Skydive Laconia?

[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

[TheNoonans]

I want to end the day on a positive note.

Check out this link:

This is my friend from Australia. His first video, Experience Human Flight, I posted a link to earlier in this thread. It received 2 million hits across Vimeo and Youtube in 4 months.

This video:



Received ONE MILLION views in a week.

And skydiving, parachutes, BASE jumping and our little "dirt road" industry is just a flash in the pan........lol

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Enjoy.

[eillac@dow]

I have 15 months before my youngest turns 18! I sure hope you and Mary are in biz then....cause we will be there!

Keep up the good work....it will pay off!

[NoRegrets]

Now back to the mundane process of "making a living". Thanks for the thrilling break!!!

[Steveo]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

Your right Steveo,

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.

Tom

What is also going on here is the "native" syndrome. Tom, you are just not a native of Laconia therefore you shall not be accepted. I was not born in Laconia but I lived there during high school and then lived many years in Portsmouth. I was in front of a crowd one day in Laconia when my wife overheard some folks asking about me, asking where I was from and if I was a native. The other person said no, he is from Portsmouth. I use to think "native" use to mean NH native but not in Laconia. If a "native" was opening a parachuting business there would be no problems at all.

[tis]

That may be true in Laconia, Steveo, but it sure isn't in Wolfeboro. They don't like business period. They give EVERYBODY a hard time.

[TheNoonans]

It's interesting you bring up the "native" thing Steveo, because it helps explain why my wife and I are referred to as "Floridians" in this thread and occasionally in the papers.

I didn't know the US added two more states to the Union while I was living in New Zealand......lol.....the State of Laconia and the State of Gilford must not be on the map yet.......lol

Alas, I am not a native of Laconia or Gilford.

I am a civitas orbis terrerum.

I am a citizen of the world.

And I thought "Locals Only" was a phrase derived from hot surf spots on the West Coast?

Oh well, we're still coming to the party, even if we we're invited by the hosts. When we get there, the A-listers ("A" for "affluent"), can join us and make the whole thing work for everyone.

Or they can continue to try and bring down the whole show for everyone involved, us, them and the community as a whole.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[AC2717]

I just want to hurry up and jump over the lake already!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by TheNoonans

It's interesting you bring up the "native" thing Steveo, because it helps explain why my wife and I are referred to as "Floridians" in this thread and occasionally in the papers.

I didn't know the US added two more states to the Union while I was living in New Zealand......lol.....the State of Laconia and the State of Gilford must not be on the map yet.......lol

Alas, I am not a native of Laconia or Gilford.

I am a civitas orbis terrerum.

I am a citizen of the world.

And I thought "Locals Only" was a phrase derived from hot surf spots on the West Coast?

Oh well, we're still coming to the party, even if we we're invited by the hosts. When we get there, the A-listers ("A" for "affluent"), can join us and make the whole thing work for everyone.

Or they can continue to try and bring down the whole show for everyone involved, us, them and the community as a whole.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

Correction Tom, that would be the KINGDOM of GILFORD! Believe me, the Selectmen see themselves as kings and the taxpayers of Gilford as peasants. They need a wakeup call!

[Pineedles]

It's all about the power of the vote. Vote the bums out!

[fpartri497]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

It's all about the power of the vote. Vote the bums out!

It doesent matter, we will only vote more bums In.

\

[tis]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Correction Tom, that would be the KINGDOM of GILFORD! Believe me, the Selectmen see themselves as kings and the taxpayers of Gilford as peasants. They need a wakeup call!

I guess that's true in every town and state and fed. gov. They forget the work for US! Maybe next election they will get a wakeup call.

Meantime, I am glad it is not me who has to go through the awful fight that the Noonans are going through.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Correction Tom, that would be the KINGDOM of GILFORD! Believe me, the Selectmen see themselves as kings and the taxpayers of Gilford as peasants. They need a wakeup call!

Yes, that's very true, and a big reason is because many of the local town selectmen get to receive the town's family health insurance coverage which has a cash value that can range all over in price, from maybe $12 to 24,000/year. By receiving such a major perk, it creates a non-adversarial relationship between the selectmen and the town's employees, and essentially all the selectmen and employees are all together in the same big boat. They's in the same boat; so they all sink, or they all stay afloat, together as one big happy group!

Maybe start to create a more adversarial relationship between the selectmen and the town employees by raising and raising and raising the health insurance co-pays via a warrant article at the town ballot vote, because it will never get yessed at a town meeting vote?

Lottsa luck!

The town selectmen's position in NH is supposed to be a very low paying, per-diem, volunteer style position, but with the very expensive health coverage, this is simply not the situation.

Here in Meredith, there is a town selectman who drives a white Mercedes Benz suv with a three letter, handicap, vanity license plate that is sometimes parked at a dentist's office on Main St in Plymouth. One has to wonder if the Meredith property tax payers are paying for his dental care while he is driving a very nice Mercedes Benz? That selectman's car parked at the dentist's office sure sends a message.

[TheNoonans]

So I finally got through all of the FOIA public comment submissions last night.

I have to say, now that I have read them, I feel much much better about them.

For starters, as I said earlier, most all of them could be classified as either:
1) The self entitled, "this is my airport" crowd
or
2) The "lack of knowledge" submissions, ie, the "your going to do WHAT here? type emails."

As I said, I can't help the self entitled crowd that believe they have a greater right to the airport than anyone else. "Sorry" is the best I can do for those people complaining that I want to play in THEIR sandbox.

But the lack of knowledge letters are interesting. It's alot of private pilots that simply don't know any more about parachute operations than what Mr. Hemmel and the LAA want them to know, which is very very very little. And that's okay, I promise you all, all of you in the latter category of submissions, that I will work with every one of you directly and personally. You can tell me your thoughts, even yell at me if you like, , and then when the emotion is out and gone, we can sit down and work together to educate each other (yes I said "each other", you can educate me too) on what we both need to feel good about this situation.

Now, of course, I'll be the first to say, there were some good letters in there too, and not just "for us", but also a couple of good letters "against us", so to speak. I never said this was a black and white issue, a lot of it is very grey. And for the small group of negative comments based on knowledge and experience, they were very thought provoking letters. I really wish the LAA hadn't turned this process into a tug or war, because I would have really liked to sit down and talked with the people that brought good questions and concerns to the table. Whether we ended up agreeing in the end or not, I would have genuinely enjoyed the opportunity to see and hear knowledgable thoughts without the emotional charge of "NO WAY!, NOT HERE" that most of the letters amplified. And a few of those letters were genuinely sincere attempts to understand the process and how it would affect us all.

My favorite submission of all actually came from a pilot at the FBO down the end of the north taxiway. His letter was filled with both his personal experiences and what questions he had concerning the integration of our proposal onto the airport. It was most definitely an "against" letter, but it was fair, without emotion, and inquisitive. It was brilliant. I read it three times, and I hope some day that he and I get a chance to talk about the letter. I'd really like to offer him answers from my perspective and get his unbiased feedback.

So I give Mr. Hemmel and the LAA credit, the majority of the letters were just what they wanted. Emotional stand offs based on very little factual information.

What I find disappointing, and what those of you that sent those letters should find INFURIATING, is that most of you, the property owners and private pilots, and even some of the commercial pilots writing in, were used as PAWNS by the LAA in this process. And here is how:

When the airport manager sent you all that email asking for your submissions to the comment period, ending it with the underlined:
"Your opinions count", she never once referenced that she had a volume of information on the topic that we provided her back in 2008. And we didn't just provide her our facts, we provided her AOPA's facts and the FAA's facts.

It is by no coincidence that her last line failed to say "Your EDUCATED and INFORMED opinions matter."

The LAA didn't want you casting informed and educated opinions in that public comment, they wanted you to cast uninformed hysterical opinions. If I were you, I would be FURIOUS that you got that email from the airport manager without the inclusion of a request to view all of the data available to you and making it available to you.

That public comment period that received over 80, "mostly negative" responses was an orchestration of fact omission responses. As I said before, the LAA wants your hysteria on this one, not your well thought, educated, unbiased opinions. And that is what they set out to collect, and thanks to that email from the manager of the airport going out without suggesting you educate yourself, that is exactly what the LAA got.

For those of you that sent in letters against us, if you did not read the AOPA article that we submitted to the LAA for instance, then you played right into the hands of the LAA. It's really that simple. It's unfortunate, but it's reality.

But in the end, the comments have all been thrown out, the good ones and the bad ones. That's the FAA's fault for even asking for them in the first place. The local FAA wasted everyone's time and energy by even asking for them. That's your local ADO. That's your local government.

As I depart now for Boston in a few hours, I want to leave you all with a thought.

While I believe it to be educated and without bias, I am only offering my opinions on this public comment process. I challenge everyone of you that either believes me or especially if you don't believe me. Make your own FOIA request. It's cheap, it's quick and simple. Get your own copy of the 80+ comments, get your own copy of the airport manager's email to 40+ locals telling them their "opinions matter" without providing them knowledge she has materials they can review.

Get it for yourself, read it all, and then make an informed decision about this minority public hysteria against Skydive Laconia. The facts are out there. The more you get the more you will shake your head at this entire process and the lengths to which the LAA have gone to oppose us.

This is America, it's still the land of the free, you have a right and an obligation to demand transparency and accountability within your government, a government of the people, by the people and FOR the people.

What is your government doing for YOU in this process.

Your "educated and knowledgable" opinion matters. Go ahead, give it to them.

Blue skies to all and to all a good flight,

Tom

[trfour]

Best of luck to The Noonans!!!!
Terry
________________________________

[TheNoonans]

Hi Terry

Thank you for your continued support. I have been offline the last month or so, for my yearly trek into the Himalaya (www.everest-skydive.com) where my team and I take clients skydiving beside Mount Everest. I just got back from Kathmandu a few days ago.

While I am on here, I thought I would share with you an email that I sent to your elected officials in Laconia and Gilford on Sept 19th, 2011. Would you believe that I never got a single response back from anyone on either government council in Laconia or Gilford? Ironic, huh?

I am surprised that any civic leader in a process like this would consider themselves just in ignoring such a request from a proposed business owner. Oh well, lesson learned. Ignoring us worked really well for the local FAA....now we are working with the FAA in Washington, D.C.......I wonder where we go with this next in NH government......hmm.

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

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

[Pineedles]

Tom. Even though your most recent posts give us hope that you and your comapny may be up and going by the 2012 season, I sense a setback by the non-response from the locals. Do you need those of us that support you, to do something more?

[riverat]

"While I am on here, I thought I would share with you an email that I sent to your elected officials in Laconia and Gilford on Sept 19th, 2011. Would you believe that I never got a single response back from anyone on either government council in Laconia or Gilford? Ironic, huh?"


These "Officials" being "Elected" by some of the readers of this Forum, you would think they would atleast acknowledge the reciept of this email. It is bad for their track record, that we review before casting our vote. Do you want to elect someone that will not answer your emails sent, I for one would not. And feel Tom should have atleast an acknowledgment of "Email recieved and read" response from these "Elected" officials.

[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.