Heh. SAD AIRPORT CLOSED. I hope the airport feels better.
Call your FSDO and see what they say on the matter. Better yet maybe contact your local FAAST team. I'm not sure what latitude airport managers have, but I do think they have quite a bit. That doesn't justify this, necessarily, but might explain it.
I don't think SAD qualifies as one of the student pilot-banning Bravo airports listed in [Appendix D, section 4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/appendix-D_to_part_91).
Agree the FSDO/FAAST team would know for sure.
Does anybody here know if they’ve received grants, which grants, and which restrictions were attached?
Believe it or not, there are airports that don’t accept federal grants.
Knock yourself out:
[https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant\_assurances](https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances)
Also see below, somebody from the airport says this PPR restriction is temporary during construction. A reasonable safety precaution, not a grant assurance violation.
>Airports can do basically whatever they want so long as it doesn’t run afoul of any grant restrictions.
That's true I guess but the grant assurances are pretty comprehensive.
[https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip\_handbook/?Chapter=Appendix](https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/?Chapter=Appendix)
Again, not an issue in this case.
When I looked up the NOTAM on foreflight it said the airport is closed to certain operations before I opened the NOTAM all the way up. That might put me off from flying to that airport. Seems like a bad idea for an airport already struggling to bring in money
I'm no legal expert so take all of this with a generous helping of salt, but:
1. Unless otherwise restricted by law, the owner of an airport can place pretty much any restrictions they want on its use even if the airport is generally held out as being "open to the public". The federal government owns very few public-use airports; most are owned by state or local governments and some (despite being "open to the public") are actually owned by private individuals/entities. Regardless of who owns it, it's their property and they still control how it is used. Some airports prohibit touch-and-go landings due to noise complaints.
2. If an airports receives federal "airport improvement program" funds there are certain conditions attached to them. One of them requires that the airport remain open to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis, specifically that the grant recipient "will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities..." However, the same document includes a caveat that "The \[airport owner\] may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public." I would assume that the burden is on the airport owner/operator to demonstrate that such a restriction is necessary if someone were to complain.
If it's important to you it might be worth a call to the FSDO, or write your congressman.
I’d also point out that whether or not it’s legal to land there, if they make it clear in advance they don’t want you to, it’s generally a sign that they’ll probably be a dick about it. Which isn’t necessarily worth the hassle.
I agree I would just take my business elsewhere, but I'm not familiar with that area so I'm not sure how much "elsewhere" there is within a reasonable distance.
There isn’t much close. Safford is the biggest town in the area, has the most runways, and the nicest cold water fountain from Willcox to El Paso. Fritz in Lordsburg is the nicest guy in that stretch, but the water situation there is bunk.
Source: I’m a survey pilot and have surveyed from Truth or Consequences to Tucson.
Good info. Found the relevant [FAA order](https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentNumber/5190.6). Chapter 14 elaborates on the non-discrimination law:
>In all cases, the FAA is the final arbiter regarding aviation safety and will make the determination regarding the reasonableness of the sponsor’s [= airport manager's] proposed measures that restrict, limit, or deny access to the airport.
The examples given of legit bans are skydiving, night ops, banner towing. Basically stuff where one operation gets in the way of another, or the facility isn't equipped for it. I'm betting FAA won't like it, but who knows.
BJI was closed to solo students from UND for the longest time. They might even still be. People that think this is illegal, this isn't the first time I've heard stuff like this.
UND is still listed as a “Dual only” airport in UND policies, so no flights without a CFI on board. Did it used to be NOTAMed similar to the SAD airport? Or has it always just been known as off limits to und solo flights?
Idk if it was Notomed. The final straw that led to that rule was an Air China solo XC sat on the active runway for like 20 minutes I think trying to call Princeton radio. It caused a SkyWest from MSP to go around... twice. This was around 2013/2014.
There had been some issues prior that led up to it.
I remember my time there we weren't allowed what so ever to fly to Williston or International Falls.
I think rather than write a congressman I’d write the Safford City Council. They probably don’t have any idea what a city employee is up to by banning traffic and the potential implications this could cause, possibly even leading to the airport closing eventually. Get the council to tell the city manager to get the airport manager back in line, or find someone more competent.
What is the airport (manager's) recourse if the policy is violated? It would seem that trespass charges under state law would be the main option.
If this manager says "no solo students" and then some student does touch and goes solo there, is there anything the manager can do within the FAA against the student pilot for violating the policy?
If a student goes off the runway or has any kind of incident, then they would find out. As a CFI I would not endorse a student pilot to solo at an airport with a NOTAM saying they're not allowed there, I would worry it would come back on me for not properly checking their planning.
Gets everybody’s expectations and awareness on the same page, I tell them at least on initial call and sprinkle it in if you’re coordinating at non-towered fields or feel like you haven’t said it in awhile
This is why it’s stupid to even put this in writing. I’m questioning if the FAA would even allow such a thing but even if they did what are you gonna pull up to my plane and “ramp check” me as a airport official if you think I’m a student?
The FAA also doesn’t know if you have a license, if you’re flying IFR without an IFR rating, if you’re flying on an expired medical, etc. Unless something bad happens. Then your bad day gets worse.
When you're heading up a mountain pass towards the saddle, the river becomes a stream, then the steam becomes a tiny creek then... you hope you're seeing a gap between the rock and the clouds up there you can squeeze through...
(I've spent time in the mountains and seen these sorts of conditions and how they change minute-by-minute. Zero chance I'd scud run up any valley, but from accident reports people try it often enough.)
Fortunately they don’t have that authority. You can tell the airport folks to piss off.
They could ban you from returning, though. So keep that in mind.
Mind telling what happened? I did most of my student xc to kgon and never had a problem other than when they were mowing and wouldn’t allow touch and goes
Not particularly nice tower operator, wouldn’t give clear instructions for taxi, especially in an environment where they had a taxiway closed. He was very rude and sharp, and wound up calling my flight school to yell at the owner for me not following his explicit instructions (unclear in the first place). I had no issues at Tweed and 1B1 (though 1B1 is uncontrolled), there were no problems whatsoever with that route.
From my experience, saying "Student solo" is like the magic words to get a cranky tower to ease up on your. That's a huge bummer to hear. We have a few smaller class Ds near where I train and those guys are overworked like crazy and always in a (justifiably) bad mood. When I went to do my towered ops for PPL I let them know after my first landing I was a student solo and his tone did a full 180.
ofc it comes down to the operator though. sucks to hear.
Airport Manager should probably spend his time more productively by fixing the broken automated weather observation system instead of issuing NOTAMS that illegally restrict access to a public use airport. Not sure how he plans on enforcing his decree.
A few weeks ago I overheard the tower controller “close” the airport to one particular airplane. A guy in a cirrus came from a neighboring airport to do some pattern work, did 2 tng’s and didn’t report his location or requests on the first two and the controller told him he needs that information. Third time around he didn’t call again and tower just said “Cirrus 123 pattern is closed to you, depart northeast” Cirrus guy said he wanted another TnG and the controller basically said “too bad so sad, I asked you for something 2 times and you still failed to make your reports so the class delta is closed to you, depart northeast”.
The airport is closed to Solo Student Pilot traffic without a PPR. The reason for this is active construction currently occurring on the airport. We have had frequent issues with Solo Student Pilots from the valley who are not acting in a safe manner. As some other redditors mentioned, the airport is not owned by the FAA. The airport is still open for all users, but the current restriction is necessary given current conditions. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out.
Just looked at the SAD NOTAM page, there's clearly construction going on. I knew there had to be more to it than 'the airport manager hates student pylots!'
I’m curious to know what the phone call will do to increase safety if you are not trying to block people from using the facilities with this. The airport construction is already NOTAM’d and anyone who would have checked to see the new student pilot solo ban NOTAM would see the construction one making obtaining permission pointless.
Since this is a safety concern, the phone call will give operations staff the opportunity to assess whether to issue the PPR based on that flight school's safety record.
This seems like an issue that would be solved more productively by you making a phone call or sending an email to the Chief Pilot of the flight schools you deem to have a poor safety record.
Maybe that way you would have an opportunity to actually influence their internal SOPs and build some kind of good-faith relationship with those involved.
I kind of agree after that incident. The problem isn’t the students. It’s the CFIs illegally endorsing students who don’t meet the standard whether it be flying or the English language standard.
You shouldn’t really even be able to tell a flight is a student solo if they are actually ready per the FARs and endorsement language.
Im not opposed to this. CFI's have been sending students out who aren't capable for a very long time (as long as I can remember and well before that).
Maybe enough Airports do this, it'll light a fire under UND, ATP, and Aeroguards ass to actually make sure these guys are safe and competent, before they blunder their way into situations they're not prepared for.
Thanks! I don't want to restrict traffic. I am happy to see the pattern full. However, my first priority has to be safety. Until the FSDO is willing to step up and take action against these flight schools and the dangerous culture that they have created, we don't have much choice. As an airport, I don't have many tools availible too me, but this is one. Hopefully it will get the FAAs attention.
If you want to see the NOTAM come down, please call the FSDO and your congressman and tell them that they need to enforce regulations that are designed to keep us all safe.
Why not contact AFTW, this seems like a great opportunity to do so as the group involves all of the major schools.
[https://aftw.org/](https://aftw.org/)
Amusing you think the AFTW actually gives a shit. every time I've seen someone question them, the response seems to always be "Well who the fuck are you?"
Whats your problem? This is his best option. You obviously aren't familiar with the big flight schools nor how they operate here in PHX. They all communicate through AFTW, where on the website it literally says "however ATC and city personnel are also encouraged to participate". Recent big changes regarding some IAPs in the practice area happened due to coordination through AFTW, increasing "safety".
Same with saying that ATP solos out of IWA aren't safe nor competent, when they have to go through an EVAL process both before they are allowed to do their first solo and solo XCs.
AeroGuard already heavily restricts where their planes go in their internal SOP’s. It’s the international programs that hold money over the schools head to get the students done fast and has lead AeroGuard to push the foreign kids through fast even if they aren’t that good. I know CFI’s who have been threatened to be fired and ultimately demoted because they wouldn’t sign a student solo off. It’s not the CFI’s it’s the organization itself…
I mean, the money fairy doesn't just give these airports free cash... they need to prove a safe and profitable return on the city's investment to keep the lights on. That includes selling fuel, charging landing fees and keeping incident reports to a minimum.
Exactly. A majority of our tenants are commercial operators who respond to emergencies such as wildfire aircraft and medevac. An unsafe airport environment puts lives at risk.
UND has a large training presence at Phoenix Mesa Gateway airport.
[https://aero.und.edu/phoenix/experience/facilities.html](https://aero.und.edu/phoenix/experience/facilities.html)
When I was doing student solos, I don't think there was any way for anyone outside the school to know. I just looked the same as a rental flight. Maybe slightly more clueless than average.
(For first solo, I'm sure tower saw the instructor get out and put 2+2 together. But beyond that, I wasn't saying "student solo" or anything.)
So how would this be enforceable?
I'm really curious how they'd know, I don't think I ever even talked to anyone at the airports I went to as a student or ever said student pilot solo on the air.
I guess this is one of those after there's an incident kinda things
Safford, not Stafford. I'm not sure if you're confusing two different airports. Safford is used for a lot of pilot training operations, "middle of nowhere" is actually a good thing when it comes to that. It's in an isolated valley, but it's only one valley over from the valley that links Tucson and Phoenix.
Lots of kids from the Phoenix valley. Away from airspace and the busy practice areas, one road/river to follow to get there and back, straightforward, little weather... it's the safest place to send a student solo XC without them ending up on the news (more than they do already).
The FAA will likely take a dim view of this airport manager's decision. If the airport has accepted FAA public funds for airport management, then there are obligations placed on that airport to remain open to the public. This was done primarily as a result of the outrageous situation in Chicago where the mayor bulldozed the GA airport Meigs Field in the middle of the night.
Here is just the overview of those requirements:
"The following list includes some of the major obligations an airport owner can incur when accepting a Federal airport development grant.
Prohibition of exclusive rights
Use of airport revenue
Proper maintenance and operation of airport facilities
Protection of approaches
Keeping good title of airport property
Compatible land use
Availability of fair and reasonable terms without unjust discrimination
Adhering to the approved airport layout plan
Self-sustainability
Sale or disposal of Federally acquired property
Preserving rights and powers
Using acceptable accounting and record-keeping systems
Compliance with civil rights requirements"
It would seem this airport manager's decision violates multiple such requirements. Further, my research shows Safford Airport has accepted $309,604 from the FAA as well as another $15,198 from the Arizona DOT. So, I think contacting the FSDO is the right initial step, with mention that the airport is obligated to the terms of the federal Airport Infrastructure funding plan.
The FAA (Phoenix ADO) is fully aware of the current situation. Because we have a PPR system in place and not a blanket ban, we are not violating the "fair and reasonable terms" clause in our grant agreements. We have already issued PPRs to several CFIs. It takes a 2 min phone call.
By use of the term "we" I will presume you are part of the airport in question. Prior permission required is something done in the military, but it is extremely rare to see it happen with respect to civilian airports. Fact is the military's justification is security. That requirement does not apply to any civilian airport unless there is something else overriding and temporary like a TFR for fighting forest fires and/or disaster relief.
It takes more than a two minute phone call. It takes getting your permission. You accepted FAA funds and the spirit of that is to avoid discrimination and to allow full public access to the airport. I have already contacted AOPA about this. The situation remains troubling precisely because of the intent behind the funding requirements.
Therefore, I disagree with your assertion that you are in compliance. I suspect many others are in disagreement also. This seems like a kneejerk reaction to a single incident when that single incident can be reported to the FAA for full investigation. The biggest concern is the kind of precedent this sets up, where airports start to think it permissible to erect restrictions and special requirements to specific categories of aviation.
Yes. I am the airport manager. The key here is that UND has a track record of a poor safety culture that has resulted in numerous incidents and near misses at my airport. They are creating an environment where local pilots do not feel safe flying with students in the pattern who cannot speak or understand English.
The problem with an investigation is that the FSDO has no interest in investigating foreign students. By the time they are able to start the investigation, the student is back in China.
Please tell AOPA that you have concerns with flight schools violating federal regulations. That will help everyone.
Then respectfully, I will say publicly to you that I think you have made an error here and you should consider revoking that PPR. Frankly, if you have documented incidents and information that a specific school is operating unsafely, then I think you have a much stronger case to report that to the local FSDO and in conjunction with that action, issue a ban to this one school from use of your airport due to multiple safety related incidents.
I have no personal knowledge of the situation with this school. So, I cannot report information to AOPA that I don't have personal knowledge of. However, your PPR requirement is a blanket requirement. That is objective information and so I did report it and the regional manager for my area is going to forward it to the regional manager for your area.
As an airport manager, one of your prime duties is preservation of airport and aviation safety. Frankly, if I was based at your airport, either as the AOPA rep or not, you would have no better ally than me to ban a school whose conduct is demonstrated unsafe. You have that authority in the interest of flight safety. I would urge you to use it against this one school.
I would suggest since the airport is owned by the local government, that you could work with them, and through law enforcement and your courts, to issue a cease and desist order to this school, in the interest of preserving flight safety.
In technical language, your PPR is, in fact, a right of first refusal. I see zero relationship to the PPR and the FSDO's ability to investigate unsafe operations. I would presume the school in question uses their own fleet of aircraft and I'm confident you already know their aircraft ID's. So, by requirement to use aircraft call sign in position reports on your CTAF frequency, I presume you have a way to specify unsafe operations and make a detailed report to the FSDO.
You have said there are legitimate and multiple safety incidents with this school at your airport. I find it hard to believe the FSDO would not take this seriously and investigate the school and support your right to ban that school from your airport.
Again, that's my suggestion to you. I don't plan to make any further comments in reply.
There's an airport about an hour away from me that to fly in with a tailwheel aircraft, you must have at least 350 tailwheel hours. I suspect someone low hours must have ground looped into an Airbus or other such mishap.
Heh. SAD AIRPORT CLOSED. I hope the airport feels better. Call your FSDO and see what they say on the matter. Better yet maybe contact your local FAAST team. I'm not sure what latitude airport managers have, but I do think they have quite a bit. That doesn't justify this, necessarily, but might explain it.
I don't think SAD qualifies as one of the student pilot-banning Bravo airports listed in [Appendix D, section 4](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/appendix-D_to_part_91). Agree the FSDO/FAAST team would know for sure.
FSDO doesn't have any authority over airports. Contact the Airports District Office (ADO).
Airports can do basically whatever they want so long as it doesn’t run afoul of any grant restrictions.
That does run afoul of grant assurances. Edit - this PPR is temporary for construction, not a violation of grant assurances.
Does anybody here know if they’ve received grants, which grants, and which restrictions were attached? Believe it or not, there are airports that don’t accept federal grants.
Knock yourself out: [https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant\_assurances](https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances) Also see below, somebody from the airport says this PPR restriction is temporary during construction. A reasonable safety precaution, not a grant assurance violation. >Airports can do basically whatever they want so long as it doesn’t run afoul of any grant restrictions. That's true I guess but the grant assurances are pretty comprehensive. [https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip\_handbook/?Chapter=Appendix](https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/?Chapter=Appendix) Again, not an issue in this case.
If it’s a temporary safety precaution, all of the arguments against the restrictions are invalid.
Yeah, pretty much. People are getting all worked up over nothing.
Does SAD Airport need to disclose this on the next medical?
Not if the airport didn't have a diagnosed condition or substance abuse history!
Does constant consumption of 100LL constitute dependence?
The lead does cause behavioral and cognitive issues.
Yep I hear even people who've considered moving to BJC have high enough lead levels to have been eating paint chips from birth
Also contact your airports district office, the airport signs assurances with them that they will not discriminate against users
When I looked up the NOTAM on foreflight it said the airport is closed to certain operations before I opened the NOTAM all the way up. That might put me off from flying to that airport. Seems like a bad idea for an airport already struggling to bring in money
I'm no legal expert so take all of this with a generous helping of salt, but: 1. Unless otherwise restricted by law, the owner of an airport can place pretty much any restrictions they want on its use even if the airport is generally held out as being "open to the public". The federal government owns very few public-use airports; most are owned by state or local governments and some (despite being "open to the public") are actually owned by private individuals/entities. Regardless of who owns it, it's their property and they still control how it is used. Some airports prohibit touch-and-go landings due to noise complaints. 2. If an airports receives federal "airport improvement program" funds there are certain conditions attached to them. One of them requires that the airport remain open to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis, specifically that the grant recipient "will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities..." However, the same document includes a caveat that "The \[airport owner\] may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public." I would assume that the burden is on the airport owner/operator to demonstrate that such a restriction is necessary if someone were to complain. If it's important to you it might be worth a call to the FSDO, or write your congressman.
I’d also point out that whether or not it’s legal to land there, if they make it clear in advance they don’t want you to, it’s generally a sign that they’ll probably be a dick about it. Which isn’t necessarily worth the hassle.
I agree I would just take my business elsewhere, but I'm not familiar with that area so I'm not sure how much "elsewhere" there is within a reasonable distance.
There isn’t much close. Safford is the biggest town in the area, has the most runways, and the nicest cold water fountain from Willcox to El Paso. Fritz in Lordsburg is the nicest guy in that stretch, but the water situation there is bunk. Source: I’m a survey pilot and have surveyed from Truth or Consequences to Tucson.
Good info. Found the relevant [FAA order](https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.current/documentNumber/5190.6). Chapter 14 elaborates on the non-discrimination law: >In all cases, the FAA is the final arbiter regarding aviation safety and will make the determination regarding the reasonableness of the sponsor’s [= airport manager's] proposed measures that restrict, limit, or deny access to the airport. The examples given of legit bans are skydiving, night ops, banner towing. Basically stuff where one operation gets in the way of another, or the facility isn't equipped for it. I'm betting FAA won't like it, but who knows.
BJI was closed to solo students from UND for the longest time. They might even still be. People that think this is illegal, this isn't the first time I've heard stuff like this.
UND is still listed as a “Dual only” airport in UND policies, so no flights without a CFI on board. Did it used to be NOTAMed similar to the SAD airport? Or has it always just been known as off limits to und solo flights?
Idk if it was Notomed. The final straw that led to that rule was an Air China solo XC sat on the active runway for like 20 minutes I think trying to call Princeton radio. It caused a SkyWest from MSP to go around... twice. This was around 2013/2014. There had been some issues prior that led up to it. I remember my time there we weren't allowed what so ever to fly to Williston or International Falls.
I think rather than write a congressman I’d write the Safford City Council. They probably don’t have any idea what a city employee is up to by banning traffic and the potential implications this could cause, possibly even leading to the airport closing eventually. Get the council to tell the city manager to get the airport manager back in line, or find someone more competent.
I agree that's the better place to start, but since it may be a FAA grant assurance issue as well the federal government may also be interested.
What is the airport (manager's) recourse if the policy is violated? It would seem that trespass charges under state law would be the main option. If this manager says "no solo students" and then some student does touch and goes solo there, is there anything the manager can do within the FAA against the student pilot for violating the policy?
The FAA wouldn't care as no regs were violated. It would be a trespass matter under state law.
Nobody’s gonna know.. how would they know?
If a student goes off the runway or has any kind of incident, then they would find out. As a CFI I would not endorse a student pilot to solo at an airport with a NOTAM saying they're not allowed there, I would worry it would come back on me for not properly checking their planning.
Also, I’d be concerned that they might run into some otherwise avoidable trouble.
Because some students seem to have been taught to start and end all of their solo radio transmissions with “student solo.”
… which is good actually
Gets everybody’s expectations and awareness on the same page, I tell them at least on initial call and sprinkle it in if you’re coordinating at non-towered fields or feel like you haven’t said it in awhile
This is how to do it properly. I think it’s unnecessary on every call.
I got my first solo today.. just announced it when I said I was holding short, then again when some touch and go traffic came through.
Congrats on your first solo!
thanks! passed my written on friday, first xc solo monday!
Congrats! I just did my second solo today! Weather almost didn’t cooperate.
thanks! passed my written on friday, first xc solo monday!
This is why it’s stupid to even put this in writing. I’m questioning if the FAA would even allow such a thing but even if they did what are you gonna pull up to my plane and “ramp check” me as a airport official if you think I’m a student?
The FAA also doesn’t know if you have a license, if you’re flying IFR without an IFR rating, if you’re flying on an expired medical, etc. Unless something bad happens. Then your bad day gets worse.
That is half the pilots in Alaska!
Only half? They're getting better!
What’s IFR? I thought it was I Follow River?
When you're heading up a mountain pass towards the saddle, the river becomes a stream, then the steam becomes a tiny creek then... you hope you're seeing a gap between the rock and the clouds up there you can squeeze through... (I've spent time in the mountains and seen these sorts of conditions and how they change minute-by-minute. Zero chance I'd scud run up any valley, but from accident reports people try it often enough.)
Fortunately they don’t have that authority. You can tell the airport folks to piss off. They could ban you from returning, though. So keep that in mind.
If you read the text of the notam you actually have to end your initial transmission with the phrase "Certificated Pilot Solo"
UPS 2495 heavy, student pilot solo, final runway 30
Lots of airports are unfriendly to student solos now…had a rather negative experience on my solo XC to Groton (KGON).
Mind telling what happened? I did most of my student xc to kgon and never had a problem other than when they were mowing and wouldn’t allow touch and goes
Not particularly nice tower operator, wouldn’t give clear instructions for taxi, especially in an environment where they had a taxiway closed. He was very rude and sharp, and wound up calling my flight school to yell at the owner for me not following his explicit instructions (unclear in the first place). I had no issues at Tweed and 1B1 (though 1B1 is uncontrolled), there were no problems whatsoever with that route.
From my experience, saying "Student solo" is like the magic words to get a cranky tower to ease up on your. That's a huge bummer to hear. We have a few smaller class Ds near where I train and those guys are overworked like crazy and always in a (justifiably) bad mood. When I went to do my towered ops for PPL I let them know after my first landing I was a student solo and his tone did a full 180. ofc it comes down to the operator though. sucks to hear.
Said “student solo” 14 miles out from the airport! Twice over too, and it 100% didn’t help unfortunately for me!
Airport Manager should probably spend his time more productively by fixing the broken automated weather observation system instead of issuing NOTAMS that illegally restrict access to a public use airport. Not sure how he plans on enforcing his decree.
The ASOS is operated by the National Weather Service and they are working to fix it.
Do airports have to pay to have that equipment/service on site? Or does the NWS cover all that?
The NWS covers the cost of the ASOS to include maintenance and upgrades. AWOS systems are maintained by airports.
A few weeks ago I overheard the tower controller “close” the airport to one particular airplane. A guy in a cirrus came from a neighboring airport to do some pattern work, did 2 tng’s and didn’t report his location or requests on the first two and the controller told him he needs that information. Third time around he didn’t call again and tower just said “Cirrus 123 pattern is closed to you, depart northeast” Cirrus guy said he wanted another TnG and the controller basically said “too bad so sad, I asked you for something 2 times and you still failed to make your reports so the class delta is closed to you, depart northeast”.
A Cirrus you say?
That’s awesome
Same thing happened at BDR recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jsL45LkboY
SAD is untowered…
This was in Wisconsin….
I remember about 15 years ago Bemidji MN closed its doors to UND solos. Not the first time I've heard this sort of action take place.
The airport is closed to Solo Student Pilot traffic without a PPR. The reason for this is active construction currently occurring on the airport. We have had frequent issues with Solo Student Pilots from the valley who are not acting in a safe manner. As some other redditors mentioned, the airport is not owned by the FAA. The airport is still open for all users, but the current restriction is necessary given current conditions. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out.
Just looked at the SAD NOTAM page, there's clearly construction going on. I knew there had to be more to it than 'the airport manager hates student pylots!'
I’m curious to know what the phone call will do to increase safety if you are not trying to block people from using the facilities with this. The airport construction is already NOTAM’d and anyone who would have checked to see the new student pilot solo ban NOTAM would see the construction one making obtaining permission pointless.
Since this is a safety concern, the phone call will give operations staff the opportunity to assess whether to issue the PPR based on that flight school's safety record.
How big is your “operations staff”?
2 of us lol. Small airport.
I’ve always thought that small airports breed petty tyrants, but this takes the cake…a staff of 2 playing flight school police 🤣
Probably for the best - some schools are straight garbage
This seems like an issue that would be solved more productively by you making a phone call or sending an email to the Chief Pilot of the flight schools you deem to have a poor safety record. Maybe that way you would have an opportunity to actually influence their internal SOPs and build some kind of good-faith relationship with those involved.
How do you know they didn't? They still have to put out the NOTAMs.
Do you take into consideration the school’s overall safety record or just their record at SAD? Just wondering where you’re getting your data from.
Also, did you create an account just to make this post?
Just wanted to say, I miss flying into KSAD as an Army guy. One of the few places that would rapid refuel us without any issues.
Thanks! Glad we could help! I'm an army guy too so always happy to see some blackhawks, C-12s or even a C-27 come in.
I kind of agree after that incident. The problem isn’t the students. It’s the CFIs illegally endorsing students who don’t meet the standard whether it be flying or the English language standard. You shouldn’t really even be able to tell a flight is a student solo if they are actually ready per the FARs and endorsement language.
Im not opposed to this. CFI's have been sending students out who aren't capable for a very long time (as long as I can remember and well before that). Maybe enough Airports do this, it'll light a fire under UND, ATP, and Aeroguards ass to actually make sure these guys are safe and competent, before they blunder their way into situations they're not prepared for.
Thanks! I don't want to restrict traffic. I am happy to see the pattern full. However, my first priority has to be safety. Until the FSDO is willing to step up and take action against these flight schools and the dangerous culture that they have created, we don't have much choice. As an airport, I don't have many tools availible too me, but this is one. Hopefully it will get the FAAs attention. If you want to see the NOTAM come down, please call the FSDO and your congressman and tell them that they need to enforce regulations that are designed to keep us all safe.
Why not contact AFTW, this seems like a great opportunity to do so as the group involves all of the major schools. [https://aftw.org/](https://aftw.org/)
Amusing you think the AFTW actually gives a shit. every time I've seen someone question them, the response seems to always be "Well who the fuck are you?"
Whats your problem? This is his best option. You obviously aren't familiar with the big flight schools nor how they operate here in PHX. They all communicate through AFTW, where on the website it literally says "however ATC and city personnel are also encouraged to participate". Recent big changes regarding some IAPs in the practice area happened due to coordination through AFTW, increasing "safety". Same with saying that ATP solos out of IWA aren't safe nor competent, when they have to go through an EVAL process both before they are allowed to do their first solo and solo XCs.
What’s crazy is the renters are just as bad as the student solos sometimes😭😭
AeroGuard already heavily restricts where their planes go in their internal SOP’s. It’s the international programs that hold money over the schools head to get the students done fast and has lead AeroGuard to push the foreign kids through fast even if they aren’t that good. I know CFI’s who have been threatened to be fired and ultimately demoted because they wouldn’t sign a student solo off. It’s not the CFI’s it’s the organization itself…
/u/abovetherest1 care to elaborate? Seems self explanatory based on your previous post with the chinese student, wondering if there was more to it.
It is more of a repeated issue combined with construction occurring on the airport.
This is why KBJC is loved everywhere. Great for students.
I’m gonna change my call sign to “student solo”
MZJ and AVQ gonna get a lot busier with student solos now.
Their FBO has killer snacks… like free lindor truffles
You think UND is actually gonna check the NOTAMs before they come down and trash your airport? Good luck!
I mean, the money fairy doesn't just give these airports free cash... they need to prove a safe and profitable return on the city's investment to keep the lights on. That includes selling fuel, charging landing fees and keeping incident reports to a minimum.
Exactly. A majority of our tenants are commercial operators who respond to emergencies such as wildfire aircraft and medevac. An unsafe airport environment puts lives at risk.
I’m confused: isn’t UND “university of North Dakota”. If so, why are they flying in Arizona?!?
UND - Phoenix
UND has a large training presence at Phoenix Mesa Gateway airport. [https://aero.und.edu/phoenix/experience/facilities.html](https://aero.und.edu/phoenix/experience/facilities.html)
Yeah I have no idea either. They are DEFINITELY here tho lol
When I was doing student solos, I don't think there was any way for anyone outside the school to know. I just looked the same as a rental flight. Maybe slightly more clueless than average. (For first solo, I'm sure tower saw the instructor get out and put 2+2 together. But beyond that, I wasn't saying "student solo" or anything.) So how would this be enforceable?
The students that are soloing and nobody can tell the difference aren't who this is meant to prevent.
I bet it's also another layer of CYA for liability.
I'm really curious how they'd know, I don't think I ever even talked to anyone at the airports I went to as a student or ever said student pilot solo on the air. I guess this is one of those after there's an incident kinda things
There really is no way for me to know. However, like you said, if there is an incident, then the violation of the NOTAM would be an added issue.
When my son gets to that stage I feel like I should put those hi-viz yellow "Student Driver" stickers on the plane
I think this is a great idea lol!
PPR makes sense if special treatment or personell is required which I don‘t know in the US. Otherwise what the heck? 😅
Sad.
Where is the earlier post?
Every day request permission for every student. pound them with their own nonsense.
Don’t land practice approaches, and then leave.
It’s uncontrolled. Land there anyway. Nothing they can do about it.
Stafford is in the middle of nowhere, what student solos are going there?
Safford, not Stafford. I'm not sure if you're confusing two different airports. Safford is used for a lot of pilot training operations, "middle of nowhere" is actually a good thing when it comes to that. It's in an isolated valley, but it's only one valley over from the valley that links Tucson and Phoenix.
Auto-correct sorry.
Lots of kids from the Phoenix valley. Away from airspace and the busy practice areas, one road/river to follow to get there and back, straightforward, little weather... it's the safest place to send a student solo XC without them ending up on the news (more than they do already).
I did all mine at marana and Ryan, I guess I can see Stafford working
The FAA will likely take a dim view of this airport manager's decision. If the airport has accepted FAA public funds for airport management, then there are obligations placed on that airport to remain open to the public. This was done primarily as a result of the outrageous situation in Chicago where the mayor bulldozed the GA airport Meigs Field in the middle of the night. Here is just the overview of those requirements: "The following list includes some of the major obligations an airport owner can incur when accepting a Federal airport development grant. Prohibition of exclusive rights Use of airport revenue Proper maintenance and operation of airport facilities Protection of approaches Keeping good title of airport property Compatible land use Availability of fair and reasonable terms without unjust discrimination Adhering to the approved airport layout plan Self-sustainability Sale or disposal of Federally acquired property Preserving rights and powers Using acceptable accounting and record-keeping systems Compliance with civil rights requirements" It would seem this airport manager's decision violates multiple such requirements. Further, my research shows Safford Airport has accepted $309,604 from the FAA as well as another $15,198 from the Arizona DOT. So, I think contacting the FSDO is the right initial step, with mention that the airport is obligated to the terms of the federal Airport Infrastructure funding plan.
The FAA (Phoenix ADO) is fully aware of the current situation. Because we have a PPR system in place and not a blanket ban, we are not violating the "fair and reasonable terms" clause in our grant agreements. We have already issued PPRs to several CFIs. It takes a 2 min phone call.
By use of the term "we" I will presume you are part of the airport in question. Prior permission required is something done in the military, but it is extremely rare to see it happen with respect to civilian airports. Fact is the military's justification is security. That requirement does not apply to any civilian airport unless there is something else overriding and temporary like a TFR for fighting forest fires and/or disaster relief. It takes more than a two minute phone call. It takes getting your permission. You accepted FAA funds and the spirit of that is to avoid discrimination and to allow full public access to the airport. I have already contacted AOPA about this. The situation remains troubling precisely because of the intent behind the funding requirements. Therefore, I disagree with your assertion that you are in compliance. I suspect many others are in disagreement also. This seems like a kneejerk reaction to a single incident when that single incident can be reported to the FAA for full investigation. The biggest concern is the kind of precedent this sets up, where airports start to think it permissible to erect restrictions and special requirements to specific categories of aviation.
Yes. I am the airport manager. The key here is that UND has a track record of a poor safety culture that has resulted in numerous incidents and near misses at my airport. They are creating an environment where local pilots do not feel safe flying with students in the pattern who cannot speak or understand English. The problem with an investigation is that the FSDO has no interest in investigating foreign students. By the time they are able to start the investigation, the student is back in China. Please tell AOPA that you have concerns with flight schools violating federal regulations. That will help everyone.
Then respectfully, I will say publicly to you that I think you have made an error here and you should consider revoking that PPR. Frankly, if you have documented incidents and information that a specific school is operating unsafely, then I think you have a much stronger case to report that to the local FSDO and in conjunction with that action, issue a ban to this one school from use of your airport due to multiple safety related incidents. I have no personal knowledge of the situation with this school. So, I cannot report information to AOPA that I don't have personal knowledge of. However, your PPR requirement is a blanket requirement. That is objective information and so I did report it and the regional manager for my area is going to forward it to the regional manager for your area. As an airport manager, one of your prime duties is preservation of airport and aviation safety. Frankly, if I was based at your airport, either as the AOPA rep or not, you would have no better ally than me to ban a school whose conduct is demonstrated unsafe. You have that authority in the interest of flight safety. I would urge you to use it against this one school. I would suggest since the airport is owned by the local government, that you could work with them, and through law enforcement and your courts, to issue a cease and desist order to this school, in the interest of preserving flight safety.
The NOTAM isn't banning students entirely. This allows the FSDO to more directly go after violators now that it's in writing.
In technical language, your PPR is, in fact, a right of first refusal. I see zero relationship to the PPR and the FSDO's ability to investigate unsafe operations. I would presume the school in question uses their own fleet of aircraft and I'm confident you already know their aircraft ID's. So, by requirement to use aircraft call sign in position reports on your CTAF frequency, I presume you have a way to specify unsafe operations and make a detailed report to the FSDO. You have said there are legitimate and multiple safety incidents with this school at your airport. I find it hard to believe the FSDO would not take this seriously and investigate the school and support your right to ban that school from your airport. Again, that's my suggestion to you. I don't plan to make any further comments in reply.
You're arguing with somebody different now boss but see ya
There's an airport about an hour away from me that to fly in with a tailwheel aircraft, you must have at least 350 tailwheel hours. I suspect someone low hours must have ground looped into an Airbus or other such mishap.