Skydive Laconia?

[TheNoonans]

Well, nobody said this before, and this is a new of piece of info to me. This information seriously changes the dynamics of my thought processes in comparing Laconia to Plymouth! So's, the plane lands on the runway, and the skydivers land on the grass field or somewhere soft, that's close to the runway. Somebody should have made this important point more clear to everybody, at an earlier time in this thread. Thanks very much!

C'mon Less, ya gotta stay up on these things.....lol Mr. Hemmel made sure everyone on this thread knew all of the grassy areas we wanted to land in before we even had a chance to share them with you when he posted our landing area proposals here on this thread.

But I am REALLY REALLY glad you brought this back up, because it brings up a good point. Despite providing the LAA with a business plan proposal and posting our intents here on the board, most of those minority opposers, have no idea what it is we intend to do when we open at Laconia.

Our intent is to open a tandem skydiving operation to provide tandem skydiving over the lake. Our instructors and aerial videographers will all be professional skydivers with expert skydiving licenses. That will be 99% of our business at Laconia.

Will we welcome sport jumpers? Of course, but we don't expect it to be a regular thing, at least in the first few years of operation. Another thing to consider is this, is a Monday afternoon as busy as a friday or saturday? Not usually on the airport. So if Monday's are slow there, we may choose Mondays to do "sport mondays" to give sport jumpers a chance to enjoy the view without interfering with a busy saturday.

We mentioned this to the LAA and they know we are not planning on training students on weekends, if at all in the first few years. We made that abundantly clear. The problem is, they want to regulate that too, and guess what, they can't. Why? They're not experts. We are. No one knows what conditions are better for tandem, versus sport or sport versus student, than Mary and I up there. We refuse to budge because they have no legal right or safety background to be restricting our business.

Safety is our first priority. With our global safety experience background, we, not the LAA, are in the best position to make safety based decisions on how we choose to run our business. For them to suggest anything to the contrary is not based on any practical knowledge or experience.

So Less, what does that mean to you and I? I agree with you. How 'bout that? I agree that Plymouth would be a great place to train students and I tell you what, I'm even willing to put a Cessna 182 up there to do just that for you.

I even told the LAA that for all intensive purposes, that tandem skydiving in Laconia was our primary objective and that student jumping was going to be non existent at first and minimally existent at best on slow days, once we got things going.

So, call your pals in Plymouth and give them my contact info, and I'll be up there with a plane in no time for you, I promise.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[NoBozo]

I wonder if Less is really a deprived "Closet Skydiver"..... NB

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

So Less, what does that mean to you and I? I agree with you. How 'bout that? I agree that Plymouth would be a great place to train students and I tell you what, I'm even willing to put a Cessna 182 up there to do just that for you.

I even told the LAA that for all intensive purposes, that tandem skydiving in Laconia was our primary objective and that student jumping was going to be non existent at first and minimally existent at best on slow days, once we got things going.

So, call your pals in Plymouth and give them my contact info, and I'll be up there with a plane in no time for you, I promise.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

SO does that mean you will use me as a tandom test subject, I know I can get you a couple volunteers

[TheNoonans]

Update:

The directors level of the FAA continues to work with me and they continue to proactively contact me every few days with new questions and items. The free flow dissemination of facts and evidence has been nothing short of exceptional.

We are in the home stretch on this one. Trust me. Not only vindication from our perspective, that the Laconia Municipal Airport can sustain a skydiving operation and that the LAA, who have no background in aviation safety assessments, despite their "priority or responsibilities"......., will find out all too soon what can and cannot be accommodated on the government's federally funded airport.

If you have a trike, a glider, a power paraglider, or any other aeronautical vehicle that you want to fly into or out of Laconia, you are about to be given a legal and fair opportunity to present your case to the FAA, not the LAA, regarding what can and cannot be safely accommodated.

After all, the FAA, not the LAA, are the experts when it comes to safety.

Now, one more item to mention. I have posted a few times in this thread before that the actions of the LAA have put the NHDOT Department of Aeronautics in a difficult situation, a situation that could very well result in the removal of the state's "block grant" status regarding federal funding.

Well, I brought that point up to the FAA, that the LAA was shown multiple times to be discriminating against us, and that those discriminations were brought to the NHDOT Dep of Aeronautics and nothing was done. We believed (correctly so it would seem) that the NHDOT Dep of Aero, was responsible for ensuring LAA compliance with the federal funding grant assurances, as after all, they were the ones doling out all that money to the airport. And guess what? I was pretty much spot on in my assumption.

Here is where it gets interesting. The NHDOT Dep. of Aero, has continued to fund an airport that was clearly shown to have violated it's federal funding grant assurances. The airport broke the agreement they entered into and then the NHDOT Dep. of Aero continued to fund them anyways.

In this day and age of budget responsibility, do you think when I brought that irony up to the FAA that it fell on deaf ears? I didn't think it would either.....

So now because I was able to document to the FAA that the LAA discriminated against us and that the NHDOT Dep. of Aero was informed about it and did nothing to bring them back into compliance, the "block grant" status of the NHDOT Dep. of Aerro is being investigated by the FAA.

What does that mean to airports across the state that want funding? Nothing really. If the "block grant" status is removed, airports across the state can still request the same level of funding and receive the same level of funding. The only difference is they will request the funds directly from the FAA, like 43 other states currently do and the only change in policy will be that the FAA will ensure the airport's compliance with their funding grant assurances before doling out the money.

So it's a win/win really. I offer you that explanation in case anyone from the other side tries to distort the facts. My version is fact based.

With that, our next step is of course Congress. We want to make sure the people representing us in Congress are fully briefed on what is going on. The meeting is already scheduled for later this week.

I'll be sure to post the results of the meeting next week to keep you in the loop.

As always, we remain an open book of facts and actions.

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

[TheNoonans]

I just sent the below email to both the City Council of Laconia and Gilford Selectmen:

Good afternoon to all,

My name is Tom Noonan and my wife and I have spent the last three and half years requesting to operate a commercial skydiving operation at the Laconia Municipal Airport. To date, our proposal still remains unsupported by the Laconia Airport Authority, and I just wanted to check in with you all to give you a perspective of what will be occurring within the FAA in the near future and the impact it will have our proposal process.

As a background, there have been two "FAA" reports issued by regional FAA agent Michel Hovan of Airports Division, Massachusetts. As I have stated publicly, those reports were erroneous, and created without any guidance or oversight from the FAA in Washington, D.C. Since those reports were issued, I have been in contact with virtually every level of the FAA, including it's chief administrator, Randy Babbitt. I was able to provide Mr. Babbitt's department heads, the director level of the FAA, with verifiable facts and evidence to support that:

1) The LAA discriminated against Skydive Laconia on many occasions in direct violation of their federal funding grant assurances.
2) The NHDOT Department of Aeronautics failed to act to bring the LAA back into compliance.
and
3) Both of the reports issued by the local FAA are completely erroneous.

To validate the seriousness of position and facts, I would like you to consider the fact that at that high a level of the FAA, only factual, verifiable information can pass judgement from the FAA directors, and the fact that I am still in direct communication with them should suggest to you all the validity of the information that I have provided them.

For anyone involved in this process, it is easy to see that we were never given a fair chance by the LAA, and that it is the LAA that forced our position to bring this unjust process a national stage with both the FAA and the media.

I offer the following information for your consideration as it is my sincere belief that justice and accountability within the FAA is just around the corner:

The FAA will very shortly be finalizing a process that will clearly label the Laconia Municipal Airport as viable for a commercial skydiving operation, and equally as important, the FAA will also be enforcing the compliance of it directly and swiftly. If the LAA chooses to remain non-compliant when this process is through, they will forfeit any future federal funding and be required to refund the last ten years of funding they received, that I am finally sure of now.

The FAA has taken the discriminatory practices of the LAA and other airport sponsors across the country that have ignored airport access assurances, very seriously. In this day and age of fiscal accountability, the FAA is about to lead a charge across the nation and put an end to airport sponsors abuse of their funding privileges.

It is also important to understand that the actions of the LAA have now jeopardized the "block grant state" status of the NHDOT. The NHDOT requested to be actively involved in the dissemination of federal funding and the FAA has allowed a handful of states to pursue this role in a test program. I have been able to clearly demonstrate to the FAA in Washington, D.C., that not only did the LAA discriminate against us multiple times during this process, but that when we then informed the NHDOT about the discriminations, they ignored the facts and allowed to airport to continue to receive federal funding. It is with those facts and statements as the foundation for my request, that I asked the FAA to revoke the "block grant' status of the NHDOT and that request is currently under consideration in Washington, D.C.

It is our expectation that by the end of the year, this process will have finally reached it's just conclusion and the FAA will return a verdict that states that Skydive Laconia may be granted access to land our parachutes on the property of the airport, as we contended could be done in July of 2008. We also expect the LAA and the NHDOT to honor that verdict and work with us, not against us, in living up to the federal funding grant assurances that they agreed to.

I am writing to both the City Council of Laconia and the Gilford Selectmen today to renew an offer to meet with you all to help you better understand what impact our business will have on the area, both operationally and financially. My last request to meet with you all and to explain our proposal fell on deaf ears. I can only hope that your willingness to view our proposal with an open mind has increased since my last email and that you consider allowing my wife and I to educate you all on the process that we have been forced to endure, the just outcome that is soon to arrive, and what that means to both communities in terms of new jobs and economic stimulus into the area.

This is your chance to show the community your renewed commitment to economic growth and a just conclusion to the unjust process created by the LAA three and a half years ago.

If you would like to arrange a meeting, please let me know.

Best regards,

Tom Noonan
Skydive Laconia

Now they ignored my request last time, as Mr. Hemmel said because "why should they waste their time......". Well, change is coming, and I have thus informed both groups again, and have again offered to present to them both the facts of the proposal and explain how we can benefit the communities.

So, what do you think? Do you think the City Council and Selectmen should meet with us?

Let them know your thoughts. Email them directly and tell them yes or no if you want them to meet with us.

Now if you email them and tell them "No! Don't listen to reason and facts!", please feel free to post here as to why you don't believe that the leaders of both communities shouldn't take every opportunity to educate themselves on a potential new business that will bring new jobs, extend the tourist season, and more money into the economy. I know one person in that vocal minority thinks it's "disrespectful" of us to pursue justice and fair treatment....but that aside, is there any reason at all for a civic leader not to listen and educate themselves? If anyone can provide a sound valid argument devoid of emotional response, I will be impressed. After all listening costs nothing.

Gilford: [email protected]

Laconia: [email protected]

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Jonas Pilot]

It seems you don't care who you inconvenience. I can't help but think that there are more important things that these people should be dealing with.

[robmac]

I for one feel my tax dollars when spent should be for the benefit of all. That said if grant money is given and the rules of the grant are not followed then all monies should be returned to the general fund.To be in the publics trust and not follow the letter of the law is criminal plain and simple.To not give someone equal oportunity to lawfully utilize an entity which gets funds from taxpayers without a fair hearing which is in part why you get those funds is again illegal.How many other people attempting to start a business have been thwarted due to this practice? If you don't want to allow anyone to be able use the facility then return the funding and operate without them,charge those who do use it enough to continue to do so. JMHO

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

It seems you don't care who you inconvenience.

Often times doing the right thing is inconvenient, but that doesn't mean that the right thing shouldn't be done.

I can't help but think that there are more important things that these people should be dealing with.

I don't think that what he's doing is based on your set of priorities.

[Jonas Pilot]

At what cost should a private entity get it's way?

[RLW]

In any legal ways

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

At what cost should a private entity get it's way?

The government exists to serve its citizens. He has every right to petition for redress of grievances. I really don't see cost as being a significant factor here.

[Jonas Pilot]

The government exists to serve the majority, not the minority.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

The government exists to serve the majority, mot the minority.

OUR government is here to serve all the People according to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Too bad some people in the government have forgotten this.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

The government exists to serve the majority, mot the minority.

No. Our government exists to serve ALL citizens. In fact, one of the most important functions of government is to protect the rights of those in the minority.

[Jonas Pilot]

You would probably feel differently if it was you and your quality of life that was being forced upon.

[robmac]

No I wouldn't,for the people and by the people. Equal for all is the key. Not a few chosing for themselves above what is right and what is law.

[SteveA]

Debates like this is exactly the way our government was formed. Without being overly dramatic, it is clear that the Noonans have every right to petition the government, Local, State or Federal. They also have the right to attempt to change the mind of elected officials that turn down ANY request they make.

They don't sacrifice that right just because the officials may have other other issues they would rather address.

1st Amendment to the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Agree or Disagree... they clearly have the RIGHT to do what they are doing. (Thank you James Madison)

[Jonas Pilot]

And too bad for everybody they effect.

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

And too bad for everybody they effect.

Just curious, who are the "everybody" that are being effected? Really, I'm not being trying to be provocative, just don't understand your point.
I would defend the "everybodies" just as hard as I defend the Noonans. Just can't figure out who the everybody's are.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

And too bad for everybody they effect.

Maybe the people they "effect" shouldn't have lobbied for federal funding. Why don't those people give the money back and fund it themselves? What makes you or any of them think they have a right to deny the Noonans?

JP, give me a lawful, legitimate reason why they SHOULDN'T be allowed into LAA. Clearly, safety is not a legitimate reason as stated above.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

You would probably feel differently if it was you and your quality of life that was being forced upon.

Do you mean that I might not like it if I had a nice thing going for myself and my buddies at a public facilty that receives federal funding, and an outsider wanted to come in and do something that might mean that we would have to change some things? Sometimes it's hard, but I try not to be judgmental and narrow-minded.

How is "your quality of life being forced upon"?

[EllyPoinster]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

You would probably feel differently if it was you and your quality of life that was being forced upon.

So the addition of a skydiving operation at the Laconia Airport is going to ruin your quality of life and that of the "majority" you include yourself with? You want to explain that?

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

You would probably feel differently if it was you and your quality of life that was being forced upon.

Its scary but it appears that this is the kind of thinking and reasoning that the Noonans have been dealing with. And they run an airport? Wow! I'm trying to get my mind around how somebody's quality of life is being forced upon. Maybe there is a religion out there that believes people dropping out of the sky is evil. Ya, thats it. Those skydivers must be the devil!

[Pineedles]

I think the angels are from above and the devil is in the ground. Maybe those demons underground are afraid of having to hear the constant thudding of those angels as they land.

[AC2717]

if you want to go that route, how bout the sea plane that started up last year and takes off and lands with a bunch of boats and jetskis zipping around.

Fear is not a reason for denying things, facts are, in like my struggles with the night club across the street, the facts which have been back up (I cannot get in to it further) have been backed up

[Newbiesaukee]

I have read every word in this very long thread. I know nothing about skydiving and this specific issue has little effect on my life but I enjoy seeing different points of view and how they are discussed.

However, it amazes me that anyone could object to the Noonans' presenting their case in an upfront and transparent manner. IMO this is exactly how our government should function. My perception is that it frequently functions with back room decisions based on money and influence.

Is it sometimes true that the " squeaky wheel gets the grease?" Of course, but is not petitioning for a redress of wrongs one of the fundamental rights we share?

I can only applaud the Noonans' approach.

[TheNoonans]

However, it amazes me that anyone could object to the Noonans' presenting their case in an upfront and transparent manner.

For all the free thinkers out there like you that want facts and transparent education, there is still a small handful of people up there that are absolutely opposed to our dissemination of factual information. Unfortunately many of them hold elected positions, so they control the process.

These are the people that denied our repeated offers to do a demonstration skydive into the airport to show the LAA and the local town officials how effectively we could integrate into the daily ops of the airport.

These are the same people that refused to accept our offer to meet with the City Council of Laconia and Gilford Selectmen earlier this year.

Why, you ask?

They know that in both scenarios we will prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that we can integrate efficiently into the airport.

And TRUST ME, they do not want YOU the public to know that. They have made every effort to keep you the community, the primary stakeholders in this process, in the dark to as great an extent as possible.

And why is that? They believe that the less you know, and the less facts that are made public, the easier it will be for them to create an uneducated hysteria.

Mr proof?

To date, no one, literally no one on their side has been able to produce any insurance policy to suggest jet insurers won't allow jets on the airport if we are operating. Yet, Selectman Hayes wants you to believe that. He put it in the paper to scare you.

Remember our first meeting with the LAA in 2008 where the local pilots all showed up riled up? A month prior we submitted a VOLUME of data to the airport manager, but when she sent out her email only a week prior to the meeting telling the locals that outsiders were coming up with an entourage to request to open a skydiving operation, she OMITTED that she had an enormous amount of factual information for them to study beforehand.

And that's the airport's definition of "transparent".

If those in power give us a venue to provide indisputable facts to you, the community that the airport is bound to serve, they would no longer be able to play on your fears and lack of knowledge, and that is their last option at this point. They have no other reason to prevent us from spreading the truth and educating them.

The good news though, is that thanks to Mr. Hemmel, we have this wonderful venue of free speech here on www.winnipesaukee.com and we have forwarded the link to this forum around the country and to pretty much every agent of the FAA we have worked with.

Our cause, and more importantly the unfair treatment we have received, has been forever recorded here on the forum for the world to see. So while your local civic leaders may continue to ignore our request to educate, in their hopes of keeping you in the dark, thanks to Mr. Hemmel, we have a spotlight set on the truth and facts in this process so the community can receive the facts and evidence you are rightly deserving of.

As we now approach 42,000 views, it is safe to say, your getting the facts. And that is the best thing we could ever have hoped for.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Woodsy]

OMG... the horror of Skydivers!!! I read the horror storys all the time in the paper.... jet collides with skydiver midair! Yup read that just last week! NOT!

It truly amazes me how some people react to change... New businesses should be encouraged not discouraged. Welcome the Noonans... help them and encourage them! Let the free market decide if they succeed. Not for nothing but skydiving has been around a looong time, and the safety record is pretty darn good.

Woodsy

[NoRegrets]

People in power (politicians and appointed officials) are surrounded by like individuals. They enjoy a smug environment or culture that has morphed away from serving. They use headline statements and repeat that one statement over and over until a casual listener starts to believe it is fact.

This thread is excellent as it is filled with opinion and banter. People research facts to support positions and then re-post. The politicians cannot go any deeper than their headline statements. If they cannot convince Joe Public they are right they hide and hope the situation just goes away. To get satisfaction one must go to the Judicial system if you have funds to proceed.

This "fight" has been a great lesson on the power of communication and the internet. Thanks for the civic lessons, Skydive process, and Winnipesaukee Forum for allowing this regional issue to live on publicly. Even those that posted opposing the business have the right and have offered value to the opinion tree.

I am thankful for Tom and Mary Noonan, the video's (Nepal - WOW) they shared, and look forward to the day we can see open parachutes from the lake.

[TheNoonans]

I was going over the original posts of this thread and have a question for TRFOUR, from a post a long, long time ago:

Tell me something Bill, how many folks on the board at the time of your licensing, were there that were of the opinion that a pilot and photographer could not possibly fly over Lake Winnipesaukee at a safe altitude of less than 125000 feet?

Terry, was that a Laconia Airport Authority board meeting you reference, or a town board? And did they attempt to influence the altitude that Mr. Hemmel flew as a condition of granting his permission to use the airport?

The reason I ask is this: If it was the LAA, their "jurisdiction" ends the moment the wheels leave the ground. If the LAA attempted to prevent Mr. Hemmel from flying his aircraft below 12,500ft while snapping photos, guess what? They discriminated against him and his business.

The LAA cannot influence an aeronautical business operation as to what occurs above the airport in the sky regarding safety. It's really that simple. Once your off the ground you belong to the FAA and the FARs, not the LAA and the airport manager.

Why is that? Again, because no one on the LAA have any background in aviation safety analysis.

I'll give you another example: Let's say a direct neighbor of the airport got fed up with all of the shenanigans of the LAA and this process and called me and said "Tom, land here on my property next door". The very following day, we could file a NOTAM, and legally fly our skydiving aircraft directly over the top of the airport and exit the plane. We could open our parachutes and fly over the airport property (where it is the safest place to fly) and then land next door at the neighbors property. The LAA would be powerless to do anything. They don't own the sky and they certainly don't own the property beyond their property lines.

My point is this: Not that we want to do that at all, because we don't, but that the LAA's reign ends at their property line and as soon as the aircraft is off the ground.

I really wish I was around for that debate Terry. When was it? I would assume it would have been placed in the meeting minutes. I would love to forward that info to the FAA in Washington, D.C.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Steveo]

I know I have asked this before but I really need to understand the reason the LAA crowd doesn't want skydiving. Forget about any benefit (or harm) to the community, what is it that they can't take personally with this business. I believe everything comes down to money. Do they believe this will effect their revenues (people have limited funds so the ones that skydive would have flown with them instead) Do they believe it will increase their expenses (higher insurance premiums, hanger and storage rental fees increase). Are they worried they will hit a skydiver and be sued or killed.

For the life of me I can't figure out what their stance is. All I can see is this will increase revenues to all businesses at Laconia airport. More (new) people will come and some of those will want to take a photo or foliage flight. More gas will be sold. More hangar and rental space will be used. Tom has already proven that insurance premiums will not change.

Please help me understand the driving force behind their stubbornness, I just don't get it, there is no logic to it.