View Single Post
Old 01-29-2010, 08:02 PM   #187
idigtractors
Senior Member
 
idigtractors's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 248
Thanks: 6
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguy View Post
In spite of the smoke & mirrors PR blitz by the Noonans (accompanied by thinly veiled threats concerning funding) wiser heads have prevailed.


From the Jan 29 Laconia Citizen:

"Tracey McInnis of the FAA's Burlington, Mass. office wrote that her agency had determined that "this proposed landing area would adversely affect the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft and the safety of persons and property on the ground.

"FAA must protect for the potential corruption of the glideslope, the Runway Safety Areas (RSA), as well as preclude the possibility of debris being inadvertently dropped on the operating surfaces. The potential for these occurrences are the basis for the objection to the parachute landing areas."

In summary, McInnis wrote, "to have a designated landing area located within an area where aircraft are taxiing, running up and departing/arriving increases the exposure to risk. Given the information provided thus far, it would appear that the proposed skydiving operations would, at best, be a difficult fit into the operations at the Laconia Airport."

"Pedestrian traffic on active taxiways and runways has (also) been considered to be a safety risk."


The solution is simple. Land off airport, and be welcomed.
I for one hope that the Noonan's try and get this decision reversed in some way and that the above will have to eat his words from the past and present comments. Just my 2¢.
idigtractors is offline   Reply With Quote