Illegal to back-taxi??!!

[RotorAndWing]

Damn good find WSUFFA. I learned something! What gets me, if 64% of your activity is transient, then you should have your procedures where those 64% can find them!

Maybe that is asking to much.

Contact you State Aeronautics department and the FAA ADO and state your concerns, perhaps this will have the local authority finally place these restrictions in the A/FD.

 

[Brad Z]

Huh? Instead of saying that I was not aware of such a rule? And if airport managers start making their own rules and/or thinking they are ATC, then, guess what, it is a Federal case. In that it is an FAA matter.

Does it matter? No need to argue over the radio. Unless the airport manager was going to fine you or kick you out, its not worth getting upset over.

As others mentioned, it's not a Federal matter unless the rule violates their grant assurances. Check out Grant Assurance 19, Operations and Maintenance. Telling you that back taxiing is not permitted is not an ATC instruction or clearance.

Airport managers, in general, can make their own rules. Sounds like they just need to work on their communication skills.

 

[RyanShort1]

Wow - according to city code, it is illegal to do aerobatics over the city of Homestead. It is also illegal to do ANY training flights in the city.

Read it and weep.

And of course the FAA would agree anyway with the aerobatics part.

Ryan

 

[alfadog]

Does it matter? No need to argue over the radio. Unless the airport manager was going to fine you or kick you out, its not worth getting upset over.

As others mentioned, it's not a Federal matter unless the rule violates their grant assurances. Check out Grant Assurance 19, Operations and Maintenance. Telling you that back taxiing is not permitted is not an ATC instruction or clearance.

Airport managers, in general, can make their own rules. Sounds like they just need to work on their communication skills.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

[alfadog]

Wow - according to city code, it is illegal to do aerobatics over the city of Homestead. It is also illegal to do ANY training flights in the city.

Read it and weep.

LOL. Here it is. Talk about one for the books. IFR at 6000 feet on a training flight, better be sure not to overfly the City of Homestead.

Sec. 5-3. - Restrictions on training aircraft flying over city.

It shall be unlawful for any person to fly any airplane or other heavier than air aircraft or lighter than air aircraft over the city, or within its jurisdictional boundaries, except when in the process of taking off or when in the process of landing at airports which are partially or wholly situated within the city limits, when such airplane or aircraft is being used for the purpose of training or giving and receiving lessons in the use and the flying of such aircraft.

(Code 1975, § 6-3)

 

[docmirror]

Well, once you are physically touching the ground, you basically belong to the rules of the land on which that airport is sitting. The ops rules for the airport can be more restrictive than the general ops rules the FAA promulgates.

Having said that, I would opine that the regulations posted on the link Bart and I provided supersede the PDF from 1995. But, I'm not going to guarantee anything.

 

[alfadog]

Well, once you are physically touching the ground, you basically belong to the rules of the land on which that airport is sitting. The ops rules for the airport can be more restrictive than the general ops rules the FAA promulgates.

Having said that, I would opine that the regulations posted on the link Bart and I provided supersede the PDF from 1995. But, I'm not going to guarantee anything.

I would say no. The MDAD runs the airport, not City of Homestead and MDAD issued the Operating Memo.

Like I said, I kept it friendly but I am not in the habit of rolling over for Officer Friendly, in whatever guise. I stand corrected and won't do it again. And if I see Terry, I will tell him that.

 

[SkyHog]

I dont fault you for backtaxiing, but a simple "roger" would have sufficed. If I fly to another airport and they ask me not to back taxi, I'll comply. I don't see the need to make a federal case out of it. There are plenty airports that have various operating rules that aren't necessary going to show up in the A/FD or NOTAMs. Perhaps you could have just given him a call?

Yeah, no. Airport Managers don't get to tell aircraft what they can/can't do. He can nicely inform someone, then report it later if he wants, but if anyone tells me "You can't back-taxi" or "You can't do a straight in" the response is going to be "Watch me."

Not an anti-authority attitude, because they have none.

 

[docmirror]

I would say no. The MDAD runs the airport, not City of Homestead and MDAD issued the Operating Memo.

Like I said, I kept it friendly but I am not in the habit of rolling over for Officer Friendly, in whatever guise. I stand corrected and won't do it again. And if I see Terry, I will tell him that.

Well, like I said, I'm not going to guarantee anything. I don't know what an MDAD is, and frankly don't care. This thread has come up with several sets of regulations covering the ground ops on the airport.

So - you win, I lose, whatever...

 

[alfadog]

Well, like I said, I'm not going to guarantee anything. I don't know what an MDAD is, and frankly don't care. This thread has come up with several sets of regulations covering the ground ops on the airport.

So - you win, I lose, whatever...

Sorry you feel that way, didn't mean to come across as a dick :-(

 

[docmirror]

Yeah, no. Airport Managers don't get to tell aircraft what they can/can't do. He can nicely inform someone, then report it later if he wants, but if anyone tells me "You can't back-taxi" or "You can't do a straight in" the response is going to be "Watch me."

Not an anti-authority attitude, because they have none.

The city of Cleburne TX has successfully enforced their ordinances and levied fines, and collected them. They have also successfully enforced prior restraint on a specific operator at their airport. Now, I have no idea if it would stand up if challenged further, but at least in the county seat - they got away with it cause I know the plane and the operator who was fined, then banished.

 

[Brad Z]

Yeah, no. Airport Managers don't get to tell aircraft what they can/can't do. He can nicely inform someone, then report it later if he wants, but if anyone tells me "You can't back-taxi" or "You can't do a straight in" the response is going to be "Watch me."

Not an anti-authority attitude, because they have none.

Really, airport managers have no say in how their airport is run?

 

[brywd]

Having just read the airport rules at Homestead they must hate the circling altitude on the GPS approach. It is listed as 380', and this is after a straight in for all practical purposes. For the love of humanity. What must they do when practice approaches are flown here in VFR conditions, or during check rides?

It looks like the missed approach violates the local ordinance of not turning until crossing the airport boundary. On the missed a climb to 500' and then a turn direct HOLMU. Going missed on the LPV that is only a 250 foot +/- climb before the turn starts. Anybody see a way to comply with the missed procedure and not break a local ordinance?

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1306/10263R10.PDF

 

[SkyHog]

Really, airport managers have no say in how their airport is run?

They manage airports, not pilots.

 

[poadeleted20]

Doesn't have to. I know that seems odd, but it's true.

However you can bring this issue up to the state aeronautics board and they can have the airport publish such restrictions.

The FAA won't enforce a local rule not published in an FAA document. The power the airport has over transient aircraft in such a situation is rather flimsy at best.

 

[wsuffa]

Practical question - what are they going to do? Banish you from the airport? Cancel your county granted pilot certificate?

The airport rules? Dunno - I suppose they can ban you from using the airport or take actions as permitted under the City Code. As for the provisions in the Code, they can (potentially) arrest you or cite you in accordance with the provisions of the code, so you could face a fine or other actions. No different than if you were to violate some local motor vehicle code.

Whether the local judge would uphold it is a different matter.

Damn good find WSUFFA. I learned something! What gets me, if 64% of your activity is transient, then you should have your procedures where those 64% can find them!

Maybe that is asking to much. Anyone should not have to rely on a "club " web page for this type of info.

Agree - hence my comment about "double secret probation".

The FAA won't enforce a local rule not published in an FAA document. The power the airport has over transient aircraft in such a situation is rather flimsy at best.

I suppose they could cite the pilot, the same way as they could cite a driver that violates a local driving law. It all depends on whether the airport rules are really incorporated into the local muni code somehow. IANAL.

 

[poadeleted20]

Wow - according to city code, it is illegal to do aerobatics over the city of Homestead. It is also illegal to do ANY training flights in the city.

They they cannot make any such rules about what happens in the air unless it directly affects the ground (e.g., noise limits). Federal Supremacy, and all that -- see Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst, American Airlines v. Town of Hempstead, and Santa Monica Airport Association v. Santa Monica. An ordinance flatly prohibiting training or aerobatic flights which are in compliance with the FAR's in federally-regulated airspace is unenforceable. Of course, 91.307 prohibits aerobatic flight "Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement", so that one is already an enforceable FAR.

 

[wsuffa]

They they cannot make any such rules about what happens in the air unless it directly affects the ground (e.g., noise limits). Federal Supremacy, and all that -- see Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst, American Airlines v. Town of Hempstead, and Santa Monica Airport Association v. Santa Monica. An ordinance flatly prohibiting training or aerobatic flights which are in compliance with the FAR's in federally-regulated airspace over the city is unenforceable.

Agree - but it's still gonna cost you for a lawyer. "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride".

That said, their own airport has training facilities, so in theory the flight schools at the airport may be breaking city code.

 

[poadeleted20]

Agree - but it's still gonna cost you for a lawyer. "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride".

It will be rather hard for them to identify the violator and bring that person to court.

That said, their own airport has training facilities, so in theory the flight schools at the airport may be breaking city code.

In that case, the ban on training operations is essentially unenforceable since they would be discriminating against non-based training operators while not enforcing against those based there.

 

[roncachamp]

Another headscratcher at non-towered X51. Another in that about two years ago I wrote them up to the FAA for trying to act as air traffic control and tell me that I had to land on the "preferred" runway when I was looking for crosswind practice. I ignored them then and I plan on ignoring them now.

Here is the story. Took some folks up today for a bit of flying experience (for them). They are students at the A&P school. We were doing t&g's and then a full stop. We we ended up dragging it in and plopping down on the numbers nice and slow. I braked to a full stop and spun around to see how we did. Mind you, we were the only folks using the airport. We were about 500 feet down the runway, turn-off 1000 feet ahead. I turn again then realized it would be best if I back-taxied as we were going to the ramp behind us to switch the right seat pax. I call the back-taxi and go to the ramp. The Unicom (County employee manager) comes on and tells me that "back-taxi not permitted". I say I am not aware of anything like that and go about my business. While we are in the pattern he comes back and asks me to stop by his office to look at something. Yeah, right. I am nice but no way I am going out of my way for that. I ask him what he is looking at, FAR, Advisory Circular, what? He says it is the operating agreement for the airport. I tell him I will come by the next time I am getting gas over there but not today. Leave it friendly.

I am not finding this agreement online but wonder how an operating agreement at a non-towered airport can control the flight operations of visiting pilots???

Anyone have experience with something like this?

How would this "agreement" work with transient aircraft?

 

[DavidWhite]

I had a radio cop try and tell me that straight in approaches to PWT are not allowed some years back.

I had someone tell me that once - I quickly responded with "You're a turd"

 

[RotorAndWing]

The FAA won't enforce a local rule not published in an FAA document. The power the airport has over transient aircraft in such a situation is rather flimsy at best.

The state in question (Florida) publishes it's own airport directory and aviation map. If brought up to the state aeronautics board they will publish in their publication.

And the airport authority can request a notam be published. If they feel they don't want taxi backs on the runway they can request a notam be filed.

 

[poadeleted20]

The state in question (Florida) publishes it's own airport directory and aviation map. If brought up to the state aeronautics board they will publish in their publication.

I won't disagree, but as I said, I don't think the FAA will take action against a pilot who violates a non-Federal rule. And I don't think the state will take action on their own if it's not in a state publication (which apparently this one is not). As for the city taking action, it's not going to be easy for them to identify the pilot and bring him/her to court and carry the necessary burden of proof. I'd be interested to hear how many times that city has done that (if ever). But I would not engage the person on the UNICOM, either.

As for requesting such a NOTAM (it would have to be an FDC NOTAM to have regulatory force), while I'm sure they can request it, I've never seen such a NOTAM before, and I believe they'd have to make a pretty good case to get it.

 

[alfadog]

I won't disagree, but as I said, I don't think the FAA will take action against a pilot who violates a non-Federal rule. And I don't think the state will take action on their own if it's not in a state publication (which apparently this one is not). As for the city taking action, it's not going to be easy for them to identify the pilot and bring him/her to court and carry the necessary burden of proof. I'd be interested to hear how many times that city has done that (if ever). But I would not engage the person on the UNICOM, either.

As for requesting such a NOTAM (it would have to be an FDC NOTAM to have regulatory force), while I'm sure they can request it, I've never seen such a NOTAM before, and I believe they'd have to make a pretty good case to get it.

What I imagine could happen would be a letter to my club (the a/c owner) regarding my breaking the rule related to back-taxiing. It will not happen this time but I see how it could. I saw such a letter recently from the City of Naples, FL (KAPF) to the club related to a club a/c breaking one of their rules. So I would get a little pat on the wrist from the club.

Like I said, I am aware of the rules now and will not break it. I believe in being a good neighbor and following legit instructions. I did not think at first that there was any legitimacy to the admonition as I had previous experience with the manager overstepping his authority.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I won't disagree, but as I said, I don't think the FAA will take action against a pilot who violates a non-Federal rule.

I don't think anyone implied they would.

And I don't think the state will take action on their own if it's not in a state publication (which apparently this one is not).

Why would the state? This is a local ordinance, not state.

As for the city taking action, it's not going to be easy for them to identify the pilot and bring him/her to court and carry the necessary burden of proof. I'd be interested to hear how many times that city has done that (if ever). But I would not engage the person on the UNICOM, either.

The city can take action if they choose. How they go about it can be debated, but it is an enforceable ordinance.

As for requesting such a NOTAM (it would have to be an FDC NOTAM to have regulatory force),

Again, you're confusing federal against local laws.

while I'm sure they can request it, I've never seen such a NOTAM before, and I believe they'd have to make a pretty good case to get it.

I've seen lots of them over the years. All the airport manager needs to do is contact the ADO and fill out the forms. They don't have to "make a pretty good case" as the FAA typically does not get involved with local surface operations as long as grant assurances are being met and they are not violating and 14 CFR regulations. Requesting no back taxi on an airport is fully within the airport sponsor's rights.

 

[poadeleted20]

Again, you're confusing federal against local laws.

No, I'm not. The FAA isn't going to enforce a local ordinance without an FDC NOTAM saying the same thing, and no other sort of NOTAM is regulatory from an FAA perspective. Anything else is merely advisory in nature, and there must be some underlying FAR on which to base an enforcement action (e.g., Runway NOTAM for runway closure due to personnel and equipment working, pilot lands on runway, pilot is done for 91.119 and 91.13, not for violating the NOTAM itself). The FAA would have a difficult (probably impossible) time showing that safety was compromised in a way that violated any FAR just because a pilot back-taxied on a runway -- in fact, 91.113(g) specifically exempts the case of a pilot attempting to clear the runway in order to make way for the next aircraft from the general rule that the landing aircraft owns the runway. If back-taxiing is the most expeditious means to clear, that is compliant with the FAR's.

I've seen lots of them over the years. All the airport manager needs to do is contact the ADO and fill out the forms. They don't have to "make a pretty good case" as the FAA typically does not get involved with local surface operations as long as grant assurances are being met and they are not violating and 14 CFR regulations. Requesting no back taxi on an airport is fully within the airport sponsor's rights.

Lots of them? Perhaps you can point out even one example of such an FDC NOTAM, as I've never seen one in all my years of flying other than temporary restrictions during runway construction or the like.

 

[RotorAndWing]

No, I'm not. The FAA isn't going to enforce a local ordinance without an FDC NOTAM saying the same thing, and no other sort of NOTAM is regulatory from an FAA perspective. Anything else is merely advisory in nature, and there must be some underlying FAR on which to base an enforcement action (e.g., Runway NOTAM for runway closure due to personnel and equipment working, pilot lands on runway, pilot is done for 91.119 and 91.13, not for violating the NOTAM itself). The FAA would have a difficult (probably impossible) time showing that safety was compromised in a way that violated any FAR just because a pilot back-taxied on a runway -- in fact, 91.113(g) specifically exempts the case of a pilot attempting to clear the runway in order to make way for the next aircraft from the general rule that the landing aircraft owns the runway. If back-taxiing is the most expeditious means to clear, that is compliant with the FAR's.

FOCUS Ron, FOCUS! No one is talking FAA enforcement here, and no one here said anything about making it an FDC Notam!

Lots of them? Perhaps you can point out even one example of such an FDC NOTAM, as I've never seen one in all my years of flying other than temporary restrictions during runway construction or the like.

Again, no one, not even me said or implied making an issue such as this an FDC Notam!

Try reading and comprehending post before going off the deep end.

 

[Palmpilot]

They they cannot make any such rules about what happens in the air unless it directly affects the ground (e.g., noise limits). Federal Supremacy, and all that -- see Allegheny Airlines v. Village of Cedarhurst, American Airlines v. Town of Hempstead, and Santa Monica Airport Association v. Santa Monica. An ordinance flatly prohibiting training or aerobatic flights which are in compliance with the FAR's in federally-regulated airspace is unenforceable. Of course, 91.307 prohibits aerobatic flight "Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement", so that one is already an enforceable FAR.

Thanks for the case citations on federal preemption for airborne operations. Hopefully I'll never need them, but I've saved a link just in case.

 

[weilke]

I had someone tell me that once - I quickly responded with "You're a turd"

'roger' would have been the response from the professional pilot you are aspiring to be.

 

[alfadog]

Not in the A/FD? It doesn't exist. I had a radio cop try and tell me that straight in approaches to PWT are not allowed some years back. I suggested he ready the A/FD. Besides, there are instrument approaches that wind up as straight in approaches. What would that bozo suggest there?

Anyway, you did right. Ignore the guy.

Thanks. As to your point, AFAIK, both VFR and IFR straight-in approaches to a non-towered airport under VFR conditions have to give way to (or not interfere with) traffic flying a normal pattern. As long as they do that, no worries.

 

[alfadog]

I won't disagree, but as I said, I don't think the FAA will take action against a pilot who violates a non-Federal rule. And I don't think the state will take action on their own if it's not in a state publication (which apparently this one is not). As for the city taking action, it's not going to be easy for them to identify the pilot and bring him/her to court and carry the necessary burden of proof. I'd be interested to hear how many times that city has done that (if ever). But I would not engage the person on the UNICOM, either.

No, not worried about the FAA. But the County can track the owner of the a/c easily enough and contact him by letter. Like I mention, the City of Naples did that recently with a club airplane.

 

[roncachamp]

Thanks. As to your point, AFAIK, both VFR and IFR straight-in approaches to a non-towered airport under VFR conditions have to give way to (or not interfere with) traffic flying a normal pattern. As long as they do that, no worries.

It's essentially the other way round, an aircraft on final has the right-of-way.


§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

 

[denverpilot]

Doesn't have to. I know that seems odd, but it's true.

The word isn't "odd". The word you're looking for is "stupid".

 

[alfadog]

It's essentially the other way round, an aircraft on final has the right-of-way.


§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.

(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake that aircraft.

Advisory Circular AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers

13. IFR AIRCRAFT.

When operating in accordance with an IFR clearance, if air traffic control (ATC) approves a change to the advisory frequency, change to and monitor the CTAF as soon as possible and follow the recommended traffic advisory procedures.

Advisory Circular AC 90-66A Traffic Patterns and Practices at Non-Towered Airports

e. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern. However, for those pilots who choose to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in approaches.

f. Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon completion of the approach.

 

[steingar]

Last time I was in Florida I recall seeing a surfeit of airports. If someone claiming to represent an airport started telling me what to do in my airplane I suspect there would be one less airport at which I would land. That wouldn't be that big a hardship here in the frozen north, I suspect if would be less so in Florida.

 

[roncachamp]

Advisory Circular AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers

13. IFR AIRCRAFT.

When operating in accordance with an IFR clearance, if air traffic control (ATC) approves a change to the advisory frequency, change to and monitor the CTAF as soon as possible and follow the recommended traffic advisory procedures.

Advisory Circular AC 90-66A Traffic Patterns and Practices at Non-Towered Airports

f. Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon completion of the approach.

Regulation trumps Advisory Circular.

 

[poadeleted20]

It's essentially the other way round, an aircraft on final has the right-of-way.

...and the FAA has gone so far as an emergency revocation on a pilot flying the pattern who deliberately cut off airplanes on straight-in approaches in violation of that regulation. While the question of courtesy and politeness regarding this issue may be the subject of sometimes spirited debate among pilots, the law and the FAA's and NTSB's position on this issue are not. See Administrator v. Fekete.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/4236.PDF

 

[alfadog]

Last time I was in Florida I recall seeing a surfeit of airports. If someone claiming to represent an airport started telling me what to do in my airplane I suspect there would be one less airport at which I would land. That wouldn't be that big a hardship here in the frozen north, I suspect if would be less so in Florida.

Yes, there are airports that I give miss to in my casual flying, mostly because of landing fees. Marco Island, e.g. Yet, if I have a reason to use Marco, I would and would pay the fee. I have reason to use X51 and will abide by the rule. I see no reason to cut off my nose over whether I back-taxi to save two minutes of extra taxi.

 

[poadeleted20]

Advisory Circular AC 90-42F Traffic Advisory Practices at Airports Without Operating Control Towers

13. IFR AIRCRAFT.

When operating in accordance with an IFR clearance, if air traffic control (ATC) approves a change to the advisory frequency, change to and monitor the CTAF as soon as possible and follow the recommended traffic advisory procedures.

Advisory Circular AC 90-66A Traffic Patterns and Practices at Non-Towered Airports

e. The FAA encourages pilots to use the standard traffic pattern. However, for those pilots who choose to execute a straight-in approach, maneuvering for and execution of the approach should be completed so as not to disrupt the flow of arriving and departing traffic. Therefore, pilots operating in the traffic pattern should be alert at all times to aircraft executing straight-in approaches.

f. Pilots who wish to conduct instrument approaches should be particularly alert for other aircraft in the pattern so as to avoid interrupting the flow of traffic. Position reports on the CTAF should include distance and direction from the airport, as well as the pilot's intentions upon completion of the approach.

Advisory Circulars do not trump regulations, and there is case law on point. Don't bet your ticket on this AC on this point or you may end up like Mr. Fekete. Nothing wrong with asking the pilot on the straight-in if you can turn in front, but if you turn in front of them forcing them to alter their approach and they make an issue of it, you are the one on whom the FAA hammer falls, regardless of what that AC says.

 

[steingar]

Yes, there are airports that I give miss to in my casual flying, mostly because of landing fees. Marco Island, e.g. Yet, if I have a reason to use Marco, I would and would pay the fee. I have reason to use X51 and will abide by the rule. I see no reason to cut off my nose over whether I back-taxi to save two minutes of extra taxi.

I guess my point was deciding with your feet would not seem to cut off your nose of spite your face in an airport-rich region like Florida. But your airplane, your home, you do as you like.