The Florida International Rally & Motorsport Park, received word it has to adjust its track configuration. Why? A portion of the track falls within the restricted flight path of Keystone Heights Airport. This was found during a recent FAA audit.
What does that mean? Turns 5 through 8 are curre…
You'd think this sort of discrepancy would have been discovered much sooner.
What does this do to your time attack competition the day after the Challenge?
Jerry From LA said:What does this do to your time attack competition the day after the Challenge?
At this point everything is still on at the track, they'll just be using a truncated configuration until this can be resolved. We'll have a few people there tomorrow so hopefully we'll have some additional info to share, but here's a few educated guesses:
Turn 6 is like 200 feet from the end of an active runway. That's likely the main source of contention. It's likely that a new track configuration will have to be devised that eliminates T6 and gives the runway some additional room. There's a few things they could do that would require minimal additional pavement, but paving anything also comes with wetlands considerations, so it may not be as simple as just laying a couple hundred feet of asphalt.
In the meantime, there's an existing cutthrough that makes it easy to run a shorter, but also super fun, loop. Some additional precautions will have to be taken for track days (smaller groups), but it should be business as usual for anyone wanting to do laps there.
What likely won't be business as usual—at least long term if not already—is our lap chart. The highest likelihood here seems like some sort of reconfiguration, so that would toss a wrench into our legacy lap times. But, hey, that's motosport. I mean, they repaved the Nurburgring last winter. Time marches on and you make adjustments. We're fully confident our testing at the FIRM will continue, we may just be starting a new leader board. It'll be fun to build a whole new dataset.
When you make a mistake with the government, the government expects you to pay for it. When the government makes a mistake with you, the government expects you to pay for it.
I plan to be there several times in the next fee months. I am still going and would support a gofund me if necessary.
In reply to Colin Wood :
Likely an audit of landing spots in Florida for the president?
I know there are a lot of runways elsewhere in the world where the end of the runway is closer to a public road than this runway is to T6, can anyone think of any in the US? Practically speaking a lightly used road that may have some small cars on it in an area surrounded by trees doesn't seem like much of a safety problem, maybe it's some weird technicality?
I'm guessing that runoff areas after the ends of runways may be getting more closely scrutinized after the Jeju Air disaster, but again this seems like a super-minimal safety risk.
JG Pasterjak said:Turn 6 is like 200 feet from the end of an active runway. That's likely the main source of contention. It's likely that a new track configuration will have to be devised that eliminates T6 and gives the runway some additional room. There's a few things they could do that would require minimal additional pavement, but paving anything also comes with wetlands considerations, so it may not be as simple as just laying a couple hundred feet of asphalt.
Seems kinda BS that the FAA can come along and impose restrictions on what the FIRM can do with their private property after the fact. I wonder if this isn't a 5th amendment "no takings" case?
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:Seems kinda BS that the FAA can come along and impose restrictions on what the FIRM can do with their private property after the fact. I wonder if this isn't a 5th amendment "no takings" case?
The story above says the property is leased -- The FIRM does not own it.
I'm headed over to the track in a few minutes--will let you know how the new layout drives!
I've done almost all of my autocross runs there on the one mile loop, in both directions.
There's a challenging right turn into the main stretch, and we always use the bus stop (edit: shoe box).
I am all for continuing to support this venue, we're lucky to have it. I can't keep track of all of the regional locations that we've lost access to in the last few years, including five airports.
Here's a look at the track from an autocross perspective. The turns that are being added are going to be almost the same running without the cones.
Andy Hollis said:codrus (Forum Supporter) said:Seems kinda BS that the FAA can come along and impose restrictions on what the FIRM can do with their private property after the fact. I wonder if this isn't a 5th amendment "no takings" case?
The story above says the property is leased -- The FIRM does not own it.
Right. But someone DOES own it privately, and the condition has existed for 25 years, and was legally and properly included contractually in the FIRM's lease since 2012.
This isn't a new change. This is an approved condition that has existed for an extended period of time, and the FIRM is now being forced to pay for arbitrary changes that are someone else's fault.
I thought I posted this last night...
My local drag strip went through a multi year tussle with FAA that nearly shut them down. I wrote about it years ago in this GRM thread: https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/so-racetracks-are-soon-to-open/171321/page1/
Other than the map I posted in that thread, for context, the best piece of that post is to this article that gives a situation overview. https://dragillustrated.com/bader-jr-rallies-support-to-fight-faaodot-ruling-against-light-poles/
I'd recommend you have your friends at The Firm reach out to Bill Bader Jr. He likely has huge insight. He is a very "hands-on" owner who is likely easily approachable and generally a "normal person."
SV reX said:Andy Hollis said:The story above says the property is leased -- The FIRM does not own it.
Right. But someone DOES own it privately, and the condition has existed for 25 years, and was legally and properly included contractually in the FIRM's lease since 2012.
Just talked to Tom on his way to the track. Had to catch up on some work stuff, but...
He says the airport still owns the property -- not privately owned.
He also said there's way more to it than how it appears on the surface.
In reply to John Welsh :
There must be a ghost in the machine or you and I were sharing an hallucination because I would swear on a stack of bibles that I read that last night...
I don't get the feeling that the Firm is flush with extra cash for track reconfiguring. I'm kind of concerned that if they're not able to end up with a track that's at least close to the overall length it is now, that customers may start falling off. I sure hope they're able to overcome this setback. Bryn (Firm Manager) posted this email on his facebook page and has encouraged people to reach out and show support for the Firm. ccoon@keystoneairport.com
FAA Motto: "We're not happy until you're not happy"
In reply to GameboyRMH :
I know we’re comparing apples to cheese sandwiches, I know nothing about FAA regs, and then add a bunch of other disclaimers, but for kicks I took a look at an airstrip located in a local fly-in community. The approaches do look open but, still, the houses sit closer to the active runway than I thought....
I don't see any benefit in trying to find blame for this development. A lot of people depend upon access to this venue and focusing on keeping it viable is going to be most important.
In just the last few years, this is the sixth regional airport that we've had a change in our ability to continue as before, and the first one that we haven't just been told that we're no longer welcome. It could be a lot worse, and I'm grateful for that.
The airport just put in an expensive looking road that exits at the main gate of the track (that nobody is allowed to drive on). I wonder if a development proposal triggered some sort of FAA audit. Keystone Heights still feels like the middle of nowhere so it isn't time for more Gainesville suburbs yet. Maybe the airport wants to turn the forest into an industrial park or redevelop the FIRM into the same sort of thing.
Meanwhile, at Chicago's Midway Airport...
Man that approach at Keystone looks wide open. Maybe they should focus on their ATCs and Ground Controllers not colliding aircraft in the air and on the ground in their Class C airspaces.
Reading Part 77 of Title 14 CFR for the FAA, the regulation is explicit while also being vague and open to interpretation because all runways and approaches aren't the same. Seems like something that could easily be argued from Keystone.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
The safety area requirements are largely proportional to the size of planes capable of landing there. That's a significantly shorter runway, so significantly smaller planes, and presumably significantly lower safety requirements. I wouldn't be surprised if being a private runway further reduces requirements.
Looking at the map I'm most surprised this went unnoticed for this long and that nobody thought to check if that was allowed.....or a good idea even if it was allowed.
An aerial shot of The Firm:
It looks like the "bobby pin" portion of the track used to be a former runway. Is this becoming a runway again?
You'll need to log in to post.
