Jacks Mountain Wind Turbine Letters Needed.

[Karl Striedieck[_2_]]

As noted before, the soaring at Mifflin could be negatively impacted by the installation of dozens of 450' high wind turbines on Jacks Mountain. Last night at the meeting of SOAR (Save Our Allegheny Ridges) the matter of FAA approval for these potential obstructions was discussed and a request for input from pilots was made.

The particular issue involving the FAA concerns the closest four of the 20 turbines Volkswind is proposing for its initial project. But the installation of any of these devices will render the ridge unsafe for any front/back side ridge flying that is important to Mifflin as a soaring site. This is because Jacks has a very narrow peak.

Following are links to three documents pertinent to a letter to the FAA. The first is an explanatory e-mail form Laura Jackson, head of SOAR. The second is a copy of a letter David Bargainier wrote. And third is a letter from the AOPA to the FAA on the subject.


http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Appeal_from_SOAR.pdf



http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Pilot_Objection_Letter.pdf



http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/APOA_Objection_Letter.pdf

Letters from pilots to the FAA can be brief summaries of your concern that approval of this project will present an unacceptable safety hazard to pilots, and any other reasons you might find useful from the AOPA and David's letters.

Thanks for the support.

Stay tuned.

kS

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:03:12 AM UTC-7, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> As noted before, the soaring at Mifflin could be negatively impacted by the installation of dozens of 450' high wind turbines on Jacks Mountain. Last night at the meeting of SOAR (Save Our Allegheny Ridges) the matter of FAA approval for these potential obstructions was discussed and a request for input from pilots was made.
>
>
>
> The particular issue involving the FAA concerns the closest four of the 20 turbines Volkswind is proposing for its initial project. But the installation of any of these devices will render the ridge unsafe for any front/back side ridge flying that is important to Mifflin as a soaring site. This is because Jacks has a very narrow peak.
>
>
>
> Following are links to three documents pertinent to a letter to the FAA. The first is an explanatory e-mail form Laura Jackson, head of SOAR. The second is a copy of a letter David Bargainier wrote. And third is a letter from the AOPA to the FAA on the subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Appeal_from_SOAR.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Pilot_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/APOA_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
>
>
> Letters from pilots to the FAA can be brief summaries of your concern that approval of this project will present an unacceptable safety hazard to pilots, and any other reasons you might find useful from the AOPA and David's letters.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the support.
>
>
>
> Stay tuned.
>
>
>
> kS

To help out, as we ALL need to come together on this, below is a copy of my letter. By making a few changes with your name, its a start. If you haven't soared this area, someday you might and its a majestic site. We need to keep it as such. Thank you. #711.


December 19, 2013

Mr. Gary Norek
Manager, Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., SW
Room 423
Washington, DC 20591

RE: Obstruction Evaluations 2013-WTE-5770-OE, 2013-WTE-6214-OE, and 2013-WTE-6232-OE

Mr. Norek:

Hello, I, as a retired Airline Captain/USA National Soaring Champion and US Team Soaring Team member submit the following request in response to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) determination of no hazard for Obstruction Circularizations 2013-WTE-5770-OE, 2013-WTE-6214-OE, and 2013-WTE-6232-OE. Based on the significant impact on general aviation flight operations and safety including soaring flights, races and use of these ridge areas which benifit the USA's entry for training purposes into World Soaring events, I request the FAA re-evaluate the obstructions and issue a determination of hazard.

The location of these proposed obstructions is a 20 mile long mountaintop ridge line extending more than 20 miles. Needless to say this area is a popular location for glider and sailplane operations. The cumulative impact of dozens of wind turbines along a ridgeline is far more substantial and significant than a single obstruction. Based on these factors, I feel that the threshold for significant impact has been met. Based on this finding, I request the FAA re-evaluate the obstructions and issue a determination of hazard.

We members of the Avaition comunity appreciate the opportunity to submit this request and looks forward to the FAA responding favorably to protect general aviation access and safety in the National Airspace System.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Thomas E Kelley
ATP # 1891591
Captain, retired, US Airways ( Piedmont, US Airways, now American Airlines)

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:03:12 AM UTC-7, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> As noted before, the soaring at Mifflin could be negatively impacted by the installation of dozens of 450' high wind turbines on Jacks Mountain. Last night at the meeting of SOAR (Save Our Allegheny Ridges) the matter of FAA approval for these potential obstructions was discussed and a request for input from pilots was made.
>
>
>
> The particular issue involving the FAA concerns the closest four of the 20 turbines Volkswind is proposing for its initial project. But the installation of any of these devices will render the ridge unsafe for any front/back side ridge flying that is important to Mifflin as a soaring site. This is because Jacks has a very narrow peak.
>
>
>
> Following are links to three documents pertinent to a letter to the FAA. The first is an explanatory e-mail form Laura Jackson, head of SOAR. The second is a copy of a letter David Bargainier wrote. And third is a letter from the AOPA to the FAA on the subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Appeal_from_SOAR.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Pilot_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/APOA_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
>
>
> Letters from pilots to the FAA can be brief summaries of your concern that approval of this project will present an unacceptable safety hazard to pilots, and any other reasons you might find useful from the AOPA and David's letters.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the support.
>
>
>
> Stay tuned.
>
>
>
> kS

Below is a copy of my letter. Making a few changes its a start. We ALL need to come together to help save and keep this majestic soaring site. Even if you have never soared this area, someday you might and ALL the Worlds help is needed!

Sincerely, take a few minutes and help. Thank you #711.




December 19, 2013

Mr. Gary Norek
Manager, Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., SW
Room 423
Washington, DC 20591

RE: Obstruction Evaluations 2013-WTE-5770-OE, 2013-WTE-6214-OE, and 2013-WTE-6232-OE

Mr. Norek:

Hello, I, as a retired Airline Captain/USA National Soaring Champion and US Team Soaring Team member submit the following request in response to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) determination of no hazard for Obstruction Circularizations 2013-WTE-5770-OE, 2013-WTE-6214-OE, and 2013-WTE-6232-OE. Based on the significant impact on general aviation flight operations and safety including soaring flights, races and use of these ridge areas which benefit the USA's entry for training purposes into World Soaring events, I request the FAA re-evaluate the obstructions and issue a determination of hazard.

The location of these proposed obstructions is a 20 mile long mountaintop ridge line extending more than 20 miles. Needless to say this area is a popular location for glider and sailplane operations. The cumulative impact of dozens of wind turbines along a ridgeline is far more substantial and significant than a single obstruction. Based on these factors, I feel that the threshold for significant impact has been met. Based on this finding, I request the FAA re-evaluate the obstructions and issue a determination of hazard.

We members of the Aviation community appreciate the opportunity to submit this request and looks forward to the FAA responding favorably to protect general aviation access and safety in the National Airspace System.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Thomas E Kelley
ATP # 1891591
Captain, retired, US Airways ( Piedmont, US Airways, now American Airlines)

[Soartech]

Note that Tom's letter is taken from the AOPA letter which has the wrong wind turbine numbers in the subject line. The document from SOAR says the turbines that are the primary hazard are
2013-WTE-6214-OE
2013-WTE-6215-OE
2013-WTE-6216-OE
2013-WTE-6217-OE

[JS]

Oops, too late.
Jim

On Thursday, December 19, 2013 11:43:59 AM UTC-8, Soartech wrote:
> Note that Tom's letter is taken from the AOPA letter which has the wrong wind turbine numbers in the subject line.

[[email protected]]

Prefilled letter from the Audobon Society:
https://secure3.convio.net/nasaud/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1549

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:03:12 AM UTC-7, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> As noted before, the soaring at Mifflin could be negatively impacted by the installation of dozens of 450' high wind turbines on Jacks Mountain. Last night at the meeting of SOAR (Save Our Allegheny Ridges) the matter of FAA approval for these potential obstructions was discussed and a request for input from pilots was made.
>
>
>
> The particular issue involving the FAA concerns the closest four of the 20 turbines Volkswind is proposing for its initial project. But the installation of any of these devices will render the ridge unsafe for any front/back side ridge flying that is important to Mifflin as a soaring site. This is because Jacks has a very narrow peak.
>
>
>
> Following are links to three documents pertinent to a letter to the FAA. The first is an explanatory e-mail form Laura Jackson, head of SOAR. The second is a copy of a letter David Bargainier wrote. And third is a letter from the AOPA to the FAA on the subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Appeal_from_SOAR.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Pilot_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/APOA_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
>
>
> Letters from pilots to the FAA can be brief summaries of your concern that approval of this project will present an unacceptable safety hazard to pilots, and any other reasons you might find useful from the AOPA and David's letters.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the support.
>
>
>
> Stay tuned.
>
>
>
> kS

Just an update for everyone. Our letters(mine sent Dec. 19, 2013) that went to the FAA were received well after the cutoff date of Dec. 26. 2013. They received mine Jan. 13, 2014.
They mailed me back on the Jan. 15, 2014 and I received my letter today, Jan.18,2014(3 days from them to me!!!) explaining that since they received it after the cutoff date, it was, as KS and others were, invalid.
The FAA did approve the wind turbine building sites, but another meeting is planned by what I understand.

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 18, 2014 10:49:24 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:03:12 AM UTC-7, Karl Striedieck wrote:
>
> > As noted before, the soaring at Mifflin could be negatively impacted by the installation of dozens of 450' high wind turbines on Jacks Mountain. Last night at the meeting of SOAR (Save Our Allegheny Ridges) the matter of FAA approval for these potential obstructions was discussed and a request for input from pilots was made.
>
> >
>
> >

Mine was received 1/8/14

TA
>
> >
>
> > The particular issue involving the FAA concerns the closest four of the 20 turbines Volkswind is proposing for its initial project. But the installation of any of these devices will render the ridge unsafe for any front/back side ridge flying that is important to Mifflin as a soaring site. This is because Jacks has a very narrow peak.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Following are links to three documents pertinent to a letter to the FAA.. The first is an explanatory e-mail form Laura Jackson, head of SOAR. The second is a copy of a letter David Bargainier wrote. And third is a letter from the AOPA to the FAA on the subject.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Appeal_from_SOAR.pdf
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Pilot_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/APOA_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Letters from pilots to the FAA can be brief summaries of your concern that approval of this project will present an unacceptable safety hazard to pilots, and any other reasons you might find useful from the AOPA and David's letters.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks for the support.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Stay tuned.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > kS
>
>
>
> Just an update for everyone. Our letters(mine sent Dec. 19, 2013) that went to the FAA were received well after the cutoff date of Dec. 26. 2013. They received mine Jan. 13, 2014.
>
> They mailed me back on the Jan. 15, 2014 and I received my letter today, Jan.18,2014(3 days from them to me!!!) explaining that since they received it after the cutoff date, it was, as KS and others were, invalid.
>
> The FAA did approve the wind turbine building sites, but another meeting is planned by what I understand.

[Soartech]

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:16:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Saturday, January 18, 2014 10:49:24 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:03:12 AM UTC-7, Karl Striedieck wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > As noted before, the soaring at Mifflin could be negatively impacted by the installation of dozens of 450' high wind turbines on Jacks Mountain. Last night at the meeting of SOAR (Save Our Allegheny Ridges) the matter of FAA approval for these potential obstructions was discussed and a request for input from pilots was made.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
>
>
> Mine was received 1/8/14
>
>
>
> TA
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The particular issue involving the FAA concerns the closest four of the 20 turbines Volkswind is proposing for its initial project. But the installation of any of these devices will render the ridge unsafe for any front/back side ridge flying that is important to Mifflin as a soaring site. This is because Jacks has a very narrow peak.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Following are links to three documents pertinent to a letter to the FAA. The first is an explanatory e-mail form Laura Jackson, head of SOAR. The second is a copy of a letter David Bargainier wrote. And third is a letter from the AOPA to the FAA on the subject.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Appeal_from_SOAR.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Pilot_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/APOA_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Letters from pilots to the FAA can be brief summaries of your concern that approval of this project will present an unacceptable safety hazard to pilots, and any other reasons you might find useful from the AOPA and David's letters.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Thanks for the support.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Stay tuned.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > kS
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Just an update for everyone. Our letters(mine sent Dec. 19, 2013) that went to the FAA were received well after the cutoff date of Dec. 26. 2013. They received mine Jan. 13, 2014.
>
> >
>
> > They mailed me back on the Jan. 15, 2014 and I received my letter today, Jan.18,2014(3 days from them to me!!!) explaining that since they received it after the cutoff date, it was, as KS and others were, invalid.
>
> >
>
> > The FAA did approve the wind turbine building sites, but another meeting is planned by what I understand.

How did you determine when it was received?

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 11:05:52 AM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
> On Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:16:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, January 18, 2014 10:49:24 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:03:12 AM UTC-7, Karl Striedieck wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > As noted before, the soaring at Mifflin could be negatively impacted by the installation of dozens of 450' high wind turbines on Jacks Mountain. Last night at the meeting of SOAR (Save Our Allegheny Ridges) the matter of FAA approval for these potential obstructions was discussed and a request for input from pilots was made.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Mine was received 1/8/14
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > TA
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The particular issue involving the FAA concerns the closest four of the 20 turbines Volkswind is proposing for its initial project. But the installation of any of these devices will render the ridge unsafe for any front/back side ridge flying that is important to Mifflin as a soaring site. This is because Jacks has a very narrow peak.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Following are links to three documents pertinent to a letter to the FAA. The first is an explanatory e-mail form Laura Jackson, head of SOAR. The second is a copy of a letter David Bargainier wrote. And third is a letter from the AOPA to the FAA on the subject.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Appeal_from_SOAR.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Pilot_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/APOA_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Letters from pilots to the FAA can be brief summaries of your concern that approval of this project will present an unacceptable safety hazard to pilots, and any other reasons you might find useful from the AOPA and David's letters.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Thanks for the support.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Stay tuned.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > kS
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Just an update for everyone. Our letters(mine sent Dec. 19, 2013) that went to the FAA were received well after the cutoff date of Dec. 26. 2013.. They received mine Jan. 13, 2014.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > They mailed me back on the Jan. 15, 2014 and I received my letter today, Jan.18,2014(3 days from them to me!!!) explaining that since they received it after the cutoff date, it was, as KS and others were, invalid.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > The FAA did approve the wind turbine building sites, but another meeting is planned by what I understand.
>
>
>
> How did you determine when it was received?

I didn't determine when it was received as they told me the date when they received it on their return letter.

[Soartech]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 2:44:44 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
> On Monday, January 20, 2014 11:05:52 AM UTC-7, Soartech wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:16:02 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, January 18, 2014 10:49:24 PM UTC-5, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > On Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:03:12 AM UTC-7, Karl Striedieck wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > As noted before, the soaring at Mifflin could be negatively impacted by the installation of dozens of 450' high wind turbines on Jacks Mountain. Last night at the meeting of SOAR (Save Our Allegheny Ridges) the matter of FAA approval for these potential obstructions was discussed and a request for input from pilots was made.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Mine was received 1/8/14
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > TA
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > The particular issue involving the FAA concerns the closest four of the 20 turbines Volkswind is proposing for its initial project. But the installation of any of these devices will render the ridge unsafe for any front/back side ridge flying that is important to Mifflin as a soaring site. This is because Jacks has a very narrow peak.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Following are links to three documents pertinent to a letter to the FAA. The first is an explanatory e-mail form Laura Jackson, head of SOAR.. The second is a copy of a letter David Bargainier wrote. And third is a letter from the AOPA to the FAA on the subject.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Appeal_from_SOAR.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/Pilot_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > http://mifflin.ridgesewing.com/APOA_Objection_Letter.pdf
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Letters from pilots to the FAA can be brief summaries of your concern that approval of this project will present an unacceptable safety hazard to pilots, and any other reasons you might find useful from the AOPA and David's letters.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Thanks for the support.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Stay tuned.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > kS
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Just an update for everyone. Our letters(mine sent Dec. 19, 2013) that went to the FAA were received well after the cutoff date of Dec. 26. 2013. They received mine Jan. 13, 2014.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > They mailed me back on the Jan. 15, 2014 and I received my letter today, Jan.18,2014(3 days from them to me!!!) explaining that since they received it after the cutoff date, it was, as KS and others were, invalid.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The FAA did approve the wind turbine building sites, but another meeting is planned by what I understand.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > How did you determine when it was received?
>
>
>
> I didn't determine when it was received as they told me the date when they received it on their return letter.

I sent mine in via registered mail ($3.25) well before the deadline and never got anything back.

[Soartech]

>
> I sent mine in via registered mail ($3.25) well before the deadline and never got anything back.


OK, just got notification yesterday that it was received two days after the deadline and so is "invalid".
First, it is too bad that this issue was posted so close to the deadline that our slow US mail system could not get it there on time.
Second, for future reference, the letter says that you may FAX these types of letters in instead of mailing !!
Someone at S.O.A.R. should have noted that in their info post.
The fax number to use is (202) 267-9328 for the FAA Airspace Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.