Restricting Glider Ops at Public Arpt.

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

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!

(rjciii) wrote
Our club relocated to its present airport because it was
uncerimoniously run out of another "public" airport. So when do we
stop running away? ... No, I think
we'll stand our ground and fight for our rights.

I'm a Texan by choice, and I can certainly respect that. Remember the
Alamo. But also remember that the defenders of the Alamo died there,
to a man.

I suspect the
airport board is counting on the contrary.

I suspect the airport board is counting on driving you out with
untenable regulations, complaints, and anything else they can think
off. I doubt they're counting on you giving up the fight.

I've seen more than one such fight. Sometimes they drag out for
years, but in the end the airport board always wins.

It is hilarious (not) that the situation you describe concerning your
local FAA's glider "expert" is exactly what we are dealing with here.

It's how the organization works - it's inherent to the system.

Do you also believe me now when I say you will get no substantive help
from SSA? The reason is simple - they might like to help, but they
really have no capability to fight the FAA in any way. They don't
want to admit that, because it will hurt fundraising efforts.
Therefore, they will urge compromise - meaning accepting whatever
rules the airport manager dreams up and the FAA approves.

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.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I've seen the airport
board fire the manager - I only said that this would be the only way
for you to win. I don't expect it to happen.

Too bad it seems thus far that we cannot rely on the FAA to
enforce their own regulations.

But then we never could. Even the inspector general of the DOT admits
that.
http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf

Michael

"Wallace Berry" wrote in message ...
In article ,
"Bill Daniels" wrote:

What is it about flying, and gliding in particular, that seems to attract
the attention of so many paranoid control freaks?

This thread is about an ignorant airport manager who feels an overpowering
need to "control" the gliding activities at his airport to insure "safety",
but these same people can be found inside our sport serving as officers and
board members of clubs and associations. They rarely actually fly gliders
or show any talent for doing so. Instead, they spend their energy
controlling the activities of others who do fly.

This unfortunate combination of arrogance, ignorance, paranoia and a type A
personality is deadly for the enjoyment of our sport. These individuals
contribute little to actual safety since they don't understand the problem.
They take the position "just don't fly" or "fly less - it'll be safer" or
"only fly basic trainers" since this is the only "solution" that they can
comprehend. They will often be heard espousing the bizarre idea that
handling qualities are inversely related to performance so the "safest"
gliders always have the lowest performance.

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

Bill Daniels



What Ray Cornay has written with regards to the situation with our
airport management is no exaggeration or skewing of the facts.

Could be. Usually when you hear one side of a story, that's exactly
what you get -- one side of the story. Maybe mr anonymous rjciii
laid all the facts on the table and maybe he didn't. Hard to tell on
the internet, isn't it?


What Mr. Daniels has written is an exact description of the psychology
of the individuals we have to deal with. Mr. Daniels, your rant is
appreciated. I'm sorry that anyone else has had to deal with people with
the mindset that you describe. However, I've seen enough of it to
suspect it is the case at many of the "public" airports.

Umm, Mr. Daniels is ranting about a glider-club owned airport.


Which leads me to a rant of my own:

I am absolutely convinced that the one critical problem for soaring
today is airport access. We can sell the sport anyway we want, but what
will that help if we can't even keep the people who have taken the time
to seek us out? In the last 20 years, I've seen dozens (maybe a hundred
or more) people drop out of soaring primarily because they couldn't
stand the hostile atmosphere of the "public" airport. One answer is what
the best clubs have done: Buy land and establish a glider field.

I belong to one such club, the Colorado Soaring Association. Through
hard work and financial sacrifice over the years, we own and operate
a private airport. It used to be a great place to fly.

Then one day a Mr. Daniels shows up. He made a point of telling people
he just wanted to fit in. Over the three years that we've been blessed
with his presence, he's misused club equipment and club property,
he's created as much chaos as he possibly can, and he's invoked the
hatred of virtually the entire membership. He's being eased out of the
club currently, which explains why he's in such a bad mood. He's
driven away club members, towpilots, and instructors. He's been
thrown out of other clubs before, so the process should come as no
great surprise to him.


Even
this doesn't end all the access problems such as noise complaints or
TFR's or someone installing Class B over your head.

Or putting up with nutcakes like Mr. Daniels. Mr. Daniels is
to 2-33's what Lennie the Lurker is to 1-26's.


However, we have
already bought and continue to pay for the "public" airpots and it makes
me absolutely furious to have a psychotic glorified gas station
attendant tell me I can't use "his" airport.

Mr. Daniels always tries to run the show. People who try to get him
to pay his bills are "control freaks". Telling him to follow club rules
makes you another "control freak" in his warped little mind. Anytime
he doesn't get his way, he starts his ranting again. Speaking of people's
enjoyment of the sport, there's about 50 members of Colorado Soaring
Association who are going to be wildly cheering when he's gone.

He says he's going to start his own glider club, winching of course,
open by invitation only to the most elite glider pilots in the state.
Anybody who wants to follow this moron out to a cow pasture is
more than welcome. I'm sure his buddy Frank will be right there.

Dave Kinsell

"rjciii" wrote in message om...
"David Kinsell" wrote in message news:1y%Za.87660$

"Wallace Berry" wrote:
What Ray Cornay has written with regards to the situation with our
airport management is no exaggeration or skewing of the facts.

"David Kinsell" wrote:
Could be. Usually when you hear one side of a story, that's exactly
what you get -- one side of the story. Maybe mr anonymous rjciii
laid all the facts on the table and maybe he didn't.


Mr. anonymous "rjciii" reply:

Dear Mr. Kinsell:

Are you daft, man?


No, just an average "Joe" (not my real name) who's smart enough to know
that you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Also smart enough
to know that anonymous postings don't have much credibility, and keeping
your name off the internet hardly protects you from identity theft. I also know
that being a hot-head like yourself isn't going to help fix your airport problem.
Puts me a leg up on you, eh?

-You write a post publicly slamming a fellow glider club member--
-You write a post questioning my credibility and integrity--

If such actions put you, as you contend, a "leg up" on me (whatever
that is supposed to mean?), then I'm perfectly content remaining leg
down!

First Mr. Daniels and now me. Is there anyone else you care to attack
while the rest of us are trying to discuss the more serious matter of
glider/public airport access concerns? If so, I ask that you at least
have the courtesy to start a new thread so there is no doubt as to the
intention of the subject matter and the character of the author.

Again, thanks so much for turning this thread into a personal jabfest.

What is the latest status report on the situation at your airport?

Stewart Kissel wrote in message ...
What is the latest status report on the situation at your airport?


Stewart, thanks for your continued interest in this matter.

We are awaiting the FAA ADO rep's formal written determination of our
informal assurances complaint allegating equal airport access sponsor
violations (refusal to rent hangars and discriminatory restrictions to
flight).

Last weekend, the FAA FSDO completed their formal safety inspection.
Note that this safety inspection is required by FAA procedures when
the sponsor's reason for such restrictions is for safety or capacity
concerns. Also note that the inspection was accomplished well after
the FSDO had already approved flight and operating restrictions [in
*addition!* to the one's in which we initiated the original
complaint]; these new restrictions being unilaterally authored and
implemented by the airport authority without any input from the glider
operators in spite of the FSDO's directive that *both* parties draft
operating procedures.

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.

As a side note, the glider club has contacted the AOPA on this matter.
The AOPA said that we would be contacted by the local AOPA field rep
within ten days (of the initial phone call to AOPA HQ). This never
occured. Come to find out, the local AOPA field rep is none other than
the Vice-Chairman of the LGC Airport Board! When Mr. Loudermilk of
the AOPA was notified of this, he said that the field rep had
submitted a lengthy report which accuses the glider club of numerous
safety violations which, per the report, have resulted in FAA
intervention and enforcement action. We refuted these outright lies
to Mr. Loudermilk and questioned the field rep's conflict of interest
and lack of objectivity in this matter. For the most part, Mr.
Loudermilk comments were to make excuses for his field rep. So much
for help from the AOPA...the ludicrocity of this situation just keeps
getting more and more absurd!

--The govenment solution to a problem is usually as bad as the
problem.
-Milton
Friedman


....of course, as the honorable Mr. David Kinsell previously so
astutely and tactlessly pointed out, this is only a one-sided account
of the situation, and therefore one cannot trust my integrity in
reporting this matter, nor can this report be considered credible
since the author chooses to protect his privacy by not splashing his
personal data all over the internet. I suggest anyone wishing the
opinion of the LaGrange-Callaway Airport Authority contact the airport
manager, Mr. Glen Boyd, at (706) 884-3412. Be *sure* to identify
yourself as a glider pilot!

Well, a few points:

Minden (MEV) is an uncontrolled airport.
The Airport manager has no authority to prevent landings of any type of
aircraft. He does have the authority to prevent parachute landing
operations.
Although a lengthy process, try to have glider aware pilots appointed to the
board. The airport manager who requires a motor glider to land "engine off"
or
"engine on" has exceeded his authority.

Who runs the airport?
Who owns the airport?

Politicians who need votes can be persuaded that the airport board or
airport manager is keeping voters from using a public facility.
Don't depend on the FAA for anything.
There are no FARs because they don't exist. (Well, they do but they mean
Federal Acquisition Regulations.) Airports are covered under 14 CFR part
xxx regulations,
as are pilots etc.
The procedures in the AIM, while touted by the FAA, are advisory only.
(Except during a check ride.)
There are no requirements for radios at uncontrolled airports.
The FAA does not have the authority to require a mid-field controller.
Write to the FAA Director for a determination of this.
Complain to the FAA Director about abuses of authority, vis-a-vis grant
obligations.
Get your Congressman or Senator involved.

Try to persuade the owner of the airport - county or city or state or
whatever - to lease the airport to a non-profit corporation and bid for the
lease. If you care to confront the airport manager have your ducks in a row
and
have police standing by. Make a friend of the police chief within whose
jurisdiction the airport
lies.

The truth is, there are some valid safety concerns associated with glider
operations. It seems to me, however, that you have addressed these
adequately.

Amass safety statistics from airports that have simultaneous glider and
power operations: Hollister, CA; Truckee, CA; Minden, NV; Dillingham, HI and
others. You will find a very good safety record indeed.

Point out to the board the revenue generating aspects of your operation. If
you don't generate any revenue, find a way to do so.
Have exhibits at your local Airport Day. If there is no local Airport Day,
organize one.

Find out how the successful glider-power airports have resolved the
authority problems.

Good luck,

Allan (ex airport board member)


"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
...
I will make an effort at brevity :P

I wonder if the ATC unions wouldn't balk at the precedent of using
an observer as a "psuedo-controller."

I wonder how much "runway intersection observer liability insurance"
would cost. An estimate from Lloyd's might be enlightening when
showing damages in court, or estimating costs of implementation.

I wonder if the Inspector General will end up as your final
recourse, since it seems unbiased viewpoints are rare.

I too have no firsthand idea of the facts going on at your
airport. However, given that I operate frequently out of two
public airports with view-limited crossing runways, the
observer requirement seems novel, unique, precedent-setting
and potentially extremely restrictive and limiting if
applied here.

I'd be willing to shop around support from Hollister,
Byron, Truckee, Minden, and Avenal
against this specific requirement if you can provide
copies of the documentation from your adversaries. Perhaps
a link to a .jpg or .doc file?