Restricting Glider Ops at Public Arpt.

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.