Petaluma, US πΊπΈ Closed Airport
US-10124
-
20 ft
US-CA
Loading...
Loading...GPS Code: Not available
Local Code: Not available
Location: 38.1852Β° N, -122.601997Β° E
Continent: NA
Type: Closed Airport
Keywords: 43CN
Loading weather data...
Designation | Length | Width | Surface | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
18/36 |
1100 ft | 10 ft | DIRT | Active |
Approximately between 1993 and 2002. The airfield was last depicted on the 1993 San Francisco Sectional Aeronautical Chart but was no longer shown on the 2002 edition.
The specific reason is not officially documented, which is common for small, private airfields. However, the closure was most likely due to private/economic reasons. As a private ranch airstrip, it was likely closed when the owner ceased flying operations, sold the property, or decided to repurpose the land. There is no evidence of a military conversion, major accident, or regulatory action forcing the closure.
The site is no longer an active airport. The land has reverted to agricultural use as part of the surrounding private ranch property. While the faint outline of the former runway is still visible in satellite imagery as a clear, flat strip of land, it is not maintained and there are no remaining airport facilities like hangars or markings. The property is privately owned and not accessible to the public.
Mazza Airport (also known as Mazza Ranch Airfield) had local, rather than national, significance. It was a private turf airstrip established sometime before 1968 on a ranch owned by John Mazza. It primarily served the personal and recreational flying needs of the owner and possibly guests. The 1980 AOPA Airports USA Directory listed it with a single 2,000-foot turf Runway 18/36. Its operations were typical of a small, private general aviation facility, supporting light aircraft for personal transport or agricultural use.
There are no known plans or prospects for reopening Mazza Airport. Given that it has been closed for over two decades and the land is integrated into a private ranch, a reopening is considered highly unlikely. It would require the initiative of the current landowner and significant investment to bring it back to any operational standard.
No comments for this airport yet.
Leave a comment