Skydive Laconia?

[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

[TheNoonans]

Just a quick update.

We got a copy of the second ADO report today.

The report was basically a regurgitation of the original report, even produced by the same FAA agent at Airports. (Ironic, huh?)

Anyways, the good news is atleast this time the title wasn't biased.....lol

I'd have to write a book to explain the process, but the unabridged version is that the ADO continued to use an evaluation process that has nothing to do with our business or proposal.

Some items of note though:

1) They stated (on FAA letterhead) that jet pilots are just too busy in the cockpit on approach to have to be bothered with "See and Avoid" procedures. Really. Apparently the ADO has now gone on record stating that the pilot SOPs for landing that you are required to follow are now determined by the size of plane that you fly. Really? Wow. "See and Avoid" is a procedure EVERY pilot is supposed to do while flying.

2) They again stated that student pilots have a greater right to the airport than our business. That they keep putting this discriminatory statement on FAA letterhead is really odd. But they continue to do it none the less.

The list goes on and on, but you get the idea.

That's the bad news, but honestly, it was entirely expected.

These people at the ADO are engineers, not aviators. They have (and continue to) apply the wrong set of criteria in attempting to assert their role in this process.

The good news is that meetings are already scheduled with the FAA in Washington to address this (yet again) entirely biased and grossly inaccurate report.

So.......when the Citizen, Laconia Sun or Gilford Steamer report that the FAA again found the airport unsafe for skydiving, take it with a grain of salt. The "FAA" didn't find anything wrong with our proposal, the local ADO used inappropriate criteria to form a flawed evaluation. Again.

When this process is over, we will be vindicated and the FAA will have established a clearly defined process that allows for every aeronautical activity governed by the FAA it's rightful place in the sky and on the airport, even at the Laconia Airport.

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

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

Despite your extensive history as an aviator, you are not an aviation safety expert.

Yet even though you have not earned the simplest private pilot license, you are?

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

The "FAA" didn't find anything wrong with our proposal, the local ADO used inappropriate criteria to form a flawed evaluation.

You would have us believe there are two different FAA's? Seriously? And that the "Safety and Standards Branch" does not know what it is doing? Seriously?

For the record, here is what the FAA says about the Noonan's second proposal: (Bold italics are mine)

Overall Analysis Conclusion

The Laconia Airport is a complex environment that serves a mix of aircraft traffic, with some inexperienced pilots. Further, the lack of air traffic control forces the pilots to operate in a “see and avoid” environment. We conclude that adding parachute operations would increase the risk of operating in that airspace.

The risks generated by the project as proposed, in our view, cannot be mitigated.

Determination
After consideration of the elements discussed above, the Airports Division found the proposed use objectionable. We have determined that the proposed skydiving areas would adversely affect the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft, and the safety of persons and property on the ground.

Q.E.D.