II. DIGEST PURPOSE

A Review of ACRP Synthesis 3: General Aviation Safety and Security Practices

ACRP Synthesis 3: General Aviation Safety and Security Practices, published in 2007, captured practices in safety and security at general aviation airports. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in a transformation of the commercial aviation safety and security systems. On November 19, 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Public Law 107-71, called for the establishment of the Transportation Security Administration within the Department of Transportation. As noted in the Synthesis, security was a primary concern from late 2001 through the publication of the synthesis in 2007. In the wake of 9/11, it was presumed that state legislatures would enact new laws related to airports. However, there was no cascade of state legislation. While several states passed regulations related to offenses occurring at airports, only New York and New Jersey passed lock and secure requirements at general aviation airports. States did not undertake wholesale regulatory changes in safety or security practices at general aviation airports, and the federal government implemented changes primarily at commercial service facilities.

The objective of ACRP Synthesis 3 was to identify current, as of 2007, practices in safety management and security operations at general aviation airports. The synthesis defined safety as “those practices related to the prevention of aircraft incidents and accidents.” This digest retains this definition of safety. The term security was not defined in the synthesis; however, according to the synthesis, prior to 9/11, general aviation security was defined as “ensuring that the aircraft is secured to prevent theft.” For purposes of this digest, the definition of airport security is defined as “methods or techniques used to protect airport assets, aircraft, passengers, airport personnel, and airport property from malicious harm, crime, terrorism, and other threats.” For purposes of this disgest, the distinction between safety and security will be drawn when there is legislative intent or regulatory language that distinguishes a purpose between safety and security. ACRP Synthesis 3 identified then current practices and emphasized unique, low-cost ideas that could be transferred to other general aviation airports. The scope of the synthesis was not to provide a detailed review of all safety and security practices or to evaluate weaknesses in those practices.

The synthesis concluded that federal regulations of general aviation airport were deferred to the states. According to the synthesis, “[m]ore than half of the states have licensing and inspection requirements for general aviation airports.” The synthesis also concluded that states adopted regulations that mirror federal regulations, such as Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 139, or incorporate the federal regulation by reference. State regulatory schemes varied on a state-by-state adoption with no singular approach. It was generally beyond the scope of the synthesis to analyze state schemes. This digest evaluates these conclusions by providing a comprehensive review of state regulations. This digest categorizes safety and security regulations by state and provides charts to track those regulations’ applicability by state.

Trend in State Legislation Enacted Since Synthesis 3

State legislatures continue to revise airport regulations based not only on the state’s unique political and technological challenges but also in response to global industry changes. The following enactments demonstrate the trend of airport legislation across the country since the publication of ACRP Synthesis 3. The trend demonstrates limited changes in airport safety or security mandates but attempts to expand control over the potentially changing nature of providing aviation services.

In September of 2022, the FAA released Engineering Brief 105, Vertiport Design.³⁸ According to the FAA, AAM is “a rapidly-emerging, new sector of the aerospace industry which aims to safely and efficiently integrate highly automated aircraft into the (National Airspace System).”³⁹ In a system of limited federal control of airports, several states responded to the uncertain regulatory definition of AAM airports or vertiports by amending existing statutory schemes. For instance, Utah defined “advanced air mobility system” in its airport licensure statute.⁴⁰ Wyoming created a “vertical takeoff and landing aircraft” statute to declare the flight of AAM lawful and to specifically permit the landing of an AAM on an operator’s property.⁴¹ Connecticut,⁴² Oregon,⁴³ and Ohio⁴⁴ revised the definition of airport to specifically include the term vertiport.

States also enacted changes in obstruction rules, including marking guy wires in Idaho⁴⁵ and a general revision of airport obstruction rules in Florida.⁴⁶

The Oklahoma Pilot and Passenger Protection Act (OPPPA) of 2010 is notable among aviation safety enactments since 2007. OPPPA requires a proposed development in the vicinity of airports to be reviewed by the Oklahoma Aeronautical Commission to prevent incompatible land use around airports. Other planning and zoning enactments include the passage of the Public Airport Authority Modernization Act in Colorado. The Act allows an airport authority to request that the county or municipality in which the airport authority is located adopt certain local zoning regulations.⁴⁷