Restricting Glider Ops at Public Arpt.

At 23:24 30 July 2003, Rjciii wrote:
Judy,

Can the SSA provide any help with respect to advocacy
in this
situation other than provide regulatory references?

SSA's Airport Utilization group headed by Steve Northcraft
can provide some assistance in airport user issues,
but FAR 16.23 limits the role any association can play
here. The person or entity directly and substantially
affected by an airport authority's alleged act or omission
has the legal standing to file a formal complaint with
FAA and bears primary responsibility to document the
resulting detriment to safety, economics and/or efficiency.


That said, it's been my experience that many airport
utilization issues tend to involve glider pilots saying,
'we've always done things this way' while the airport
manager, his/her supervising Commission, the City/County
Board and/or the local FSDO or ADO point to FAA advisory
material and say, 'well, you're in conflict with FAA
safety standards.'

True enough, the origins of some of these conflicts
can be traced to a cranky airport tenant or an airport
manager with an anti-soaring bent. More insidious and
perhaps more often, planned airport improvements -
and the desire for federal funding to pay for them
- can prompt a review of airport procedures and the
(unpleasant) finding that glider ops need to be modified.

Chief among the sticky wickets for soaring: design
standards for Obstacle Free Zones and Object Free Areas,
along with recommended procedures for ground personnel
and vehicles on aprons/ramps, taxi ways and runways.
These issues have been dealt with at Minden Tahoe
(Douglas County) airport in NV and their current operating
rules are available online through the 'regulations'
link at http://mtairport.co.douglas.nv.us/pilot_guide.html#
(be sure to check out not only the glider ops section
but also rules pertaining to pedestrians and vehicles!)

The intersection traffic cop is a novel and unprecedented
idea, as far as I know... but given the LGC runway
layout shown on Airnav and blind ends of the intersecting
runways, it would not IMHO seem unreasonable for airport
operating rules to require either radios in all gliders
or (1) a launch announcement by a radio-equipped tow
plane and (2) normal glider landings stopping well
short of the intersecting runway.

Finally, I note that in a previous post, you mention
that gliders are not allowed to operate from the runway
with an instrument approach, which is cited on Airnav
as an ILS on 31. Presumably this is used in IMC and
for practice approaches in VMC. Meanwhile, Soaring
Eagles' website mentions (occasional?) winch launch
activities apparently taking place on 03/21. Hmmm...
maybe an intersection traffic cop isn't such a bad
idea when the winch is in use.

Judy

it would not IMHO seem unreasonable for airport
operating rules to require either radios in all gliders
or (1) a launch announcement by a radio-equipped tow
plane and (2) normal glider landings stopping well
short of the intersecting runway.


Judy,

We don't think these two requirements are unreasonable considering the
situation, either. In fact, we have alway operated IAW these two
procedures as a matter of common sense safety, and we have expressed
our willingness to formally accept these procedures as a condition to
operate. But the airport board does not think that is enough (control
and ego isssues) and the local feds let the airport B.S. them into
concurring (due to a batant ignorance of glider operations in general,
and in specific, an unwillingness to get off their federal
bureaucratic butts and check out our operation in an unprejudiced
manner as they are supposed to do). But we must be thankful that the
FAA put their "glider" man (who had maybe 10 flights of instruction
decades ago) on the case...

I cannot get any explicit and intelligent reasons from the FAA (other
than "that's how it's going to be") as to why there is so much concern
for safety when gliders launch off of Runway 03/21 to prompt such an
onerous stipulation to operate, when each and every other aviation
activity (to include powered aircraft without radios thus not having
the capability to even monitor traffic calls or make takeoff
announcements) can continue to operate off of the very same crossing
runway all day long without also being required to post an observer as
a condition to operate.

I just can't seem to be able to get past FAA Order 5190.6A language
"...fair, equal, and not unjustly discrimination terms to be met by
*ALL* users of the airport."

Know that the glider club agreed not to operate the winch years ago.
You just can't get good (nonpaid, voluntary club member) help these
days to keep a web site up to date. Guess we should fire the bum. ; )

Also know that the gliders normally operate off of Rwy 21, and if you
consider the length of the grass infield from the approach end of 21
to the intersection of 13/31, someone landing a 500# glider at 55 kts.
would really have to purposely try to roll beyond the intersection.
This has never happened.

There is absolutely no need for an intersection observer when we
depart or land using Rnwy 03 because there is no row of trees on that
end to block the view of the 13/31 approaches--but regardless of
this we are still required to post an observer even when operating off
of 03!

As far as Mr. Northcraft, I apprised him of this situation what must
be two years ago by now. His(somewhat terse)response, and this is just
about verbatem, was *if you don't have an airport-glider operating
procedures agreement--then why not?*

Well, we have been working on that very objective for years now. But
in order to draw up an agreement two parties must be willing to
discuss the matter at hand. The airport board has never been
receptive--they just want the gliders to be gone, period. And the
airport manager recently told the FAA that he will not communicate
with the glider club. Obviously he is very receptive to negotition.
And doesn't an "agreement" mean that two parties actually "agree" to
something? After all our many attempts to work with the airport
authority were exhausted, the club, as a last resort, approched the
FAA to intervene. What has resulted from this process are onerous
procedures written by the airport board with no input from the glider
club; procedure concocted to harass and make it difficult to operate
gliders at all; procedures with no basis in safe or efficient airport
operations; procedures rubber-stamped and then shoved up our ass by
the FAA.

Although the FSDOs are their own little feifdoms, they do have bosses. You
also have congressmen and senators who can send letters.

Don't let the *******s get you down!


"rjciii" wrote in message
om...
it would not IMHO seem unreasonable for airport
operating rules to require either radios in all gliders
or (1) a launch announcement by a radio-equipped tow
plane and (2) normal glider landings stopping well
short of the intersecting runway.


Judy,

We don't think these two requirements are unreasonable considering the
situation, either. In fact, we have alway operated IAW these two
procedures as a matter of common sense safety, and we have expressed
our willingness to formally accept these procedures as a condition to
operate. But the airport board does not think that is enough (control
and ego isssues) and the local feds let the airport B.S. them into
concurring (due to a batant ignorance of glider operations in general,
and in specific, an unwillingness to get off their federal
bureaucratic butts and check out our operation in an unprejudiced
manner as they are supposed to do). But we must be thankful that the
FAA put their "glider" man (who had maybe 10 flights of instruction
decades ago) on the case...

I cannot get any explicit and intelligent reasons from the FAA (other
than "that's how it's going to be") as to why there is so much concern
for safety when gliders launch off of Runway 03/21 to prompt such an
onerous stipulation to operate, when each and every other aviation
activity (to include powered aircraft without radios thus not having
the capability to even monitor traffic calls or make takeoff
announcements) can continue to operate off of the very same crossing
runway all day long without also being required to post an observer as
a condition to operate.

I just can't seem to be able to get past FAA Order 5190.6A language
"...fair, equal, and not unjustly discrimination terms to be met by
*ALL* users of the airport."

Know that the glider club agreed not to operate the winch years ago.
You just can't get good (nonpaid, voluntary club member) help these
days to keep a web site up to date. Guess we should fire the bum. ; )

Also know that the gliders normally operate off of Rwy 21, and if you
consider the length of the grass infield from the approach end of 21
to the intersection of 13/31, someone landing a 500# glider at 55 kts.
would really have to purposely try to roll beyond the intersection.
This has never happened.

There is absolutely no need for an intersection observer when we
depart or land using Rnwy 03 because there is no row of trees on that
end to block the view of the 13/31 approaches--but regardless of
this we are still required to post an observer even when operating off
of 03!

As far as Mr. Northcraft, I apprised him of this situation what must
be two years ago by now. His(somewhat terse)response, and this is just
about verbatem, was *if you don't have an airport-glider operating
procedures agreement--then why not?*

Well, we have been working on that very objective for years now. But
in order to draw up an agreement two parties must be willing to
discuss the matter at hand. The airport board has never been
receptive--they just want the gliders to be gone, period. And the
airport manager recently told the FAA that he will not communicate
with the glider club. Obviously he is very receptive to negotition.
And doesn't an "agreement" mean that two parties actually "agree" to
something? After all our many attempts to work with the airport
authority were exhausted, the club, as a last resort, approched the
FAA to intervene. What has resulted from this process are onerous
procedures written by the airport board with no input from the glider
club; procedure concocted to harass and make it difficult to operate
gliders at all; procedures with no basis in safe or efficient airport
operations; procedures rubber-stamped and then shoved up our ass by
the FAA.

I flew with you, and observed your operations, a few years ago when my son
was in your club taking instruction at LaGrange. Unfortunately he did
continue in soaring (peer influence). In the three weekend days I was at
LaGrange, your club's operations were the majority of the operations at the
field. I observed no possible conflicts with power flights on the crossing
runway. Unless power traffic has increased immensely since then, it would
seem that any rational airport manager would welcome your presence to help
justify the airport's existence.

Good luck in your struggle.

Ed Grens

"E. A. Grens" wrote:

Unfortunately he did continue in soaring...

Dear Mr. Grens,

Thank you for the kind response and assessment of our operation.

Yes, the traffic has *not* increased; and yes, the airport manager is
*not* rational.

Is the statement above concerning your son's continuation in soaring
because it exposed he and you to such conflicts for fair access as
the one ongoing in LaGrange?

Or did you mean to say that it is unfortunate he did [not] continue
due to peer pressure?

If the latter statement is correct, then as a father of a teenaged son
with an interest in soaring I would like to know what kind of peer
pressure would influence your son (& perhaps my son) not to fly? I
would think that most of your son's friends would think that was a
"rad" thing for any "dude" to do.

Now if the peer pursuation involved a developing appreciation for the
scent of perfume--now that's a cat of a different color indeed!

Judy Ruprecht wrote in message ...

That said, it's been my experience that many airport
utilization issues tend to involve glider pilots saying,
'we've always done things this way' while the airport
manager, his/her supervising Commission, the City/County
Board and/or the local FSDO or ADO point to FAA advisory
material and say, 'well, you're in conflict with FAA
safety standards.'

Judy: I am also in the club/situation in question, and if it is your
implication that we ACTUALLY are in conflict with FAA safety
standards, you are incorrect. This club operation is very safe indeed,
and the Airport Authority's position is at best, arbitrary, and at
worst, illegal.


The intersection traffic cop is a novel and unprecedented
idea, as far as I know... but given the LGC runway
layout shown on Airnav and blind ends of the intersecting
runways, it would not IMHO seem unreasonable for airport
operating rules to require either radios in all gliders
or (1) a launch announcement by a radio-equipped tow
plane and (2) normal glider landings stopping well
short of the intersecting runway.

Your suggestion is exactly what our proposed plan was. There is no
difficulty stopping short of 13/31 on landings, and we do have a radio
in our tow plane, and have always announced our staging and takeoff.
As a matter of fact, our operations have never (since I have been in
the club) involved any conflict with power operations.

Finally, I note that in a previous post, you mention
that gliders are not allowed to operate from the runway
with an instrument approach, which is cited on Airnav
as an ILS on 31. Presumably this is used in IMC and
for practice approaches in VMC. Meanwhile, Soaring
Eagles' website mentions (occasional?) winch launch
activities apparently taking place on 03/21. Hmmm...
maybe an intersection traffic cop isn't such a bad
idea when the winch is in use.

The winch has long since departed.

A few ancillary points. This is (as opposed to Minden) an uncontrolled
airport. There is, based on the FAR's (or whatever we are calling them
now) no requirement for ANY aircraft to have radios in this airport,
and in fact, there are several power operators, including ultralights,
who operate without radios. One fact that really tweaks me is the fact
that the new requirements include the need for people on foot to be
better equipped (radio) than aircraft at this airport. Seems absurd to
me. On the other hand, this entire matter is absurd. And it is
dangerous to soaring operations everywhere (who don't own their
airports).

Jim