|
Please find attached my letter to Charles Erhard, Manager of Airport Compliance and Operation expressing my strong opposition to the Guidance Letter 2009-1, "Through-the-Fence and On-Airport Residential Access to Federally Obligated Airports", and to the inappropriate and undemocratic manner in which the FAA is acting.
Sincerely,
Andy Duncan
Charles C. Erhard
Manager of Airport Compliance & Field Operations
FAA Headquarters
800 Independence Ave. SW
Washington DC 20591
21st December 2009
Dear Mr. Erhard:
I am writing to request that you rescind your "Compliance Guidance Letter 2009-1 - Through-the-Fence and On-Airport Residential Access to Federally Obligated Airports" and remove all mention of residential Through the Fence (TTF) access from Order5190.6B.
The FAA approach is inappropriate and unwarranted interference in the affairs of the state or municipal entities managing the airports, and unnecessary “overkill” to the management of less than 50 airports nationwide, most of which have only a handful of homes.
Further, I wish to express my extreme concern related to the publication of Order 5190.6B and the Guidance letter without legislative mandate or public input. The democratic ideals, upon which this country was founded, seem have been forgotten, lost or disregarded by the FAA bureaucracy.
The guidance provided in your letter is inconsistent with the language of Order 5190.6B and the adamant “No acceptable forms of residential TTF agreements” is a direct contradiction to the Order. In fact, the FAA airport protection objectives and those of adjoining residential airparks are identical: “to maintain and protect the airport from encroachment and eventual airport closure due to pressure from the nearby non-aviation community.” Even more than commercial interests on the airport (FBOs, restaurants, maintenance shops), which often come and go, airpark residents as a group are permanent in their support of the airport. The FAA contention that such airparks are "incompatible land use" and constitute a threat to the airport flies in the face of logic. Many airpark residents have invested their life savings in a permanent, stable airport environment. Most actually like aircraft noise. Airpark homes adjoining the airport also provide a level of permanent 24-hour security at no cost.
If one goes back to the “beginning” the -- "Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979" one can clearly see that the Act deals with airports that serve scheduled air carriers. It also deals with the transition from Stage 2 to Stage 3 jet engines, the ability of affected airport operators to limit hours of operation and provides a grant program to airport operators (and in some cases, local jurisdictions) to soundproof residences or to acquire residences. The purpose was to deal with residential noise issues near commercial airports.
In the case of hangar homes and residential airparks located adjacent to airports, as far as I can determine there less than fifty such facilities located on or adjacent to airports receiving federal funding and the majority of those have very few homes. According to Randall Fiertz, Director of Airport Compliance and Field Operations, in a letter dated December 16th 2009, in response to FOIA request 2010-0878, the FAA has no records of noise complaints from the owners of hangar homes or from the residents of airpark communities. As I noted above, the FAA contention that such airparks are "incompatible land use" and constitute a threat to the airport flies in the face of logic.
I know you have received other letters noting that well run airpark communities (such as Independence, Oregon) contribute to the profitability of the airport, provide a substantial “cushion” around the airport, and contribute greatly to the community both in taxes and community service. I will not reiterate those pre-eminently logical constructs here.
Suffice it to say, that, from the information received from the NW Regional Office and the FOIA request responses, the thrust to remove all residential TTF access is based upon “impressions” and “hearsay” rather that upon a well documented problem. Further, it is inconceivable that the FAA is unable to manage only fifty airports, most with only a handful of homes, without resorting to such measures.
I therefore reiterate my request that you rescind your "Compliance Guidance Letter 2009-1 - Through-the-Fence and On-Airport Residential Access to Federally Obligated Airports" and to remove all mention of residential Through the Fence (TTF) access from Order5190.6B.
Sincerely,
Andrew N. Duncan. Ph.D., A.C.P.
cc. Senator Ron Wyden
Congressman Kurt Schrader
Oregon State Representative Vicki Berger
Acting ODA Director Gregg Dal Ponte
ODA State Airport Manager Mitch Swecker
Independence Airpark Homeowners Association President Kelly Wilson
Craig Fuller, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
|
