The FAA has barred most GA aircraft and non-scheduled operations from using 12 major airports starting Monday, according to a bulletin issued by the National Air Transportation Association. The affected airports are: Chicago O’Hare (ORD) | Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) | Denver (DEN) | Boston Logan (BOS) | Houston Bush Intercontinental (IAH) | Atlanta (ATL) | John F. Kennedy (JFK) | Los Angeles (LAX) | Newark (EWR) | Phoenix (PHX) | Washington National (DCA) | Seattle-Tacoma (SEA).
Individual NOTAMs were issued for each airport. The NOTAMs say they’re effective until the end of the year, but it’s unlikely they’ll be in place for that long. However, it’s not clear exactly how long the ban will be in effect or if more airports will be added. Exemptions are in place for based aircraft, emergency medical law enforcement, firefighting, and military aircraft along with flights specifically allowed by the FAA. The NOTAMs were issued as a bipartisan vote in the Senate broke the filibuster, paving the way to end the government shutdown.
Whats the net impact aside from lost tax revenue?
Besides possibly being illegal? I thought any airport receiving federal funds (which these airports most definitely receive) were required to allow any aircraft to access them.
Legality appears to be optional with current doctrine.
Looking at it, part 91 is still allowed with prior permission. Which isn’t going to be granted at times. Iirc other airports have been doing that for a while so it’s legal until someone makes it definitely illegal.
To GA itself, likely minimal. Most GA doesn’t use those airports. Maybe bizjets, and I used to know some airline pilots that flew their prop planes to work instead of driving 2-3 hours or taking a connecting flight. Those guys might have a few missed flights if their connections are delayed.
For those that do fly GA to the big airports, it makes the reliever airports much more important. Atlanta has several, such as PDK, FTY, RYY, and FCC. When people see municipalities run by real estate developers trying to close airports for their own greed, that type of thing needs to be considered along with other functions those airports serve, like fire-fighting, police, medivac helicopters, and others. Looking at you, Santa Monica.
The headline’s not quite right– this wasn’t due to “security,” it was due to capacity. And, probably to some extent, due to the need of the FAA to at least appear to be spreading the pain more equally between 121 and GA.
The confusion doesn’t start with the pilots. It starts with the wording. The FAA’s NOTAMs read like a rushed patch job during the shutdown, and the media picked it up as a ban on all GA. In reality, the language is conditional, not absolute. “Closed to GA unless authorized” is a world of difference, but it gets lost fast once the word “barred” hits the page.
For the record, GA, or General Aviation, covers everything that isn’t scheduled airline or military. That includes private aircraft, business jets, flight school operations, charter flights under Part 135, and aerial work such as surveying and law enforcement. It’s the broadest part of American aviation. So when a NOTAM says “GA closed,” it sounds like the whole sector’s been grounded, even when based or exempt aircraft are still flying.
Half the airports on that list already have limited or no GA activity because of commercial traffic intensity. Places like O’Hare, Atlanta, and Boston don’t host GA or training under normal conditions. Others, like Phoenix, routinely allow flight school operations and general aviation without issue. Then there’s the “based aircraft” exemption, which raises another question. Does that mean all aircraft stationed at the field, or only those tied to a specific certificate or operator? No one has clarified that yet.
I’ve seen this before. When communication breaks down at the top, it filters down through management and then through reporters trying to fill in blanks. What we’re left with is a fog of assumptions and half facts. Most front line FAA people are just as unsure. They’re trying to interpret it as they go.
GA isn’t grounded. It’s tangled in bad messaging. What’s needed now isn’t more speculation, but a clear public FAA statement explaining what these NOTAMs actually mean and how long they’ll stand. Until then, everyone from controllers to newsrooms is guessing.
From a long time flight instructor, this looks less like a ban and more like a communication failure…and more.
The wording is not by accident, It’s the lead-up to Privatizing ATC. Since the Gov. can’t get the Pilots on board with the idea they are going to get the non-aviation community to vote for Privatization of ATC.
That and the press still hasn’t figured out that “closed to GA unless authorized” isn’t the same as “banned.” Aviation Week says “bans,” AVweb says “bars,” and the New York Post and Business Insider call it a “ban on private jets.” None of that matches the NOTAMs. The press can’t even read a NOTAM, but they sure know how to headline one.
Sorry, Raf. Disagree. The NAS is built on the philosophy that all have access. Denying access and then forcing pilots to request it is barring access.
Russ, I wasn’t using “banned” the way you mean it. I was quoting the media, not the FAA. The reporters ran with “banned” like GA had been grounded nationwide, when the NOTAMs actually say “closed to GA unless authorized.” That’s a restriction, not a shutdown.
“Barred” might work if we’re talking theory, but “banned” means no exceptions, no call, no chance. The FAA didn’t ban anyone. They limited access while they sort out a staffing mess. My point was about accuracy, not philosophy. Words matter, especially when pilots are reading headlines before they brief a flight.
Back in the late 70’s I knew a guy on the ARPAnet named Rob Hanlon. He became meme-famous for Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,”
Temporary ?? Careful w that term. the NOTAM concerning Disneyland is temporary until made permanent by congress in 2014. With the space above a private theme park being designed National Defense Airspace.https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr3/?page=detail_4_3635