Quote:
|
... but I find that someone trying to force their way into a place where they are not wanted is very distasteful.
|
You know honestly, we take everyone's comments here to heart and try to empathize with those that don't understand our position, but I agree with you brk-int, we don't understand this statement either.
From the beginning we have been open and forthcoming with every possible regulation and operating procedure that the FAA has set forth. I really can't think of how we could have gone about this any more passively other than just to walk away.
To understand the history of that statement though, you need to go back to the mid 1990s. At that time another operator approached the LAA for the same purpose, to open a dropzone at Laconia. They were met with the same resistance and were told the LAA voted "no", without doing any of the due diligence mandated by the FAA. It was a different time then, the internet and forums such as this were in their infancy, so the operators lacked the resources that we have today, and they walked away from the process. Consider even this thread if you will. We didn't start it. Someone else did, with a clear intent to try and alarm the community. Don't believe me? Anyone that has ever heard the phrase "A picture says a thousand words" only needs to scroll back to the first post of this thread to understand my point.
That set a precedent at the LAA I guess and when we first approached them, they treated us in the same manner.
For example, if you search the Citizen archives, you will see that the day we showed up to address the LAA in December 2008, the then Mayor of Laconia is quoted in the Citizen as saying the LAA already met and voted against our proposal. Before they ever even heard it and more importantly, before they ever contacted the FAA to do a safety study.
So its fair to say that since day one, the LAA has treated our proposal with complete disregard for proper procedure. They didn't want us there and attempted to stone wall us.
Then, instead of contacting the FAA in a timely manner as they were mandated to do, they created a Safety Committe, comprised of members of the LAA that had no background in aviation safety analysis. When we asked them to provide the aviation safety background of the Safety Committe, they stone walked us and said they were not legally obligated to provide us that information.
The "Safety Committee" stunt (for lack of a better term) bought the LAA about six months of reprieve, and when we didn't go away, they were finally forced to concede that they could not formulate a valid opinion and went to the ADO. They then submitted a "New Construction" evaluation form that had nothing to do with our proposal which further impeded the progress of this process and led to the current FAA debacle that is being sorted out in Washington as we speak.
Here's the thing, whether we are a good fit or not is a secondary issue. The primary issue is that the process that should have led to a final outcome shouldn't have taken more than six months. That it is now going on three years is a testament to the big government bureaucracy that exists today at the LAA.
The simple truth is that we were never, from day one, afforded due process. It has been a cat and mouse game of delay tactics designed to break our will. That is not the American Way and that is not what a federally funded airport should be doing.
Yes or no, skydiving or no skydiving, this process should have been handled quickly and efficiently. Obviously it hasn't. This should have been over either way in May of 2009. If the LAA had done their job, it would have been and we would either be operating or would have been told by Flight Standards that the airport is not appropriate for our purpose.
It really is that simple.
So, we were forced, yes forced, to pursue this just path, and we have. And we will continue to do so. If that is perceived by a small group of people that have ties to the FBOs and Bill as "distasteful", then so be it. We can't please everyone and we are confident that those of you that approach this process and situation with an open mind, will see that we are simply following a reactionary path.
My proof?
That email I just mentioned? Where the LAA manager sent out a "call to action" a week prior to the first meeting, but withheld that the airport already had all of our supporting data?
I have had that for over two years. Never published the fact that I had that email. Never intended to. It wasn't until the LAA quoted me out of context in their report to the FAA where they cited on this board that I said "a skydiver/aircraft" collision is simply not a realist concern, trying to paint me as someone who isn't safety oriented, that I finally published that email knowledge. My quote stands in context, that based on all the available data, you, the community of Laconia are about 100000 times more likely to have an aircraft to aircraft collision over your house than a skydiver/aircraft collision. The facts are out there, and they are indisputable.
That's when the dynamic of this process changed, thats when I decided to publish the existence of that email. And I have more. It seems the concerned citizens of the community really are interested in truth, justice and the American Way. Otherwise they wouldn't forward me these emails.
So Jonas Pilot, I'm sorry you feel we are being distasteful, but as the numerous supportive emails we continue to receive from the public continue to show, you are in a vast vast minor opinion on that one.
Blue skies to all and to all a good night,
Tom