Runway observer

Wishing you all the best. These thoughts come to mind.


Approach - Logic, and Arguments to be offered:

Be there, professionally attired with clean haircuts
and make a clear, reasoned presentation with good demeanor.
Anger gets nothing and must be hidden.

Prepare a simple quite brief position paper to be submitted
at the meeting into the FAA record following clearly
given oral statements of your needs and position.
Make no offers of any additional procedure or equipment
not required of pilots of all aircraft. For example,
there is not a requirement for radio in aircraft, so
don't offer it.

In that initial paper, essentially use logic; keep
it simple, keep it brief. Offer to operate as any
other aircraft at the airfield.

No need to detail the history of hostilities and present
no argumentum ad hominem.

Hold back a trump card, to be used in a later written
argumentarium on 'errors of fact,' for the event that
such may become necessary.

The later line argument, which one may cite, is operations
procedures as cited in Airman's Information Manual
on operations at non-tower controlled airports.

One may then cite into FAA the record, argument that
procedures which should be operated by are those defined
in the FAA Airman's Information Manual.

Sometimes, it is better to not offer all one's defensive
arguments until the opponent or agency advocating an
adverse but unconventional procedure has made their
first volley.

Thus, guard your hand.

If one offers all their arguments in round one, then
the initial ensuing FAA directive or finding can include
their parry incorporated into the initial FAA written
finding and they will be holding all the cards stacked
to their position without opportunity for useful additional
argument. Thus, hold back and use AIM for the come
back in round two.

Truly wishing you the best.

Dancing on clouds,

Keep it up!

Jim Culp USA
GatorCity Florida

A point here. If you end up appealing the local determination to the FAA
Director in Washington, include every conceivable argument with meticulous
detail. You will NOT be able to introduce any new evidence on appeal if the
Director upholds the local FAA office.

Allan

"Jim Culp" wrote in message
...
Wishing you all the best. These thoughts come to mind.


Approach - Logic, and Arguments to be offered:

Be there, professionally attired with clean haircuts
and make a clear, reasoned presentation with good demeanor.
Anger gets nothing and must be hidden.

Some more brainstorming possibilities (brainstorming =
vocalizing wild ideas without any critique of whether
they work in a particular instance)

At Dillingham, aerotows were generally with a tailwind.
Above about 10 knots, tows were cancelled because they
used a taildragger (a L-19 maybe?) and the owner had
concerns (there had been ground loops before).

The Southern Eagles site seems to show a trike (Cessna 175)
towing, so tailwinds might not be a concern as much.
And I don't know how strong or the direction of typical
glider weather winds (hence brainstorming).

Is it possible to take off from the runway intersection
the long way on the usually unused runway? Then land
in the other direction and always hold short? If
one treats this runway as a "one-way in, one-way out"
for gliders and tugs, would this work? Clearly there
are other factors that only local pilots would
know to critique this.

It seems that this solves the "intersecting traffic"
problem, and relieves the observer requirement.
Whether it works in other ways is unknown.

I noticed Allan mentioned the airport manager cannot
restrict landings. Absent from his comments were
whether an airport manager can restrict takeoffs.

Of course I believe Allan meant to say that the airport
manager cannot discriminate between classes of landing aircraft.
Certainly he can open or close runways at will (restrict landings).
If he despises gliders to the extent presented here,
I'd assume he'd get the Soaring Eagles to agree to use
the less popular runway, and then close it "indefinitely"
to fix the lights.

I'd ask the FAA what the plan is for your gliders if the
airport manager closes one of the runways.

The Airport Manager can not arbitrarily close any runway for landings or
takeoffs. Any certificated flying vehicle can NOT be prohibited from
operating at a public airport. The Airport would leave itself open to
severe liability problems if, for example, a transient aircraft (or glider)
was unable to land because of an arbitrary closing. In order to close a
runway for any reason, the Airport Management must issue NOTAMS in a timely
manner and have a valid (read safety) reason. Of course, in an emergency,
the Airport or runway can be closed, say because of a disabled aircraft on
the runway or at an intersection. It is in the best interests of Airport
Management to reopen the Airport as soon as possible.

At Dillingham, using an L19, experienced pilots are never prohibited from
obtaining a tow. If you have a tail wind on RWY 8 than there is no sense
going aloft for there is no ridge lift. Maybe you are talking about Mr.
Bills whose rules change like my wife's furniture. Try Soar Hawaii.

You other points are well taken.

I would fight this one to the bitter end if I were involved.

Allan


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
...
Some more brainstorming possibilities (brainstorming =
vocalizing wild ideas without any critique of whether
they work in a particular instance)

At Dillingham, aerotows were generally with a tailwind.
Above about 10 knots, tows were cancelled because they
used a taildragger (a L-19 maybe?) and the owner had
concerns (there had been ground loops before).

The Southern Eagles site seems to show a trike (Cessna 175)
towing, so tailwinds might not be a concern as much.
And I don't know how strong or the direction of typical
glider weather winds (hence brainstorming).

Is it possible to take off from the runway intersection
the long way on the usually unused runway? Then land
in the other direction and always hold short? If
one treats this runway as a "one-way in, one-way out"
for gliders and tugs, would this work? Clearly there
are other factors that only local pilots would
know to critique this.

It seems that this solves the "intersecting traffic"
problem, and relieves the observer requirement.
Whether it works in other ways is unknown.

I noticed Allan mentioned the airport manager cannot
restrict landings. Absent from his comments were
whether an airport manager can restrict takeoffs.

Of course I believe Allan meant to say that the airport
manager cannot discriminate between classes of landing aircraft.
Certainly he can open or close runways at will (restrict landings).
If he despises gliders to the extent presented here,
I'd assume he'd get the Soaring Eagles to agree to use
the less popular runway, and then close it "indefinitely"
to fix the lights.

I'd ask the FAA what the plan is for your gliders if the
airport manager closes one of the runways.

If you have a tail wind on RWY 8 than there is no sense going
aloft for there is no ridge lift. Maybe you are talking about Mr.
Bills whose rules change like my wife's furniture.

There are other reasons to go aloft than to find ridge lift (or
any lift for that matter). Heck, I spent most of my training
circling in sink :P

The point here was that there are operations that take off with
a tailwind, and judgement rather than convention determines when
this is safe.

As far as "must have NOTAM" and "safety reasons," I recall
taking off out of Watsonville a few days before the airshow.
The crossing runway (26-8) had big white Xs and cones on it.
I called Norcal approach and asked about NOTAMS. None (just
like during my standard briefing). Well, I gave them a
PIREP instead...which also mentioned the several closed
taxiways...

If this airport manager really hates gliders that much, I'd
not be surprised if ground crews were "fixing" something
safety critical at inopportune times. Police motorcycle
training (temporary, only Saturdays 10-6) wouldn't be
much of a stretch either. My point was just to be careful
of sneakiness...

I certainly don't disagree with you. We would all agree that there is no
substitute for good judgment which , it appears,
the Airport in question does not seem to have.
Yes, they can be sneaky but that doesn't make them right.
I, of course, was being facetious about Hawaii.

Socrates argued that "Might makes right". Although he was really arguing
the opposite. Unfortunately, might does often prevail and right suffers.
Stupid and venal people have endless dilatory ways and can usually outlast
the best of us.

In any case, good luck to the beleaguered glider group. May they ultimately
prevail.

Allan




"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
...
If you have a tail wind on RWY 8 than there is no sense going
aloft for there is no ridge lift. Maybe you are talking about Mr.
Bills whose rules change like my wife's furniture.

There are other reasons to go aloft than to find ridge lift (or
any lift for that matter). Heck, I spent most of my training
circling in sink :P

The point here was that there are operations that take off with
a tailwind, and judgement rather than convention determines when
this is safe.

As far as "must have NOTAM" and "safety reasons," I recall
taking off out of Watsonville a few days before the airshow.
The crossing runway (26-8) had big white Xs and cones on it.
I called Norcal approach and asked about NOTAMS. None (just
like during my standard briefing). Well, I gave them a
PIREP instead...which also mentioned the several closed
taxiways...

If this airport manager really hates gliders that much, I'd
not be surprised if ground crews were "fixing" something
safety critical at inopportune times. Police motorcycle
training (temporary, only Saturdays 10-6) wouldn't be
much of a stretch either. My point was just to be careful
of sneakiness...

Hey rjcii-

Since you are getting no where with the airport manager
and board, abandon them. They are paid and work for
a political type, generally those individuals prefer
not to get phone calls from angry constiuents. Turn
the club and their supporters loose on them, in a calm,
professional manner.


At 04:00 20 August 2003, Btiz wrote:
ouch rjcii... I did not realize you were at LaGrange...
I've been watching
that unfold.

Perhaps a phone call directly to Phil Boyer? just at
thought...

I feel your pain... we have similar situations developing
here, a new
airport being designed about 8 miles away will make
the current airport
unsuitable for soaring or many other operations, the
Instrument Final Appch
Fix, as designed will be right over the current runway.
The airspace will
revert to at least ClassC if not expand the current
ClassB.

The problem the county airport management faces, that
the current users of
the current airport must be provided for according
to the congressional
mandate approving the Bureau of Land Management Land
Sale, it is a 'sport
aviation field' and the county would be required to
build another 'sport
aviation field' in a location suitable (outside ClassC).
If we are not here
when the current airport closes, they do not have to
'take care of us'

BT

'rjciii' wrote in message
. com...
'BTIZ' wrote:

... then AOPA should be notified...


1. And if the local AOPA field representative happens
to also be the
Vice-Chairman of the Airport Board that allows such
misuse,

2. And if the AOPA HQ is made aware of this fact
and does not seem to
be concerned about any potential conflict of interest,

Both above items of which is the current situation
at the
LaGrange-Callaway airport in LaGrange, GA., where
the Southern Eagles
Soaring club made the AOPA aware of federal assurances
violations to
include restrictions to glider flying and refusal
to rent available
hangar space,

Then, please tell me what exactly do you think the
AOPA can do (as
opposed to 'should' do) about this or any other airport
assurances
complaint?

Speaking from personal experience, I think you'd be
very unpleasantly
surprised about how little support you'd actually
receive from the
AOPA, SSA, and the FAA on any such matters.

I'm reporting the unfortunate reality that one should
not assume, just
because one pays dues to the AOPA/SSA, that these
organizations will
readily become actively involved, when requested,
to protect a
member's 'right' to unfettered operation at public
facilities.

I have also learned that the FAA has no authority
(or willingness) to
enforce its own regulations, and the AOPA is unable
(or unwilling) ro
distinguish friend from foe.

--'It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive
a friend'.
-William Blake

--'We have met the enemy and it is us'. -Pogo