Clifornia City Gider ops in jeopardy

[Martin Eiler[_3_]]

Soarist

It is thanks to the many hundreds of hours of research, investigation and
dedication by the California City Glider Pilots Action Group and the
soaring community in general. That we at least temporarily have some hope
of Caltrans re-permitting Cal City Airport to return to the safe, sane and
functional operations of the past three plus decades. So that viable
operations can continue while we wait for the major runway glider
staging/launch apron project to be completed. One of the most
disheartening aspects of this fight, was when we found out that AOPA and
Calpilots were not interested in offering any support whatsoever in keeping
70% of the operations and 50% of the aircraft based at Calif City Airport.
For the time being we encourage those interested to go to Walt Rogers Blog
and get some idea of the history of what has been going on, and you can
scroll down to the bottom of the page and post comments.

http://scriptogr.am/wrogerswx/post/california-city-airport-unfriendly-to-glider-operations

We are asking that you hold off sending any comments to the politicians
because that will be our last line of defense if needed.

Marty and the Calif City Glider Pilots Action Group

[[email protected]]

Marty,
I contacted AOPA and they claim no knowledge of issues at Cal City Airport regarding gliders. Here is their reply to me.

Hi Guy,

Thanks for contacting AOPA's Pilot Information Center. I am not aware of any AOPA movement to drive off any operations at L71. AOPA represents all pilots, including glider pilots. Is there a situation at California City Municipal that we should be aware of? Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any other concerns or questions.

Safe Flying,

Paul Feldmeyer | Pilot Information Center
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
800-872-2672 | www.aopa.org

So, Marty...can you explain this?

[Martin Eiler[_3_]]

I have no idea what you actually said to AOPA but your posted reply from
them that references them not being aware of any AOPA movement to drive off
any operations at L71. Is confusing at best. Apparently AOPA's left hand
doesn't know what it's right hand is saying or doing.

So to clearly show that AOPA was contacted regarding the issues please read
the following.

AOPA contact including descriptions and numerous attachments regarding the
issues faced by the California City glider pilots, commenced on 8/24/13
with and 8/28/13
and , 9/5/13 and
, 9/12/13 9/12/13

On Sept 11,12,13 there was a California Airports Association meeting in
South Lake Tahoe which was attended by Tom Weil the California City Manager
(past Calif City airport manager) who also happens to be a member of the
board for California Airports Association. Also in attendance was Caltrans
Division chief, FAA LAX ADO chief, Cal Pilots rep and AOPA rep. Following
this meeting Mr. Weil made it a point to tell me that regarding the issues
with Caltrans that the AOPA rep (that I believe was Bill Dunn) said that
“while the FAA can set safety standards, Caltrans can require higher
standards�.

The concept that AOPA has no issue with Caltrans using selective
enforcement and ambiguous safety standards as a means of discriminating
against a particular sector of aviation, is disgraceful. For my own part,
AOPA’s total lack of concern and inaction means that I will no longer
remain a member of that organization.

If anyone wishes more specific info regarding those email communications
with AOPA you contact me directly at and I will
forward you copies.


At 04:07 29 October 2013, wrote:
>Marty,
>I contacted AOPA and they claim no knowledge of issues at Cal City
Airport
>=
>regarding gliders. Here is their reply to me.
>
>Hi Guy,
>
>Thanks for contacting AOPA's Pilot Information Center. I am not aware of
>an=
>y AOPA movement to drive off any operations at L71. AOPA represents all
>pil=
>ots, including glider pilots. Is there a situation at California City
>Munic=
>ipal that we should be aware of? Please do not hesitate to contact us if
>yo=
>u have any other concerns or questions.
>
>Safe Flying,
>
>Paul Feldmeyer | Pilot Information Center
>Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
>800-872-2672 | www.aopa.org
>
>So, Marty...can you explain this?
>

[son_of_flubber]

A local soaring club near me provided free soaring instruction to the new state airport manager. He paid for the tows. He soloed last summer. It all started with a complementary ride in a nice glider back in January.

The education process best starts before a conflict develops, and it probably would not have helped at Cali, but there are other airports where the proactive approach might benefit.

[[email protected]]

Very nice answer. I have copied it to Mr. Feldmeyer from AOPA and am asking for an explaination why he claimed no knowledge.

[6PK]

On Friday, October 25, 2013 10:10:22 PM UTC-7, Martin Eiler wrote:
> Soarist
>
>
>
> It is thanks to the many hundreds of hours of research, investigation and
>
> dedication by the California City Glider Pilots Action Group and the
>
> soaring community in general. That we at least temporarily have some hope
>
> of Caltrans re-permitting Cal City Airport to return to the safe, sane and
>
> functional operations of the past three plus decades. So that viable
>
> operations can continue while we wait for the major runway glider
>
> staging/launch apron project to be completed. One of the most
>
> disheartening aspects of this fight, was when we found out that AOPA and
>
> Calpilots were not interested in offering any support whatsoever in keeping
>
> 70% of the operations and 50% of the aircraft based at Calif City Airport..
>
> For the time being we encourage those interested to go to Walt Rogers Blog
>
> and get some idea of the history of what has been going on, and you can
>
> scroll down to the bottom of the page and post comments.
>
>
>
> http://scriptogr.am/wrogerswx/post/california-city-airport-unfriendly-to-glider-operations
>
>
>
> We are asking that you hold off sending any comments to the politicians
>
> because that will be our last line of defense if needed.
>
>
>
> Marty and the Calif City Glider Pilots Action Group

I like to disagree with Marty on the issues with AOPA.
They offer discount on glider insurance which more or less equates the cost of membership. In addition one gets a pretty good publication and I think some insurance as well.
They are a first rate organization when it comes to GA however the soaring community being on the fringes; must be a pimple on their butt. Still I'm sure they could be persuaded to jump in to the rescue but of course that needs to happen at a higher level.
The organization I have a heartburn with however is the SSA. Outside of a third rate magazine that is hardly worth reading anymore (far more information on RAS) I'm not sure of the benefits if any of the SSA.
When this thing at Cal City blew up local glider pilot John Shmoldas volunteered to champion contacting the SSA (and turns out he did far more than any, documenting and presenting all the facts available to the many bureucrats.)
He first contacted Steve Northcraft in early September, the higher up at the SSA who simply passed the buck and suggested getting help at the "local level".
The "local level" basically offered some suggestions and helped with facts, an SSA letterhead with the "local level" John Henry signature but basically John Shmoldas facts, research and circumstances.
This than went to the SSA, AOPA,CalTrans, FAA etc. and now we are all waiting without much clue as to the faith to Cal City glider operations .
California City is one of the few premier and historic glider operations in existence and one would think that if one of these sights is in jeopardy (especially in this case as the reasons are not clear and even may be bogus) the SSA would drop all the b/s and jump all over it, utilizing all it's clout; legal and otherwise. And than perhaps the higher ups might have enough clout with AOPA and their legal staff to get involved but I guess it's easier to kick the can down the road to the "local level".
My 5 C worth
6PK

[[email protected]]

Nice rant but no meat on the bone.
SSA doesn't deal with airport issues. That is an AOPA issue.
Was AOPA brought in fairly early in the process?
What was the AOPA opinion/advice?
I expect that they would push it down to the local level as far as people doing things but I would hope that AOPA would provide advice on actions/FAA control/legal advice/etc.

[6PK]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 8:33:42 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Nice rant but no meat on the bone.
>
> SSA doesn't deal with airport issues. That is an AOPA issue.
>
> Was AOPA brought in fairly early in the process?
>
> What was the AOPA opinion/advice?
>
> I expect that they would push it down to the local level as far as people doing things but I would hope that AOPA would provide advice on actions/FAA control/legal advice/etc.

The mere suggestion that the SSA does not get involved with airport issues to me is outer nonsense.
That is exactly the type of issues they need to get involved in along with the AOPA.
6PK

[[email protected][_1_]]

Well said, I totally agree!


I am a CFIG and Commercial Power pilot who has flown from Cal City as an instructor, tug pilot, and private glider pilot continuously since 1989. The status quo operation there is safe and sane, as evidenced by 50 YEARS of incident and accident-free glider operations. Back in the early 1990's, the airport was a veritable aerial rodeo: Dozens of gliders, 2-3 tugs, Folland Gants doing high speed passes, two skydiving operations, and a plethora of general aviation traffic. And No Significant Safety Issues!

CalCity Airport is essentially a ghost town today: No warbirds, no skydiving ops, no general aviation traffic. You could sleep on the runway most days, save the launching of a half dozen gliders on good days. What exactly is endangered by the status quo operation methods? The aircraft junk yard? The new kitty litter factory? Tumbleweeds rolling down the ramp? Coyotes?

As others have stated, FAA studied the situation in years past and found it to be safe. So much so that it suggested that CalCity be used as a model for other airports. For those 50 YEARS, CalTrans has allowed three operators to use the status quo mode of operation. Maybe class-action lawsuit against CalTrans for risking my life for the last 50 YEARS?

The current attempted ban all in the name of "safety" is just one more case of governmental overreaching in the name of protecting us from ourselves. That the CalTrans representative is factually wrong and unwilling to discuss this with outside parties is completely telling and absolutely wreaks of external agendas and governmental hubris.

As the motorglider pilot stated at the end of his article in Soaring, outlining air-air combat with a FL State Trooper, "We are the Government, We Do What We Want.

Indeed.

[Mark628CA]

Apparently, the airport manager, CalCity and Caltrans are unaware of the FAA Advisory that specifically allows glider operations adjacent to the runway and within the OFZ (Object Free Zone).

Email me at mark at mmfabrication dot com and I will send it to any interested party. We have used this document at Moriarty, NM on several occasions to silence the protests from other users who incorrectly assume that glider operations next to the active runway somehow make the earth stand still or revolve backwards.

These folks also include a number of FAA personnel, including one who was SHOCKED, absolutely Shocked to discover that airplanes were taking off tied together with rope.

[[email protected]]

Now a question. This conversation started with slamming AOPA as being totally unhelpful in this issue. A representative of AOPA responded by saying they were never included in this issue. Where is the truth in this?

I am a member of AOPA and depend on them to provide help in these airport use issues. Has AOPA been slandered?

This is a problem with blogs. People saying things that they would never say face to face. Is the Cal City problem on route to a resolution? Is the prospect of glider operations being pushed off to the side real? Has AOPA been asked to help actually been done?

Many people want to know.

[CindyB[_2_]]

On Friday, November 1, 2013 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> Now a question. This conversation started with slamming AOPA as being totally unhelpful in this issue.

<snipped>
> This is a problem with blogs. People saying things that they would never say face to face. Is the Cal City problem on route to a resolution? Is the prospect of glider operations being pushed off to the side real? Has AOPA been asked to help actually been done?
>

AOPA's agenda is ofttimes not in alignment with a soaring issue. Yes, AOPA were aware in California (perhaps not in DC). This is a complex mess, that mostly has to do with the City changing it's ideas over time, and dealing with a CalTrans staffer with a bias. City staff hid documents and information from the glider operation for many years. SSA was not initially made aware of the operational mandate, until after a damaging City Council vote.

SSA did weigh in. With a 10,500 member organization, we can't do what a 400,000 AOPA can do. SSA has a staff of only 6 and no attorneys. When asked, I provided my personal business historical data and photos, documents, recollections, to assist in forming a rebuttal. I worked for many hours with John Shmoldas, tuning arguments, researching California law, making FOIA requests. I have done this (regardless of any personal relationships) for the good of soaring in California (and beyond).

Yes, CalTrans and the City have copies of the Aug. 2010 FAA Memo from Airport Engineering to ADO-1( AIP $$$ folks)about glider movements adjacent to runways and what IS permitted by FAA. SSA negotiated for that document to be created to address just these instances. (Thanks, Steve.)

Phone conversations continue, and documents are still flowing between SSA, the CCGPAG, to CalTrans (and to AOPA and CalPilots). Soaring pilots may stand alone against this abuse of power by an agency, but we stand on very clear and righteous ground about the failure of process, and fallacy of arguments.
None of this helps Marty make a living at this moment.

There will be further conversations up the rungs at CalTrans in the coming week. I prefer to give a supervisor a chance to "change tack" when they can, and make a quick reversal (use a scapegoat, please) in our favor.

For those who are truly motivated to help and participate, feel free to browse up Walt's blog. And when/if the call goes out for letters, please take as much time then to write, as you did to read through all this to date.

Cindy Brickner
Region 12 Director, SSA

[Martin Eiler[_3_]]

Mr. Acheson

Did you not bother to read the 4th post on this thread that clearly
answered your current question?

At 05:12 02 November 2013, wrote:
>Now a question. This conversation started with slamming AOPA as being
>tota=
>lly unhelpful in this issue. A representative of AOPA responded by
saying
>=
>they were never included in this issue. Where is the truth in this?
>
>I am a member of AOPA and depend on them to provide help in these airport
>u=
>se issues. Has AOPA been slandered? =20
>
>This is a problem with blogs. People saying things that they would never
>s=
>ay face to face. Is the Cal City problem on route to a resolution? Is
>the=
> prospect of glider operations being pushed off to the side real? Has
>AOPA=
> been asked to help actually been done?
>
>Many people want to know.
>

[Dan Marotta]

To paraphrase Darth Vader: Our "plan is complete."


> wrote in message
...
Well said, I totally agree!


I am a CFIG and Commercial Power pilot who has flown from Cal City as an
instructor, tug pilot, and private glider pilot continuously since 1989.
The status quo operation there is safe and sane, as evidenced by 50 YEARS of
incident and accident-free glider operations. Back in the early 1990's, the
airport was a veritable aerial rodeo: Dozens of gliders, 2-3 tugs, Folland
Gants doing high speed passes, two skydiving operations, and a plethora of
general aviation traffic. And No Significant Safety Issues!

CalCity Airport is essentially a ghost town today: No warbirds, no
skydiving ops, no general aviation traffic. You could sleep on the runway
most days, save the launching of a half dozen gliders on good days. What
exactly is endangered by the status quo operation methods? The aircraft
junk yard? The new kitty litter factory? Tumbleweeds rolling down the ramp?
Coyotes?

As others have stated, FAA studied the situation in years past and found it
to be safe. So much so that it suggested that CalCity be used as a model
for other airports. For those 50 YEARS, CalTrans has allowed three
operators to use the status quo mode of operation. Maybe class-action
lawsuit against CalTrans for risking my life for the last 50 YEARS?

The current attempted ban all in the name of "safety" is just one more case
of governmental overreaching in the name of protecting us from ourselves.
That the CalTrans representative is factually wrong and unwilling to discuss
this with outside parties is completely telling and absolutely wreaks of
external agendas and governmental hubris.

As the motorglider pilot stated at the end of his article in Soaring,
outlining air-air combat with a FL State Trooper, "We are the Government, We
Do What We Want.

Indeed.

[Martin Eiler[_3_]]

Mr. Acheson

Did you not bother to read the 4th post on this thread that clearly
answered your current question?

At 05:12 02 November 2013, wrote:
>Now a question. This conversation started with slamming AOPA as being
>tota=
>lly unhelpful in this issue. A representative of AOPA responded by
saying
>=
>they were never included in this issue. Where is the truth in this?
>
>I am a member of AOPA and depend on them to provide help in these airport
>u=
>se issues. Has AOPA been slandered? =20
>
>This is a problem with blogs. People saying things that they would never
>s=
>ay face to face. Is the Cal City problem on route to a resolution? Is
>the=
> prospect of glider operations being pushed off to the side real? Has
>AOPA=
> been asked to help actually been done?
>
>Many people want to know.
>

[son_of_flubber]

I might accept that this situation is due to ignorance and recalcitrance, but I would first ask whether there are other motives. Who benefits if gliders are discouraged and ultimately forced out? Follow the money.

Reasonable people assume that logic and advocacy will prevail, but there might be another factor in play.

[6PK]

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 10:04:12 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
> I might accept that this situation is due to ignorance and recalcitrance, but I would first ask whether there are other motives. Who benefits if gliders are discouraged and ultimately forced out? Follow the money.
>
>
>
> Reasonable people assume that logic and advocacy will prevail, but there might be another factor in play.

I too suspect this sentiment
6PK

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 10:01:10 AM UTC-7, Martin Eiler wrote:
> Mr. Acheson
> Did you not bother to read the 4th post on this thread that clearly
>
> answered your current question?

Here is another answer I received from AOPA.
Mr. Acheson …



Thank you for your contact with AOPA’s Pilot Information Center (PIC) regarding the current and ongoing situation at Cal City Airport concerning skydiving operations.



Let me take a minute to correct some of the information exchanged with our team in the PIC.



Yes, I am familiar with this issue. There is a reason why other staff members may not be aware. Earlier this year, AOPA changed to a new association management software system which has had a number of issues that make tracking of our issues problematic for other staff members to locate. Fixes are being developed which will ultimately ensure that all staff are aware of any open issue that we have on the books.



I do not recognize the name Martin Eiler and have recollection of having any conversations/communications with him directly. However, I did receive a packet of information from ANDREW McKITTRICK, which I did answer. That inquiry had initially been send to our Regional Manager, John Pfeifer. In my reply to Andrew, I posed a number of questions that needed to be answered.. To date, none of my questions have been answered. All I received back were copies of the 1978 and 1993 airport licenses from Caltrans.



Finally, there is mention of a meeting in Lake Tahoe with my name attached as being there and saying certain things. I was not at that meeting!



__________________________

Bill Dunn

Vice President. Airport Advocacy

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Airports and State Advocacy Department

office: 301-695-2205

fax: 301-695-2278

www.aopa.org

There seems to be such a large disconnect here that I don't know who to believe. I would like to know if you have made contact with AOPA lately regarding this issue. Have you spoken to Mr. Dunn directly? Have you spoken to Mr. Pfeifer directly? Who is Mr. McKittrick and did he follow through with answering the questions that were supposed to be sent to him?

Guy Acheson

[[email protected]]

snip

>
>
> Thank you for your contact with AOPA’s Pilot Information Center (PIC) regarding the current and ongoing situation at Cal City Airport concerning skydiving operations.
>
>

.... wait, what?...

you ask them for clarification and they come back with "concerns for skydiving operations"?

seems a little selective hearing is going on in the AOPA.

-Britton

[Jason Kramb]

Marty,

Has there been any updates on the situation at L71 glider operations? The website doesn't seem to have any recent updates.

For others, I had only discovered the thread on RAS that mentioned the current situation at L71 and caught up with all of the documentation a few weeks ago. While I no longer live in the Antelope Valley area, I spent 8 years living there and using the Cal City airport, both as a power pilot and a glider pilot. It is one of the few places in the country where I've found ideal operations for both types of aircraft that easily and safely maintains separation between aircraft types and allows for simultaneous operations if necessary.

I wholeheartedly support the existing glider operations plan that's been in effect since well before I was born and that has worked so well over all those years. Cal City gets the vast majority of its traffic and aircraft operations from glider operations year round. Without the gliders, the community will have lost a valuable resource and amazing place to fly.

Please let me know where I can offer further statements of support to the organizations that work for us.

Regards,
Jason


On Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:10:22 AM UTC-4, Martin Eiler wrote:
> Soarist
>
>
>
> It is thanks to the many hundreds of hours of research, investigation and
>
> dedication by the California City Glider Pilots Action Group and the
>
> soaring community in general. That we at least temporarily have some hope
>
> of Caltrans re-permitting Cal City Airport to return to the safe, sane and
>
> functional operations of the past three plus decades. So that viable
>
> operations can continue while we wait for the major runway glider
>
> staging/launch apron project to be completed. One of the most
>
> disheartening aspects of this fight, was when we found out that AOPA and
>
> Calpilots were not interested in offering any support whatsoever in keeping
>
> 70% of the operations and 50% of the aircraft based at Calif City Airport..
>
> For the time being we encourage those interested to go to Walt Rogers Blog
>
> and get some idea of the history of what has been going on, and you can
>
> scroll down to the bottom of the page and post comments.
>
>
>
> http://scriptogr.am/wrogerswx/post/california-city-airport-unfriendly-to-glider-operations
>
>
>
> We are asking that you hold off sending any comments to the politicians
>
> because that will be our last line of defense if needed.
>
>
>
> Marty and the Calif City Glider Pilots Action Group

[JS]

California City statistics for Saturday 14 December.
A great day for power flying: Low density altitude (high 14C/57F), no clouds, 100 mile visibility, very light wind, no pesky vertical air movement.
Witnessed by myself between the hours of 9:45AM and sunset.

Tow plane takeoffs: 3
Tow plane landings: 3
Glider takeoffs: 3
Glider landings: 3
Non-glider-associated takeoffs: 1
Non-glider-associated landings: 1
Fouga Magister engine runs: 1

Jim

On Monday, December 16, 2013 7:41:17 AM UTC-8, Jason Kramb wrote:
> Marty,
>
>
>
> Has there been any updates on the situation at L71 glider operations? The website doesn't seem to have any recent updates.
>
>
>
> For others, I had only discovered the thread on RAS that mentioned the current situation at L71 and caught up with all of the documentation a few weeks ago. While I no longer live in the Antelope Valley area, I spent 8 years living there and using the Cal City airport, both as a power pilot and a glider pilot. It is one of the few places in the country where I've found ideal operations for both types of aircraft that easily and safely maintains separation between aircraft types and allows for simultaneous operations if necessary.
>
>
>
> I wholeheartedly support the existing glider operations plan that's been in effect since well before I was born and that has worked so well over all those years. Cal City gets the vast majority of its traffic and aircraft operations from glider operations year round. Without the gliders, the community will have lost a valuable resource and amazing place to fly.
>
>
>
> Please let me know where I can offer further statements of support to the organizations that work for us.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jason
>

[Bill Mileski]

Hi Marty and Cindy,

Bill Mileski here.. In the early 90's I got my glider rating from you. Since then I've moved back East, built an Experimental, started a family, etc.

A work trip gave me the opportunity to visit Minden last week, and in conversation with some local pilots, I found out about the mess at Cal City. I read all of the above, and also Walter Rogers' summary.

Just wanted to say my heart goes to you guys. I cherish the memories from my time out there, including wave, aerobatics, high altitude training, and all the time in QM, the baby Grob, and even some in a Blanik. I still chuckle about how once I almost ripped the main gear off of QM practicing a no-spoiler landing with you (Marty) -- at the time definitely not funny, and I'm forever sorry for that one! Also, I always considered you two as holding us pilots to the highest standards of safety and performance.

If there's any point to the above, it's just that glider ops at L71 over the years gave so much to so many, and the cessation seems to be based on such lack of consideration on so many fronts, by the mentioned controlling organization(s). Wish I (and others) could offer some sort of tangible help. I hope some sanity prevails.

Best regards,

Bill Mileski
william d o t mileski at g m a i l dot c o m
Ledyard, CT

On Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:10:22 AM UTC-4, Martin Eiler wrote:
> Soarist
>
>
>
> It is thanks to the many hundreds of hours of research, investigation and
>
> dedication by the California City Glider Pilots Action Group and the
>
> soaring community in general. That we at least temporarily have some hope
>
> of Caltrans re-permitting Cal City Airport to return to the safe, sane and
>
> functional operations of the past three plus decades. So that viable
>
> operations can continue while we wait for the major runway glider
>
> staging/launch apron project to be completed. One of the most
>
> disheartening aspects of this fight, was when we found out that AOPA and
>
> Calpilots were not interested in offering any support whatsoever in keeping
>
> 70% of the operations and 50% of the aircraft based at Calif City Airport..
>
> For the time being we encourage those interested to go to Walt Rogers Blog
>
> and get some idea of the history of what has been going on, and you can
>
> scroll down to the bottom of the page and post comments.
>
>
>
> http://scriptogr.am/wrogerswx/post/california-city-airport-unfriendly-to-glider-operations
>
>
>
> We are asking that you hold off sending any comments to the politicians
>
> because that will be our last line of defense if needed.
>
>
>
> Marty and the Calif City Glider Pilots Action Group