December 4th 13, 11:20 PM
On Wednesday, November 6, 2013 10:52:31 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Cal Trans has been trying to close legacy glider infrastructure and operations at California City Airport by one way or the other since 2002. Their claim is for safety reasons all of which have been defeated in detail. Cal Trans claims the glider runways and takeoffs from the parallel taxiway were never permitted which is also wrong. This is clear overreach on the part of Cal trans and parallels a case of the Orange County Glider's Association vs the County of Riverside (FAA Docket number 16-09-13). In this case the county was required to restore the glider runway.
>
>
>
> California city is a Federally obligated airport as it has received significant AIP funding which requires that the "Sponsor" California City, not only maintain the entire airport but make it available as an airport for public use, with without discrimination, to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities...
>
>
>
> In following and not opposing Cal Trans direction, Cal City may be in violation of its contractual obligation to maintain and keep the airport available for all users. Both glider runways are depicted in the last FAA approved MasterPlan for L-71, It takes FAA approval to close any runway or taxiway surface once depicted in the MasterPlan, not Cal Trans, especially without public hearing. De-registered G-2 aircraft salvage hulks are parked in the are parked in the RSA for what was Glider Runway 06. They need to be taken off the airport asap. Why not put them in the parachute area? This should never have been allowed by the airfield sponsor.
>
>
>
> Furthermore only pilots and FAA can make safety determinations, pilots for their own aircraft operation and the FAA for airports and airspace. Forcing glider takeoffs and departures to combine with powered traffic on the main runway has been determined by the glider pilots to be inefficient and hazardous (unsafe) due to exposure while stationary running pre launch checklists, positioning towplane and glider or when disembarking after landing on the runway and to potential collision with runway lights. In 2002, The Van Iyes ADO conducted an operational safety surveillance of the airport of its 35 year legacy glider runways and towed departures from the taxiway and the combined operations of soaring, skydiving and local powered aircraft including jet traffic were deemed "unconventional, but safe".
>
>
>
> Recommend that anyone besides the FAA thinking they having "jurisdiction" over the glider infrastructure at Cal City Airport review the Hemet-Ryan example quoted above.
>
>
>
> I really hope we don't have to repeat the Hemet complaint process, but if we do, I have not a single doubt in my military mind that we will win.
Has anyone given any thought that CalTrans might have an ulterior motive for closing Cal City Airport - Like is the High Speed Rail influencing their decision. I'm just throwing out idea's here but somebody in CalTrans decided to close the airport and we need to find out their motive. Having grown up in So. Cal and having been a private pilot I can attest to the fact that MANY airports have been closed over the years and developers moved in to build houses - My example refers to Capistrano Airport (near SanDiego and now closed) and Meadow Lark Airport - now closed in Huntington Beach
> Cal Trans has been trying to close legacy glider infrastructure and operations at California City Airport by one way or the other since 2002. Their claim is for safety reasons all of which have been defeated in detail. Cal Trans claims the glider runways and takeoffs from the parallel taxiway were never permitted which is also wrong. This is clear overreach on the part of Cal trans and parallels a case of the Orange County Glider's Association vs the County of Riverside (FAA Docket number 16-09-13). In this case the county was required to restore the glider runway.
>
>
>
> California city is a Federally obligated airport as it has received significant AIP funding which requires that the "Sponsor" California City, not only maintain the entire airport but make it available as an airport for public use, with without discrimination, to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities...
>
>
>
> In following and not opposing Cal Trans direction, Cal City may be in violation of its contractual obligation to maintain and keep the airport available for all users. Both glider runways are depicted in the last FAA approved MasterPlan for L-71, It takes FAA approval to close any runway or taxiway surface once depicted in the MasterPlan, not Cal Trans, especially without public hearing. De-registered G-2 aircraft salvage hulks are parked in the are parked in the RSA for what was Glider Runway 06. They need to be taken off the airport asap. Why not put them in the parachute area? This should never have been allowed by the airfield sponsor.
>
>
>
> Furthermore only pilots and FAA can make safety determinations, pilots for their own aircraft operation and the FAA for airports and airspace. Forcing glider takeoffs and departures to combine with powered traffic on the main runway has been determined by the glider pilots to be inefficient and hazardous (unsafe) due to exposure while stationary running pre launch checklists, positioning towplane and glider or when disembarking after landing on the runway and to potential collision with runway lights. In 2002, The Van Iyes ADO conducted an operational safety surveillance of the airport of its 35 year legacy glider runways and towed departures from the taxiway and the combined operations of soaring, skydiving and local powered aircraft including jet traffic were deemed "unconventional, but safe".
>
>
>
> Recommend that anyone besides the FAA thinking they having "jurisdiction" over the glider infrastructure at Cal City Airport review the Hemet-Ryan example quoted above.
>
>
>
> I really hope we don't have to repeat the Hemet complaint process, but if we do, I have not a single doubt in my military mind that we will win.
Has anyone given any thought that CalTrans might have an ulterior motive for closing Cal City Airport - Like is the High Speed Rail influencing their decision. I'm just throwing out idea's here but somebody in CalTrans decided to close the airport and we need to find out their motive. Having grown up in So. Cal and having been a private pilot I can attest to the fact that MANY airports have been closed over the years and developers moved in to build houses - My example refers to Capistrano Airport (near SanDiego and now closed) and Meadow Lark Airport - now closed in Huntington Beach