of Transport, and CARAC - have you?
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
What's the right way to go about this without sounding like a crazy person? I'm not familiar with the process on things like this but I'd like to get more involved.PilotDAR wrote:I Have sent a comment to my MP, the Minister of Transport, and CARAC - have you?
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
Make it concise. If it's more than two pages, you're doing it wrong.lownslow wrote:PilotDAR wrote:
I Have sent a comment to my MP, the Minister of Transport, and CARAC - have you?
What's the right way to go about this without sounding like a crazy person? I'm not familiar with the process on things like this but I'd like to get more involved.
Type it out on a computer - don't write it out by hand.
Avoid phrases like "I pay your salary".
Propose a viable, alternate solution. At the end of the day, we are in a world where airports big and small cannot continue to operate in silos, oblivious to the concerns of the neighbours. That is the reality. Anyone who didn't see some sort of move coming, particularly after Parkland is living in a dream world. A solution like ending the 30m radius is a practical, viable one that still maintains the intent of the regulation.
Life is best viewed upside down through the canopy
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
I sent the following, which I have posted on the other thread...
Two elements of the proposed regulation deserve consideration for change:
30 miles is a much too great "catchment" distance around other aerodromes. ..............
I suggest that the regulation invoke the "consultation" if the normal traffic pattern of the subject aerodrome would come within one mile of the controlled airspace, or 5 miles of the normal traffic pattern of the "other" (presumed larger/busier) airport. This will allow for fair sharing of airspace. Uncontrolled airspace beside a larger airport is just that - uncontrolled. We don't need this regulation to start to control it. Normal airspace and circuit procedures are already effective for this.
Secondly, the notion of use of an aerodrome 30 or fewer days per year is deeply flawed. Presuming that aerodrome is the private property of a pilot/aircraft owner, by limiting the number of days of use, that pilot's opportunity to maintain their skills currency will be badly impacted. It does not at all serve the public interest to introduce regulation which reduce the opportunities for a pilot to maintain their flying skills and recency. Please approach this from a different direction. Consider limiting the number of aircraft owners who may base aircraft at an aerodrome, and the use of those aircraft.
I propose that the threshold (below which consultation is not required) be: A privately owned aerodrome, with one or two privately registered aircraft owned by the same person.
This would achieve the presumed low utilization, as only that owner, and those one or two aircraft would regularly use that aerodrome, without limiting the free opportunity of that owner pilot to use their aircraft, and remain proficient.
-
- Rank 2
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:17 pm
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
If you look on page 3 of the pdf link I originally posted, (here it is again http://spirit.eaa.org/News/2015/pdfs/20 ... Canada.pdf ) there is a great pre written form letter you can copy. Make sure to add your name and send it to everyone suggested.
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:29 pm
Re: The beginning of the end of small private airstrips
This is a property rights issue and the property rights folks are going to go bonkers over this.
This all came up because of the stink that arose in Parkland County when a new "Aerodrome" decided to set up shop. Why did they set up shop? The owners wanted to own their hangars on owned land, not lease lots at the local certified Airport.
This all came up because of the stink that arose in Parkland County when a new "Aerodrome" decided to set up shop. Why did they set up shop? The owners wanted to own their hangars on owned land, not lease lots at the local certified Airport.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:26 am
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
Hi Guys,
Long time reader here, almost never posted anything but I thought I'd share the email I've sent today though...
It's based on the EAA document and PilotDAR post. Feel free to use it, modify it, and improve it !
Greg
-------------------
To:
Transport Canada, CARAC
The Honorable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport
Member of Parliament
COPA
EAA
UPAC
I am writing to you today to express my displeasure and disagreement with the following Canadian Aviation Advisory Council (CARAC) Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) “Responsible Aerodrome Development”.
Transport of Canada has proposed a consulting process for the establishment or expansion of all aerodromes within Canada. It is an onerous and expensive process that will not only restrict aviation, but will add substantial costs to the operating expense of each and every aerodrome or airport.
An aerodrome is any surface that an aircraft can land on and the necessary maneuvering area adjacent to it. If I land my aircraft in a field, a lake or a lane it is an aerodrome.
The proposed amendment will require the aerodrome operator to engage the public. It is estimated within the NPA that the range of cost for a small registered or unregistered aerodrome will be a one time charge of $6,000 to $15,000.
This consultation process must be implemented when a new aerodrome is to be established or changes to the existing level of service at an aerodrome are to be undertaken in a non built-up area if,
1. It is within 4 km of a built up or protected area.
2. It is within 30 nautical miles of a registered or certified aerodrome.
The consultation process need not be implemented if,
1. It is an ad hoc aerodrome (used less than 30 days a calendar year).
2. Modifications do not result in a change to existing levels of service.
3. Aerodrome used solely for agricultural operations.
The lengthy and costly consultation process, consisting of pre-consultation, consultation, signage, newspaper notification and Community information session, must take place within a limited timeframe.
No other use of any personal property comes under such ill advised scrutiny. This NPA will reduce the personal freedom by restricting the use of any property. This freedom has been in place since aviation began, but is now being threatened. Local air strips will eventually be eradicated.
The regulations that are in place for the development of private air strips have been working well for a long time now. There are the occasional abuses of the aerodrome but all should not have to pay for the abuses of a few. If Transport Canada was truly concerned about safety, the few abuses of the system would be addressed rather than generating a one size fits all approach.
If I understand the need for a consultation process when an aerodrome is close to a built-up area, some changes must occur with this NPA.
At least two elements of the proposed regulation deserve consideration for change:
1. 30 miles is a much too great "catchment" distance around other aerodromes.
I suggest that the regulation invoke the "consultation" if the normal traffic pattern of the subject aerodrome would come within one mile of the controlled airspace, or 5 miles of the normal traffic pattern of the "other" (presumed larger/busier) airport. This will allow for fair sharing of airspace. Uncontrolled airspace beside a larger airport is just that - uncontrolled. We don't need this regulation to start to control it. Normal airspace and traffic pattern procedures are already effective for this.
2. The notion of use of an aerodrome 30 or fewer days per year is deeply flawed. Presuming that aerodrome is the private property of a pilot/aircraft owner, by limiting the number of days of use, that pilot's opportunity to maintain their skills currency will be badly impacted. It does not at all serve the public interest to introduce regulation which reduce the opportunities for a pilot to maintain their flying skills and recency. Please approach this from a different direction. Consider limiting the number of aircraft owners who may base aircraft at an aerodrome, and the use of those aircraft.
I propose that the threshold (below which consultation is not required) be: A privately owned aerodrome, with one or two privately registered aircraft owned by the same person.
This would achieve the presumed low utilization, as only that owner, and those one or two aircraft would regularly use that aerodrome, without limiting the free opportunity of that owner pilot to use their aircraft, and remain proficient.
Due to the flawed NPA I would like the Minister of Transport the Honorable Lisa Raitt to withdraw this NPA or at very least send it back to the CARAC committee for a complete rewrite.
Sincerely yours,
Long time reader here, almost never posted anything but I thought I'd share the email I've sent today though...
It's based on the EAA document and PilotDAR post. Feel free to use it, modify it, and improve it !
Greg
-------------------
To:
Transport Canada, CARAC
The Honorable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport
Member of Parliament
COPA
EAA
UPAC
I am writing to you today to express my displeasure and disagreement with the following Canadian Aviation Advisory Council (CARAC) Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) “Responsible Aerodrome Development”.
Transport of Canada has proposed a consulting process for the establishment or expansion of all aerodromes within Canada. It is an onerous and expensive process that will not only restrict aviation, but will add substantial costs to the operating expense of each and every aerodrome or airport.
An aerodrome is any surface that an aircraft can land on and the necessary maneuvering area adjacent to it. If I land my aircraft in a field, a lake or a lane it is an aerodrome.
The proposed amendment will require the aerodrome operator to engage the public. It is estimated within the NPA that the range of cost for a small registered or unregistered aerodrome will be a one time charge of $6,000 to $15,000.
This consultation process must be implemented when a new aerodrome is to be established or changes to the existing level of service at an aerodrome are to be undertaken in a non built-up area if,
1. It is within 4 km of a built up or protected area.
2. It is within 30 nautical miles of a registered or certified aerodrome.
The consultation process need not be implemented if,
1. It is an ad hoc aerodrome (used less than 30 days a calendar year).
2. Modifications do not result in a change to existing levels of service.
3. Aerodrome used solely for agricultural operations.
The lengthy and costly consultation process, consisting of pre-consultation, consultation, signage, newspaper notification and Community information session, must take place within a limited timeframe.
No other use of any personal property comes under such ill advised scrutiny. This NPA will reduce the personal freedom by restricting the use of any property. This freedom has been in place since aviation began, but is now being threatened. Local air strips will eventually be eradicated.
The regulations that are in place for the development of private air strips have been working well for a long time now. There are the occasional abuses of the aerodrome but all should not have to pay for the abuses of a few. If Transport Canada was truly concerned about safety, the few abuses of the system would be addressed rather than generating a one size fits all approach.
If I understand the need for a consultation process when an aerodrome is close to a built-up area, some changes must occur with this NPA.
At least two elements of the proposed regulation deserve consideration for change:
1. 30 miles is a much too great "catchment" distance around other aerodromes.
I suggest that the regulation invoke the "consultation" if the normal traffic pattern of the subject aerodrome would come within one mile of the controlled airspace, or 5 miles of the normal traffic pattern of the "other" (presumed larger/busier) airport. This will allow for fair sharing of airspace. Uncontrolled airspace beside a larger airport is just that - uncontrolled. We don't need this regulation to start to control it. Normal airspace and traffic pattern procedures are already effective for this.
2. The notion of use of an aerodrome 30 or fewer days per year is deeply flawed. Presuming that aerodrome is the private property of a pilot/aircraft owner, by limiting the number of days of use, that pilot's opportunity to maintain their skills currency will be badly impacted. It does not at all serve the public interest to introduce regulation which reduce the opportunities for a pilot to maintain their flying skills and recency. Please approach this from a different direction. Consider limiting the number of aircraft owners who may base aircraft at an aerodrome, and the use of those aircraft.
I propose that the threshold (below which consultation is not required) be: A privately owned aerodrome, with one or two privately registered aircraft owned by the same person.
This would achieve the presumed low utilization, as only that owner, and those one or two aircraft would regularly use that aerodrome, without limiting the free opportunity of that owner pilot to use their aircraft, and remain proficient.
Due to the flawed NPA I would like the Minister of Transport the Honorable Lisa Raitt to withdraw this NPA or at very least send it back to the CARAC committee for a complete rewrite.
Sincerely yours,
stop dreaming and start flying !
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:26 am
Re: The beginning of the end of small private airstrips
Another example of an email sent out today. Not as many details as above but hopefully it will help. BTW as a freshly new citizen, it's my 1st time writing to my MP and the Honorable Minister of Transport ! So if i can do it, others should be able to do it as well
It's based on the EAA Canadian council document and PilotDAR's various posts. Feel free to use it, modify it, and improve it !
Greg
-------------------
To:
Transport Canada, CARAC
The Honorable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport
Member of Parliament
COPA
EAA
UPAC
I am writing to you today to express my displeasure and disagreement with the following Canadian Aviation Advisory Council (CARAC) Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) “Responsible Aerodrome Development”.
Transport of Canada has proposed a consulting process for the establishment or expansion of all aerodromes within Canada. It is an onerous and expensive process that will not only restrict aviation, but will add substantial costs to the operating expense of each and every aerodrome or airport.
An aerodrome is any surface that an aircraft can land on and the necessary maneuvering area adjacent to it. If I land my aircraft in a field, a lake or a lane it is an aerodrome.
The proposed amendment will require the aerodrome operator to engage the public. It is estimated within the NPA that the range of cost for a small registered or unregistered aerodrome will be a one time charge of $6,000 to $15,000.
This consultation process must be implemented when a new aerodrome is to be established or changes to the existing level of service at an aerodrome are to be undertaken in a non built-up area if,
1. It is within 4 km of a built up or protected area.
2. It is within 30 nautical miles of a registered or certified aerodrome.
The consultation process need not be implemented if,
1. It is an ad hoc aerodrome (used less than 30 days a calendar year).
2. Modifications do not result in a change to existing levels of service.
3. Aerodrome used solely for agricultural operations.
The lengthy and costly consultation process, consisting of pre-consultation, consultation, signage, newspaper notification and Community information session, must take place within a limited timeframe.
No other use of any personal property comes under such ill advised scrutiny. This NPA will reduce the personal freedom by restricting the use of any property. This freedom has been in place since aviation began, but is now being threatened. Local air strips will eventually be eradicated.
The regulations that are in place for the development of private air strips have been working well for a long time now. There are the occasional abuses of the aerodrome but all should not have to pay for the abuses of a few. If Transport Canada was truly concerned about safety, the few abuses of the system would be addressed rather than generating a one size fits all approach.
If I understand the need for a consultation process when an aerodrome is close to a built-up area, some changes must occur with this NPA.
At least two elements of the proposed regulation deserve consideration for change:
1. 30 miles is a much too great "catchment" distance around other aerodromes.
I suggest that the regulation invoke the "consultation" if the normal traffic pattern of the subject aerodrome would come within one mile of the controlled airspace, or 5 miles of the normal traffic pattern of the "other" (presumed larger/busier) airport. This will allow for fair sharing of airspace. Uncontrolled airspace beside a larger airport is just that - uncontrolled. We don't need this regulation to start to control it. Normal airspace and traffic pattern procedures are already effective for this.
2. The notion of use of an aerodrome 30 or fewer days per year is deeply flawed. Presuming that aerodrome is the private property of a pilot/aircraft owner, by limiting the number of days of use, that pilot's opportunity to maintain their skills currency will be badly impacted. It does not at all serve the public interest to introduce regulation which reduce the opportunities for a pilot to maintain their flying skills and recency. Please approach this from a different direction. Consider limiting the number of aircraft owners who may base aircraft at an aerodrome, and the use of those aircraft.
I propose that the threshold (below which consultation is not required) be: A privately owned aerodrome, with one or two privately registered aircraft owned by the same person.
This would achieve the presumed low utilization, as only that owner, and those one or two aircraft would regularly use that aerodrome, without limiting the free opportunity of that owner pilot to use their aircraft, and remain proficient.
Due to the flawed NPA I would like the Minister of Transport the Honorable Lisa Raitt to withdraw this NPA or at very least send it back to the CARAC committee for a complete rewrite.
Sincerely yours,
It's based on the EAA Canadian council document and PilotDAR's various posts. Feel free to use it, modify it, and improve it !
Greg
-------------------
To:
Transport Canada, CARAC
The Honorable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport
Member of Parliament
COPA
EAA
UPAC
I am writing to you today to express my displeasure and disagreement with the following Canadian Aviation Advisory Council (CARAC) Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) “Responsible Aerodrome Development”.
Transport of Canada has proposed a consulting process for the establishment or expansion of all aerodromes within Canada. It is an onerous and expensive process that will not only restrict aviation, but will add substantial costs to the operating expense of each and every aerodrome or airport.
An aerodrome is any surface that an aircraft can land on and the necessary maneuvering area adjacent to it. If I land my aircraft in a field, a lake or a lane it is an aerodrome.
The proposed amendment will require the aerodrome operator to engage the public. It is estimated within the NPA that the range of cost for a small registered or unregistered aerodrome will be a one time charge of $6,000 to $15,000.
This consultation process must be implemented when a new aerodrome is to be established or changes to the existing level of service at an aerodrome are to be undertaken in a non built-up area if,
1. It is within 4 km of a built up or protected area.
2. It is within 30 nautical miles of a registered or certified aerodrome.
The consultation process need not be implemented if,
1. It is an ad hoc aerodrome (used less than 30 days a calendar year).
2. Modifications do not result in a change to existing levels of service.
3. Aerodrome used solely for agricultural operations.
The lengthy and costly consultation process, consisting of pre-consultation, consultation, signage, newspaper notification and Community information session, must take place within a limited timeframe.
No other use of any personal property comes under such ill advised scrutiny. This NPA will reduce the personal freedom by restricting the use of any property. This freedom has been in place since aviation began, but is now being threatened. Local air strips will eventually be eradicated.
The regulations that are in place for the development of private air strips have been working well for a long time now. There are the occasional abuses of the aerodrome but all should not have to pay for the abuses of a few. If Transport Canada was truly concerned about safety, the few abuses of the system would be addressed rather than generating a one size fits all approach.
If I understand the need for a consultation process when an aerodrome is close to a built-up area, some changes must occur with this NPA.
At least two elements of the proposed regulation deserve consideration for change:
1. 30 miles is a much too great "catchment" distance around other aerodromes.
I suggest that the regulation invoke the "consultation" if the normal traffic pattern of the subject aerodrome would come within one mile of the controlled airspace, or 5 miles of the normal traffic pattern of the "other" (presumed larger/busier) airport. This will allow for fair sharing of airspace. Uncontrolled airspace beside a larger airport is just that - uncontrolled. We don't need this regulation to start to control it. Normal airspace and traffic pattern procedures are already effective for this.
2. The notion of use of an aerodrome 30 or fewer days per year is deeply flawed. Presuming that aerodrome is the private property of a pilot/aircraft owner, by limiting the number of days of use, that pilot's opportunity to maintain their skills currency will be badly impacted. It does not at all serve the public interest to introduce regulation which reduce the opportunities for a pilot to maintain their flying skills and recency. Please approach this from a different direction. Consider limiting the number of aircraft owners who may base aircraft at an aerodrome, and the use of those aircraft.
I propose that the threshold (below which consultation is not required) be: A privately owned aerodrome, with one or two privately registered aircraft owned by the same person.
This would achieve the presumed low utilization, as only that owner, and those one or two aircraft would regularly use that aerodrome, without limiting the free opportunity of that owner pilot to use their aircraft, and remain proficient.
Due to the flawed NPA I would like the Minister of Transport the Honorable Lisa Raitt to withdraw this NPA or at very least send it back to the CARAC committee for a complete rewrite.
Sincerely yours,
stop dreaming and start flying !
-
- Rank 3
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:49 pm
- Location: Ontario
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
I sent an email to the appropriate parties, however I modified it in the following way:
A place that I fly out of recreationally has a few owners with a few aircraft based out of it. It is just a a few certified aircraft and one ultralight. The amount of flying taking place there is minimal and I find the proposed regulations are completely ridiculous and unnecessary.
I have also sent a link to this forum to other affected parties with the expectation that they will send similar correspondence to those responsible...
I amended the statement for the following reason:I propose that the threshold (below which consultation is not required) be: A privately owned aerodrome, with a few privately registered aircraft owned by the same person, and an additional small number of partners sharing the space if they are local to that location. This would achieve the presumed low utilization, as only that owner and associated partners, and that small number of aircraft would regularly use that aerodrome, without limiting the free opportunity of those owner/pilots to use their aircraft, and remain proficient.
A place that I fly out of recreationally has a few owners with a few aircraft based out of it. It is just a a few certified aircraft and one ultralight. The amount of flying taking place there is minimal and I find the proposed regulations are completely ridiculous and unnecessary.
I have also sent a link to this forum to other affected parties with the expectation that they will send similar correspondence to those responsible...
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
Thanks for the sample letters, guys. Would an organization take repeated copy/paste letters from many people seriously or is it better to paraphrase it into my own words?
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
I think it's much better to use your own words. Definitely don't use that EAA "get off my lawn" form letter posted above.lownslow wrote:Thanks for the sample letters, guys. Would an organization take repeated copy/paste letters from many people seriously or is it better to paraphrase it into my own words?
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
I got a blast out from EAA showing concern. COPA seems to have something on their site about this but what exactly are they doing to lobby against this?
- Prairie Chicken
- Rank 7
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:12 pm
- Location: Gone sailing...
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
I agree using your own words is better, but volume of correspondence counts too. The ideas here give you a pretty good place to start. My letter is in draft now.
Edited to add: Letters have now been mailed.
Edited to add: Letters have now been mailed.
Last edited by Prairie Chicken on Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Prairie Chicken
Re: The end of private recreational airports??
What if your aerodrome has a gross revenue of less then $30,000? Would it still meet the criteria of a small aerodrome?
Re: The beginning of the end of small private airstrips
...isn't he the best pilot you've ever seen?....Yeah he is ....except when I'm shaving.........