[TheNoonans]

Hi Mr. Hemmel,

I'd be happy to try and answer your question/concern relating to the landing area picture you have posted.

Your picture is an accurate representation of what we have requested of the Laconia Airport Authority, to be granted permission to land on the airport with the largest designated landing area being outlined by your yellow box. What is slightly inaccurate, is that based on prevailing winds, we expect the majority of all parachute operations to occur north of the runway, rarely, if ever, needing to cross the runway as your arrows are indicating. The majority of the aircraft patterns at the airport are south of the runway, so for the most part, our operational area will be completely separate from aircraft landing patterns. As we mentioned in our November 2008 presentation to the LAA, there are currently over 270 other drop zones in the US, many with jet traffic similar to Laconia, that safely accommodate a landing pattern such as we have proposed. There is nothing inherently unsafe about a parachute landing in your outlined area with taxiing and landing/departing aircraft nearby. Our parachutes are highly accurate and fly similar patterns to aircraft (albeit shorter patterns). Beyond that, the FAA makes no distinction between parachutes and aircraft at airports such as Laconia when it comes to airport access rights. The FAA states that parachutes have the same right to the airspace above the airport as any aircraft, and have the same rights to land on the airport. Imagine if we were requesting to open a helicopter flight school, would anyone question our request to land a helicopter on the airfield? In all likelyhood, no. And why would they. Just because our parachutes lack engines, it makes them no less an aeronautical activity than flying an aircraft. That's not our opinion, that's the FAA's position.

We understand that we represent something new and unknown to the majority of the aviation community. We have made every effort to communicate and educate those that we have worked with in the LAA to provide as much information as possible. The airport manager has an eight page mission statement we provided in August of 2008 and a 40+ page proposal to the LAA we provided in November 2008. By all means, I would encourage anyone that wants to learn more about who we are and what we propose to offer, stop by the terminal building and ask to see our information.

The other thing I would like to offer here is that we are not making any demands of the LAA regarding where we want to land, we simply want to work with the LAA to select the most viable landing areas to satisfy all involved. We are simply waiting for the LAA to say "okay, we agree you have a right to land here, let's work together to find a solution that serves the best interest of all involved here." The key word is "together". For lack of a better term, when it comes to drop zones and skydiving operations, based on our experience and positions, my wife and I are considered to be industry "experts". As such, all we want is to be included in the decision making process. If the LAA wants to say "no, landing in front of the terminal building is not possible". We want them to justify why. Simply saying "it's unsafe" is not enough. We, and subsequently the FAA would need more than that. We know from first hand experience that landing in an area such as what is outlined in your picture is an ideal location. It's done like that all across the country. Not wanting us to land there as a personal preference, or denying us based on the broad stoke of "safety concerns" goes against the federal grant assurances that airports such as Laconia Municipal Airport agree to abide by when accepting federal funding. To deny us landing there, just cause needs to be shown, and to be fair, based on our industry experience, it simply does not exist.

We genuinely respect your position Mr. Hemmel, but the truth is, you know very little about us or the minimal effect we will have on airport operations. Your opinions are based on common misconceptions of skydiving. Your question "do YOU want people jumping out of planes above YOUR home?" is an accurate example of that. The truth is that the neighbors of the airport are hundreds, if not a thousand times more likely to have a plane crash into their home than they ever would have a skydiver. Yet, the intent of your question (and entire first post) was to create an uninformed anxiety amongst the public to back your presumed position against us. If you truly want to understand how little intrusion our proposed operation will have on you and any other surrounding aircraft operator or resident, I would invite you to meet us for lunch prior to the next LAA meeting we attend. We would be happy to explain in detail to you, or to anyone interested, the specifics of our operational proposals. If it were of that sincere an interest to the community, we would arrange to do a community open house presentation for the residents of Laconia and Gilford. We offered to do that in August 2008, but were told that a "town hall" forum like that did not exist. If you, or anyone can find a location for us to hold the meeting, we would be happy to oblige you and hold a "town hall" style meeting for the community to address our request and their concerns.

We really do want the community to embrace our efforts, and are willing to share as much information as requested to set people's minds at ease.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom Noonan