Private air strip..... yes or no???

EDR wrote:
In article busWb.278549$xy6.1422325@attbi_s02, Newps
wrote:


You do not own the airspace above your house. As long as it is legal
for him to have a runway on his property you are out of luck.


Not quite true.
Nothing to stop him from erecting a 500 foot tower on his property in
line with the runway.

Which doesn't affect what I said one iota.

"Newps" wrote in message news:FWtWb.148128$U%5.676158@attbi_s03...


Not quite true.
Nothing to stop him from erecting a 500 foot tower on his property in
line with the runway.

Which doesn't affect what I said one iota.

Also the premise is true. You can't erect a tower with impunity either.
In addition to the local land use issues, towers that tall would require
FAA notification before they are constructed.

In article , Ron Natalie
wrote:

"Newps" wrote in message
news:FWtWb.148128$U%5.676158@attbi_s03...


Not quite true.
Nothing to stop him from erecting a 500 foot tower on his property in
line with the runway.

Which doesn't affect what I said one iota.

Also the premise is true. You can't erect a tower with impunity either.
In addition to the local land use issues, towers that tall would require
FAA notification before they are constructed.

Only if it to be 250 or more feet AGL.

EDR wrote:

Nothing to stop him from erecting a 500 foot tower on his property in
line with the runway.

I would not care to be the defense lawyer if his neighbor crashes due to the
tower and it comes out that the only reason he built it was to interfere with
airplanes.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

In article , G.R. Patterson III
wrote:

EDR wrote:
Nothing to stop him from erecting a 500 foot tower on his property in
line with the runway.

I would not care to be the defense lawyer if his neighbor crashes due to the
tower and it comes out that the only reason he built it was to interfere with
airplanes.

There are no federal protections afforded to private airstrips.
Ten to fifteen years ago, outside Marysville OH, Honda knowingly built
a private communications tower off the end of a private strip new their
assembly plant. There was no recourse for the airstip owner.

EDR wrote:

In article , G.R. Patterson III
wrote:

EDR wrote:
Nothing to stop him from erecting a 500 foot tower on his property in
line with the runway.

I would not care to be the defense lawyer if his neighbor crashes due to the
tower and it comes out that the only reason he built it was to interfere with
airplanes.

There are no federal protections afforded to private airstrips.
Ten to fifteen years ago, outside Marysville OH, Honda knowingly built
a private communications tower off the end of a private strip new their
assembly plant. There was no recourse for the airstip owner.

That doesn't change the fact that juries tend to dislike SOBs. The tower owner
would almost certainly lose his shirt in the civil suit over such a case, IMO.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

In article ,
EDR wrote:
Not quite true.
Nothing to stop him from erecting a 500 foot tower on his property in
line with the runway.

Actually I know that you can't erect antennas over 200' without the FAA
getting involved. Are they not concerned with buildings?

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Ben Jackson" wrote:
Not quite true.
Nothing to stop him from erecting a 500 foot tower on his property
in
line with the runway.

Actually I know that you can't erect antennas over 200' without the
FAA
getting involved. Are they not concerned with buildings?

That would be Part 77 of the rules, but it covers only affected
airports which are available for public use.
For a private strip, any obstruction erected so as to deny the owner
of the landing strip free enjoyment of his property is a private legal
matter.

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message ...

That would be Part 77 of the rules, but it covers only affected
airports which are available for public use.
For a private strip, any obstruction erected so as to deny the owner
of the landing strip free enjoyment of his property is a private legal
matter.

The clause for towers in vicinity of airports applies only to public use.
However, a 500' tower would need to be reported regardless of where
it was built and it's quite possible it would interfere with some other (public)
airport.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 17:27:32 GMT, EDR wrote:

Nothing to stop him from erecting a 500 foot tower on his property in
line with the runway.

The FAA can and probably will stop him.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com