Clifornia City Gider ops in jeopardy

Now a question. This conversation started with slamming AOPA as being totally unhelpful in this issue. A representative of AOPA responded by saying they were never included in this issue. Where is the truth in this?

I am a member of AOPA and depend on them to provide help in these airport use issues. Has AOPA been slandered?

This is a problem with blogs. People saying things that they would never say face to face. Is the Cal City problem on route to a resolution? Is the prospect of glider operations being pushed off to the side real? Has AOPA been asked to help actually been done?

Many people want to know.

On Friday, November 1, 2013 10:12:08 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Now a question. This conversation started with slamming AOPA as being totally unhelpful in this issue.

snipped
This is a problem with blogs. People saying things that they would never say face to face. Is the Cal City problem on route to a resolution? Is the prospect of glider operations being pushed off to the side real? Has AOPA been asked to help actually been done?


AOPA's agenda is ofttimes not in alignment with a soaring issue. Yes, AOPA were aware in California (perhaps not in DC). This is a complex mess, that mostly has to do with the City changing it's ideas over time, and dealing with a CalTrans staffer with a bias. City staff hid documents and information from the glider operation for many years. SSA was not initially made aware of the operational mandate, until after a damaging City Council vote.

SSA did weigh in. With a 10,500 member organization, we can't do what a 400,000 AOPA can do. SSA has a staff of only 6 and no attorneys. When asked, I provided my personal business historical data and photos, documents, recollections, to assist in forming a rebuttal. I worked for many hours with John Shmoldas, tuning arguments, researching California law, making FOIA requests. I have done this (regardless of any personal relationships) for the good of soaring in California (and beyond).

Yes, CalTrans and the City have copies of the Aug. 2010 FAA Memo from Airport Engineering to ADO-1( AIP $$$ folks)about glider movements adjacent to runways and what IS permitted by FAA. SSA negotiated for that document to be created to address just these instances. (Thanks, Steve.)

Phone conversations continue, and documents are still flowing between SSA, the CCGPAG, to CalTrans (and to AOPA and CalPilots). Soaring pilots may stand alone against this abuse of power by an agency, but we stand on very clear and righteous ground about the failure of process, and fallacy of arguments.
None of this helps Marty make a living at this moment.

There will be further conversations up the rungs at CalTrans in the coming week. I prefer to give a supervisor a chance to "change tack" when they can, and make a quick reversal (use a scapegoat, please) in our favor.

For those who are truly motivated to help and participate, feel free to browse up Walt's blog. And when/if the call goes out for letters, please take as much time then to write, as you did to read through all this to date.

Cindy Brickner
Region 12 Director, SSA

Mr. Acheson

Did you not bother to read the 4th post on this thread that clearly
answered your current question?

At 05:12 02 November 2013, wrote:
Now a question. This conversation started with slamming AOPA as being
tota=
lly unhelpful in this issue. A representative of AOPA responded by
saying
=
they were never included in this issue. Where is the truth in this?

I am a member of AOPA and depend on them to provide help in these airport
u=
se issues. Has AOPA been slandered? =20

This is a problem with blogs. People saying things that they would never
s=
ay face to face. Is the Cal City problem on route to a resolution? Is
the=
prospect of glider operations being pushed off to the side real? Has
AOPA=
been asked to help actually been done?

Many people want to know.

To paraphrase Darth Vader: Our "plan is complete."


wrote in message
...
Well said, I totally agree!


I am a CFIG and Commercial Power pilot who has flown from Cal City as an
instructor, tug pilot, and private glider pilot continuously since 1989.
The status quo operation there is safe and sane, as evidenced by 50 YEARS of
incident and accident-free glider operations. Back in the early 1990's, the
airport was a veritable aerial rodeo: Dozens of gliders, 2-3 tugs, Folland
Gants doing high speed passes, two skydiving operations, and a plethora of
general aviation traffic. And No Significant Safety Issues!

CalCity Airport is essentially a ghost town today: No warbirds, no
skydiving ops, no general aviation traffic. You could sleep on the runway
most days, save the launching of a half dozen gliders on good days. What
exactly is endangered by the status quo operation methods? The aircraft
junk yard? The new kitty litter factory? Tumbleweeds rolling down the ramp?
Coyotes?

As others have stated, FAA studied the situation in years past and found it
to be safe. So much so that it suggested that CalCity be used as a model
for other airports. For those 50 YEARS, CalTrans has allowed three
operators to use the status quo mode of operation. Maybe class-action
lawsuit against CalTrans for risking my life for the last 50 YEARS?

The current attempted ban all in the name of "safety" is just one more case
of governmental overreaching in the name of protecting us from ourselves.
That the CalTrans representative is factually wrong and unwilling to discuss
this with outside parties is completely telling and absolutely wreaks of
external agendas and governmental hubris.

As the motorglider pilot stated at the end of his article in Soaring,
outlining air-air combat with a FL State Trooper, "We are the Government, We
Do What We Want.

Indeed.

Mr. Acheson

Did you not bother to read the 4th post on this thread that clearly
answered your current question?

At 05:12 02 November 2013, wrote:
Now a question. This conversation started with slamming AOPA as being
tota=
lly unhelpful in this issue. A representative of AOPA responded by
saying
=
they were never included in this issue. Where is the truth in this?

I am a member of AOPA and depend on them to provide help in these airport
u=
se issues. Has AOPA been slandered? =20

This is a problem with blogs. People saying things that they would never
s=
ay face to face. Is the Cal City problem on route to a resolution? Is
the=
prospect of glider operations being pushed off to the side real? Has
AOPA=
been asked to help actually been done?

Many people want to know.

I might accept that this situation is due to ignorance and recalcitrance, but I would first ask whether there are other motives. Who benefits if gliders are discouraged and ultimately forced out? Follow the money.

Reasonable people assume that logic and advocacy will prevail, but there might be another factor in play.

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 10:04:12 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:
I might accept that this situation is due to ignorance and recalcitrance, but I would first ask whether there are other motives. Who benefits if gliders are discouraged and ultimately forced out? Follow the money.



Reasonable people assume that logic and advocacy will prevail, but there might be another factor in play.

I too suspect this sentiment
6PK

On Saturday, November 2, 2013 10:01:10 AM UTC-7, Martin Eiler wrote:
Mr. Acheson
Did you not bother to read the 4th post on this thread that clearly

answered your current question?

Here is another answer I received from AOPA.
Mr. Acheson …



Thank you for your contact with AOPA’s Pilot Information Center (PIC) regarding the current and ongoing situation at Cal City Airport concerning skydiving operations.



Let me take a minute to correct some of the information exchanged with our team in the PIC.



Yes, I am familiar with this issue. There is a reason why other staff members may not be aware. Earlier this year, AOPA changed to a new association management software system which has had a number of issues that make tracking of our issues problematic for other staff members to locate. Fixes are being developed which will ultimately ensure that all staff are aware of any open issue that we have on the books.



I do not recognize the name Martin Eiler and have recollection of having any conversations/communications with him directly. However, I did receive a packet of information from ANDREW McKITTRICK, which I did answer. That inquiry had initially been send to our Regional Manager, John Pfeifer. In my reply to Andrew, I posed a number of questions that needed to be answered.. To date, none of my questions have been answered. All I received back were copies of the 1978 and 1993 airport licenses from Caltrans.



Finally, there is mention of a meeting in Lake Tahoe with my name attached as being there and saying certain things. I was not at that meeting!



__________________________

Bill Dunn

Vice President. Airport Advocacy

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Airports and State Advocacy Department

office: 301-695-2205

fax: 301-695-2278

www.aopa.org

There seems to be such a large disconnect here that I don't know who to believe. I would like to know if you have made contact with AOPA lately regarding this issue. Have you spoken to Mr. Dunn directly? Have you spoken to Mr. Pfeifer directly? Who is Mr. McKittrick and did he follow through with answering the questions that were supposed to be sent to him?

Guy Acheson

snip



Thank you for your contact with AOPA’s Pilot Information Center (PIC) regarding the current and ongoing situation at Cal City Airport concerning skydiving operations.



.... wait, what?...

you ask them for clarification and they come back with "concerns for skydiving operations"?

seems a little selective hearing is going on in the AOPA.

-Britton

Marty,

Has there been any updates on the situation at L71 glider operations? The website doesn't seem to have any recent updates.

For others, I had only discovered the thread on RAS that mentioned the current situation at L71 and caught up with all of the documentation a few weeks ago. While I no longer live in the Antelope Valley area, I spent 8 years living there and using the Cal City airport, both as a power pilot and a glider pilot. It is one of the few places in the country where I've found ideal operations for both types of aircraft that easily and safely maintains separation between aircraft types and allows for simultaneous operations if necessary.

I wholeheartedly support the existing glider operations plan that's been in effect since well before I was born and that has worked so well over all those years. Cal City gets the vast majority of its traffic and aircraft operations from glider operations year round. Without the gliders, the community will have lost a valuable resource and amazing place to fly.

Please let me know where I can offer further statements of support to the organizations that work for us.

Regards,
Jason


On Saturday, October 26, 2013 1:10:22 AM UTC-4, Martin Eiler wrote:
Soarist



It is thanks to the many hundreds of hours of research, investigation and

dedication by the California City Glider Pilots Action Group and the

soaring community in general. That we at least temporarily have some hope

of Caltrans re-permitting Cal City Airport to return to the safe, sane and

functional operations of the past three plus decades. So that viable

operations can continue while we wait for the major runway glider

staging/launch apron project to be completed. One of the most

disheartening aspects of this fight, was when we found out that AOPA and

Calpilots were not interested in offering any support whatsoever in keeping

70% of the operations and 50% of the aircraft based at Calif City Airport..

For the time being we encourage those interested to go to Walt Rogers Blog

and get some idea of the history of what has been going on, and you can

scroll down to the bottom of the page and post comments.



http://scriptogr.am/wrogerswx/post/c...der-operations



We are asking that you hold off sending any comments to the politicians

because that will be our last line of defense if needed.



Marty and the Calif City Glider Pilots Action Group