Skydive Laconia
 

Hi Steveo,

Yes, the 15th was the day the report was scheduled to be done by the ADO. I emailed them directly on the 19th and asked for a copy to be sent to us directly this time.

In theory, it's supposed to go from the ADO to the LAA and then the LAA forwards it to us. Last time the "LAA to us" part was delayed over a month for some reason? We got the report about 5 weeks after it was forwarded to the LAA.

Hey, maybe the LAA is not "legally obligated" to forward things in a timely manner.....lol, I dunno.

Anyways, we asked the ADO to send us a copy directly this time so that we are not left to wait on the LAA again.

As soon as we have it, I wll post the results.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,
Tom

http://i52.tinypic.com/m540i.gif Noonan's (Tom) something has to come out of this on the good side. I'm all for new growth regarding business and by the sounds of you plans and all the leg work that you have done shows that you are a very serious person in your endeavor.
There will be a couple letters going out from this individual in your behalf.:)

Skydive Laconia
 

The ADO responded today stating that the report is in it's final stages of compilation.

They stated they will not provide us a copy directly, that we must work with the filer (Laconia Airport Manager) to receive a copy of the report.

So......... I am going out on a limb here, but I would assume if the report is like the last erroneous one and it suits the LAA's liking, we will probably get it with lightening speed. Same day deliver perhaps?

If on the other hand, the report is fair and unbiased, and contrary to all those "safety concerns" of the non-aviators on the board, then we probably won't get a copy of it until Thanksgiving........

After all, the board isn't "legally obligated" to do very much it appears, and what they are legally obligated to do doesn't include conducting business (as it pertains to Skydive Laconia anyways) in a timely manner.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Amazing To me, How The Support Of Our Local, And So Called...
 

And counted upon to get behind the very communities here, and to also continue in a very supportive way of decent humanity.

As everyone can see how we try to give on this very important issue, my guess is that you all know where we come from.

A reminder to you all that some have been so absent in local support.
And they all continue to refrain to advance. No names will be divulged here on an very important topic such as, dude, rg, js, to mention a few and others that have refused an interest' and are more than happy to sit upon their nothings what and as we can guess, ( is very and so close to them ). As some have chosen to show their true colors out here, the rest of us must move on without them as we will adjust to and learn all about their drag.

Now, and in respect to the Noonan's, my drift has always been on course, ( hand in hand ) with. And feel free to 'doo the research if you will.

An added e-mail to those that think that they, you can read more about it in an e-mail to,
Diane Cooper,
Airport Manager ???
Laconia Airport Authority
65 Aviation Drive
Gilford NH 03249
603-524-5003



PS; Why is it that some So, if we’re all going to do the Time Warp and go back to near prehistoric times, ( key word being, Socio Scientific ), where is it that some of our elected or appointed officials get any notion that it’s only fitting that they toss some fear, uncertainly, and doubt (FUD) into the process?

Gilford Steamer 4-21-11
 

This is a link to todays Gilford Steamer. Not much new in the story, but it does contain some quotes from the Gilford Selectman.

http://www.newhampshirelakesandmount...2011.04.21.pdf

Mildly amusing is the Caption on the picture that appears directly above the story...

"Fiddling around" couldn't have said it any better myself. :rolleye2:

I think the Noonans professional approach and having done their homework reguarding the business plan should and will be looked at and approved eventually because of statutes in place with reguard to tax dollars being spent. For the board to state that the airport is run self funded I would request to see the last three years budget and P&L. If Federal funds were used then the entire process to this point has been nothing more than an effort by the board to prevent due process to the Noonans and to lie to the taxpayers. I too beleive this should be a transparent and fair process,if I wanted to open a sandwich shop would I have been made to jump through this many hoop? NEVER With that I ask the board WHAT IS YOUR TRUE AGENDA? I know you watch this thread so your response would be greatly appreciated. Robert McCarthy concerned citizen and taxpayer

Insurance carriers will not cover planes?
 

Per the Gilford Steamer article these airplanes owners can never fly to an airport that has skydiving activities....what if they fly near an airport that has skydiving activities does that void their insurance?


The worse part is that they made the decision without even listening to both sides of the situation. At least if they gave them an opportunity to present they could say we listened and this is the decision we arrived at having all of the information.

From the Gillford Steamer: The key word is in bold.

"Right now, the airport is self funded. Some planes' insurance carriers may not allow them to fly or land at Laconia Airport in this case," said Hayes. :look:

Were it to be true..and it might just be a Red Herring, it might be inconvenient to have to find another carrier to meet changing local conditions. NB

There was actually a story about this on the news on WASR this morning. They basically just said that Gilford Selectmen and LAA are against it.

Interesting...
 

Completely self funded... ?

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/77467/

This one has a map and everything on page 8-2

http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtr...assessment.pdf

(Cut and pasted from the above link)

6. NPIAS Airports
Finding: Currently there are 14 airports in New Hampshire that are included in FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS), 11 of which have received FAA grants. Silver Ranch, Parlin Field, and Plymouth Municipal Airport have NPIAS numbers but do not qualify for federal grants for capital improvement projects. The State currently manages the apportionment, discretionary and GA entitlement funding from FAA for the eight general aviation airports in the NPIAS (Boire Field, Dillant-Hopkins, Concord, Skyhaven, Laconia, Claremont, Berlin, and Mt. Washington Regional). By contrast, the Division of Aeronautics serves essentially as a pass-through of FAA discretionary and entitlement funds for the three commercial service airports (Manchester, Pease International Tradeport, Lebanon). In addition, revenues generated by passenger facility charges (PFCs) at those airports do not pass through the Division, nor does the Division have any role in the bonds issued by the commercial service airports.

This was just a quick search... lots more out there.

If I may ask a question. Since the money goes through the state DOT perhaps another approach might be considered. The Govenor,why is the DOT allowing and jepardizing past and future funding for LAA by not holding hearings and or considering all of the reports as they pertain to Sky Dive Laconia and the Noonans plan? Maybe I am reading it incorrectly but a report from DOT is a state entity and as such should report on this issue wher the LAA refuses.

Old Info Received Today...
 

Same ol' Same Ol'. LAA is doing their best, to lose some of the more educated among us!

The Noonan's stand to bring a better economic future and picture that the stone Waller's want to warm their chairs about!

2008 to 2011 and still waiting! :look: :rolleye1:

Skydive Laconia
 

Hi robmac,

The FAA federal funding process is typically handled through the FAA at a federal level where airports request funding specifically from the FAA. There are a handful of "block grant states", where the state requests to be involved directly in deciding what amounts of federal dollars the airports within their states are appropriated.

It is a "pilot program", meaning that it's still in it's test phase of FAA acceptance.

I don't want to be accused of smoke and mirrors, yet again.....lol, but the reality is, the way this process has been handled thus far may very well affect the "block grant" status of the state when the pilot program concludes and the FAA decides if it will officially bless a state deciding it's own allocations.

If you would like to learn more about the program, I invite you to contact the NHDOT Supervisor or Aeronautical Planning and ask any questions you may have.

In theory, this department is supposed to help guide the LAA through this process of airport access issues and safety concern resolutions. To date, that has not occurred, and we are about three years in now. "That is a question for your lawyer to answer" has pretty much been the tone of the responses that we have received from the NHDOT thus far when citing LAA discrimination against our aeronautical activity.

The NHDOT is taking a completely hands off approach to this process. As a side note the Laconia Airport Manager and the NHDOT Supervisor of Aeronautical Planning have a clearly defined working relationship and consult often about all matters of LCI, including our proposal. Basically the NHDOT will work with the manager of LCI but not work with us unfortunately.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Skydive Laconia
 

I find that this statement defines the status quo pretty well. As a community leader, don't you think it's advisable to find out for sure, "YES or NO" if some insurance carriers will not allow their insured aircraft to land at LCI BEFORE forming a concerned opinion and publishing it, let alone ACTUALLY VOTING on it?

And if after doing some research, Selectman Hayes by chance, found some outlier insurance policy that showed his concern was actually valid, would it also not be a good idea to do more due diligence and find out what percentage of aircraft insurers had such a clause?

Nope, according to somebody......that would be a waste of the Selectman's time.

My point is this, if 99 percent of aircraft insurers allowed their aircraft to land at airports with skydiving and only 1 percent did not, would that not be information that as a civic leader, you would want to know, prior to casting a vote that will affect your entire community?

Guess not.

Back to reality:

It's fact time again:
1) In ten years of skydiving at airports of similar size and traffic as LCI, I have landed parachutes while watching multi million dollar private jets take off and land. There is no universal insurance exclusion to landing private jets at airports that have skydiving. Could you find one? Probably, not going to be many if at all though.
2) Aircraft have numerous different types of insurance policies. There is "Hull Insurance" and "Third Party Liability" to name a few. It's not like a car, where you have a universal policy for everything.
3) Here is a shocker: There are GA aircraft out there (up there) with no insurance at all!. Cost of owning and operating an aircraft is soooo expensive, that some GA pilots forgo insurance at all. Now......what if one of these uninsured planes lands at LCI for a "hundred dollar hamburger" and taxis into a private jet........yup, no insurance. Perhaps the LAA should ramp check every plane in for an insurance certificate? Or better yet, post a big sign on the ground facing up to the sky saying "NO INSURANCE = NOT WELCOME" that is visible from the ground while these pilots are flying.
4) Back on topic: I have landed parachutes at airports beside practically every form of aircraft out there, including those big FedEx cargo transport jets.

If we are there operating, the planes will still come. Even the big ones. I know because I have done my due diligence. I did my homework.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Skydive Laconia
 

Just a quick update.

We got a copy of the second ADO report today.

The report was basically a regurgitation of the original report, even produced by the same FAA agent at Airports. (Ironic, huh?)

Anyways, the good news is atleast this time the title wasn't biased.....lol

I'd have to write a book to explain the process, but the unabridged version is that the ADO continued to use an evaluation process that has nothing to do with our business or proposal.

Some items of note though:

1) They stated (on FAA letterhead) that jet pilots are just too busy in the cockpit on approach to have to be bothered with "See and Avoid" procedures. Really. Apparently the ADO has now gone on record stating that the pilot SOPs for landing that you are required to follow are now determined by the size of plane that you fly. Really? Wow. "See and Avoid" is a procedure EVERY pilot is supposed to do while flying.

2) They again stated that student pilots have a greater right to the airport than our business. That they keep putting this discriminatory statement on FAA letterhead is really odd. But they continue to do it none the less.

The list goes on and on, but you get the idea.

That's the bad news, but honestly, it was entirely expected.

These people at the ADO are engineers, not aviators. They have (and continue to) apply the wrong set of criteria in attempting to assert their role in this process.

The good news is that meetings are already scheduled with the FAA in Washington to address this (yet again) entirely biased and grossly inaccurate report.

So.......when the Citizen, Laconia Sun or Gilford Steamer report that the FAA again found the airport unsafe for skydiving, take it with a grain of salt. The "FAA" didn't find anything wrong with our proposal, the local ADO used inappropriate criteria to form a flawed evaluation. Again.

When this process is over, we will be vindicated and the FAA will have established a clearly defined process that allows for every aeronautical activity governed by the FAA it's rightful place in the sky and on the airport, even at the Laconia Airport.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,
Tom

Ooops.
 

You would be wrong.

From the final FAA report: "FAA received over 80 comments from interested parties. The majority of these comments stated that this proposal presents a major safety concern to pilots and airport users".

Musta missed that part
 

You are smart enough to realize that that graphic applied only to the first proposal, not the second, right?

The clear result of behind-the-scenes, small-town politics.....right!

In this country, people are entitled to present their proposals and to have a fair airing of their thoughts. This was clearly not the case here, was it! This is not what this country is supposed to be about.

This was a Slam-Bam-Thank you-Man back room deal, wasn't it!!

Slameful! Completely shameful!!

R2B

The End
 

Yet even though you have not earned the simplest private pilot license, you are?

You would have us believe there are two different FAA's? Seriously? And that the "Safety and Standards Branch" does not know what it is doing? Seriously?

For the record, here is what the FAA says about the Noonan's second proposal: (Bold italics are mine)

Q.E.D.

This stuff sure can't help the business. OH, I have only seen you write on the forum with all the comments so I guess that your friends do not care about letting the PUBLIC know their feelings.



http://i54.tinypic.com/2e56yqf.gif

Skydive Laconia
 

As I reference above, if we wanted to flood the comment process with "interested parties", we could have provided 800 favorable comments. We left it alone. Wasn't needed (and still isn't).

As a side note, "interested parties" does not dictate "local" interested parties. The LAA is attempting to reach as many people as they can, even outside the Laconia/Gilford area.

More importantly though, "interested parties" does not constitute "educated parties". If I was living in the region and bought into all the scare tactics that have been posted, I'd be concerned to.

Concern can actually be a good thing, it indicates people are actually thinking about it. We are all for that, support it 100%.

The issue though is education versus concern.

Let me give the community here an example to ponder. A factual verifiable example:

Back in 2008 Mary and I were coming up to the meeting with the LAA where we were going to formally address the LAA and request permission to land on the airport. As required, we provided the airport manager and the LAA with all of our supporting documentation, a 40+ page packet of info a month prior to the meeting. Now about a week prior to the meeting, the airport manager sent out an email to the list of local pilots and property owners on the airport forewarning them that a couple was coming up to request to land parachutes on the airport. The email went on to say that we were bringing an entourage with us, people to support our cause. The email went on to encourage local attendance so that these people on the email list could have their say as well.

We would have been thrilled about that, except one thing was missing from the email:

Any reference to the volume of information we provided.

Why would you send out a "call to action" so to speak to the local pilots and hangar owners you are supposed to be serving without letting them know you have a volume of information provided by the proposed business owners that they can research and educate themselves with prior to the meeting?

The answer: Unfortunately, they didn't want you educated at that meeting because it's easier to create panic and chaos that way. Do you think people showed up to that meeting boiled up? Yup. Of course they did, they knew nothing about us, other than that we were outsiders and we were bringing an entourage. (In a way those of you that showed up without being given access to that information ahead of time were being used as pawns by the LAA unfortunately. They were looking for your hysteria, not your educated input.)

Now if it were me and I wanted to make sure everyone was educated, I would have sent out the same email, but INCLUDED that the Airport Manager had the entire proposal including FAA and AOPA documents that were available for the local pilots and hangar owners to study prior to the meeting.

That didn't happen.

I would even go so far as to let the proposed business owners know what I was doing and ask if they would be willing to answer questions from these people.

That didn't happen either. We got a copy of the email privately about a month later. Wonder why they excluded us from that "call to action"? Wait, I know, they're not "legally obligated" to let us know these things........

Is that the transparency that you, the community are willing to accept from your airport authority and it's management?

The irony is..........they had no problem giving our proposal to the Selectmen of Gilford last month.........yet it was purposely withheld from you when it mattered most, at the outset of this process.

Back to the current concerns. Did you know that both FBOs have Bill's "Skydive Laconia" photo on their office windows at the Main Terminal building showing a tandem pair about to collide with a jet? This despite the fact that in the 28 year history of tandem jumping, a tandem pair has never collided with any aircraft, let alone a jet. If I was a local pilot and I walked by that photo for 2+ years, I'd have concerns too.

Fear mongering, plain and simple. And these are supposed to be professional establishments.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,
Tom

I Don't Know How This Will End...
 

But I do know one thing--I will never, ever do business with LakesRegionsAerials.com.

I don't know any of the individuals involved in this, but I find that the smarmy attitude displayed by Mr. Hemmel is quite distasteful.

Too bad for the entire region.

I don't know how this will end either ...
 

... but I find that someone trying to force their way into a place where they are not wanted is very distasteful.

http://i43.tinypic.com/b4vwqe.gif http://i43.tinypic.com/b4vwqe.gif and http://i39.tinypic.com/o9n9f8.gif for your post

Oh I believe there are a lot more people who would like to see them in business than not. It would bring more people to the area and local businesses would welcome them.

Maybe so River Rat , but the way they have gone about this has completely turned me off. Is this the type of neighbor you would like?

Skydive Laconia
 

Sorry you feel that way. Truth be told though, more people want us there than do not. What you are hearing is the vocal minority, people with vested interests in keeping the airport to themselves. The louder they get correlates directly with the ground they continue to lose. It's human nature.

Speaking of human nature, let me try to put this in perspective for you.

Back in the 1800s, my great grand parents arrived in Boston from Ireland. When they arrived, do you think they were welcome? I can assure that they were not. They were repeatedly told they were not welcome and told to go home. They refused to accept the status quo and stayed. They were then relegated to tenement housing and back breaking labor, because the Irish were considered outsiders and second class citizens. As my grand parents were attempting to seek a better life and leave the tenement housing for the blue collar suburbs of Boston, they too were again told they were not welcome. They refused to let the will of others affect their futures. My parents carried that resolve further, wanting yet an even better life for their children, and did the same thing. They refused to accept the will of others telling them they were not welcome in higher social circles. See the pattern?

It's in my genes.

Our cause is just and our resolve is unconquerable. There will come a day when this process reaches an end. I can't promise that we will be victorious, but I can promise that we will never lay down for anyone and we will fight for what is right until the last bell is rung.

There is only one person that will determine the outcome of my life, my future and my American Dream, and that is me. I apologize if that has inconvenienced a few people on the LAA.

We all have dreams we believe in and are told by others to quit. Some quit, others fight. Those that choose to fight can understand our resolve. Those that choose to quit will never understand our resolve.

"I am the master of my fate
I am the captain of my soul"

- W. Henley (from Invictus)

Tom

You forgot ...
 

... the American flag and the patriotic music playing in the back ground.

Do YOU have a problem with the American Flag Jonas Pilot...? Just wondering. :look: NB

Nope.
 

It's very dear to my heart. I'm not sure which one I love more, the one that covered my grandfather's coffin, a purple heart recipient in World War One or the one that graced my father's coffin, a participant in World War Two.

I am really moved by your post but.....I can't let this go. GAG ME with a Spoon Jonas Pilot. Do you actually believe anyone will believe your diatribe...you have shown your colors..and they are NOT the Red, White, & Blue. Your record is evident on this board. NB

Please explain why you feel that way.

Let me tell you all why I am totally unhappy with the actions of these local clowns that feel they own the airport and claim openly that it is self-funded.

I just Googled FAA Projects Laconia and look what I found:

Laconia Municipal Airport (Gilford) - Airport Terminal Apron
Rehabilitation
Total project Cost $835,420.00

Go do it yourself and you will find the same. This is American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 money, all federally funded.

So they are lying about the self-funding aspect of the Laconia airport. This is very clear.

I will be contacting my US Congressman and US Senators about how my Federal tax dollars are being spent to support this "private" airport. This is the land of the free, not the land of the privileged few.

How anyone can feel this has been a fair process is beyond me.

R2B

Skydive Laconia
 

Nope. Not a pilot yet anyways. (Ironically enough I had planned to enroll in Emerson Aviations flight school). But I am an expert in tandem operations. By your logic though, none of the LAA or airport manager are skydivers or aviators, yet they broadcast their serious concerns to the public. Ironic and contradictory I think.

As I posted multiple times before, my wife is the pilot and holds multiple aviation degrees from Daniel Webster College, that pilot school in Nashua, NH....She also currently works for one of the largest commercial airlines in the US, in the airport ops division.......

We are a team, I'm the skydiving expert, she's the aviation ops expert. I mentioned that three or four times before up in the thread.

Yup. Well, technically there is only one FAA, but it broken down into multiple branches, Flight Standards and Airports Division are the two specific ones that apply here. I mentioned that three or four times before as well.

See, for oh, I don't know, the last 30-40 years, Fight Standards has always been the division to assess airport compatibility issues such as this. But for some reason this time, the local Airport Division (ADO) decided to assert it's weight in the process. It all started when the airport manager filed the wrong forms for the evaluation. They filed a "new construction" evaluation form. When Flight Standards briefed the ADO, it didn't go very well internally. Like I said before, this is now an issue within the FAA.

I combed the FAA website by the way and could not find a "Safety and Standards Branch". Did the FAA create a new division and not tell anyone?

Don't worry, they will sort it out, I trust with their extensive aviation experience, the FAA can resolve this unique situation.

That's the ADO. I thought I covered that before. Oh well, here it goes again. The ADO are not aviators, they are engineers interpreting a manual as they see fit. You'll have to trust me on this one, when Flight Standards properly educates the ADO on practical applications of procedures and precedences, this situation will be resolved.

Since I doubt you'll take my word on it, I would ask you to consider this. If that report was in fact valid and not completely erroneous, why would there be a plethora of meetings scheduled in Washington in the near future addressing this very report?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the LAA opened up a Pandora's Box of compliance short comings within the framework of the local FAA and it is being addressed accordingly.

Two points to close on:

1) I just received the same report you did, today. Ironic huh that you, an admitted non stake holder in this process, received a copy of the report the same day I did......... The LAA, who is not legally required to provide us, the business proposers, anything, yet you have a copy of the report jus as we now do. The LAA must have a mass mailing list. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy you have it and would be glad to address anyone's questions on it publicly, "open book" facts have been our modus operandi since Day 1.

2) We continue to believe in the system, and think you should too. We (you and I and everyone else in this process) have had our say, it is completely and solely in the hands of the FAA in Washington now.

Speaking of the FAA in Washinton, did you know that the chief of the FAA, Randy Babbitt started his career as a jump pilot dropping skydivers? Guess where he dropped them? Yup, on the airports he operated out of.

Ironic, huh?

If you were a member of USPA, you'd have received this months issue of Parachutist Magazine. In it you would have found a picture of Mr. Babbitt side by side with the Executive Director of USPA and the Government Relations Director of USPA (a retired commercial pilot). They had a meeting last month.

As for me, I'm happy to let the FAA handle this now. I'll keep educating the community though as long as you keep posting your replies, its a system that seems to work.

While I'm waiting for the FAA to do it's job though, I'll be heading to Australia for three weeks to address drop zone owners like I did here in the US in February. Guess what the topic is? Tandem Operation Safety Protocols. Why would they fly me half way around the world to lecture if I didn't have something valid to say?

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...p/offices/aas/

.... located at the FAA headquarters in Washington DC.

Skydive Laconia
 

Thank you!

It's a sub division of Airports Division.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

I thought I heard on WASR today that the FAA rejected it. Am I wrong?

Skydive Laconia
 

You are correct that our second landing area proposal was rejected. I apologize if my last post on the report itself wasn't clearer on that. The ADO rejected our proposal and that is the report I presume WASR was referencing.

Bear in mind, as I have said before, the ADO, while under the umbrella of the FAA does not constitute a unified FAA rejection. Flight Standards is ultimately the branch of the FAA that will rule on this. We're just patiently waiting.

There is an article on the rejection/report here:

What's kind of humorous to people in our industry is the quote from Michel Hovan stating that because there is no tower, and pilots are required to apply 'See and avoid" procedures, that its too much to ask to be able to "See and Avoid" skydivers. It is completely contradictory to every operational precedent that Flight Standards provides for. Like I said, kind of funny when one branch of the FAA sets out to completely contradict another branch.

Anyways, the report is no surprise.

Neither is the fact that the Citizen and WASR got a copy of it the same day we did......... The LAA, who never wants to send us anything in a timely manner apparently mass blasted this report to as many people and news outlets that they could find.........lol

I'd suggest they were probably doing cart wheels when they got it.......lol.

So, this round is over.

Next one is just beginning. The "Laconia Situation" as it is being referred to by the FAA is building steam in Washington.

It's going to get pretty interesting in the next few months, that's for sure.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Yea, that's what they said before women could vote and blacks had 'separate but equal' facilities.

The history of this country is based on people who had the courage and conviction to fight resistance and oppression.

Sorry, but your comment strikes a nerve with me and makes you sound rather weak.

Skydive Laconia
 

You know honestly, we take everyone's comments here to heart and try to empathize with those that don't understand our position, but I agree with you brk-int, we don't understand this statement either.

From the beginning we have been open and forthcoming with every possible regulation and operating procedure that the FAA has set forth. I really can't think of how we could have gone about this any more passively other than just to walk away.

To understand the history of that statement though, you need to go back to the mid 1990s. At that time another operator approached the LAA for the same purpose, to open a dropzone at Laconia. They were met with the same resistance and were told the LAA voted "no", without doing any of the due diligence mandated by the FAA. It was a different time then, the internet and forums such as this were in their infancy, so the operators lacked the resources that we have today, and they walked away from the process. Consider even this thread if you will. We didn't start it. Someone else did, with a clear intent to try and alarm the community. Don't believe me? Anyone that has ever heard the phrase "A picture says a thousand words" only needs to scroll back to the first post of this thread to understand my point.

That set a precedent at the LAA I guess and when we first approached them, they treated us in the same manner.

For example, if you search the Citizen archives, you will see that the day we showed up to address the LAA in December 2008, the then Mayor of Laconia is quoted in the Citizen as saying the LAA already met and voted against our proposal. Before they ever even heard it and more importantly, before they ever contacted the FAA to do a safety study.

So its fair to say that since day one, the LAA has treated our proposal with complete disregard for proper procedure. They didn't want us there and attempted to stone wall us.

Then, instead of contacting the FAA in a timely manner as they were mandated to do, they created a Safety Committe, comprised of members of the LAA that had no background in aviation safety analysis. When we asked them to provide the aviation safety background of the Safety Committe, they stone walked us and said they were not legally obligated to provide us that information.

The "Safety Committee" stunt (for lack of a better term) bought the LAA about six months of reprieve, and when we didn't go away, they were finally forced to concede that they could not formulate a valid opinion and went to the ADO. They then submitted a "New Construction" evaluation form that had nothing to do with our proposal which further impeded the progress of this process and led to the current FAA debacle that is being sorted out in Washington as we speak.

Here's the thing, whether we are a good fit or not is a secondary issue. The primary issue is that the process that should have led to a final outcome shouldn't have taken more than six months. That it is now going on three years is a testament to the big government bureaucracy that exists today at the LAA.

The simple truth is that we were never, from day one, afforded due process. It has been a cat and mouse game of delay tactics designed to break our will. That is not the American Way and that is not what a federally funded airport should be doing.

Yes or no, skydiving or no skydiving, this process should have been handled quickly and efficiently. Obviously it hasn't. This should have been over either way in May of 2009. If the LAA had done their job, it would have been and we would either be operating or would have been told by Flight Standards that the airport is not appropriate for our purpose.

It really is that simple.

So, we were forced, yes forced, to pursue this just path, and we have. And we will continue to do so. If that is perceived by a small group of people that have ties to the FBOs and Bill as "distasteful", then so be it. We can't please everyone and we are confident that those of you that approach this process and situation with an open mind, will see that we are simply following a reactionary path.

My proof?

That email I just mentioned? Where the LAA manager sent out a "call to action" a week prior to the first meeting, but withheld that the airport already had all of our supporting data?

I have had that for over two years. Never published the fact that I had that email. Never intended to. It wasn't until the LAA quoted me out of context in their report to the FAA where they cited on this board that I said "a skydiver/aircraft" collision is simply not a realist concern, trying to paint me as someone who isn't safety oriented, that I finally published that email knowledge. My quote stands in context, that based on all the available data, you, the community of Laconia are about 100000 times more likely to have an aircraft to aircraft collision over your house than a skydiver/aircraft collision. The facts are out there, and they are indisputable.

That's when the dynamic of this process changed, thats when I decided to publish the existence of that email. And I have more. It seems the concerned citizens of the community really are interested in truth, justice and the American Way. Otherwise they wouldn't forward me these emails.

So Jonas Pilot, I'm sorry you feel we are being distasteful, but as the numerous supportive emails we continue to receive from the public continue to show, you are in a vast vast minor opinion on that one.

Blue skies to all and to all a good night,
Tom