Skydive Laconia?

[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.

[TheNoonans]

The ADO responded today stating that the report is in it's final stages of compilation.

They stated they will not provide us a copy directly, that we must work with the filer (Laconia Airport Manager) to receive a copy of the report.

So......... I am going out on a limb here, but I would assume if the report is like the last erroneous one and it suits the LAA's liking, we will probably get it with lightening speed. Same day deliver perhaps?

If on the other hand, the report is fair and unbiased, and contrary to all those "safety concerns" of the non-aviators on the board, then we probably won't get a copy of it until Thanksgiving........

After all, the board isn't "legally obligated" to do very much it appears, and what they are legally obligated to do doesn't include conducting business (as it pertains to Skydive Laconia anyways) in a timely manner.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[trfour]

And counted upon to get behind the very communities here, and to also continue in a very supportive way of decent humanity.

As everyone can see how we try to give on this very important issue, my guess is that you all know where we come from.

A reminder to you all that some have been so absent in local support.
And they all continue to refrain to advance. No names will be divulged here on an very important topic such as, dude, rg, js, to mention a few and others that have refused an interest' and are more than happy to sit upon their nothings what and as we can guess, ( is very and so close to them ). As some have chosen to show their true colors out here, the rest of us must move on without them as we will adjust to and learn all about their drag.

Now, and in respect to the Noonan's, my drift has always been on course, ( hand in hand ) with. And feel free to 'doo the research if you will.

An added e-mail to those that think that they, you can read more about it in an e-mail to,
Diane Cooper,
Airport Manager ???
Laconia Airport Authority
65 Aviation Drive
Gilford NH 03249
603-524-5003



PS; Why is it that some So, if we’re all going to do the Time Warp and go back to near prehistoric times, ( key word being, Socio Scientific ), where is it that some of our elected or appointed officials get any notion that it’s only fitting that they toss some fear, uncertainly, and doubt (FUD) into the process?

[SteveA]

This is a link to todays Gilford Steamer. Not much new in the story, but it does contain some quotes from the Gilford Selectman.

http://www.newhampshirelakesandmount...2011.04.21.pdf

Mildly amusing is the Caption on the picture that appears directly above the story...

"Fiddling around" couldn't have said it any better myself.

[robmac]

I think the Noonans professional approach and having done their homework reguarding the business plan should and will be looked at and approved eventually because of statutes in place with reguard to tax dollars being spent. For the board to state that the airport is run self funded I would request to see the last three years budget and P&L. If Federal funds were used then the entire process to this point has been nothing more than an effort by the board to prevent due process to the Noonans and to lie to the taxpayers. I too beleive this should be a transparent and fair process,if I wanted to open a sandwich shop would I have been made to jump through this many hoop? NEVER With that I ask the board WHAT IS YOUR TRUE AGENDA? I know you watch this thread so your response would be greatly appreciated. Robert McCarthy concerned citizen and taxpayer

[rander7823]

Per the Gilford Steamer article these airplanes owners can never fly to an airport that has skydiving activities....what if they fly near an airport that has skydiving activities does that void their insurance?


The worse part is that they made the decision without even listening to both sides of the situation. At least if they gave them an opportunity to present they could say we listened and this is the decision we arrived at having all of the information.

[NoBozo]

From the Gillford Steamer: The key word is in bold.

"Right now, the airport is self funded. Some planes' insurance carriers may not allow them to fly or land at Laconia Airport in this case," said Hayes.

Were it to be true..and it might just be a Red Herring, it might be inconvenient to have to find another carrier to meet changing local conditions. NB

[tis]

There was actually a story about this on the news on WASR this morning. They basically just said that Gilford Selectmen and LAA are against it.

[SteveA]

Completely self funded... ?

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/77467/

This one has a map and everything on page 8-2

http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtr...assessment.pdf

(Cut and pasted from the above link)

6. NPIAS Airports
Finding: Currently there are 14 airports in New Hampshire that are included in FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport System (NPIAS), 11 of which have received FAA grants. Silver Ranch, Parlin Field, and Plymouth Municipal Airport have NPIAS numbers but do not qualify for federal grants for capital improvement projects. The State currently manages the apportionment, discretionary and GA entitlement funding from FAA for the eight general aviation airports in the NPIAS (Boire Field, Dillant-Hopkins, Concord, Skyhaven, Laconia, Claremont, Berlin, and Mt. Washington Regional). By contrast, the Division of Aeronautics serves essentially as a pass-through of FAA discretionary and entitlement funds for the three commercial service airports (Manchester, Pease International Tradeport, Lebanon). In addition, revenues generated by passenger facility charges (PFCs) at those airports do not pass through the Division, nor does the Division have any role in the bonds issued by the commercial service airports.

This was just a quick search... lots more out there.

[robmac]

If I may ask a question. Since the money goes through the state DOT perhaps another approach might be considered. The Govenor,why is the DOT allowing and jepardizing past and future funding for LAA by not holding hearings and or considering all of the reports as they pertain to Sky Dive Laconia and the Noonans plan? Maybe I am reading it incorrectly but a report from DOT is a state entity and as such should report on this issue wher the LAA refuses.

[trfour]

Same ol' Same Ol'. LAA is doing their best, to lose some of the more educated among us!

The Noonan's stand to bring a better economic future and picture that the stone Waller's want to warm their chairs about!

2008 to 2011 and still waiting!

[TheNoonans]

Hi robmac,

The FAA federal funding process is typically handled through the FAA at a federal level where airports request funding specifically from the FAA. There are a handful of "block grant states", where the state requests to be involved directly in deciding what amounts of federal dollars the airports within their states are appropriated.

It is a "pilot program", meaning that it's still in it's test phase of FAA acceptance.

I don't want to be accused of smoke and mirrors, yet again.....lol, but the reality is, the way this process has been handled thus far may very well affect the "block grant" status of the state when the pilot program concludes and the FAA decides if it will officially bless a state deciding it's own allocations.

If you would like to learn more about the program, I invite you to contact the NHDOT Supervisor or Aeronautical Planning and ask any questions you may have.

In theory, this department is supposed to help guide the LAA through this process of airport access issues and safety concern resolutions. To date, that has not occurred, and we are about three years in now. "That is a question for your lawyer to answer" has pretty much been the tone of the responses that we have received from the NHDOT thus far when citing LAA discrimination against our aeronautical activity.

The NHDOT is taking a completely hands off approach to this process. As a side note the Laconia Airport Manager and the NHDOT Supervisor of Aeronautical Planning have a clearly defined working relationship and consult often about all matters of LCI, including our proposal. Basically the NHDOT will work with the manager of LCI but not work with us unfortunately.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[TheNoonans]

Some planes' insurance carriers may not allow them to fly or land at Laconia Airport in this case," said Hayes.

I find that this statement defines the status quo pretty well. As a community leader, don't you think it's advisable to find out for sure, "YES or NO" if some insurance carriers will not allow their insured aircraft to land at LCI BEFORE forming a concerned opinion and publishing it, let alone ACTUALLY VOTING on it?

And if after doing some research, Selectman Hayes by chance, found some outlier insurance policy that showed his concern was actually valid, would it also not be a good idea to do more due diligence and find out what percentage of aircraft insurers had such a clause?

Nope, according to somebody......that would be a waste of the Selectman's time.

My point is this, if 99 percent of aircraft insurers allowed their aircraft to land at airports with skydiving and only 1 percent did not, would that not be information that as a civic leader, you would want to know, prior to casting a vote that will affect your entire community?

Guess not.

Back to reality:

It's fact time again:
1) In ten years of skydiving at airports of similar size and traffic as LCI, I have landed parachutes while watching multi million dollar private jets take off and land. There is no universal insurance exclusion to landing private jets at airports that have skydiving. Could you find one? Probably, not going to be many if at all though.
2) Aircraft have numerous different types of insurance policies. There is "Hull Insurance" and "Third Party Liability" to name a few. It's not like a car, where you have a universal policy for everything.
3) Here is a shocker: There are GA aircraft out there (up there) with no insurance at all!. Cost of owning and operating an aircraft is soooo expensive, that some GA pilots forgo insurance at all. Now......what if one of these uninsured planes lands at LCI for a "hundred dollar hamburger" and taxis into a private jet........yup, no insurance. Perhaps the LAA should ramp check every plane in for an insurance certificate? Or better yet, post a big sign on the ground facing up to the sky saying "NO INSURANCE = NOT WELCOME" that is visible from the ground while these pilots are flying.
4) Back on topic: I have landed parachutes at airports beside practically every form of aircraft out there, including those big FedEx cargo transport jets.

If we are there operating, the planes will still come. Even the big ones. I know because I have done my due diligence. I did my homework.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[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.