Skydive Laconia?

[jrc]

Tom, I think that your approach to the Mayor is too informal. Although more and more business is done through informal emails, dealing with government is still the domain of real mail.

I would send the Mayor a concise, polite letter by certified mail. Ask him to do very specific things, acknowledge your letter, acknowledge or deny the transfer of the business proposal, and ask for redress.

If you want to impress him with your struggle as chronicled on this website, printout and send just the key excerpts. I would not expect the Mayor to research the forum to find why your struggle is important to Laconia.

I would then send a copy of the letter to the town newspapers and his political rivals.

[TheNoonans]

Okay so last email to post today was the email I sent to the Mayor of Laconia and the Gilford Selectmen regarding the LAA and their actions regarding the back room politics that let to the Selectmen issuing a vote.

Mr Mayor and Selectmen,

The NHDOT Supervisor of Aeronautical Planning has forwarded me the LAA Enabling Legislation amended in 1999, it is the most current document the LAA operates from.

In the document section 13 it states:

II. After public hearing, any of the appointed members of the Authority may be removed by a majority vote of the appointive agency upon written findings of cause, including but not limited to inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. The member of the Authority appointed by Belknap county commissioners and the member of the Authority appointed by the Gilford board of selectmen may be removed only by a majority vote of their respective agencies. The mayor of the city of Laconia may be removed from the Authority only through the vacancy of his or her office as mayor.

It is our position that practically every member of the LAA from the period of July 2008 onward has purposely set out to delay the resolution of our business proposal with the clear intent to be as inefficient as possible. Therefore subjecting practically every LAA member to being found guilty of inefficiency.

I would ask you in considering the responsibility, power and role of your position as Chairman, to individually interview each member of the LAA and ask them if they have ever conspired in part or in whole as a group to delay our proposal process. If the members possess any integrity at all, they will respond to you honestly. What you choose to do with that knowledge is up to you.

Regarding a charge of negligence of duty, section 13:9 states:

13:9 Declaration of Purpose. The establishment and maintenance of the airport authorized in section 8 is declared to be for public purposes as an aid to national and state defense and for the convenience of the public, and the Authority shall be regarded as performing a governmental function in carrying out the provisions of this act.

This requires each member to approach every proposal from an unbiased perspective and strive to promote every aeronautical activity that can be accommodated on the airport. The fact that the LAA disagreed with our proposal does not constitute a negligence of duty, but failing to consider the truthful, factual information provided to them in weighing their decisions does constitute negligence of duty. If answered truthfully, practically no one on the board would honestly say they acted and voted without personal bias and personal agenda. A skydiving operation can be supported on the airport, it's a provable, quantifiable fact. That the airport authority failed to consider those facts in it's decision making process constitutes a negligence of duty. Attempting to protect the interests of a select few people in the community when the clear majority of the community's best interests were neglected in this process also constitutes an egregious negligence of duty, as their biases and actions were down right flagrant. Refusal to consider valid, factual information in their review process is a clear case of negligence of duty. As an example outside our proposal, imagine what the impact on our legal system would be if jury's were allowed to rendered decisions without considering all of the facts introduced, using only the ones they wanted to consider?

Separately and most importantly, regarding the removal of authority members, Item 13, Section II states that any member of the board that is found to be malfeasant, can also be removed. While inefficiency and negligence of duty can be in part subjective, malfeasance is more clearly definable:

Malfeasance: "wrongdoing or improper or dishonest conduct, especially by a person who holds public office or a position of trust"

The act of providing our business plan to the Selectmen of Gilford without our knowledge or consent by any members of the airport authority is a clear case of malfeasance. That the act was then orchestrated to be put on the Gilford Selectmen's agenda and voted on with the clear intent to keep us uninformed of the meeting and the vote only goes to further support the seriousness of malfeasance charge.

The preceding information is clear, unbiased and definable as fact. What you, the Mayor of Laconia and the Chairman of the Airport Authority chooses to do with this information is up to you. If past precedence of your position is any indication, I suspect nothing will be done. It is with a small glimmer of hope however, I would like to think that this is an opportunity for the new Chairman of the Airport Authority to become the positive change that so many members of the community are pleading for, and return the airport and the LAA to what it was intended to be. An airport meant to serve the community as a whole. The truth is the vast majority of your residents have nothing but disdain for the LAA and the way it treats the community members and how they rule to suit their own biases and agendas. (I have personally witnessed a board member scream at a resident during a meeting over a question of vehicle access. In a calm manner the resident pilot repeated his question to the board member as he didn't understand the board member's answer and was point blank screamed at to stop talking by the board member.) Over the last three years I have spoken with countless local pilots, real estate owners, business owners and residents. And my conclusion based on personal experience, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, is that the vast majority of the local community has no confidence in the airport authority or how the authority performs it's role. You will not hear that however, as these same people are fearful of going on record, less they find themselves the target of the LAA's ire. That is why you probably have not heard much, if any complaints from your community. Create an environment where your citizens can speak opening and honestly about their view of the LAA without fear or repercussion, and you will be in disbelief to the extent and depth that the disapproval really goes. That is fact, whether you choose to acknowledge it or remedy the situation is up to you.

In closing, I humbly request that the Chairman of the Airport Authority investigate the above allegations and consider removing any member from the board found guilty of violating the above expectations. The community will applaud you for it and it may very well be the first step in earning back the authority's trust and respect from the community.

Respectfully submitted,

Tom Noonan

[TheNoonans]

Now for the bad news.......lol

It seems during all this down time, the LAA has scoured the internet to find any and all cause to deny us. What a surprise......lol.

They have issued yet another denial of our proposal, this time with pictures and charts! Before the FAA has even ruled on the landing area. How's that for letting the FAA due it's due diligence and rule on safety issues.

The best parts are that

1) They actually quoted my postings here on the Winnipesaukee forum, which means they actually read the posts. (Hope it wasn't billable hours). And of course I am quoted out of context. The paragraph somewhere up there where I referenced the economic impact of landing off the airport and having to drive back to the dropzone as being "uneconomical". The quote of course stops short of somewhere else in the above thread where I state (as an industry expert) that 99% of skydiving operations land on airports and AOPA actually states that landing on the airport is the safest place to land parachutes.

2) They used that grossly inaccurate ADO report that I mentioned earlier as the primary basis for their denial. Big government bureaucracy alive and well......lol

So, for now anyways, the airport belongs to two FBOs, an aerial photographer, an airport manager and the airport authority. It's their kingdom, we are not welcome.

Of course the next step is to patiently wait until April 15th for the FAA to state it's findings. And then the fun really begins.......

Now my final thought on the report just issued by the LAA, they have yet again positioned themselves to deny us without ever having actually seen a skydive made on the airport. That's very impressive.

So, now it's all out there for you the community. What you do with all of this information is up to you. Maybe the Laconia/Gilford area is really it's own universe. Maybe small town alliances really are the status quo. Maybe the community is fated to let the masses bear the grunt of the burden while the privileged few reap it's rewards.

That's up to all of you at this point. You have a Mayor and group of Selectmen that you can turn to and voice your opinion.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight
Tom

[robmac]

Tom,I emailed you the response I got from my email. IT IS TIME FOR THE LAA TO GET THEIR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND AND LOOK AT THE FACTUAL RESULTS OF THE FAA REPORT. Nothing more nothing less,to make these decisions without the final report is like shooting craps with loaded dice we already would know the outcome. Unfortunately the FAA report is needed to make an educated decision. My question since someone on the board is reading this thread is why the rush,is maybe you want to open a skydive operation now that it's been shown to be viable?? All I ask as a resident,taxpayer and voter in this state is our elected and appointed offials play by the same rules that govern the citizens by. Why is that concept lost on the LAA?

[TheNoonans]

Hi robmac,

I didn't receive your email at the_noonans@yahoo.com, perhaps you can resend when you have a chance.

To robmac and the others that have sent your emails of support, we sincerely thank you.

For what it is worth, trust me, this isn't over by a long shot. I've been saying for a long time that Mary and I have the resolve to see this through and that hasn't diminished at all. We have patience and ample resources to see this through.

To be clear, the LAA denying us was 100% expected and planned for. That they chose to publish their denial prior to the FAAs report being issued......well, let's just say, we aren't disappointed they chose to do that. It doesn't make any sense to us for them to do that, but we are very very glad they did. I mean really, they could have waited until after the FAA report was issued, which would have atleast been procedurally more sound. But it's published now and it's out there ahead of the FAA report. I guess we should thank them for that in the long run........lol

We remain unemotional in this process, I wonder if that the same case on the otherside?

Anyways, as I said, trust me, this isn't over by a long shot. Skydiving may not be on the airport May 1st as we had hoped, but it will be there sooner or later........

Thank you all again for your support and encouragement. Contact your Mayor and Selectmen, voice your opinions, for us (or against us Bill).

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Edit to add: We are amazed and flattered that this thread has been viewed 850+ times in the last 24 hours. So much for our little "dirt road" business not being of any consequence or concern to the community as a "certain someone" suggested a long time ago....lol

[dpg]

Please...Close this thread already!!!

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by dpg

Please...Close this thread already!!!

Hell no! This is good stuff.

Tom, might it be helpful to publish your letter to the mayor as a full page ad in the Citizen? That might get somebody's attention other than the forum folks.

[NoRegrets]

I really would love to see open canopies as I am on the lake. This would prove the America we live in is free for individuals to seek their challenges and build businesses unencombered by nanny's.

We are a vacation / resort area and it is hard to think of anything more exciting than this business on the lake. If tax dollars support the airport in any way we are being robbed and the Noonans are being wronged.

I have toatlly enjoyed this thread and the insights of all. Thank you.

[winniboy]

As a local resident of the lake, i understand all of the safety and economical concerns. Across the country and the world skydiving has clearly worked or else it wouldn't be in discussion on here. And as Tom was saying about the not wanting to travel for pick ups etc, we must assume this is the same for MOST *not all* skydiving business' across the world. Therefore meaning *MOST* of these such business' are based out of airports. How often do you hear on the news " Para-shooist killed after being hit by income plane"? not to often as far as i can tell. So why should we assume that it will happen here. hopefully this all gets straightened out and pleases both sides of this discussion. Cant wait to jump if this happens

[SteveA]

A little more "reporting" on the issues the Gilford Selectman are concerned about.

http://www.newhampshirelakesandmount...2011.03.31.pdf

Page 1, continued on page 10.

[Winnisquamguy]

Originally Posted by SteveA

A little more "reporting" on the issues the Gilford Selectman are concerned about.

http://www.newhampshirelakesandmount...2011.03.31.pdf

Page 1, continued on page 10.

Ok I read the article in the Gilford Steamer, and it seems to me the selectmens main concern was a liability issue if there was an accident.I suppose in this sue happy world we live in someone could go after the town, but isn't all the liability with the owners of the skydiving company? And if they did go after the town wouldn't the towns insurance cover it anyway? The town could always tell them have we want you to have a 20 million dollar umbrella policy, but you would have to have a meeting between both sides for that to happen.

[trfour]

Gilford Selectmen;


.3 "Laconia Municipal Airport – Skydiving Proposal – Selectman Benavides stated that the Airport Authority has not yet made a decision on this matter. Town Administrator Dunn added that because of potential safety and liability issues, the Board has been asked to express a position on the matter. He further stated that there is a remote possibility of jumpers being thrown off course and landing at the Recycle Center. Selectman Hayes expressed concern with the hazards present at the Recycle Center, but is even more concerned with the financial impact to the airport if their fuel sales decline because of this activity. For this reason, he would like to state that the Board is against the proposal. Chairman O’Brien stated that he would like to wait and see what action is taken by the Airport Authority. Town Administrator Dunn reminded Board members that a skydiving proposal has been brought forth to the Airport Authority in the past and it was denied."

"Selectman Hayes moved to recommend that the Laconia Airport Authority not approve the proposal, due to safety, liability and financial concerns. Selectman Benavides seconded. Motion carried with all in favor."

The above meeting on this issue sure smells of Kangaroos to me.


Terry
______________________________

[trfour]

Originally Posted by trfour

Gilford Selectmen

The above meeting on this issue sure smells of Kangaroos to me.


Terry
______________________________

I would like to add, that, ( and not to be lost ), our ELECTED officials are very close to shutting down our entire Government, and this isn't about the Broads section of Lake Winnipesaukee. And, directly through their very own incompetence to serve the People that trusted and voted to put them in office, in the first place! This equates to a very sad day for everyone...

" Town Administrator Dunn added that because of potential safety and liability issues, the Board has been asked to express a position on the matter. He further stated that there is a remote possibility of jumpers being thrown off course and landing at the Recycle Center. Selectman Hayes expressed concern with the hazards present at the Recycle Center"...
Not to worry Mr Dunn, or Hayes, and 'doo not concern yourself any further, as we will not recycle you.

I recall an resounding verse about just where we all came from.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

T
_____________________________________________

[TheNoonans]

I read the article in the Gilford Steamer. Nothing new, no surprises.

Although I wonder if Selectman Hayes could be a little clearer with his concern about 'What if a skydiver gets tangled with their parachute?"........In 4000 professional skydives, I have never been "tangled" with my parachute. Don't know anyone else that's happened to either, but it makes for a good sound bite.

I would guess he was trying to say "What happens if a parachute malfunctions?" Valid question. The answer which is equally valid is: We carry two parachutes for that very reason. If I were given an audience with Selectman Hayes, I'd ask "What if a private pilot or worse, a student pilot had a problem with the engine in their single engine aircraft? Does that concern you? If your searching for probabilities and liability issues, you'd be better to start there. Statistics prove that is where the town's liability really is.

My favorite line though was Selectman Hayes stating that the Laconia Airport was "not a very good jump zone." Selectman Hayes is not a skydiver and not an aviator either (that I am aware of), so for someone with no practical knowledge of what constitutes a viable "jump zone", versus one that is "not a very good" one, his position lacks any factual basis. Yes, he received a document from the LAA, their formal denial, but it was a document created by a group of people that aren't skydivers either, and most if not all of them are not even aviators themselves. So you are left with a group of people (the LAA) that aren't skydivers or aviators, that searched pretty much the entire internet to look for any negative items they could find, pasted them all together out of context, and presented it as lopsided fact.

Now had they hired experts in both skydiving and aviation to do their research for them, they would have found at least three indisputable facts:

Fact: 95+% of all dropzones are on airports across the country and around the world land their parachutes ON the airport. It's commonplace, it's normal.
Fact: The FAA, AOPA and every other entity that oversees skydiving clearly states landing on the airport is the safest option.
Fact: Based on it's size and air traffic, the Laconia Municipal Airport is an ideal location for a skydiving operation.

So.....where do I base my facts?

As I mentioned before, I am an industry expert. My validation of that statement?

I work full time in the parachute industry, with my primary role in our industry is that of a tandem safety expert. Really. Those tandem instructors that take passengers? They are trained by the top 1% of tandem instructors out there, they are called Tandem Examiners. Tandem Examiners (the trainers) are hand picked by the manufacturers of the tandem equipment based on years of experience, # of skydives, and professional attitudes. SO, who trains that top 1%, the Tandem Examiners that train the tandem instructors? Me. I train the people that train the tandem instructors. A teachers teacher if you will........

When I am not doing that, I am traveling around the country and the world to provide safety audits at other tandem skydiving operations. I give safety seminars on all aspects of tandem parachute operations. This past February I was asked to give a presentation at the Parachute Industry Association biannual Symposium by the United States Parachute Association, or USPA. The audience? 200+ dropzone operators from around the world. The topic? Tandem Parachute Safety Protocols.

That's who I am. That's what I do. That is the position from which I speak from. I'm also the Chief Tandem Instructor for Everest Skydive, the world's most challenging civilian tandem HALO operation ever conceived. The tandem team for the trip? I am in charge.

So.........if or when the Gilford Selectmen ever elect to hear the facts from an industry expert, that is the position from which I will be providing them.

While I have numerous right seat hours flying in aircraft, my wife Mary, she is the aviator in this pair. A graduate of Daniel Webster College in NH, with multiple degrees in Aviation Management and a private pilot working towards her commercial rating. And she has supervised the ground operations for dropzones on and off for the better part of the last ten years, including Everest Skydive. She has a better understanding of the FARs and SOPs of municipal airport operations as they pertains to skydiving than the entire LAA lumped together.

Last thought: The GS article quoted the town administrator as stating that the FAA has been "persistent" in it's evaluation processes.

Believe me, they haven't seen anything yet......the actions of the LAA and the bureaucracies that exist within the current FAA statutes that have allowed the LAA to operate with impunity and any lack of oversight have effectively opened Pandora's Box with the FAA.

The FAA (at a Federal level) doesn't like to be told they don't know their job and moreover they don't like it when airport authorities ignore the requirements of their positions.

Three things I can assure you of:
1) The persistence of the FAA will only get stronger as time goes on in Laconia
and
2) When this is concluded, there will either be skydiving on the airport at Laconia, or the airport will have it's federal funding forfeited and have to pay back the last ten years of funding they received.
and
3) The LAA has effectively ensured that when this is over, no other airport authority will be able to do other aeronautical business operators, what they have done to us.

It's a win/win/win situation in the end. I hope the LAA is prepared to see this through, because we aren't going anywhere.

Meanwhile, you the citizens of Laconia/Gilford continue to be robbed of a positive economic opportunity. They say their fearful we will run off GA flights? Drive down to Newport, RI and see the volume of traffic that lands there in the summer (don't fly your Cessna down there though, because they have parachutes and if you were trained to fly at Laconia your not capable of landing there with parachutes, they will distract you......lol). When you finally get there by car, you'll see an active airport with GA and parachutes peacefully coexisting together. It's the economy that drives away GA traffic, not skydiving. Skydiving actually helps communities keep money coming in during tight financial times.

Stay tuned.......

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

P.S. - I wonder how many billable hours the LAA have paid out to fight us in generating that report and every legal document they send us from their attorney? They aren't worried about the bills though, their bill payments come from YOUR federal funding. Your tax dollars hard at work. Money you put into the system that is supposed to be allocated to make the airport available to new business, is being used to block new business from coming there. Ironic, don't you think?

[rander7823]

You aren't a Laconia/Gilford Selectman or on the LAA

[NHBoat70]

Originally Posted by rander7823

You aren't a Laconia/Guilford Selectman or on the LAA

Learn how to spell the damn town before you post...it is GILFORD!!

[TheNoonans]

You aren't a Laconia/Guilford Selectman or on the LAA

Your right, and given the current political climate in the area, I doubt I would be welcome on either board.

If I was a Selectman in a community that has a substantial reliance on tourism dollars, I would judge every tourist based opportunity that could benefit the community fairly and impartially. Based on what I have read and what I have heard about the current status quo, I don't think I would be very popular on the board if I did that.

If I was on the LAA, I would definitely not be very popular as I don't cater to special interests groups and back room political wheeling and dealing. Even if I didn't personally want skydiving on the airfield, I would weigh all the facts before ever casting judgement, and if the facts supported the business proposal as a benefit to the community as a whole, I would vote for it, even if it wasn't what the special interest group wanted.

Here's the funny part: had the LAA done what it was tasked to do in 2008, we would have been operating on the airfield by May of 2009. It's now two years later, post May 2009. Had they done their job when they were supposed to, this issue (and this thread most likely) would have run it's course. We'd have been proven right and there would be a thriving new adventure sport on the airport. Or (playing devil's advocate), we'd have been proven wrong, and our little "dirt road" business would have folded and we'd have been on our way. And the airport would be carrying on today as though nothing ever happened.

But that didn't happen......

So today, two years later, this issue has become a federal interest item and is about to become a national news item. And the LAA is going to be placed front and center in that.

We never wanted it to become a national campaign, but that's where we were forced to bring it when the LAA threw policy and statute out the window before we ever even set foot on the airport.

Maybe they thought we'd just go away? If that's the case.........they thought wrong.

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

Edit to add: People "in the know" up there have repeatedly told us that the REAL reason the LAA and the two FBOs don't want us there is because they know we will work up there and THRIVE there. That we will become such a large part of the daily ops on the airfield that we will in a sense take it over. (For the record, that was never our intent or desire. We intended a happy medium of flight ops integrated into the daily flow. And we HAD planned to send our happy customers to the two FBOs for flight training, figuring the more business we directed their way, the better it was for everyone involved.)

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

Maybe they thought we'd just go away? If that's the case.........they thought wrong.

"Dizzy Dean and his brother Paul (Daffy) were the pitching backbone of
one of the most famous teams in history - the 1934 'Gas House gang'
St. Louis Cardinals. Before the season Dizzy said 'It ain't bragging
if you can back it up... Me and Paul'll win 45 games this year.' Dizzy
won 30 and Paul 19 on their way to a World's Championship."

I don't know if people name their planes , like boat owners do... but maybe "Dizzy Dean" would be a good name!

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by NHBoat70

Learn how to spell the damn town before you post...it is GILFORD!!

The only reason it's not named Guilford was a spelling error at the clerks office in Concord.

Gilford History

First settled in 1777 as a part of Gilmanton, the town was originally known as Gunstock Parish. Captain Lemuel B. Mason proposed that the name of the town be Guilford in memory of the 1781 Battle of Guilford Court House. The town was incorporated by its current name in 1812, due to a clerical error in the spelling of Guilford.

Sorry... I'm a history geek.

[rander7823]

Originally Posted by NHBoat70

Learn how to spell the damn town before you post...it is GILFORD!!

I am from CT and live right next to Guilford and it is just a habit to spell it that way.

[trfour]

Although frustrating at times, our heart's of heart's are in this for the long run...

It very clearly shows how tough it can be, in dealing with bureaucracy! And especially when most of us have never had to deal with an agency that most of us trusted, only to find out how incompetent they can be!

I very certainly see a big change coming here as a direct result from this very thread! Rock on www.winnipesaukee.com

This has turned into a kind'a, David and Goliath thing out here! And I have no affiliation with the Noonan's, other than I have grown to love them for their true grit, their commitment, factor, and tenacity!

Now, when all is said and done, it is my feeling that Oh yes, they have endured and lost some battles, yet have very positivity represented their forthwith and will win the war, ( so to speak ).

I am waiting for responses from some of the E-mails that I have sent to the " so called, higher ups", on this very issue...

The Noonan's should remember that they are not alone in this venture to bring more to the community here! We are 150% behind you!
Terry
_________________________________________