Airport Rules and Regulations...Regulatory or Advisory?

Shawn

Shawn

En-Route
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
4,384
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Display Name
Shawn
Home Airfield
KWVI
Was thumbing through my home filed Airport Rules and Regulations online and a blurb caught my attention. KWVI is uncontrolled and has a preferred calm wind and prevailing wind runway of 20 and used as such most of the time...RNAV and LOC instrument approaches are only opposite direction on runway 02 and often used for practice approaches especially on busy weekends.

This is published in the Airport Rules and Regulations published by the airport:

d. Watsonville has a preferred runway of [20]...

e. Instrument approach traffic in VFR conditions shall give way to aircraft departing or in the pattern, and use their radio and landing lights. Departing aircraft need to watch for instrument approach aircraft inbound to Runway [2].

The battle has been waged here and debated to death as to who has right of way...VFR traffic in the pattern or opposite IFR on approach...not the point of the post...but rather the question of where do these rules fall in the grand scheme of things since they are not published anywhere else like the chart supplement...regulatory or just a local custom that the airport manager can enforce selectively for someone that is being a jackwaggon?

Note I am in total agreement with it and how I fly at KWVI, just questioned its enforceability beyond common courtesy and local knowledge.

...and yes, it is uncontrolled and you can land anywhere you dang well please...not the question.
 
Well, it conflicts with right of way rules, which give priority to landing traffic. Local rules can't supersede Federal rules. But they are actual rules unless it's worded as a request.
 
Preferred or calm wind runways are allowed to be selected by the airport manager by the FAA. Often times they are selected due to noise or other considerations. That being said they are not regulatory.

Now the airport trying to overstep the FARs and change right of way rules, IF the airport ever tried to enforce such codes, the FAA may have something to say about that. Airports are allowed to have reasonable rules and regulations, but Federal laws and regulations supercede any airport codes. The beginning of our airport code even includes a disclaimer that if anything in the code conflicts with state or federal regulations, the state or federal regulation takes precedence.
 
My airport has an interesting rule: STRAIGHT-IN APPROACHES. Straight-in approaches shall not be used unless authorized by the Airport Manager or unless radio contact with the airport advisory radio has been established from at least five (5) miles out. I think they revised it a few years ago to add the "unless radio contact" part, but I'm still not sure if that means you make a standard radio call or if the airport has to answer you. When I challenged the airport manager on this rule, telling him the FAA wouldn't allow it, he told me he could enforce it on me since I signed a hangar agreement saying I would follow all airport rules and regulations. They also say you have to climb to 400 feet on takeoff before making a turn and a few other fun rules. At least they amended the rules to add this: If and where there is conflict in these and the Federal Aviation Administration traffic rules, the latter shall prevail.
 
Sounds to me like some of those managers have britches a bit to big for their girth. Rules are fine. But don't make threats when your rules do not carry the weight of law. If they want specific procedures, NOTAM that ****.
 
Mason said:
Or the other way around.
Click to expand...
If you want to make rules, have the authority, jurisdiction and capability to enforce them. Without, you are just ****ing in the wind.
 
Cmon airport managers have a tough job. If you prefer they can close the airport to traffic in the evening or early morning when too many people ignore their nice ask re: calm wind runway. No need to get up in arms about it. Be good citizens unless it's really a problem for ya.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Im not up in arms. No dog in his fight. But I have seen airport managers with international dreams and 15 operations per month budgets try and "manage" as such. If they want to close it nightly, NOTAM it. End of story. Trying to dick swing on a tenant when nobody else MUST follow his rules is stupid.
 
I think it's reasonable to state noise abatement preferences... not regulatory but helps everyone if you can do it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Out airport manager is awesome and it has never really even come up and they are all completely justifiable IMO... just more of a question on rules and enforcement on my part.

Here is another example:

3. NIGHT FLYING RULES APPLY: Between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., DST

Between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., DST
a. No touch and go landings or practice landings during the above times.


Makes perfect sense to keep the neighbors happy and have zero qualm with it.

Now those hours are not published in the Chart Supplement or NOTAMed...and it does fall on pilots to brief all available information on a flight, but in reality who goes and looks at Airport Rules and Regulations...or whatever variation an airport has...when briefing a flight to another destination?

Now I get that they are designed and aimed at those that are based there and use the field day in and day out...but I guess the crux of the questions is in reality those rules can only really be enforced by the Airport Manager against tenants of that field...or in the case of a public use/public owned field, what regulations are in effect to enforce those "rules" against transients if any if there was truly a problem child out there?
 
Last edited:
Short of any codified regulation, you can't do much at a public airport. A private airfield you can be trespassed from though.
 
Lowflynjack said:
They also say you have to climb to 400 feet on takeoff before making a turn and a few other fun rules.
Click to expand...

I know you're not the OP, but I'm curious why this rule would even be an issue.

Standard VFR pattern work as recommended in the AIM is to turn crosswind at 300 feet below pattern altitude, so usually more than 400' above the runway elevation.
Departing the pattern, AIM recommends no turns until above pattern altitude.
IFR departures are predicated on turning no lower than 400 above the runway, unless specified to be higher.

Why would turning below 400 feet be an issue for any normal operation?
 
RussR said:
Why would turning below 400 feet be an issue for any normal operation?
Click to expand...
I'm sure it's not. I wasn't trying to start a fight with the airport manager, we were and still are friends. I was simply pointing out to him that some of the rules are dumb and can't be enforced and some, like this one, are redundant. I think putting in rules that aren't needed opens the airport up to lawsuits. To be fair to him, all of the rules were in place long before we even had an airport manager.
 
Shawn said:
Now those hours are not published in the Chart Supplement or NOTAMed...and it does fall on pilots to brief all available information on a flight, but in reality who goes and looks at Airport Rules and Regulations...or whatever variation an airport has...when briefing a flight to another destination?

Now I get that they are designed and aimed at those that are based there and use the field day in and day out...but I guess the crux of the questions is in reality those rules can only really be enforced by the Airport Manager against tenants of that field...or in the case of a public use/public owned field, what regulations are in effect to enforce those "rules" against transients if any if there was truly a problem child out there?
Click to expand...

Yeah, this got me in trouble with the POA crowd. I was doing TNGs at a local field. I had not read the AFD and at the bottom of the page it said no tngs. I was having trouble hearing the guy on the ground with his handheld radio who was trying to tell me I couldn't do it, but I think he was having trouble hearing me too as he never called me by my N-Number, just kept calling me taildragger.

I folllow the rule (even though it's a load of crap!) and don't go over there to do tngs, but I too wondered what could they do about it? If they got my n-number and videoed me doing tngs, I guess they could complain to the FAA. If I was based there, they could evict me.
 
Airports can have "rules" but they can't supersede federal law, which has primary jurisdiction over aviation.

Noise abatement "rules" are a common example of this. The "rule" may prohibit landing after a certain hour but if you do anyway the FAA won't care. The airport may get your tail number and send you a nasty letter but that's about the extent of what they can do. Most people respect these anyway, and it's generally good practice to do so, but strictly speaking it's a voluntary thing.

Every now and then you'll get a local official that declares they are making a law to limit planes flying over someone's house and such but this is totally unenforceable. So long as the operation is carried out in accordance with the FARs then the local officials can pound sand.
 
If it's a public funded airport, just follow the FARs and use common sense, the rest is just static.


Try to be a good neghibor, but don't do anything you normally wouldn't do, is that makes sense.
 
rocketflyer84 said:
Every now and then you'll get a local official that declares they are making a law to limit planes flying over someone's house and such but this is totally unenforceable. So long as the operation is carried out in accordance with the FARs then the local officials can pound sand.
Click to expand...
I used to fly powered paragliders. We always took off directly into the wind. A few of us took off to the east one day, overflying Ercot, a company that built their business next to the airport. When we came back, a cop was waiting on us, but that wasn't uncommon. The police and fire fighters would come out when they saw us flying and ask questions.

This day though, as soon as I landed this cop came storming up to me yelling that I had flown in a "no-fly zone". At first I tried asking questions, but he was mad. I asked if he was talking about the nearby prison. I told him we know it's there and don't fly directly over it, but it's not on the chart. He said no and repeated that I was in a "no-fly zone" several times until I finally snapped and told him there is no such thing. Either tell me what you think I did wrong or leave me alone. When he told me I'd flown over Ercot and their security guard had called, I told him I could fly over it anytime I wanted, especially when taking off or landing. I gave him the FAA's number and told him to call them if he wanted further clarification. As he was leaving, he mentioned if we did it again there might be a different outcome. Up until that point, I would have laughed it off and let it go. I called the FAA and gave them his name and then called the police chief and advised him he had no jurisdiction on where I fly... he agreed, apoligized and we were never bothered again. He also laughed when I told him the biggest risk they had with me flying my paraglider over the building is they would walk outside and find me dead from bouncing off of the building!
 
Many airports have published municipal ordinances which have legal force on the pilot operating on their airport. Taxi speed limit for example.

tex
 
Rules that can't be or won't be enforced are best thought of as requests or suggestions IMHO. Comply with it as best you can to be nice but when in doubt, the FAR/AIM book is the one that actually matters.
 
Lowflynjack said:
I used to fly powered paragliders. We always took off directly into the wind. A few of us took off to the east one day, overflying Ercot, a company that built their business next to the airport. When we came back, a cop was waiting on us, but that wasn't uncommon. The police and fire fighters would come out when they saw us flying and ask questions.

This day though, as soon as I landed this cop came storming up to me yelling that I had flown in a "no-fly zone". At first I tried asking questions, but he was mad. I asked if he was talking about the nearby prison. I told him we know it's there and don't fly directly over it, but it's not on the chart. He said no and repeated that I was in a "no-fly zone" several times until I finally snapped and told him there is no such thing. Either tell me what you think I did wrong or leave me alone. When he told me I'd flown over Ercot and their security guard had called, I told him I could fly over it anytime I wanted, especially when taking off or landing. I gave him the FAA's number and told him to call them if he wanted further clarification. As he was leaving, he mentioned if we did it again there might be a different outcome. Up until that point, I would have laughed it off and let it go. I called the FAA and gave them his name and then called the police chief and advised him he had no jurisdiction on where I fly... he agreed, apoligized and we were never bothered again. He also laughed when I told him the biggest risk they had with me flying my paraglider over the building is they would walk outside and find me dead from bouncing off of the building!
Click to expand...
You played that one wrong. You could have owned the company and maybe the town if that cop made good on his threat.
 
Dave S. said:
Many airports have published municipal ordinances which have legal force on the pilot operating on their airport. Taxi speed limit for example.

tex
Click to expand...
They would lose in court.
 
A bit of thread drift, but a year ago, our Airport Authority came out with a crazy set of rules and regulations.

I pointed out to the Authority that they needed to strike the unenforceable rules and the ones they didn't intend to enforce. Otherwise, when they did choose to enforce something, the person being singled out would have a very good argument against the Authority. "They never enforced the rest of the rules and regulations. I'm being unfairly singled out."

A year later, they published a new, much more reasonable set of airport Rules and Reg's.
 
I regularly practice short field, soft field, no-flap, cross-wind and so forth TO/LDG and even down wind TO/LDG when safe to keep my skill level up. Try to avoid conflicting with more traditional traffic, but on the other hand when safe I'm not going to worry too much about unenforceable "rules'.
 
Gad, if I know the airport wants something a certain way, and it's rationally doable, sure thing, I'll go along. . .but. . .a certain airport in MD. . .the guy won't AFD his wacky "rules", then gets his knickers in a knot when someone crosses the line. I listened in on a tirade he directed at a Cardinal pilot from CA, including ". . .everyone KNOWS you aren't supposed to. . ."

She told him; "Clearly, EVERYONE doesn't know, do they?". . .he got redder and louder, until she lost her cool, too. Good dust up, private strip, he told her she was banned, she said she'd have to find a way to go on living, etc.
 
Sundancer said:
Gad, if I know the airport wants something a certain way, and it's rationally doable, sure thing, I'll go along. . .but. . .a certain airport in MD. . .the guy won't AFD his wacky "rules", then gets his knickers in a knot when someone crosses the line. I listened in on a tirade he directed at a Cardinal pilot from CA, including ". . .everyone KNOWS you aren't supposed to. . ."

She told him; "Clearly, EVERYONE doesn't know, do they?". . .he got redder and louder, until she lost her cool, too. Good dust up, private strip, he told her she was banned, she said she'd have to find a way to go on living, etc.
Click to expand...
Too funny; where's this?
 
Dave S. said:
Many airports have published municipal ordinances which have legal force on the pilot operating on their airport. Taxi speed limit for example.

tex
Click to expand...

I don't know about you guys but the only indicator of speed I have doesn't even start operating until 40 mph. Anything below that is just a guess unless they have some douchenozzle out there with a radar gun.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I don't know about you guys but the only indicator of speed I have doesn't even start operating until 40 mph. Anything below that is just a guess unless they have some douchenozzle out there with a radar gun.
Click to expand...

Not that I'm disagreeing with the idea here, but you don't have any type of GPS that shows speed?
 
RussR said:
Not that I'm disagreeing with the idea here, but you don't have any type of GPS that shows speed?
Click to expand...

2 of the three planes in the club do. The third does not. Nor did the Arrow we sold a while back. What's your point? Lots of planes do not have GPS installed. And, frankly, when I'm taxiing the GPS is about the last item in the panel I might look at.
 
Ghery said:
What's your point?
Click to expand...

I didn't really have a point so much; I did say I agreed with his opinion that the policing of taxi speed is silly. I just found the side comment about having nothing in the airplane that shows speed of less than 40 mph to be a bit inaccurate. Virtually every aircraft I fly in or pilot I fly with has some sort of GPS, either panel-mounted, handheld, tablet, or otherwise, whether or not you look at it. But even without GPS, of course, I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between 10 knots and 30 knots just with my eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top