Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Register FAQ Members List Donate Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 08-12-2009, 10:14 PM   #11
TheNoonans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Daytona Beach, FL - Bedford, NH
Posts: 136
Thanks: 0
Thanked 219 Times in 57 Posts
Default Skydive Laconia

Hi Winnicandle,

Thank you for your support. We are very excited to finally reach a conclusion in this process. With any luck, we will find out next week at the August 2009 LAA meeting.

Mary and I will both be attending the meeting, so as always, if anyone wants to come out and meet us and ask us questions, we will be available both before and after the meeting.

While I am online, I thought I would share with the forum the first line of an article that we found that was published in the Union Leader back in September 2006:

"An $8 million project to improve safety at Laconia Airport was cleared for takeoff yesterday."

$8,000,000?

To "improve safety at Laconia Airport"?

Three years ago? Hmm......

That money came from the NHDOT Division of Aeronautics. It's federal funding dollars administered by the state in a pilot program. The FAA classifies New Hampshire is a "block grant state", which allows the state to determine where federal funding is allocated.

With all that said, it begs the question, if an airport is given $8,000,000 to improve safety and then attempts to deny a legal aeronautical activity due to "safety concerns", stating the airport cannot safely accomidate the activity, did the allocated money serve it's purpose?

To be fair, I would guess that making the airport accessible to skydiving operations, glider operations, float plane operations, powered paraglider operations and tow plane operations was probably not on the agenda of the board when it began it's allocations of the $8,000,000 to improve airport safety. It begs the question though, "should it have been?" There is verbiage within the FAA Advisory Circulars (150/5190-6 and/or 150/5190-7) that would suggest that it probably should have been. Don't quote me, but I believe the line reads something like "it is the responsibility of the airport sponsor to make the airport available for use for all aeronautical activities."

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom
TheNoonans is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.29009 seconds