Skydive Laconia?

[SteveA]

A little more "reporting" on the issues the Gilford Selectman are concerned about.

http://www.newhampshirelakesandmount...2011.03.31.pdf

Page 1, continued on page 10.

[Winnisquamguy]

Originally Posted by SteveA

A little more "reporting" on the issues the Gilford Selectman are concerned about.

http://www.newhampshirelakesandmount...2011.03.31.pdf

Page 1, continued on page 10.

Ok I read the article in the Gilford Steamer, and it seems to me the selectmens main concern was a liability issue if there was an accident.I suppose in this sue happy world we live in someone could go after the town, but isn't all the liability with the owners of the skydiving company? And if they did go after the town wouldn't the towns insurance cover it anyway? The town could always tell them have we want you to have a 20 million dollar umbrella policy, but you would have to have a meeting between both sides for that to happen.

[trfour]

Gilford Selectmen;


.3 "Laconia Municipal Airport – Skydiving Proposal – Selectman Benavides stated that the Airport Authority has not yet made a decision on this matter. Town Administrator Dunn added that because of potential safety and liability issues, the Board has been asked to express a position on the matter. He further stated that there is a remote possibility of jumpers being thrown off course and landing at the Recycle Center. Selectman Hayes expressed concern with the hazards present at the Recycle Center, but is even more concerned with the financial impact to the airport if their fuel sales decline because of this activity. For this reason, he would like to state that the Board is against the proposal. Chairman O’Brien stated that he would like to wait and see what action is taken by the Airport Authority. Town Administrator Dunn reminded Board members that a skydiving proposal has been brought forth to the Airport Authority in the past and it was denied."

"Selectman Hayes moved to recommend that the Laconia Airport Authority not approve the proposal, due to safety, liability and financial concerns. Selectman Benavides seconded. Motion carried with all in favor."

The above meeting on this issue sure smells of Kangaroos to me.


Terry
______________________________

[trfour]

Originally Posted by trfour

Gilford Selectmen

The above meeting on this issue sure smells of Kangaroos to me.


Terry
______________________________

I would like to add, that, ( and not to be lost ), our ELECTED officials are very close to shutting down our entire Government, and this isn't about the Broads section of Lake Winnipesaukee. And, directly through their very own incompetence to serve the People that trusted and voted to put them in office, in the first place! This equates to a very sad day for everyone...

" Town Administrator Dunn added that because of potential safety and liability issues, the Board has been asked to express a position on the matter. He further stated that there is a remote possibility of jumpers being thrown off course and landing at the Recycle Center. Selectman Hayes expressed concern with the hazards present at the Recycle Center"...
Not to worry Mr Dunn, or Hayes, and 'doo not concern yourself any further, as we will not recycle you.

I recall an resounding verse about just where we all came from.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

T
_____________________________________________

[TheNoonans]

I read the article in the Gilford Steamer. Nothing new, no surprises.

Although I wonder if Selectman Hayes could be a little clearer with his concern about 'What if a skydiver gets tangled with their parachute?"........In 4000 professional skydives, I have never been "tangled" with my parachute. Don't know anyone else that's happened to either, but it makes for a good sound bite.

I would guess he was trying to say "What happens if a parachute malfunctions?" Valid question. The answer which is equally valid is: We carry two parachutes for that very reason. If I were given an audience with Selectman Hayes, I'd ask "What if a private pilot or worse, a student pilot had a problem with the engine in their single engine aircraft? Does that concern you? If your searching for probabilities and liability issues, you'd be better to start there. Statistics prove that is where the town's liability really is.

My favorite line though was Selectman Hayes stating that the Laconia Airport was "not a very good jump zone." Selectman Hayes is not a skydiver and not an aviator either (that I am aware of), so for someone with no practical knowledge of what constitutes a viable "jump zone", versus one that is "not a very good" one, his position lacks any factual basis. Yes, he received a document from the LAA, their formal denial, but it was a document created by a group of people that aren't skydivers either, and most if not all of them are not even aviators themselves. So you are left with a group of people (the LAA) that aren't skydivers or aviators, that searched pretty much the entire internet to look for any negative items they could find, pasted them all together out of context, and presented it as lopsided fact.

Now had they hired experts in both skydiving and aviation to do their research for them, they would have found at least three indisputable facts:

Fact: 95+% of all dropzones are on airports across the country and around the world land their parachutes ON the airport. It's commonplace, it's normal.
Fact: The FAA, AOPA and every other entity that oversees skydiving clearly states landing on the airport is the safest option.
Fact: Based on it's size and air traffic, the Laconia Municipal Airport is an ideal location for a skydiving operation.

So.....where do I base my facts?

As I mentioned before, I am an industry expert. My validation of that statement?

I work full time in the parachute industry, with my primary role in our industry is that of a tandem safety expert. Really. Those tandem instructors that take passengers? They are trained by the top 1% of tandem instructors out there, they are called Tandem Examiners. Tandem Examiners (the trainers) are hand picked by the manufacturers of the tandem equipment based on years of experience, # of skydives, and professional attitudes. SO, who trains that top 1%, the Tandem Examiners that train the tandem instructors? Me. I train the people that train the tandem instructors. A teachers teacher if you will........

When I am not doing that, I am traveling around the country and the world to provide safety audits at other tandem skydiving operations. I give safety seminars on all aspects of tandem parachute operations. This past February I was asked to give a presentation at the Parachute Industry Association biannual Symposium by the United States Parachute Association, or USPA. The audience? 200+ dropzone operators from around the world. The topic? Tandem Parachute Safety Protocols.

That's who I am. That's what I do. That is the position from which I speak from. I'm also the Chief Tandem Instructor for Everest Skydive, the world's most challenging civilian tandem HALO operation ever conceived. The tandem team for the trip? I am in charge.

So.........if or when the Gilford Selectmen ever elect to hear the facts from an industry expert, that is the position from which I will be providing them.

While I have numerous right seat hours flying in aircraft, my wife Mary, she is the aviator in this pair. A graduate of Daniel Webster College in NH, with multiple degrees in Aviation Management and a private pilot working towards her commercial rating. And she has supervised the ground operations for dropzones on and off for the better part of the last ten years, including Everest Skydive. She has a better understanding of the FARs and SOPs of municipal airport operations as they pertains to skydiving than the entire LAA lumped together.

Last thought: The GS article quoted the town administrator as stating that the FAA has been "persistent" in it's evaluation processes.

Believe me, they haven't seen anything yet......the actions of the LAA and the bureaucracies that exist within the current FAA statutes that have allowed the LAA to operate with impunity and any lack of oversight have effectively opened Pandora's Box with the FAA.

The FAA (at a Federal level) doesn't like to be told they don't know their job and moreover they don't like it when airport authorities ignore the requirements of their positions.

Three things I can assure you of:
1) The persistence of the FAA will only get stronger as time goes on in Laconia
and
2) When this is concluded, there will either be skydiving on the airport at Laconia, or the airport will have it's federal funding forfeited and have to pay back the last ten years of funding they received.
and
3) The LAA has effectively ensured that when this is over, no other airport authority will be able to do other aeronautical business operators, what they have done to us.

It's a win/win/win situation in the end. I hope the LAA is prepared to see this through, because we aren't going anywhere.

Meanwhile, you the citizens of Laconia/Gilford continue to be robbed of a positive economic opportunity. They say their fearful we will run off GA flights? Drive down to Newport, RI and see the volume of traffic that lands there in the summer (don't fly your Cessna down there though, because they have parachutes and if you were trained to fly at Laconia your not capable of landing there with parachutes, they will distract you......lol). When you finally get there by car, you'll see an active airport with GA and parachutes peacefully coexisting together. It's the economy that drives away GA traffic, not skydiving. Skydiving actually helps communities keep money coming in during tight financial times.

Stay tuned.......

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

P.S. - I wonder how many billable hours the LAA have paid out to fight us in generating that report and every legal document they send us from their attorney? They aren't worried about the bills though, their bill payments come from YOUR federal funding. Your tax dollars hard at work. Money you put into the system that is supposed to be allocated to make the airport available to new business, is being used to block new business from coming there. Ironic, don't you think?

[rander7823]

You aren't a Laconia/Gilford Selectman or on the LAA

[NHBoat70]

Originally Posted by rander7823

You aren't a Laconia/Guilford Selectman or on the LAA

Learn how to spell the damn town before you post...it is GILFORD!!

[TheNoonans]

You aren't a Laconia/Guilford Selectman or on the LAA

Your right, and given the current political climate in the area, I doubt I would be welcome on either board.

If I was a Selectman in a community that has a substantial reliance on tourism dollars, I would judge every tourist based opportunity that could benefit the community fairly and impartially. Based on what I have read and what I have heard about the current status quo, I don't think I would be very popular on the board if I did that.

If I was on the LAA, I would definitely not be very popular as I don't cater to special interests groups and back room political wheeling and dealing. Even if I didn't personally want skydiving on the airfield, I would weigh all the facts before ever casting judgement, and if the facts supported the business proposal as a benefit to the community as a whole, I would vote for it, even if it wasn't what the special interest group wanted.

Here's the funny part: had the LAA done what it was tasked to do in 2008, we would have been operating on the airfield by May of 2009. It's now two years later, post May 2009. Had they done their job when they were supposed to, this issue (and this thread most likely) would have run it's course. We'd have been proven right and there would be a thriving new adventure sport on the airport. Or (playing devil's advocate), we'd have been proven wrong, and our little "dirt road" business would have folded and we'd have been on our way. And the airport would be carrying on today as though nothing ever happened.

But that didn't happen......

So today, two years later, this issue has become a federal interest item and is about to become a national news item. And the LAA is going to be placed front and center in that.

We never wanted it to become a national campaign, but that's where we were forced to bring it when the LAA threw policy and statute out the window before we ever even set foot on the airport.

Maybe they thought we'd just go away? If that's the case.........they thought wrong.

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

Edit to add: People "in the know" up there have repeatedly told us that the REAL reason the LAA and the two FBOs don't want us there is because they know we will work up there and THRIVE there. That we will become such a large part of the daily ops on the airfield that we will in a sense take it over. (For the record, that was never our intent or desire. We intended a happy medium of flight ops integrated into the daily flow. And we HAD planned to send our happy customers to the two FBOs for flight training, figuring the more business we directed their way, the better it was for everyone involved.)

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

Maybe they thought we'd just go away? If that's the case.........they thought wrong.

"Dizzy Dean and his brother Paul (Daffy) were the pitching backbone of
one of the most famous teams in history - the 1934 'Gas House gang'
St. Louis Cardinals. Before the season Dizzy said 'It ain't bragging
if you can back it up... Me and Paul'll win 45 games this year.' Dizzy
won 30 and Paul 19 on their way to a World's Championship."

I don't know if people name their planes , like boat owners do... but maybe "Dizzy Dean" would be a good name!

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by NHBoat70

Learn how to spell the damn town before you post...it is GILFORD!!

The only reason it's not named Guilford was a spelling error at the clerks office in Concord.

Gilford History

First settled in 1777 as a part of Gilmanton, the town was originally known as Gunstock Parish. Captain Lemuel B. Mason proposed that the name of the town be Guilford in memory of the 1781 Battle of Guilford Court House. The town was incorporated by its current name in 1812, due to a clerical error in the spelling of Guilford.

Sorry... I'm a history geek.

[rander7823]

Originally Posted by NHBoat70

Learn how to spell the damn town before you post...it is GILFORD!!

I am from CT and live right next to Guilford and it is just a habit to spell it that way.