If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"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! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
-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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What is the latest status report on the situation at your airport?
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sport Pilot - School Won't Offer | Gary G | Piloting | 38 | February 16th 05 10:41 AM |
The Internet public meeting on National Air Tour Standards begins Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | February 22nd 04 03:58 PM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
God Honest | Naval Aviation | 2 | July 24th 03 04:45 AM |