So, I Guess It's OK for an Aiport NOT to be on a Sectional

[LauraE51]

Driving three hours yesterday to have Thanksgiving with my family near Middletown, CA, i lamented that there wasn't an airport closer to them than Lampson field, <1o2>, which is too far away. However, taking a different route home, i noticed an airfield about two miles north of town, along the highway. The SF sectional doesn't list it, but i could easily find it in Google maps. On the web, i found the business that operates there, which indicates it's a glider port.

However, while this is probably a private airstrip, i'm curious why it's not listed on the sectional and whether i might get permission to land there one day.

 

[Jim Logajan]

You don't need PERMISSION.

You must file NOTICE TO CONSTRUCT. That's the law.

It is always helpful to provide a citation for those who are wondering; in this case the applicable law is 14 CFR part 157:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-157

The form to be filled out:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/FAA_7480-1-10-14_rev.pdf

According to the form, failure to file the notice can yield a $1000 fine. As you note, the form is providing information to the government so it can issue a determination that is advisory only. Even if they find the airport "objectionable" there appears to be nothing they can do to prevent use of it. Also, since some kinds of temporary airports are excluded, one could probably build and use one with the intent of, ahem, just using it "temporarily" and then change its state to permanent within the month or year allowed. I doubt the FAA would go out of its way to gather the evidence needed to apply a $1000 fine for difficult to prove cases.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Hmm. I wonder if that ever happened here.....Might have. They know where we are regardless. FAA guy comes here to do our ops inspection on a regular basis. When did that requirement come about? The runway has been around for over 30 years.

Not that it really matters. Just curious.

The statute that underlies the FAA regs appears to be paragraph (c)(2) in this section:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44502

Just by the information in the notes tab all I can make out is that that paragraph goes back at least to 1994 and probably earlier.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Many of these "airports" were established without anything resembling CONSTRUCTION.

Webster, in one of its definition of Civil, states:

of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs as distinguished from special (as military or religious) affairs

Does a PRIVATE airport rise to that definition? Since the airport is not intended for use by the general public, does this regulation even apply?

The statute from which the FAA regulation is derived does not use the word "civil" and uses the phrase "established or constructed," not just "constructed." This is the original text:To ensure conformity, an airport or landing area not involving the expenditure of Government money may be established or constructed, or a runway may be altered substantially, only if the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration is given reasonable prior notice so that the Administrator may provide advice on the effects of the establishment, construction, or alteration on the use of airspace by aircraft.
Reference: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44502

I'm not sure the point of the FAA regulation, given that the regulation allows temporary airports without notice, which I presume would have an effect on safety not much different (while operational) from a low use permanent airport.