In reply to John Welsh :
White Castle!
In reply to John Welsh :
White Castle!
John Welsh said:Meanwhile, at Chicago's Midway Airport...
The thing to remember is the end of the pavement isn't necessarily the end of the runway. The actual runways all end 1000' or more from the fence making for plenty of clearance all around.
In reply to John Welsh :
Rallycross is still running on the skidpad portion of the old runway. There isn't any tarmac left exept for the track.
As I recall my FIRM history from 25 years ago, the current track more or less sits on the old WWII taxiways, runways, parking pads and related pavement.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the fees increase in the future. It would still be worth it..
Andy Hollis said: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.
Huh. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse for the FIRM.
So, the landlord is the Airport Authority. Which would seem to imply they should have been better at communicating the details for the last 25 years.
But it also means that the FAA has direct control over the landlord. If the FAA changes guidelines, rules, or usage the airport will have to comply, and the FIRM won't have a leg to stand on (and the FAA doesn't care at all about a race track).
I'm sure you are right- it's got to be more complicated than it seems
I hope it goes well. I'll look forward to hearing updates.
SV reX said:Andy Hollis said: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.
Huh. I'm not sure if that makes it better or worse for the FIRM.
So, the landlord is the Airport Authority. Which would seem to imply they should have been better at communicating the details for the last 25 years.
But it also means that the FAA has direct control over the landlord. If the FAA changes guidelines, rules, or usage the airport will have to comply, and the FIRM won't have a leg to stand on (and the FAA doesn't care at all about a race track).
I'm sure you are right- it's got to be more complicated than it seems
I hope it goes well. I'll look forward to hearing updates.
I keep checking this thread between surgeries. I'm sure hoping that we don't lose the venue.
Runway 11/29 at Keystone Heights is 4899x75' and restricted to aircraft under 12,500lb MTOW (basically nothing larger than a King Air 200 or Citation CJ2+).
Not sure how much traffic that runway gets, but it appears to be in worse physical condition than the marginally longer 5/23. I bet the airport authority could solve the issue now faced by their leasee by closing 11/29.
Somebody at Orlando FSDO evidently got a stick up their craw, now somebody needs to unfoxtrot the situation.
flyin_viata said:I bet the airport authority could solve the issue now faced by their leasee by closing 11/29.
And then all those small planes get to do crosswind takeoffs and landings three seasons out of the year. Probably not going to be much interest in that. There's a reason why every airport in that area (and really most of the country) has at least one generally east-west oriented runway.
Cheese sandwiches are unbelievable. - Goody
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.
Not only that, but the FAA can impose restrictions on development in the immediate neighborhood of existing airports in order to keep them functioning. There are already enough fields crippled or closed as a result of developers squeezing projects right up to the perimeter, then homeowners and lawyers crying about noise and safety. (Sort of like developments around racetracks....) Buckingham Field down in Ft Myers is a textbook example, which affects both the airfield and autocrossers (Gulf Coast Autocrossers) using the extra pavement. This one's painful for the FIRM -- the airport board should have caught this before the FAA -- but should be pretty easy to resolve.
This is beyond disheartening. I very much hope the FIRM can work this out to their benefit. Will absolutely continue to support them no matter what, and I hope everyone else will as well. We need to save what little tracks we have left at this point!
Without knowing the whole story, is there a way for the FIRM and airport to work together on this? Maybe notam 11/29 closed during some events that would use the current turn 6, then use the alternative layout other times to leave the runway open?
How much traffic are they seeing there? I was looking at googlemaps and see a bunch of old electras or P3s, a Lear with a dust coating visible from space, and some new T hangars, so people are spending money the there.
XLR99 (Forum Supporter) said:Without knowing the whole story, is there a way for the FIRM and airport to work together on this? Maybe notam 11/29 closed during some events that would use the current turn 6, then use the alternative layout other times to leave the runway open?
The thing about airports is that the FAA has less than zero interest them sharing any use of airport property for a non-aviation-related use. We used to have an autocross site at a local general aviation field on a helicopter tiedown pad that hadn't been used since the 70s, and it was a constant battle to keep the site. We didn't cause any trouble, the airport liked us, the city loved us, but the FAA kept threatening the city with taking away funding if they didn't get rid of non-aviation uses of airport property. Eventually we lost the site.
Gotcha. The old motto of 'We're not happy til you're no happy' comes back again☹️
codrus (Forum Supporter) said:XLR99 (Forum Supporter) said:Without knowing the whole story, is there a way for the FIRM and airport to work together on this? Maybe notam 11/29 closed during some events that would use the current turn 6, then use the alternative layout other times to leave the runway open?
The thing about airports is that the FAA has less than zero interest them sharing any use of airport property for a non-aviation-related use. We used to have an autocross site at a local general aviation field on a helicopter tiedown pad that hadn't been used since the 70s, and it was a constant battle to keep the site. We didn't cause any trouble, the airport liked us, the city loved us, but the FAA kept threatening the city with taking away funding if they didn't get rid of non-aviation uses of airport property. Eventually we lost the site.
Meanwhile, KMZZ (Marion, IN) gets NOTAM'd closed every year for Airstrip Attack.
This kind of thing is wholly FSDO dependent...
ojannen said: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.
Like Texas, Florida is full of "good ole boy network" dealmaking.
If the FIRM has to reconfigure, it's not too tough to envision shifting that portion of the track to the south a bit, considering the overhead view. Track might be a little shorter, but it seems they could keep the same or similar shape.
In the meantime, if they open the shoebox for regular track days, that would add some interest in to that west loop, at the expense of top speeds of course.
I would gladly contribute to a fund raiser, if it becomes necessary.
This could have something to do with the airfields IFR requirements. If the airport has a change to their IFR equipment this can drive a recertification of the airfield. Some airports with multiple runways may only certify one for IFR landings and approaches they may have rectified another runway. I know the requirements changed for clear area around runways with IFR equipment a few years ago.
Pretty sure only the main runway is IFR compatible, if anything.
Poking around on google maps more, I wonder if part of it is runway/runway safety area incursion risk. It doesn't look like there's any kind of physical barrier between the track and the runway area so it wouldn't be unthinkable for a car to end up out there basically on runway centerline after an off at the track. There's a local airport here that has a very similar configuration with a bit of public road only marginally further off the side/end of the runway, with the key obvious difference being that there's a fence between the runway and the road.
You'll need to log in to post.
