Skydive Laconia?

[tkhayes]

I sent this today to the AA and the City Council of Laconia.

My perspective on the reality of skydiving operations at busy airports.

TK Hayes
Zephyrhills, FL
------------------------------------------------------------------------



July 23, 2009

Laconia Airport Authority

Ladies and Gentlemen;

My name is David 'TK' Hayes, and I manage one of the largest skydiving operations in the country, if not the world, here in Zephyrhills, Florida. *We operate several DeHavilland Twin Otters throughout the year and perform some 70,000-75,000 skydives and more than 3500 aircraft takeoffs and landings each year.

We operate EXACTLY 25nm from Tampa International airport, and 46nm from Orlando International Airport in some of the busiest airspace in the Southeast USA. *Zephyrhills airport is used by Skydivers, Glider pilots, recreational pilots a flight school, hosts the traffic for several maintenance facilities.

I would like to respond to the issues that you seems to be faced with a possible skydiving operation at your airport. *I would also like to assure you that what you are going through sounds like pretty normal feelings regarding skydiving operations all across the country.

1. Fear of the ‘unknown’
2. Danger of collisions with skydivers
3. Skydiving and the economy

Fear of the unknown.

A lot of the issues come from fear and mostly fear of the unknown. *I first and foremost encourage you all to take a trip to an airport where a regular, busy skydiving operation exists and see for yourselves how skydiving and (any) other operations co-exist on the same airport/property. *There are many dropzones that co-exist in the USA with other operations. *

Most of the general population does not understand what we do. *If you spent an afternoon at a skydiving center, you would see the types of things we do, the attention to detail, the safety standards and the types of activities that we participate in. *Basically, we are a pretty normal bunch of people trying to make a living by offering an aviation service that few other people offer.

We follow the same Federal Aviation Regulations as everyone else, and go beyond that as members of the United States Parachute Association, who offers our training and licensing standards to our sport.

Danger of collision with skydivers.

A typical flight school may only operate 5-15 flights a day. *Many of those flights do not stay in the pattern of the airport. *Each flight might spend 10-20 minutes in the traffic pattern. *That is a total amount of time of only an hour or two in the sky at the airport out of a 10-12 hour day of possible flight activity. *That is a lot of down time when NOTHING is going on at the airport.

A fairly busy skydiving operation with a Cessna 182 or even a Caravan might do 20 flights in a day. *Each operation takes 30 minutes to climb to altitude, perhaps a 5 minute window when skydivers are actually in the air and then it is over and everyone is on the ground.

Certainly while the skydivers are in the airplane and the airplane is flying a 'normal' climbing pattern around the airport, with a pilot who is communicating with the other traffic in the area and even perhaps the nearest ATC center, I would state that 'danger' is non-existent.

Even if the skydivers jump and take 8 minutes from drop to actually being on the ground, in a day with 20 loads, that would be a total of 160 minutes, 2 1/2 hours of total of possible exposure time with skydivers in the air.

What I am trying to say is that even with a busy skydiving center, at any given time during a long day, when you look upward, there is NOTHING going on. *Short bursts of activity followed by relatively long waits between loads.

As well, Skydivers generally jump OVER an airport. *Traffic arriving and leaving an airport is generally flying in or out at a very shallow angle over a long flight path. *A skydiver at 1000' directly over the airport does not pose ANY hazard to an airplane that is on a 2 mile final approach at 1000'.

Skydiving pilots are more than used to being vigilant about radio communications when they operate. *They announce their intentions prior to launch, during the climb, prior to jumprun, after jumpers away and descending and jumpers on the ground. *If some airplane is in the area and NOT talking on a radio - well shame on them. *I realize that the regulations allow this, but it is simply not smart.

The chance the an errant pilot should wander into an airspace is not justification for stopping activities that are law-abiding and following the rules. No more than we would stop driving cars just because we fear someone might speed or otherwise pose a danger to other traffic.

Our typical series of communications at Skydive City in Zephyrhills - from the time we pick up a load until we are back on the ground - goes like this
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills Traffic, Twin Otter taxing for runway 36 for skydiving ops, Zephyrhills"
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills traffic, Twin Otter departing runway 36, climbing out to the north"
in less than 2 minutes we are at 2000' and we call Tampa ATC, but we still monitor Unicom all the way to altitude
135.50 Tampa Approach - "Tampa, Freefall One is back up, climbing through 2000' for 13500', 3 miles north of Zephyrhills"
Tampa *- "Freefall One, radar contact 3 miles north of Zephyrhills, advise 2 minutes prior to jump"
We receive traffic advisories from them all the way to altitude, as well, we advise them of traffic we see. Some 10-12 minutes later at 11500';
135.50 Tampa - "Tampa Freefall One is two minutes to drop"
then we advise on Unicom
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills traffic, skydiving over Zephyrhills airport in 2 minutes from 13500' and below over the Southeast corner of the field, Skydiving in 2 minutes over Zephyrhills"
in 2 minutes we drop all the skydivers unless we have traffic, in which we may hold and go around as needed.
135.50 Tampa - "Tampa, Freefall One is jumpers away and descending to the east"
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills traffic, jumpers away SE of the field, Twin Otter descending to the east of the field"
As we pass through 5000' on the way down, Tampa releases us
Tampa - "Freefall One, radar service terminated, change to advisory frequency is approved, see you soon"
at 2000' ( less than*5 minutes after drop) we are entering our 'opposite' pattern at Zephyrhills Airport
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills traffic, Twin Otter on high left midfield for runway 18, Zephyrhills"
and again
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills traffic, Twin Otter on short final for runway 18, Zephyrhills"

Once we are on the ground we also notify Unicom when we are clear the runway 18/36.

Why is this important? *On a busy day during one of our larger events, say at Christmas time, I will have 3-4 Twin Otters flying and we will repeat that same routine up to 70 times in a day. *Each load will have up to 22 skydivers on board. *There is an airplane dropping skydivers every 8-10 minutes from 8am to 6pm.

And we have a glider club actively operating on the same runway, departing in between our loads and landing gliders right through our our parachute landing area. Again, for the majority of time, there is NOTHING in the air, even on a busy day.

Now if we can do this successfully at Zephyrhills airport for the past 4 decades, surely you can manage 20 loads a day of 4-14 skydivers on each load.

I have been jumping since 1981 and I have only heard of a handful (less than 3 or 4) skydiver/airplane collisions EVER in the sport of skydiving. *But aircraft collide about 30 times each year in the USA. *I would argue that the*danger of a collision lies not with the skydivers. And banning the skydivers will not and has not reduced or removed the risk of any other aircraft collision.

Bottom line, is that the risk is there, like any other risk - but it is so minimal, it is barely measurable in reality.




Skydiving and the Economy

A skydiving operation attracts a different kind of person to the location where the skydiving is taking place.

Take the example again of a flight school at an airport. The flight student may be local or may not be. They will come, perhaps 5-6 students in a day. They stay for a couple of hours or half a day and they go home. They might buy a meal. They might buy gas. But they are not in your town for the ‘long haul’

Skydivers will travel to a dropzone to jump for a weekend or more. Those people will stay in hotels, they will eat three squares a day in your restaurants, they will buy gas and they will stay from Friday night to Sunday night in your town because they want to skydive and that is the recreational activity that they have chosen.

The average first jump student coming to do a tandem jump will be at the dropzone for half a day. They have travelled perhaps two hours to get there. They will buy food and gas and spend money in your town. Students who come to learn how to skydive are like the regular skydiver population, they will be there for extended periods of time to finish their training and jump as much as they can.

A dropzone will hire pilots, packers, instructors and office staff to manage the dropzone. Those people pay income taxes and local taxes as well. The have to eat and they have to have a roof over their heads.

In 1998, the City of Zephyrhills did an impact study on skydiving in their community and realized a $10,000,000/year industry contributing to the community.

We are such an integral part of the community that the City includes a parachute on their logo.

Even the FAA recognizes skydiving and parachuting activities as part of ‘normal activities’ at an airport

So How Do We Make All This Work?

Meet with the skydiving operations and the flight schools and anyone else that flies out of the airport.

Develop working procedures as far as traffic patterns, communications and runway usage for everyone concerned. It is fairly easy to separate the ‘traffic’ on the airport, both with distance and time. Do not be afraid of stepping outside of the ‘norm’, especially when it comes to traffic patterns.

At Zephyrhills, we fly a completely opposite pattern to all other traffic, and it is published and charted. The FAA did not request that. We, as tenants of the airport, sorted that out with each other and told the FAA that this was what we worked out. It’s been working for decades.

File NOTAMs for the activities that are going on. Petition the FAA to update their charts and ‘Green Books’ to show the activities for anyone flying into the area.
Establish communication protocols that keep all the pilots informed of what is going on and when. Our radio communications (above) is a good example of what works well. Announcing ‘take-off’, ‘2 minutes to drop’, ‘jumpers away’ and ‘jumpers on the ground’ makes 4 separate announcements in the span of a 15-20 minute window, on top of all other normal traffic pattern conversation.

Surely that would suffice for radio communications at ANY airport.

And finally, come out and watch some skydiving, you might get the bug to try it yourself.....

David ‘TK’ Hayes
President/GM
Skydive City Inc.
4241 Sky Dive Ln
Zephyrhills, FL 33542
813-783-9399 wk
813-598-6981 mobile

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

I just wanted to provide another update as we approach the August 2009 LAA meeting. I was informed earlier this week that our story has gone national and that the most recent article published in the Citizen was up on the AOPA website. We are obviously very happy to hear that our story is picking up national interest. Defending airport access rights is not just about skydiving, it's about defending equal and fair access to airports for all aeronautical activities.

I'm happy to say that I received this email from a pilot in Pennsylvania:

"I am a pilot at Donegal Springs airport in S. Central PA. Our airport is home to the Maytown Sport Parachute Club. I have been flying here since 1999. I am an aircraft owner & President of the York Travelers Flying Club. I also instruct student pilots here on a part-time basis.
In 10 years here, I am not aware of any difficulties regarding the parachutists and pilots or student pilots.
We all live together in harmony and co-exist peacefully."

There were also two supportive Letters To The Editor published on the Citizen website:

1) "Editor, The Citizen: I read the news story regarding the proposed skydiving operation at Laconia airport and the opposition by Ms Adams and Mr. McCulla.

As an experienced pilot with over 4000 hours of flight time, including hundreds of hours flying from an airport with an active skydiving operation, I feel qualified to comment. I have never had a close call with a skydiver; however, I have had several with other aircraft. Should I be advocating restricting other aircraft?

Expanding on Ms Adams and Mr. McCulla's logic, one could conclude that we should limit aircraft flights entirely. Or eliminate the risk by only letting one aircraft fly at a time. Perhaps we should just exclude Ms Adams and Mr. McCulla from flying.

Obviously I am being facetious and have nothing personable against these two fellow aviators. The point I am trying to make is that you shouldn't be excluding anyone from the enjoyment of flight; because you just might be next."

and

2) "Editor, The Citizen: Good reporting on the issue, without the usual anti-aviation bias. Thank you.

I am not a skydiver and don't aspire to be one either.

I am a general aviation pilot and I fly out of an airport with skydiving operations. I also regularly fly through airspace with another skydiving operation nearby. On most of my long distance flights I am aware of skydiving operation areas by their notations on aeronautical charts and through the issuance of Notices to Airmen (NOTAM).

Skydiving operations are very friendly to airport operations and they bring in much needed revenue as well. It is usually the pilots of small aircraft that create risks through their inattention to regulations regarding operating an aircraft in and around skydiving activities. Anyone who flies into or out of a skydiving airport has to remain vigilant.

The jump aircraft broadcasts on common-talk air frequencies (CTAF) which are the same frequency used by approaching and departing aircraft. They announce two minutes before jumpers are released, again as the jumpers are released and again when the jumpers are on the ground. The jump aircraft may also coordinate their communications with air traffic control agencies that manage the airspace in and around the specific airport. ATC then also broadcasts the information on the frequencies assigned to their sectors. For any aircraft using communication radios it is hard not to know that a jump is occurring at any given moment.

There still remains one other scenario and that is for aircraft without communication radios, which is perfectly legal and acceptable in most of the US airspace. The general aviation fleet is dominated by aircraft with communication radios but aircraft with no radios (NORDO) have to remain particularly vigilant when operating in a jump zone. We all share the airspace and it is up to each of us individually to apply the requisite jurisprudence to any given situation. Aircraft are no more correct in hitting a skydiver than a skydiver is in-the-right hitting an aircraft. There is no "right-of-way" rule. It is all about see and avoid procedures.

When I am approaching my home airport I monitor the Unicom frequency, well in advance of entering the pattern. If jumpers are nearing their departure from the jump aircraft I spend an extra minute or two checking out the scenery away from the airport. Once the jumpers are on the ground I then enter the pattern and make my landing. A jump, even from 12,000 feet is a fleeting event — only lasting from 2 to 5 minutes at most. I don't think it is too much to ask of pilots to spend a few more minutes doing the thing they love to do most — aviating.

Pilots, aircraft and skydivers can play nicely together. It is generally up to the pilots to not assume that they own the airspace just because they are bigger and have engines. Leave the ego at home and enjoy the airspace shared by us all."

Mary and I thank you all for your continued support.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[dninness]

Greetings all, I've read this thread with great interest over the last several months and thought perhaps it was time to comment..

I am a avid aviation enthusiast and an active skydiver who lives in New Hampshire. I am well acquainted with the Noonans, and I am also familiar with Laconia Airport, having flown in and out of there many times in general aviation aircraft.

I think most of the "safety" comments have already been covered. The chances of a plane-skydiver collision are relatively small, and if everybody is operating in a Visual Flight Rules (VFR) "see and avoid" mode like we all should be, the overall effects to the aviation community will be minimal, if not completely negligible. But its incumbent upon everybody (pilots, skydivers, jump pilots, DZ staff, etc) to be heads-up while operating. Its not like skydivers show up to an airport and think they "own" the place any more than the fliers who are based there "own" it. We all have to do our part to fly and land safely around each other. Skydivers need to be sure they understand the rules and the expectations (ie. "No flying over the runway at less than 1000 ft" or "If you land in the grass between the runway and the taxiway, and there is a plane taxiing by, stop, take a knee so the pilot knows you see him, and wait for the plane to pass".. these are just two examples I picked out of thin air, BTW, but they are illustrations of the kinds of rules and behaviors that the skydivers, too, may need to abide by) for that particular airport so that everybody can co-exist correctly. Its not terribly hard.

I think more subtle than the 900-lb gorilla of safety is the implications this kind of a business has for the local area.

In the 11 years I have lived in New Hampshire, I can count the number of times I have been to Laconia, as an actual destination for my travels, on the fingers on both hands. And that includes my trip to the airport in June to attend the Airport Authority meeting (which I, unfortunately, missed by mere minutes). So in 11 years, I've been to the Laconia area as a destination perhaps 7 or 8 times. And in those trips, I've actually spent money in the area perhaps 3 or 4 times (food, gas, went to the movies once with some friends).

Contrast that with the other places that I have made my "destination" while skydiving and have spent money in their local economy. In addition to jump tickets (paying for the ride to altitude), very often trips to a DZ entail overnight lodging, eating in restaurants, purchasing gas, snacks and other provisions nearby, and even some "sightseeing" in the local area. Some examples from my 14 years of jumping:

Richmond, IN ($2000 or more, jump tix, food & lodging); Chambersburg, PA ($350, jump tix, food); Skydive City, Zephyrhills, FL (about $3500, jump tix, food, lodging, gas, gear, t-shirts); Skydive Chicago, Ottawa, IL ($200, jump tix); Hinkley, IL ($200); Titusville, FL ($250, doesn't count the 3 days we spent in and around nearby Cocoa Beach with a shuttle launch); Marshall, MI ($200); and also the thousands of dollars I've spent over the last 11 years in and around my "home" DZ in Pepperell, MA (jump tix, food from the local eateries, trips into town for snacks or Dunkin Donuts, gas, etc.)

That's just one skydiver's example, too. If there are 10 or 12 skydivers visiting, you can easily do that kind of math.

While its true that the Noonans' business will center around tandem skydiving, mostly, the fact of the matter is that people who come out to make a tandem skydive bring friends and family with them, eat food, buy gas and may, in fact, spend time in the local area after their jumping experience is complete. Even as an experienced jumper, I would be inclined to visit the proposed "Skydive Laconia" if it were a successful, active operation due to its location in a very, very scenic part of the state and its proximity to other activities for my family. Its nice to go someplace different, see your friends, jump with other people and from different planes, etc. When the end of the jumping day comes, I'm going to be starving for some grub. Am I going to drive 30 minutes south to Concord, or get something close by?

In today's economy, something that might bring people to the Laconia / Gilford area as a "destination" where they can spend some of their hard-earned money is a benefit. Due to the expenses surrounding the sport, skydivers tend to be more financially secure and are not afraid to spend money when and where its needed. (the "crazed biker/daredevil" image of skydivers found in mainstream motion pictures notwithstanding..) And that might provide a nice boost to the economy around the airport.

Thanks for the time! Looking forward to doing some quality skydiving at LCI.

Darin
D-19617

[flyguy]

What Mr. Hayes failed to mention in his nice endorsement letter is that the Zephyrhills Airport is SO big, it has it's own 18 hole golf course (with restaruant) and a 72 acre industrial park. Lots and lots and lots of space- something we're lacking in Laconia.

And, of course, he has not a clue about the local traffic or patterns.

[TheNoonans]

Good evening Mr. Hemmel, nice to have you back in the discussion.

I believe that Mr. Hayes (TK) stated that Zephyrhills does 75,000 annual skydives. By comparison, our operation, at best, will do around 7,000 annual skydives per year. That's a mere 10% of their volume.

Rest assured though, the LAA has finally requested that the FAA, the only authority on safety in this matter, come in and do a site evaluation. We are thrilled about that. (We asked for it in November 2008). I think I have been more than gratious in my responses to all of your questions and factless accusations, so I would ask that you do me a small favor and respond to one question: When the FAA comes back and says, yes, based on our expert opinion, the Laconia Municipal Airport can sustain a skydiving operation, will you accept their verdict? Surely the FAA has enough experience (they wrote the FARs after all) to make such a decision, don't you think?

If your interested in doing some research along those lines......google the Santa Monica Airport and "airport access" and see what you find. Seems the airport sponsor there decided to limit the size of jets landing for "safety concerns", and the FAA came back and ordered them to allow the planes (threatened to fine them if they didn't comply I think) and most definitely threatened to revoke their federal funding if they did not comply. The airport sponsor appealed the finding, and.......lost the appeal. Why? The FAA stated (again) that they are the ONLY authority in airport safety issues. The best part? They cited in their brief that not one, but two federally funded municipal airports tried to ban skydiving (sound familiar?) due to "safety concerns" and both times the FAA came back in those skydiving cases and ordered the airport sponsors to comply or lose thier federal funding. It's all out there for you to do the research. Facts Mr. Hemmel. Not smoke and mirrors.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Jonas Pilot]

Just curious, Where are you from and who is paying for the site evaluation? I'm sorry if these questions have been answered previously.

[TheNoonans]

Hi Jonas Pilot,

We live in Kissimmee, FL. We moved here from Bedford, NH. I am originally from the Boston area, my wife is from the Syracuse area. (A more detailed background on ourselves and our proposal is in some of the above posts).

I cannot tell you how much, if anything, the site evaluation would cost, or who would pay for it. The FAA's Advisory Circular states that when an aeronautical activity approaches an airport sponsor to request utilizing the airport, that it is the airport sponsor's responsibility to contact the ADO to request a site evaluation if they have a question about allowing the aeronautical activity to operate. It's a condition of the federal funding grant assurances that the airport sponsor agrees to abide by when they want to receive federal funding.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[trfour]

I joined Winnipesaukee.com way back in 2002. I have supported Mr. Hammel, and still do. However, I am very disappointed with his attitude and total misunderstanding, "Hopefully", in the matter of, "Skidive Laconia".

Mr. Hammel has contributed some very awesome photos here and is an active sponsor and of this web-site now.

Dear Mr. Hammel, we all love you very much.
We are very looking forward to expanding the local economy here. (Today 2009). "not so easy".

Skydivers from over The Big Lake,.... Hey, I'm getting my camera ready!!

[Gatto Nero]

Tom,

Just out of curiosity at what altitude will the jumper be jumping from? In an earlier post I mentioned that I would be jumping with my son this summer as his 18th birthday present. We were hoping to jump with you but since he is leaving for college in just a couple short weeks we had to take our business over an hour SE of the Lakes Region to your future competition in ME. 11 of us, my oldest daughter included, had a great experience. We jumped from 14,000 feet, which they claim is the highest in New England. We did a free fall for about 9,000 feet in about 50 to 55 seconds. It seemed much shorter than that. Man, what a rush! We are planning another outing in the summer of 2011 when my youngest daughter turns 18. After seeing my son's video of the jump even my wife says she'll go this time. Hopefully we won't have to drive as far then and we'll have good look at Like Winni on the way down. Good luck.

[dpg]

I'm sure (actually I know) it's been mentioned before and I'm not reading over 130 posts to find it. Just curious why skydiving is not again persued at the Moultonborough airport. It has stopped there over the last couple years and I have no idea why.

[TheNoonans]

Hi Gato Nero and dpg,

Re: Gato's question:

Our "exit altitude" will depend on the type of aircraft that we use. Typically the exit window for tandem skydiving is anywhere between 10,000ft and 14,000ft AGL If we start with a piston 206U, we will probably exit at 10,500ft. If we start with a turbine Grand Caravan we will probably exit at 13,500ft. I don't know the exit altitude numbers for all the other dropzones in New England, but I don't think that there are any out there that are going above 14,000ft, so if you got out at 14,000ft while skydiving in Maine, then yes, I would say you were given accurate information, you went as high as you can go in New England.

While we're disappointed that we weren't open this season and couldn't be a part of your skydiving experience, you were in very good hands down the road there in Maine. Mary and I know the owners of that dropzone as well as the owners of two other large dropzones in Massachusetts and we look forward to helping increase all their student training programs as our vacationing skydivers return home to their home states and continue in our sport with them. (We will actually have a display in our hangar with info for all the other New England dropzones to help promote the sport across New England).

Re: dpq's question:

There was a dropzone in Moultonborough airport a few years ago called Skydive Lake Winnipesaukee. It was owned and operated by a good friend of ours. I don't know the specifics of the decision to close, my guess would be that it was just too far off the beaten path to attract enough customers. The good news is that she and her husband have brought an amazing new experience to Nashua, NH called the Skyventure Wind Tunnel. They now offer indoor skydiving.

I'm not sure what question your asking, so I'll try to answer your question in two possible contexts:
1) From what I understand, there is nothing preventing anyone from bringing a skydiving operation to Moultonborough.
2) If your asking why we are not pursuing an operation there, the short answer is that LCI provides us the location, airspace, tourist traffic and facilities that we need and want to open and sustain operations. I'm sure Mr. Hemmel will share his "many many reasons" that he feels we shouldn't be there, but as far as the FAA is concerned, the FARs clearly state that we have a right to be there. And in the end, that's all we are really doing, pursuing our legally protected right to utilize a facility that our federal income tax dollars help to fund.

If your looking for more detailed explanations, despite the long read, there is quite a bit of good information contained in the above 130+ posts.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Winnicandle]

As a corporate jet pilot for the last 15+ years and a part-time Winni resident I can tell you there is NO safety issue with the type of operation that Mr. Noonan hopes to set up.

Having flown jets into Laconia, and many other uncontrolled airports, I can assure you that I am far more concerned with the weekend warriors, sightseers, and photographers circling their Cessnas around the local area with their heads in their asses than I am with skydivers dropping down directly on the field. All are welcome, its just that some scare us pilots more than others...

We listen to the CTAF frequency for 25+ miles out and would arrive accordingly and announce our position routinely regardless if skydiving was underway or not. Its standards practice at uncontrolled airports.

This is America, we are blessed with relatively free airspace and an entrepreneurial spirit that is the backbone of this country. Mr Noonan seems like a complete professional, and I would have no problem operating in and out of Laconia with his operation in place, there's plenty of room in the sky. In fact, I thank him for bringing any business to the region.

The ignorance and fear of the unknown in this thread is downright bizarre.


Good Luck to you!

[TheNoonans]

Hi Winnicandle,

Thank you for your support. We are very excited to finally reach a conclusion in this process. With any luck, we will find out next week at the August 2009 LAA meeting.

Mary and I will both be attending the meeting, so as always, if anyone wants to come out and meet us and ask us questions, we will be available both before and after the meeting.

While I am online, I thought I would share with the forum the first line of an article that we found that was published in the Union Leader back in September 2006:

"An $8 million project to improve safety at Laconia Airport was cleared for takeoff yesterday."

$8,000,000?

To "improve safety at Laconia Airport"?

Three years ago? Hmm......

That money came from the NHDOT Division of Aeronautics. It's federal funding dollars administered by the state in a pilot program. The FAA classifies New Hampshire is a "block grant state", which allows the state to determine where federal funding is allocated.

With all that said, it begs the question, if an airport is given $8,000,000 to improve safety and then attempts to deny a legal aeronautical activity due to "safety concerns", stating the airport cannot safely accomidate the activity, did the allocated money serve it's purpose?

To be fair, I would guess that making the airport accessible to skydiving operations, glider operations, float plane operations, powered paraglider operations and tow plane operations was probably not on the agenda of the board when it began it's allocations of the $8,000,000 to improve airport safety. It begs the question though, "should it have been?" There is verbiage within the FAA Advisory Circulars (150/5190-6 and/or 150/5190-7) that would suggest that it probably should have been. Don't quote me, but I believe the line reads something like "it is the responsibility of the airport sponsor to make the airport available for use for all aeronautical activities."

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by Winnicandle

I can assure you that I am far more concerned with the weekend warriors, sightseers, and photographers circling their Cessnas around the local area with their heads in their asses

FYI Winnicandle:

1. My license says "Airline Transport Pilot, MEL"- same as yours. (Of course it also says "Commercial Pilot, Rotorcraft" and a few other things yours probably doesn't.)

2. The $250,000 Garmin G-1000 equipped aircraft we fly has the same aural traffic advisory and glass panel your kerosene burner has (I hope).

3. I do not shoot and fly. My safety pilot flys and monitors terrain and traffic while I shoot.

Our biggest worry is the jet jocks bombing around at high speeds, flying right hand traffic patterns (instead of the proscribed left hand one), who seem to think they own the sky.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by flyguy

FYI Winnicandle:

1. My license says "Airline Transport Pilot, MEL"- same as yours. (Of course it also says "Commercial Pilot, Rotorcraft" and a few other things yours probably doesn't.)

2. The $250,000 Garmin G-1000 equipped aircraft we fly has the same aural traffic advisory and glass panel your kerosene burner has (I hope).

3. I do not shoot and fly. My safety pilot flys and monitors terrain and traffic while I shoot.

Our biggest worry is the jet jocks bombing around at high speeds, flying right hand traffic patterns (instead of the proscribed left hand one), who seem to think they own the sky.

Geeeeeez! Does this sound familar or what!!?? If you go faster than me, you are not welcome.

[Winnicandle]

Bombing around at high speeds?? what???

review your regs, and show me the one that says I have to enter on any kind of pattern. We prefer not to as we like to avoid the weekend warriors. We like prescribed Instrument approaches.

Believe me pops, we watch the cessna photo shooters VERY closely on the TCAS. You have every right to be there as we do (remember America?) but again we watch ya close...rest assured. We know you both have your head pasted to the ground for your target and are doing circles with the window open and cant hear anything that the rest of the world is doing. I have been on plenty of photo shoots!

An ATP?? oh come on now!...1500hrs in a cessna and a 5th grade level exam is all it takes, not very impressive. And if we HAVE to play your "whip it out and measure" game...lets do it...CFI, CFII, MEI, AGI, IGI, SE ATP, Rotorcraft, ASES, Designated Examiner, and 9 Type Ratings.

Also not impressed with the Garmin - hell my car has a garmin...my plane, it has EASy and Planeview.

latest ride:



Now come on - Lets all support some local business, especially one that seems like it will be well run.

Be safe out there!!!!

[alsadad]

Let's see. Does the environment look blue, at least much of the time? Does it contain large "vehicles" and small ones? Are some fast, some slow, some louder than others? Do some leave more turbulence in their wake? Are there experienced, careful and courteous operators, as well as boneheads? Do the people with opposing viewpoints seem unlikely to be swayed by opposing arguments? Cool. We can debate that!

[flyguy]

Very cool- I am very impressed with the pretty picture.

You missed the point here- I am NOT a 1500 hr private pilot, we DO have similar traffic systems, and while my head may be "pasted to the ground", that of my safety pilot is not. We area as aware of you as you are of us. It's called "see and be seen".

We are not weekend warriors flying around with our "heads up our asses", as you put it.

On the other hand, I would never presume to tell everyone at Logan that I have a "federally guaranteed right" to circle over the center of the airport & take photos 10 times a day, while they all put their operations on hold.

[TheNoonans]

"On the other hand, I would never presume to tell everyone at Logan that I have a "federally guaranteed right" to circle over the center of the airport & take photos 10 times a day, while they all put their operations on hold."

Good morning Mr. Hemmel, nice to have you back again. Still waiting for your answer, when the FAA says LCI can safely sustain skydiving will you accept their expert opinion, or will presume to reject it and state that you know better because your a local pilot?

To be fair, I don't expect you to answer, and the reality is that your opinion carries little consequence, it's the LAA making the decision. Now.....if a member of the LAA were to share your position, if they were to reject the findings of the FAA and issue a contradictory decision........suffice to say, I have done my due diligence on the subject and know (from the FAA' s perspective) where that will end. All I will say is that I would not want to be the one that has to justify to the FAA why their decision was thrown out.

Anyone that has turned on a television in the last year has seen Congress hold the auto industry, the financial industry and the mortgage industry entirely accountable for living up to the standards and responsibiities of accepting federal money. Do you think the FAA will hold the LAA to the same standards? I do. I am 100% sure of it. The federal government doesn't have a sense of humor about things like this, nor should they. I believe the figure stated last night was $600,000+ of federal money allocated for last nights projects at LCI.

Going back to your statement of smoke and mirrors, if the FAA, in it's infinite wisdom, stated that you could safely circle Logan, I would say more power to you, go do it. It's legal and it's approved by the FAA. I wouldn't try to interject my own personal opinions on aerial photography safety because I am not an aerial photography safety expert. That's the difference between us, I respect the established process of the FAA.

For what it's worth though, your mocking comment isn't entirely accurate, on those busy Saturday and Sunday days you keep talking about (the ones that we have same rights and access to the sky as you), we may fly more like 15-20 loads a day. If we totally under estimated demand, then we may even bring in a second airplane and as one is climbing, have the other descending, or better a larger one, like a Cessna Grand Caravan that drops 17 skydivers at a time. All perfectly legal and "protected" by the FAA. As for the inconvenience you will be forced to endure, if your a competent pilot, then you will not be inconvenienced at all.

But that is besides the point really. You can scour the FARs all like, you won't find a single line item referring to "inconveniencing" other aircraft. We won't complain when we have to spin and wait for you to taxi and take off, and the FAA expects (demands really) the same courtesy from you in return. Don't believe me, then draft a letter of complaint to the Portland FSDO and cite in your complaint that you are being inconvenienced. See what you get in return as a response..........

We have already done our due diligence, we know the answer, write them and find out for yourself.

To the rest of the community that is interested in the facts, supporting a free economy and pursuing freedoms, we continue to appreciate your support. For all the pilots out there, from the beginning, we have stated that we want to work with you, not against you. We are 100% willing to listen to whatever concerns any pilot may have and work with you to reach a mutually agreed solution. We will even host "Pilot Night" once a month or so, so that local pilots can come down and talk to us and our pilots and learn everything there is to know about how our flights are planned and made. We want you all to have all the information we have, so we can all work and ultimately fly, together.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Editted to add: Does anyone find it even mildly ironic that the same guy (Mr. Hemmel) that points out above that Mr. Hayes is on a 72 acre industrial airpark, so you can't compare Zephyrhills and Laconia, yet he makes a subsequent statement comparing circling Laconia to um.......circling LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT? Laconia may be a busy airport Mr. Hemmel, but I think Logan may be in a class all it's own sir. Nice analogy though..........

[granitebox]

Your patience throughout this process has been amazing.

Clearly you'll run a first class, safe operation that will be a true benefit to the lakes region. It seems that the process is designed to just wear out anyone who doesn't have a high degree of motivation to get approval.

Its unfortunate a bit more common sense can't be inserted in the approval but you've clearly shown if they want you to jump through hoops, you'll simply ask "how many" and drive on.

Good luck to you, I'm certain you'll do well.

[TheNoonans]

Thank you Granitebox,

It's been a long year, but we have the patience, the resources and the time to see this through. We won't be going anywhere until this is resolved, even if it takes us to FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. (where our 33,000 group member funded airport access defense fund and lobbyists are waiting).

What I think was taken for granted from the beginning by certain people involved with this process is how thorough our research was before this all started. When we walked in the terminal door August 2008, we had already "point/counter pointed" every possible scenario that could arise and had a solution. Anyone familiar with Sun Tzu and The Art of War, is familiar with the idea that every conflict is decided before it begins. A lesser known ,yet equally powerful verse is:

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself,
you can win a thousand battles without a single loss."

Over the last ten years, we have seen every "trick" so to speak that an airport sponsor can pull to try and circumvent their federal funding obligations, always to the same result. The parallel here is that the LAA knows nothing about us really, including our resolve, and as evidenced by the last year, has had a difficult time "knowing themselves" in terms of their role and obligation in this process.

A last Sun Tzu quote that I think is fitting to share is:

"Never will those who wage war tire of deception".

Anyone that has read Mr. Hemmel's posts would have a hard time disagreeing with that statement, he certainly hasn't tired of it. Personally I don't like the term "war" as from our perspective, this is simply a cordial exchange of ideas between two parties striving to reach a resolution. But I'd be lying if I said the word "war" didn't pop up from people in the community when describing how the LAA feels about us and our proposal. Their stance against us has been described as their "war" against us by multiple people in the community. Hence the fitting nature of Sun Tzu I think.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

"...when the FAA says LCI can safely sustain skydiving will you accept their expert opinion, or will presume to reject it and state that you know better because your a local pilot?

I trust the judgement of the FAA at least as much as I trust the judgement of the SEC, FDA, IRS, and certain other government agencies.

"...yet he makes a subsequent statement comparing circling Laconia to um.......circling LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT?

Huh??? Care to quote the exact sentence where this direct comparison was made?

Once more, Tom, you missed the point. Even though you can (or have a "federally guaranteed right" to do so) doesn't mean you should.

But I'd be lying if I said the word "war" didn't pop up from people in the community when describing how the LAA feels about us and our proposal. Their stance against us has been described as their "war" against us by multiple people in the community.

I have yet to hear anyone in the aviation community use that word, but I'm sure you have a purpose for introducing it into this discussion. However it does beg the question:"Why would you go where you are not wanted?"

Oops- I forgot. The Money. The same reason you state that you cannot accept the alternative that would keep everyone happy- landing off field.

Speaking of smoke and mirrors- I find the amount of time a and effort Tom expends to raise and encourage local public support astounding. On one hand he asks people to show up at meetings, write letters, etc., while on the other hand he insists (correctly) that our opinions do not matter. It is strictly a safety issue- economics and/or public opinion are not relevant. Remember that before you waste your time.

[Happy Gourmand]

OK you guys, I think it's time to set out some plastic chairs and a table on my lawn and invite the both of you over for beer. What brands should I stock?

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

Rest assured though, the LAA has finally requested that the FAA, the only authority on safety in this matter, come in and do a site evaluation. We are thrilled about that. .....I would ask that you do me a small favor and respond to one question: When the FAA comes back and says, yes, based on our expert opinion, the Laconia Municipal Airport can sustain a skydiving operation, will you accept their verdict? Surely the FAA has enough experience (they wrote the FARs after all) to make such a decision, don't you think?

Apparently, they do. One hopes you have the grace and good sense to accept it as well.

The solution is simple. Land off airport, and be welcomed.

[BroadHopper]

Those jets that the NASCAR racers come in, seems to take over the airport and fly in one by one. Maybe they are concerned about 'that' traffic. It is just a matter of curtailing sky dive activities on those weekends.

[trfour]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Those jets that the NASCAR racers come in, seems to take over the airport and fly in one by one. Maybe they are concerned about 'that' traffic. It is just a matter of curtailing sky dive activities on those weekends.

An earlier quote from Tom Noonan...
"As for NASCAR weekends, we mentioned in an earlier post that we have no intention of operating the first NASCAR weekend so that we can sit back and monitor the traffic. We want to do our own research on the NASCAR traffic before making any decisions on jump operation during such a reportedly busy weekend. Worst case scenario, we voluntarily shut our doors that weekend and go to the races ourselves. As a side note, our intended parachute landings over the course of a season expect to be between 1000 and 3000. The Deland Municipal Airport in Florida receives all of the overflow jet traffic and small aircraft traffic for Daytona NASCAR weekends, and the dropzone there does 80,000 annual parachute jumps by comparison. They do not shut down during NASCAR weekends and have never had an issue with NASCAR related air traffic. With that said, it certainly is an issue that deserves detailed analysis, and we plan to do such analysis before we make any decisions on whether we choose to operate, even if at a reduced rate, during the NASCAR events."

I could see maybe, that the LAA might want to add a clause in any permit issued, but to turn the Noonan's down altogether is ludicrous.

Round # 2 coming right up!

Terry
____________________________

[DailyWolfeboro]

I am a skydiver. I went through AFF and got my A-License and B-License at Skydive New England in Lebanon, Maine.

A couple points after reading through the thread:

1) Skydivers are generally fairly laid back people and they would bring good attitudes and revenue to the area.

2) I have jumped at a few different locations. Skydive Deland is at a small airport down in Florida. They have been operating for many years. There weren't any issues in regards to air traffic or incidents when I was there.

3) I think Laconia would be a cool place to have a dropzone. Seeing the lake when you are up in the air would be awesome. You would get some great views of the White Mts. too.

4) Skydivers are very aware of air traffic. No one wants to have a skydiver/plane encounter. That's not good for either party.

That's about all I have to say. Just wanted to put my 2 cents in.

[Pineedles]

Two cents? I would say that you contributed 1,000,000 times that amount to the discussion. For those of us who were very dissapointed with the latest ruling, thank you for your support. Viewing Winnipesaukee at 1,000 feet up, is a site I would like to see some day from a tandem jump.

[DailyWolfeboro]

Some Views of DZ landing areas. These are all from Google earth at about the same altitude.

As you can see, you have to cross taxiways and runways at both of the other places I mentioned before. It's like crossing the road. You look both ways, and make sure there isn't traffic. The light blue is the student landing area. Lime green is the advanced landing area.

Laconia:


Skydive New England:


Skydive Deland:

[Formula]

Tom,
I am not sure if this was mentioned prior...have you looked into the landing strip in Moiuntonborough on RT 25. I for one would love to have that type of daytime businesses in town??

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

Thank you all for your continued support. In the beginning, Mary and I approached the LAA to bring a legal and viable business to the airport. It was our expectation that the board would work with us, not against us in coming to a mutually beneficial agreement. Obviously, for anyone following this thread and our proposal, that did not happen.

We never set out to become the poster children for airport access rights, but that is where this has gone. The wheels are already set in motion on a Federal level regarding the composition of the regional report issued and the decision made by the LAA. Suffice to say, there was certainly surprise on that federal level that the report was issued the way it was.........

As a side note, you may be interested to know that when the LAA finally requested that the FAA evaluate our proposal, the form they used was an application for a new runway.......and the evaluation was then made based on that form's criteria......(I don't ever recall asking the LAA to build us a new runway.)

The silver lining in the debacle that has become this flawed proposal process is that when this is shortly concluded on a federal level, it will ensure that never again will a federally funded airport be allowed to ignore the rules and regulations set forth by the FAA. It will become a precedent setting case that will be used across the country to ensure equal access to all aeronautical activities on federally funded airports.

That is a bigger victory that we ever set out for, we just wanted to skydive, but in the end if our struggle keeps the next prospective dropzone owner from going through what we went through, then it will be worth it.

We asked the LAA to work with us, and they chose not to. Now the issue is out of our hands and in Washington.

We remain vigilant in our committment to open Skydive Laconia and aren't going anywhere.

I am on a flight to LAX, gotta run. Namaste.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[trfour]

Although, it can be a tough sled. Believe me Tom, most of us were absolutely crushed and dumb founded as to where the LAA was coming from.

They are counted on, and as well as the FAA in this Country to know just and very well what is relevant. None of us needs or wants any more ineptness from our Government agencies, especially in these most crucial times!

They need to get their heads on straight!!!!

Thank you for your update Tom!

Terry
_____________________________

[pickwick]

~~~~~~~~~~

[Pineedles]

Holy erasure batman, I just looked below and Pickwick's post is gone. I'll erase my response post then too. Good choice Pickwick.

[Jonas Pilot]

I'm sorry Pickwick deleted the post. At least I'm not the only one who feels that way.

[TheNoonans]

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...848/-1/CITIZEN

The Selectmen are apparently going to decide whether or not to hear the facts of our proposal.

If you want them to hear the facts, or even if you don't want them to hear the facts, I would encourage you to email your Selectmen and let them know your opinion.

Also, if you feel compelled, offer your opinion on whether or not you think anyone is in a position to cast judgement on us without actually seeing a skydive onto the airport. If you think they need to see a skydive to be truly informed, let them know. If you believe that showing the Selectmen and the community the truth about the non intrusive nature of our proposal on the airport is a bad thing, and don't want the community to see how well suited we are to operate at the airport, then encourage your Selectmen to veto a demonstration jump.

Either way, let your opinions be heard.

citycouncil@city.state.nh.us

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[TheNoonans]

Well, I just received a call and was informed that the Gilford Selectmen denied our request to provide them factual information on our proposal. They are content to let their position stand.

No Skydive Laconia meeting with the Gilford Selectmen.

No Skydive Laconia "town hall" style platform to address the community.

Maybe they were fearful of giving us a community platform?

Why would that be?

If you separate Skydive Laconia from this for a moment and look at what really just happened, it's down right scary for a democracy. Elected officials were given the opportunity to educate themselves on something that could positively affect the entire community and they decided not to pursue that. And it was free, we were going to fly up on our own dime. If they are willing to do that to us, what else are they willing to do that too in the community?

Long after this issue ends, as a community you will be left to wonder what else is being handled that way.

We weren't looking to gain their approval in our request, we were just looking to educate them.

So as this evening comes to a close, now the LAA and the Gilford Selectmen have been given the opportunity to learn the facts of the issue and now they have both turned down the chance to do so.

As for us, the 15th is "FAA Day", the ADO will issue another report on our alternate landing areas. If it's the same people issuing the report without oversight, we expect the same result as before, if appropriate oversight is provided to the ADO, we expect a fresh perspective and a positive result.

Either way, we will be happy to have the report issued, as it will tell us if our next flight is the Laconia Airport or to Washington D.C.

Stay tuned.

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

P.S.- Thankfully the internet has a memory. When election time rolls around those of you that constitute the 3000 views this thread had in the last week, can cast your vote for or against this type of democracy. If you support this type of leadership, re-elect them. If you disapprove this type of leadership, recycle this thread during the election campaigns and remind the public how your current administration handled this issue.

[superdawgfan]

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.

[Jonas Pilot]

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

[riverat]

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.

[Jonas Pilot]

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?

[TheNoonans]

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

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

[Jonas Pilot]

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

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

... 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. NB

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

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

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.

[TheNoonans]

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

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

[tis]

I don't have an opinion one way or another about this whole thing, because I don't know enough about it. But I can tell you one thing. I feel sorry for you going through all this red tape. What a job. I would be so discouraged. Government makes things so difficult. Why don't they just say yes or not???
How long have you been fighting for this? Ridiculous. And you pay their salaries!

[RLW]

Originally Posted by superdawgfan

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.

and for your post

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by superdawgfan

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

Fair enough. Everyone in America is entitled to "vote with their feet". If you don't like the truth, feel free to do so.

On the other hand, I would hope you would have the cajones to provide your real name and the name of the business you own (you do own one, right?), so that I and my friends may extend you the same courtesy.

[SteveA]

I happened to be at the airport on Sunday. Wife and mother in law did the "Bi-Plane" ride. They "loved it" and the pilot is a great guy. He provides a great experience for locals and visitors to the lake.

As they started to return to the airport, they where called off because a pilot landing ahead of them did a "touch and go". The pilot said it was no big deal, he just circled and made a new approach.

During the 20 minuets they were in the air, two corporate jets took off, and another small plane landed. Seemed to me, and I'm no expert, that the staff at the airport were very capable of handling the various operations that were going on without any "drama".

I fail to understand why, if all that other business is OK for the airport, why Sky Dive Laconia is not OK? Private Jets, Pilot Training, Ariel Photography, Bi-Plane Rides, etc.

"Lions and Tigers and Bears Oh My" There is a lot more to the story we are not being told by the folks that object to Sky Dive Laconia.

And, the picture that is in the #1 post on this thread is plastered to the window at the airport, that to me is very low rent. The picture is a photo shop job of something that has never happened anywhere. It should come down. JMHO

As a side note, when my wife "Sky Dived" (is that a proper phrase? ) at Sky Dive Key West a few years ago, she took off and landed at a small airport. 6.1 miles from NAS- Key West. That base is one of the busiest military airbases in the country. They fly drug, illegal immigration and training sorties 24-7. PS.. they also do parachute operations on base.

I respect Mr. Hemmel, and wish his and all of the businesses that use the airport success. I just wish he would have the testicular fortitude to explain his "real" motivation behind his objection and take down that phony picture. The objections he has posted so far ... wait for it... "Just Don't Fly"... sorry couldn't resist.

Here's a pic from their flight.

[TheNoonans]

Well, we made it to New Jersey.......

At one of the busiest skydiving facilities in Florida, taxi'd out in the private jet past parachutes landing beside the runway and departed with parachutes still in the air and another skydiving aircraft in flight. No near misses, no drama.

We then came into New Jersey and landed at another incredibly busy dropzone with parachutes in the air and multiple skydiving aircraft in flight. Again, no near misses, no drama.

I flew right seat in the cockpit to try and empathize with the few pilots out there that seem so concerned about the "busy cockpit" and "inability to see parachutes" on take off and landing.

Before this trip, I acknowledged that I had no practical experience in private jets to justify my position, other than the dozen or so private jet pilots that I know that also skydive that have told me over and over again what nonsense it was that a jet couldn't land at an airport with a skydiving operation.

Now I can at least say that I have seen first hand what that process entails.

So what did I learn?

I kept waiting for the cockpit to "get busy" as we approached the airport and enter the pattern. And it never happened. The pilot handled his work flow without breaking a sweat, we easily spotted the parachutes on approach, and the landing process was so clean and uneventful, that I was left with nothing but a reaffirmation that my position was sound. The pilot walked me through the whole process and the reality, as I have observed and experienced it first hand, is that private jets are more that suitable operationally with a skydiving operation on the airfield.

It felt like we were landing in a King Air, but with more control, more maneuverability and the greatest cockpit visibility I have ever experienced.

The result of this experience?

It just reconfirmed that the only reason, let me re-emphasize, the only reason, they do not want us there is because they do not want skydiving to cluster up "there" airport and "there" status quo.

At the LAA meeting in December of 2008, one of the FBOs made a passionate speech about how complex the private jets were he flew and how incredibly dangerous it would be to these jets to add us to the pattern. At the time, having no practical experience myself, I accepted his position for what it was and just resigned myself to "agree to disagree" based on the evidence and input I received from all the other NetJet pilots I knew.

Today, I look back on that speech (I wish it was recorded), and honestly am dumbfounded that someone with that level of experience could stand up there and make such an address.

I respect the opinions of everyone in this process, and I readily acknowledge that one flight in a cockpit of a Citation does not make me an expert. But adding this personal first hand private jet experience to all the supportive letters from pilots that have stated without question that a private jet does not pose any additional safety issues to airports with skydiving operations, my resolve is even greater that this is not a safety issue, it is a "Not In My Backyard" issue.

All of the pilots that I have known and worked with over the last decade have all conveyed a common attribute, confidence.

Those are the pilots I know. Those are the pilots I work with. Educated, well trained, current and confident.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

P.S.- While I am polarly opposed to the way Mr. Hemmel has and continues to approach this thread and process, claiming he has all this super secret information that no one else seems to know about, and that he is crusading for your safety, I would like offer this thought:

After having viewed the photos on his website, I believe that Mr. Hemmel is an exceptionally talented aerial photographer and I would encourage anyone interested in that product to put aside their personal feelings about how this process has been handled and continue to patronize his business. Suffering a sacrifice in product value to make a stand, especially for us, is an admirable quality that shows integrity, but in the end, Mr. Hemmel's position is simply based on a lack of information and fear of changing the status quo, its human nature. Despite the fact that he, and a few others up there continue to prevent us from earning a living doing what we are legally and procedurally allowed to do, I wouldn't want it on my conscience if I thought this process was also causing Mr. Hemmel's business to suffer.

And honestly, I don't say that to gain any favor from him or from any others on the other side of this process, my conscience and my integrity are my guides in this process and I believe in forgiveness and empathy.

Anyone that knows me knows that I speak from the heart and that I am sincere in my request, please continue to patronize Mr. Hemmel if aerial photography is a service you are looking for in the lakes region.

P.S.S. - As for the photoshoped "Skydive Laconia" photos that are posted by the FBOs, that continues to give us no heartburn. 1) It is free advertising and there is no such thing as bad PR. And 2) One day, sooner or later, we will be showing up with the local and national television media with all of our supporting data and documentation, and those photos will make a wonderful backdrop for our interviews.

We never wanted to turn this into a national media event, if we did, we would have done that in 2008, but that is where the otherside has driven this process, so the longer those photos stay up, the better. We couldn't pay for better "Not In My Backyard" exposure. Here will be the integrity challenge.....let's see if they keep the signs up when the cameras start rolling ......

[eillac@dow]

Sure wish you guys were open, as I would love to give you guys my business.

My daughter's 18th d-day is tomorrow...cannot for the life of me figure out what to get. A good friend just said "how bout skydiving". So I ask and she says "Ya, I think that would be cool...I'll do it".

Of course my husband and son have always wanted to do it....but here is my problem....my son is only 15. I checked the Pepperal, MA location and you have t be 18. So my question is....where can a family go to skydive when one person is 15?

Thanks to all.

eillac (allie c)

[superdawgfan]

Originally Posted by flyguy

Fair enough. Everyone in America is entitled to "vote with their feet". If you don't like the truth, feel free to do so.

On the other hand, I would hope you would have the cajones to provide your real name and the name of the business you own (you do own one, right?), so that I and my friends may extend you the same courtesy.

Thanks for your permission to "vote with my feet"; I've been waiting anxiously for your approval.

No idea what 'cajones' are; perhaps you mean 'cojones'--I guess this is just another example of you getting the facts wrong?

Yes, I do own a business. But since I am not obstructing another business from starting up and preventing the addition of jobs to our local economy, I don't feel the need to disclose the name of it. Nice try at intimidation though--that seems to be what you do best. Pathetic.