Yuba County board introduces ordinance to reopen airport to ultralight aircraft amid FAA complaint

The Yuba County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday introduced and waived the first reading of an ordinance amending vehicle‑operations rules at the Yuba County Airport and voted to approve an ultralight operating area and course rules intended to reopen limited access for powered‑parachute and ultralight operators.

Airport manager Jason presented a map and course rules the county says were reviewed with FAA compliance staff. Jason told the board the northeast quadrant had been identified by FAA reviewers as the viable location and that the county had worked through multiple rejected designs on the west side of the field. “We do have that now,” he said of FAA concurrence on the proposed area, and told the board airport staff would continue to refine the course rules as operators and stakeholders provide feedback.

Why it matters: ultralight operators and many pilots said the airport’s earlier restrictions had effectively excluded them for years, and some told the board they believe the county violated federal grant assurances. David Shelton, a licensed pilot and aerospace engineer who has filed a Part 16 complaint with the FAA, told the board the FAA has already confirmed that ultralight operations are permitted under grant assurance 22 and said differential treatment is “perhaps one of the most blatant examples of discrimination” in his view.

Shelton also urged caution and stakeholder engagement: he proposed a noticed working session and offered a 30‑day extension to his Part 16 case if the county would schedule a public workshop and negotiate in good faith. Other speakers, including Frank Bartlett and longtime ultralight operator Tom (name in transcript), described repeated denials of access and urged prompt reopening to avoid forcing pilots to travel to other airports.

County staff and risk‑management representatives said the primary practical issues are gate access, proof of insurance for vehicle access to the air operations area and basic operator familiarization. Chief Deputy County Counsel Taneema Morrow and airport staff told the board that the insurance requirement is not intended to regulate flying itself but to protect the county from damage to airport infrastructure when non‑based vehicles or unsupervised contractors enter the secured air operations area.

Board action and next steps: the supervisors voted to introduce the ordinance and to move forward with the ultralight operating area and course rules while directing staff to hold stakeholder meetings and return with any recommended edits. The roll‑call on the ordinance introduction was 4–1 (Supervisor Vasquez, Supervisor Fuhrer, Supervisor Bradford and Supervisor Messick in favor; Supervisor House opposed). Staff said operators could resume once they meet administrative requirements (insurance certificate, access card, and application/testing where required) and master the operational rules; risk management and airport staff will publish the application process online.

What remains unresolved: operators and representatives pressed the county to reduce fees and to keep insurance and other barriers minimal. Shelton and other speakers warned that federal review of the Part 16 complaint could have consequences if the county applied different rules to ultralights than to other transient aircraft. The board directed staff to consult outside counsel as needed, convene stakeholder meetings and return with any policy revisions at a future meeting.