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