Hi...

I have been going round and round with a gent down here named Garcia who works for the FAA down at lawndale... seems he and I have had lots of conversation over the use of my place located on KSAC... I wanted to build a hangar for over 5 years now.. but every time I start .. something comes up...
Anyway... the final thing we got to was competition and maximizing the return for the field...

I have to agree with him that if you set up a business in your back yard... working on planes (A&P/IA stuff) then you are in competition.. he agreed that this was the original intention of the TTF issue... however, we came to a understanding that my use of the TTF was to enjoy flying.. not compete against the FBO's... thus the word "Occasional usage through the fence" was developed and thought to be a good way to navigate around the incompatibility issues where API funds were issues...

If it is for personal usage.. it has benefits... for the homeowner/pilot.. but , he pays his taxes too... and thus has a right to use the airfield just like anyone else does... only thing is he lives next to the field and thus can house his plane in his back yard... Now the airfield says.. well we are missing out on the rent that we could get .. yet he can use the airfield any time... so that is not fair... ahhh but, who is paying for the airfield through their fed and county taxes? and... because he is located on the airfield he is normally the first responder to a intrusion into it... (I know I even challenged the FAA maintenance guys one day.. not knowing they were from the FAA... and called the cops on 'em... after telling them that they had to leave or else... ops) So security works...at our field...

It seems they don't understand that it also brings enjoyment, and pleasure as well as visitors to use the fields... and that is the big issue... as they come they buy fuel.. or need tie downs overnight... a neglected oversight in the real use of the fields... after all if they are not fun and functional.. then why am I paying for them on my taxes...??

As to the noise complaints.. I know when we went to the meeting and they said...

We are going to close off the access... my response was.. ok you tell me.. am I a resident or a airport community...(fullertown) they said resident.. to which I said... fine then if I can't have mine... I want you to insulate and soundproof my house.. put up the necessary sound wall.. and restrict hours of operation so that I am not disturbed by noise which I can no longer enjoy... puzzled they said.. how much will that cost... I said.. in my industry... it runs about 300 bux a foot for the sound wall.. and about 50,000 bux to remake the house complyable... they hit the floor... and in defense said.. well you knew it was a airport when you moved in their... ahhh I responded with... ya but at that time I was told I could use the airport and build the hangar in the back yard... as a condition of sale... sooooo... which way do you want the legal papers to read... ???

Quite frankly the FAA should never have opened this box up.. but, I can see how they are in the "Payback " mode... after they got funds cut... and have upper levels looking at their jobs as necessary... or gone... issues...

In reality... if the market was not depressed I would sell the plane and move on to something else... but you can't even donate it to a org anymore and get a little of your money back. The FAA is going to kill the airports... one way or the other... and GA is gone... we just haven't caught on yet... the fun has left the hobby.

I thought it interesting thinking however about the FAA and personal usage of their system... wonder how come if your making money at it.. its OK... such as the federal airway system... if the commercial people are not using it for self gain... then what??

Good luck in your proceedings.. I will be watching intently... as it will effect all of us... Thanks for the great site too...
AOPA met with the FAA’s acting associate administrator for airports in September to discuss updates to the manual. As the agency assured AOPA, the manual is open for comment in the Federal Register. Comments will be accepted until March 31, 2010, and the FAA has committed to reviewing all submissions to see if the manual needs to be further updated.
“This is a massive rewrite of a very complex technical document melded with federal law,” said Bill Dunn, AOPA vice president of local airport advocacy. “AOPA is carefully, deliberately reviewing each detail in the new manual and will submit comments to the FAA.”

The FAA is moving to end the public's casual access to general aviation -- ending most sightseeing and charity "joyrides." The ultimate result may put an end to general aviation as we know it.
Under Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) FAA-1998-4521, the FAA plans to forbid all sightseeing operations conducted under Part 91, limiting such flights to Part 135 operators only -- admittedly forcing 700 such operations out of the business, including FBO's and flight schools -- who provide these rides for additional income and to stimulate public interest in aviation.
The FAA's new secret-committee system for reviewing FAR's has replaced the traditional system of open public hearings, and the new committee has been empowered to re-write virtually all the operating rules for aircraft (Parts 91, 135, 121, 125 and 141), and is even apparently looking at certification standards (Part 61), in the most sweeping review of FAR's in the last three decades.
The first major move of this committee seems to be essentially outlawing the non-pilot public's casual participation in general aviation -- thereby stripping general aviation of its public support -- leaving us far more vulnerable to new regulatory attacks.
Sort of like the USSR.. huh... when the government is telling us what we can and can't do... without any basis or public finding... nice huh...

G.M