Frequently Asked Questions

This is a living-web site…FAQs will be added or amended as they arise

1. Is an airport required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to do a master plan?
2. What is an “airport layout plan” (ALP), and how is it different from an AMP?
3. Who approves an airport’s master plan?
 
4. Does the FAA or FDOT “approve” an airport’s master plan?
5. If an airport does a master plan, does the FAA or FDOT have any additional powers or influence over what the airport does or how it develops?
6. What are “grant assurances,” and where do they originate?
7. What are the airport’s obligations regarding grant assurances?
 
8. Is a big flight school likely to make Valkaria Airport its home base?
9. Is FIT coming to Valkaria?
10. But, aren’t a lot of flight training airplanes using Valkaria?
11. Can the airport or county prohibit or restrict flight training and other flight activities that might be annoying to airport neighbors?
12. What about the possibility of commercial airlines using Valkaria if certain improvements were made?

1. Is an airport required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) or by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to do a master plan?  NO. An airport is never required to do a master plan by either agency, however, IF an airport wishes to seek FDOT or FAA funding for rehabilitation or other airport development, a master plan that establishes the basis and rationale for funding requests is very helpful. A current “airport layout plan” is required for most state and federally assisted development projects.
2. What is an “airport layout plan” (ALP), and how is it different from an AMP?  The term “ALP” is frequently loosely applied, even by airport professionals.  In the strictest sense, an ALP is merely a single two-dimensional plan-view drawing of the location of various constructions and features on the airport’s surface, plus some required tabular data—one big “blueprint,” so to speak.  More broadly, we use the term “ALP Set” to indicate several drawings that represent a wider range of information or detail, such as: road access, airport land use, airspace and obstructions to it, and “terminal area” facilities.  ALP sets are sometimes accompanied by a brief narrative section to summarize what is depicted on the drawings.  An AMP also includes the full ALP set of drawings, but also includes detailed background and rationale for all of the entities displayed on the various ALP drawings.  The AMP also provides the environmental impacts, financial analyses, technical analyses, and public input associated with ALP drawing depictions.  A study of an ALP, alone, leaves the viewer with a wide range of reasonable questions, such as: Why?  What impacts?  What cost?  How and who will pay? What alternatives were considered?  What did the public think or have to say?  IF the airport owner chooses to seek state or federal funding assistance with any particular aspect of airport “development,” then those agencies will have the same questions.  The AMP is designed to provide and document the information for all to see and judge.
3.  Who approves an airport’s master plan?  Master plans are only approved by the legal sponsor, or “owner,” of an airport.  FDOT and FAA only “accept” the master plan once approved by the sponsoring entity—in the case of Valkaria Airport, Brevard County.
4. Does the FAA or FDOT “approve” an airport’s master plan?  No.  The FDOT and FAA only review, comment upon, and “accept” airport master plans from their sponsors.  Both the FDOT and FAA may state their opinions regarding aspects of the plan, but they have no statutory authority or responsibility to approve or deny master plans or any plan elements.  The ultimate power of FDOT and FAA lies in their agreement or disagreement to participate in the funding of particular elements denoted in a master plan.
5. If an airport does a master plan, does the FAA or FDOT have any additional powers or influence over what the airport does or how it develops?  No.  An airport master plan represents the owner’s vision, and not that of any higher level of government.  Nothing said in the AMP obligates the airport “sponsor” to state or federal agencies.  Neither does the AMP bind the owner, in this case Brevard County, to any specific development scenario.  It is, as the name indicates, a “plan.” 
6. What are “grant assurances,” and where do they originate?  “Grant assurances” are legally binding contractual obligations between an airport owner/sponsor and the state or federal government that is providing something of value to the airport and its owner.  For example, when many surplus military airports in the US were deeded to local governments after the Second World War, there was a set of conditions, or “grant assurances” that was attached as “strings” to the deed or other property transfer document.  Likewise, when airports accept most developmental grants from the FAA or FDOT, they agree to a fairly standard set of grant assurances.  Again, grant assurances are legally binding on airport owners/sponsors, and have generally withstood legal challenges in the Nation’s courts.  A Web link to airport grant assurances is found at the “Useful Reference Links” button of this site.
7. What are the airport’s obligations regarding grant assurances?  Any airport owner/sponsor subject to state or federal grant assurances must comply with the assurances or risk being found in violation of contractual obligations and state or federal law.  Violation, once documented, may result in a variety of escalating sanctions against the airport by the state or federal government.  Such sanctions usually start with suspension of further governmental funding, escalate to demands for repayment of depreciated values of improvements funded by the government agency, and, in the case of war surplus airports such as Valkaria, escalate to federal government reclamation of deeded surplus properties.  That being said, the federal government does NOT really want to reclaim any airport, and definitely does NOT want to operate any reclaimed land as an airport.  It simply wants the airport owner/sponsor to abide by its grant assurances.
8. Is a big flight school likely to make Valkaria Airport its home base?  Not likely.  Big flight schools like Flight Safety International, Pan Am Academy, and Florida Institute of Technology need a lot of airport and community infrastructure that is not available in the Valkaria vicinity in the foreseeable future.  They need runways and taxiways with high capacity, multiple instrument approaches, and an air traffic control tower to handle the high-density traffic.  They also need housing and dining facilities, academic facilities, recreational facilities and opportunities, and a host of community support not present in the Valkaria vicinity today, and possibly not present in future community developments.  Frankly, there are simply many more attractive and suitable airports that would not object to the local economic development potential of a large flight school.
9. Is FIT coming to Valkaria?  Definitely not.  FIT has never wanted to move from Melbourne, nor has it ever planned on moving it’s base of flight training operations to Valkaria for the reasons stated above.  To do so would require millions of dollars in FIT-funded construction, and millions of dollars in airport improvements that simply would not be approved by anyone. FIT flight students are also full-time university students.  They typically only fly 1-2 hours in a day, and then have just a short time to transit to academic classes on campus.  Doing flight training at Valkaria is simply not practical or cost-effective.  In addition, FIT has recently received a major gift from the Buehler Foundation to establish a new flight training facility at Melbourne Int’l Airport, and has entered into a new lease with MLB.
10. But, aren’t a lot of flight training airplanes using Valkaria?  Certainly, there are flight-training airplanes that use Valkaria on a transient basis.  The exact volume and origin is not known at this time, but that determination will be one goal of this planning effort.  At this point we would assume some level of transient activity from FIT in Melbourne, Flight Safety in Vero Beach, Embry-Riddle in Daytona Beach, possibly Comair Academy in Deland, and maybe other small training activities located in East-Central Florida.  It is analogous to auto or truck driving schools having their students drive on various roads in a community to experience different conditions and situations.
11.  Can the airport or county prohibit or restrict flight training and other flight activities that might be annoying to airport neighbors?  Not really, for a number of reasons.  Only the FAA has legal jurisdiction over airspace and aircraft in flight.  FAA grant assurances also prohibit airports such as Valkaria from improperly restricting access or use of the airport to legitimate aeronautical users.  An analogy might be found in America’s federally funded highway system.  Although I-95 or US-1 traffic congestion and noise might be objectionable to certain persons living in the area, local government cannot constrain access or use of those thoroughfares.
12. What about the possibility of commercial airlines using Valkaria if certain improvements were made?  Zero to none, for a number of reasons.  The most fundamental is that there is no need for additional commercial airport capacity in East-Central Florida.  Melbourne International is virtually empty, Vero Beach is empty, and no aviation forecast from FAA or FDOT see the need for another commercial airline-capable airport in E-C Florida on any time horizon.  Second, Valkaria Airport is too close to Melbourne and Vero Beach to ever have a viable market.  Third, and most importantly, there is no feasible space in which to enlarge Valkaria Airport to accommodate the expanded facilities needed by airlines.  Not only is the present site too small, but it is constrained by terrain and environmental issues that preclude expansion.  Valkaria Airport is also  classified and included in the FAA’s National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) as a “Basic Utility” airport—the lowest intended capability classification of the FAA.     

• Federal Aviation Administration