Mogollon Pancake Fly-In June 20 (AZ)

Mogollon Air Park and EAA Chapter 1044 invite all to attend our Pancake Fly-In on Saturday, June 20, 7am-11am. $6 for pancakes, bacon, coffee, juice, and fruit. Profits go for community non-profits.

This is the only date throughout the year that non-homeowners may fly into the private Mogollon Airpark.

Mogollon Airpark is located on top of the Mogollon Rim in North Central Arizona. It is surrounded by the Apache Sitgreaves National Forest. Payson is 50 miles west. Show Low is 30 miles east. Mogollon Airpark is one of the nicest airparks in the Western United States. Most Important!: Mogollon has a rapidly growing contingent of RVs: at least 7 flying now and about that many under construction! Mogollon aircraft also include Cirrus, Columbia, Bonanza, Piper, Cessna, Mooney, and all the other "usual suspects!"

See www.az82.com. See "EAA Fly-In 2009" under "Airpark Highlights." Also be sure to access "Airpark Info" and click on "Airport Info" and "Safety Warning." Also access "AWOS Info."

CTAF is 122.9, (AZ82), click on the mike three times for AWOS advisories. Field elevation is 6658' MSL. Rwy 21 is the normal runway; left traffic. TPA 7,500' MSL. Runway Length: 3420' (5320' with taxiway extensions - 700' South, 1200' North). Runway 21 has a slight uphill slope and peaks at mid-field; a lot like Catalina!

Location: GPS N34.23.84 / W110.31.900 Variation 12 degrees east.

Contact Bob Boyd, (928) 535-3196 for questions.

Calenderize it

Hay Bill,
Been there a few times and a great place for a fly-in.
You should put it into the VAF Calendar - Definitly RV related!

What's the story?

Bill,
Unfortunately, Paul will be tied up with STS-127 that weekend and it's a long way from Houston for a pancake breakfast alone. Otherwise, I'd be very interested in coming over.

Paul and I have recently started checking out potential airpark retirement homes in the southwest and I was initially very excited to put Mogollon in the top tier of places to check out. But, the home page that comes across, let us say, "unwelcoming" has dampened our interest. It's one thing to say "Prior permission to land required" (and mean it!) and quite another to promise a $1000 landing fee and/or charges of criminal trespassing (presumably on the assumption that the reader will not cooperate unless you also threaten him/her). What gives? Too many lawyers on the HOA? Treaty agreement with the White Mountain Apache?

And, is it really the only day of the year that non-residents can fly in? Why do folks want to live in a place where they can't have Rosie and Tuppergal come visit? That's part of the fun of living in an airpark! It must put a heck of a damper on potential property buyers (and, hence, land values)!

Mogollon is off our list for now, and that seems a real shame as it is geographically a beautiful area. I'm sincerely curious and haven't known who to ask before. Why does Mogollon want (or need) to be so overtly unwelcoming on their homepage?

Hi Bob,

I gotta admit I'm with Louise on this. I just took a look at the 'Notice' at the bottom of the website home page and got pretty creeped out. I'd suspect there is another angle to this story that led to this pointed disclaimer, and that's a shame, but for now I think I'll keep that airport off my 'possibles' list.

Sure looks like a pretty place, though.

Sorry,
Doug

sounds like some elk clearing runs need to be done, per the webpage, then decide the runway is unsafe and move on to the next one down the breeze.

Creeped Out?

Ah Come on guys. A bottom portion of the web states:

"Per advice from our Attorney, The Board of Directors has implemented a landing fee for all aircraft that land at Mogollon Airpark and are not owned or flown by lot owners, and that do not meet the definition of "Guest Aircraft" as previously stated and published on the website and in the Association Policies".

While I also think that all the muscle flexing about trespassing and yadda yadda..yadda yadda is a bit overboard, it wouldn't keep me from following the policies outlined and entering the correct way into the airpork. If I allowed tough lawyer talk to keep me from enjoying my freedoms then that would be even worse.

I believe all they are trying to enforce is what one or two individuals would perceive as an influx of transient aircraft that aren't associated with any homeowners. IF rosie and tuppergal made friends that were associated with owners it would be no different than going to visit them at Rosamand Skypark. Besides, all that the Mogollon (allbeit wit excessive verbage) airpark is trying to do is enforce it's policies.....much like Doug does on his site with the moderators. Not so bad.

In defense of the airpark, because I used to own a lot there, there is fantastic camradere between airpark residents and quite a few RV's and unique aircraft on the site.

Also, FYI, the airpark is not located on the White Mountain Apache reservation. No treaties. Nice area though and don't let the tough lawyer talk scare you away.

Ed

There’s nothing at all wrong about enforcing your polices and rules – our airpark does it, as do most. We do it with a “P” on the sectional, and a Prior Permission required” in the AFD and on AirNav. Seems to work out just fine! If you read deep enough into the Mogollon site, it does say that invited guests can land. But who wants to read deeper with a greeting like that?

I am certain that Mogollon must have a bunch of friendly aviators, but when the very first contact that people have with the place is to be greeted by a lawyer with a “No Trespassing” sign, that is probably sending a not-so-friendly message. I’d guess that one possibility is the age-old problem of a minority with a controlling interest overruling the will of the majority – but whatever the reason, it sure doesn’t encourage me (at least) to want to be part of it.

Airparks are unfortunately well-known for internal political squabbles (Pilots being predominantly “Type A’s” and used to control), and that has always proved detrimental to attracting new residents. Of course, they might very well not be interested in attracting new residents…I guess that, as airpark shoppers, we are just honestly curious what the situation might be!

I'm not scared. I'm also not interested.

snoop9erdog said:

.....don't let the tough lawyer talk scare you away.

Click to expand...

The point isn't that the threats scare me away. I would always respect a statement of Prior Permission Required to Land (except in a true emergency) so I'm not scare of a fine or prison. It is the way the community has decided to present itself to the rest of the world (yes, literally world). When a community greets everyone initially with their lawyer, I'm just not interested in being around those folks. Lawyers give ADVICE and, in my opinion, should never be the decisionmaker for a group. People should use their heads and their own values to make decisions. This community has made a decision that I would not be comfortable living with as a resident. Thus, Mogollon is off my list. For others, I guess they like having a lawyer greet folks at the door. Different strokes...

We have seen this...

Louise Hose said:

........ I would always respect a statement of Prior Permission Required to Land (except in a true emergency) so I'm not scare of a fine or prison. ........

Click to expand...

...to not be the case for many pilots arriving at our Airpark.

One twin pilot who flew in - with a non-standard right hand pattern in the opposite direction to our no-wind runway - tried to tell me we were not Private on the sectional.
After he dug up his sectional from the depths of his back seat, he found he was wrong, but then stated that the brown Pilot's Guide book did not mention PPR - I know that was wrong since I wrote it....

It might be worse in our case since we do sell fuel to ourselves...

The number of pilots flying around with no liability insurance is quite measurable too...

Given the lawsuits that followed a fatal accident at an EAA Pancake Breakfast at our Airpark, I'd be interested in how the Mogollon lawyers handle visitors on that one day.

blame it on liability law

I don't know the details, but there was a fatal crash there a few years back, might have been at a fly in. So I'm sure that their Association legal representative came up with the verbage. Unfortunately our tort system necessitates unseamly CYA actions.

Mogollon is Friendly!

In response to the "No Trespassing" comments:

#1: The "No Trespassing" warning does not apply during the EAA Pancake Fly-In, so PLEASE TRESPASS ON JUNE 20th!

Background:

Mogollon Airpark's runway, taxiways, parking areas, and other facilities (clubhouse, picnic area, tennis courts, etc.) are owned and very well-maintained by the airpark homeowners. Up to a couple of years ago, Mogollon Airpark had only the usual "Prior Permission Required" notification. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, Mogollon Airpark is located in a very attractive tourist area. Several non-guest, un-sponsored pilots were starting to use Mogollon Airpark regularly as if it was a publicly owned and maintained airport. Un-sponsored pilots were simply ignoring the airpark's posted rules, including operations and safety rules, for their own convenience. Some were parking their aircraft at Mogollon for extended periods of time.

The most significant problem was that the airpark's homeowners association was, and is, liable for airport operations and safety. For the EAA fly-in, EAA Chapter 1044 obtains insurance through the EAA. Otherwise, for all other days of the year, the homeowners association is responsible. Upon the advice of the association's attorney and coordination with the sheriff's office, it was decided to implement the warning and fine. This did stop those who were using the airpark's facilities without permission, but, unfortunately, according to the attorney, the "No Trespass" warning must be posted on the home page to make sure that it is visible. This warning may give the impression that Mogollon is an unfriendly place, but just the opposite is true!

For those who know Mogollon homeowners and fly-in regularly, with permission, to visit them, Mogollon is one of the friendliest airparks on the face of the planet! The main reason that my wife and I decided to buy a house and hangar lot at Mogollon was the extremely friendly response we received when we drove to Overgaard to check-out the airpark. The fact that the airpark is downright beautiful helped, but it was really the great homeowners and fliers at the airpark that "sold" us. You won't find a more aircraft-friendly, or RV-friendly, bunch anywhere except maybe 52F, Hicks, Pecan Plantation, Stellar, Chino, etc., etc. . . . those airports and airparks simply have more RVs and RV pilots! Mogollon is working on producing and flying more RVs, but we can't compete with the "RV Hotspots" yet!

Well, Enough Said . . . I sincerely hope the negative comments in this forum will not deter those RVers who were thinking about flying into our EAA pancake breakfast . . . PLEASE FLY-IN AND TRESPASS ON JUNE 20th IF YOU CAN! Mogollon RV enthusiasts will be disappointed, and somewhat lonely, if you don't!

Best Regards to All,

Bill Palmer

Bill...

"The most significant problem was that the airpark's homeowners association was, and is, liable for airport operations and safety. For the EAA fly-in, EAA Chapter 1044 obtains insurance through the EAA. Otherwise, for all other days of the year, the homeowners association is responsible."

---------------------------

Check the EAA policy. It only protects the EAA Chapter, not the Airpark.

Guess how we found out...

We were sued because our runway was not up to FAA specifications... I'm sure you have a similar case.

Thanks for the update and background, Bill.

b,
d

Louise Hose said:

Paul and I have recently started checking out potential airpark retirement homes in the southwest

Click to expand...

I would like to extend an invite to check out Cameron Park.

We would love to have you here.

I really appreciate hearing the background Bill - thanks!

I'd still point out that the face you show the public on their first approach is how you are perceived. Some folks approach you first on the web (these days), and some don't. (I'd love to see the attorney's response when you ask "is a person required to look at the Home Page before landing, and if so - how do they know that?" I love baiting folks who haven't thought things through! )

I'm not out to bash anyone, and as I said in my previous post, I am sure that there are a lot of GREAT folks at Mogollon. I hope you take these thoughts as constructive - it might be that folks there simply don't realize the face that the rest of the public is seeing. All feedback is important if you want to improve something.

I still love the looks of your area - good luck with the pancake breakfast!

Paul

Really interesting...

Ironflight said:

..... (I'd love to see the attorney's response when you ask "is a person required to look at the Home Page before landing, and if so - how do they know that?" I love baiting folks who haven't thought things through! ).....
Paul

Click to expand...

....since the "official" record is here - the FAA 5010 airport database -

http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=AZ82

....and it's mentioned as "Private", but no mention of PPR on any of the pages. It probably should appear in the "Remarks" tab.

I guess the attorneys missed the "real" database...

Note that the "Remarks" of the FAA 5010 database is copied directly into the http://www.airnav.com/airport/az82 web page in this case - but apparently Airnav is not consistent in this.

Correction -

Airnav puts it here -

Airport use: Private use. Permission required prior to landing

- but PPR is still not on the 5010 database

Interesting...no landing fee!

az_gila said:

....since the "official" record is here - the FAA 5010 airport database -

http://www.gcr1.com/5010web/airport.cfm?Site=AZ82

....and it's mentioned as "Private", but no mention of PPR on any of the pages. It probably should appear in the "Remarks" tab.

I guess the attorneys missed the "real" database...

Click to expand...

Yep. Interesting to note that the "official record" also clearly says that there is NO landing fee for non-commercial landings. I wonder how well Mogollon's $1000 fee would hold up in court? (Of course, that probably doesn't negate the potential tresspassing charge.)

I would like to think that this input might prompt the "Board of Directors" to revisit their decision to handle their problem with unwelcomed guest by their current methods. I loved living in Arizona and would like to put Mogollon back on the list.

Info Update

Gil,

Thanks for the info. I checked about the insurance, and you're right. The airpark's insurance covers the fly-in as well as the EAA insurance. Also, the HOA will submit an update to the 5010.

Best Regards,

Bill Palmer