Restricting Glider Ops at Public Arpt.

On 17 Aug 2003 07:44:28 -0700, (rjciii) wrote:

Stewart Kissel wrote in message ...

No comments were made by the FSDO with respect to our operations at
the time of the inspection other than alluding to a good, safe
operation. I imagine anything to the contrary will come out in the
ADO determination. We suspect the requirement for a runway
intersection observer will be retained. If so, the glider operators
will continue to press for relief from that stipulation
administratively through a now formal assurances complaint to FAA HQ,
and/or legally through civil lawsuit.

I was wondering if you couldn't set up your glider launch from near
the center of your runway instead of from one end. From the center,
you'd probably be in position to easily visually clear the crossing
runway by the tow pilot and/or the wind runner. I would think your
runway is long enough to only use half of it (unless you're using a
cub as a tug.) You'd also be near to a taxiway to keep the runway
clear if needed.

Good luck,
Klein

This is why we have a national organization... get them involved. What
the SSA can do for you will have value to all clubs that operate from
public airports. While the ras is good for spreading the word, the
society should function to muster resources and organize them to the
benefit of all members.

The SSA is slowly changing. Here's a chance to hurry it along.

The SSA is slowly changing. Here's a chance to hurry it along.

I'd be willing to bet the new Director at SSA would appoint a
political soaring advocate from the current staff if asked.
The main job could be to provide input and coordinate with AOPA
for soaring issues.

I think SSA is a bit small to make an impact on its own, but
a rep from SSA to AOPA (which does a fairly good job
lobbying) might be able to present a concentrated voice
for soaring. And with this contact, the AOPA might use
SSA as a resource when glider questions come up...

NAFI is a smaller part of EAA. Similar idea, since NAFI
is smaller, to use the larger organizations infrastructure...

SSA might do something similar, but without becoming a
part of AOPA, just an advisor...

X-No-Archive: yes

(Chris OCallaghan) wrote in message . com...
This is why we have a national organization... get them involved. What
the SSA can do for you will have value to all clubs that operate from
public airports. While the ras is good for spreading the word, the
society should function to muster resources and organize them to the
benefit of all members.

The SSA is slowly changing. Here's a chance to hurry it along.

As I recall, Ray previously reported that one of the airport board
members was an AOPA member who was either passively or actively
hostile to the glider activity.

One aspect of this that the SSA might be useful for is having them ask
AOPA questions along these lines:

- Does the AOPA provide the same level of support to all its members,
or does it prefer not to be an advocate for non-airplane general
aviation members?
- Why has AOPA not provided more support to an AOPA/SSA member in
fighting the activities of an over-reaching airport board, something
AOPA is normally quite willing to get involved in?
- Why is an AOPA member who sits on the airport board not more
supportive of fellow general aviation enthusiasts? Why isn't this
AOPA member more willing to discuss the situation with a fellow AOPA
(and SSA) member?

- Rich Carr

rjciii wrote:

"...the SSA's capability [actually inability]
to, as you say, 'get involved' in such a situation
is for (albeit well intentioned) volunteers to individualy
offer opinions and advice to the members--no direct
action is taken on behalf of the member(ship)."

Dear Judy:

I/we appreciate the information that you, as an interested individual,
have forwarded with regards to this matter. Please realize that the
members of the Southern Eagles Soaring club appreciate any and all
help received, and we would certainly welcome any "official" SSA
representation in this matter. But we also recognize that the SSA [as
a national organization] in reality can not do much, as was the
suggestion of a previous poster. Do not take my comments about the
SSA's inabilities to be reflective of your welcome involvement.

FWIW, We have not yet been given any definitive report nor updated
airport rules WRT the local FAA's decision(s) per our "informal"
assurances complaints. Still standing by to stand by...

Regards,

Ray

(Mark James Boyd) wrote:

I'd be willing to bet the new Director at SSA would appoint a
political soaring advocate from the current staff if asked.
The main job could be to provide input and coordinate with AOPA
for soaring issues.


Great idea! I encourage you to submit the same(in writing)to the SSA Director.

(Thomas J Johnson) wrote:

Would you'all be interested in getting together to share thoughts,
notes, and strategies, etc?


TJ:

Most of the nuances of the situation at LGC has been discussed (ad
nauseum) throughout the following threads:

-Glider Clubs on Public Airports
-Glider Clubs on Public Airports (USA)
-Onerous Operating Procedures/Improper (Illegal?) use of UNICOM Freq
-Runway Observer
-Runway Observer for Glider Operations
-Uncontrolled Airports w/ X-ing Runways

Please review, and then feel free to contact me at:

with any questions/comments/comparisons. I would certainly be
interested in what our respective situations have in common, and I
welcome the opportunity to help in any way. As previously stated, we
up here in GA are awaiting the local FSDO's determination of our
club's "informal" sponsor assurances complaint.

You're not a '82 zoomie, are you?

Regards,

Ray