FAA rules affecting Autox Site access?

Our local sports car club has had a recent issue with a pair of sites being told by the FAA that they could no longer permit "Racing" events from occuring. Is anyone more in the loop on the FAA rules that could provide more insite? Is this an issue other sites/regions are having?

On the face of it I have a Huge problem with the FAA restricting safe responsible use of a TAXPAYER SUPPORTED facility under percieved safety issues. I've not yet expressed my displeasure with the decision as I'm not sure if it's just a local issue with these two sites interpretation of FAA rules or if it's more than that.

That's odd - we had an event in Deland last month and one coming up this weekend in Sebring, both sites containing active airports. Is your club closing a normally active runway to hold the event?

(I'm in the same club as Nocones)

Our regular site is at an active airport. We use an inactive apron. We are not losing this site, and everybody involved is thankful for that--the club, the airport, and the town.

The other two sites that we lost both are active airports and parts of the courses did contain part of the taxiway and apron. I do not know if they are active runways--I assume that they are--but these airports are small enought that our autocrosses did not impact flights in any way whatsoever.

Edited for a correction.

The autox sites at Sebring are hardly part of the active airport. I have a feeling he's talking about venues where an autox takes place on a portion of an airport that is often used or has potential uses.

jstein77 wrote: That's odd - we had an event in Deland last month and one coming up this weekend in Sebring, both sites containing active airports. Is your club closing a normally active runway to hold the event?

What club do you run with? I would make the drive for those.

Yes the sites we where using required closure of normally active airport facilities (Taxiways and aprons NOT runways)

Sadly I'm surprised this issue didn't come up sooner. Airport property security has become a big issue in the last few years, and it's currently the weak point in security for anyone interested in attacking parked aircraft (like the diamond heist in Belgium earlier this year). Vehicles and workers that are needed for the airport to function are already facing higher security.

Did you hear this from the FAA or from the site owner? Because if it's the latter, I suspect they're just blaming The Man because they don't want to host the events anymore.

^Good point. I thought it was odd that this came from the FAA rather than DHS...

http://www.faa.gov/airports/western_pacific/airports_news_events/2010_conference/media/asw/grantassurances.pdf

It's real, it's been around a while, and it's growing.

This was brought up back in 2010 when it was first introduced. It was an immediate concern since the Lincoln air park where the Solo Nationals are held is an active airport (even during the event). However, it seems there are enough loop-holes in the ruling that many events aren't affected.

Yep, real and growing. I'm a little worried that one of our better sites is going away too because of this.

I see the link says Western-Pacific region. Was that the only area affected, or is that just where the conference was held?

This was not introduced in 2010, it's been around for many years. Here's a 2004 thread/article about the Cumberland, MD airport and the fights/problems with regards to autocrossing there.

http://archives.californiaaviation.org/ganews/msg10883.html

Here's also a tedious link of the regulations FAA is working under, which also include the non-aeronautical use of airports, and the prohibition of the use of federal aeronautical funds for non-aeronautical uses, with certain exceptions and restrictions.

http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/

'Temporary use' seems to be the magic words along with not damaging the facility. The one pic in foxtrapper's link showed chalk marks, maybe they think pilots will be confused?

Curmudgeon wrote: The one pic in foxtrapper's link showed chalk marks, maybe they think pilots will be confused?

I bet whoever hit that yellow light must feel lower than dirt right now.

jonnyd330 wrote:

jstein77 wrote: That's odd - we had an event in Deland last month and one coming up this weekend in Sebring, both sites containing active airports. Is your club closing a normally active runway to hold the event?

What club do you run with? I would make the drive for those.

Central Florida Region SCCA.

www.cfrsolo2.com

We lost a site back in the 80`s in Charleston SC for a similar issue at the Johns Island Executive Airport

Curmudgeon wrote: 'Temporary use' seems to be the magic words along with not damaging the facility. The one pic in foxtrapper's link showed chalk marks, maybe they think pilots will be confused?

What's the old Air Force maintainer saying? "A HS diploma to fix what a college education broke."

nocones wrote: Yes the sites we where using required closure of normally active airport facilities (Taxiways and aprons NOT runways)

It must the the sequester gosh darn it!

In reply to Mmadness:

And that got dang Obammer!

Racer1ab wrote: In reply to Mmadness: And that got dang Obammer!

Just... don't... please.

24 hour notice is required for the closing of an active airport, unless you're Mayor Daley.

From my conversations with a friend who is heavily involved with SCCA in helping secure sites says the real problem is that every FFA district is its own fiefdom and it all depends on who is making the decisions in that district. So if you have a FFA district head that doesn't care for motorsports or doesn't want to deal with it, your SOL.

In reply to kb58:

I added the smiley so people would know I'm joking. No flounder here! Move along!