Airport Acquires Land to Comply With FAA Rules

As of Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Acquisition of a heavily forested 12.5 acres brings the Moore County Airport's total holdings to more than 500 acres.

The latest purchase, at almost $1.2 million, does not increase a runway or a ramp but does bring the airport more closely into compliance with increasingly stringent federal requirements.

For the time being, it will involve removal of a limited number of trees on the newly acquired property - and little else. But eventually, the additional acreage will allow the airport to control more of its adjacent territory.

"This has been an issue for 10 or more years, and the FAA has been patient with us," said Ron Maness, airport executive director.

The issue is the height of trees flanking land already owned by the airport. The trees are too tall to satisfy Federal Aviation Administration landing requirements.

Maness said the FAA has allowed the airport to continue operating in violation of height restrictions because of a temporary pole bearing a warning light at the edge of the tree line.

Moore County owns the airport, but the airport cannot operate without FAA authorization. FAA has poured millions of dollars into the local airport in the past 20 years, all for compliance with federal safety regulations.

The most striking change in recent years has been a rerouting of N.C. 22, which included removal of a traffic signal light at the former intersection with Airport Road. The light is gone, and the intersection has been replaced with a four-spoked roundabout leading motorists in the direction of Sandhills Community College, Whispering Pines, Southern Pines or Carthage.

To acquire the additional acreage to meet the latest air traffic safety need, the airport applied to the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for a grant from the state's FAA allocation.

Because the airport no longer offers passenger service, grants are channeled to the local airport through NCDOT, rather than through direct FAA allocations. FAA grants require matching funds from state and local governments - 5 percent each.

But this time, when airport officials applied for a grant, state transportation officials recommended that the airport buy not only the land with the too-tall trees but also adjacent property as a means of controlling further restrictive growth that could affect flight safety patterns.

"The state wanted us to acquire all of the property because those trees could continue to grow and affect our approach to the runway," Maness said.

The state agreed to add money to the pot to help pay for the new acreage.

Maness said the land was acquired through negotiation with the family that owns the property and that the use of eminent domain was not necessary The agreement calls for the land to remain in use by the family for the immediate future, with the stipulation that the problem trees will be removed.

Tree removal has not begun. The airport authority offered the family the option of cutting the trees themselves and keeping profit from sale of the wood. If the family elects not to accept this offer, the airport will contract the work according to legal requirements.

"Just the bare minimum number of trees will be removed," Maness said.

Maness said a surveyor checked trees on the property and marked the ones targeted for removal. None of the trees provides habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.

In addition, some trees are being voluntarily removed on the nearby Sandhills Community College campus.

Maness said the need to acquire adjacent land has become increasingly obvious in recent years because of growing development on the outskirts of the airport, including shopping centers and a large residential development.

The authority has handled the latest transaction involving land adjacent to the airport with minimum publicity at the request of the family. Public discussion was held to a minimum during the board of commissioners' meeting at which the sale was approved.

Contact Florence Gilkeson at florence@the-pilot.com.

More like this story

MichaelFlorence 1 year, 7 months ago

Is this really for real - Yes it is. I love living hear, but does anyone even remotely think that any kind of regularly scheduled air service is going to operate out of this airport? Why does the Federal Government keep flushing money down the drain to keep expanding out the holdings of the Moore County Airport? This is a very good example of how government can spend and waste money. All to control more property and cut down some trees - When all of this money was borrowed from other countries!
How much is enough for the Airport? - It seems that this is a question that will never be answered!

OldPilot 1 year, 7 months ago

The purchase has nothing to do with scheduled air service and everything to do with: 1) the safety of the aircraft, pilots and passengers that use your airport, from single seat to large business jets and the occasional 727 & 737; 2) the safety of those around your airport; and 3) the long term viability of your airport. Scheduled air service? Drive to Raleigh, it's only 60 miles, barely over an hour!

MichaelFlorence 1 year, 7 months ago

Come on OLDPILOT have you ever seen a tree jump up from the ground and drag down a plane. You could buy all of the property for hundreds of miles around, and still have plane crashes. You know and I know this is only an attempt to keep that slim chance open (Never going to happen) that one day some airline is going to come back and offer scheduled air service from here. This airport is a money pit, and whether the money comes from local sources (CVB money) or Federal money (taxes) in its current operational state it will never break even.

FredKorb 1 year, 7 months ago

Michael, well said. (Your thoughts are shared by a rapidly swelling number of county residents.) But think of this, too. $1.2 million? To top off a few trees? Absurd. The job could have been accomplished for a few thousand dollars and I’m certain Mrs. Dowd, former owner of that 12-plus acres, might have been very happy to let it be done, rather than being intimidated into selling under threat of seizure by eminent domain. The headline on this piece states explicitly that all that money was spent to satisfy the FAA. Wrong!! In fact there was NO “rule” requiring the NC Department of Transportation to spend more than a million taxpayer dollars to buy all that land. Thank you for joining us, Michael, in keeping a close eye on airport waste. It’s also important to consider that this purchase was undertaken “with minimum publicity;” no public notice, scrutiny, or comment. In other words, in the proverbial smoke-filled back room. County residents should be appalled.

MichaelFlorence 1 year, 7 months ago

This is just one of the many million of reasons we continue to "BORROW" money from countries like China so we can fund projects just like this. Stop one project save 1.2 million - Stop 100,000 projects like this and maybe we can save some money, and not continue to be such a DEBTOR nation, and just maybe we can put our financial house back in order.

OldPilot 1 year, 7 months ago

I'm sure, based on the ignorance displayed in the posts complaining about the land purchase no one complaining ever flew an instrument approach to minimums, at night, in bad weather: rain, convective activity, turbulence. I have. The minimums for the ILS approach to runway 5 at the Moore County Airport allow descent to 250 feet above ground. This is 50 feet more than the standard Category one ILS approach minimums, standard at most airports. Why did the FAA do this? You got it folks, obstacles in the approach environment, trees, under the approach to runway 5. A barometric altimeter may be inaccurate by +/- 20 feet and still within tolerances, so a pilot might descend to 250 and only be 230 feet above ground. Catch a little wind shear and you can lose 50-100 feet in a heartbeat...and you have to worry because there are trees below which you can't see. The FAA wants the trees gone for reasons of safety and the FAA will not allow any airport to operate under a waiver forever. Sorry folks but that's the facts. Please read the article, you might notice and comprehend the reasoning behind the state involvment in the purchase decision. It's interesting that this article was printed the same day as an article indicating that the final appeal concerning Tyler's Ridge project, across the street from this property, was decided in favor of building the project. If municipalities surrounding the airport didn't make zoning decisions allowing homes to be built under approach/departure paths, the Tylers Ridge development being a perfect example, property purchases such as this to protect the airport in the future wouldn't be required.

MichaelFlorence 1 year, 7 months ago

The issue is the height of trees flanking land already owned by the airport. The trees are too tall to satisfy Federal Aviation Administration landing requirements.

Thanks OLDPILOT

Maness said the land was acquired through negotiation with the family that owns the property and that the use of eminent domain was not necessary

I did reread the article and saw this AGAIN - Why did the Airport acquire this property if the FAA is only interested in land that was already owned by the airport? And why was the family forced to sell the property because they knew that eminent domain would have been used against them.

As for flying at night - Don't. Unless you are a very experienced pilot don't fly at night. AND why is the College cutting down trees too? Afraid that they would be forced to sell the land. This was only done for the benefit of a few, and to allow the airport to expand in the future - Again we go back to the dream of regular scheduled air service. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
No matter how you dress up a pig, it is still a pig!

wbearp 1 year, 7 months ago

As a pilot who uses the MC airport and spends a good amount of money there I would suggest to MichaelFlorence or anyone else that is critical of our airport to at least take the time to go out to the airport and get a few facts before passing judgement. MichaelFlorence ranted in the pilot previously about the cutting of trees and widening of Hwy 211 in an editorial, then admitted in the same editorial that he never bothered to attend one public hearing in connection with that project to get any of the facts on what was being proposed or to speak against it. Now (assuming this is the same MichaelFlorence) you are slamming the airport. Have you ever taken the time to attend an airport authority meeting? Have you ever actually gone out to the airport and spoken to anyone to express your concerns and get some facts? Everyone has a right to their opinion and I respect that. It's one thing to have an opinion, it another thing to be able to back it up. One last thought. If you did happen to go by the airport last week you would have seen that the entire ramp area filled up with gleaming multimillion dollar corporate jets parked wing tip to wing tip. The ramp was full.They all came into town loaded with executives for some big corporate event. Yes, these people come here and spend money. They spend LOTS of money on fuel and services. They spend lots of money in town as well. At the very least they probably will be back again. There is even a chance they may find our county a good place to do business. Say what you will but at least get some facts. Fact finding means more than reading it in The Pilot.

wbearp 1 year, 7 months ago

MichaelFlorence 1 year, 7 months ago

Nice to be remembered - Thank you.

The 211 decision was a done deal - period.

Much like this land purchase. Done very quietly then announced quickly.

Still wondering why the Airport had to purchase privately held land to enforce the FAA ruling? And why the College has to take down trees also?

Just ranting on

wbearp 1 year, 7 months ago

MIchael, how can you say anything is a done deal if you do not attend public meetings, get facts, and offer input? Again, reading it and saying it in The Pilot doesn't change anything. The tree issue was a mandate by the FAA, and not something the airport took on just because they wanted to. Yes, the project does offer a greater safety margin when flying precision approaches in instrument conditions. I say the following with the up most sincerity and respect to you. If you really have concerns with the airport go out for a visit and meet with Ron Maness the director. You will find him and the entire staff very helpful, friendly, and professional. At the end of the day you may just be surprised with what really goes on out there, and the positive economic benefits the MC airport brings to our area.

MichaelFlorence 1 year, 7 months ago

Does the positive economic benefit include the extra money needed again (taken from the CVB funds). Does the cost to operate the airport ever stop?

Just would like to see the airport operate within budget, and not threaten nearby landowners when they want to expand their holdings.

And I have met Ron in the past and he is very nice.

And again a tall tree has never jumped up and knocked down a plane.

wbearp 1 year, 7 months ago

Whatever. Enough of my time wasted with this. I've got a plane to catch.

OldPilot 1 year, 7 months ago

MichaelFlorence: The FAA isn't interested in land owned by the airport, it's interest concerned obstacles on land NOT HERETOFOR owned by the airport. Don't fly at night? That comment more than demonstrates abysmal ignorance concerning aviation matters and makes no more sense than stating that no one except professional drivers should drive at night. It's dark about 50% of the time. Should we as a country sacrifice 50% of the utilization of our airplanes and airports? Any pilot (with certain rare exceptions) who holds a private, commercial or ATP (airline transport pilot) certificate is trained for night operations. Add an instrument rating to a private or commercial certificate and the pilot is trained to fly in weather. FYI an ATP is essentially a commercial certificate and instrument rating plus a guarantee of experience. If the college is cutting or topping some trees it's because they have sufficient good sense to understand that safety makes sense. Plus better to do so on a voluntary basis then get embroiled in litigation with the FAA and others by being stubborn, stupid and/or shortsighted. It's called being a good neighbor and having an enlightened sense of self interest as well as some interest in the greater good of and for the community. PS: please stop insulting pigs. They are intelligent creatures, I could say unlike you and FredKorb, but that would be unkind....so I won't.

MichaelFlorence 1 year, 7 months ago

TO OLDPILOT

I can always tell when I strike a nerve when people resort to trying to show off their intelligence by making fun of others. If the FAA told me to cut down a tree on my private property I would tell them to go jump. As for night driving again I have never had a tree jump out and grab a car.

All of this airport talk reminds of the John Murtha fields up in Penn. Build it and they will come.I would really love to know how many planes actually use this airport after dark.
As for intelligence well eveyone has an opinion and yours is skewed by your devotion of having Commercial air service come back to Moore County. As well as your comment about everyone doing things on a voluntary basis instead of being forced to do something well reminds me of other countries not the USA.

OldPilot 1 year, 7 months ago

All of us who own and fly our own airplanes know that airline economics dictate that scheduled service (pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations Part 121) at Moore County Airport makes no sense, not with Raleigh 60 miles away, about 75 minutes driving time and to my knowledge there isn't a single pilot with an airplane based at the Moore County Airport who wants airline service here or thinks it would be a good idea. The Moore County Airport serves general aviation (FAR Part 91) and charter/on demand service (FAR Part 135), and does so quite well. Folks really need to accept the fact that the airport exists and will for at least 20 more years, as guaranteed by the fact that federal grant money has been and will continue to be expended for airport improvement. Folks should also understand if a tree or anything else becomes a hazard to avigation both state and Federal agencies would ultimately prevail in requiring it's topping or removal. There is plenty of case law demonstrating that point alone, up to and including requiring the removal of the top two floors of a newly built building adjacent to an airport just a few years ago.. The trouble is that it always starts with complaints about the "expense" of operating airports, noise and safety. Then it expands to demands for aircraft size limits. Then no night operations. Then no training whatsoever. Then demands for airport closure. Isn't going to happen so you might as well relax.

Courseaire 1 year, 7 months ago

MichaelFlorence - I have no vested interest in this, though I've flown in & out of the airport once. One thing you are completely missing (and I'm not even talking about night flying) is weather moving in without much notice - either storms, wind, fog, necessitating instrument landings. For the benefit if a few trees, you'd rather they divert to Raleigh? I have to agree with OldPilot's assessment of your knowledge & research.

Toda 1 year, 7 months ago

Would anyone care to see the spreadsheet for airport funding? It will provide considerable insight into the amount of taxpayer funds contributing to county debt service. I've posted those numbers in the past and some have been astonished at the lucrative salaries and benefits paid to employees. We are well on our way to 300 million in public debt here in Poorer County. Contact the Clerk to the Board for a copy of the Airports' debt service. One might reconsider the cost of operating an airport that only very few citizens use on a regular basis.

FredKorb 1 year, 7 months ago

Apparently Old Pilot doesn’t play well with others (resorting to accusations, insults and the like). The fact is that due to age I haven’t flown in some years, but for several decades I had my own plane, as well as my commercial license (full Airline Transport, Multi-engine and Instrument ratings), and had the “opportunity” to fly/land in scores of dicey weather situations. Such are my credentials. Now to the irrelevance of Old Pilot’s arguments. Nobody is suggesting that safety issues need not be addressed. The issue here is the wasteful expenditure of more than a million dollars to fix a problem that could have been solved for a few thousand. Meantime, keep the conversation going, guys, but play nice. Incidentally, we’ve spoken at length with the FAA about the possible misuse of federal funds to buy that 12 acres. An FAA official also tells us that agency regulations will not allow the use of federal funds to expand an airport (i.e., extend the runway) at a facility that does not have commercial, scheduled airline service already in place. Where, then, would the millions of dollars for that project come from? Taxpayers, of course.

Comments No Longer Accepted