Board debates whether to formalize landing area for backcountry aircraft amid safety and liability concerns

Board members, airport staff and several local pilots spent more than two hours debating whether to permit short‑takeoff‑and‑landing (STOL) and backcountry aircraft to land in paved‑adjacent safety areas at Grand County Airport or to create a designated softer surface for them.

The discussion began during the public-comment portion when a pilot, identified in the transcript as Dave, said limiting off‑pavement landings could be a safety concern for “tailwheel airplanes” and other backcountry types that are sometimes safer on dirt when winds are strong. Gary Kelly, another caller, told the board he supported adding “more usable runways” for the same reasons.

Airport staff and several board members described a different side of the issue: repeated damage to lights and ruts created by heavy, wide‑tired aircraft that drive up maintenance time and cost. An interim airport staff member said the airport sometimes must dispatch equipment at roughly $100 per hour plus equipment costs to repair rutting, and that staff has replaced lights damaged by operations off paved surfaces. The staff member also said the airport’s underdrain system and drainage patterns make some off‑runway surfaces soft or marshy in parts of the field, and that improving any one location could change drainage and require engineering.

Board members and staff outlined three core concerns they said must be addressed before changing policy: safety (especially the risk of a gravel or dark rotor‑veil surface being visually confused with pavement in certain light conditions), liability if the airport designates an off‑runway landing area, and maintenance costs. An airport official noted FAA guidance discouraging rotor‑mill or black asphalt surfaces adjacent to runways because they can be mistaken for pavement in low‑light conditions.

Several practical options surfaced during the discussion: (1) keeping the current rule that allows off‑runway landings but holds pilots financially responsible for damage, (2) designating and improving a single short strip near the taxiway with compacted fill or a different surface intended for STOL operations, (3) installing cameras and increased enforcement so damage can be attributed and billed, or (4) changing the written minimum standards to formally allow a designated surface with appropriate signage and requirements. Participants also suggested looking for a low‑cost treatment (a 2–3 inch compacted fill or other non‑asphalt surfacing) that might reduce rutting without creating an FAA‑style paved runway.

Multiple board members urged caution. One board member said any formal designation could be interpreted as the airport approving those operations and thereby increasing owner liability; another stressed visibility along the runway (slope and sightlines) could make a parallel surface less safe because pilots and other users may not see off‑runway traffic in time.

Staff said the airport has used a trail camera to document off‑pavement operations and will continue to do so. The interim director recommended deferring any rule changes until a new full‑time director is hired so that person could weigh in on an implementation plan. Several board members supported exploring pilot‑friendly solutions — for example, a single maintained strip that accepts STOL traffic — while preserving safeguards against damage to lighting, drainage and runway safety areas.

The board did not adopt any policy change at the meeting. The discussion closed with a direction to study site‑specific options (surface type, drainage impacts, costs), continue using trail cameras and to bring possible technical solutions back for future consideration.

Ending

Board members agreed the issue touches a statewide and national conversation about backcountry aircraft at small airports; they asked staff to return with engineering input, cost estimates and FAA guidance if available before making any formal rule change.