For pilots who prefer to takeoff and land on turf, typically adjacent to hard-surfaced runways, a new FAA Advisory Circular, 150/5300-13B, offers a pathway to these operations.
Effective on March 31, 2022, the AC acknowledges turf operations within Runway Safety Areas (RSAs).
Three general aviation advocacy groups — the Recreational Aviation Foundation (RAF), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) — worked together to provide feedback to the FAA regarding the use of turf operating areas, according to RAF Director Jeff Russell, who noted the effort began back in July 2019.
“This advocacy win represents a great collaborative effort between the RAF, EAA, and AOPA,” said Russell. “It’s a huge win for recreational aviation. Kudos to the FAA for this logical approach to enhancing safety at airports.”
While these types of operations have been taking place at airports across the country, this is the first time the FAA has officially recognized these areas, GA advocates note.
A Process
There is a process to go through before turf operations can be authorized.
- The airport owner must request that a turf operations area be established.
- The local FSDO must ensure that operations in the proposed area can take place safely in order to issue an approval.
The relevant language is in the new section on Diverse Aeronautical Activities on Airports (subsection 2.10.6). The FAA now recognizes operations on turf areas adjacent to paved runways:
“Pilots of certain aircraft (such as ultralights, powered-parachutes, helicopters, gliders, agricultural aircraft, tailwheels, aircraft with large balloon type ‘tundra’ tires, etc.) occasionally use the unpaved portion of the RSA adjacent to a runway for takeoffs, landings, or other operations (e.g., banner towing).”
“While this document does not guarantee these operations at all airports, it should ease the way to get them allowed on an official basis at many airports across the country,” Russell added.
I ran 6B0/KDAW up in NH twice over many years. In the ‘70’s we enjoyed lots of antique and tailwheel ops on the grass along side of the paved runway. It was Cubs WACOs and included the CAP. having Bird Dogs. By the ‘90’s that had mostly been “outlawed” by the State (owners). I’m extremely pleased to see a return that encourages “real” flying and “real” airplanes.
Not everyone’s ideal airplane is plastic w the training wheel up front.
Kudos to the FAA & the various GA advocacy organizations for finally getting out something in writing. But didn’t we ‘over logic’ this just a bit?
To be honest, I expected a lot more ‘snide’ comments on this & related articles.
The issue has never been how to safely operate Super Cubs off the grass infield at O’Hare during rush hour.
All most folks want is the option to takeoff & land on the 2,000’ wide “turf” strip, next to their 100’ wide paved runway. In most cases, the airport manager could handle the situation safely by mowing the weeds…
Instead, we got a 434 page Advisory Circular, most of which is “boiler plate” filler, and/or refers to other ACs….
“Applicability.
The FAA recommends using the standards and guidelines in this AC for application at civil airports. This AC does not constitute a regulation, is not mandatory, and is not legally binding in its own right.”
I wonder how many folks will stop reading it right there?
I agree that many people not familiar with airport funding and grant assurance requirements would stop reading at that point. For those in the know, if an airport accepts federal grant money, the airport sponsor agrees to certain conditions for use of that money, known as grant assurances. It becomes contract law. One of those conditions is:
Sponsor Grant Assurance:
34. Policies, Standards, and Specifications. It will carry out the project in accordance with policies, standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary including but not limited to the advisory circulars listed in the Current FAA Advisory Circulars for AIP projects, dated ____________________ (the latest approved version as of this grant offer) and included in this grant, and in accordance with applicable state policies, standards, and specifications approved by the Secretary.
If you look up the list of current FAA Advisory Circulars required for use in AIP funded and PFC approved projects, AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design is one of those. The advisory circular now becomes the default standard and becomes “legally binding in its own right” because the airport agrees to comply with it.
Having been involved in disparate application by FAA regions and individual airports of whether or not to allow turf operations adjacent to a runway, the revision to the Design AC is a welcome addition. The addition addresses airports that are certificated under Part 139 or GA airports where a runway safety area exists and the airport was reluctant to allow operations in the safety area. By definition, an airport is required to maintain its runway safety areas as follows:
(1) Each safety area must be cleared and graded and have no potentially
hazardous ruts, humps, depressions, or other surface variations.
The common sense argument was if an airport had a safety area, it should be suitable for aircraft operations. Not all airports or FAA agreed. With the AC revision, common sense may better prevail. However, the need for FAA and local approval still hinges on evaluating things like obstacle clearances (signs, navaids, operations over other aircraft, etc.) and other operational considerations (access and egress, intersecting taxiways, closeness to taxing aircraft, marking, maintenance capabilities, insurance, charting and public notification, etc.).
I absolutely agree with all your points.
If you have a NPIAS airport, that’s used AIP funds, whether it’s certificated under Part 139 or not, you are compelled to comply with the applicable grant assurances.
My concern & frustration boils down to the “bottom line”: After all the time it took to engineer this voluminous AC, the decision to allow “turf” operations, even if your airport meets FAA design standards, is still largely up to the airport owner/operator (not ATC) and your local FAA Airport Office.
I’ve been flying off grass since I was a child with my Dad. I still have the 65hp 7AC Champ he flew – added Grove hyrdaulic brakes when parts for the cable brakes finally gave out – so add 20% to the worth of that ship!
I have a 2500’ grass strip on my land NE of Austin – been flying off that for 25+ years. Some years it’s good in the summer – some years the clay soil cracks too much to risk using the runway (might snag the tailwheel) unless I fill in the cracks – that is not fun. Area pilots know to call to see if the runway is usable – no rain = cracks = be careful.
BTW there are 3 farm strips within 4 miles – all are about the same dimensions and orientation.