FAA renamed Zuehl Airfield

Witmo

Witmo

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
2,378
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
The other day I pulled out a sectional to show someone where Zuehl Airfield was located. I thought I knew where it was but there was no Zuehl where I thought it was. 1TE4, formerly Zuehl Airfield, has been renamed "Objectionable" on the San Antonio sectional. A friend of mine owns a hangar there and claims the USAF has "objected" to 1TE4's proximity to Randolph AFB so the FAA has renamed it Objectionable. Could this be true? Zuehl Airfield has been there for many years. Maybe not as many as Randolph but quite a few. Flying scenes for the film The Great Waldo Pepper starring Robert Redford were filmed there. What purpose other to confuse pilots is served by calling it "Objectionable" instead of its real name?
 
Witmo said:
The other day I pulled out a sectional to show someone where Zuehl Airfield was located. I thought I knew where it was but there was no Zuehl where I thought it was. 1TE4, formerly Zuehl Airfield, has been renamed "Objectionable" on the San Antonio sectional. A friend of mine owns a hangar there and claims the USAF has "objected" to 1TE4's proximity to Randolph AFB so the FAA has renamed it Objectionable. Could this be true? Zuehl Airfield has been there for many years. Maybe not as many as Randolph but quite a few. Flying scenes for the film The Great Waldo Pepper starring Robert Redford were filmed there. What purpose other to confuse pilots is served by calling it "Objectionable" instead of its real name?
Click to expand...

The heavy hand of BIG brother maybe...:dunno:.......:rolleyes2:
 
That's stupid and annoying. I wondered about that, too. Pretty sure the locals still call it Zuehl.

Ryan
 
They didn't "rename" the field, they just marked it objectionable and removed the other information on it. They left it charted for "landmark" purposes. Objectionable is not meant to be a noun but an adjective.
 
flyingron said:
They didn't "rename" the field, they just marked it objectionable and removed the other information on it. They left it charted for "landmark" purposes. Objectionable is not meant to be a noun but an adjective.
Click to expand...

Which makes the whole deal smell even worse...:mad2:
 
flyingron said:
They didn't "rename" the field, they just marked it objectionable and removed the other information on it. They left it charted for "landmark" purposes. Objectionable is not meant to be a noun but an adjective.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't make a lick of sense. It's an active airfield with many tenants. Is it in the FAA charter to rate airfields based on popularity? How many noise complaints will it take to have your home field's name stricken from the chart and replaced with "Noisy" for landmark purposes only.
 
Decent explanation here...
http://expertaviator.com/2012/07/31/what-is-an-objectionable-airport/

Not so great one here...
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/faq/#q3d

Witmo said:
The other day I pulled out a sectional to show someone where Zuehl Airfield was located. I thought I knew where it was but there was no Zuehl where I thought it was. 1TE4, formerly Zuehl Airfield, has been renamed "Objectionable" on the San Antonio sectional. A friend of mine owns a hangar there and claims the USAF has "objected" to 1TE4's proximity to Randolph AFB so the FAA has renamed it Objectionable. Could this be true? Zuehl Airfield has been there for many years. Maybe not as many as Randolph but quite a few. Flying scenes for the film The Great Waldo Pepper starring Robert Redford were filmed there. What purpose other to confuse pilots is served by calling it "Objectionable" instead of its real name?
Click to expand...
 
Witmo said:
Interesting. So they started doing this in 2012? Was there any public discussion before the FAA started doing this? I don't remember seeing this before.
Click to expand...

I think is was way earlier than 2012...in the expertavaitor link...there is a link
to an FAA or CFR page...it eludes to 1991
 
It still appears as Zuehl on airnav but not on the map. What's really wierd is the "Objectionable" dotted lines point to a private field, implying it's Buelah. But Buelah is the private field to the east. From the airnav photo, looks like a nice place.
 
nddons said:
I don't understand how this is helpful to any user of a sectional chart.
Click to expand...

Exactly


Someone needs to send the FAA a wake up call.

Fire the leadership and maybe the drones will fall in line.
 
Have never flown out of an objectionable airfield,the govt. will try to intimidate the pilots left on the field hoping they will leave. No planes no airport,no problem.
 
Witmo said:
Interesting. So they started doing this in 2012? Was there any public discussion before the FAA started doing this? I don't remember seeing this before.
Click to expand...

The objectionable determination has been around forever, the implementation on the charting, etc... is what's new.
 
It is dumb and unsafe. Many private strips are labeled objectionable based on proximity to another (often inactive) private strips simply based on the output of a computer algorithm, not based on anyones objection.
 
Doubtful it is a computer algorithm or we'd have more OBJECTIONABLE airports than what we have now. We've got small public use and private strips that hide underneath the airport symbol of larger ones, etc...
 
AirspaceAnalysis:OBJECTIONABLE DUE TO CLOSE PROXIMITY OF RANDOLPH AFB & THAT COMPATIBLE TFC PATTERNS CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED.
 
I found this on an aviation weather site for Zuehl: Objectionable: "Due to Close Proximity of Randolph AFB & That Compatible Traffic Patterns Cannot be Established"

Zuehl is close to but outside Randolph AFB's Class D airspace. Zuehl apparently has no intention of stopping operations nor is it legally required to so. So because the Air Force doesn't like it and the FAA is on their side, the name Zuehl is stricken from the chart and replaced forever more with "Objectionable." I wonder exactly what purpose this policy is supposed to have: warning pilots, punishment, what? I'd prefer a name on the chart that I could look up and get the information on what is the problem with Zuehl and make an informed decision on whether to go there or not. Objectionable on the chart tells me next to nothing. Maybe the actual name or identifier and an asterix (indicating objectionable) would be better.
 
Witmo said:
I found this on an aviation weather site for Zuehl: Objectionable: "Due to Close Proximity of Randolph AFB & That Compatible Traffic Patterns Cannot be Established"

Zuehl is close to but outside Randolph AFB's Class D airspace. Zuehl apparently has no intention of stopping operations nor is it legally required to so. So because the Air Force doesn't like it and the FAA is on their side, the name Zuehl is stricken from the chart and replaced forever more with "Objectionable." I wonder exactly what purpose this policy is supposed to have: warning pilots, punishment, what? I'd prefer a name on the chart that I could look up and get the information on what is the problem with Zuehl and make an informed decision on whether to go there or not. Objectionable on the chart tells me next to nothing. Maybe the actual name or identifier and an asterix (indicating objectionable) would be better.
Click to expand...


And safety of flight (finding the airport) is compromised. ****ing bureaucrats.
 
Might be fun to rename your private strip "Objectionable Field" just to make the identifier correct again.
 
It seems a little dubious that it's neither within the class D or even the Alert surrounding the AFB.

On another note, up the other side of the AFB is an aerodrome with an F in it. That was a new one on me, I had to look it up. "Ultralight flight park."
 
Witmo said:
I found this on an aviation weather site for Zuehl: Objectionable: "Due to Close Proximity of Randolph AFB & That Compatible Traffic Patterns Cannot be Established"
Click to expand...

There is a little strip called Page airport in Page,ND. The identifier is 64G. There is NOTHING around the airport for 10 miles, except for some 400ft towers. The airport is labeled as 'objectionable' with this entry:

OBJECTIONABLE TRAFFIC PATTERN CONFLICT WITH CONRAD & THOMPSON ARPTS. IN ADDITION MAN-MADE OR NATURAL OBJECTS OBSTRUCT. NOTE: AIRPORT NOT PUB IN AF/D, NOR SECTIONAL DUE TO OBJECTIONABLE AIRSPACE IAW JO 7400.2G, PARA 10-4-1B. (INFO IS AVAILABLE TO NASR USERS (E.G. AIRNAV.COM))

Now, neither Conrad nor Thompson show up on the sectional. Both are little grass strips along the edge of a farm field. I am quite certain that neither of those farmers lodged complaints due to the overlap of their virtual traffic patterns with that of Page. The local Ag sprayer is called 'Tall Towers Aviation', it would seem that the locals are well aware of the 'man made objects' in the area.

The result of this nonsense is that the only paved and lit airport in the area doesn't show up on the sectional and someoene who needs to find a place to put down under duress may miss it and put his plane in a field instead. Buerocratic stupidity is all fine and well to laugh at until someone loses an eye.

A couple of years back, someone was trying to build an airpark in western Cass county. During the permitting process, the FAA brought up a 'conflict' with the 'traffic pattern' of a nearby farm strip and wanted to keep the landowner from building the airpark. Only after the developer established a right traffic pattern for his new runway, the FAA yokels would go away :rolleyes: .
 
The FAA can't STOP anybody form building an airport. Marking it objectionable is the worst they can do after you submit your notice of construction on a field they don't agree with. It's not that the nearby airports or anybody complained, it's a determination from an FAA regional bureaucrat.
 
Sometimes the FAA reminds me of this:

attachment.php


http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173916
 

Attachments

  • There Was a Little Girl.png
    There Was a Little Girl.png
    4.9 KB · Views: 35
flyingron said:
The FAA can't STOP anybody form building an airport. Marking it objectionable is the worst they can do after you submit your notice of construction on a field they don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Well, when it comes to new construction they sort of do. Zoning and land use regs often reference federal regs, so if the FAA goes on record that they object to an airport being constructed, it gets difficult to get the special use permit or variance required to build an airport.

It's not that the nearby airports or anybody complained, it's a determination from an FAA regional bureaucrat.
Click to expand...

Thats the problem right there. If nobody with an actual stake (e.g. owners of pre-existing airports) complains, there should be no basis for someone sitting in front of a database printout to determine that an airport is 'objectionable'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top