"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