Skydive Laconia?

[TheNoonans]

I just sent the below email to both the City Council of Laconia and Gilford Selectmen:

Good afternoon to all,

My name is Tom Noonan and my wife and I have spent the last three and half years requesting to operate a commercial skydiving operation at the Laconia Municipal Airport. To date, our proposal still remains unsupported by the Laconia Airport Authority, and I just wanted to check in with you all to give you a perspective of what will be occurring within the FAA in the near future and the impact it will have our proposal process.

As a background, there have been two "FAA" reports issued by regional FAA agent Michel Hovan of Airports Division, Massachusetts. As I have stated publicly, those reports were erroneous, and created without any guidance or oversight from the FAA in Washington, D.C. Since those reports were issued, I have been in contact with virtually every level of the FAA, including it's chief administrator, Randy Babbitt. I was able to provide Mr. Babbitt's department heads, the director level of the FAA, with verifiable facts and evidence to support that:

1) The LAA discriminated against Skydive Laconia on many occasions in direct violation of their federal funding grant assurances.
2) The NHDOT Department of Aeronautics failed to act to bring the LAA back into compliance.
and
3) Both of the reports issued by the local FAA are completely erroneous.

To validate the seriousness of position and facts, I would like you to consider the fact that at that high a level of the FAA, only factual, verifiable information can pass judgement from the FAA directors, and the fact that I am still in direct communication with them should suggest to you all the validity of the information that I have provided them.

For anyone involved in this process, it is easy to see that we were never given a fair chance by the LAA, and that it is the LAA that forced our position to bring this unjust process a national stage with both the FAA and the media.

I offer the following information for your consideration as it is my sincere belief that justice and accountability within the FAA is just around the corner:

The FAA will very shortly be finalizing a process that will clearly label the Laconia Municipal Airport as viable for a commercial skydiving operation, and equally as important, the FAA will also be enforcing the compliance of it directly and swiftly. If the LAA chooses to remain non-compliant when this process is through, they will forfeit any future federal funding and be required to refund the last ten years of funding they received, that I am finally sure of now.

The FAA has taken the discriminatory practices of the LAA and other airport sponsors across the country that have ignored airport access assurances, very seriously. In this day and age of fiscal accountability, the FAA is about to lead a charge across the nation and put an end to airport sponsors abuse of their funding privileges.

It is also important to understand that the actions of the LAA have now jeopardized the "block grant state" status of the NHDOT. The NHDOT requested to be actively involved in the dissemination of federal funding and the FAA has allowed a handful of states to pursue this role in a test program. I have been able to clearly demonstrate to the FAA in Washington, D.C., that not only did the LAA discriminate against us multiple times during this process, but that when we then informed the NHDOT about the discriminations, they ignored the facts and allowed to airport to continue to receive federal funding. It is with those facts and statements as the foundation for my request, that I asked the FAA to revoke the "block grant' status of the NHDOT and that request is currently under consideration in Washington, D.C.

It is our expectation that by the end of the year, this process will have finally reached it's just conclusion and the FAA will return a verdict that states that Skydive Laconia may be granted access to land our parachutes on the property of the airport, as we contended could be done in July of 2008. We also expect the LAA and the NHDOT to honor that verdict and work with us, not against us, in living up to the federal funding grant assurances that they agreed to.

I am writing to both the City Council of Laconia and the Gilford Selectmen today to renew an offer to meet with you all to help you better understand what impact our business will have on the area, both operationally and financially. My last request to meet with you all and to explain our proposal fell on deaf ears. I can only hope that your willingness to view our proposal with an open mind has increased since my last email and that you consider allowing my wife and I to educate you all on the process that we have been forced to endure, the just outcome that is soon to arrive, and what that means to both communities in terms of new jobs and economic stimulus into the area.

This is your chance to show the community your renewed commitment to economic growth and a just conclusion to the unjust process created by the LAA three and a half years ago.

If you would like to arrange a meeting, please let me know.

Best regards,

Tom Noonan
Skydive Laconia

Now they ignored my request last time, as Mr. Hemmel said because "why should they waste their time......". Well, change is coming, and I have thus informed both groups again, and have again offered to present to them both the facts of the proposal and explain how we can benefit the communities.

So, what do you think? Do you think the City Council and Selectmen should meet with us?

Let them know your thoughts. Email them directly and tell them yes or no if you want them to meet with us.

Now if you email them and tell them "No! Don't listen to reason and facts!", please feel free to post here as to why you don't believe that the leaders of both communities shouldn't take every opportunity to educate themselves on a potential new business that will bring new jobs, extend the tourist season, and more money into the economy. I know one person in that vocal minority thinks it's "disrespectful" of us to pursue justice and fair treatment....but that aside, is there any reason at all for a civic leader not to listen and educate themselves? If anyone can provide a sound valid argument devoid of emotional response, I will be impressed. After all listening costs nothing.

Gilford: [email protected]

Laconia: [email protected]

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Jonas Pilot]

It seems you don't care who you inconvenience. I can't help but think that there are more important things that these people should be dealing with.

[robmac]

I for one feel my tax dollars when spent should be for the benefit of all. That said if grant money is given and the rules of the grant are not followed then all monies should be returned to the general fund.To be in the publics trust and not follow the letter of the law is criminal plain and simple.To not give someone equal oportunity to lawfully utilize an entity which gets funds from taxpayers without a fair hearing which is in part why you get those funds is again illegal.How many other people attempting to start a business have been thwarted due to this practice? If you don't want to allow anyone to be able use the facility then return the funding and operate without them,charge those who do use it enough to continue to do so. JMHO

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

It seems you don't care who you inconvenience.

Often times doing the right thing is inconvenient, but that doesn't mean that the right thing shouldn't be done.

I can't help but think that there are more important things that these people should be dealing with.

I don't think that what he's doing is based on your set of priorities.

[Jonas Pilot]

At what cost should a private entity get it's way?

[RLW]

In any legal ways

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

At what cost should a private entity get it's way?

The government exists to serve its citizens. He has every right to petition for redress of grievances. I really don't see cost as being a significant factor here.

[Jonas Pilot]

The government exists to serve the majority, not the minority.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

The government exists to serve the majority, mot the minority.

OUR government is here to serve all the People according to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Too bad some people in the government have forgotten this.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

The government exists to serve the majority, mot the minority.

No. Our government exists to serve ALL citizens. In fact, one of the most important functions of government is to protect the rights of those in the minority.

[Jonas Pilot]

You would probably feel differently if it was you and your quality of life that was being forced upon.

[robmac]

No I wouldn't,for the people and by the people. Equal for all is the key. Not a few chosing for themselves above what is right and what is law.

[SteveA]

Debates like this is exactly the way our government was formed. Without being overly dramatic, it is clear that the Noonans have every right to petition the government, Local, State or Federal. They also have the right to attempt to change the mind of elected officials that turn down ANY request they make.

They don't sacrifice that right just because the officials may have other other issues they would rather address.

1st Amendment to the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Agree or Disagree... they clearly have the RIGHT to do what they are doing. (Thank you James Madison)

[Jonas Pilot]

And too bad for everybody they effect.

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

And too bad for everybody they effect.

Just curious, who are the "everybody" that are being effected? Really, I'm not being trying to be provocative, just don't understand your point.
I would defend the "everybodies" just as hard as I defend the Noonans. Just can't figure out who the everybody's are.

[Shreddy]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

And too bad for everybody they effect.

Maybe the people they "effect" shouldn't have lobbied for federal funding. Why don't those people give the money back and fund it themselves? What makes you or any of them think they have a right to deny the Noonans?

JP, give me a lawful, legitimate reason why they SHOULDN'T be allowed into LAA. Clearly, safety is not a legitimate reason as stated above.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

You would probably feel differently if it was you and your quality of life that was being forced upon.

Do you mean that I might not like it if I had a nice thing going for myself and my buddies at a public facilty that receives federal funding, and an outsider wanted to come in and do something that might mean that we would have to change some things? Sometimes it's hard, but I try not to be judgmental and narrow-minded.

How is "your quality of life being forced upon"?

[EllyPoinster]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

You would probably feel differently if it was you and your quality of life that was being forced upon.

So the addition of a skydiving operation at the Laconia Airport is going to ruin your quality of life and that of the "majority" you include yourself with? You want to explain that?

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Jonas Pilot

You would probably feel differently if it was you and your quality of life that was being forced upon.

Its scary but it appears that this is the kind of thinking and reasoning that the Noonans have been dealing with. And they run an airport? Wow! I'm trying to get my mind around how somebody's quality of life is being forced upon. Maybe there is a religion out there that believes people dropping out of the sky is evil. Ya, thats it. Those skydivers must be the devil!

[Pineedles]

I think the angels are from above and the devil is in the ground. Maybe those demons underground are afraid of having to hear the constant thudding of those angels as they land.

[AC2717]

if you want to go that route, how bout the sea plane that started up last year and takes off and lands with a bunch of boats and jetskis zipping around.

Fear is not a reason for denying things, facts are, in like my struggles with the night club across the street, the facts which have been back up (I cannot get in to it further) have been backed up

[Newbiesaukee]

I have read every word in this very long thread. I know nothing about skydiving and this specific issue has little effect on my life but I enjoy seeing different points of view and how they are discussed.

However, it amazes me that anyone could object to the Noonans' presenting their case in an upfront and transparent manner. IMO this is exactly how our government should function. My perception is that it frequently functions with back room decisions based on money and influence.

Is it sometimes true that the " squeaky wheel gets the grease?" Of course, but is not petitioning for a redress of wrongs one of the fundamental rights we share?

I can only applaud the Noonans' approach.

[TheNoonans]

However, it amazes me that anyone could object to the Noonans' presenting their case in an upfront and transparent manner.

For all the free thinkers out there like you that want facts and transparent education, there is still a small handful of people up there that are absolutely opposed to our dissemination of factual information. Unfortunately many of them hold elected positions, so they control the process.

These are the people that denied our repeated offers to do a demonstration skydive into the airport to show the LAA and the local town officials how effectively we could integrate into the daily ops of the airport.

These are the same people that refused to accept our offer to meet with the City Council of Laconia and Gilford Selectmen earlier this year.

Why, you ask?

They know that in both scenarios we will prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that we can integrate efficiently into the airport.

And TRUST ME, they do not want YOU the public to know that. They have made every effort to keep you the community, the primary stakeholders in this process, in the dark to as great an extent as possible.

And why is that? They believe that the less you know, and the less facts that are made public, the easier it will be for them to create an uneducated hysteria.

Mr proof?

To date, no one, literally no one on their side has been able to produce any insurance policy to suggest jet insurers won't allow jets on the airport if we are operating. Yet, Selectman Hayes wants you to believe that. He put it in the paper to scare you.

Remember our first meeting with the LAA in 2008 where the local pilots all showed up riled up? A month prior we submitted a VOLUME of data to the airport manager, but when she sent out her email only a week prior to the meeting telling the locals that outsiders were coming up with an entourage to request to open a skydiving operation, she OMITTED that she had an enormous amount of factual information for them to study beforehand.

And that's the airport's definition of "transparent".

If those in power give us a venue to provide indisputable facts to you, the community that the airport is bound to serve, they would no longer be able to play on your fears and lack of knowledge, and that is their last option at this point. They have no other reason to prevent us from spreading the truth and educating them.

The good news though, is that thanks to Mr. Hemmel, we have this wonderful venue of free speech here on www.winnipesaukee.com and we have forwarded the link to this forum around the country and to pretty much every agent of the FAA we have worked with.

Our cause, and more importantly the unfair treatment we have received, has been forever recorded here on the forum for the world to see. So while your local civic leaders may continue to ignore our request to educate, in their hopes of keeping you in the dark, thanks to Mr. Hemmel, we have a spotlight set on the truth and facts in this process so the community can receive the facts and evidence you are rightly deserving of.

As we now approach 42,000 views, it is safe to say, your getting the facts. And that is the best thing we could ever have hoped for.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Woodsy]

OMG... the horror of Skydivers!!! I read the horror storys all the time in the paper.... jet collides with skydiver midair! Yup read that just last week! NOT!

It truly amazes me how some people react to change... New businesses should be encouraged not discouraged. Welcome the Noonans... help them and encourage them! Let the free market decide if they succeed. Not for nothing but skydiving has been around a looong time, and the safety record is pretty darn good.

Woodsy

[NoRegrets]

People in power (politicians and appointed officials) are surrounded by like individuals. They enjoy a smug environment or culture that has morphed away from serving. They use headline statements and repeat that one statement over and over until a casual listener starts to believe it is fact.

This thread is excellent as it is filled with opinion and banter. People research facts to support positions and then re-post. The politicians cannot go any deeper than their headline statements. If they cannot convince Joe Public they are right they hide and hope the situation just goes away. To get satisfaction one must go to the Judicial system if you have funds to proceed.

This "fight" has been a great lesson on the power of communication and the internet. Thanks for the civic lessons, Skydive process, and Winnipesaukee Forum for allowing this regional issue to live on publicly. Even those that posted opposing the business have the right and have offered value to the opinion tree.

I am thankful for Tom and Mary Noonan, the video's (Nepal - WOW) they shared, and look forward to the day we can see open parachutes from the lake.

[TheNoonans]

I was going over the original posts of this thread and have a question for TRFOUR, from a post a long, long time ago:

Tell me something Bill, how many folks on the board at the time of your licensing, were there that were of the opinion that a pilot and photographer could not possibly fly over Lake Winnipesaukee at a safe altitude of less than 125000 feet?

Terry, was that a Laconia Airport Authority board meeting you reference, or a town board? And did they attempt to influence the altitude that Mr. Hemmel flew as a condition of granting his permission to use the airport?

The reason I ask is this: If it was the LAA, their "jurisdiction" ends the moment the wheels leave the ground. If the LAA attempted to prevent Mr. Hemmel from flying his aircraft below 12,500ft while snapping photos, guess what? They discriminated against him and his business.

The LAA cannot influence an aeronautical business operation as to what occurs above the airport in the sky regarding safety. It's really that simple. Once your off the ground you belong to the FAA and the FARs, not the LAA and the airport manager.

Why is that? Again, because no one on the LAA have any background in aviation safety analysis.

I'll give you another example: Let's say a direct neighbor of the airport got fed up with all of the shenanigans of the LAA and this process and called me and said "Tom, land here on my property next door". The very following day, we could file a NOTAM, and legally fly our skydiving aircraft directly over the top of the airport and exit the plane. We could open our parachutes and fly over the airport property (where it is the safest place to fly) and then land next door at the neighbors property. The LAA would be powerless to do anything. They don't own the sky and they certainly don't own the property beyond their property lines.

My point is this: Not that we want to do that at all, because we don't, but that the LAA's reign ends at their property line and as soon as the aircraft is off the ground.

I really wish I was around for that debate Terry. When was it? I would assume it would have been placed in the meeting minutes. I would love to forward that info to the FAA in Washington, D.C.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[TheNoonans]

I know I have asked this before but I really need to understand the reason the LAA crowd doesn't want skydiving

Hi Steveo,

Here are the reasons and the responses:

Reason: The presence of parachutes will make the jets stop flying in. That means we lose the $5,000 (gross) fuel sale when a jet stops flying in here.

Response: There is no insurance preventing jets from flying into Laconia. EVERY SINGLE jet pilot, and I am not selective in my interviews, have stated unanimously that they would still fly into Laconia. Even the pilots flying the NASCAR drivers, I contacted them directly as well...... They will still get those fuel sales. Plus our season long fuel sales.

Reason: And this is a direct quote: "We hear the radio over at Skydive New England in Maine, they are 'up-down-up-down' all weekend long." (Paraphrasing now) "You will take over the airport's daily ops if you fly here.

Response: That's life. We expect on a Saturday to make 10-20 flights. If the airport's total average daily ops on a Saturday is 100, we would represent no more than a 10% or 20% increase in daily ops. They think we're gonna fly Twin Otters all day long and drop 23 skydivers over the airport twice a hour all day long, which is entirely not the case.

Reason: Aircraft and skydivers can collide mid air.

Response: Try actually doing some research. Aircraft and aircraft collide every ten days on average across the US. Aircraft and skydivers collide about once every ten years on average.

Reason: We're too busy of an airport for skydiving.

Response: Your really not. You have no idea what average daily ops mean in relationship to skydiving.

Reason: The airport is too small:

Response: Your really not. Do some research. You want to see a SMALL airport that can sustain skydiving, check out Sugarloaf Key airport in the Florida Keys. That is SMALL.

Reason: This is our airport

Response: This is everyone's airport

Reason: They want to land in the object free area!

Response: We really don't. It's listed as an alternate. But as far as the FAA is concerned, if parachutists aren't allowed in the object free area when needed, then neither are departing or landing aircraft that need to use it. Ironic, huh? lol

Hope that helps,

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[Steveo]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

Hi Steveo,

Here are the reasons and the responses:

...the majority of your answers were safety issues which I believe are only smoke screen to the real reasons. It always comes down to bucks!!! Somehow the LAA crowd thinks they will lose money if you come. But, the airport itself should make more money due to your added business needs - gas , storage/hangar fees, also don't you pay a fee every time you takeoff/land? The other businesses (pilots) lose nothing in revenues and actually have a chance to make more - I just don't get it!!!

[TheNoonans]

It always comes down to bucks!!! Somehow the LAA crowd thinks they will lose money if you come.

Your right Steveo,

They have a perception that if we show up to operate "they" will lose fuel sales because "they" believe that the jets will stop coming to LCI if parachutes are operating.

As with everything else, "they" are wrong. The jets will still fly in to Laconia. "They" will still get their fuel sales from jets.

What is comical though, as I start to read through the FOIA comments, the self entitlement of a few of the letters is absolutely mind boggling. For instance, a local lawyer who hangars a couple of planes at the airport made it clear that if LCI had a parachute operation, he would move his planes out of the hangars and leave the airport. He wrote that to the FAA.......

I mean seriously?

Okay, so let's examine this scenario: An affluent lawyer threatens that he will move his planes (plural) off the airport if the FAA allows us to operate.

And that is the FAA's responsibility how?

The truth is, if you look at the financials, if we showed up and he left, we would buy more fuel from the FBOs in a week that he would buy all year. His rent on a t-hangar or two is lost, versus us leasing out or buying a 10,000sq ft hangar.

And he expects the FAA should be concerned about him, a local lawyer picking up his toys and leaving the sandbox because he doesn't want to play by someone elses rules.

Like I said, this is the well to do, self entitled staking a claim that this is their airport, that it does not belong to the community.

Here's another:

One of the FBOs got a student pilot to write a letter to the FAA concerned that as a student, she shouldn't have to worry about parachutes in the air.

Again, Seriously?

Your training someone to be a pilot, right? And you create an unfounded air of fear and uncertainty in a student over smoke and mirrors. If I was that woman, I would be furious with my flight school for getting me involved in their turf war. It is plain as day to anyone educated in this NIMBY issue, that she was used as a pawn by the flight school. They played on the fact that she is student and doesn't know any better.

Did the flight school, as they asked her to write her letter, tell her that student pilots are trained all over the country by 100s of flight schools with parachute operations on the same airport and that none of them, literally none of them, have ever had a student pilot/skydiver issue.

Did they tell her that she will actually be a BETTER PILOT if she learns to fly on an airport that has a parachute operation? Probably not, better to scare her........

For any educator out there, and it doesn't matter the field, for an instructor to put any kind of negative fear into student's foundation of training is sure to result in inferior training results. It's undeniable and it's been published internationally by some of the most experienced educators on the planet.

So those are just two examples of the results of Mr. Hemmel's fear mongering campaign.

I could go on here, but I won't. I think you get the point.

To be honest, as I read through the letters, most everyone's concerns are based on either one of two things:

1) Self Entitlement
or
2) Lack of knowledge.

I can't help with the Self Entitled crowd, that's an incurable affliction it would seem.

But I can help with the knowledge vacuum.

There is going to come a day in the near future when the few of you out there that feel wronged by our insistence on invading "your turf" as a just cause, are going to be shocked to see our parachutes descending over the airport.

When that day arrives you can do one of two things:

1) Allow logic and reason to escape your faculties and go as bananas as you like privately and publicly.

or

2) Walk on into our hangar and introduce yourself. You will be met by two smiling happy business proprietors, my wife Mary and I.

We will welcome you in, give you all of the education materials you need to set your mind at ease and if that isn't enough, we will even coordinate getting CFIs with experience on airports with parachute operations to conduct monthly seminars for you.

Point is, we will work with anyone that wants to learn.

There really isn't any more I can offer at this point, but I think my offer is fair and just.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[trfour]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

I was going over the original posts of this thread and have a question for TRFOUR, from a post a long, long time ago:



Terry, was that a Laconia Airport Authority board meeting you reference, or a town board? And did they attempt to influence the altitude that Mr. Hemmel flew as a condition of granting his permission to use the airport?

The reason I ask is this: If it was the LAA, their "jurisdiction" ends the moment the wheels leave the ground. If the LAA attempted to prevent Mr. Hemmel from flying his aircraft below 12,500ft while snapping photos, guess what? They discriminated against him and his business.

The LAA cannot influence an aeronautical business operation as to what occurs above the airport in the sky regarding safety. It's really that simple. Once your off the ground you belong to the FAA and the FARs, not the LAA and the airport manager.

Why is that? Again, because no one on the LAA have any background in aviation safety analysis.

I'll give you another example: Let's say a direct neighbor of the airport got fed up with all of the shenanigans of the LAA and this process and called me and said "Tom, land here on my property next door". The very following day, we could file a NOTAM, and legally fly our skydiving aircraft directly over the top of the airport and exit the plane. We could open our parachutes and fly over the airport property (where it is the safest place to fly) and then land next door at the neighbors property. The LAA would be powerless to do anything. They don't own the sky and they certainly don't own the property beyond their property lines.

My point is this: Not that we want to do that at all, because we don't, but that the LAA's reign ends at their property line and as soon as the aircraft is off the ground.

I really wish I was around for that debate Terry. When was it? I would assume it would have been placed in the meeting minutes. I would love to forward that info to the FAA in Washington, D.C.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

WOW, we've all had a few birthdays since I asked Bill about that there. I never got an answer back from him on that one either, posted by me, to him on 01/16/2009, Post # 21, this thread...

Now, as I remember to the best of my recollection, it didn't take very long to find out just who was joshing, and who had all of the facts in hand at the very beginning of this thread!

So, maybe I was at fault that I didn't put a within that very question to Bill. Truth be known, I have absolutely no idea who and or what processes went into giving him his permissions to operate his business.
However, It was made very clear from the get-go here that Bill was totally against, and in opposition to seeing the Noonan's succeed in theirs.

In trying to find an ( entry level ), in Bill's way of thinking, I decided to pop a question his way to maybe facilitate a further understanding of his seemingly hypothetical, conjecture, to this point.

When it all comes wanting to educate, and soooo much more, this thread needs to be at the top of the heap, ( so to speak )!!!!
Terry

[gtagrip]

I wish Bill would chime in here again. But I assume since the Noonan's brought this to the FAA and they are taking this situation very seriously, I'm sure the "big guys" in town and at the airport have issued a "gag order".

[Steveo]

I know I have asked this before but I really need to understand the reason the LAA crowd doesn't want skydiving. Forget about any benefit (or harm) to the community, what is it that they can't take personally with this business. I believe everything comes down to money. Do they believe this will effect their revenues (people have limited funds so the ones that skydive would have flown with them instead) Do they believe it will increase their expenses (higher insurance premiums, hanger and storage rental fees increase). Are they worried they will hit a skydiver and be sued or killed.

For the life of me I can't figure out what their stance is. All I can see is this will increase revenues to all businesses at Laconia airport. More (new) people will come and some of those will want to take a photo or foliage flight. More gas will be sold. More hangar and rental space will be used. Tom has already proven that insurance premiums will not change.

Please help me understand the driving force behind their stubbornness, I just don't get it, there is no logic to it.