Quote:
|
Yet even though you have not earned the simplest private pilot license, you are?
|
Nope. Not a pilot yet anyways. (Ironically enough I had planned to enroll in Emerson Aviations flight school). But I am an expert in tandem operations. By your logic though, none of the LAA or airport manager are skydivers or aviators, yet they broadcast their serious concerns to the public. Ironic and contradictory I think.
As I posted multiple times before, my wife is the pilot and holds multiple aviation degrees from Daniel Webster College, that pilot school in Nashua, NH....She also currently works for one of the largest commercial airlines in the US, in the airport ops division.......
We are a team, I'm the skydiving expert, she's the aviation ops expert. I mentioned that three or four times before up in the thread.
Quote:
|
You would have us believe there are two different FAA's? Seriously? And that the "Safety and Standards Branch" does not know what it is doing? Seriously?
|
Yup. Well, technically there is only one FAA, but it broken down into multiple branches, Flight Standards and Airports Division are the two specific ones that apply here. I mentioned that three or four times before as well.
See, for oh, I don't know, the last 30-40 years, Fight Standards has always been the division to assess airport compatibility issues such as this. But for some reason this time, the local Airport Division (ADO) decided to assert it's weight in the process. It all started when the airport manager filed the wrong forms for the evaluation. They filed a "new construction" evaluation form. When Flight Standards briefed the ADO, it didn't go very well internally. Like I said before, this is now an issue within the FAA.
I combed the FAA website by the way and could not find a "Safety and Standards Branch". Did the FAA create a new division and not tell anyone?
Don't worry, they will sort it out, I trust with their extensive aviation experience, the FAA can resolve this unique situation.
Quote:
Quote:
Overall Analysis Conclusion
The Laconia Airport is a complex environment that serves a mix of aircraft traffic, with some inexperienced pilots. Further, the lack of air traffic control forces the pilots to operate in a “see and avoid” environment. We conclude that adding parachute operations would increase the risk of operating in that airspace.
The risks generated by the project as proposed, in our view, cannot be mitigated.
Determination
After consideration of the elements discussed above, the Airports Division found the proposed use objectionable. We have determined that the proposed skydiving areas would adversely affect the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft, and the safety of persons and property on the ground.
|
That's the ADO. I thought I covered that before. Oh well, here it goes again. The ADO are not aviators, they are engineers interpreting a manual as they see fit. You'll have to trust me on this one, when Flight Standards properly educates the ADO on practical applications of procedures and precedences, this situation will be resolved.
Since I doubt you'll take my word on it, I would ask you to consider this. If that report was in fact valid and not completely erroneous, why would there be a plethora of meetings scheduled in Washington in the near future addressing this very report?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the LAA opened up a Pandora's Box of compliance short comings within the framework of the local FAA and it is being addressed accordingly.
Two points to close on:
1) I just received the same report you did, today. Ironic huh that you, an admitted non stake holder in this process, received a copy of the report the same day I did......... The LAA, who is not legally required to provide us, the business proposers, anything, yet you have a copy of the report jus as we now do. The LAA must have a mass mailing list. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy you have it and would be glad to address anyone's questions on it publicly, "open book" facts have been our modus operandi since Day 1.
2) We continue to believe in the system, and think you should too. We (you and I and everyone else in this process) have had our say, it is completely and solely in the hands of the FAA in Washington now.
Speaking of the FAA in Washinton, did you know that the chief of the FAA, Randy Babbitt started his career as a jump pilot dropping skydivers? Guess where he dropped them? Yup, on the airports he operated out of.
Ironic, huh?
If you were a member of USPA, you'd have received this months issue of Parachutist Magazine. In it you would have found a picture of Mr. Babbitt side by side with the Executive Director of USPA and the Government Relations Director of USPA (a retired commercial pilot). They had a meeting last month.
As for me, I'm happy to let the FAA handle this now. I'll keep educating the community though as long as you keep posting your replies, its a system that seems to work.
While I'm waiting for the FAA to do it's job though, I'll be heading to Australia for three weeks to address drop zone owners like I did here in the US in February. Guess what the topic is? Tandem Operation Safety Protocols. Why would they fly me half way around the world to lecture if I didn't have something valid to say?
Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,
Tom