Can they do this? Restrict airport to IFR traffic only?

As you can readily discern, the cause of the closure is apparently
economically based (as opposed to safety based) due to limited
aircraft parking facilities available on the airport. My question is,
why should VFR operations be banned in favor of IFR operations if
discrimination is forbidden under AIP agreement contract terms?

If Friedman Memorial Airport has not received any AIP funding within
the last 20 years, my question is moot, but that's unlikely. The
prime qualification for employment as an airport manager is the
ability to successfully write AIP grant proposals.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:06:48 -0700, "BTIZ"
wrote in XtV9e.15984$%c1.13283@fed1read05::

Limited discrimination is not restricted under AIP terms...

I was unable to locate the document(s) governing AIP terms, but I did
find the section I had in mind (included below). It doesn't seem to
address what is happening in Idaho however.

this is for a set period during periods of abnormally high traffic...

Yes. That's what the article indicates.

there are various ways to restrict traffic flow... if this were a
permanent restriction.. then there may be arguments.

Are you familiar with other incidents of similar traffic restrictions
using IFR flight as the criterion?

This happens all the time when a major aviation convention is in a certain
area. AOPA, SnF, NBAA, etc.

When an airport is unable to accommodate the traffic, ATC has various
methods of restricting the flow, but I've never seen the requirement
for an IFR flight plan in VMC used to govern traffic flow.

Another way to restrict traffic is to require Prior Approval or a
reservation slot for arrival. Some aircraft can be guaranteed a parking
spot.. others must only drop pax, gas and go..

BT



================================================
United State Code
TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VII - AVIATION PROGRAMS
PART B - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE
CHAPTER 471 - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

SUBCHAPTER I - AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

Sec. 47101. Policies

(a) General. - It is the policy of the United States -
(1) that the safe operation of the airport and airway system
is the highest aviation priority;
....

9) that artificial restrictions on airport capacity -

(A) are not in the public interest;

(B) should be imposed to alleviate air traffic delays
only after other reasonably available and less
burdensome alternatives have been tried; and

(C) should not discriminate unjustly between categories
and classes of aircraft; ...

Comments in text...


On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 15:06:48 -0700, "BTIZ"
wrote in XtV9e.15984$%c1.13283@fed1read05::

Are you familiar with other incidents of similar traffic restrictions
using IFR flight as the criterion?

Yes... NBAA convention at LAS some years back.. no VFR flights other than
helicopters based at LAS were accepted.. all flights were IFR only and had
to include their landing reservation number in the remarks section of their
IFR flight plan. It helped that LAS is a ClassB airfield.


This happens all the time when a major aviation convention is in a certain
area. AOPA, SnF, NBAA, etc.

When an airport is unable to accommodate the traffic, ATC has various
methods of restricting the flow, but I've never seen the requirement
for an IFR flight plan in VMC used to govern traffic flow.


Airport managers can set up a "Traffic Management" requirement when
conditions or events will limit the available capacity in either landing
slots on the runway or available parking on the airport.



================================================
United State Code
TITLE 49 - TRANSPORTATION
SUBTITLE VII - AVIATION PROGRAMS
PART B - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT AND NOISE
CHAPTER 471 - AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT

SUBCHAPTER I - AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT

Sec. 47101. Policies

(a) General. - It is the policy of the United States -
(1) that the safe operation of the airport and airway system
is the highest aviation priority;
...

9) that artificial restrictions on airport capacity -

(A) are not in the public interest;

Is it not in the public interest to limit traffic congestion that could
result in mid air collisions in the airport area?


(B) should be imposed to alleviate air traffic delays
only after other reasonably available and less
burdensome alternatives have been tried; and

hard to tell from the article given what other alternatives are available or
have been tried...


(C) should not discriminate unjustly between categories
and classes of aircraft; ...


They are not discriminating between category and class of aircraft... VFR
vs. IFR is not category/class... restricting to "multi engine only" would
be.. or limiting to helo only would be.. or restricting glider operations
from an airport that normally handled gliders would be a restriction in
category/class.

One thing I've found from Newspapers... you can't trust the ink on the paper
its written on.
Don't go by the newspaper.. look for the NOTAM that gets set up.. and
perhaps AOPA should be involved now before the "town fathers" at the airport
screw it up.

I'd bet that the restriction is not totally "IFR only".. but.. a requirement
to contact ATC and sequence to the airport.. for better spacing and flow
control.. which can be done with VFR aircraft... aka.. ClassC or ClassB

Does not OSH require the same thing? but it is done VFR with visual
observers out on the inbound route.. not IFR...

BT