Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

TheNoonans · 05-19-2009, 10:36 AM

Good morning Mr. Hemmel,

I'll try my best to address your statements:

You wrote: "We are attempting to deny them the opportunity to deliberately inconvenience and endanger the rest of the air traffic solely for financial gain."

What research have you personally done to validate that statement? You posted a video you found online.

Have you read about the two small aircraft that just collided off of Long Beach Airport. One was a Cessna 172, should we ban 172s from Laconia Municipal Airport?

The truth that you seem so reluctant to want to acknowlegde, is that the FAA has done considerable research on this topic and has come back time and time again stating that skydiving operations on local airports such as Laconia can be accommodated and safely integrated, including landing parachutes on the airfield. And that for an airport sponsor to deny such an operation based on "inconvenience and endangering" of other aircraft as you put it, isn't going to fly (forgive the pun) with the FAA. That's not my opinion, the FAA has stated it time and again when other small airports attempted to block skydiving operations in identical situations such as this. The FAA has clearly stated that there is an acceptable level of risk increase posed by any new business on an airfield and that the level of risk increase created by a skydiving operation is well within the realm of reasonableness. That's pretty much the FAA verbiage quoted.

You then wrote: "Ah, c’mon Tom. We weren’t born yesterday. One tiny off road business will have no significant effect on either the local economy or the length of the tourist season."

Really? You know relatively nothing about us or our industry or what we are capable of doing, yet you are an authority on the size and scope of our business model and the effect we will have on the local economy?

The truth is that realistically, if Skydive Laconia is given the chance to operate without such bias, we will generate hundreds if not over 1000 additional tourists to the area each year as our business grows. That is 1000 additional tourists that otherwise would not have made the trip to Laconia. These trips will start in early April and continue through the end of October. Our "tiny little business" will have a significantly greater impact on the local economy than you give us credit for.

We also intend to hire local employees. That means new jobs. Part of our job offer project will be to actually train local residents to do all the jobs we are doing. That will open up a global employment network opportunity to local residents. Did you know that a busy year round dropzone in the western United States is currently looking for tandem instructors and is offering a salary of $70,000.00 a year? Imagine a local resident training under Skydive Laconia full or part time and three years from now be able to travel pretty much anywhere in the world and earn a decent living as a skydiving instructor. In this job market, I think that is a good thing. But as you would like to lead the community to believe, our tiny little business will have no effect on the local economy. Out of curiousity, how many jobs did you create last year for local residents?

You wrote: "Um, $10M/year? I’m sure the airport commission would love to find out that was true! FYI, the Laconia airport is self-supporting."

The $10,000,000 figure was provided to me by someone in attendance of a recent LAA meeting in my absence where federal funding was discussed. if that number is inflated or incorrect, then by all means, I would happily recant my figure in the presence of a more accurate figure. But dollar amount aside, the airport does accept federal funding, and regardless of the amount, it brings with it obligations to meet federal funding grant assurances.

I see two ironies here Mr. Hemmel. With all due respect, your latest title "Smoke and Mirrors" is a perfect example of everything you have posted in this thread from your first post on. You have gone out of your way to give just enough scare tactic information without backing any of it up to try to create an uninformed anxiety amongst the masses. You accuse us of smoke and mirrors, yet your the one that is actually doing it. Ironic.

The second irony is that we had actually intended to bring business your way. If you had actually taken the time to sit down and talk to us like we offered, you would have come to understand how little, if any effect, our operation would have on the airport. But you have made it abundantly clear that you have no desire to understand us and you clearly don't want us there. So be it.

Despite not receiving the same in return, we continue to extend our respect to your views Mr. Hemmel, and wish you well with your continued attempts to thwart our progress.

To the rest of the community, we continue to appreciate your support and your willingness to consider the facts and judge the situation on it's own merits.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

05-19-2009, 10:36 AM	#80
TheNoonans Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Daytona Beach, FL - Bedford, NH Posts: 136 Thanks: 0 Thanked 219 Times in 57 Posts	Skydive Laconia Good morning Mr. Hemmel, I'll try my best to address your statements: You wrote: "We are attempting to deny them the opportunity to deliberately inconvenience and endanger the rest of the air traffic solely for financial gain." What research have you personally done to validate that statement? You posted a video you found online. Have you read about the two small aircraft that just collided off of Long Beach Airport. One was a Cessna 172, should we ban 172s from Laconia Municipal Airport? The truth that you seem so reluctant to want to acknowlegde, is that the FAA has done considerable research on this topic and has come back time and time again stating that skydiving operations on local airports such as Laconia can be accommodated and safely integrated, including landing parachutes on the airfield. And that for an airport sponsor to deny such an operation based on "inconvenience and endangering" of other aircraft as you put it, isn't going to fly (forgive the pun) with the FAA. That's not my opinion, the FAA has stated it time and again when other small airports attempted to block skydiving operations in identical situations such as this. The FAA has clearly stated that there is an acceptable level of risk increase posed by any new business on an airfield and that the level of risk increase created by a skydiving operation is well within the realm of reasonableness. That's pretty much the FAA verbiage quoted. You then wrote: "Ah, c’mon Tom. We weren’t born yesterday. One tiny off road business will have no significant effect on either the local economy or the length of the tourist season." Really? You know relatively nothing about us or our industry or what we are capable of doing, yet you are an authority on the size and scope of our business model and the effect we will have on the local economy? The truth is that realistically, if Skydive Laconia is given the chance to operate without such bias, we will generate hundreds if not over 1000 additional tourists to the area each year as our business grows. That is 1000 additional tourists that otherwise would not have made the trip to Laconia. These trips will start in early April and continue through the end of October. Our "tiny little business" will have a significantly greater impact on the local economy than you give us credit for. We also intend to hire local employees. That means new jobs. Part of our job offer project will be to actually train local residents to do all the jobs we are doing. That will open up a global employment network opportunity to local residents. Did you know that a busy year round dropzone in the western United States is currently looking for tandem instructors and is offering a salary of $70,000.00 a year? Imagine a local resident training under Skydive Laconia full or part time and three years from now be able to travel pretty much anywhere in the world and earn a decent living as a skydiving instructor. In this job market, I think that is a good thing. But as you would like to lead the community to believe, our tiny little business will have no effect on the local economy. Out of curiousity, how many jobs did you create last year for local residents? You wrote: "Um, $10M/year? I’m sure the airport commission would love to find out that was true! FYI, the Laconia airport is self-supporting." The $10,000,000 figure was provided to me by someone in attendance of a recent LAA meeting in my absence where federal funding was discussed. if that number is inflated or incorrect, then by all means, I would happily recant my figure in the presence of a more accurate figure. But dollar amount aside, the airport does accept federal funding, and regardless of the amount, it brings with it obligations to meet federal funding grant assurances. I see two ironies here Mr. Hemmel. With all due respect, your latest title "Smoke and Mirrors" is a perfect example of everything you have posted in this thread from your first post on. You have gone out of your way to give just enough scare tactic information without backing any of it up to try to create an uninformed anxiety amongst the masses. You accuse us of smoke and mirrors, yet your the one that is actually doing it. Ironic. The second irony is that we had actually intended to bring business your way. If you had actually taken the time to sit down and talk to us like we offered, you would have come to understand how little, if any effect, our operation would have on the airport. But you have made it abundantly clear that you have no desire to understand us and you clearly don't want us there. So be it. Despite not receiving the same in return, we continue to extend our respect to your views Mr. Hemmel, and wish you well with your continued attempts to thwart our progress. To the rest of the community, we continue to appreciate your support and your willingness to consider the facts and judge the situation on it's own merits. Blue skies to all and to all a good flight, Tom