Restricting Glider Ops at Public Arpt.

[rjciii]

The Southern Eagles Soaring made a formal complaint to the local FAA
FSDO in ATL concerning the LaGrange-Callaway airport(LGC)restricting
glider flying to weekends only and unwillingness to rent hangars to
club members.

The LGC board claimed to the FAA that these restrictions are in the
interest to safety.

The FAA told the airport authority that they could not restrict the
gliders from operating on weekdays and that they also must rent us
hangars. We are still attempting to accomplish the latter. The FSDO
further directed the club and the airport board to *jointly* draft
glider operating procedures at LGC. To this end, the airport board
refused to communicate with the club and unilaterally implemented
procedures that, although allows gliders to fly any day of the week,
created other restrictions to glider operations which, in effect, make
it damn difficult to fly at all. The FSDO (in all its bureaucratic
ineptitude) took the word of the airport manager that the glider club
was involved in the derivation of the rules, and approved the rules(in
writing). When apprised of being misled, the FSDO did agree to hear
the glider club's concerns about specific rules. But in the end, the
FAA did not change what they had already approved under a false
assumption of mutual agreement.

The most disconcerting and onerous rule is that the glider club must
post a person posessing at least a private pilot rating at the
intersection of the airport's crossing runways to observe for any
landing or departing traffic and give an "all clear" radio call before
a glider tow can commence take off. Keep in mind that LGC is an
uncontrolled airport. Also realize that SES is a small club and that
it is normally difficult to schedule a tow pilot and have a wing
runner, much less now have to need for someone to bake in the sun all
day standing at the intersecting runways. As far as the need for such
an observer, there was a grand total of seven(7) non-glider flights
all day at the airport last Saturday.

The airport manager claims the need for the observer is for safety
(note that no such need existed when we only flew on the weekends).
We made the point that I.A.W. the Airport Assurances Agreement that
LGC is bound for accepting federal money that all aviation activity is
be allowed to operate on the same fair and reasonable terms without
discrimination. No other operator at LGC is required to post an
observer in order to operate at LGC. Not a single accident or incident
been attributed to the operation of gliders during the six and
one-half years the SES has been flying at LGC. At no time did any
representative of the FAA come down to observe glider operations
before approving these procedures.

Does anyone out there in the glider community have any experience with
this sort of situation? Where do we go from now? We sincerely
request any information or guidance in this matter. Private responses
(if so desired) may be addressed to:

Responses alluding to the need to negotiate or get along are not
necessary as such tactics have been tried and exhausted. This has
been an ongoing concern since 1998 when the airport board notified the
club by official letter that they "decided unanimously to terminate
glider operations at LGC". The club has since tried every conceivable
way to educate the airport authority about our operations and convince
them that we do not constitute a hazard to other aviation activity at
LGC to no avail. Now it seems we can't convince the FAA of that,
either. Help!

[rjciii]

"spektr" > wrote:

> Why don't you
> just reposition and use the PRIMARY ACTIVE RUNWAY


Be advised that the airport rules (approved in writing by the FAA
without allowing comment from the glider club) explicitly dictates
that the gliders will operate off of the non-instrument runway *only*.

FWIW, there is a blind spot caused by trees which blocks the view of
the approach of one runway from the departure end of the other runway
no matter which runway we use. So if we moved glider ops to the
instrument runway, the arpt. mngr. would still clamor for the need of
a spotter (albiet applicable to the glider operators only).

-Isn't the guy flying the C-172 taking off on Rnwy 21 just as blind to
the approach end of Rnwy 31? [The answer is "Yes"].

-Then how come he doesn't need a spotter at the intersection? [The
answer is "Because the local FAA has determined that blindness is
aircraft specific].

This is the ATL FSDO's interpretation of Assurance #22 of the Airport
and Airways Improvement Act of 1982 where it states, "...fair,
reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory conditions to be met by
*all* users of the airport"!

[Mark James Boyd]

>put a kid in a lawn chair sweating

Kid? Put a 90-year old woman with a walker out there.
Heck, I know several who are healthy as oxen but
can play it up with the best of 'em.

In the meantime I'd get AOPA involved, get the new SSA
director to make this a priority, and get cozy with the
city council.

Good luck...

[spektr]

">
> FWIW, there is a blind spot caused by trees which blocks the view of
> the approach of one runway from the departure end of the other runway
> no matter which runway we use. So if we moved glider ops to the
> instrument runway, the arpt. mngr. would still clamor for the need of
> a spotter (albiet applicable to the glider operators only).
>
> -Isn't the guy flying the C-172 taking off on Rnwy 21 just as blind to
> the approach end of Rnwy 31? [The answer is "Yes"].
>


Then suggest he remove the trees if THEYcause the reduced visibility.

ALSO.... Schedule an SSA Regional contest there.........

Scott

[rjciii]

For archival purposes for future searches on this subject, I have come
across a document entitled "ULTALIGHT VEHICLES: ACCESS AND THE
GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT ENVIRONMENT" by Bob Moorman (no date).

This handbook is a good reference for the steps to be taken to file
both an informal and formal complaint with the FAA with respect to
access denial and unjustly discriminatory rules not in compliance with
Airport Sponsor Assurances (applicable for any FAR Part 103 defined
aviation activity to include gliders and ultralights).

[Bill Daniels]

What is it about flying, and gliding in particular, that seems to attract
the attention of so many paranoid control freaks?

This thread is about an ignorant airport manager who feels an overpowering
need to "control" the gliding activities at his airport to insure "safety",
but these same people can be found inside our sport serving as officers and
board members of clubs and associations. They rarely actually fly gliders
or show any talent for doing so. Instead, they spend their energy
controlling the activities of others who do fly.

This unfortunate combination of arrogance, ignorance, paranoia and a type A
personality is deadly for the enjoyment of our sport. These individuals
contribute little to actual safety since they don't understand the problem.
They take the position "just don't fly" or "fly less - it'll be safer" or
"only fly basic trainers" since this is the only "solution" that they can
comprehend. They will often be heard espousing the bizarre idea that
handling qualities are inversely related to performance so the "safest"
gliders always have the lowest performance.

Sorry for the rant. I hope you don't know anyone resembling the
description above.

Bill Daniels

[Anon]

"Bill Daniels" >s comments read:

>Sorry for the rant. I hope you don't know anyone resembling the
>description above.

Oh how I wish it were true

[Stewart Kissel]

This thread got me thinking of examples I have seen that draw attention t=
o our sport in a negative manner, my list would include:

1.) Towrope dropped on active and left
2.) No radio in glider to announce pattern
3.) Rope break drills with no pre-announcement
4.) Pilots who cannot remove their ship from the active without the tow-=
out gear, tow-vehicle, full flight debrief and bathroom break.
5.) The "5 minutes to hookup" that turn into control check, data-load in=
to logger, finding water tube, seatbelts, etc., etc..


Not to say these happen all the time, but in the world of aviation...our =
sport seems to be the only one that camps on the active for extended peri=
ods of time. And some pilots seem to think this is no big deal.

[Al]

have you had any help from the SSA or AOPA or EAA in any of this?

Al

[Bill Daniels]

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> This thread got me thinking of examples I have seen that draw attention t=
> o our sport in a negative manner, my list would include:
>
> 1.) Towrope dropped on active and left
> 2.) No radio in glider to announce pattern
> 3.) Rope break drills with no pre-announcement
> 4.) Pilots who cannot remove their ship from the active without the tow-=
> out gear, tow-vehicle, full flight debrief and bathroom break.
> 5.) The "5 minutes to hookup" that turn into control check, data-load in=
> to logger, finding water tube, seatbelts, etc., etc..
>
>
> Not to say these happen all the time, but in the world of aviation...our =
> sport seems to be the only one that camps on the active for extended peri=
> ods of time. And some pilots seem to think this is no big deal.
>
Good points, Stewart. #5 is one of my pet peeves too.

Bill Daniels

[Michael]

(rjciii) wrote
> The Southern Eagles Soaring made a formal complaint to the local FAA
> FSDO in ATL concerning the LaGrange-Callaway airport(LGC)restricting
> glider flying to weekends only and unwillingness to rent hangars to
> club members....
> The club has since tried every conceivable
> way to educate the airport authority about our operations and convince
> them that we do not constitute a hazard to other aviation activity at
> LGC to no avail. Now it seems we can't convince the FAA of that,
> either. Help!

You're not going to want to hear this, but I have only one thing to
tell you. Move to someplace where you're wanted. There's really no
other solution. In all likelihood, you're going to lose this fight.

It's a matter of federal regulation that publicly funded airports are
to be open to all users participating in recognized aeronautical
activities, without discrimination, subject to reasonable regulations
as necessary for safety. The definition of recognized aeronautical
activity is fairly broad; it includes soaring, ultralights of all
sorts, skydiving, and pretty much any aeronautical activity regulated
by the FAA in any way.

On this basis, I have seen many groups (and been part of one) that
have brought the FAA into the picture when airport management has
tried to drive the activity off the airport. In every case, the
eventual outcome was that the operation moved to another airport or
shut down within a few years at most.

I suspect this is because the airport managers that try to drive out
the glider pilots, ultralight pilots, and skydivers are basically
ignorant and authoritarian. The same kind of people dominate the FAA,
and are pretty much unwilling to really go to bat against their own
kind.

Therefore, while the FSDO folks can't openly support the airport
manager in a flat-out prohibition, they can allow him to make rules
'for safety' that will cripple the operation. It won't help that most
of them will not know a thing about gliders, and might actually
consider such prohibitions reasonable. Even if they do bring in a
token glider 'expert' - like the glider-rated inspector at our FSDO -
odds are he will (a) still be a typical fed and (b) won't be much of a
glider expert. Would you believe the only glider-rated inspector at
our home FSDO, the guy who does all the initial CFI rides in gliders,
has never trained a glider student, never flown glider XC, and has
less than 50 hours in gliders?

So basically, you can expect that the airport manager will be able to
make rules at will, and that the FAA will not stop him. That's just
the way it is. And don't count on any substantive help from SSA,
either.

The only real chance you have of winning the battle is political. You
need to win over the airport board and get them to rein in or replace
the airport manager. If you fail to do this, you will be gone from
the airport by the end of the decade. Count on it.

Michael

[F.L. Whiteley]

>
> Sorry for the rant. I hope you don't know anyone resembling the
> description above.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
As I wrote my club board today in closing

"Oh yeah, remember, this is supposed to be fun...."

Frank Whiteley

[rjciii]

Judy,

Can the SSA provide any help with respect to advocacy in this
situation other than provide regulatory references?

Ray

[rjciii]

(Michael) wrote:

> Move to someplace where you're wanted. There's really no
> other solution. In all likelihood, you're going to lose this fight.

You are correct, sir--I don't like what you have to say, but I do
appreciate your candor.

Our club relocated to its present airport because it was
uncerimoniously run out of another "public" airport. So when do we
stop running away? What's to say that the next airport we operate out
of doesn't have a change of heart and decide to disciminate as well?

The current location suits our club's needs very well considering half
our members are from N. Atlanta and half from Alabama. LGC is
equidistant and sufficiently south of the ATL Class B airspace. It
also has lots of open grass infield and long runways. No, I think
we'll stand our ground and fight for our rights. I suspect the
airport board is counting on the contrary.

It is hilarious (not) that the situation you describe concerning your
local FAA's glider "expert" is exactly what we are dealing with here.
Matter of fact, everything you describe is deja-vu except for the bit
about the airport board firing the airport manager--here they're all
in bed together. We have bent over backwards for four years now, all
the while attempting every way possible to persuade the airport
authority to change their minds. But persuasion is only effective if
one is dealing with receptive and reasonable people. We truly are not.
What we got for our effort is a letter stating that "the board has
unanimously decided to terminate glider operations..." Now is time
for the gloves to come off. At least we intend to put up the best
fight we can, hope for some support, and simply not go timid into the
night! Too bad it seems thus far that we cannot rely on the FAA to
enforce their own regulations.

Politics??? Anybody out there have any expertise on how to blackmail
someone?

[Jack]

rjciii wrote:

> Anybody out there have any expertise on how
> to blackmail someone?

All I know is what I hear from the politicians:

"Never get caught with a live boy, or a dead girl."




Jack

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote:
>
> >> 5.) The "5 minutes to hookup" that turn into control check, data-load
in=
> >> to logger, finding water tube, seatbelts, etc., etc..
>
> >Good points, Stewart. #5 is one of my pet peeves too.
>
> So - do I take it that doing a control check, turning on the
> instruments, positioning the loose water tube and fastening
> the seatbelts are things you think we *shouldn't* do before
> the launch? I also do a checklist, turn on the radio,
> check the release, look at the windsock, ask the wing runner
> to verify my tail dolly is off, set the flaps and latch the
> canopy. Safe glider operation requires certain procedures,
> and most of them can't be done until I'm seated in the
> glider ready to hook up. I can't get in until the glider is
> in position for launch. While I don't dawdle, I don't rush
> either. I take the time I need - no more, no less.
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
At most of the UK clubs I've flown with, this was all done before the
members pushed the glider into launch position (with the pilot(s) already
belted in). There are a few US sites where staging is done near, but not on
the runway and there is minimal time actually spent on it. It's really
quite a luxury to stage on an active runway IMHO. Maybe it comes from
having learned to soar from a gliding club that had an 2400ft main and 600ft
cross on 11 acres. Helped with the short field practice also.

Frank Whiteley

[Judy Ruprecht]

At 23:24 30 July 2003, Rjciii wrote:
>Judy,
>
>Can the SSA provide any help with respect to advocacy
>in this
>situation other than provide regulatory references?

SSA's Airport Utilization group headed by Steve Northcraft
can provide some assistance in airport user issues,
but FAR 16.23 limits the role any association can play
here. The person or entity directly and substantially
affected by an airport authority's alleged act or omission
has the legal standing to file a formal complaint with
FAA and bears primary responsibility to document the
resulting detriment to safety, economics and/or efficiency.


That said, it's been my experience that many airport
utilization issues tend to involve glider pilots saying,
'we've always done things this way' while the airport
manager, his/her supervising Commission, the City/County
Board and/or the local FSDO or ADO point to FAA advisory
material and say, 'well, you're in conflict with FAA
safety standards.'

True enough, the origins of some of these conflicts
can be traced to a cranky airport tenant or an airport
manager with an anti-soaring bent. More insidious and
perhaps more often, planned airport improvements -
and the desire for federal funding to pay for them
- can prompt a review of airport procedures and the
(unpleasant) finding that glider ops need to be modified.

Chief among the sticky wickets for soaring: design
standards for Obstacle Free Zones and Object Free Areas,
along with recommended procedures for ground personnel
and vehicles on aprons/ramps, taxi ways and runways.
These issues have been dealt with at Minden Tahoe
(Douglas County) airport in NV and their current operating
rules are available online through the 'regulations'
link at http://mtairport.co.douglas.nv.us/pilot_guide.html#
(be sure to check out not only the glider ops section
but also rules pertaining to pedestrians and vehicles!)

The intersection traffic cop is a novel and unprecedented
idea, as far as I know... but given the LGC runway
layout shown on Airnav and blind ends of the intersecting
runways, it would not IMHO seem unreasonable for airport
operating rules to require either radios in all gliders
or (1) a launch announcement by a radio-equipped tow
plane and (2) normal glider landings stopping well
short of the intersecting runway.

Finally, I note that in a previous post, you mention
that gliders are not allowed to operate from the runway
with an instrument approach, which is cited on Airnav
as an ILS on 31. Presumably this is used in IMC and
for practice approaches in VMC. Meanwhile, Soaring
Eagles' website mentions (occasional?) winch launch
activities apparently taking place on 03/21. Hmmm...
maybe an intersection traffic cop isn't such a bad
idea when the winch is in use.

Judy

[rjciii]

> it would not IMHO seem unreasonable for airport
> operating rules to require either radios in all gliders
> or (1) a launch announcement by a radio-equipped tow
> plane and (2) normal glider landings stopping well
> short of the intersecting runway.


Judy,

We don't think these two requirements are unreasonable considering the
situation, either. In fact, we have alway operated IAW these two
procedures as a matter of common sense safety, and we have expressed
our willingness to formally accept these procedures as a condition to
operate. But the airport board does not think that is enough (control
and ego isssues) and the local feds let the airport B.S. them into
concurring (due to a batant ignorance of glider operations in general,
and in specific, an unwillingness to get off their federal
bureaucratic butts and check out our operation in an unprejudiced
manner as they are supposed to do). But we must be thankful that the
FAA put their "glider" man (who had maybe 10 flights of instruction
decades ago) on the case...

I cannot get any explicit and intelligent reasons from the FAA (other
than "that's how it's going to be") as to why there is so much concern
for safety when gliders launch off of Runway 03/21 to prompt such an
onerous stipulation to operate, when each and every other aviation
activity (to include powered aircraft without radios thus not having
the capability to even monitor traffic calls or make takeoff
announcements) can continue to operate off of the very same crossing
runway all day long without also being required to post an observer as
a condition to operate.

I just can't seem to be able to get past FAA Order 5190.6A language
"...fair, equal, and not unjustly discrimination terms to be met by
*ALL* users of the airport."

Know that the glider club agreed not to operate the winch years ago.
You just can't get good (nonpaid, voluntary club member) help these
days to keep a web site up to date. Guess we should fire the bum. ; )

Also know that the gliders normally operate off of Rwy 21, and if you
consider the length of the grass infield from the approach end of 21
to the intersection of 13/31, someone landing a 500# glider at 55 kts.
would really have to purposely try to roll beyond the intersection.
This has never happened.

There is absolutely no need for an intersection observer when we
depart or land using Rnwy 03 because there is no row of trees on that
end to block the view of the 13/31 approaches--but regardless of
this we are still required to post an observer even when operating off
of 03!

As far as Mr. Northcraft, I apprised him of this situation what must
be two years ago by now. His(somewhat terse)response, and this is just
about verbatem, was *if you don't have an airport-glider operating
procedures agreement--then why not?*

Well, we have been working on that very objective for years now. But
in order to draw up an agreement two parties must be willing to
discuss the matter at hand. The airport board has never been
receptive--they just want the gliders to be gone, period. And the
airport manager recently told the FAA that he will not communicate
with the glider club. Obviously he is very receptive to negotition.
And doesn't an "agreement" mean that two parties actually "agree" to
something? After all our many attempts to work with the airport
authority were exhausted, the club, as a last resort, approched the
FAA to intervene. What has resulted from this process are onerous
procedures written by the airport board with no input from the glider
club; procedure concocted to harass and make it difficult to operate
gliders at all; procedures with no basis in safe or efficient airport
operations; procedures rubber-stamped and then shoved up our ass by
the FAA.

[Paul Lynch]

Although the FSDOs are their own little feifdoms, they do have bosses. You
also have congressmen and senators who can send letters.

Don't let the *******s get you down!


"rjciii" > wrote in message
om...
> > it would not IMHO seem unreasonable for airport
> > operating rules to require either radios in all gliders
> > or (1) a launch announcement by a radio-equipped tow
> > plane and (2) normal glider landings stopping well
> > short of the intersecting runway.
>
>
> Judy,
>
> We don't think these two requirements are unreasonable considering the
> situation, either. In fact, we have alway operated IAW these two
> procedures as a matter of common sense safety, and we have expressed
> our willingness to formally accept these procedures as a condition to
> operate. But the airport board does not think that is enough (control
> and ego isssues) and the local feds let the airport B.S. them into
> concurring (due to a batant ignorance of glider operations in general,
> and in specific, an unwillingness to get off their federal
> bureaucratic butts and check out our operation in an unprejudiced
> manner as they are supposed to do). But we must be thankful that the
> FAA put their "glider" man (who had maybe 10 flights of instruction
> decades ago) on the case...
>
> I cannot get any explicit and intelligent reasons from the FAA (other
> than "that's how it's going to be") as to why there is so much concern
> for safety when gliders launch off of Runway 03/21 to prompt such an
> onerous stipulation to operate, when each and every other aviation
> activity (to include powered aircraft without radios thus not having
> the capability to even monitor traffic calls or make takeoff
> announcements) can continue to operate off of the very same crossing
> runway all day long without also being required to post an observer as
> a condition to operate.
>
> I just can't seem to be able to get past FAA Order 5190.6A language
> "...fair, equal, and not unjustly discrimination terms to be met by
> *ALL* users of the airport."
>
> Know that the glider club agreed not to operate the winch years ago.
> You just can't get good (nonpaid, voluntary club member) help these
> days to keep a web site up to date. Guess we should fire the bum. ; )
>
> Also know that the gliders normally operate off of Rwy 21, and if you
> consider the length of the grass infield from the approach end of 21
> to the intersection of 13/31, someone landing a 500# glider at 55 kts.
> would really have to purposely try to roll beyond the intersection.
> This has never happened.
>
> There is absolutely no need for an intersection observer when we
> depart or land using Rnwy 03 because there is no row of trees on that
> end to block the view of the 13/31 approaches--but regardless of
> this we are still required to post an observer even when operating off
> of 03!
>
> As far as Mr. Northcraft, I apprised him of this situation what must
> be two years ago by now. His(somewhat terse)response, and this is just
> about verbatem, was *if you don't have an airport-glider operating
> procedures agreement--then why not?*
>
> Well, we have been working on that very objective for years now. But
> in order to draw up an agreement two parties must be willing to
> discuss the matter at hand. The airport board has never been
> receptive--they just want the gliders to be gone, period. And the
> airport manager recently told the FAA that he will not communicate
> with the glider club. Obviously he is very receptive to negotition.
> And doesn't an "agreement" mean that two parties actually "agree" to
> something? After all our many attempts to work with the airport
> authority were exhausted, the club, as a last resort, approched the
> FAA to intervene. What has resulted from this process are onerous
> procedures written by the airport board with no input from the glider
> club; procedure concocted to harass and make it difficult to operate
> gliders at all; procedures with no basis in safe or efficient airport
> operations; procedures rubber-stamped and then shoved up our ass by
> the FAA.

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "F.L. Whiteley" > wrote:
>
> >At most of the UK clubs I've flown with, this was all done before the
> >members pushed the glider into launch position (with the pilot(s) already
> >belted in).
>
> That's great when you have a crew, but it's not always
> possible.
>
That is the greater problem with the US soaring scene.

Frank

[Jim Harper]

Judy Ruprecht > wrote in message >...

> That said, it's been my experience that many airport
> utilization issues tend to involve glider pilots saying,
> 'we've always done things this way' while the airport
> manager, his/her supervising Commission, the City/County
> Board and/or the local FSDO or ADO point to FAA advisory
> material and say, 'well, you're in conflict with FAA
> safety standards.'

Judy: I am also in the club/situation in question, and if it is your
implication that we ACTUALLY are in conflict with FAA safety
standards, you are incorrect. This club operation is very safe indeed,
and the Airport Authority's position is at best, arbitrary, and at
worst, illegal.


> The intersection traffic cop is a novel and unprecedented
> idea, as far as I know... but given the LGC runway
> layout shown on Airnav and blind ends of the intersecting
> runways, it would not IMHO seem unreasonable for airport
> operating rules to require either radios in all gliders
> or (1) a launch announcement by a radio-equipped tow
> plane and (2) normal glider landings stopping well
> short of the intersecting runway.

Your suggestion is exactly what our proposed plan was. There is no
difficulty stopping short of 13/31 on landings, and we do have a radio
in our tow plane, and have always announced our staging and takeoff.
As a matter of fact, our operations have never (since I have been in
the club) involved any conflict with power operations.
>
> Finally, I note that in a previous post, you mention
> that gliders are not allowed to operate from the runway
> with an instrument approach, which is cited on Airnav
> as an ILS on 31. Presumably this is used in IMC and
> for practice approaches in VMC. Meanwhile, Soaring
> Eagles' website mentions (occasional?) winch launch
> activities apparently taking place on 03/21. Hmmm...
> maybe an intersection traffic cop isn't such a bad
> idea when the winch is in use.

The winch has long since departed.

A few ancillary points. This is (as opposed to Minden) an uncontrolled
airport. There is, based on the FAR's (or whatever we are calling them
now) no requirement for ANY aircraft to have radios in this airport,
and in fact, there are several power operators, including ultralights,
who operate without radios. One fact that really tweaks me is the fact
that the new requirements include the need for people on foot to be
better equipped (radio) than aircraft at this airport. Seems absurd to
me. On the other hand, this entire matter is absurd. And it is
dangerous to soaring operations everywhere (who don't own their
airports).

Jim

[E. A. Grens]

I flew with you, and observed your operations, a few years ago when my son
was in your club taking instruction at LaGrange. Unfortunately he did
continue in soaring (peer influence). In the three weekend days I was at
LaGrange, your club's operations were the majority of the operations at the
field. I observed no possible conflicts with power flights on the crossing
runway. Unless power traffic has increased immensely since then, it would
seem that any rational airport manager would welcome your presence to help
justify the airport's existence.

Good luck in your struggle.

Ed Grens

[rjciii]

"E. A. Grens" > wrote:

> Unfortunately he did continue in soaring...

Dear Mr. Grens,

Thank you for the kind response and assessment of our operation.

Yes, the traffic has *not* increased; and yes, the airport manager is
*not* rational.

Is the statement above concerning your son's continuation in soaring
because it exposed he and you to such conflicts for fair access as
the one ongoing in LaGrange?

Or did you mean to say that it is unfortunate he did [not] continue
due to peer pressure?

If the latter statement is correct, then as a father of a teenaged son
with an interest in soaring I would like to know what kind of peer
pressure would influence your son (& perhaps my son) not to fly? I
would think that most of your son's friends would think that was a
"rad" thing for any "dude" to do.

Now if the peer pursuation involved a developing appreciation for the
scent of perfume--now that's a cat of a different color indeed!

[Michael]

(rjciii) wrote
> Our club relocated to its present airport because it was
> uncerimoniously run out of another "public" airport. So when do we
> stop running away? ... No, I think
> we'll stand our ground and fight for our rights.

I'm a Texan by choice, and I can certainly respect that. Remember the
Alamo. But also remember that the defenders of the Alamo died there,
to a man.

> I suspect the
> airport board is counting on the contrary.

I suspect the airport board is counting on driving you out with
untenable regulations, complaints, and anything else they can think
off. I doubt they're counting on you giving up the fight.

I've seen more than one such fight. Sometimes they drag out for
years, but in the end the airport board always wins.

> It is hilarious (not) that the situation you describe concerning your
> local FAA's glider "expert" is exactly what we are dealing with here.

It's how the organization works - it's inherent to the system.

Do you also believe me now when I say you will get no substantive help
from SSA? The reason is simple - they might like to help, but they
really have no capability to fight the FAA in any way. They don't
want to admit that, because it will hurt fundraising efforts.
Therefore, they will urge compromise - meaning accepting whatever
rules the airport manager dreams up and the FAA approves.

> Matter of fact, everything you describe is deja-vu except for the bit
> about the airport board firing the airport manager--here they're all
> in bed together.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I've seen the airport
board fire the manager - I only said that this would be the only way
for you to win. I don't expect it to happen.

> Too bad it seems thus far that we cannot rely on the FAA to
> enforce their own regulations.

But then we never could. Even the inspector general of the DOT admits
that.
http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf

Michael

[David Kinsell]

"Wallace Berry" > wrote in message ...
> In article >,
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote:
>
> > What is it about flying, and gliding in particular, that seems to attract
> > the attention of so many paranoid control freaks?
> >
> > This thread is about an ignorant airport manager who feels an overpowering
> > need to "control" the gliding activities at his airport to insure "safety",
> > but these same people can be found inside our sport serving as officers and
> > board members of clubs and associations. They rarely actually fly gliders
> > or show any talent for doing so. Instead, they spend their energy
> > controlling the activities of others who do fly.
> >
> > This unfortunate combination of arrogance, ignorance, paranoia and a type A
> > personality is deadly for the enjoyment of our sport. These individuals
> > contribute little to actual safety since they don't understand the problem.
> > They take the position "just don't fly" or "fly less - it'll be safer" or
> > "only fly basic trainers" since this is the only "solution" that they can
> > comprehend. They will often be heard espousing the bizarre idea that
> > handling qualities are inversely related to performance so the "safest"
> > gliders always have the lowest performance.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant. I hope you don't know anyone resembling the
> > description above.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
> >
> >
>
> What Ray Cornay has written with regards to the situation with our
> airport management is no exaggeration or skewing of the facts.

Could be. Usually when you hear one side of a story, that's exactly
what you get -- one side of the story. Maybe mr anonymous rjciii
laid all the facts on the table and maybe he didn't. Hard to tell on
the internet, isn't it?


> What Mr. Daniels has written is an exact description of the psychology
> of the individuals we have to deal with. Mr. Daniels, your rant is
> appreciated. I'm sorry that anyone else has had to deal with people with
> the mindset that you describe. However, I've seen enough of it to
> suspect it is the case at many of the "public" airports.

Umm, Mr. Daniels is ranting about a glider-club owned airport.


> Which leads me to a rant of my own:
>
> I am absolutely convinced that the one critical problem for soaring
> today is airport access. We can sell the sport anyway we want, but what
> will that help if we can't even keep the people who have taken the time
> to seek us out? In the last 20 years, I've seen dozens (maybe a hundred
> or more) people drop out of soaring primarily because they couldn't
> stand the hostile atmosphere of the "public" airport. One answer is what
> the best clubs have done: Buy land and establish a glider field.

I belong to one such club, the Colorado Soaring Association. Through
hard work and financial sacrifice over the years, we own and operate
a private airport. It used to be a great place to fly.

Then one day a Mr. Daniels shows up. He made a point of telling people
he just wanted to fit in. Over the three years that we've been blessed
with his presence, he's misused club equipment and club property,
he's created as much chaos as he possibly can, and he's invoked the
hatred of virtually the entire membership. He's being eased out of the
club currently, which explains why he's in such a bad mood. He's
driven away club members, towpilots, and instructors. He's been
thrown out of other clubs before, so the process should come as no
great surprise to him.


> Even
> this doesn't end all the access problems such as noise complaints or
> TFR's or someone installing Class B over your head.

Or putting up with nutcakes like Mr. Daniels. Mr. Daniels is
to 2-33's what Lennie the Lurker is to 1-26's.


> However, we have
> already bought and continue to pay for the "public" airpots and it makes
> me absolutely furious to have a psychotic glorified gas station
> attendant tell me I can't use "his" airport.

Mr. Daniels always tries to run the show. People who try to get him
to pay his bills are "control freaks". Telling him to follow club rules
makes you another "control freak" in his warped little mind. Anytime
he doesn't get his way, he starts his ranting again. Speaking of people's
enjoyment of the sport, there's about 50 members of Colorado Soaring
Association who are going to be wildly cheering when he's gone.

He says he's going to start his own glider club, winching of course,
open by invitation only to the most elite glider pilots in the state.
Anybody who wants to follow this moron out to a cow pasture is
more than welcome. I'm sure his buddy Frank will be right there.

Dave Kinsell

[David Kinsell]

"rjciii" > wrote in message om...
> "David Kinsell" > wrote in message news:<1y%Za.87660$
>
> >>"Wallace Berry" wrote:
> >> What Ray Cornay has written with regards to the situation with our
> >> airport management is no exaggeration or skewing of the facts.
>
> "David Kinsell" wrote:
> > Could be. Usually when you hear one side of a story, that's exactly
> > what you get -- one side of the story. Maybe mr anonymous rjciii
> > laid all the facts on the table and maybe he didn't.
>
>
> Mr. anonymous "rjciii" reply:
>
> Dear Mr. Kinsell:
>
> Are you daft, man?
>

No, just an average "Joe" (not my real name) who's smart enough to know
that you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Also smart enough
to know that anonymous postings don't have much credibility, and keeping
your name off the internet hardly protects you from identity theft. I also know
that being a hot-head like yourself isn't going to help fix your airport problem.
Puts me a leg up on you, eh?

[rjciii]

-You write a post publicly slamming a fellow glider club member--
-You write a post questioning my credibility and integrity--

If such actions put you, as you contend, a "leg up" on me (whatever
that is supposed to mean?), then I'm perfectly content remaining leg
down!

First Mr. Daniels and now me. Is there anyone else you care to attack
while the rest of us are trying to discuss the more serious matter of
glider/public airport access concerns? If so, I ask that you at least
have the courtesy to start a new thread so there is no doubt as to the
intention of the subject matter and the character of the author.

Again, thanks so much for turning this thread into a personal jabfest.

[Stewart Kissel]

What is the latest status report on the situation at your airport?

[rjciii]

Stewart Kissel > wrote in message >...
> What is the latest status report on the situation at your airport?


Stewart, thanks for your continued interest in this matter.

We are awaiting the FAA ADO rep's formal written determination of our
informal assurances complaint allegating equal airport access sponsor
violations (refusal to rent hangars and discriminatory restrictions to
flight).

Last weekend, the FAA FSDO completed their formal safety inspection.
Note that this safety inspection is required by FAA procedures when
the sponsor's reason for such restrictions is for safety or capacity
concerns. Also note that the inspection was accomplished well after
the FSDO had already approved flight and operating restrictions [in
*addition!* to the one's in which we initiated the original
complaint]; these new restrictions being unilaterally authored and
implemented by the airport authority without any input from the glider
operators in spite of the FSDO's directive that *both* parties draft
operating procedures.

No comments were made by the FSDO with respect to our operations at
the time of the inspection other than alluding to a good, safe
operation. I imagine anything to the contrary will come out in the
ADO determination. We suspect the requirement for a runway
intersection observer will be retained. If so, the glider operators
will continue to press for relief from that stipulation
administratively through a now formal assurances complaint to FAA HQ,
and/or legally through civil lawsuit.

As a side note, the glider club has contacted the AOPA on this matter.
The AOPA said that we would be contacted by the local AOPA field rep
within ten days (of the initial phone call to AOPA HQ). This never
occured. Come to find out, the local AOPA field rep is none other than
the Vice-Chairman of the LGC Airport Board! When Mr. Loudermilk of
the AOPA was notified of this, he said that the field rep had
submitted a lengthy report which accuses the glider club of numerous
safety violations which, per the report, have resulted in FAA
intervention and enforcement action. We refuted these outright lies
to Mr. Loudermilk and questioned the field rep's conflict of interest
and lack of objectivity in this matter. For the most part, Mr.
Loudermilk comments were to make excuses for his field rep. So much
for help from the AOPA...the ludicrocity of this situation just keeps
getting more and more absurd!

--The govenment solution to a problem is usually as bad as the
problem.
-Milton
Friedman


....of course, as the honorable Mr. David Kinsell previously so
astutely and tactlessly pointed out, this is only a one-sided account
of the situation, and therefore one cannot trust my integrity in
reporting this matter, nor can this report be considered credible
since the author chooses to protect his privacy by not splashing his
personal data all over the internet. I suggest anyone wishing the
opinion of the LaGrange-Callaway Airport Authority contact the airport
manager, Mr. Glen Boyd, at (706) 884-3412. Be *sure* to identify
yourself as a glider pilot!

[ADP]

Well, a few points:

Minden (MEV) is an uncontrolled airport.
The Airport manager has no authority to prevent landings of any type of
aircraft. He does have the authority to prevent parachute landing
operations.
Although a lengthy process, try to have glider aware pilots appointed to the
board. The airport manager who requires a motor glider to land "engine off"
or
"engine on" has exceeded his authority.

Who runs the airport?
Who owns the airport?

Politicians who need votes can be persuaded that the airport board or
airport manager is keeping voters from using a public facility.
Don't depend on the FAA for anything.
There are no FARs because they don't exist. (Well, they do but they mean
Federal Acquisition Regulations.) Airports are covered under 14 CFR part
xxx regulations,
as are pilots etc.
The procedures in the AIM, while touted by the FAA, are advisory only.
(Except during a check ride.)
There are no requirements for radios at uncontrolled airports.
The FAA does not have the authority to require a mid-field controller.
Write to the FAA Director for a determination of this.
Complain to the FAA Director about abuses of authority, vis-a-vis grant
obligations.
Get your Congressman or Senator involved.

Try to persuade the owner of the airport - county or city or state or
whatever - to lease the airport to a non-profit corporation and bid for the
lease. If you care to confront the airport manager have your ducks in a row
and
have police standing by. Make a friend of the police chief within whose
jurisdiction the airport
lies.

The truth is, there are some valid safety concerns associated with glider
operations. It seems to me, however, that you have addressed these
adequately.

Amass safety statistics from airports that have simultaneous glider and
power operations: Hollister, CA; Truckee, CA; Minden, NV; Dillingham, HI and
others. You will find a very good safety record indeed.

Point out to the board the revenue generating aspects of your operation. If
you don't generate any revenue, find a way to do so.
Have exhibits at your local Airport Day. If there is no local Airport Day,
organize one.

Find out how the successful glider-power airports have resolved the
authority problems.

Good luck,

Allan (ex airport board member)


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
...
> I will make an effort at brevity :P
>
> I wonder if the ATC unions wouldn't balk at the precedent of using
> an observer as a "psuedo-controller."
>
> I wonder how much "runway intersection observer liability insurance"
> would cost. An estimate from Lloyd's might be enlightening when
> showing damages in court, or estimating costs of implementation.
>
> I wonder if the Inspector General will end up as your final
> recourse, since it seems unbiased viewpoints are rare.
>
> I too have no firsthand idea of the facts going on at your
> airport. However, given that I operate frequently out of two
> public airports with view-limited crossing runways, the
> observer requirement seems novel, unique, precedent-setting
> and potentially extremely restrictive and limiting if
> applied here.
>
> I'd be willing to shop around support from Hollister,
> Byron, Truckee, Minden, and Avenal
> against this specific requirement if you can provide
> copies of the documentation from your adversaries. Perhaps
> a link to a .jpg or .doc file?

[Klein Gilhousen]

On 17 Aug 2003 07:44:28 -0700, (rjciii) wrote:

>Stewart Kissel > wrote in message >...

>No comments were made by the FSDO with respect to our operations at
>the time of the inspection other than alluding to a good, safe
>operation. I imagine anything to the contrary will come out in the
>ADO determination. We suspect the requirement for a runway
>intersection observer will be retained. If so, the glider operators
>will continue to press for relief from that stipulation
>administratively through a now formal assurances complaint to FAA HQ,
>and/or legally through civil lawsuit.

I was wondering if you couldn't set up your glider launch from near
the center of your runway instead of from one end. From the center,
you'd probably be in position to easily visually clear the crossing
runway by the tow pilot and/or the wind runner. I would think your
runway is long enough to only use half of it (unless you're using a
cub as a tug.) You'd also be near to a taxiway to keep the runway
clear if needed.

Good luck,
Klein

[Chris OCallaghan]

This is why we have a national organization... get them involved. What
the SSA can do for you will have value to all clubs that operate from
public airports. While the ras is good for spreading the word, the
society should function to muster resources and organize them to the
benefit of all members.

The SSA is slowly changing. Here's a chance to hurry it along.

[Mark James Boyd]

>The SSA is slowly changing. Here's a chance to hurry it along.

I'd be willing to bet the new Director at SSA would appoint a
political soaring advocate from the current staff if asked.
The main job could be to provide input and coordinate with AOPA
for soaring issues.

I think SSA is a bit small to make an impact on its own, but
a rep from SSA to AOPA (which does a fairly good job
lobbying) might be able to present a concentrated voice
for soaring. And with this contact, the AOPA might use
SSA as a resource when glider questions come up...

NAFI is a smaller part of EAA. Similar idea, since NAFI
is smaller, to use the larger organizations infrastructure...

SSA might do something similar, but without becoming a
part of AOPA, just an advisor...

[Rich Carr]

X-No-Archive: yes

(Chris OCallaghan) wrote in message >...
> This is why we have a national organization... get them involved. What
> the SSA can do for you will have value to all clubs that operate from
> public airports. While the ras is good for spreading the word, the
> society should function to muster resources and organize them to the
> benefit of all members.
>
> The SSA is slowly changing. Here's a chance to hurry it along.

As I recall, Ray previously reported that one of the airport board
members was an AOPA member who was either passively or actively
hostile to the glider activity.

One aspect of this that the SSA might be useful for is having them ask
AOPA questions along these lines:

- Does the AOPA provide the same level of support to all its members,
or does it prefer not to be an advocate for non-airplane general
aviation members?
- Why has AOPA not provided more support to an AOPA/SSA member in
fighting the activities of an over-reaching airport board, something
AOPA is normally quite willing to get involved in?
- Why is an AOPA member who sits on the airport board not more
supportive of fellow general aviation enthusiasts? Why isn't this
AOPA member more willing to discuss the situation with a fellow AOPA
(and SSA) member?

- Rich Carr

[rjciii]

rjciii wrote:

> >"...the SSA's capability [actually inability]
> >to, as you >say, 'get involved' in such a situation
> >is for (albeit well >intentioned) volunteers to individualy
> >offer opinions and >advice to the members--no direct
> >action is taken on behalf of the member(ship)."

Dear Judy:

I/we appreciate the information that you, as an interested individual,
have forwarded with regards to this matter. Please realize that the
members of the Southern Eagles Soaring club appreciate any and all
help received, and we would certainly welcome any "official" SSA
representation in this matter. But we also recognize that the SSA [as
a national organization] in reality can not do much, as was the
suggestion of a previous poster. Do not take my comments about the
SSA's inabilities to be reflective of your welcome involvement.

FWIW, We have not yet been given any definitive report nor updated
airport rules WRT the local FAA's decision(s) per our "informal"
assurances complaints. Still standing by to stand by...

Regards,

Ray

[rjciii]

(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

> I'd be willing to bet the new Director at SSA would appoint a
> political soaring advocate from the current staff if asked.
> The main job could be to provide input and coordinate with AOPA
> for soaring issues.


Great idea! I encourage you to submit the same(in writing)to the SSA Director.

[rjciii]

(Thomas J Johnson) wrote:

> Would you'all be interested in getting together to share thoughts,
> notes, and strategies, etc?


TJ:

Most of the nuances of the situation at LGC has been discussed (ad
nauseum) throughout the following threads:

-Glider Clubs on Public Airports
-Glider Clubs on Public Airports (USA)
-Onerous Operating Procedures/Improper (Illegal?) use of UNICOM Freq
-Runway Observer
-Runway Observer for Glider Operations
-Uncontrolled Airports w/ X-ing Runways

Please review, and then feel free to contact me at:

with any questions/comments/comparisons. I would certainly be
interested in what our respective situations have in common, and I
welcome the opportunity to help in any way. As previously stated, we
up here in GA are awaiting the local FSDO's determination of our
club's "informal" sponsor assurances complaint.

You're not a '82 zoomie, are you?

Regards,

Ray