Glider Operations at U.S. Public Airports with Intersecting Active Runways

[Romeo Delta]

I request response from any individual or club operators that fly
gliders at a publicly funded, uncontrolled U.S. airport that has
intersecting, concurrently active runways.

I thank you in advance for your responses in this matter.

Ray

[BTIZ]

are you still fighting problems in LaGrange?

BT

"Romeo Delta" > wrote in message
om...
> I request response from any individual or club operators that fly
> gliders at a publicly funded, uncontrolled U.S. airport that has
> intersecting, concurrently active runways.
>
> I thank you in advance for your responses in this matter.
>
> Ray

[Romeo Delta]

"BTIZ" asks:

> are you still fighting problems in LaGrange?

Yes, sir, we are indeed.

The local Airport Authority's response to our original "informal"
Assurances violations complaint cited a concern for "safety" as
justification for local discriminatory rules such as:

1. Restricting glider operations to weekend days only (when there is
substantially increased local general aviation traffic and potential
conflicts?),

2. Refusing to rent available hangar space to glider operators (for
"safety" concerns?), and

3. Refusing to issue security gate access swipe cards to glider
operators (again, for reasons of "safety"?).

Whenever the alleged Assurances violators reply cites "safety"
reasons, the local FSDO is required to do a formal safety inspection
of the airport and its operations.

The local FSDO was exceedingly (but not surprisingly) inept in its
involvement with the matter at hand. The local FSDO has yet to
ascertain the validity of the existence of any bona-fide
safety-of-flight issues by requiring the Airport Authority to
substantiate its "safety" concerns with any evidence or supporting
documentation. Note that there have been no accidents or incidents
related to glider flying during the seven years that glider club has
been operating at LGC.

Amazingly, it was at the suggestion of the ATL FSDO's that the LGC
Airport Authority add an additional rule requiring that the glider
club provide an "observer" to stand at the runway intersections and
clear for traffic as a condition for glider operation [at an
uncontrolled airport?]. Note that the requirement for an "observer"
only applies to operating gliders at LGC--no other type of aircraft
operation is affected. Furthermore, this discriminatory local rule was
not one of of our original complaints as it did not exist when the
"informal" Assurances violations complaint was filed.

It was the ATL FSDO that suggested the LGC Airport Authority add the
discriminatory condition of an "observer" in order to operate gliders
at LGC during the course of this "informal" Assurances violations
investigation. The FSDO then officially approved the additional
restriction to flight. Then, in this order, the ATL FSDO finally got
off their bureaucratic butts and came down to LGC to do what they were
supposed to do in the first place--accomplish an "unbiased" formal
safety inspection. How unbiased do you think it is when the FSDO had
already initiated and approved additional restrictions to flight?

So, in essence, the involvement of the local FAA made matters worse!
Go figure.

We are attempting to have the local FAA Airports Assurances Officer
produce his official determination of our "informal" Asurances
violations complaint so that the club may then proceed with a "formal"
complaint to the FAA HQ.

To wit, any and all information about glider operations from other
uncontrolled, public, mixed-use airports having intersecting
simulateously active runways [not requiring the need for an "observer
as a condition to operate gliders] would be helpful as parallel
evidence for a follow-on "formal" Assurances complaint.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks for your interest in the
matter.

Ray

[ADP]

At least two places come to mind: Truckee, CA and Minden, NV.

http://www.soartruckee.com/

Rules and procedures at Truckee (KTRK)
http://www.soartruckee.com/rules.html

and

Rules and procedures at Minden (KMEV)
http://www.mindensoaringclub.org/index.html

Both Airports meet your criteria and operate safely.

Allan


"Romeo Delta" > wrote in message
om...
> "BTIZ" asks:
>
> > are you still fighting problems in LaGrange?
>
> Yes, sir, we are indeed.
>
> The local Airport Authority's response to our original "informal"
> Assurances violations complaint cited a concern for "safety" as
> justification for local discriminatory rules such as:
>
> 1. Restricting glider operations to weekend days only (when there is
> substantially increased local general aviation traffic and potential
> conflicts?),

......SNIP.....

[E. A. Grens]

Ray -

Our club, Silverado Soaring, operates out of Truckee-Tahoe Airport
(uncontrolled) in the summer, where runways 19 and 28 are normally in use.
We frequently use 19 when (most) power traffic is using 28. This doesn't
seem to cause problems, as sailplane landings on 19 stop long short of 28.
The clubs BASA and NCSA also use this arrangement, as far as I know, without
problems.

I appreciate your concern, as my son was a student member at LaGrange before
he (unfortunately) gave up soaring. I understand that you abandoned your
winch. To me this is very sad, as the winch is a great way to be introduced
to soaring.

Ed Grens
Romeo Delta > wrote in message
nderstandnews:67684cb5.0401230912.2899ca9a@posting .google.com...
> I request response from any individual or club operators that fly
> gliders at a publicly funded, uncontrolled U.S. airport that has
> intersecting, concurrently active runways.
>
> I thank you in advance for your responses in this matter.
>
> Ray

[Romeo Delta]

"E. A. Grens" wrote:

> I understand that you abandoned your winch. To me this is very sad, as the > winch is a great way to be introduced to soaring.

Hello Ed,

In the spirit of cooperation and good-faith give-and-take negotiations
to effect a mutually acceptable operating agreement, the club did,
several years ago, accept mandatory use of radios (which we did
anyhow) and cessation of winch usage as "reasonable" terms and
conditions to operate at LGC.

Very shortly thereafter in 1999, the then club president received a
letter from the airport board that stated the board had "unaninmously
decided to terminate glider operations at LGC"..."in the interest of
flight safety".
So much for the good-faith negotiations.
Funny how up until that point there had been no accidents or incident
related to glider operations, and likewise after that date to this
point. Yet the local FAA has not seemed fit to verify the airport
board's claim of concern for "safety" as being nothing more than the
ruse that it is.

I hope your son had a good experience flying with the Southern Eagles.
He very well may come back to soaring at some point. I, myself, have
had two ten-year hiatuses from the sport only to come back full circle
to my flying roots. I now own a nice LS-4, am a member of a vibrant
club comprised of wonderful people, and I'll not take lightly any
attempts of some local political appointees on an ego trip and their
arrogant and ignorant airport manager to take away my right to operate
the aircraft of my choice at a publicly funded airport on the same
fair and equitable basis as any other user of the airport and its
facilities.

Sorry about the soapbox stand at the end...With my best regards,

Ray

[BGMIFF]

MAybe you have all forgotten one thing, it can put a public airports federal
funding in danger to disallow operations of any plane that has an "N"
number. Last time I checked all gliders had those. Maybe you should start
being tough, instead of appeasing your way right off of the airport. Neville
Chamberlin tried that, look where he got us!

BG
"Romeo Delta" > wrote in message
om...
> I request response from any individual or club operators that fly
> gliders at a publicly funded, uncontrolled U.S. airport that has
> intersecting, concurrently active runways.
>
> I thank you in advance for your responses in this matter.
>
> Ray

[Romeo Delta]

"BGMIFF" > wrote:

> Maybe you should start
> being tough, instead of appeasing your way right off of the airport.

The FAA Airports Assurances compliance violations "formal" complaint
process first requires an "informal" complaint to and inverstigation
by the local FAA Airports Compliance Officer. One must also show a
good-faith attempt at a settlement at the local level before a
"formal" complaint will be considered by the FAA HQ.

Not my rules...

[Robert Ehrlich]

If no incident or accident happened due to glider operation
but some of them happened due to power plane operation, doesn't
that prove that power planes rather than gliders are a
safety problem, and the airport should become a glider only
one with only winch launches? :-)

[Bill Daniels]

"Robert Ehrlich" > wrote in message
...
> If no incident or accident happened due to glider operation
> but some of them happened due to power plane operation, doesn't
> that prove that power planes rather than gliders are a
> safety problem, and the airport should become a glider only
> one with only winch launches? :-)

Works for me, Robert.

Bill Daniels