Skydive Laconia?

Sman · 11-13-2009, 09:51 AM

How long has this non-decision making process been going on now?

Imagine if every new idea required the government/gov agency to make a decision in order to move forward

Oh, and the fact that they are taking this long makes me feel much safer about this process

I have no interest in jumping out of a plane, but feel frustrated for these people

granitebox · 11-13-2009, 02:41 PM

Sman, I agree completely.

The first post was in January so we're going on 11 months, and the initial request has to date back to 2008. Basically it seems the government is waging a war of attrition.

I hope the Noonan's don't give up!

trfour · 11-13-2009, 10:51 PM

to see if the ADO had completed an air space evaluation and submitted their findings to the FAA, and also to find out if the Noonan's were listed in The 'Topics For Discussion' for next Thursdays meeting.
Being a Friday afternoon, I guess they must have left for the weekend, as all I got was an answering machine.

A silver lining... If you will, over all the Noonan's have a tremendous amount of support here, and I think they have fallen in love with the area, so as bailing on their venture at this point and time is not an option!

Best wishes to Tom and Mary!!

TheNoonans · 11-14-2009, 11:36 PM

Hi Terry,

Thank you (and everyone else!) for your continued support. Not to worry, we aren't going anywhere. As I mentioned from the start, we have the patience and the resolve to see this process through to it's logical conclusion, even if it means taking the request to Washington DC and the FAA's federal headquarters. We have the support and the means to see it through and plan to.

But to be fair the LAA, despite the fact a handful of people there may want to vote their personal preference and not their clearly defined legal obligation, to do so on thier part would open up a Pandora's Box of compliance failures that would result in both the forfeiture of future federal funding as well as the refunding of (approximately) the last ten years of federal funding received. I can't imagine the board doesn't know this, and would be very surprised if they would be willing to subject themselves to that simply because on a personal level some of them don't want us there.

Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting, I am in New Zealand at the moment skydiving. Mary will be there however and she will be there for any questions or concerns before and after the meeting.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight, Tom

TheNoonans · 12-08-2009, 07:37 PM

Greetings to all,

I wanted to post an update as it's been a few weeks since the last meeting.

Basically, the local FSDO went out to the airport and was told that they have a concern about landing parachutes affecting the IFR glideslope and a concern about parachutists crossing the taxiway after landing.

Neither issue is problem, as is evidenced by most of the other 270 airports in the country that have IFR glideslopes and parachutists crossing taxiways, none the less, the due diligence required by the FSDO is to bring in specialists to evaluate the concerns.

Mary and I are not concerned at all. Skydiving only occurs in VFR conditions, so we will never be dropping jumpers in IFR conditions, so to say that we could disrupt the glideslope operation during IFR conditions isn't grounded in reality. It could be argued (is being argued?) that our presence in VFR conditions could affect the IFR glideslope for pilots practicing IFR approaches in VFR conditions. To that all I can say is that in my 11 years, 3000 skydives, 15 countries skydiving in, I have never once heard of a landing parachute affecting an IFR glideslope array. But if there is even a remote chance of that being possible (and being factually proved to even be possible), I'm all ears, I would love to read the facts and findings on such an event actually occuring. Needless to say though, given the fact that someone practicing IFR landings in VFR conditions is in a plane with the necessary avionics to fly IFR, the same plane will most certainly be equipped with a radio tuned to the local frequency, and it would be in the spirit of "sharing the sky" that the FAA embraces, for both the jump pilot and practicing IFR pilot to communicate with each other prior to dropping skydivers and prior to making IFR practice approaches. It's a simple plan that works around the country, around the world really.

But in the end, if by some remote chance the LAA decides that we can interupt the glideslope in VFR conditions and prevent pilots from practicing IFR approaches in VFR conditions, and use that as a reason to deny us access to landing on the airport, they will be giving a "right of way" to one legal aeronautical activity over another, and that will be a sure fire discrimination victory for us, so either way, Mary and I are not very concerned about it.

The other issue, crossing active taxiways, is really a no brainer. I would love to see anyone actually argue (the easy part) and show evidence (the hard part) that parachutists pose any safety concern in crossing taxiways. If, as I have seen, parachutists can safely cross the taxiway with a Citation X on it and a Blue Angels F-18 taxiing by at a busier municipal airport in Florida, without any incident, along with all the other federally funded municipal airports in the US that can safely accomidate crossing active taxiways, I would be geniunely surprised if any factual information could be produced at all to show that LCI cannot safely accomidate crossing the active taxiway.

Anyways, that's the status of things.

We aren't worried about either issue, at worst, they are simply yet another delay.

Although, I do find it kind of odd that it took close to sixteen months for these "safety concerns" to finally be brought to the FAA........

Oh well, they are on the table now and being dealt with.

I'm skydiving in New Zealand at the moment avoiding the snow and working with one of the busiest dropzones in the world. They average 15,000 tandem skydives a year (that's 45,000 people a year in the sky, 2 per tandem plus videographer). They employ 65 people (all locals) and are thoroughly embraced by the community. And even the commecial pilots flying through our patterns in Boeing 737s work with the jump pilots to ensure the airspace is available to everyone. No incidents, everyone working together.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight.

Seeker · 12-08-2009, 08:18 PM

Just curious about why the first part of this post is blocked out (at least on my pc).
Isn't it nice that a lot of people have "agendas" be it for or against skydiving, speed limits, WOW Trail, snowmobiling, ATVs, GFBL boats, McMansions, bartenders with blue hair, $175,000 fire trucks, every restaurant I can think of, and a couple dozen other things.
We are very fortunate to live in a society that allows us to voice our opinions as we do.
JMHO

The first part isn't blocked anymore. Must be my pc.

trfour · 12-09-2009, 03:01 AM

Hi Tom,

Thank you for the update. Most of us are 100% behind you, and are looking forward to blue skies to you and joining in a very celebratory visit at your Grand Opening, Laconia Airport 2010!! Through you're brilliant struggle in dealing with government agencies, it is very clear whom needs an update!

Just waiting for the green light, to send you some paying Customers!
Terry

TheNoonans · 12-16-2009, 11:22 PM

Greetings to all,

While we await the conclusion of this latest (and presumably final) evaluation, I thought I would pass on some information to the online community here, in case anyone is interested in followiing along.

From day one, Mary and I have always stated that the facts of this airport access issue have always sided 100% with our proposal, (with zero ambiguity and zero room for "interpretation"). To that end, I wanted to offer:

FAA Advisory Circular 105-2D. PARACHUTE OPERATIONS ONTO AIRPORTS

Most parachute operations fully take place on airports, including having the parachute landing area located on the airport property. 14 CFR 105.23 requires approval from airport management prior to skydiving onto any airport. However, 105.23c allows a parachutist to drift over an airport with an open parachute, without airport management approval as long as the parachutist remains at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern..

A large number of airports that accommodate parachute operations also have different kinds of aviation activities taking place simultaneously, including flight training, glider and helicopter operations, helicopter emergency medical services, sight-seeing operations, and aerobatic practice over or in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Many airports also accommodate a large volume of transient traffic while skydiving occurs. The FAA recommends that shared-facility airports have operating procedures so that each activity can operate safely by knowing the procedure for each of the other activities. Meetings should be held with the airport management, FAA Flight Standards, and representatives of each type of airport user should be held to develop procedures and then hold regularly scheduled meetings to ensure airport policies and procedures are kept current.

Traffic Patterns. With a minimum parachute opening altitude of 2,000 feet above the ground (and most parachutists open much higher), parachutes are nearly always open 800 feet or more above the traffic pattern altitude for any airport. Descending slowly and easy to visually acquire, parachutists and pilots have a shared responsibility to see and avoid each other. Often, procedures can be employed that reduce the potential for parachutists and pilots in a traffic pattern to be in proximity.

Parachute landings on airports. Airports may designate parachute landing areas that are suitable. While skydivers prefer to land on grass areas, there is no prohibition against landing on runways, taxiways and other hard-surfaced areas when a parachutist finds it necessary to do so. Areas such as runways, taxiways, clear ways and obstacle free zones should not be used as a primary landing area but are not prohibited areas and should be vacated as soon as practical.

Federally Obligated Airports. Airports that have received federal grants for airport improvements have signed grant assurances including the assurance that the airport will not arbitrarily discriminate among "types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity." The FAA defines skydiving as an aeronautical activity, deserving fair consideration for accommodation. In any instance where the airport sponsor believes that skydiving is incompatible with the existing volume of operations, the FAA will assess whether safe airport operations would be jeopardized. . Airports that insist on denying skydiving activities in an arbitrary manner risk being the subject of a Part 13 Informal Complaint or a Part 16 Formal Complaint that could result in the FAA finding the airport to be in non-compliance with its grant assurance agreements, which could potentially jeopardize future airport funding. See AC 150/ 5190-7 for more information.

16. PARACHUTE LANDING AREAS.

A. Prohibited Landing Areas. For most airports, there are no areas that prohibit a parachutist from landing in/on including runways and taxiways. Areas such as runways, taxiways, clear ways and obstacle free zones should not be used as a primary landing area but are not prohibited areas and should be vacated as soon as practical.

B. Normal Parachuting Operations Landing Areas. The USPA has recommended that areas used for skydiving should be unobstructed, with the following minimum radial distances to the nearest hazard as defined in USPA's BSRs:

1. Solo students and A-license holders - 100meters

2. B- and C-license holders - 50 meters

3. D-license holders - unlimited

Blue skies to all and to all (including parachutists) a good flight,

Tom

trfour · 01-02-2010, 10:26 PM

Hi Tom,

Seems that the Holidays have hampered progress anew in this matter.
Any more news? Would be greatly appreciated.
Terry

TheNoonans · 01-04-2010, 12:01 AM

Hi Terry!

Happy holidays to you and everyone on the board. I'm still enjoying my second summer in New Zealand, averaging about 10-12 tandems a day, there is some amazing scenery down here over Lake Wakatipu in Queenstown.

As for updates, I wish I had one. Still status quo, FSDO called in FAA experts to assess the LAAs concerns about crossing the runway and (I believe) the radar array as well. I'm guessing the holidays have slowed the process down as you mentioned.

As soon as I heard anything either way, I will post what I know here.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Lakegeezer · 01-29-2010, 12:25 PM

The FAA said no to the jump school at Laconia Airport.
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...924/-1/CITIZEN

Come on up to Moultonborough! We could use new commerce in the area.

fatlazyless · 01-29-2010, 12:46 PM

...that totally stinks...what a loser decision by the FAA....booo on the Federal Aviation Administration administrator(s) who made that decision....does this area ever need a boost from people visiting off-season to go skydiving! ...not a happy decision for Laconia-Gilford-Lake Winnipesaukee and area....talk about a genuine stimulus with some lasting revenue stream that would have powered up existing restaurants-hotels-stores & employee residents...not going to happen...

Did you know that Laconia, the county seat for Belknap County, and as of December 31, 2009, Belknap County has an unemployment rate of 7.5% which makes it the second most unemployed of all eleven counties in the state. Only Coos County, way up north, which is totally dead at 9.4%, is worse off.

"I think it will remain in the mid-7 percent range, maybe even approach 8 percent, as we go through 2010"

Dennis Delay, economist NH Ctr Public Policy Studies, Union Leader 1/29/09, p B4

11-13-2009, 09:51 AM	#1
Sman Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 103 Thanks: 3 Thanked 27 Times in 8 Posts	imagine How long has this non-decision making process been going on now? Imagine if every new idea required the government/gov agency to make a decision in order to move forward Oh, and the fact that they are taking this long makes me feel much safer about this process I have no interest in jumping out of a plane, but feel frustrated for these people

11-13-2009, 10:51 PM	#3
trfour Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX. Posts: 3,694 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 3,067 Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts	I Called The LAA This Afternoon... to see if the ADO had completed an air space evaluation and submitted their findings to the FAA, and also to find out if the Noonan's were listed in The 'Topics For Discussion' for next Thursdays meeting. Being a Friday afternoon, I guess they must have left for the weekend, as all I got was an answering machine. A silver lining... If you will, over all the Noonan's have a tremendous amount of support here, and I think they have fallen in love with the area, so as bailing on their venture at this point and time is not an option! Best wishes to Tom and Mary!! __________________ *trfour* Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU! Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html

11-14-2009, 11:36 PM	#4
TheNoonans Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Daytona Beach, FL - Bedford, NH Posts: 136 Thanks: 0 Thanked 219 Times in 57 Posts	Skydive Laconia Hi Terry, Thank you (and everyone else!) for your continued support. Not to worry, we aren't going anywhere. As I mentioned from the start, we have the patience and the resolve to see this process through to it's logical conclusion, even if it means taking the request to Washington DC and the FAA's federal headquarters. We have the support and the means to see it through and plan to. But to be fair the LAA, despite the fact a handful of people there may want to vote their personal preference and not their clearly defined legal obligation, to do so on thier part would open up a Pandora's Box of compliance failures that would result in both the forfeiture of future federal funding as well as the refunding of (approximately) the last ten years of federal funding received. I can't imagine the board doesn't know this, and would be very surprised if they would be willing to subject themselves to that simply because on a personal level some of them don't want us there. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting, I am in New Zealand at the moment skydiving. Mary will be there however and she will be there for any questions or concerns before and after the meeting. Blue skies to all and to all a good flight, Tom

12-08-2009, 07:37 PM	#5
TheNoonans Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Daytona Beach, FL - Bedford, NH Posts: 136 Thanks: 0 Thanked 219 Times in 57 Posts	Skydive Laconia Greetings to all, I wanted to post an update as it's been a few weeks since the last meeting. Basically, the local FSDO went out to the airport and was told that they have a concern about landing parachutes affecting the IFR glideslope and a concern about parachutists crossing the taxiway after landing. Neither issue is problem, as is evidenced by most of the other 270 airports in the country that have IFR glideslopes and parachutists crossing taxiways, none the less, the due diligence required by the FSDO is to bring in specialists to evaluate the concerns. Mary and I are not concerned at all. Skydiving only occurs in VFR conditions, so we will never be dropping jumpers in IFR conditions, so to say that we could disrupt the glideslope operation during IFR conditions isn't grounded in reality. It could be argued (is being argued?) that our presence in VFR conditions could affect the IFR glideslope for pilots practicing IFR approaches in VFR conditions. To that all I can say is that in my 11 years, 3000 skydives, 15 countries skydiving in, I have never once heard of a landing parachute affecting an IFR glideslope array. But if there is even a remote chance of that being possible (and being factually proved to even be possible), I'm all ears, I would love to read the facts and findings on such an event actually occuring. Needless to say though, given the fact that someone practicing IFR landings in VFR conditions is in a plane with the necessary avionics to fly IFR, the same plane will most certainly be equipped with a radio tuned to the local frequency, and it would be in the spirit of "sharing the sky" that the FAA embraces, for both the jump pilot and practicing IFR pilot to communicate with each other prior to dropping skydivers and prior to making IFR practice approaches. It's a simple plan that works around the country, around the world really. But in the end, if by some remote chance the LAA decides that we can interupt the glideslope in VFR conditions and prevent pilots from practicing IFR approaches in VFR conditions, and use that as a reason to deny us access to landing on the airport, they will be giving a "right of way" to one legal aeronautical activity over another, and that will be a sure fire discrimination victory for us, so either way, Mary and I are not very concerned about it. The other issue, crossing active taxiways, is really a no brainer. I would love to see anyone actually argue (the easy part) and show evidence (the hard part) that parachutists pose any safety concern in crossing taxiways. If, as I have seen, parachutists can safely cross the taxiway with a Citation X on it and a Blue Angels F-18 taxiing by at a busier municipal airport in Florida, without any incident, along with all the other federally funded municipal airports in the US that can safely accomidate crossing active taxiways, I would be geniunely surprised if any factual information could be produced at all to show that LCI cannot safely accomidate crossing the active taxiway. Anyways, that's the status of things. We aren't worried about either issue, at worst, they are simply yet another delay. Although, I do find it kind of odd that it took close to sixteen months for these "safety concerns" to finally be brought to the FAA........ Oh well, they are on the table now and being dealt with. I'm skydiving in New Zealand at the moment avoiding the snow and working with one of the busiest dropzones in the world. They average 15,000 tandem skydives a year (that's 45,000 people a year in the sky, 2 per tandem plus videographer). They employ 65 people (all locals) and are thoroughly embraced by the community. And even the commecial pilots flying through our patterns in Boeing 737s work with the jump pilots to ensure the airspace is available to everyone. No incidents, everyone working together. Blue skies to all and to all a good flight. Last edited by TheNoonans; 12-08-2009 at 11:56 PM.

12-09-2009, 03:01 AM	#7
trfour Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX. Posts: 3,694 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 3,067 Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts	Hi Tom, Thank you for the update. Most of us are 100% behind you, and are looking forward to blue skies to you and joining in a very celebratory visit at your Grand Opening, Laconia Airport 2010!! Through you're brilliant struggle in dealing with government agencies, it is very clear whom needs an update! Just waiting for the green light, to send you some paying Customers! Terry __________________ *trfour* Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU! Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html

11-13-2009, 02:41 PM	#2
granitebox Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Steamboat Springs - Bear Island Posts: 161 Thanks: 161 Thanked 82 Times in 36 Posts	Sman, I agree completely. The first post was in January so we're going on 11 months, and the initial request has to date back to 2008. Basically it seems the government is waging a war of attrition. I hope the Noonan's don't give up!

12-08-2009, 08:18 PM	#6
Seeker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Effingham Posts: 408 Thanks: 37 Thanked 19 Times in 15 Posts	Just curious about why the first part of this post is blocked out (at least on my pc). Isn't it nice that a lot of people have "agendas" be it for or against skydiving, speed limits, WOW Trail, snowmobiling, ATVs, GFBL boats, McMansions, bartenders with blue hair, $175,000 fire trucks, every restaurant I can think of, and a couple dozen other things. We are very fortunate to live in a society that allows us to voice our opinions as we do. JMHO The first part isn't blocked anymore. Must be my pc.

12-16-2009, 11:22 PM	#8
TheNoonans Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Daytona Beach, FL - Bedford, NH Posts: 136 Thanks: 0 Thanked 219 Times in 57 Posts	Skydive Laconia Greetings to all, While we await the conclusion of this latest (and presumably final) evaluation, I thought I would pass on some information to the online community here, in case anyone is interested in followiing along. From day one, Mary and I have always stated that the facts of this airport access issue have always sided 100% with our proposal, (with zero ambiguity and zero room for "interpretation"). To that end, I wanted to offer: FAA Advisory Circular 105-2D. PARACHUTE OPERATIONS ONTO AIRPORTS Most parachute operations fully take place on airports, including having the parachute landing area located on the airport property. 14 CFR 105.23 requires approval from airport management prior to skydiving onto any airport. However, 105.23c allows a parachutist to drift over an airport with an open parachute, without airport management approval as long as the parachutist remains at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattern.. A large number of airports that accommodate parachute operations also have different kinds of aviation activities taking place simultaneously, including flight training, glider and helicopter operations, helicopter emergency medical services, sight-seeing operations, and aerobatic practice over or in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Many airports also accommodate a large volume of transient traffic while skydiving occurs. The FAA recommends that shared-facility airports have operating procedures so that each activity can operate safely by knowing the procedure for each of the other activities. Meetings should be held with the airport management, FAA Flight Standards, and representatives of each type of airport user should be held to develop procedures and then hold regularly scheduled meetings to ensure airport policies and procedures are kept current. Traffic Patterns. With a minimum parachute opening altitude of 2,000 feet above the ground (and most parachutists open much higher), parachutes are nearly always open 800 feet or more above the traffic pattern altitude for any airport. Descending slowly and easy to visually acquire, parachutists and pilots have a shared responsibility to see and avoid each other. Often, procedures can be employed that reduce the potential for parachutists and pilots in a traffic pattern to be in proximity. Parachute landings on airports. Airports may designate parachute landing areas that are suitable. While skydivers prefer to land on grass areas, there is no prohibition against landing on runways, taxiways and other hard-surfaced areas when a parachutist finds it necessary to do so. Areas such as runways, taxiways, clear ways and obstacle free zones should not be used as a primary landing area but are not prohibited areas and should be vacated as soon as practical. Federally Obligated Airports. Airports that have received federal grants for airport improvements have signed grant assurances including the assurance that the airport will not arbitrarily discriminate among "types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity." The FAA defines skydiving as an aeronautical activity, deserving fair consideration for accommodation. In any instance where the airport sponsor believes that skydiving is incompatible with the existing volume of operations, the FAA will assess whether safe airport operations would be jeopardized. . Airports that insist on denying skydiving activities in an arbitrary manner risk being the subject of a Part 13 Informal Complaint or a Part 16 Formal Complaint that could result in the FAA finding the airport to be in non-compliance with its grant assurance agreements, which could potentially jeopardize future airport funding. See AC 150/ 5190-7 for more information. 16. PARACHUTE LANDING AREAS. A. Prohibited Landing Areas. For most airports, there are no areas that prohibit a parachutist from landing in/on including runways and taxiways. Areas such as runways, taxiways, clear ways and obstacle free zones should not be used as a primary landing area but are not prohibited areas and should be vacated as soon as practical. B. Normal Parachuting Operations Landing Areas. The USPA has recommended that areas used for skydiving should be unobstructed, with the following minimum radial distances to the nearest hazard as defined in USPA's BSRs: 1. Solo students and A-license holders - 100meters 2. B- and C-license holders - 50 meters 3. D-license holders - unlimited Blue skies to all and to all (including parachutists) a good flight, Tom

01-02-2010, 10:26 PM	#9
trfour Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX. Posts: 3,694 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 3,067 Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts	Happy New Year To The Noonans... Hi Tom, Seems that the Holidays have hampered progress anew in this matter. Any more news? Would be greatly appreciated. Terry __________________ *trfour* Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU! Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html

01-04-2010, 12:01 AM	#10
TheNoonans Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Daytona Beach, FL - Bedford, NH Posts: 136 Thanks: 0 Thanked 219 Times in 57 Posts	Skydive Laconia Hi Terry! Happy holidays to you and everyone on the board. I'm still enjoying my second summer in New Zealand, averaging about 10-12 tandems a day, there is some amazing scenery down here over Lake Wakatipu in Queenstown. As for updates, I wish I had one. Still status quo, FSDO called in FAA experts to assess the LAAs concerns about crossing the runway and (I believe) the radar array as well. I'm guessing the holidays have slowed the process down as you mentioned. As soon as I heard anything either way, I will post what I know here. Blue skies to all and to all a good flight, Tom

01-29-2010, 12:25 PM	#11
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,692 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 356 Thanked 646 Times in 294 Posts	Sorry it did not work out The FAA said no to the jump school at Laconia Airport. http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...924/-1/CITIZEN Come on up to Moultonborough! We could use new commerce in the area. __________________ -lg

01-29-2010, 12:46 PM	#12
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 9,169 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 310 Thanked 1,103 Times in 812 Posts	...FAA - bad decision!! ...that totally stinks...what a loser decision by the FAA....booo on the Federal Aviation Administration administrator(s) who made that decision....does this area ever need a boost from people visiting off-season to go skydiving! ...not a happy decision for Laconia-Gilford-Lake Winnipesaukee and area....talk about a genuine stimulus with some lasting revenue stream that would have powered up existing restaurants-hotels-stores & employee residents...not going to happen... Did you know that Laconia, the county seat for Belknap County, and as of December 31, 2009, Belknap County has an unemployment rate of 7.5% which makes it the second most unemployed of all eleven counties in the state. Only Coos County, way up north, which is totally dead at 9.4%, is worse off. "I think it will remain in the mid-7 percent range, maybe even approach 8 percent, as we go through 2010" Dennis Delay, economist NH Ctr Public Policy Studies, Union Leader 1/29/09, p B4 __________________ .... Banned for life from local thrift store! Last edited by fatlazyless; 01-30-2010 at 09:08 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode