[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

I wanted to post an update as it's been a few weeks since the last meeting.

Basically, the local FSDO went out to the airport and was told that they have a concern about landing parachutes affecting the IFR glideslope and a concern about parachutists crossing the taxiway after landing.

Neither issue is problem, as is evidenced by most of the other 270 airports in the country that have IFR glideslopes and parachutists crossing taxiways, none the less, the due diligence required by the FSDO is to bring in specialists to evaluate the concerns.

Mary and I are not concerned at all. Skydiving only occurs in VFR conditions, so we will never be dropping jumpers in IFR conditions, so to say that we could disrupt the glideslope operation during IFR conditions isn't grounded in reality. It could be argued (is being argued?) that our presence in VFR conditions could affect the IFR glideslope for pilots practicing IFR approaches in VFR conditions. To that all I can say is that in my 11 years, 3000 skydives, 15 countries skydiving in, I have never once heard of a landing parachute affecting an IFR glideslope array. But if there is even a remote chance of that being possible (and being factually proved to even be possible), I'm all ears, I would love to read the facts and findings on such an event actually occuring. Needless to say though, given the fact that someone practicing IFR landings in VFR conditions is in a plane with the necessary avionics to fly IFR, the same plane will most certainly be equipped with a radio tuned to the local frequency, and it would be in the spirit of "sharing the sky" that the FAA embraces, for both the jump pilot and practicing IFR pilot to communicate with each other prior to dropping skydivers and prior to making IFR practice approaches. It's a simple plan that works around the country, around the world really.

But in the end, if by some remote chance the LAA decides that we can interupt the glideslope in VFR conditions and prevent pilots from practicing IFR approaches in VFR conditions, and use that as a reason to deny us access to landing on the airport, they will be giving a "right of way" to one legal aeronautical activity over another, and that will be a sure fire discrimination victory for us, so either way, Mary and I are not very concerned about it.

The other issue, crossing active taxiways, is really a no brainer. I would love to see anyone actually argue (the easy part) and show evidence (the hard part) that parachutists pose any safety concern in crossing taxiways. If, as I have seen, parachutists can safely cross the taxiway with a Citation X on it and a Blue Angels F-18 taxiing by at a busier municipal airport in Florida, without any incident, along with all the other federally funded municipal airports in the US that can safely accomidate crossing active taxiways, I would be geniunely surprised if any factual information could be produced at all to show that LCI cannot safely accomidate crossing the active taxiway.

Anyways, that's the status of things.

We aren't worried about either issue, at worst, they are simply yet another delay.

Although, I do find it kind of odd that it took close to sixteen months for these "safety concerns" to finally be brought to the FAA........

Oh well, they are on the table now and being dealt with.

I'm skydiving in New Zealand at the moment avoiding the snow and working with one of the busiest dropzones in the world. They average 15,000 tandem skydives a year (that's 45,000 people a year in the sky, 2 per tandem plus videographer). They employ 65 people (all locals) and are thoroughly embraced by the community. And even the commecial pilots flying through our patterns in Boeing 737s work with the jump pilots to ensure the airspace is available to everyone. No incidents, everyone working together.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight.