The city of Mesa, Arizona, released a revised landing fee proposal and a long-sought justification for the fees months after its original plan approved by the City Council led to several FAA Part 13 complaints and a federal lawsuit. Under the proposal, released by the city on October 9, aircraft owners landing at Falcon Field would pay $4.14 per 1,000 pounds of their aircraft's maximum landing weight (MLW). That comes out to $10.35 per landing for an aircraft with a 2,500-pound MLW, which is roughly the weight of a Cessna 172 or Piper Archer. If passed by the city council, the new proposal would replace a landing fee structure that is currently scheduled to go into effect in late October, after being delayed several times since the city council first approved it in March. Under the original structure, aircraft based at Falcon Field weighing 6,000 pounds or less would pay $20.35 per landing after their first 10 landings each month, and transient aircraft of the same size would pay $24.35 per landing. The new structure does not differentiate between based and transient aircraft, nor does it provide any free landings for based aircraft as it previously did. After the original fees were approved by the City Council, the FAA received at least four Part 13 complaints; the agency opened an investigation that is ongoing. One of those complaints was filed by two flight schools at the airport, which also filed a federal lawsuit against the city. Read the full article at our website. Link in the comments.

Members of the Lakefront Airport Preservation Partnership (LAPP) and other stakeholders testified at the Cleveland City Council Transportation and Mobility Committee hearing on October 7, making the case for future investment at Burke Lakefront Airport. The coalition—made up of local businesses, public schools, flight schools, and pilots in Cleveland, as well as national aviation organizations—was invited to testify by committee Chairman Charles Slife after nearly a year of increased pressure from Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb to close the airport. Because the airport accepted federal and state grants for airport improvements as recently as 2019, the city is currently obligated to keep the airport open until at least 2039. An act of Congress or FAA permission would be required to allow the city to close the airport before its obligation expires. In August, FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford and Ohio Sens. Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted all publicly stated their opposition to Bibb’s proposal to close the airport. That laid the groundwork for the October 7 hearing. While only a few council members voiced opposition to closing Burke Lakefront at the earlier hearings with the mayor’s staff, committee members were nearly unanimous in their opposition to closure after hearing from the LAPP. Several stakeholders including Khalid Bahhur, who served as Cleveland's commissioner of airports prior to his retirement, pushed back on false and misleading statements presented in the previous hearings. These statements include Bibb’s claim that Burke Lakefront Airport loses more than $2 million every year, along with the implication that deficits are paid by taxpayers. While the airport did have a shortfall of about $1.3 million in 2024, that is covered by the Cleveland Airport System, which includes Burke Lakefront and Cleveland Hopkins International Airport. Several council members also criticized Bibb for focusing so heavily on closing Burke Lakefront. “The administration and others ... put so much effort into trying to close Burke and get government dollars and private dollars to help support this development,” Cleveland City Council Member Richard Starr said. “But when it comes to just the basic needs of Cleveland, we don’t have that same type of energy from the administration.” “I can’t understand for the life of me who’s advising the mayor,” said Cleveland City Council Member Michael Polensek. “I’m becoming more and more concerned not only about this, but other issues in the city—where he’s getting his advice from, who’s advising him. I’m becoming more concerned he might be advising himself.” “It’s been one year since the mayor restarted his effort to close Burke Lakefront Airport, and he doesn’t have anything to show for it,” AOPA Great Lakes Regional Manager Kyle Lewis said after the hearing. “The airport is getting busier. The FAA, Ohio’s senators, and now many City Council members all publicly oppose closing it. The widespread support the mayor claimed to have is nowhere to be found, and many of his claims about benefits to the community have been debunked. “It’s time to move on from the discussion about whether to close the airport and focus on investing in it for the future—at no cost to Cleveland taxpayers,” Lewis added. Link to the full article in the comments.

The FAA on October 7 effectively declared open season on hangar rent gouging, siding with a Denver FBO in a Part 13 complaint that the agency decided without publicly-available evidence to support claims that the 82-percent rent hike is "fair and reasonable" to pilots. The FAA rejected both the complainant’s and AOPA's requests for reconsideration of its determination that the increase in T-hangar rent from $660 to $1,200 that took effect in April—and the rapid exodus of piston airplane owners from Denver jetCenter hangars at Centennial Airport since—is "fair and reasonable" and not a violation of federal grant assurances. Link to the full story in the comments.

Tenants at Aeroflex-Andover Airport in NJ were issued eviction notices by the New Jersey Forest Fire Service and told to vacate their hangars by December 31, 2027. They were notified in June that their hangars would be torn down because of “critical repair and condition issues.” While the state says it will continue to offer tie downs for now, the eviction would likely force two businesses at the airport—a flight school and a maintenance shop—to close their doors. Many aircraft at Aeroflex-Andover, including the flight school’s, are vintage, fabric covered airplanes that cannot be stored outside. Link to full article in the comments.

It was a stunning day to fly. Cool, light breeze, no clouds on the horizon. The aircraft were nestled neatly into the hangar, and I began to prepare for an amazing day’s outing in one of our flying club's cute little Van’s RV–12s. Halfway through my preflight check, I remembered that I had left my handheld radio at home. Harumph. Early in my piloting career I’d had a NORDO (no radio) situation in very busy airspace. That scared me, so I bought a handheld for those “just-in-case” scenarios and took it with me on every flight. But I decided leaving the backup radio behind would be no biggie, and certainly not a reason to cancel my flight on this phenomenally gorgeous day. Admittedly, I didn’t feel completely rested; maybe that’s why I forgot my radio. It had been a stressful couple of weeks. But I was familiar with the airport, the airspace, and the route. I’d flown the airplane extensively. So, I thought, I’ll be fine. The aircraft looked good, so I got in and started up, eager to get in the air. But the glass avionics panel remained dark. Hmmm. I then did what I do when my laptop is being temperamental: Shut it off, wait 10 seconds, and try again. The screens powered to life the second time (yay), but I was confronted with a big red X and the warning “ADAHRS hardware fault.” Ugh. I’d seen this before, and I knew the solution: Shut the aircraft off again, wait a few ticks, and then start up a third time. That solved the ADAHRS problem. But I was starting to wonder about my own judgment. A few small hiccups do not a cancellation warrant, but they did get me thinking. When I passed my instrument checkride five years ago, I rewarded myself with a new active noise canceling (ANC) headset. It’s been my loyal companion ever since. While taxiing to the runway, suddenly the ANC failed. I pressed the power button and saw a little red light. Oh no… the battery, and no spare in my flight bag. Still, I forged on. I had flown for two decades without ANC; I would surely survive this ANC-free flight, too. There were by then five tiny issues which, if taken individually, would have been mildly irritating. Together, though, maybe these were signs from the heavens to quit while I was ahead? The passenger in me countered, “But it’s such a beautiful day.” During my taxi and runup check, a yellow indicator on my screen warned “check canopy” even though I had verified (several times) that the airplane's canopy was indeed closed and tightly latched. I did some troubleshooting, then ignored it thinking it would eventually go away. On my takeoff roll, as the airplane gained speed, the indicator turned red and an automated voice started screaming at me to check the canopy. I aborted the takeoff by pulling power and applying the brakes. Air traffic control immediately asked me if I needed assistance, and I said no, I just had a red light that I wasn’t comfortable flying with. I’d take the aircraft back to the hangar and try again with a different one. The controller responded, “OK, it’s always good to be safe.” Fatigue hit me hard during the taxi back to parking. I drew the line. Despite the spectacular weather, there were too many not-so-subtle hints that told me to take a pass. I opted to take a long bike ride instead. No need to waste a beautiful day. Has there ever been a time when you listened to the signs and decided to delay or cancel? Was it the right call?

Should an aircraft owner's personal information be kept private? AOPA, along with several other prominent general aviation organizations, sent a letter to the FAA, urging the agency to limit the disclosure of the personal information of aircraft owners. The letter, sent on July 31, was also signed by the Experimental Aircraft Association, the National Business Aviation Association, and Vertical Aviation International. The organizations point out that Section 803 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 already requires the FAA to allow aircraft owners to opt in to limiting the release of aircraft registration information and the owner’s or operator’s personally identifiable information—a provision that the letter states provides “clear direction regarding aircraft owner data protection.” “The statute represents a deliberate policy decision to limit public dissemination of specified aircraft registration information while preserving the FAA's ability to provide access where legitimate governmental and operational needs exist,” the letter reads. The organizations also say that their “members have continued to express legitimate concerns regarding the FAA’s aircraft registry enabling widespread dissemination of aircraft registration and personal information through data provided by live flight tracking technologies,” and that the FAA’s Aircraft Registry was established by Congress to “promote aviation safety, establish ownership, record security interests, and support the orderly regulation of the national airspace. “The registry was not created to serve as a database for other uses,” the organizations wrote. “While the FAA is required to maintain ownership records, nothing in the governing statute authorizes the agency to facilitate activities by making aircraft owners' personal information readily available for any conceivable use.” They also say the disclosure of aircraft owners’ names, addresses, and other personal information “raises significant concerns” under the Privacy Act of 1974, which says that information collected by the federal government should only be used for purposes compatible with those for which it was collected. “This is a matter of privacy and security, and both should be protected,” said AOPA Senior Vice President of Government Affairs and Advocacy Jim Coon. “Having consent to release personal information is one thing, but unfettered access for almost any purpose, including airport fee collection, just crosses the line.” The letter concludes asking that the FAA “interpret its existing statutory authority narrowly, follow the Congressional intent of section 803, and disclose only the reasonably necessary information to accomplish the purposes for which the aircraft registry was established.”