Skydive Laconia?

[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.

[TheNoonans]

One last thought for the night.

A "Town Hall" style open forum isn't just the realm of the Gilford Selectmen. If you, the business owners of the community would like to learn more about our proposal and how we can bring positive economic stimulus to your businesses, we are happy to travel to Gilford and hold an open forum. If you are an Inn keeper or a restaurant owner and would like to provide us a venue to share the facts with the community, we are happy address any and all questions.

We'll even invite the Gilford Selectmen and the LAA. (We doubt they would attend though.)

It's YOUR community. You have an opportunity to be heard.

If anyone is interested in offering us a venue, please feel free to email us at the_noonans@yahoo.com. We'll put it in the papers and give the community a chance to voice it's opinions. You all have a voice and you deserve to heard.

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

[trfour]

They are so very hard and pressed these days! However, they may one day look back at some of their very shortcomings and reflect on that they could have served their communities better.

My sincere hope is that they will get a grasp and in tuned with the bears what have come out of hibernation ( all, and by and further ahead of themselves ).

Now, local government has another fight on THEIR very own and inept hands. Their very own version and vision leaves so much to be LOST!

It is HIGH Time for ( we, the People ) to get more involved about putting them where they seem to want to be, ( And That Is At Rest )! Please remember these Short Sighted elected folks and do away with them on the next, and in the ballet box!
Respectfully,
Terry

PS. Toy With US, if you will!
________________________________

[Happy Gourmand]

Tom,
Your persistence and tenacity prove that you can, indeed, fight city hall. As a non current commercial/instrument rated pilot, and former air traffic controller (class if '81), I have nothing but admiration for how you are handling yourself in this quest. Most would have given up long ago...as I'm sure the town fathers in Gilford wish you had.
Good luck in your continued fight for what is right. I can't vote in Gilford, but I wish I could.

[flyguy]

First I should state that I am in awe of Mr. Noonan's posts. I have never seen someone so skilled at innuendo, smoke and mirrors.

As repeatedly stated by Mr. Noonan, ("Teacher of Teachers"), this entire issue is NOT up to the LAA, the local operators, the Gilford selectmen, the town of Laconia, local residents, Winni forum posters, or the U.S. Parachute Association. It is solely up to the FAA. Why he spends so much time with not-so-veiled threats and political hornet-stirring, trying to get community support that he says he already has is beyond me.

My guess is that the Gilford selectmen recently decided- rightfully so- that there was no point in wasting everyone's time listening to the Noonans pontificate until and unless the FAA approves their second request. A wise decision. Why waste your time on something that may not happen?

Prior to making it's second ruling, the FAA opened this issue to public comment. I and many others provided input- most of it was negative. As abutters with a vested interest, the Gilford selectmen were asked to provide their input. They did not need the secret business plan to do so. No conspiracy here, either.

There are no sinister back door politics at work here. Everyone involved is just following the procedure outlined by the FAA. Get over it.

For the record, I have never said that skydiving was not safe- if fact, if you read all of my posts you will find just the opposite. My posting the examples of the Golden Knight drifting onto a flagpole and the other recent skydiving accident intended to demonsttrate that was that while it is rare, it can happen. In fact, it has just happened again: 1 Dead in skydiving collision. The point is that one can never say never. No one can tell me that one (or more) of Skydive Laconias customers won't end up in the middle of the active runway that they meant to land next to. But that's only one of a whole laundry list of dangers that this ridiculous proposal would incur.

Finally, I would encourage all to take some of the things you read here with a grain of salt.

Noonan, Jan 2009: "the Portland FSDO finished their assessment and found no reason that skydiving could not occur at the airport."

Fact: the FAA report stated "this proposed landing area would adversely affect the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft and the safety of persons and property on the ground."

Originally Posted by trfour

Everyone knows that Laconia Airport is FAA funded...

Fact: The only funds provided to the Laconia Airport from the federal government are those used for capital improvements, such as taxiways. Other than that it is self-funding. None of your tax dollars go to any of the businesses on the airport.

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

their (the LAA) bill payments come from YOUR federal funding. Your tax dollars hard at work.

See Facts above.

[RLW]

Sorry. I personally disagree with just about everything you state. One thing regarding the federal tax dollars and what you state is the ONLY thing they cover and that is the runways and capital upgrades. I'm willing to bet that is close to or if it isn't the largest part of the LLA budget. You have your so called business, let others try to build on theirs. If a problem HAPPENS then let the proper people take the corrective action.

[trfour]

Originally Posted by RLW

Sorry. I personally disagree with just about everything you state. One thing regarding the federal tax dollars and what you state is the ONLY thing they cover and that is the runways and capital upgrades. I'm willing to bet that is close to or if it isn't the largest part of the LLA budget. You have your so called business, let others try to build on theirs. If a problem HAPPENS then let the proper people take the corrective action.

Just how supportive that local folks are, and can be! Shortsightedness has no place to go when businessmen in any given community, decide to go against progress, as the rest of us know it! We have all been very enlightened by this very thread, about how difficult, and a struggle can be! Yes, red tape Abounds in most walks of life! We however have been let to a very clear choice as and this will help move us on, and bring a more positive ring to one of the very most very wonderful places on Earth, and again may I add that, The Noonan's will bring all or us closer to Heaven, than any of us ever thought possible! And as the Lakes Region 'Doos, every day!

Now, and again, just get there, it'll make you warm and more comfortable!

Terry
____________________________________

[TheNoonans]

Sorry Bill,

You can't have it both ways. You can't state over and over again that the LAA and the town have the right to decide what is suitable for the airport and then turn around and now say it's up to the FAA.......

Fact: The LAA can say yes or no to any business owners proposing an aeronautical activity on the airport.

Fact: If they say no to something the FAA finds no objections to, the FAA will order them to allow the aeronautical business or forfeit future federal funding and refund the last ten years of funding they received.

Fact: The local FAA report you keep referencing, that "objectionable one" was so completely erroneous, it's spurred internal FAA action at a federal level.

Regarding the Selectmen. We never intended to change their minds, just educate them. If I elected anyone that viewed learning more about a current issue within my community as a "waste of time", I wouldn't re-elect them.

Fact: The "public comments" the local FAA requested will have absolutely no bearing on the ruling. Why it was even asked for again raised eyebrows at a Federal level at the FAA. Surprisingly enough we can agree on that one. The comments made to the FAA carry zero weight in the decision process.

Just following procedures, huh? In lieu of going straight to the FAA as obligated to do, the LAA created an internal "Safety Committee" and then refused to provide us the aeronautical safety experience and background of the committee, going so far as to tell us they are "not legally obligated to do so."

Your right again Bill, no one, not even me the "Teacher of teachers", will tell you that a customer of Skydive Laconia will never land on the active runway. What I can tell you is that of all the tandem passengers I have personally taken on tandem skydives in the last ten years, including the current President of Ecuador, that I personally have never landed on an active runway. Nor has any of the hundred of tandem instructors I have trained over the years, or any other tandem instructor that I have ever heard of. Can it happen? Sure. Will it happen, not likely. And while I won't tell you where it is.....you can look it up yourself......FAA guidance actually clearly states that parachutists have a right to use the active runway as an alternate landing area. And before you start fear mongering landing on asphalt, its not unheard of in demonstration jumps for big events to purposely land on asphalt, like in parking lots. Modern parachutes can actually land that soft.

The FSDO and some people at the local ADO have made the point that skydiving isn't safe. The supporting facts they brought to the table were based on data from incidents and events from about 20 years ago. No argument there. Twenty years ago, skydiving really was dangerous.

For the record, I don't blame the FSDO, skydiving is such a small part of their considerably complex job, and they really don't know much about it, especially modern skydiving operations on municipal airports. Current data and information have been provided to that office now.

I'm not going to comment on your federal funding statement, already covered by someone else.

And lastly, regarding smoke and mirrors..........let me define the term "ironic" as it applies here:

"Being accused of smoke and mirrors by someone who photoshop'd a tandem skydiving pair in front of a jet and placed it on the internet. A tandem has never collided with a jet, ever. But hey, it really helps diverting the attention from the facts, right? "

Honestly though Bill, we should probably thank you. You personally afforded us this wonderful medium to share our story with the community, and the community can see the facts. And you continue to engage us in this debate which allows us to continue to provide the community with factual information. What more could we ask for? Thank you.

(You STILL haven't answered my questions though.....what economic stimulus does your business bring to the area and how many full time jobs does it fill with local residents?)

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

[Resident 2B]

My opinion is, as long as my taxes are part of the contribution to the federal piece of the Laconia airport funding, no matter what it is used for, I want a say through the federal voice. I get no local voice as I am only a non-voting, five-figure, local tax payer.

My personal opinion is the voice we hear from locals with an interest in their business operations at the Laconia airport is self-serving and very petty. Shame on all of you!

Let the Noonan's proposal have its day in an open meeting, and stop this behind closed doors approach to democracy. It is simply not right!

Bill, you have just lost a good customer!!!

R2B

[EllyPoinster]

Originally Posted by flyguy

For the record, I have never said that skydiving was not safe- if fact, if you read all of my posts you will find just the opposite. My posting the examples of the Golden Knight drifting onto a flagpole and the other recent skydiving accident intended to demonsttrate that was that while it is rare, it can happen. In fact, it has just happened again: 1 Dead in skydiving collision. The point is that one can never say never. No one can tell me that one (or more) of Skydive Laconias customers won't end up in the middle of the active runway that they meant to land next to. But that's only one of a whole laundry list of dangers that this ridiculous proposal would incur.

Did you know that planes occasionally crash while taking off and landing? In another era, would the notion of building the airport have been shot down because a wayward plane might wind up in the recycle center?

I have news for you - it's not your runway and it's not your airport. Did your mother never teach you to share?

[Jonas Pilot]

My mother taught me not to impose my will on others.

[RLW]

It just dawned on me. Is Flyguy the only pilot that uses LLA? I do not recall seeing any other pilots coming forward to back up what Flyguy is saying. I could be wrong in that statement, but I bet there is far less against it in writing than there is for the project that is being requested for.

and the best to the Noonans

[trfour]

Hi Bill,
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you.
I think that most of us already know that there is no such thing, ( as a totally FAA Funded Public Airport here in Gilford NH).
Thank you.

Quote:
"Originally Posted by trfour
Everyone knows that Laconia Airport is FAA funded...
Fact: The only funds provided to the Laconia Airport from the federal government are those used for capital improvements, such as taxiways. Other than that it is self-funding. None of your tax dollars go to any of the businesses on the airport."




How Much of the Project Cost Does the Grant Cover?
For large and medium primary hub airports, the grant covers 75 percent of eligible costs (or 80 percent for noise program implementation). For small primary, reliever, and general aviation airports, the grant covers 95 percent of eligible costs.
Some more facts; http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/overview/

Terry
__________________________________

[flyguy]

1. I have not, and never have, objected to a skydiving business at LCA. My only objection is the proposed drop zones. I suspect that most of those posting do not know actually where those are.

2. My business is NOT based at the airport. In fact I fly out of 3 different airports using both aircraft and helicopters.

3. My business is not an issue here, and personal attacks on me have no influence on my opinions. Attacking me only emphasizes your lack of ability to form a cohesive argument.

4. My overall business will be unaffected no matter which way this ends up. I have no vested interest other than overall aviation safety.

5. If you think that federal funds pay anyones salary at LCA, you really need to do some independent fact checking.

6. I do not believe that skydiving is dangerous, and have stated this over and over. Tom is right- it was once very dangerous. Particularly back in the '60's. When I did it. Since then I nave seen amazing progress in the technology and capabilities. (And yes, I have been right next to someone gently landing on a concrete ramp.)

Everything has it's place. The middle of the airport is simply not the right one for Skydive Laconia.

[TheNoonans]

Response to your record:

My only objection is the proposed drop zones.

The FAA and AOPA disagree with your objection and have gone so far as to publish their support of landing on airports as a suitable and appropriate way to integrate skydiving into an airport.

I suspect that most of those posting do not know actually where those are.

I would say they know exactly where our intended landing areas are. YOU posted them on this very thread.

I have no vested interest other than overall aviation safety.

Despite your extensive history as an aviator, you are not an aviation safety expert. You are certainly entitled to share your opinion, but it is not one of a safety expert.

Since then I nave seen amazing progress in the technology and capabilities.

You really haven't. If you had, you wouldn't be arguing your position. We could have shown you the amazing progress in technology personally, but the LAA keeps saying no to demonstration jumps.......wonder why?

I have been right next to someone gently landing on a concrete ramp.

Was that person a licensed and trained Instructor, like those of us that will be conducting the operation? I would bet you that they were not. Comparing Apples to Oranges again Bill........

I've googled "Student Pilot crashes" on the internet.......dozens of pages of incidents. No parachutes involved..... Should we ban student training at LCI. By your resolve, we should.

Everything has it's place. The middle of the airport is simply not the right one for Skydive Laconia

Did you even bother to actually read anything we submitted that you keep commenting on? If you think our intended primary landing area is the spot of grassy area immediately adjacent to the active runway, you are entirely incorrect Bill. We intend to land our parachutes on the grass closest to the hangars, between the hangar apron and the taxiway. Would we use the "hangar side" of that very large piece of grass between the runway and the taxiway periodically? Sure. But we'd be landing on the edge of it closest to the hangar, not the edge closest to the runway. It's how it's done all across the country at airports of similar size and traffic volume as Laconia.

Oh wait, I forgot according to you, we drift, we don't control our descents........yet you have seen the advances in technology personally........right.

But you know best of course, your protecting those that can't protect themselves......and continue, by leaps and bounds, to be the most vocal opposition to this proposal. A proposal that you now even state won't even affect you............although before up in this thread you wrote that you would be "inconvenienced" by us, having to wait for our parachutes to land. Your flip flopping AGAIN Bill........ Which is it, will we affect your business or not?

And "for the record" you continue to still ignore my questions: What economic stimulus and jobs does your aeronautical business bring to the area?

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

[Jonas Pilot]

How to Find the Perfect Weather for Skydiving.

http://weather.about.com/od/meteorol...iveweather.htm

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

How to Find the Perfect Weather for Skydiving.

http://weather.about.com/od/meteorol...iveweather.htm

Thats why the sport requires training.

[TheNoonans]

Today's update:

I had recently sent an email to the Mayor of Laconia, also the chair of the airport authority and asked two questions:

1) As the leader of another community that could potentially be affected by the Gilford Selectmen's decision not to allow us to educate them, do you feel their actions were appropriate?

I just wanted his opinion as the Mayor. I wanted to know where he stood on that course of action.

I got back a standard: It's their town, their issue, type answer. The answer was entirely expected, I just went out on a limb to see if maybe the Mayor might actually voice his personal opinion on how the GS chose to handle the situation.

And the primary reason for my email:

2) I asked him, as Chair of the LAA, how many members of the LAA actually fly airplanes? I asked how many members of the board are current private or commercial pilots. A fair question I thought. This group that is tasked with deciding the fate of an aeronautical business proposal, how many of them even know how to fly?

Simple question I thought.

I was surprised to get a response reminding me that the LAA sent me a letter in 2008 informing me they were not legally obligated to provide me any information. Back then I asked the LAA to provide me the aeronautical safety assessment/training backgrounds of their "Safety Committee", the stall tactic group that the LAA created amongsts its members that was going to be responsible for making a recommendation to the LAA as a whole, in lieu of going to the FAA at that time as required.

Back then we wagered a bet that no one on the LAA, let alone their "Safety Committee" had any background or training in aeronautical safety inspection analysis. So, we asked them to validate their experience to do the job they gave themselves to do (instead of going to the FAA). And they told us they didn't legally have to tell us that........

Why wouldn't you want to share that information? Is that the "transparent" process the airport manager is quoted in the paper as saying the LAA has been affording us?

Anyways, back on track (sorry for the tangent.....), all I asked the Chair of the LAA to provide me this time was to tell me whether or not the members of the LAA are aviators? Current private or commercial pilots?

The response I got was a reminder of the letter I got in 2008.......and an offer to resend me the letter........odd huh?

So, I replied again saying I wasn't asking for the aeronautical safety backgrounds of the LAA (there are none) I just wanted to know if they can fly an airplane.

What do you think? Is that information your airport authority should be willing to share with the community they serve, or should they be allowed to hide behind their appointed positions and keep us and you in the dark about their background and abilities (or lack there of) to perform the tasks they are appointed to do?

You can email the LAA and ask yourself at:
laa@metrocast.net
or the Mayor directly (also the Chair of the LAA) at:
citycouncil@city.state.nh.us

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

[RLW]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

Today's update:

I had recently sent an email to the Mayor of Laconia, also the chair of the airport authority and asked two questions:

1) As the leader of another community that could potentially be affected by the Gilford Selectmen's decision not to allow us to educate them, do you feel their actions were appropriate?

I just wanted his opinion as the Mayor. I wanted to know where he stood on that course of action.

I got back a standard: It's their town, their issue, type answer. The answer was entirely expected, I just went out on a limb to see if maybe the Mayor might actually voice his personal opinion on how the GS chose to handle the situation.

And the primary reason for my email:

2) I asked him, as Chair of the LAA, how many members of the LAA actually fly airplanes? I asked how many members of the board are current private or commercial pilots. A fair question I thought. This group that is tasked with deciding the fate of an aeronautical business proposal, how many of them even know how to fly?

Simple question I thought.

I was surprised to get a response reminding me that the LAA sent me a letter in 2008 informing me they were not legally obligated to provide me any information. Back then I asked the LAA to provide me the aeronautical safety assessment/training backgrounds of their "Safety Committee", the stall tactic group that the LAA created amongsts its members that was going to be responsible for making a recommendation to the LAA as a whole, in lieu of going to the FAA at that time as required.

Back then we wagered a bet that no one on the LAA, let alone their "Safety Committee" had any background or training in aeronautical safety inspection analysis. So, we asked them to validate their experience to do the job they gave themselves to do (instead of going to the FAA). And they told us they didn't legally have to tell us that........

Why wouldn't you want to share that information? Is that the "transparent" process the airport manager is quoted in the paper as saying the LAA has been affording us?

Anyways, back on track (sorry for the tangent.....), all I asked the Chair of the LAA to provide me this time was to tell me whether or not the members of the LAA are aviators? Current private or commercial pilots?

The response I got was a reminder of the letter I got in 2008.......and an offer to resend me the letter........odd huh?

So, I replied again saying I wasn't asking for the aeronautical safety backgrounds of the LAA (there are none) I just wanted to know if they can fly an airplane.

What do you think? Is that information your airport authority should be willing to share with the community they serve, or should they be allowed to hide behind their appointed positions and keep us and you in the dark about their background and abilities (or lack there of) to perform the tasks they are appointed to do?

You can email the LAA and ask yourself at:
laa@metrocast.net
or the Mayor directly (also the Chair of the LAA) at:
citycouncil@city.state.nh.us

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

Noonan's (Tom) something has to come out of this on the good side. I'm all for new growth regarding business and by the sounds of you plans and all the leg work that you have done shows that you are a very serious person in your endeavor.
There will be a couple letters going out from this individual in your behalf.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by flyguy

My only objection is the proposed drop zones. I suspect that most of those posting do not know actually where those are.

What an insult.You posted a nice photo with an overlay in this very thread.I guess we are all too dumb to have seen that.

Originally Posted by flyguy

3. My business is not an issue here, and personal attacks on me have no influence on my opinions. Attacking me only emphasizes your lack of ability to form a cohesive argument.

You have become your own worst enemy.In the same post you attack and critisize others in this thread twice as shown above and have the nerve to suggest that others attacking have a lack of ability to form a cohesive argument?
I have sat by pretty quietly following this thread for the most part to see how the process plays out.You sir,have single handedly pushed me firmly in the Noonans camp with your rhetoric.

[TheNoonans]

Prior to making it's second ruling, the FAA opened this issue to public comment. I and many others provided input- most of it was negative.

I had wanted to address this quote from Bill when I had time to do so.

When Mary and I found out about the "Public Comment" period, we already knew that the comments would not be considered in the report by the FAA, so we didn't pursue it.

I suspect Bill's comment is entirely correct, that the majority of the public comment was negative.......from a percentage stand point only though. If the ADO only got 9 comments and 7 were negative, then "most of it would be negative", while the overall input would still be quite small.

I point this out, only to say that if Mary and I really wanted to sway the comments so to speak, we could have mounted a campaign and brought the ADO hundreds of local and thousands of national comments from pilots and skydivers. We chose not to. There are a few reasons for that, the primary one is stated above. Based on our knowledge of the process, there was no reason to pursue the comment period, as the comments would not be considered in the process.

So......when taking Bill's comment into consideration, that most of the comments were negative it's important to consider the audience that it was received from:

2 FBO owners (and those in their inner circle)
1 Aerial Photographer (and his friends).

(edit to add: it's important to note that of this group, they all have a current business interest in the airport. Even Bill, despite his (now) statements to the contrary).

That group I would surmise is the vast vast majority of whatever negative comments were received by the ADO.

And of course lets not forget the LAA.......lol, I think their 40 page response could be classified as um, what's the word, I'm looking for?

Oh right, it's negative.......lol

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

What an insult.You posted a nice photo with an overlay in this very thread.I guess we are all too dumb to have seen that.

You are smart enough to realize that that graphic applied only to the first proposal, not the second, right?

[RLW]

Originally Posted by flyguy

You are smart enough to realize that that graphic applied only to the first proposal, not the second, right?

This stuff sure can't help the business. OH, I have only seen you write on the forum with all the comments so I guess that your friends do not care about letting the PUBLIC know their feelings.

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by RLW

I could be wrong in that statement, but I bet there is far less against it in writing than there is for the project that is being requested for.

You would be wrong.

From the final FAA report: "FAA received over 80 comments from interested parties. The majority of these comments stated that this proposal presents a major safety concern to pilots and airport users".

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by flyguy

You would be wrong.

From the final FAA report: "FAA received over 80 comments from interested parties. The majority of these comments stated that this proposal presents a major safety concern to pilots and airport users".

The clear result of behind-the-scenes, small-town politics.....right!

In this country, people are entitled to present their proposals and to have a fair airing of their thoughts. This was clearly not the case here, was it! This is not what this country is supposed to be about.

This was a Slam-Bam-Thank you-Man back room deal, wasn't it!!

Slameful! Completely shameful!!

R2B

[TheNoonans]

"FAA received over 80 comments from interested parties. The majority of these comments stated that this proposal presents a major safety concern to pilots and airport users".

As I reference above, if we wanted to flood the comment process with "interested parties", we could have provided 800 favorable comments. We left it alone. Wasn't needed (and still isn't).

As a side note, "interested parties" does not dictate "local" interested parties. The LAA is attempting to reach as many people as they can, even outside the Laconia/Gilford area.

More importantly though, "interested parties" does not constitute "educated parties". If I was living in the region and bought into all the scare tactics that have been posted, I'd be concerned to.

Concern can actually be a good thing, it indicates people are actually thinking about it. We are all for that, support it 100%.

The issue though is education versus concern.

Let me give the community here an example to ponder. A factual verifiable example:

Back in 2008 Mary and I were coming up to the meeting with the LAA where we were going to formally address the LAA and request permission to land on the airport. As required, we provided the airport manager and the LAA with all of our supporting documentation, a 40+ page packet of info a month prior to the meeting. Now about a week prior to the meeting, the airport manager sent out an email to the list of local pilots and property owners on the airport forewarning them that a couple was coming up to request to land parachutes on the airport. The email went on to say that we were bringing an entourage with us, people to support our cause. The email went on to encourage local attendance so that these people on the email list could have their say as well.

We would have been thrilled about that, except one thing was missing from the email:

Any reference to the volume of information we provided.

Why would you send out a "call to action" so to speak to the local pilots and hangar owners you are supposed to be serving without letting them know you have a volume of information provided by the proposed business owners that they can research and educate themselves with prior to the meeting?

The answer: Unfortunately, they didn't want you educated at that meeting because it's easier to create panic and chaos that way. Do you think people showed up to that meeting boiled up? Yup. Of course they did, they knew nothing about us, other than that we were outsiders and we were bringing an entourage. (In a way those of you that showed up without being given access to that information ahead of time were being used as pawns by the LAA unfortunately. They were looking for your hysteria, not your educated input.)

Now if it were me and I wanted to make sure everyone was educated, I would have sent out the same email, but INCLUDED that the Airport Manager had the entire proposal including FAA and AOPA documents that were available for the local pilots and hangar owners to study prior to the meeting.

That didn't happen.

I would even go so far as to let the proposed business owners know what I was doing and ask if they would be willing to answer questions from these people.

That didn't happen either. We got a copy of the email privately about a month later. Wonder why they excluded us from that "call to action"? Wait, I know, they're not "legally obligated" to let us know these things........

Is that the transparency that you, the community are willing to accept from your airport authority and it's management?

The irony is..........they had no problem giving our proposal to the Selectmen of Gilford last month.........yet it was purposely withheld from you when it mattered most, at the outset of this process.

Back to the current concerns. Did you know that both FBOs have Bill's "Skydive Laconia" photo on their office windows at the Main Terminal building showing a tandem pair about to collide with a jet? This despite the fact that in the 28 year history of tandem jumping, a tandem pair has never collided with any aircraft, let alone a jet. If I was a local pilot and I walked by that photo for 2+ years, I'd have concerns too.

Fear mongering, plain and simple. And these are supposed to be professional establishments.

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

[fatlazyless]

Skydive Plymouth - parked at Plymouth Municipal Airport:

www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6869793 ... white field house in the background that is both close to the runway and close to the car parking area.

www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6862732 ... what healthy looking green grass!

www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6863347 ... a Taylorcraft BC-12D.

www.chutesup.com

www.skydiveplymouthnh.com

What a good fit....skydiving and the Plymouth Municipal Airport....plus the locals can all get a freebie terrific skydivers-in-action view as seen from the Wal-Mart parking lot that is high on a hill about one mile away!

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Skydive Plymouth - parked at Plymouth Municipal Airport:

www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6869793 ... white field house in the background that is both close to the runway and close to the car parking area.

www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6862732 ... what healthy looking green grass!

www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6863347 ... a Taylorcraft BC-12D.

www.chutesup.com

www.skydiveplymouthnh.com

What a good fit....skydiving and the Plymouth Municipal Airport....plus the locals can all get a freebie terrific skydivers-in-action view as seen from the Wal-Mart parking lot that is high on a hill about one mile away!

Hey FLL, weren't you looking for a job a while ago? Do push ups ring a bell? Instead of being such a thorn in the side, maybe once they get up and running, this could be a source of employment for you.

[TheNoonans]

For anyone still interested in our proposal process, there has been some great general news in our industry recently.

There are a few local municipal airports around the country at the moment like LCI, where the airport authorities have ignored proper procedure and due process and have attempted to stonewall legal and viable skydiving operations.

Like our situation, these other would be business owners are victims of "backroom tactics", that are anything but "transparent", and are designed to simply stall the would be business owners into giving up.

Well, the FAA has recently just put it's foot down on the antics of another such airport authority attempting to stonewall a skydiving operator and has ordered the airport to comply with their federal funding grant assurances and allow the skydiving operation to land on the airport.

The good news for future skydiving proprietors is that in each of these current instances, as the FAA deals with them one by one, the FAA will be setting precedences, so that the next time an airport authority looks into its bag of tricks to try and stall or block a legal and viable skydiving business from operating, the bag of tricks should be empty and the approval process won't take three+ years.

It seems there really are agents of the FAA upstream in Washington DC that genuinely do care if airports are abiding by their federal funding grant assurances and that these same agents are willing to enforce the rules and regulations across the country.

Score one for the skydiving industry today.

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

[TheNoonans]

With the holiday weekend ahead of us, and the increase in both GA air traffic and private jet traffic sure to be noticed at municipal airports all across the country, I thought I would share my weekend travel plans, as they bear slightly on the conversation.

On thursday a friend of mine, who is a commercial private jet pilot and also a skydiver, is picking me up in the plane pictured in the attached photo. We are then flying from Florida to New Jersey.

He is landing the jet at one of the country's busiest dropzones here in Florida and then we are flying to another one of the country's busiest dropzones in the northeast.

When I asked him if the insurance carrier for the plane had any exclusions for landing his jet at airports with skydiving operations, his response was nothing but laughter, followed by the statement "Are you kidding me"?

I hope you all have a wonderful weekend of GA flights and enjoy your holiday weekend.

I guess some pilots are just better trained than others?

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Happy Fourth Of July Weekend!

Tom

[Steveo]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

As for us, the 15th is "FAA Day", the ADO will issue another report on our alternate landing areas.

I thought the new report was due April 15th--any word yet?

[TheNoonans]

Hi Steveo,

Yes, the 15th was the day the report was scheduled to be done by the ADO. I emailed them directly on the 19th and asked for a copy to be sent to us directly this time.

In theory, it's supposed to go from the ADO to the LAA and then the LAA forwards it to us. Last time the "LAA to us" part was delayed over a month for some reason? We got the report about 5 weeks after it was forwarded to the LAA.

Hey, maybe the LAA is not "legally obligated" to forward things in a timely manner.....lol, I dunno.

Anyways, we asked the ADO to send us a copy directly this time so that we are not left to wait on the LAA again.

As soon as we have it, I wll post the results.

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