Pilot Advocacy Group Fights the Good Fight for the Little Guy

The EAA contacted officials in Yuba County, California after members had alerted the org to a newly introduced prohibition on ultralight flight activity from the facility. County officials rationalized their ban using the FARs and FAA Airport Compliance Manual in ways that didn't hold up under EAA scrutiny. 

Doing its part to fight the good fight, the EAA wrote to county Airport management to remind them that while FAA policy does allow some restrictions in the interest of safety, they must be adequately justified and supported. According to Yuba administrators, they banned ultralights under the auspices of Part 103.19, which says "No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in prohibited or restricted areas unless that person has permission from the using or controlling agency, as appropriate." The EAA contends that the rule pertains primarily to military agencies establishing restricted and prohibited areas, and not county personnel looking to ensure, for example, that they can sleep-in noise-free on an early Saturday morning. 

Regardless of the actual legality of the ultralight ban, the FAA has the final say on whether or not a restriction may stand, and airport stakeholders - no matter their station - can not act as kings of their own private aeronautical fiefdom. The EAA reminded them that “ultralight operations are consistent with safe operations at most general aviation airports of Yuba City’s size," saying "there are numerous examples of such safe operations at airports throughout the country." The organization will continue to monitor the situation and gauge where to go if things do not improve. Luckily, wayward bureaucrats are often allergic to sunlight, so focused attention tends to work wonders. 

FMI: www.eaa.org