Restricting Glider Ops at Public Arpt.

(rjciii) wrote
The Southern Eagles Soaring made a formal complaint to the local FAA
FSDO in ATL concerning the LaGrange-Callaway airport(LGC)restricting
glider flying to weekends only and unwillingness to rent hangars to
club members....
The club has since tried every conceivable
way to educate the airport authority about our operations and convince
them that we do not constitute a hazard to other aviation activity at
LGC to no avail. Now it seems we can't convince the FAA of that,
either. Help!

You're not going to want to hear this, but I have only one thing to
tell you. Move to someplace where you're wanted. There's really no
other solution. In all likelihood, you're going to lose this fight.

It's a matter of federal regulation that publicly funded airports are
to be open to all users participating in recognized aeronautical
activities, without discrimination, subject to reasonable regulations
as necessary for safety. The definition of recognized aeronautical
activity is fairly broad; it includes soaring, ultralights of all
sorts, skydiving, and pretty much any aeronautical activity regulated
by the FAA in any way.

On this basis, I have seen many groups (and been part of one) that
have brought the FAA into the picture when airport management has
tried to drive the activity off the airport. In every case, the
eventual outcome was that the operation moved to another airport or
shut down within a few years at most.

I suspect this is because the airport managers that try to drive out
the glider pilots, ultralight pilots, and skydivers are basically
ignorant and authoritarian. The same kind of people dominate the FAA,
and are pretty much unwilling to really go to bat against their own
kind.

Therefore, while the FSDO folks can't openly support the airport
manager in a flat-out prohibition, they can allow him to make rules
'for safety' that will cripple the operation. It won't help that most
of them will not know a thing about gliders, and might actually
consider such prohibitions reasonable. Even if they do bring in a
token glider 'expert' - like the glider-rated inspector at our FSDO -
odds are he will (a) still be a typical fed and (b) won't be much of a
glider expert. Would you believe the only glider-rated inspector at
our home FSDO, the guy who does all the initial CFI rides in gliders,
has never trained a glider student, never flown glider XC, and has
less than 50 hours in gliders?

So basically, you can expect that the airport manager will be able to
make rules at will, and that the FAA will not stop him. That's just
the way it is. And don't count on any substantive help from SSA,
either.

The only real chance you have of winning the battle is political. You
need to win over the airport board and get them to rein in or replace
the airport manager. If you fail to do this, you will be gone from
the airport by the end of the decade. Count on it.

Michael

Sorry for the rant. I hope you don't know anyone resembling the
description above.

Bill Daniels


As I wrote my club board today in closing

"Oh yeah, remember, this is supposed to be fun...."

Frank Whiteley

Judy,

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

Ray

(Michael) wrote:

Move to someplace where you're wanted. There's really no
other solution. In all likelihood, you're going to lose this fight.

You are correct, sir--I don't like what you have to say, but I do
appreciate your candor.

Our club relocated to its present airport because it was
uncerimoniously run out of another "public" airport. So when do we
stop running away? What's to say that the next airport we operate out
of doesn't have a change of heart and decide to disciminate as well?

The current location suits our club's needs very well considering half
our members are from N. Atlanta and half from Alabama. LGC is
equidistant and sufficiently south of the ATL Class B airspace. It
also has lots of open grass infield and long runways. No, I think
we'll stand our ground and fight for our rights. I suspect the
airport board is counting on the contrary.

It is hilarious (not) that the situation you describe concerning your
local FAA's glider "expert" is exactly what we are dealing with here.
Matter of fact, everything you describe is deja-vu except for the bit
about the airport board firing the airport manager--here they're all
in bed together. We have bent over backwards for four years now, all
the while attempting every way possible to persuade the airport
authority to change their minds. But persuasion is only effective if
one is dealing with receptive and reasonable people. We truly are not.
What we got for our effort is a letter stating that "the board has
unanimously decided to terminate glider operations..." Now is time
for the gloves to come off. At least we intend to put up the best
fight we can, hope for some support, and simply not go timid into the
night! Too bad it seems thus far that we cannot rely on the FAA to
enforce their own regulations.

Politics??? Anybody out there have any expertise on how to blackmail
someone?

rjciii wrote:

Anybody out there have any expertise on how
to blackmail someone?

All I know is what I hear from the politicians:

"Never get caught with a live boy, or a dead girl."




Jack

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
"Bill Daniels" wrote:

5.) The "5 minutes to hookup" that turn into control check, data-load
in=
to logger, finding water tube, seatbelts, etc., etc..

Good points, Stewart. #5 is one of my pet peeves too.

So - do I take it that doing a control check, turning on the
instruments, positioning the loose water tube and fastening
the seatbelts are things you think we *shouldn't* do before
the launch? I also do a checklist, turn on the radio,
check the release, look at the windsock, ask the wing runner
to verify my tail dolly is off, set the flaps and latch the
canopy. Safe glider operation requires certain procedures,
and most of them can't be done until I'm seated in the
glider ready to hook up. I can't get in until the glider is
in position for launch. While I don't dawdle, I don't rush
either. I take the time I need - no more, no less.
Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
At most of the UK clubs I've flown with, this was all done before the
members pushed the glider into launch position (with the pilot(s) already
belted in). There are a few US sites where staging is done near, but not on
the runway and there is minimal time actually spent on it. It's really
quite a luxury to stage on an active runway IMHO. Maybe it comes from
having learned to soar from a gliding club that had an 2400ft main and 600ft
cross on 11 acres. Helped with the short field practice also.

Frank Whiteley

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.

"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
"F.L. Whiteley" wrote:

At most of the UK clubs I've flown with, this was all done before the
members pushed the glider into launch position (with the pilot(s) already
belted in).

That's great when you have a crew, but it's not always
possible.

That is the greater problem with the US soaring scene.

Frank