FAA Says Reopening East Hampton's Airport Could Take 2 Years

EAST HAMPTON, NY — Although the East Hampton Town board voted unanimously in January to deactivate East Hampton Airport and privatize the facility, reopening within a week — the Federal Aviation Administration sent a letter to town officials this week warning that the process could take up to two years.

FAA Regional Administrator Marie Kennington-Gardiner stated, in the letter, that the FAA has said actions needed to be completed to change the status of East Hampton airport to a private facility.

To deactivate the airport — the town has said the airport will close on Feb. 28, deactivate, and reopen on March 4 under the "prior permission required," or PPR model — a number of things needs to happen, the FAA said.

When the airport closes, all public instrument procedures will become unavailable; the existing Letter of Agreement with New York Terminal Radar Approach Control, or TRACON, will terminate; all FAA-operated navigational, weather, and communication aids will be disabled; and Class D airspace will not be applicable, the FAA said.

When activating the private-use airport, the FAA will conduct an airspace analysis. While the “new” airport will open on the same site, with the same facilities as the airport being deactivated, the FAA has not analyzed the airspace in many years, Kennington-Gardiner said.

"The analysis must be completed using the most current criteria in effect, and FAA cannot predict what issues, if any, may arise with either Visual Flight Rule or Instrument Flight Rule operations," she said.

In addition, she said, private airports cannot use publicly funded procedures. Special use procedures would have to be developed if the town wants to replace the canceled public use instrument flight procedures. In order to do this, the town would be required to pay for the
development of those procedures, either by hiring a competent third party to design the
new procedures or by entering into a reimbursable agreement with FAA for procedure
development, she said.

If the path of any new procedures is altered, a detailed environmental analysis would need to ensue, she said.

Navigational, weather, and communications aids must be reestablished, and the town would have to make provisions for similar capabilities, seh said.

The airport would have to establish a letter of agreement detailing how it plans to operate with
the New York TRACON under the PPR construct, she said.

"The letter of agreement must recognize that New York TRACON cannot discern who has permission to access the airfield and who does not. The access permissions would have to be managed by the town through its airport management. New York TRACON cannot conduct verification calls," the FAA's letter said.

The FAA said it is FAA is also concerned about the methods the airport will use to deny permission to land under PPR.

"If inbound aircraft are sent around because they have been denied permission to land, it
could cause an unsafe situation within New York TRACON airspace," the letter said. "The FAA needs details on how the airport will enforce the PPR to ensure the integrity of the National Air Traffic System."

In addition, Kennington-Gardiner said, while meeting with the FAA, the town said it wanted to operate a non-federal air traffic control tower at the privatized airport.

"To operate an air traffic control tower, FAA must certify the controllers and delegate airspace to the tower. The FAA is unsure whether it could spend appropriated funds to certify controllers at a private-use airport. Additionally, even if the Town was willing to pay the costs of certification, FAA is unsure whether such an arrangement would violate federal appropriations law. We are researching these novel issues," Kennington-Gardiner said.

She added: "At the meeting, we emphasized that the deactivation of the airport has genuine consequences."

Once an airport is deactivated, it cannot be reopened with the same facilities and procedures
simply by reactivating it, she said.

"We explained the concrete actions that are taken upon deactivation; actions that, once
taken, cannot simply be reversed. FAA will not know whether such changes may be required
until we conduct the airspace analysis. If procedure changes are required, the special procedures
may not be available at the start of the summer season, which would mean that the airfield is
operated as a VFR only facility.."

The FAA said it realized the outcome might not be one the town wanted and was willing to discuss other options.

"In summary, once the airport is deactivated, it could not immediately return to its prior operating status. While FAA will endeavor to expedite its processes, you should be aware that, it may take approximately two years to restore the current capability to the airport if it is deactivated depending on any potential environmental analyses," the letter said.

The town fired back a response to the FAA's comments.

"After business hours on February 2, 2022, the FAA sent a letter to the town regarding obstacles it foresees with its internal processes regarding activation of the new private use airport," East Hampton Town Supervisor Peter Van Scoyoc and the town board said in a written response. " In the letter, the FAA suggests that the East Hampton Airport may not be operating in a safe manner such that opening of the new airport may be delayed."

Town officials say the town has relied on FAA oversight of the East Hampton Airport — as it was required to do — for decades.

"There has never been a suggestion from the FAA that the East Hampton Airport is unsafe; that the surrounding airspace is unsafe; that the instrument procedures are unsafe; or that the town’s privately contracted air traffic control tower is unsafe. Just the opposite is true," the response read.

For example, in December, the FAA reviewed the airspace at the East Hampton Airport and upgraded it when the tower is not in operation from Class G to Class E airspace.

Town officials said in discussions with the FAA, they have made it clear that the new, private-use airport needs to reflect the community in which it sits.

"Excessive overflight traffic, constant noise, and safety issues are not tolerable in East Hampton. That said, with appropriate controls the Town believes that the new airport, with cooperation from all stakeholders, including the FAA, will be consistent with community values and continue to provide some benefits to the town," town officials said.

To that end, on January 26, the town told the FAA that it would prefer to offer instrument procedures, a private tower, and other navigational aids at the new airport; however, if the FAA would not permit these safety-based aspects to be incorporated at the new airport by March 4, the town would open a VFR-only, uncontrolled airport.

"If this occurs, the PPR framework will necessarily reflect this reality and only permit the
number and types of operations consistent with an airport not having instrument procedures or a
control tower. The currently contemplated PPR will likely include the ability for certain commercial operations to occur, but that may not remain true if the FAA will not authorize a tower, procedures, and Class D airspace," the town said.

Still, town officials said they remained confident the new facility would open as planned.

"It is noteworthy that the FAA never once in its letter states that the new private use airport will not be available on March 4. the town remains confident that it will open on that date and looks forward to ushering in the new chapter of aviation in East Hampton that is consistent with the concerns that have been raised by so many in the community," the response said. "The town sees no reason that this cannot be achieved and has no plans to change course at this time."

The Eastern Region Helicopter Council responded to the FAA's letter. According to Loren Riegelhaupt, spokesperson for the ERHC: "The FAA letter finally clarifies the true reality of closing the East Hampton airport and just some of the damaging unintended consequences. Rather than following the flawed advice of paid consultants and going against the wishes of roughly 80 percent of the town and their preference to keep the airport open, we again urge the town board to work with the aviation community to keep the airport open and find alternative solutions. ”

Before the town board voted to deactivate the facility, some questioned the repercussions.

Southampton Town Supervisor Jay Schneiderman wrote letters to Van Scoyoc and the Southampton airport advisory committee. Schneiderman said, according to his understanding, the town would need to shutter the airport temporarily to "extinguish" remaining FAA assurances that were more perpetual in nature.

His concerns, Schneiderman said, involved what would happen if the airport were closed for any length of time, something that might happen due to potential prolonged litigation. He questioned the impacts of such a closure, which he said have not been properly assessed and which could directly impact residents of Southampton and Westhampton in terms of noise and other issues.

Those impacts must be studied before any temporary closure or decommissioning commenced, Schneiderman said.