Request for Support in FAA Part 16 Complaint - Ground Access Rights

[David Shelton]

I have filed a formal FAA Part 16 complaint against Yuba County Airport (MYV) in northern California. The case raises core Grant Assurance issues with national implications: whether an airport sponsor can impose “gate access” conditions (permits, insurance, approvals) that function as de facto aeronautical restrictions on gliders, ultralights, and other non-traditional but legitimate aeronautical users at federally funded, GA-22 protected airports.

Grant Assurance context

Yuba County has accepted millions of dollars in FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding, making it subject to FAA grant assurances, including Grant Assurance 22 (Economic Nondiscrimination). GA-22 requires the airport to be available for public use on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms to all aeronautical users, including gliders.

Core violations 

1) County ordinance criminalizing unscheduled glider/ultralight operations

• Ordinance 2.110.130 prohibits gliders and ultralights from taking off or landing without prior authorization of the airport manager.

• Ordinance 2.110.100 criminalizes violations of that provision.

• Taken together, any unscheduled glider landing becomes a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and up to six months imprisonment.

• The EAA notified the County in early 2022 that the ordinance is inconsistent with federal grant assurances, but the County has refused to rescind it.

2) Multi-year ban on Part 103 ultralights (Jan 2022 – Dec 2025)
The County imposed an illegal ban on Part 103 ultralight operations. The Part 16 case originated in response to this ban.

3) Discriminatory ground access restrictions replacing the ban
Under pressure from the Part 16 complaint, the County ended the overt prohibition and replaced it with “ground access” requirements that disproportionately burden the same aeronautical users. Under the new policy, aircraft arriving by ground (i.e. gliders and ultralights) are required to obtain:

• Permits (~$1,080/year), and

• Aeronautical insurance,
  as a condition of gate access.
  

These requirements are discriminatory because no other transient aeronautical users are subject to similar permitting and insurance conditions when arriving by air. 

Why this matters nationally

Yuba County has retained outside counsel to defend these restrictions. If the County prevails, it risks creating a roadmap for airport sponsors nationwide to:

• discourage glider/ultralight/balloon activity through permit and insurance gate conditions, and

• reframe aeronautical restrictions as “access control” requirements that evade GA-22 scrutiny.

At stake is whether an airport sponsor may impose at the gate what it may not impose directly on aeronautical activity—and whether gliders must be treated as transient aeronautical users, not as a tenant-like privilege subject to tenant-like conditions.

Goals of the case

1. Restore reasonable, non-discriminatory access at Yuba County Airport.

2. Encourage the FAA to issue clear national guidance on the limits of ground access restrictions at federally obligated airports, so this issue is not litigated piecemeal airport-by-airport with inconsistent regional outcomes.

Request

Several aviation organizations have indicated they will weigh in. I am also requesting letters of support from soaring pilots, clubs, and related aviation groups to demonstrate broad national interest and encourage a comprehensive FAA resolution.

-David Shelton (Commercial Glider Pilot)

[Charles Mampe]

Well, that doesn't sound good. Any idea on why the airport is doing this? Was there an accident/incident, an argument between a user and management, some big renter that does not want to deal with "toys"? Rarely does this just appear, usually there is a trigger.

I fly at a private airport, that has public access, that has taken FAA airport funds. We are mixed use, the primary is our glider club, there is also aero tow hang gliders, power flight training, parasails, helicopters (police and medevac).

We have had "cringes" over the years, but can usually find a trigger for it.

I am assuming you have reached out to EAA and AOPA?

[Mark Mocho]

I remember when a dispute between the glider club and airport management at Hemet got out of hand, with the glider club getting booted out and their clubhouse bulldozed. Eventually, the FAA sided with the glider club, but the damage was already done. It would probably be wise to request a restraining order to protect your assets until a court decision is reached. Remember that if the airport received federal grant assurances, the FAA would demand repayment of those funds if the airport violates the terms of use for a public airport. That saved the Boulder, CO airport just recently.

[Mark Mocho]

Page 11 in this month's AOPA Pilot magazine (February 2026) has a brief article addressing this specific issue.

On the Front Lines "Informal Complaints" by Stacey Heaton, AOPA Southern regional manager

[David Shelton]

Charles - The triggering event was that an ultralight was alleged to have operated in IMC, and the County responded by prohibiting all Part 103 ultralight operations. Ironically, the incident involved an FAA-registered LSA powered parachute; not an ultralight. They absolutely should take enforcement action against unsafe individuals, but they may not prohibit an entire class of aeronautical user without a valid safety reason and prior FAA authorization. FAA AFS-830 actually performed a safety analysis and determined the airport can safely accommodate ultralights. 

EAA actually sent a notice of non-compliance in early 2022 and they have indicated they will weigh in on the case. AOPA and Balloon Federation of America have also reached out. 

Mark - I haven't read the February issue yet, but multiple Informal Part 13 Complaints were filed in 2022. In April 2023, the FAA issued a notice of non-compliance and demanded a Corrective Action Plan within 60 days, but the County has delayed for years with the goal of making the ban permanent. Interestingly, they continued to apply for grants (7 of them, worth $1.2M) and to certify full compliance in each case, despite being on notice of non-compliance. In October, I elevated to a Formal Part 16 Complaint which finally puts their funding at risk.

[Charles Coyne]

RE: Hemet-Ryan History - The issue began when the commercial operator of long-time FBO Sailplane Enterprises informed Riverside County that he was going to retire and sell off the company assets. This was in 2008 or 2009? The county demanded that anything that had to do with gliders had to be removed within about 60 days. This included all the Sailplane Enterprises assets, as well as privately owned equipment, along with the equipment belonging to two clubs based at Hemet-Ryan - the Cypress Soaring Club, and the Orange County Soaring Association. OCSA's president at the time, Larry Tuohino spearheaded a campaign, along with some pro bono attorney's efforts, that after at least a few years, resulted in the county being forced to re-open the runway. Cypress Soaring was able to re-establish a permanent base at Hemet Ryan with the purchase of a Cessna 182 tow plane in 2018. Cypress Soaring now operates every Saturday at Hemet-Ryan.

[Charles Mampe]

Thanks for the info.

Interesting, the county has NO direct jurisdiction on aviation legalities as far as I know. That should be totally FAA realm.

Yes, the PIC should be dealt with, by the FAA.

[Charles Coyne]

In Riverside County, California, the county owns the land, does the leases, ground maintenance, etc. So, they wanted everything off 'their' land. County and Cal Trans were forced by Larry Tuohino, his legal team and the FAA to re-open the glider runway because the county had accepted FAA grant money in the past.