Skydive Laconia?

[TheNoonans]

Good afternoon to all,

Let me start by saying Thank You. The continued community support from this forum has really been great.

I just wanted to provide the forum with an update from the meeting this past Thursday. It was a quick meeting, but I was happy to learn that the LAA's Safety Committee will be meeting this Tuesday to discuss our proposal. It is my sincerest hope that based on the information that we provided that the outcome of this Safety Committee meeting will allow the LAA to reach a decision making point on our proposal for the June 2009 meeting.

After the meeting, I had dinner at The Lobster Pound. (Great food by the way.) I was wearing my "Skydive Laconia" t-shirt, and received incredibly positive feedback from both customers and employees. A group of tourists that came up for the weekend said that if we were open now, it would be on their To Do List the following day. A couple of employees also asked us to return "as soon as we open" to let them know so that they too can learn to skydive. Suffice to say, while our "market research" was limited (we didn't go out of our way to interview people), not a single person we spoke to showed anything less than total enthusiam about the idea of bringing skydiving to the Laconia Municipal Airport.

Mary and I will be returing to Gilford June 18th, 2009 for the next meeting of the LAA. If anyone on this forum would like to meet us at the Main Terminal prior to the meeting, say 4pm, we would be happy to address any and all questions first hand. (I will re-extend this offer as we get closer to the meeting as a reminder.)

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[EZ-Pass]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

Good afternoon to all,

Let me start by saying Thank You. The continued community support from this forum has really been great.

I just wanted to provide the forum with an update from the meeting this past Thursday. It was a quick meeting, but I was happy to learn that the LAA's Safety Committee will be meeting this Tuesday to discuss our proposal. It is my sincerest hope that based on the information that we provided that the outcome of this Safety Committee meeting will allow the LAA to reach a decision making point on our proposal for the June 2009 meeting.

After the meeting, I had dinner at The Lobster Pound. (Great food by the way.) I was wearing my "Skydive Laconia" t-shirt, and received incredibly positive feedback from both customers and employees. A group of tourists that came up for the weekend said that if we were open now, it would be on their To Do List the following day. A couple of employees also asked us to return "as soon as we open" to let them know so that they too can learn to skydive. Suffice to say, while our "market research" was limited (we didn't go out of our way to interview people), not a single person we spoke to showed anything less than total enthusiam about the idea of bringing skydiving to the Laconia Municipal Airport.

Mary and I will be returing to Gilford June 18th, 2009 for the next meeting of the LAA. If anyone on this forum would like to meet us at the Main Terminal prior to the meeting, say 4pm, we would be happy to address any and all questions first hand. (I will re-extend this offer as we get closer to the meeting as a reminder.)

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Thank you very much for the update and I keep looking forward to the final meeting that gives you both the OK to start your new business at the LMA.

[TheNoonans]

"Thank you very much for the update and I keep looking forward to the final meeting that gives you both the OK to start your new business at the LMA."

Hi EZ-Pass,

Thank you for the support. We are also really looking forward to putting all of this behind us and moving forward with our business. At this point, I contacted the airport manager and was informed that the Safety Committee met Tuesday night but have not decided on a course of action yet.

Mary and I remain hopefully optimistic that with all of the facts and testimony provided to support our proposal, that an approval will be issued without any undue delay.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Nadia]

Ok, now that I've been warned about the great possibility of inconsiderate people landing on my vacation home near the airport I will certainly be on the look out for them. On a better note Mr. Nadia will be happy that he will no longer have to use clay disks as targets when practice shooting off the roof. More money to spend on those neat baggies to pick up my dogs "logs" and be fashionable at the same time, and to send Samuel Carr a bark collar so he can shut that dog up! More annoying tourists visiting the area you say; and dumping money into the economy which we desperately need---wait...with sky diving being as popular as it is we shouldn't see an increase in tourism...should we? Nevermind. Onto more serious inquiries.

I have but one question for The Noonans. If your proposal is accepted and all goes well, I will certainly be trying sky diving. However, I need to know your return policy up front beforehand, as some local businesses have refused to honor returns on their merchandise. Bookshops in particular! Ugh! I can't return opened CD's, DVD's, Computer Programs, or worn undergarments at Wal-Mart either! Now you tell me I can't return books? That's worse then the webmaster of this forum when he infringes on my First Amendment Rights and edits or deletes my posts, or gets mad when I call him four letter words. AS IF! Anywhoo...If my parachute does not open during my jump will I be supplied with another for free, and taken back up again? Or do I have to pay for another jump?

I truly wish you and your wife the best of luck

[TheNoonans]

Hi Nadia,

Thank you for your support!

Our return policy is pretty simple. Every customer has the opportunity to decide that they don't want to go skydiving, right up until the point they actually leave the airplane. Throughout the gear up/training process and the climb to altitude, every student has the opportunity to decide they no longer want to go skydiving. Two minutes prior to exit, the pilot will turn to the skydivers and say "Two Minutes", at that point, your instructor will ask "Are you ready to go skydiving?" If you say yes, you'll go skydiving, if you say "No, I changed my mind", then you and your instructor will stay in the plane and ride it back down to the ground. Even between the door opening and you climbing into position outside the aircraft, if you change your mind before you climb outside, (even after the two minute call) you can tell your instructor "I changed my mind, I don't want to go", and you can return back to the ground in the plane.

Between myself and the other three tandem instructors that we plan to work with, collectively we have made over 8,000 tandem jumps without anyone deciding they don't want to skydive after they started the training. But it is of course always a possibility and we make sure every student knows they can decide not to skydive at any time during their training, right up to "Ready, Set, Go!" and out the door.

Let me know if I can answer any other questions.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Nadia]

Oh my goodness Mr. Noonan I feel like a jerk now! You took the time out to post a well thought out response to my silly satire. Please forgive me, my intentions were good I promise. I was trying to express my thoughts on some very silly threads going on lately that are being debated in a manner so heated you would think they were political in nature. If my parachute didn't open during my sky dive I don't think I'd be around to ask for my money back I was really just pulling your leg on that one. On the other hand I was making a few cheap shots at flyguy for posting what I think is some very negative garbage. I'm going to hop on my soap box and hope I don't regret it later, however I feel it is for a good cause. This type of negativity first spreads around the forum, and then permeates into the community like poisionous vapors. Not a good state to be in considering the economy. We should be opening our arms to embrace entrepeneurs whose main focus is to bring revenue and tourism back to the Lakes Region. We may not agree with their logic 100% however there are a few circumstances to be considered. First the Noonan's seem to be experienced in this field and have done their homework. Second, judging from the responses the Noonan's have provided I highly doubt they are looking to open a business that is going to put many people's lives in dangers, open them up to wrongful death law suits, property damage law suits from customers landing on people's property or colliding with planes. Or be dragged into Court constantly with injunctions from those who frequent the airport and get irritated with the delays, and property abutters whose lawns become front row seats for spectators to watch it all take place, have to listen to ambulance after ambulance, deal with the news and media taking pictures of planes landing on houses to avoid colliding with skydivers? You get the picture. C'mon. Do you really think these people are looking to waste their time and money this way, and royally piss off the community while they do it? Do you really think that local and State authorities are not going to make sure this is a safe practice before allowing this to go on? No smart business person wants a law-suit. Even the ones who aren't that smart for that matter! There is always a certain amount of risk involved in a new business, especially such an eccentric idea like the Noonan's have. Yet I don't think there is any way they could get the town of Laconia to allow them to be in the business of risking 100's of people's lives daily. They won't even let a Methadone Clinic in! Think before you post this kind of hogwash, based on nothing more then "scary Mary" BS--and we are now starting to see even more so how much revenue, tourism, spark and life this BS can drive away. I've learned my lesson the hard way to zip my lips or more so, hold my trigger finger before responding to what I find offensive or wrong in my opinion. But I can't sit back and not call on what I find to be out-and-out negativity. The very negativity that directly harms the Lakes Region. If I offended anyone in this process, I apologize in advance. I did this with good intentions. Maybe I should have not been sarcastic in my initial post, but I was trying to give everyone a laugh and be more subliminal in my responses to such nonsense. However Mr. Noonan there is a silver lining to the situation--your policy is now posted so that no one has to step up and ask what happens if they do chicken out when they get up there! By the way I think that is a very fair policy! I prefer to stay on the ground myself, and my husband would never shoot at falling skydivers or clay disks for that matter. If a customer did happen to land on my roof deck, my only request is they bring me a mocha iced latte and try not to shake it :-) Before I close I do wish you and your wife the best of luck again.

-Off my soap box

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

I just wanted to provide a quick update. Mary and I will be attending the June 18th, 2009 LAA meeting. If anyone is interested in meeting us, asking us any questions, or sharing any concerns, please feel free to come over and say hello.

I'll have my laptop with me, so if anyone wants to see photo or video media of what we intend to offer the community, we will have that available.

It is our sincere hope that based on the large volume of factual information provided to the LAA that validates our proposal and request, that a favorable decision will be made at this meeting and that we can move forward with our business.

On an unrelated side note, I am happy to announce that I have been asked to participate in the second ever expedition to Mount Everest to make tandem skydives along side the world's tallest and most famous peak. Last year I was a part of the First Everest Skydive expedition and had the honor making the first tandem skydive in the country of Nepal alongside the peak of Mount Everest. This year's return expedition is equally exciting and promises to reach a global audience.

I have attached a picture of one of my tandem jumps from last years event. I am in the blue jump suit.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Woodsy]

Sooo cool! What a picture!

[TheNoonans]

Thank you Woodsy,

We exited a Pilatus Porter at 29,500ft MSL (-40 degrees Celcius, hence the thick jumpsuits). Mount Everest is 29,085ft MSL, so we wanted to make sure that we took our tandem students above the peak height. I will never forget the first jump that I made. I opened the door, turned out, and I just sat on the side of the plane for three minutes at 29,500ft MSL, just staring down the right wing, looking "down" onto the peak of Everest. (We got within a 1/2 mile of the peak before turning away for our jump run and exit.)

I had the opportunity to discuss the jumps with Colonel Joe Kittenger a few weeks later. He holds the record for the highest freefall at 103,000ft MSL. When I made my first skydive on June 12th, 1999, I never in my wildest dreams would have thought that some day I would be skydiving in the shadow of Mount Everest and then discussing those high altitude skydives with Colonel Kittenger, but there we were, talking about our experiences. Skydiving can produce some amazing experiences, all we have to do is give it the chance.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

(Attached is a picture of Mary and I with Colonel Kittenger)

[Nadia]

All I can say is WOW---I would never have the gumption to take that jump. I can't imagine what you are feeling and thinking at that very moment! I would assume between your adrenaline and everything else you almost feel like you are turning yourself inside out a few times. Thanks for the pictures! Now any of us who are too scaredy cat to take the plunge can at least get an idea what it's really like! This thread is a great way to notify people that your coming to the Lakes Region and what to expect. I guess we can thank flyguy for something after all!

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

I just wanted to post a follow up to our meeting last week. Mary and I flew into Boston Wednesday night and spent the day in New Hampshire taking care of different aspects of our business proposal. From one local business to the next, we continue to be thrilled with the positive response that we have received from the community. We keep hearing "Good luck!" and "Look forward to having you here!" and it really makes a difference with all the work that we are doing, so again to the community as a whole, we thank you.

As for the meeting, we were pleased with it's outcome. If we understood correctly, the airport authority should be prepared to issue a decision, yes or no at the July 16th, 2009 meeting. We are preparing a response for the LAA regarding a handful of operational questions they posed, nothing out of the ordinary, so at this point we remain very hopeful that the LAA has come to see how little impact we will have on the airport and that they (hopefully) are prepared to approve us.

We have a number of exciting things planned for the business and the area that go beyond just jumping out of airplanes. With an approval to move forward, we can begin to put these plans into action. If the LAA approves us next month, our website will go live the next day (www.skydivelaconia.com) with all of our information and plans.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[EZ-Pass]

Can this be done if the Noonnan's get their permits for laconia?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZWUq_HgSVM

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by EZ-Pass

Can this be done if the Noonnan's get their permits for laconia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZWUq_HgSVM

I love reading the responses on YouTube ... my favorite was .. "Holy S***" , which was exactly my thought when I watched it.

[TheNoonans]

Hi EZ-Pass,

Your youtube video shows an 81-Way canopy formation that was formed over Lake Wales, Florida. Flying parachutes in a formation is called "CReW" which stands for "Canopy Relative Work".

To answer your question, yes, that sort of thing can be done over Lake Winnipesaukee. I was actually working alongside the organizer of that event this past weekend in Sebastian, Florida. I can ask him this weekend what it will take to get all those jumpers up to the Lakes Region in the future.

It is a HUGE undertaking to organize such an event, requiring at a mininum, 4 twin turbine aircraft (Twin Otters and Casa 212s), but it can be done. Imagine a photo of that formation with Lake Winnipesaukee in the backdrop, it is entirely possible. It would bring 100 or so skydivers traveling to the area for a week, staying in local hotels, patronizing local restaurants and bringing television and paper media coverage to the area.

On a smaller scale, there is a local 4 person CReW demonstration team called "Air Adventures" that we were planning to invite up for our grand opening, if/when we are given permission to operate. They would build 4 way diamond formations and fly them over the lake. Who knows, a few years from now maybe the next world record CReW formation may find itself being built over Lake Winnipesakee. With the support of the airport and the community, anything is possible.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[EllyPoinster]

Hey - maybe Flyguy can take a few pictures of the formations!

Oh.

Maybe not.

[NoBozo]

Is "Skydive Laconia" a Franchise, thereby enabling numerous skydiving operations around the country to pool resources, such as marketing and perhaps the purchase of group liability insurance ..? Just wondering.

[trfour]

This gal loves skydiving. She wants to at Laconia Airport as well!

The Noonan's are very welcome here!

T

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

Just an update, this is the big week so to speak. Based on comments from the LAA at last month's meeting, the board should be prepared to render it's decision on our proposal at this week's meeting, Thursday July 16th, 2009. As always, we invite anyone, pro or con of our proposal, to come meet with us prior to the meeting at 5:30pm, we should be arriving in the terminal building around 5:00pm.

Thank you all for your support. We look forward to bringing skydiving to the Lakes Region.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom & Mary

[Happy Gourmand]

Good luck...you will be a great addition to the area.

[TheNoonans]

Good morning to all,

I wanted to provide an update on last night's meeting. It's a good news/bad news result, but in the end the good news far out weighs the bad news.

First, the bad news. In June 2009 we were told that the LAA's Safety Committee would be ready to render a decision on whether or not we could land on the airport. That decision did not occur last night, so we cannot move forward yet.

The good news is that the LAA has elected to contact the ADO and have an airspace evaluation done. This is fantastic news, as we have been asking the LAA to do this since our November 2008 meeting. We are thrilled because from the beginning, we have been stating that the FARs clearly state that the FAA considers itself the only entity that has the knowledge and expertise to make the decision as to whether or not an airport can safely sustain skydiving. Now that the LAA has asked for it, the FAA can finally step in and make an assessment, which is what we have wanted all along. Let the FAA make the decision. When the FAA comes back and states that the airport is suitable for skydiving, this process can finally conclude.

We will be back for the August meeting and from what we understand, the FAA should be able to get in and make an assessment by then. We are THRILLED by that news.

Thank you all for your continued support. It is very much appreciated.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[trfour]

we do know how very slow that things can happen when the rest of us just want to SkyDive, in Laconia that is!!
We are rooting for you Two!! Tom and Mary!!

[AC2717]

All this should be all set and done so I can get my first and probably only jump for my milestone Birthday next year!!!

[tkhayes]

I sent this today to the AA and the City Council of Laconia.

My perspective on the reality of skydiving operations at busy airports.

TK Hayes
Zephyrhills, FL
------------------------------------------------------------------------



July 23, 2009

Laconia Airport Authority

Ladies and Gentlemen;

My name is David 'TK' Hayes, and I manage one of the largest skydiving operations in the country, if not the world, here in Zephyrhills, Florida. *We operate several DeHavilland Twin Otters throughout the year and perform some 70,000-75,000 skydives and more than 3500 aircraft takeoffs and landings each year.

We operate EXACTLY 25nm from Tampa International airport, and 46nm from Orlando International Airport in some of the busiest airspace in the Southeast USA. *Zephyrhills airport is used by Skydivers, Glider pilots, recreational pilots a flight school, hosts the traffic for several maintenance facilities.

I would like to respond to the issues that you seems to be faced with a possible skydiving operation at your airport. *I would also like to assure you that what you are going through sounds like pretty normal feelings regarding skydiving operations all across the country.

1. Fear of the ‘unknown’
2. Danger of collisions with skydivers
3. Skydiving and the economy

Fear of the unknown.

A lot of the issues come from fear and mostly fear of the unknown. *I first and foremost encourage you all to take a trip to an airport where a regular, busy skydiving operation exists and see for yourselves how skydiving and (any) other operations co-exist on the same airport/property. *There are many dropzones that co-exist in the USA with other operations. *

Most of the general population does not understand what we do. *If you spent an afternoon at a skydiving center, you would see the types of things we do, the attention to detail, the safety standards and the types of activities that we participate in. *Basically, we are a pretty normal bunch of people trying to make a living by offering an aviation service that few other people offer.

We follow the same Federal Aviation Regulations as everyone else, and go beyond that as members of the United States Parachute Association, who offers our training and licensing standards to our sport.

Danger of collision with skydivers.

A typical flight school may only operate 5-15 flights a day. *Many of those flights do not stay in the pattern of the airport. *Each flight might spend 10-20 minutes in the traffic pattern. *That is a total amount of time of only an hour or two in the sky at the airport out of a 10-12 hour day of possible flight activity. *That is a lot of down time when NOTHING is going on at the airport.

A fairly busy skydiving operation with a Cessna 182 or even a Caravan might do 20 flights in a day. *Each operation takes 30 minutes to climb to altitude, perhaps a 5 minute window when skydivers are actually in the air and then it is over and everyone is on the ground.

Certainly while the skydivers are in the airplane and the airplane is flying a 'normal' climbing pattern around the airport, with a pilot who is communicating with the other traffic in the area and even perhaps the nearest ATC center, I would state that 'danger' is non-existent.

Even if the skydivers jump and take 8 minutes from drop to actually being on the ground, in a day with 20 loads, that would be a total of 160 minutes, 2 1/2 hours of total of possible exposure time with skydivers in the air.

What I am trying to say is that even with a busy skydiving center, at any given time during a long day, when you look upward, there is NOTHING going on. *Short bursts of activity followed by relatively long waits between loads.

As well, Skydivers generally jump OVER an airport. *Traffic arriving and leaving an airport is generally flying in or out at a very shallow angle over a long flight path. *A skydiver at 1000' directly over the airport does not pose ANY hazard to an airplane that is on a 2 mile final approach at 1000'.

Skydiving pilots are more than used to being vigilant about radio communications when they operate. *They announce their intentions prior to launch, during the climb, prior to jumprun, after jumpers away and descending and jumpers on the ground. *If some airplane is in the area and NOT talking on a radio - well shame on them. *I realize that the regulations allow this, but it is simply not smart.

The chance the an errant pilot should wander into an airspace is not justification for stopping activities that are law-abiding and following the rules. No more than we would stop driving cars just because we fear someone might speed or otherwise pose a danger to other traffic.

Our typical series of communications at Skydive City in Zephyrhills - from the time we pick up a load until we are back on the ground - goes like this
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills Traffic, Twin Otter taxing for runway 36 for skydiving ops, Zephyrhills"
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills traffic, Twin Otter departing runway 36, climbing out to the north"
in less than 2 minutes we are at 2000' and we call Tampa ATC, but we still monitor Unicom all the way to altitude
135.50 Tampa Approach - "Tampa, Freefall One is back up, climbing through 2000' for 13500', 3 miles north of Zephyrhills"
Tampa *- "Freefall One, radar contact 3 miles north of Zephyrhills, advise 2 minutes prior to jump"
We receive traffic advisories from them all the way to altitude, as well, we advise them of traffic we see. Some 10-12 minutes later at 11500';
135.50 Tampa - "Tampa Freefall One is two minutes to drop"
then we advise on Unicom
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills traffic, skydiving over Zephyrhills airport in 2 minutes from 13500' and below over the Southeast corner of the field, Skydiving in 2 minutes over Zephyrhills"
in 2 minutes we drop all the skydivers unless we have traffic, in which we may hold and go around as needed.
135.50 Tampa - "Tampa, Freefall One is jumpers away and descending to the east"
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills traffic, jumpers away SE of the field, Twin Otter descending to the east of the field"
As we pass through 5000' on the way down, Tampa releases us
Tampa - "Freefall One, radar service terminated, change to advisory frequency is approved, see you soon"
at 2000' ( less than*5 minutes after drop) we are entering our 'opposite' pattern at Zephyrhills Airport
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills traffic, Twin Otter on high left midfield for runway 18, Zephyrhills"
and again
123.07 Unicom - "Zephyrhills traffic, Twin Otter on short final for runway 18, Zephyrhills"

Once we are on the ground we also notify Unicom when we are clear the runway 18/36.

Why is this important? *On a busy day during one of our larger events, say at Christmas time, I will have 3-4 Twin Otters flying and we will repeat that same routine up to 70 times in a day. *Each load will have up to 22 skydivers on board. *There is an airplane dropping skydivers every 8-10 minutes from 8am to 6pm.

And we have a glider club actively operating on the same runway, departing in between our loads and landing gliders right through our our parachute landing area. Again, for the majority of time, there is NOTHING in the air, even on a busy day.

Now if we can do this successfully at Zephyrhills airport for the past 4 decades, surely you can manage 20 loads a day of 4-14 skydivers on each load.

I have been jumping since 1981 and I have only heard of a handful (less than 3 or 4) skydiver/airplane collisions EVER in the sport of skydiving. *But aircraft collide about 30 times each year in the USA. *I would argue that the*danger of a collision lies not with the skydivers. And banning the skydivers will not and has not reduced or removed the risk of any other aircraft collision.

Bottom line, is that the risk is there, like any other risk - but it is so minimal, it is barely measurable in reality.




Skydiving and the Economy

A skydiving operation attracts a different kind of person to the location where the skydiving is taking place.

Take the example again of a flight school at an airport. The flight student may be local or may not be. They will come, perhaps 5-6 students in a day. They stay for a couple of hours or half a day and they go home. They might buy a meal. They might buy gas. But they are not in your town for the ‘long haul’

Skydivers will travel to a dropzone to jump for a weekend or more. Those people will stay in hotels, they will eat three squares a day in your restaurants, they will buy gas and they will stay from Friday night to Sunday night in your town because they want to skydive and that is the recreational activity that they have chosen.

The average first jump student coming to do a tandem jump will be at the dropzone for half a day. They have travelled perhaps two hours to get there. They will buy food and gas and spend money in your town. Students who come to learn how to skydive are like the regular skydiver population, they will be there for extended periods of time to finish their training and jump as much as they can.

A dropzone will hire pilots, packers, instructors and office staff to manage the dropzone. Those people pay income taxes and local taxes as well. The have to eat and they have to have a roof over their heads.

In 1998, the City of Zephyrhills did an impact study on skydiving in their community and realized a $10,000,000/year industry contributing to the community.

We are such an integral part of the community that the City includes a parachute on their logo.

Even the FAA recognizes skydiving and parachuting activities as part of ‘normal activities’ at an airport

So How Do We Make All This Work?

Meet with the skydiving operations and the flight schools and anyone else that flies out of the airport.

Develop working procedures as far as traffic patterns, communications and runway usage for everyone concerned. It is fairly easy to separate the ‘traffic’ on the airport, both with distance and time. Do not be afraid of stepping outside of the ‘norm’, especially when it comes to traffic patterns.

At Zephyrhills, we fly a completely opposite pattern to all other traffic, and it is published and charted. The FAA did not request that. We, as tenants of the airport, sorted that out with each other and told the FAA that this was what we worked out. It’s been working for decades.

File NOTAMs for the activities that are going on. Petition the FAA to update their charts and ‘Green Books’ to show the activities for anyone flying into the area.
Establish communication protocols that keep all the pilots informed of what is going on and when. Our radio communications (above) is a good example of what works well. Announcing ‘take-off’, ‘2 minutes to drop’, ‘jumpers away’ and ‘jumpers on the ground’ makes 4 separate announcements in the span of a 15-20 minute window, on top of all other normal traffic pattern conversation.

Surely that would suffice for radio communications at ANY airport.

And finally, come out and watch some skydiving, you might get the bug to try it yourself.....

David ‘TK’ Hayes
President/GM
Skydive City Inc.
4241 Sky Dive Ln
Zephyrhills, FL 33542
813-783-9399 wk
813-598-6981 mobile

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

I just wanted to provide another update as we approach the August 2009 LAA meeting. I was informed earlier this week that our story has gone national and that the most recent article published in the Citizen was up on the AOPA website. We are obviously very happy to hear that our story is picking up national interest. Defending airport access rights is not just about skydiving, it's about defending equal and fair access to airports for all aeronautical activities.

I'm happy to say that I received this email from a pilot in Pennsylvania:

"I am a pilot at Donegal Springs airport in S. Central PA. Our airport is home to the Maytown Sport Parachute Club. I have been flying here since 1999. I am an aircraft owner & President of the York Travelers Flying Club. I also instruct student pilots here on a part-time basis.
In 10 years here, I am not aware of any difficulties regarding the parachutists and pilots or student pilots.
We all live together in harmony and co-exist peacefully."

There were also two supportive Letters To The Editor published on the Citizen website:

1) "Editor, The Citizen: I read the news story regarding the proposed skydiving operation at Laconia airport and the opposition by Ms Adams and Mr. McCulla.

As an experienced pilot with over 4000 hours of flight time, including hundreds of hours flying from an airport with an active skydiving operation, I feel qualified to comment. I have never had a close call with a skydiver; however, I have had several with other aircraft. Should I be advocating restricting other aircraft?

Expanding on Ms Adams and Mr. McCulla's logic, one could conclude that we should limit aircraft flights entirely. Or eliminate the risk by only letting one aircraft fly at a time. Perhaps we should just exclude Ms Adams and Mr. McCulla from flying.

Obviously I am being facetious and have nothing personable against these two fellow aviators. The point I am trying to make is that you shouldn't be excluding anyone from the enjoyment of flight; because you just might be next."

and

2) "Editor, The Citizen: Good reporting on the issue, without the usual anti-aviation bias. Thank you.

I am not a skydiver and don't aspire to be one either.

I am a general aviation pilot and I fly out of an airport with skydiving operations. I also regularly fly through airspace with another skydiving operation nearby. On most of my long distance flights I am aware of skydiving operation areas by their notations on aeronautical charts and through the issuance of Notices to Airmen (NOTAM).

Skydiving operations are very friendly to airport operations and they bring in much needed revenue as well. It is usually the pilots of small aircraft that create risks through their inattention to regulations regarding operating an aircraft in and around skydiving activities. Anyone who flies into or out of a skydiving airport has to remain vigilant.

The jump aircraft broadcasts on common-talk air frequencies (CTAF) which are the same frequency used by approaching and departing aircraft. They announce two minutes before jumpers are released, again as the jumpers are released and again when the jumpers are on the ground. The jump aircraft may also coordinate their communications with air traffic control agencies that manage the airspace in and around the specific airport. ATC then also broadcasts the information on the frequencies assigned to their sectors. For any aircraft using communication radios it is hard not to know that a jump is occurring at any given moment.

There still remains one other scenario and that is for aircraft without communication radios, which is perfectly legal and acceptable in most of the US airspace. The general aviation fleet is dominated by aircraft with communication radios but aircraft with no radios (NORDO) have to remain particularly vigilant when operating in a jump zone. We all share the airspace and it is up to each of us individually to apply the requisite jurisprudence to any given situation. Aircraft are no more correct in hitting a skydiver than a skydiver is in-the-right hitting an aircraft. There is no "right-of-way" rule. It is all about see and avoid procedures.

When I am approaching my home airport I monitor the Unicom frequency, well in advance of entering the pattern. If jumpers are nearing their departure from the jump aircraft I spend an extra minute or two checking out the scenery away from the airport. Once the jumpers are on the ground I then enter the pattern and make my landing. A jump, even from 12,000 feet is a fleeting event — only lasting from 2 to 5 minutes at most. I don't think it is too much to ask of pilots to spend a few more minutes doing the thing they love to do most — aviating.

Pilots, aircraft and skydivers can play nicely together. It is generally up to the pilots to not assume that they own the airspace just because they are bigger and have engines. Leave the ego at home and enjoy the airspace shared by us all."

Mary and I thank you all for your continued support.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[dninness]

Greetings all, I've read this thread with great interest over the last several months and thought perhaps it was time to comment..

I am a avid aviation enthusiast and an active skydiver who lives in New Hampshire. I am well acquainted with the Noonans, and I am also familiar with Laconia Airport, having flown in and out of there many times in general aviation aircraft.

I think most of the "safety" comments have already been covered. The chances of a plane-skydiver collision are relatively small, and if everybody is operating in a Visual Flight Rules (VFR) "see and avoid" mode like we all should be, the overall effects to the aviation community will be minimal, if not completely negligible. But its incumbent upon everybody (pilots, skydivers, jump pilots, DZ staff, etc) to be heads-up while operating. Its not like skydivers show up to an airport and think they "own" the place any more than the fliers who are based there "own" it. We all have to do our part to fly and land safely around each other. Skydivers need to be sure they understand the rules and the expectations (ie. "No flying over the runway at less than 1000 ft" or "If you land in the grass between the runway and the taxiway, and there is a plane taxiing by, stop, take a knee so the pilot knows you see him, and wait for the plane to pass".. these are just two examples I picked out of thin air, BTW, but they are illustrations of the kinds of rules and behaviors that the skydivers, too, may need to abide by) for that particular airport so that everybody can co-exist correctly. Its not terribly hard.

I think more subtle than the 900-lb gorilla of safety is the implications this kind of a business has for the local area.

In the 11 years I have lived in New Hampshire, I can count the number of times I have been to Laconia, as an actual destination for my travels, on the fingers on both hands. And that includes my trip to the airport in June to attend the Airport Authority meeting (which I, unfortunately, missed by mere minutes). So in 11 years, I've been to the Laconia area as a destination perhaps 7 or 8 times. And in those trips, I've actually spent money in the area perhaps 3 or 4 times (food, gas, went to the movies once with some friends).

Contrast that with the other places that I have made my "destination" while skydiving and have spent money in their local economy. In addition to jump tickets (paying for the ride to altitude), very often trips to a DZ entail overnight lodging, eating in restaurants, purchasing gas, snacks and other provisions nearby, and even some "sightseeing" in the local area. Some examples from my 14 years of jumping:

Richmond, IN ($2000 or more, jump tix, food & lodging); Chambersburg, PA ($350, jump tix, food); Skydive City, Zephyrhills, FL (about $3500, jump tix, food, lodging, gas, gear, t-shirts); Skydive Chicago, Ottawa, IL ($200, jump tix); Hinkley, IL ($200); Titusville, FL ($250, doesn't count the 3 days we spent in and around nearby Cocoa Beach with a shuttle launch); Marshall, MI ($200); and also the thousands of dollars I've spent over the last 11 years in and around my "home" DZ in Pepperell, MA (jump tix, food from the local eateries, trips into town for snacks or Dunkin Donuts, gas, etc.)

That's just one skydiver's example, too. If there are 10 or 12 skydivers visiting, you can easily do that kind of math.

While its true that the Noonans' business will center around tandem skydiving, mostly, the fact of the matter is that people who come out to make a tandem skydive bring friends and family with them, eat food, buy gas and may, in fact, spend time in the local area after their jumping experience is complete. Even as an experienced jumper, I would be inclined to visit the proposed "Skydive Laconia" if it were a successful, active operation due to its location in a very, very scenic part of the state and its proximity to other activities for my family. Its nice to go someplace different, see your friends, jump with other people and from different planes, etc. When the end of the jumping day comes, I'm going to be starving for some grub. Am I going to drive 30 minutes south to Concord, or get something close by?

In today's economy, something that might bring people to the Laconia / Gilford area as a "destination" where they can spend some of their hard-earned money is a benefit. Due to the expenses surrounding the sport, skydivers tend to be more financially secure and are not afraid to spend money when and where its needed. (the "crazed biker/daredevil" image of skydivers found in mainstream motion pictures notwithstanding..) And that might provide a nice boost to the economy around the airport.

Thanks for the time! Looking forward to doing some quality skydiving at LCI.

Darin
D-19617

[flyguy]

What Mr. Hayes failed to mention in his nice endorsement letter is that the Zephyrhills Airport is SO big, it has it's own 18 hole golf course (with restaruant) and a 72 acre industrial park. Lots and lots and lots of space- something we're lacking in Laconia.

And, of course, he has not a clue about the local traffic or patterns.

[TheNoonans]

Good evening Mr. Hemmel, nice to have you back in the discussion.

I believe that Mr. Hayes (TK) stated that Zephyrhills does 75,000 annual skydives. By comparison, our operation, at best, will do around 7,000 annual skydives per year. That's a mere 10% of their volume.

Rest assured though, the LAA has finally requested that the FAA, the only authority on safety in this matter, come in and do a site evaluation. We are thrilled about that. (We asked for it in November 2008). I think I have been more than gratious in my responses to all of your questions and factless accusations, so I would ask that you do me a small favor and respond to one question: When the FAA comes back and says, yes, based on our expert opinion, the Laconia Municipal Airport can sustain a skydiving operation, will you accept their verdict? Surely the FAA has enough experience (they wrote the FARs after all) to make such a decision, don't you think?

If your interested in doing some research along those lines......google the Santa Monica Airport and "airport access" and see what you find. Seems the airport sponsor there decided to limit the size of jets landing for "safety concerns", and the FAA came back and ordered them to allow the planes (threatened to fine them if they didn't comply I think) and most definitely threatened to revoke their federal funding if they did not comply. The airport sponsor appealed the finding, and.......lost the appeal. Why? The FAA stated (again) that they are the ONLY authority in airport safety issues. The best part? They cited in their brief that not one, but two federally funded municipal airports tried to ban skydiving (sound familiar?) due to "safety concerns" and both times the FAA came back in those skydiving cases and ordered the airport sponsors to comply or lose thier federal funding. It's all out there for you to do the research. Facts Mr. Hemmel. Not smoke and mirrors.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Jonas Pilot]

Just curious, Where are you from and who is paying for the site evaluation? I'm sorry if these questions have been answered previously.

[TheNoonans]

Hi Jonas Pilot,

We live in Kissimmee, FL. We moved here from Bedford, NH. I am originally from the Boston area, my wife is from the Syracuse area. (A more detailed background on ourselves and our proposal is in some of the above posts).

I cannot tell you how much, if anything, the site evaluation would cost, or who would pay for it. The FAA's Advisory Circular states that when an aeronautical activity approaches an airport sponsor to request utilizing the airport, that it is the airport sponsor's responsibility to contact the ADO to request a site evaluation if they have a question about allowing the aeronautical activity to operate. It's a condition of the federal funding grant assurances that the airport sponsor agrees to abide by when they want to receive federal funding.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[trfour]

I joined Winnipesaukee.com way back in 2002. I have supported Mr. Hammel, and still do. However, I am very disappointed with his attitude and total misunderstanding, "Hopefully", in the matter of, "Skidive Laconia".

Mr. Hammel has contributed some very awesome photos here and is an active sponsor and of this web-site now.

Dear Mr. Hammel, we all love you very much.
We are very looking forward to expanding the local economy here. (Today 2009). "not so easy".

Skydivers from over The Big Lake,.... Hey, I'm getting my camera ready!!

[Gatto Nero]

Tom,

Just out of curiosity at what altitude will the jumper be jumping from? In an earlier post I mentioned that I would be jumping with my son this summer as his 18th birthday present. We were hoping to jump with you but since he is leaving for college in just a couple short weeks we had to take our business over an hour SE of the Lakes Region to your future competition in ME. 11 of us, my oldest daughter included, had a great experience. We jumped from 14,000 feet, which they claim is the highest in New England. We did a free fall for about 9,000 feet in about 50 to 55 seconds. It seemed much shorter than that. Man, what a rush! We are planning another outing in the summer of 2011 when my youngest daughter turns 18. After seeing my son's video of the jump even my wife says she'll go this time. Hopefully we won't have to drive as far then and we'll have good look at Like Winni on the way down. Good luck.

[dpg]

I'm sure (actually I know) it's been mentioned before and I'm not reading over 130 posts to find it. Just curious why skydiving is not again persued at the Moultonborough airport. It has stopped there over the last couple years and I have no idea why.

[TheNoonans]

Hi Gato Nero and dpg,

Re: Gato's question:

Our "exit altitude" will depend on the type of aircraft that we use. Typically the exit window for tandem skydiving is anywhere between 10,000ft and 14,000ft AGL If we start with a piston 206U, we will probably exit at 10,500ft. If we start with a turbine Grand Caravan we will probably exit at 13,500ft. I don't know the exit altitude numbers for all the other dropzones in New England, but I don't think that there are any out there that are going above 14,000ft, so if you got out at 14,000ft while skydiving in Maine, then yes, I would say you were given accurate information, you went as high as you can go in New England.

While we're disappointed that we weren't open this season and couldn't be a part of your skydiving experience, you were in very good hands down the road there in Maine. Mary and I know the owners of that dropzone as well as the owners of two other large dropzones in Massachusetts and we look forward to helping increase all their student training programs as our vacationing skydivers return home to their home states and continue in our sport with them. (We will actually have a display in our hangar with info for all the other New England dropzones to help promote the sport across New England).

Re: dpq's question:

There was a dropzone in Moultonborough airport a few years ago called Skydive Lake Winnipesaukee. It was owned and operated by a good friend of ours. I don't know the specifics of the decision to close, my guess would be that it was just too far off the beaten path to attract enough customers. The good news is that she and her husband have brought an amazing new experience to Nashua, NH called the Skyventure Wind Tunnel. They now offer indoor skydiving.

I'm not sure what question your asking, so I'll try to answer your question in two possible contexts:
1) From what I understand, there is nothing preventing anyone from bringing a skydiving operation to Moultonborough.
2) If your asking why we are not pursuing an operation there, the short answer is that LCI provides us the location, airspace, tourist traffic and facilities that we need and want to open and sustain operations. I'm sure Mr. Hemmel will share his "many many reasons" that he feels we shouldn't be there, but as far as the FAA is concerned, the FARs clearly state that we have a right to be there. And in the end, that's all we are really doing, pursuing our legally protected right to utilize a facility that our federal income tax dollars help to fund.

If your looking for more detailed explanations, despite the long read, there is quite a bit of good information contained in the above 130+ posts.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Winnicandle]

As a corporate jet pilot for the last 15+ years and a part-time Winni resident I can tell you there is NO safety issue with the type of operation that Mr. Noonan hopes to set up.

Having flown jets into Laconia, and many other uncontrolled airports, I can assure you that I am far more concerned with the weekend warriors, sightseers, and photographers circling their Cessnas around the local area with their heads in their asses than I am with skydivers dropping down directly on the field. All are welcome, its just that some scare us pilots more than others...

We listen to the CTAF frequency for 25+ miles out and would arrive accordingly and announce our position routinely regardless if skydiving was underway or not. Its standards practice at uncontrolled airports.

This is America, we are blessed with relatively free airspace and an entrepreneurial spirit that is the backbone of this country. Mr Noonan seems like a complete professional, and I would have no problem operating in and out of Laconia with his operation in place, there's plenty of room in the sky. In fact, I thank him for bringing any business to the region.

The ignorance and fear of the unknown in this thread is downright bizarre.


Good Luck to you!

[TheNoonans]

Hi Winnicandle,

Thank you for your support. We are very excited to finally reach a conclusion in this process. With any luck, we will find out next week at the August 2009 LAA meeting.

Mary and I will both be attending the meeting, so as always, if anyone wants to come out and meet us and ask us questions, we will be available both before and after the meeting.

While I am online, I thought I would share with the forum the first line of an article that we found that was published in the Union Leader back in September 2006:

"An $8 million project to improve safety at Laconia Airport was cleared for takeoff yesterday."

$8,000,000?

To "improve safety at Laconia Airport"?

Three years ago? Hmm......

That money came from the NHDOT Division of Aeronautics. It's federal funding dollars administered by the state in a pilot program. The FAA classifies New Hampshire is a "block grant state", which allows the state to determine where federal funding is allocated.

With all that said, it begs the question, if an airport is given $8,000,000 to improve safety and then attempts to deny a legal aeronautical activity due to "safety concerns", stating the airport cannot safely accomidate the activity, did the allocated money serve it's purpose?

To be fair, I would guess that making the airport accessible to skydiving operations, glider operations, float plane operations, powered paraglider operations and tow plane operations was probably not on the agenda of the board when it began it's allocations of the $8,000,000 to improve airport safety. It begs the question though, "should it have been?" There is verbiage within the FAA Advisory Circulars (150/5190-6 and/or 150/5190-7) that would suggest that it probably should have been. Don't quote me, but I believe the line reads something like "it is the responsibility of the airport sponsor to make the airport available for use for all aeronautical activities."

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by Winnicandle

I can assure you that I am far more concerned with the weekend warriors, sightseers, and photographers circling their Cessnas around the local area with their heads in their asses

FYI Winnicandle:

1. My license says "Airline Transport Pilot, MEL"- same as yours. (Of course it also says "Commercial Pilot, Rotorcraft" and a few other things yours probably doesn't.)

2. The $250,000 Garmin G-1000 equipped aircraft we fly has the same aural traffic advisory and glass panel your kerosene burner has (I hope).

3. I do not shoot and fly. My safety pilot flys and monitors terrain and traffic while I shoot.

Our biggest worry is the jet jocks bombing around at high speeds, flying right hand traffic patterns (instead of the proscribed left hand one), who seem to think they own the sky.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by flyguy

FYI Winnicandle:

1. My license says "Airline Transport Pilot, MEL"- same as yours. (Of course it also says "Commercial Pilot, Rotorcraft" and a few other things yours probably doesn't.)

2. The $250,000 Garmin G-1000 equipped aircraft we fly has the same aural traffic advisory and glass panel your kerosene burner has (I hope).

3. I do not shoot and fly. My safety pilot flys and monitors terrain and traffic while I shoot.

Our biggest worry is the jet jocks bombing around at high speeds, flying right hand traffic patterns (instead of the proscribed left hand one), who seem to think they own the sky.

Geeeeeez! Does this sound familar or what!!?? If you go faster than me, you are not welcome.

[Winnicandle]

Bombing around at high speeds?? what???

review your regs, and show me the one that says I have to enter on any kind of pattern. We prefer not to as we like to avoid the weekend warriors. We like prescribed Instrument approaches.

Believe me pops, we watch the cessna photo shooters VERY closely on the TCAS. You have every right to be there as we do (remember America?) but again we watch ya close...rest assured. We know you both have your head pasted to the ground for your target and are doing circles with the window open and cant hear anything that the rest of the world is doing. I have been on plenty of photo shoots!

An ATP?? oh come on now!...1500hrs in a cessna and a 5th grade level exam is all it takes, not very impressive. And if we HAVE to play your "whip it out and measure" game...lets do it...CFI, CFII, MEI, AGI, IGI, SE ATP, Rotorcraft, ASES, Designated Examiner, and 9 Type Ratings.

Also not impressed with the Garmin - hell my car has a garmin...my plane, it has EASy and Planeview.

latest ride:



Now come on - Lets all support some local business, especially one that seems like it will be well run.

Be safe out there!!!!

[alsadad]

Let's see. Does the environment look blue, at least much of the time? Does it contain large "vehicles" and small ones? Are some fast, some slow, some louder than others? Do some leave more turbulence in their wake? Are there experienced, careful and courteous operators, as well as boneheads? Do the people with opposing viewpoints seem unlikely to be swayed by opposing arguments? Cool. We can debate that!

[flyguy]

Very cool- I am very impressed with the pretty picture.

You missed the point here- I am NOT a 1500 hr private pilot, we DO have similar traffic systems, and while my head may be "pasted to the ground", that of my safety pilot is not. We area as aware of you as you are of us. It's called "see and be seen".

We are not weekend warriors flying around with our "heads up our asses", as you put it.

On the other hand, I would never presume to tell everyone at Logan that I have a "federally guaranteed right" to circle over the center of the airport & take photos 10 times a day, while they all put their operations on hold.

[TheNoonans]

"On the other hand, I would never presume to tell everyone at Logan that I have a "federally guaranteed right" to circle over the center of the airport & take photos 10 times a day, while they all put their operations on hold."

Good morning Mr. Hemmel, nice to have you back again. Still waiting for your answer, when the FAA says LCI can safely sustain skydiving will you accept their expert opinion, or will presume to reject it and state that you know better because your a local pilot?

To be fair, I don't expect you to answer, and the reality is that your opinion carries little consequence, it's the LAA making the decision. Now.....if a member of the LAA were to share your position, if they were to reject the findings of the FAA and issue a contradictory decision........suffice to say, I have done my due diligence on the subject and know (from the FAA' s perspective) where that will end. All I will say is that I would not want to be the one that has to justify to the FAA why their decision was thrown out.

Anyone that has turned on a television in the last year has seen Congress hold the auto industry, the financial industry and the mortgage industry entirely accountable for living up to the standards and responsibiities of accepting federal money. Do you think the FAA will hold the LAA to the same standards? I do. I am 100% sure of it. The federal government doesn't have a sense of humor about things like this, nor should they. I believe the figure stated last night was $600,000+ of federal money allocated for last nights projects at LCI.

Going back to your statement of smoke and mirrors, if the FAA, in it's infinite wisdom, stated that you could safely circle Logan, I would say more power to you, go do it. It's legal and it's approved by the FAA. I wouldn't try to interject my own personal opinions on aerial photography safety because I am not an aerial photography safety expert. That's the difference between us, I respect the established process of the FAA.

For what it's worth though, your mocking comment isn't entirely accurate, on those busy Saturday and Sunday days you keep talking about (the ones that we have same rights and access to the sky as you), we may fly more like 15-20 loads a day. If we totally under estimated demand, then we may even bring in a second airplane and as one is climbing, have the other descending, or better a larger one, like a Cessna Grand Caravan that drops 17 skydivers at a time. All perfectly legal and "protected" by the FAA. As for the inconvenience you will be forced to endure, if your a competent pilot, then you will not be inconvenienced at all.

But that is besides the point really. You can scour the FARs all like, you won't find a single line item referring to "inconveniencing" other aircraft. We won't complain when we have to spin and wait for you to taxi and take off, and the FAA expects (demands really) the same courtesy from you in return. Don't believe me, then draft a letter of complaint to the Portland FSDO and cite in your complaint that you are being inconvenienced. See what you get in return as a response..........

We have already done our due diligence, we know the answer, write them and find out for yourself.

To the rest of the community that is interested in the facts, supporting a free economy and pursuing freedoms, we continue to appreciate your support. For all the pilots out there, from the beginning, we have stated that we want to work with you, not against you. We are 100% willing to listen to whatever concerns any pilot may have and work with you to reach a mutually agreed solution. We will even host "Pilot Night" once a month or so, so that local pilots can come down and talk to us and our pilots and learn everything there is to know about how our flights are planned and made. We want you all to have all the information we have, so we can all work and ultimately fly, together.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Editted to add: Does anyone find it even mildly ironic that the same guy (Mr. Hemmel) that points out above that Mr. Hayes is on a 72 acre industrial airpark, so you can't compare Zephyrhills and Laconia, yet he makes a subsequent statement comparing circling Laconia to um.......circling LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT? Laconia may be a busy airport Mr. Hemmel, but I think Logan may be in a class all it's own sir. Nice analogy though..........

[granitebox]

Your patience throughout this process has been amazing.

Clearly you'll run a first class, safe operation that will be a true benefit to the lakes region. It seems that the process is designed to just wear out anyone who doesn't have a high degree of motivation to get approval.

Its unfortunate a bit more common sense can't be inserted in the approval but you've clearly shown if they want you to jump through hoops, you'll simply ask "how many" and drive on.

Good luck to you, I'm certain you'll do well.

[TheNoonans]

Thank you Granitebox,

It's been a long year, but we have the patience, the resources and the time to see this through. We won't be going anywhere until this is resolved, even if it takes us to FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C. (where our 33,000 group member funded airport access defense fund and lobbyists are waiting).

What I think was taken for granted from the beginning by certain people involved with this process is how thorough our research was before this all started. When we walked in the terminal door August 2008, we had already "point/counter pointed" every possible scenario that could arise and had a solution. Anyone familiar with Sun Tzu and The Art of War, is familiar with the idea that every conflict is decided before it begins. A lesser known ,yet equally powerful verse is:

"So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself,
you can win a thousand battles without a single loss."

Over the last ten years, we have seen every "trick" so to speak that an airport sponsor can pull to try and circumvent their federal funding obligations, always to the same result. The parallel here is that the LAA knows nothing about us really, including our resolve, and as evidenced by the last year, has had a difficult time "knowing themselves" in terms of their role and obligation in this process.

A last Sun Tzu quote that I think is fitting to share is:

"Never will those who wage war tire of deception".

Anyone that has read Mr. Hemmel's posts would have a hard time disagreeing with that statement, he certainly hasn't tired of it. Personally I don't like the term "war" as from our perspective, this is simply a cordial exchange of ideas between two parties striving to reach a resolution. But I'd be lying if I said the word "war" didn't pop up from people in the community when describing how the LAA feels about us and our proposal. Their stance against us has been described as their "war" against us by multiple people in the community. Hence the fitting nature of Sun Tzu I think.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

"...when the FAA says LCI can safely sustain skydiving will you accept their expert opinion, or will presume to reject it and state that you know better because your a local pilot?

I trust the judgement of the FAA at least as much as I trust the judgement of the SEC, FDA, IRS, and certain other government agencies.

"...yet he makes a subsequent statement comparing circling Laconia to um.......circling LOGAN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT?

Huh??? Care to quote the exact sentence where this direct comparison was made?

Once more, Tom, you missed the point. Even though you can (or have a "federally guaranteed right" to do so) doesn't mean you should.

But I'd be lying if I said the word "war" didn't pop up from people in the community when describing how the LAA feels about us and our proposal. Their stance against us has been described as their "war" against us by multiple people in the community.

I have yet to hear anyone in the aviation community use that word, but I'm sure you have a purpose for introducing it into this discussion. However it does beg the question:"Why would you go where you are not wanted?"

Oops- I forgot. The Money. The same reason you state that you cannot accept the alternative that would keep everyone happy- landing off field.

Speaking of smoke and mirrors- I find the amount of time a and effort Tom expends to raise and encourage local public support astounding. On one hand he asks people to show up at meetings, write letters, etc., while on the other hand he insists (correctly) that our opinions do not matter. It is strictly a safety issue- economics and/or public opinion are not relevant. Remember that before you waste your time.

[Happy Gourmand]

OK you guys, I think it's time to set out some plastic chairs and a table on my lawn and invite the both of you over for beer. What brands should I stock?

[sa meredith]

Yeah, I'll second that.
How could this thread possibly have turned ugly?
Seriously.

[TheNoonans]

Hi Phantom Gourmand and sa-meredith,

This hasn't turned ugly for us. We remain emotionally detached, this is just a business negotiation. We bear no ill will towards Mr. Hemmel, and we certainly don't take what he is saying or doing personally. He is doing what he believes he has to do. We still wish him well. As do we continue to wish every member of the LAA well in their efforts to understand the federal funding grant assurances that they are obligated to abide by. From the beginning we have always said that we recognized their would be some negative reactions to our proposal. Any time something new and different comes around, it is bound to create a stir as the potential for a change in the status quo comes into view. The irony is that we will have such a minimal impact on the airport that a year from now people will look back on this all and say "what was all the fuss over?".

Mary and I remain available to anyone and everyone that has a question or concern about our proposal. We continue to arrive early to the meetings and stay late, yet we haven't been approached by anyone with any concerns.

I would also be happy to have lunch with Mr. Hemmel at the Lobster Pound and listen to every one of his concerns. I've offered that before and am offering it again. Any time we are there, we will make time to meet with him. He hasn't taken us up on our offer.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[dpg]

I agree this thread is getting quite old. Maybe it just should be locked till there's an answer,then the final word can be posted.

[robertk]

First, I applaud anyone who has the gumption to launch a new business. Second, I think skydiving is cool, although I've never done it. Third, I wish the Noonan's all the best. Now, for my question. When I'm entering the pattern (or in it), how do I know that a skydiver has not been blown off course directly into my flight path? Since I fly a low wing, there's a chance I could see them I suppose, but I don't really know how visible they are. By the way, somewhere in this thread I saw someone mention that people fly the pattern mostly on the south side of the airport, or something to that effect. I don't know what was meant by that, but I spend plenty of time on the other side of the field while in the pattern (especially when entering the pattern from the north, or landing on runway 8). Anyway, back to my question — does it often happen that skydivers get blown off course? Are you able to make sure you stay toward the center of the field? How do I keep track of where skydivers are, since they're not communicating after jumping, right? Or, can you communicate after you're out of the plane? Do you have the ability to see me from above and steer clear? As I said, I'm all for your business, although I'll admit it does make me just a tad nervous. Given the fact that this is done all over the country I'm guessing there are reasonable answers to my questions. Good luck with your business.

[trfour]

I don't think that it will be closed before fruition, no'r should it be!

[twoplustwo]

I would just like to say that Tom Noonan has been nothing but a class act in this thread. You won't see my arse jumping out of any airplanes, but I'll meet you and Mary at The Pound and buy you a beer, Tom.

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

I just wanted to check in with everyone and let you know that I will be attending the September LAA meeting tomorrow night at the Main Terminal Building at 5:30pm.

As always, if anyone is interested in asking questions or presenting any concerns, I will be there a half an hour early and will stay after the meeting as well if anyone has any questions after the meeting. Followed shortly there after by having dinner at the Lobster Pound. Please feel free to stop by there if you can't make the meeting.

Regarding the status of things: the Portland FSDO finished their assessment and found no reason that skydiving could not occur at the airport. Typically, in this scenario, when the FSDO declares the airport suitable for skydiving, skydiving is approved and commences. In this case however, the airport sponsor has subsequently requested that the ADO send in specialists to review, among other things, the IFR electronics. While delaying things further, this is simply one final item to wait for. This analysis is in process and we have been told that the FAA wants to get this done as soon as possible. That's where things stand at the moment.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Pineedles]

You sir, are a class act! I know it's good marketing to keep your message in front of potential customers, but I have never seen such an "open kimono" approach to one's business by inviting everyone to all meetings that you have no control over, and anything could happen.

BTW, my compliments to your wife. I didn't mean to leave her out of my compliments.

[Resident 2B]

Tom,

Although I was opposed to your sky diving proposal in the past, with all the studies that have been completed with results supporting your application, I have completely changed my opinion.

I now fully support this proposal. Although I will never jump out of a perfectly good airplane, I respect the rights of those that want to do this, as long as it is safe. Based on the studies and opinions of the experts, this is safe. Therefore, I am now a supporter of your proposal.

As others have pointed out, you are a class act and I believe you and your operation will bring value to our area.

Good luck and best wishes for success!

R2B

[Happy Gourmand]

Did he just invite all of us to the LP for dinner? What a guy!! What time?
Seriously, best of luck to you with your new venture. Though I don't plan to be a customer, I'm sure you will thrive at this location especially in the summer months. Kudos to you for your openness and willingness to keep us all informed and respond to even some of your more hardened opponents. I hope that they too will someday realize that the airspace is open for all to enjoy.
Best of Luck to you!

[SIKSUKR]

Thanks Tom,I'll have the twin lobster.

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

As the October 2009 LAA meeting approaches, I wanted to provide an update.

As I mentioned in the last update, the Portland FSDO found no reason to deny or limit skydiving at LCI, and the airport subsequently asked the ADO to do an Obstruction Evaluation analysis (OE) on our 2 primary landing areas and 4 alternate landing areas that we submitted back in November 2008.

I spoke with the FAA office that is conducting that analysis and it will be done by the end of this week, in plenty of time for next week's LAA meeting on the 15th. As has been our position all along, we don't expect any surprises from this analysis and expect the report to reconfirm the Portland FSDOs findings, that there does not exist any hazards unique to LCI that would preclude it from accomidating a skydiving operation, to include landing parachutes on the airfield.

Once this report is issued, and assuming I am accurate in my prediction, there will be nothing left for the LAA to consider in it's decision making process, and we would like to think that they will render a favorable decision at the meeting, granting us permission to operate.

Unfortunately, Mary and I will not be in attendance at the meeting, as we are on a plane to Kathmandu in three hours. We have been asked to return to Nepal for the second Everest Skydive Expedition. We will be gone through the 25th of October. For anyone interested, this year we will be landing at Gorakshep, a landing area at 16,500ft MSL, the highest "dropzone" in the world. We will be exiting at 30,000ftMSL, opening our parachutes at 21,500ft MSL and landing at 16,500ft. We will have a friend at the meeting representing us, so if anyone wants to contact us with any questions, he will be there to take the questions and forward them to us.

We look forward to returning from Mount Everest to a favorable decision so that we may begin to make preparations to open in May 2010.

Namaste!

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

P.S. - Speaking of "good flights", we are about to make a 14.5 hour flight to Qatar, followed by a 6 hour flight to Nepal. Long night ahead for sure...lol.

[Pineedles]

Thanks Tom, for the update.

I believe your salutation of "Namaste"!, is illustrated by my google search of the term.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...mast%C3%A9.jpg

Too bad Al Gore is the illustrator.

A question though comes to mind. As you have obviously been exposed to the "world" as far as sky diving, is the Laconia approval process a 10, it's in the bag. A 5, really tough but possible with a 50/50 chance. Or anything less than 5 where the prospects are zero to none?

[granitebox]

The Lakes Region would be fortunate to get such professional folks to set up an operation here. The delays in the approval process are embarrassing.

[TheNoonans]

Hi Pineedles and Granitebox,

Thank you for your support/responses.

Regarding Pineedles question, while nothing is truly certain in aviation, thus far every pilot, skydiving professional and FAA rep that has experience in both industries (that's the key, being an expert/authority in both areas), that has conducted any informal or formal analysis on LCI has come back and said every time, that there does not exist any unique hazard, airport size issue, or traffic frequency issue, that would preclude skydiving at Laconia Municipal Airport.

As for the delay mentioned by Granitebox, all I can offer is that Mary and I requested that the LAA contact the Portland FSDO for a site evaluation back in November 2008, and cited where in the FAA regs that it stated that was the appropriate course of action for the airport board. Had that been done, as it was requested, then all FAA evals would have been completed well prior to May 2009, or intended start date. For whatever reason (draw your own conclusions), our request was rejected at that time, and instead, the LAA elected to create a "Safety Committee" to evaluate our request. By May of 2009, the Safety Committee conceded that it was unable to reach a safety based decision, and it was only then that the LAA contacted the FAA to request the site evaluation.

We continue to remain focused and optimistic that this process will finally reach it's logical conclusion at the October 2009 LAA meeting.

As a side note, after a 35 hour commute, Mary and I are in Kathmandu prepping our gear for our journey into the Himalayas on Tuesday. For any adventurous pilots out there, google and Youtube search "Lukla Airport". It's an amazing landing to experience.

Namaste.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[trfour]

I had to call LAA today. (603) 524-5003 to see what the holdup is about the Noonan's application to further their skydiving venture at Laconia Airport.
I was told that the FAA study was not completed, so as, they were not on the 'Topics To Be Discussed At The Oct 15th Meeting'.

Seems to me that there is a huge wrestling match going on with trying to go forward to improve the economy here in Laconia, but then again, standing in it's very way!

With the economy being what it is, I guess that since the LAA only notified the FAA last month to do the studdy, that we can only hope that the FAA can get the study done in time to give the Noonan's an approval and a window to operate in the coming year! "2010"!

PS. PLEASE LAA & FAA, Are You With Us?

[jr616]

As a side note, after a 35 hour commute, Mary and I are in Kathmandu prepping our gear for our journey into the Himalayas on Tuesday. For any adventurous pilots out there, google and Youtube search "Lukla Airport". It's an amazing landing to experience.


WOW! Be careful!

[SteveA]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_12247737.htm

Looks like they made it safely!

[SteveA]

http://www.everest-skydive.com/

Lots of photos, but I didn't find any video other than some of the stuff from 2008.

Good Stuff.

[TheNoonans]

Namaste to all,

Thank you for your interest and support with Everest Skydive 2009. Mary and I are back in Kathmandu aftert a three week trek into Sagamatha National Park in the Himalayas, healthy, happy and ready to return to the US. It will probably take three months to sort through all the pictures and journal entries, but when it's done we will be adding it to our website. To say it was the trip of a lifetime is an understatement....lol. All said, we ascended to 16,900ft MSL by foot (Gorak Shep) and I'm proud to anounce that a new world record was set today, highest parachute landing in the world, by myself and my co-ordinator Wendy Smith from New Zealand, when we landed our parachutes at Kala Pattar (17,192ft MSL) beside the Khumbu Glacier.

Don't know if the news will make it stateside, but it's making quite a buzz over here. Press conference tomorrow afternoon before our flights home.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[SIKSUKR]

So impressive Tom. Congrats to the 2 of you. Can't wait to read about the trip.

[granitebox]

I can't imagine there are two groups in such a short time frame accomplishing this feat but here is a link to a similar (if not same) experience. No experience needed on the tandem jump.....

http://www.incredible-adventures.com...erest2009.html

Truly incredible.

[jr616]

I have always wanted to skydive. My better half, being a pilot, can see no good reason to jump from a perfectly sound airplane. What does he know -

Tom once you kids are up and running in Laconia I think you are the guy I want to do my jumping with! Kudos on your recent adventure and thanks for pointing out that crazy airport we had more fun watching landings on Youtube!

Keep us posted! I can only think we in a lakes region will be so fortunate to have such an experienced jumper in our Mist (midst too)!

[LongBay]

Congrats Tom.

The YouTube video is great. Hope to see some articles in the local papers soon.

[trfour]

Best wishes for the Noonans!!

More videos; http://www.everest-skydive.com/gallery.php

Click on link and scroll down to videos.

And, Blue Skys to you two, too.
Terry

[Sman]

How long has this non-decision making process been going on now?

Imagine if every new idea required the government/gov agency to make a decision in order to move forward

Oh, and the fact that they are taking this long makes me feel much safer about this process

I have no interest in jumping out of a plane, but feel frustrated for these people

[granitebox]

Sman, I agree completely.

The first post was in January so we're going on 11 months, and the initial request has to date back to 2008. Basically it seems the government is waging a war of attrition.

I hope the Noonan's don't give up!

[trfour]

to see if the ADO had completed an air space evaluation and submitted their findings to the FAA, and also to find out if the Noonan's were listed in The 'Topics For Discussion' for next Thursdays meeting.
Being a Friday afternoon, I guess they must have left for the weekend, as all I got was an answering machine.

A silver lining... If you will, over all the Noonan's have a tremendous amount of support here, and I think they have fallen in love with the area, so as bailing on their venture at this point and time is not an option!

Best wishes to Tom and Mary!!

[TheNoonans]

Hi Terry,

Thank you (and everyone else!) for your continued support. Not to worry, we aren't going anywhere. As I mentioned from the start, we have the patience and the resolve to see this process through to it's logical conclusion, even if it means taking the request to Washington DC and the FAA's federal headquarters. We have the support and the means to see it through and plan to.

But to be fair the LAA, despite the fact a handful of people there may want to vote their personal preference and not their clearly defined legal obligation, to do so on thier part would open up a Pandora's Box of compliance failures that would result in both the forfeiture of future federal funding as well as the refunding of (approximately) the last ten years of federal funding received. I can't imagine the board doesn't know this, and would be very surprised if they would be willing to subject themselves to that simply because on a personal level some of them don't want us there.

Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting, I am in New Zealand at the moment skydiving. Mary will be there however and she will be there for any questions or concerns before and after the meeting.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight, Tom

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

I wanted to post an update as it's been a few weeks since the last meeting.

Basically, the local FSDO went out to the airport and was told that they have a concern about landing parachutes affecting the IFR glideslope and a concern about parachutists crossing the taxiway after landing.

Neither issue is problem, as is evidenced by most of the other 270 airports in the country that have IFR glideslopes and parachutists crossing taxiways, none the less, the due diligence required by the FSDO is to bring in specialists to evaluate the concerns.

Mary and I are not concerned at all. Skydiving only occurs in VFR conditions, so we will never be dropping jumpers in IFR conditions, so to say that we could disrupt the glideslope operation during IFR conditions isn't grounded in reality. It could be argued (is being argued?) that our presence in VFR conditions could affect the IFR glideslope for pilots practicing IFR approaches in VFR conditions. To that all I can say is that in my 11 years, 3000 skydives, 15 countries skydiving in, I have never once heard of a landing parachute affecting an IFR glideslope array. But if there is even a remote chance of that being possible (and being factually proved to even be possible), I'm all ears, I would love to read the facts and findings on such an event actually occuring. Needless to say though, given the fact that someone practicing IFR landings in VFR conditions is in a plane with the necessary avionics to fly IFR, the same plane will most certainly be equipped with a radio tuned to the local frequency, and it would be in the spirit of "sharing the sky" that the FAA embraces, for both the jump pilot and practicing IFR pilot to communicate with each other prior to dropping skydivers and prior to making IFR practice approaches. It's a simple plan that works around the country, around the world really.

But in the end, if by some remote chance the LAA decides that we can interupt the glideslope in VFR conditions and prevent pilots from practicing IFR approaches in VFR conditions, and use that as a reason to deny us access to landing on the airport, they will be giving a "right of way" to one legal aeronautical activity over another, and that will be a sure fire discrimination victory for us, so either way, Mary and I are not very concerned about it.

The other issue, crossing active taxiways, is really a no brainer. I would love to see anyone actually argue (the easy part) and show evidence (the hard part) that parachutists pose any safety concern in crossing taxiways. If, as I have seen, parachutists can safely cross the taxiway with a Citation X on it and a Blue Angels F-18 taxiing by at a busier municipal airport in Florida, without any incident, along with all the other federally funded municipal airports in the US that can safely accomidate crossing active taxiways, I would be geniunely surprised if any factual information could be produced at all to show that LCI cannot safely accomidate crossing the active taxiway.

Anyways, that's the status of things.

We aren't worried about either issue, at worst, they are simply yet another delay.

Although, I do find it kind of odd that it took close to sixteen months for these "safety concerns" to finally be brought to the FAA........

Oh well, they are on the table now and being dealt with.

I'm skydiving in New Zealand at the moment avoiding the snow and working with one of the busiest dropzones in the world. They average 15,000 tandem skydives a year (that's 45,000 people a year in the sky, 2 per tandem plus videographer). They employ 65 people (all locals) and are thoroughly embraced by the community. And even the commecial pilots flying through our patterns in Boeing 737s work with the jump pilots to ensure the airspace is available to everyone. No incidents, everyone working together.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight.

[Seeker]

Just curious about why the first part of this post is blocked out (at least on my pc).
Isn't it nice that a lot of people have "agendas" be it for or against skydiving, speed limits, WOW Trail, snowmobiling, ATVs, GFBL boats, McMansions, bartenders with blue hair, $175,000 fire trucks, every restaurant I can think of, and a couple dozen other things.
We are very fortunate to live in a society that allows us to voice our opinions as we do.
JMHO

The first part isn't blocked anymore. Must be my pc.

[trfour]

Hi Tom,

Thank you for the update. Most of us are 100% behind you, and are looking forward to blue skies to you and joining in a very celebratory visit at your Grand Opening, Laconia Airport 2010!! Through you're brilliant struggle in dealing with government agencies, it is very clear whom needs an update!

Just waiting for the green light, to send you some paying Customers!
Terry

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

While we await the conclusion of this latest (and presumably final) evaluation, I thought I would pass on some information to the online community here, in case anyone is interested in followiing along.

From day one, Mary and I have always stated that the facts of this airport access issue have always sided 100% with our proposal, (with zero ambiguity and zero room for "interpretation"). To that end, I wanted to offer:

FAA Advisory Circular 105-2D. PARACHUTE OPERATIONS ONTO AIRPORTS

Most parachute operations fully take place on airports, including having the parachute landing area located on the airport property. 14 CFR 105.23 requires approval from airport management prior to skydiving onto any airport. However, 105.23c allows a parachutist to drift over an airport with an open parachute, without airport management approval as long as the parachutist remains at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern..

A large number of airports that accommodate parachute operations also have different kinds of aviation activities taking place simultaneously, including flight training, glider and helicopter operations, helicopter emergency medical services, sight-seeing operations, and aerobatic practice over or in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Many airports also accommodate a large volume of transient traffic while skydiving occurs. The FAA recommends that shared-facility airports have operating procedures so that each activity can operate safely by knowing the procedure for each of the other activities. Meetings should be held with the airport management, FAA Flight Standards, and representatives of each type of airport user should be held to develop procedures and then hold regularly scheduled meetings to ensure airport policies and procedures are kept current.

Traffic Patterns. With a minimum parachute opening altitude of 2,000 feet above the ground (and most parachutists open much higher), parachutes are nearly always open 800 feet or more above the traffic pattern altitude for any airport. Descending slowly and easy to visually acquire, parachutists and pilots have a shared responsibility to see and avoid each other. Often, procedures can be employed that reduce the potential for parachutists and pilots in a traffic pattern to be in proximity.

Parachute landings on airports. Airports may designate parachute landing areas that are suitable. While skydivers prefer to land on grass areas, there is no prohibition against landing on runways, taxiways and other hard-surfaced areas when a parachutist finds it necessary to do so. Areas such as runways, taxiways, clear ways and obstacle free zones should not be used as a primary landing area but are not prohibited areas and should be vacated as soon as practical.

Federally Obligated Airports. Airports that have received federal grants for airport improvements have signed grant assurances including the assurance that the airport will not arbitrarily discriminate among "types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity." The FAA defines skydiving as an aeronautical activity, deserving fair consideration for accommodation. In any instance where the airport sponsor believes that skydiving is incompatible with the existing volume of operations, the FAA will assess whether safe airport operations would be jeopardized. . Airports that insist on denying skydiving activities in an arbitrary manner risk being the subject of a Part 13 Informal Complaint or a Part 16 Formal Complaint that could result in the FAA finding the airport to be in non-compliance with its grant assurance agreements, which could potentially jeopardize future airport funding. See AC 150/ 5190-7 for more information.


16. PARACHUTE LANDING AREAS.

A. Prohibited Landing Areas. For most airports, there are no areas that prohibit a parachutist from landing in/on including runways and taxiways. Areas such as runways, taxiways, clear ways and obstacle free zones should not be used as a primary landing area but are not prohibited areas and should be vacated as soon as practical.

B. Normal Parachuting Operations Landing Areas. The USPA has recommended that areas used for skydiving should be unobstructed, with the following minimum radial distances to the nearest hazard as defined in USPA's BSRs:

1. Solo students and A-license holders - 100meters

2. B- and C-license holders - 50 meters

3. D-license holders - unlimited


Blue skies to all and to all (including parachutists) a good flight,

Tom

[trfour]

Hi Tom,

Seems that the Holidays have hampered progress anew in this matter.
Any more news? Would be greatly appreciated.
Terry

[TheNoonans]

Hi Terry!

Happy holidays to you and everyone on the board. I'm still enjoying my second summer in New Zealand, averaging about 10-12 tandems a day, there is some amazing scenery down here over Lake Wakatipu in Queenstown.

As for updates, I wish I had one. Still status quo, FSDO called in FAA experts to assess the LAAs concerns about crossing the runway and (I believe) the radar array as well. I'm guessing the holidays have slowed the process down as you mentioned.

As soon as I heard anything either way, I will post what I know here.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Lakegeezer]

The FAA said no to the jump school at Laconia Airport.
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...924/-1/CITIZEN

Come on up to Moultonborough! We could use new commerce in the area.

[fatlazyless]

...that totally stinks...what a loser decision by the FAA....booo on the Federal Aviation Administration administrator(s) who made that decision....does this area ever need a boost from people visiting off-season to go skydiving! ...not a happy decision for Laconia-Gilford-Lake Winnipesaukee and area....talk about a genuine stimulus with some lasting revenue stream that would have powered up existing restaurants-hotels-stores & employee residents...not going to happen...

Did you know that Laconia, the county seat for Belknap County, and as of December 31, 2009, Belknap County has an unemployment rate of 7.5% which makes it the second most unemployed of all eleven counties in the state. Only Coos County, way up north, which is totally dead at 9.4%, is worse off.

"I think it will remain in the mid-7 percent range, maybe even approach 8 percent, as we go through 2010"

Dennis Delay, economist NH Ctr Public Policy Studies, Union Leader 1/29/09, p B4

[flyguy]

In spite of the smoke & mirrors PR blitz by the Noonans (accompanied by thinly veiled threats concerning funding) wiser heads have prevailed.

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

...every pilot, skydiving professional and FAA rep that has experience in both industries that has conducted any informal or formal analysis on LCI has come back and said every time, that there does not exist any unique hazard, airport size issue, or traffic frequency issue, that would preclude skydiving at Laconia Municipal Airport.

From the Jan 29 Laconia Citizen:

"Tracey McInnis of the FAA's Burlington, Mass. office wrote that her agency had determined that "this proposed landing area would adversely affect the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft and the safety of persons and property on the ground.

"FAA must protect for the potential corruption of the glideslope, the Runway Safety Areas (RSA), as well as preclude the possibility of debris being inadvertently dropped on the operating surfaces. The potential for these occurrences are the basis for the objection to the parachute landing areas."

In summary, McInnis wrote, "to have a designated landing area located within an area where aircraft are taxiing, running up and departing/arriving increases the exposure to risk. Given the information provided thus far, it would appear that the proposed skydiving operations would, at best, be a difficult fit into the operations at the Laconia Airport."

"Pedestrian traffic on active taxiways and runways has (also) been considered to be a safety risk."

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

When we walked in the terminal door August 2008, we had already "point/counter pointed" every possible scenario that could arise and had a solution.

The solution is simple. Land off airport, and be welcomed.

[jr616]

Noonans -
So sorry to hear of your lost battle.

[NoBozo]

I'm taking a big risk here.... I think maybe.....just maybe.. The Noonans were not big O'Bama supporters. After all......O'Bama owns the FAA now....... ......Nah; It couldn't be political..no way. NB

[Pineedles]

As a stupid American Citizen, as I am sure the FAA thinks of me, I think this decision is an indication of how the government intends to "help" small business.

Folks, it doesn't matter whether George or Barack is in power, the government employees are your enemy. They are political appointees and they will protect their turf to the detriment of any entrepeneur who tries to create a business. Of course there are exceptions,,,,,,,,,,,,Green businesses are OK. Screw that!

[idigtractors]

Originally Posted by flyguy

In spite of the smoke & mirrors PR blitz by the Noonans (accompanied by thinly veiled threats concerning funding) wiser heads have prevailed.


From the Jan 29 Laconia Citizen:

"Tracey McInnis of the FAA's Burlington, Mass. office wrote that her agency had determined that "this proposed landing area would adversely affect the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace by aircraft and the safety of persons and property on the ground.

"FAA must protect for the potential corruption of the glideslope, the Runway Safety Areas (RSA), as well as preclude the possibility of debris being inadvertently dropped on the operating surfaces. The potential for these occurrences are the basis for the objection to the parachute landing areas."

In summary, McInnis wrote, "to have a designated landing area located within an area where aircraft are taxiing, running up and departing/arriving increases the exposure to risk. Given the information provided thus far, it would appear that the proposed skydiving operations would, at best, be a difficult fit into the operations at the Laconia Airport."

"Pedestrian traffic on active taxiways and runways has (also) been considered to be a safety risk."


The solution is simple. Land off airport, and be welcomed.

I for one hope that the Noonan's try and get this decision reversed in some way and that the above will have to eat his words from the past and present comments. Just my 2¢.

[granitebox]

The Noonans have proven their persistence. I would like to predict this isn't the end of the story.

[trfour]

Much more to come folks.

Terry
_______________________

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

Well, like many of you, we recently received news of the ADO's report. We were pretty surprised at it's content. I honestly don't think it will stand up down the road.

I'm a little disappointed in Mr. Hemmel's continued insistence on bringing negativity to this thread, as we were the only ones bringing facts to the table throughout this discussion and the "threat of funding loss" has nothing to do with us, it's in the FAA regs.

Mary and I knew from around November 2008 that the LAA was looking for any possible means to reject our proposal, so when we finally got this report, admittedly we didn't bother expending the time or resources to travel to this last meeting, as we knew with 100% certainty the LAA would be issuing a denial.

To be honest, as disappointed as we are in the process as a whole, the fact that any answer has finally been generated is a step in the right direction. This issue is far from being concluded.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[AltnBay]

Business has always been a war of words and power which I'm sure Mr. Noonan is well aware of. I'm also in hopes that the Noonans are rethinking there game plan,appeal the FAA's decision and take the gloves off when it comes to dealing with your opponent and drop the Mr. nice guy behind closed doors and get the job done. Mr. Noonan,You can't fix stupid so just go around. Business as usual.

[robmac]

I wish you both and hope for success in your venture. In these economically challenged times it is always good to see people trying to bring economic stimulus to the area. Don't give up I think you have alot of supporters in the area.

[flyguy]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

Rest assured though, the LAA has finally requested that the FAA, the only authority on safety in this matter, come in and do a site evaluation. We are thrilled about that. .....I would ask that you do me a small favor and respond to one question: When the FAA comes back and says, yes, based on our expert opinion, the Laconia Municipal Airport can sustain a skydiving operation, will you accept their verdict? Surely the FAA has enough experience (they wrote the FARs after all) to make such a decision, don't you think?

Apparently, they do. One hopes you have the grace and good sense to accept it as well.

The solution is simple. Land off airport, and be welcomed.

[BroadHopper]

Those jets that the NASCAR racers come in, seems to take over the airport and fly in one by one. Maybe they are concerned about 'that' traffic. It is just a matter of curtailing sky dive activities on those weekends.

[trfour]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Those jets that the NASCAR racers come in, seems to take over the airport and fly in one by one. Maybe they are concerned about 'that' traffic. It is just a matter of curtailing sky dive activities on those weekends.

An earlier quote from Tom Noonan...
"As for NASCAR weekends, we mentioned in an earlier post that we have no intention of operating the first NASCAR weekend so that we can sit back and monitor the traffic. We want to do our own research on the NASCAR traffic before making any decisions on jump operation during such a reportedly busy weekend. Worst case scenario, we voluntarily shut our doors that weekend and go to the races ourselves. As a side note, our intended parachute landings over the course of a season expect to be between 1000 and 3000. The Deland Municipal Airport in Florida receives all of the overflow jet traffic and small aircraft traffic for Daytona NASCAR weekends, and the dropzone there does 80,000 annual parachute jumps by comparison. They do not shut down during NASCAR weekends and have never had an issue with NASCAR related air traffic. With that said, it certainly is an issue that deserves detailed analysis, and we plan to do such analysis before we make any decisions on whether we choose to operate, even if at a reduced rate, during the NASCAR events."

I could see maybe, that the LAA might want to add a clause in any permit issued, but to turn the Noonan's down altogether is ludicrous.

Round # 2 coming right up!

Terry
____________________________

[DailyWolfeboro]

I am a skydiver. I went through AFF and got my A-License and B-License at Skydive New England in Lebanon, Maine.

A couple points after reading through the thread:

1) Skydivers are generally fairly laid back people and they would bring good attitudes and revenue to the area.

2) I have jumped at a few different locations. Skydive Deland is at a small airport down in Florida. They have been operating for many years. There weren't any issues in regards to air traffic or incidents when I was there.

3) I think Laconia would be a cool place to have a dropzone. Seeing the lake when you are up in the air would be awesome. You would get some great views of the White Mts. too.

4) Skydivers are very aware of air traffic. No one wants to have a skydiver/plane encounter. That's not good for either party.

That's about all I have to say. Just wanted to put my 2 cents in.

[Pineedles]

Two cents? I would say that you contributed 1,000,000 times that amount to the discussion. For those of us who were very dissapointed with the latest ruling, thank you for your support. Viewing Winnipesaukee at 1,000 feet up, is a site I would like to see some day from a tandem jump.

[DailyWolfeboro]

Some Views of DZ landing areas. These are all from Google earth at about the same altitude.

As you can see, you have to cross taxiways and runways at both of the other places I mentioned before. It's like crossing the road. You look both ways, and make sure there isn't traffic. The light blue is the student landing area. Lime green is the advanced landing area.

Laconia:


Skydive New England:


Skydive Deland:

[Formula]

Tom,
I am not sure if this was mentioned prior...have you looked into the landing strip in Moiuntonborough on RT 25. I for one would love to have that type of daytime businesses in town??

[TheNoonans]

Greetings to all,

Thank you all for your continued support. In the beginning, Mary and I approached the LAA to bring a legal and viable business to the airport. It was our expectation that the board would work with us, not against us in coming to a mutually beneficial agreement. Obviously, for anyone following this thread and our proposal, that did not happen.

We never set out to become the poster children for airport access rights, but that is where this has gone. The wheels are already set in motion on a Federal level regarding the composition of the regional report issued and the decision made by the LAA. Suffice to say, there was certainly surprise on that federal level that the report was issued the way it was.........

As a side note, you may be interested to know that when the LAA finally requested that the FAA evaluate our proposal, the form they used was an application for a new runway.......and the evaluation was then made based on that form's criteria......(I don't ever recall asking the LAA to build us a new runway.)

The silver lining in the debacle that has become this flawed proposal process is that when this is shortly concluded on a federal level, it will ensure that never again will a federally funded airport be allowed to ignore the rules and regulations set forth by the FAA. It will become a precedent setting case that will be used across the country to ensure equal access to all aeronautical activities on federally funded airports.

That is a bigger victory that we ever set out for, we just wanted to skydive, but in the end if our struggle keeps the next prospective dropzone owner from going through what we went through, then it will be worth it.

We asked the LAA to work with us, and they chose not to. Now the issue is out of our hands and in Washington.

We remain vigilant in our committment to open Skydive Laconia and aren't going anywhere.

I am on a flight to LAX, gotta run. Namaste.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom