Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
"Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence "

 

First page Previous page 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next page Last page  View All

captain1976  (D 7183)

Jan 6, 2011, 3:19 AM
Post #201 of 277 (2357 views)
Shortcut
Re: [kimemerson] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Someone with that personality doesn't give a shit about safety considerations, they only know what they want; Like a dog who wants a bone.

I'm no shrink as I doubt most of the critics of Billy's psychological makeup are, but as a 20+ year Ranch member, I can say that the above description could be taken as generally accepted knowledge. It isn't new to anyone who knows Billy. But I have to defend him against this comment, that someone like Billy "...doesn't give a shit about safety..." This statement is a broad and indefensible argument, and further, shows that the speaker doesn't actually know Billy. He is a certifiable nut case; only an idiot or a fool would attempt to describe him otherwise. And he takes a certain libertarian perspective on personal behavior and responsibility, but he is absolutely passionate about safety and the safe operations and actions of skydivers, pilots and anyone else associated with the sport. Say what you will about his business practices, his friendship cementing practices, his social graces. But he has shown enough regard for safety in too many ways to allow the comment that he doesn't care to pass without comment.


Thanks for your input kimemerson

The skies filled with canopies on one end of the field has been the norm for many years.

Pilots who frequent DeLand know where they are and where to look. Put a second operation at the other end of the field and you create a dangerous situation.

Skydiving isnt the only activity at DeLand. This reliever airport for Daytona Beach and Sanford International Airports has plenty of aviation support businesses.

Maintenance facilities, fuel, hangers and about 160 based aircraft also share DED.

As a flyer I use extra caution when using the airport, but knowing where jumpers are I take the acceptable risk of going there.

With 2 skydiving operations, many other aviators will fuel and conduct general aviation business elsewhere.

Its simply a safety issue.


(This post was edited by captain1976 on Jan 6, 2011, 3:20 AM)


tkhayes  (D 18764)

Jan 6, 2011, 5:50 AM
Post #202 of 277 (2329 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Krip] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
OTOH SDC and Z-hills worked out of the same airport etc and it basically worked no one died, maybe some go arounds due to conflicts on jump run.

Actually it was pretty much a nightmare here and it was the reason that I (and many of my friends) completely stopped coming to Zephyrhills for skydiving.

Not only finger-pointing, letters of complaints being filed at all levels of government and the FAA, but unsafe practices on the runways and in the air. - there were deliberate attempts to put people's lives in danger hoping to make the other side look bad. I was actually on those loads.

"Some go rounds due to conflicts" was/is an understatement

We left and I returned only once I think just to visit some friends until after Phoenix packed up and moved in 1994.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Jan 6, 2011, 7:03 AM
Post #203 of 277 (2293 views)
Shortcut
Re: [tkhayes] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

This Post is not at you TK per say just last reply.

I just think the skydivers should skydive and let the big dogs deal with this mess. The name call and all the false statements is just silly. The only people that know about the agreement are the people that were in the room at that time ( no written contract) BOTH side will say thier side and the truth lies In the middle somewhere hens why they were/are in court. For people to say well sdc is right because they won everything in court is silly to. Guilty people get off all the time. It's America, our court system is fuxked. Again good luck to both sides and hope it's finished soon so we can talk about swooping or something else and again thanks for the entertainment. Blue sky's to all


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Jan 6, 2011, 7:05 AM)


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 6, 2011, 7:23 AM
Post #204 of 277 (2282 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I just think the skydivers should skydive and let the big dogs deal with this mess. The name call and all the false statements is just silly

In that case, FFE should have kept their mouths shut, and not distributed their version of the details regarding the event via mass e-mail to Ranch jumpers. As far as I can tell, TK only chimed in here to defend himself, and has done nothing in the way of revealing previously unknown details.

Quote:
The only people that know about the agreement are the people that were in the room at that time ( no written contract)

True, however FFE admits that they proposed a rate hike, which means that it was not a part of the origianl agreement. If it was part of the original agreement, it would not have been proposed, but simply implemented at the scheduled date.

I think the fact that really skews this in the favor of SDC is that any decisions made by SDC are the result of the partners voting and the majority ruling. What this means is that it's not the personal motivations of one single person driving the decision making, it's the collective motivations of the majority of the partners. The chances that all of the partners, some of whom have been in business and partners with Billy for a very long time, are all basing their decisions purely on the basis of screwing over FFE is very slim. Much slimmer than the chances that Billy, the sole decision maker for FFE, is making his decisions based somewhat on a personal basis.


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Jan 6, 2011, 9:58 AM
Post #205 of 277 (2225 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok I'll try this one more time. It's a business owners right to raise prices if he/she chooses. It's also the right of the customer to refuse said increase. So I don't think anyone is at fault here. TK and majority voted not to use FFE fine. You cant blame Billy for wanting to keep making money down there. The problem I have is the mud sling. It's easy to sit in a warm house and talk shit on the Internet. So my point is everyone should just shut the fuck up and let those involved handle it. I also don't see a problem with FFE Communicating with it's customer on whats going on and asking for support. That what they did ask for support. I'll give it. They have been nothing but good to me :)
On another note the guy the flies in to deland. You are use the same excuse that pilots use when a new dz is trying open at airport
with no dz. With your logic we wouldn't have any dzs except ones
like the ranch because it's private property. There are operational
requirements in place so if everyone follows them it will work.
Nobody likes change but it's coming. On that note I'm done. I'm just
talking to a bunch of Billy bashing peeps. What is everyone scard of if it's not going to happen.
Blues skies


(This post was edited by ozzy13 on Jan 6, 2011, 10:18 AM)


thewrench1

Jan 6, 2011, 12:07 PM
Post #206 of 277 (2184 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captain1976] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

isn"t deland the dropzone that had the porter crash on takeoff and a twin otter hit a skydiver under canopy?


jrsample  (D License)

Jan 6, 2011, 12:21 PM
Post #207 of 277 (2167 views)
Shortcut
Re: [thewrench1] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
isn"t deland the dropzone that had the porter crash on takeoff and a twin otter hit a skydiver under canopy?

Sure Tom. Just like the Ranch had an observer/passenger walk into a spinning prop.

JR


ozzy13  (D 29344)

Jan 6, 2011, 1:09 PM
Post #208 of 277 (2139 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jrsample] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

FAA is loving this shit for sure... keep slinging mud and none of us will be jumping!!!! Goes for both sides..


davelepka  (D 21448)

Jan 6, 2011, 2:10 PM
Post #209 of 277 (2111 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
On another note the guy the flies in to deland. You are use the same excuse that pilots use when a new dz is trying open at airport
with no dz.

Not exactly. If there is an already existing DZ at an airport, and another DZ wants to open and have an LZ on the other end of the airport, that represents a much bigger problem than one DZ in one area of an airport. With two LZs and two planes dropping jumpers at the same time, there is no longer a 'safe zone' anywhere near the airport where pilots can expect clear air.

When you factor in an already busy airport with an already busy DZ, you can see where trying to add another, seperate DZ to the field might be problematic.


CSpenceFLY  (D 25252)

Jan 6, 2011, 3:28 PM
Post #210 of 277 (2088 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
FAA is loving this shit for sure... keep slinging mud and none of us will be jumping!!!! Goes for both sides..


Bingo


Ron

Jan 6, 2011, 3:39 PM
Post #211 of 277 (2101 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ozzy13] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
So my point is everyone should just shut the fuck up and let those involved handle it.

And

Quote:
That what they did ask for support. I'll give it. They have been nothing but good to me :)

Don't really jive with each other. On one hand you are saying everyone should just stay out of it, then you say you are helping one party.


kimemerson  (D 13439)

Jan 6, 2011, 4:52 PM
Post #212 of 277 (2066 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jrsample] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
isn"t deland the dropzone that had the porter crash on takeoff and a twin otter hit a skydiver under canopy?

Sure Tom. Just like the Ranch had an observer/passenger walk into a spinning prop.

JR
Well, I can't say anything about the Porter in DeLand but something is familiar about that. (Possibly when filming Drop Zone & Patty Wagstaff was piloting the Porter that crashed? Maybe not tat. I don't know.) And a twin otter did indeed hit someone under canopy.

But the Ranch did not have an observer/passenger walk into a prop. A FFE plane was involved in such an incident years ago but it was not at the Ranch. Might have been Raeford. It also ended the practice of allowing observer rides on FFE aircraft. Just helping with facts, folks. Carry on.


mjosparky  (D 5476)

Jan 6, 2011, 5:08 PM
Post #213 of 277 (2055 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captain1976] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
I've heard the same thing. Sounds like a real head case! My experience is you can't reason with people who demonstrate disorders like his known superiority inferiority complex.

I fixed it for you. The behavior described is indicative of an inferiority complex.

Sparky


normiss  (D 28356)

Jan 6, 2011, 8:51 PM
Post #214 of 277 (1996 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captain1976] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

I'll never forget the first jump I made in Deland...when I was under canopy it only took a second to realize there were six aircraft close enough to me to see the pilot's faces. I was in the pattern!

Now when I looked at the property that FFE wants to lease, I noticed there is no property around it, which means they will have to use the center of the airport for landings. Across the taxiway. Where the student landing area is for Skydive Deland.
I wonder if they will have an awesome restaurant and bar like Skydive Deland does?
This will be interesting to say the least.


captain1976  (D 7183)

Jan 7, 2011, 4:40 PM
Post #215 of 277 (1902 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mjosparky] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
I've heard the same thing. Sounds like a real head case! My experience is you can't reason with people who demonstrate disorders like his known superiority inferiority complex.

I fixed it for you. The behavior described is indicative of an inferiority complex.

Sparky

Thanks Sparky


captain1976  (D 7183)

Jan 7, 2011, 4:42 PM
Post #216 of 277 (1901 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

I wonder if they will have an awesome restaurant and bar like Skydive Deland does?
Maybe Bill will just serve in-flight meals, he'll have to do something to get the experienced while the rest of us boycott.


Krip  (Student)

Jan 7, 2011, 6:53 PM
Post #217 of 277 (1872 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captain1976] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Captain

When SDC opened next to Z-hills. BR and his partners offered a lot of freebee's to give the fun jumpers a real incentive to go there. I expect if BR moves to Deland he will undercut the existing DZ's prices or offer other incentives.

Tandem price wars? maybe
Cheaper lift tickets or extra altitude? Maybe


Remember back in the day when there was a gas station located across the street from ea other one station undercut the competion. then the competition undercut the other guy.

IMO The safety issue isn't worth saving a couple of bucks for the experience jumper and delands loyal customers.

But the tandems and AFFUnsure What do they know. Thats where the real money is. Both DZ's will have the USPA seal of approval as GMDZ's. and turbo's.

Politic's and bullies with deep pocketsSly


normiss  (D 28356)

Jan 7, 2011, 7:58 PM
Post #218 of 277 (1850 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Krip] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

Well we see how well that worked out in Zephyrhills....
Tongue


mirage62  (C 15580)

Jan 8, 2011, 2:16 AM
Post #219 of 277 (1815 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

+1


captain1976  (D 7183)

Jan 8, 2011, 3:58 PM
Post #220 of 277 (1731 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Krip] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hi Captain

When SDC opened next to Z-hills. BR and his partners offered a lot of freebee's to give the fun jumpers a real incentive to go there. I expect if BR moves to Deland he will undercut the existing DZ's prices or offer other incentives.

Tandem price wars? maybe
Cheaper lift tickets or extra altitude? Maybe


Remember back in the day when there was a gas station located across the street from ea other one station undercut the competion. then the competition undercut the other guy.

IMO The safety issue isn't worth saving a couple of bucks for the experience jumper and delands loyal customers.

But the tandems and AFFUnsure What do they know. Thats where the real money is. Both DZ's will have the USPA seal of approval as GMDZ's. and turbo's.

Politic's and bullies with deep pocketsSly

Hi Krip,


You are correct! The real battle would be "who gets the tandem and student business". The marketing skills of both operations will be put to the test here.

There is a certain amount of loyalty and familiarity that determines where many experienced skydivers frequent.

And listening to the skuttlebutt around DeLand, I think most will boycott any newbie on the field. Especially one as controversial as they are.

Everyone I know or talk to on the subject stands behind TK and Z-Hills on their situation.


normiss  (D 28356)

Jan 8, 2011, 4:44 PM
Post #221 of 277 (1720 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captain1976] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

Yup.
Cool


Krip  (Student)

Jan 9, 2011, 1:44 AM
Post #222 of 277 (1654 views)
Shortcut
Re: [captain1976] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Capt

In a competitive enviroment how long can a DZ offer $90 tandems, and low ball AFF $$ to steal customers before they go broke.

I suspect deep pockets can get some peeps from up north to haul the baggage. So if the koals don't want to work in that negative enviroment and the added safety risk . Someone will.

Just hope no one gets killedPirate The other stuff is just money and ego. that can be replaced. A PiratePirate would be really Frown

The $90 is my WAG I pulled out of my butt so no rumor starting here.

The easiest solution would be to buy the empty hanger. But the deep pockets would just build their own hanger if there's room on the airport


3331  (D 3331)

Feb 8, 2011, 11:34 AM
Post #223 of 277 (1413 views)
Shortcut
Re: [all] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.news-journalonline.com/...diving-decision.html

Crazy


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 8, 2011, 11:55 AM
Post #224 of 277 (1396 views)
Shortcut
Re: [3331] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

 
I wonder if the outlying circumstances surrounding the opening of the new DZ can or will be brought into consideration.

The history behind FFE and Deland, FFE and Skydive City, the move from FFE to Skydive Deland as an aircraft supplier to Skydive City, and the static FFE has created over in Z-hills in the wake of that switch over should all be looked into.

I know that it's Billy's brother Joe who is standing up in front of the board looking for the approval, and that all of this 'scuttlebutt' might not be related, but the problem I see is that if there is a hint that the motivation for opening this new DZ is anything but an honest effort to open a new business in good-faith, then it should be denied.

So FEE and crew open a DZ across the field from Skydive Deland, and go to work to 'bury' them. They undercut their prices and do whatever it takes to steal their business and make them disappear. Now, the city has traded a 30-year tennant, contributor to the local economy and 'good neighbor' for the remaining FFE backed DZ which is unproven and born out of a desire for revenge. The city and the airport would have been better off just sticking with one DZ, the one that has proven itself for the last three decades.

Is there any sort of system for city residents or other airport tennants to comment/object/etc? If there is, I would hope that somebody down there steps up and brings everyone involved up to speed on the back story, and what might really be going on there.


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 8, 2011, 2:32 PM
Post #225 of 277 (1342 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] "Possibility of 2nd sky-diving company in DeLand creates turbulence " [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.faa.gov/...ia/5190_6b_chap8.pdf

Quote:
Chapter 8. Exclusive Rights

8.1. Introduction. This chapter describes the sponsor's federal obligations under Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights, which prohibits an airport sponsor from granting an exclusive right for the use of the airport, including granting an exclusive right to any person or entity providing or intending to provide aeronautical services to the public. In particular, the sponsor may not grant a special privilege or a monopoly to anyone providing aeronautical services on the airport or engaging in an aeronautical use. The intent of this restriction is to promote aeronautical activity and protect fair competition at federally obligated airports.

a. Conditions for Denial.

The assurance prohibiting the granting of an exclusive right does not penalize a sponsor for continuing an existing single provider when both of the following
conditions exist:

(1). It can be demonstrated that it would be unreasonably costly, burdensome, or impractical for
more than one entity to provide the service, and

(2). The sponsor would have to reduce the leased space that is currently being used for an aeronautical purpose by the existing provider in order to accommodate a second provider. In the case of denying additional providers, the sponsor must have adequate justification and documentation of the facts supporting its decision acceptable to the FAA.
Both conditions must be met. (See 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(4)(A and B)

b. Demonstrable Need. When the service provider has space in excess of its reasonable needs and the sponsor claims it is justified based on the service provider's future needs, the FAA may find the sponsor in violation of the exclusive rights prohibition if the service provider is banking land and/or facilities that it cannot put to gainful aeronautical use in a reasonable period of time and/or the vacant property controlled by the service provider denies a competitor from gaining
entry onto the airport.
Quote:

You'll have to wait to see what the FAA safety study says, and if it says there is no reason a second "SASO" can't be accommodated then it cost the City of Deland a lot of federal funding to say no.


(This post was edited by stratostar on Feb 8, 2011, 2:32 PM)


First page Previous page 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)