Forums: Skydiving: General Skydiving Discussions:
Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight

 


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 12, 2012, 6:44 AM
Post #1 of 109 (8991 views)
Shortcut
Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight Can't Post

Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight has now moved to the part 16 formal complaint level. This battle has been going on for a very long time and the city of Creswell has taken the next step to reuse to comply with it's federal grant assurances, it's consultant, like others in other cases try to make the claim there is no safe place to land a parachute on the airport property.

(I'm not speaking for USPA, the FAA or any other person in the industry, I'm posting my personal thoughts on the matter. I could be wrong, no one appointed me the guru of airport access issues!)

As it stands now, the FAA will not enforce the current guidance in any complaints that are a part 13, This could be why Mr. Moore is now moving forward with his part 16 filing?, to force the FAA to issue a ruling in the required 120 days. (part 13 cases have no time frame for rulings, they can go on for ever)

http://www.thecreswellchronicle.com/...y.cfm?story_no=10042
In other business on Monday, the council voted to authorize Shrives to spend up to $25,000 to hire an attorney who specializes in aviation law to provide counsel concerning a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 16 complaint filed on Dec. 27, 2011 by Urban Moore and Eugene Skydivers, L.L.C.

That formal complaint is based on FAA rules "prohibiting establishment of exclusive rights at an airport, unjust discrimination against a commercial aeronautical activity seeking airport access and the establishment of arbitrary, unattainable and discriminatory standards for a commercial aeronautical activity seeking airport access," according to page two of the complaint filed.

The City of Creswell is currently awaiting notice from the FAA that the complaint has been placed on the administrative docket, which the FAA is required to decide within 20 days of receiving the complaint.

Once that decision is made, the city will then have 20 days to respond to the complaint by providing documentation concerning skydiving at the Creswell Airport.

Moore filed a Part 13 (informal) complaint in 2006 with the FAA regional office in Renton, which remains unresolved.

City Administrator Shrives said that the city's last response to the Part 13 complaint was February 2010, when they sent the FAA a study pertaining to the safety of skydivers landing at the airport. The FAA has yet to respond to the Feb. 2010 information and is under no time constraints to do so.

The City of Creswell maintains that safety issues are the reason for prohibiting skydivers from landing at Hobby Field. The primary landing site for the skydivers had always been on land adjacent to the airport which was owned by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).

In 2005, ODOT requested that the city provide liability insurance coverage for the permitted use of the land for the first time. The city asked the skydiving companies to provide insurance to cover their operation. The city asserts that skydiving companies' refusal to provide insurance resulted in ODOT's denial of the permitted use of the ODOT property.

The city also hired an investigator, Tim Phillips of Critical Path, Inc. who concluded that there was no safe place to land at the airport.

While Moore chose not to disclose the amount he has spent on attorney fees, he said that his business is off approximately 80 percent since August of 2006, which is the last time his company was able to land at Hobby Field at the Creswell Airport.

"I've sold aircraft. Eventually, I'm going to run out of assets to sell. I went from flying three aircraft for a total of 1080 hours to two aircraft a total of 200 hours," Moore said, noting that his preferred outcome would be that the "City let us use the drop zone that we've used safely for 14 years.

"I want my life back; I want my business back that I spent years building. It was a good business. I'd like not to lose my home," Moore said.

Moore's complaint cites letters from numerous official sources indicating that skydivers are able to safely land at Creswell Airport.

"A subsequent inspection by FAA Headquarters' Flight Service personnel found skydiving could safely be accommodated at Hobby Field," stated Christina Fortarotto, Associate Administrator for Airports, in a letter dated May 13, 2011.

in a letter addressed to then-U.S. Senator Gordon Smith, James Ballough, FAA Director of Flight Standards Service, stated: "The final assessment determined that skydiving at the airport would be a low risk operation if certain mitigating procedures were followed."

The Part 16 (formal) complaint will likely take six months to resolve as Moore, the City of Creswell and the FAA respond to each other within 20-day periods, and then 10-day periods as the process progresses.

At the conclusion of that process, the FAA has 120 days to weigh all information and issue a decision.
Quote:


(This post was edited by stratostar on Jan 12, 2012, 8:53 AM)


CSpenceFLY  (D 25252)

Jan 12, 2012, 8:04 AM
Post #2 of 109 (8870 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

It's ashame that this same dog and pony show is allowed to play out over and over and over again.


TheCaptain  (D License)

Jan 12, 2012, 8:48 AM
Post #3 of 109 (8829 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

City Counsel meeting 2009


(This post was
edited by TheCaptain on Jan 12, 2012, 8:52 AM)


TheCaptain  (D License)

Jan 12, 2012, 8:53 AM
Post #4 of 109 (8820 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TheCaptain] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

I love that they are discussing what to do about skydivers not having insurance and will not let Urban explain that he has insurance to cover it.


(This post was edited by TheCaptain on Jan 12, 2012, 8:56 AM)


Southern_Man  (C License)

Jan 12, 2012, 11:11 AM
Post #5 of 109 (8733 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
(I'm not speaking for USPA, the FAA or any other person in the industry, I'm posting my personal thoughts on the matter. I could be wrong, no one appointed me the guru of airport access issues!)

You consistently post and follow these types of activities. I am wondering what sparked your special interest and if you have specialized knowledge or have participated in airport access fights of your own?

Not meant to distract from this topic in particular, I appreciate that you follow these things and attempt to keep us updated, just curious as to why.


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
Post #6 of 109 (8731 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Southern_Man] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
have participated in airport access fights of your own?

Yes, currently pending for 4 years now.


ixlr82  (C 33491)

Jan 12, 2012, 7:22 PM
Post #7 of 109 (8634 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Creswell had/has one of the nicest and safest landing areas I've ever jumped at, with outs everywhere. If this LZ is unsafe, I have yet to jump at a safe one.


SStewart  (D 10405)

Jan 12, 2012, 10:43 PM
Post #8 of 109 (8589 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ixlr82] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Creswell had/has one of the nicest and safest landing areas I've ever jumped at, with outs everywhere. If this LZ is unsafe, I have yet to jump at a safe one.

You are correct sir. This has nothing to do about safety it is yet another example of a low form of government (in this case a city council) trying to over-ride a higher form of government, the FAA. Why the FAA has not stepped up and enforced the law I can not even speculate.

I grew up in Oregon and at one point we had 7 active dropzones. At this point we are down to one active turbine dropzone and a few small dwindling 182 operations that are on the way out. If the trend continues there will be no place to jump in Oregon.

This is not just unique to Oregon, this trend has been happening nation wide. The small skydiving clubs and schools are dying and no one seems to care. It will get to the point where you will have to travel long distances or live close to a large city with a commercial dropzone nearby if you want to jump.

The small dropzones fuel the large ones, jumpers from the small DZ's go to boogies, travel when the weather is bad. What happens when they stop coming because there is no place to jump back home?

What happens when there is no upward mobility and only the very wealthy or people who live near highly populated areas have access to a dropzone?

It is happening my friends and people better wake up or someday you may find your dropzone closed and the only option is to go to another state to jump.


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 13, 2012, 6:04 AM
Post #9 of 109 (8562 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Why the FAA has not stepped up and enforced the law I can not even speculate.

I'll go there. It's easy to forget ( I've done it) that a part 13 informal complaint is, well informal and more or less like a mediation process, more or less it's showing the courts the party tired to get compliance via talks mediated through the FAA and when all that fails, you move onto a part 16 formal complaint

As a side note, (also east to forget) a part 13 case, the FAA (as I understand it) will not issue a ruling, but they will make a determination as to an airport sponsors compliance or not. The most important thing that is sometime forgotten about a PT 13, is it's open ended and there is no time limit for the FAA to make a determination on an informal complaint. Maybe this is why they filed to the next level???

Regardless of all that, Scott, your post is pretty much right on and sums it up.

I do know one thing, all this bullshit will make your head spin trying to keep track of all the rules and subsections in the guidance, more so if your knee deep in the pile.

http://www.faa.gov/...mpliance/complaints/

Quote:
Informal Complaints (Part 13)

The FAA accepts informal complaints either verbally or in writing under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 13 (Part 13), Investigative and Enforcement Procedures (Section 13.1 ONLY). FAA regional staff usually looks into these complaints.

Part 13 imposes no time deadlines for issuing decisions.

Formal Complaints (Part 16)

The FAA accepts formal complaints in writing under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 16 (Part 16), Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings. Parties filing under Part 16 must be substantially affected by the alleged noncompliance. FAA headquarters staff looks into these complaints.

Part 16 imposes strict deadlines for filing, adjudication, and appeal. The Regulation lists specific requirements for filing a Part 16 complaint.


(This post was edited by stratostar on Jan 13, 2012, 10:30 AM)


rowet  (D License)

Jan 13, 2012, 8:43 AM
Post #10 of 109 (8530 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

so will this mean fun jumpers will be allowed back there? did my first tandem there 9 years ago and haven't been back but would love to jump there again.


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 13, 2012, 10:27 AM
Post #11 of 109 (8503 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rowet] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't answer that question, not my dz.


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Jan 13, 2012, 11:28 AM
Post #12 of 109 (8482 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Scott,

Well put.

As I understand the local scuttlebutt, the City of Creswell really wants to get rid of the airport completely.

One problem with these types of smaller dzs efforts is that a smaller dzo quite often simply does have the $$$ to keep going at it. In this case the City of Creswell does.

JerryBaumchen

PS) Let me add some further local scuttlebutt. The City of Creswell is fighting tooth 'n' Nail because if Urban eventually wins, he will sue them for his loss of income during this whole broughaha; and that would be a fair chunk of change.


(This post was edited by JerryBaumchen on Jan 13, 2012, 11:31 AM)


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 13, 2012, 11:49 AM
Post #13 of 109 (8470 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
if Urban eventually wins, he will sue them for his loss of income during this whole broughaha; and that would be a fair chunk of change.

That would be a good thing to have on the public record for all the other people down the road. I hope he wins and I wish the FAA would stop goofing off and enforce the current regulations for everyone, it;s a nice pipe dream though....


SStewart  (D 10405)

Jan 15, 2012, 12:31 AM
Post #14 of 109 (8390 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Quote:
Why the FAA has not stepped up and enforced the law I can not even speculate.

I'll go there. It's easy to forget ( I've done it) that a part 13 informal complaint is, well informal and more or less like a mediation process, more or less it's showing the courts the party tired to get compliance via talks mediated through the FAA and when all that fails, you move onto a part 16 formal complaint

As a side note, (also east to forget) a part 13 case, the FAA (as I understand it) will not issue a ruling, but they will make a determination as to an airport sponsors compliance or not. The most important thing that is sometime forgotten about a PT 13, is it's open ended and there is no time limit for the FAA to make a determination on an informal complaint. Maybe this is why they filed to the next level???

Regardless of all that, Scott, your post is pretty much right on and sums it up.

I do know one thing, all this bullshit will make your head spin trying to keep track of all the rules and subsections in the guidance, more so if your knee deep in the pile.

http://www.faa.gov/...mpliance/complaints/

Quote:
Informal Complaints (Part 13)

The FAA accepts informal complaints either verbally or in writing under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 13 (Part 13), Investigative and Enforcement Procedures (Section 13.1 ONLY). FAA regional staff usually looks into these complaints.

Part 13 imposes no time deadlines for issuing decisions.

Formal Complaints (Part 16)

The FAA accepts formal complaints in writing under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 16 (Part 16), Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings. Parties filing under Part 16 must be substantially affected by the alleged noncompliance. FAA headquarters staff looks into these complaints.

Part 16 imposes strict deadlines for filing, adjudication, and appeal. The Regulation lists specific requirements for filing a Part 16 complaint.

Let me take this a step further....

Skydivers have always been their worst enemy. We have the law on our side but we don't know how to apply it. In most cases we just can't afford it.

In the last week we have lost another advocate and now the number of dropzones is shrinking.

Wake the fuck up people, our sport is under attack and we have to fight back and keep the small dropzones alive.


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 15, 2012, 6:14 AM
Post #15 of 109 (8352 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
In the last week we have lost another advocate

Please tell us more, if you can.


IanHarrop  (C 1152)

Feb 11, 2012, 6:20 AM
Post #16 of 109 (8215 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Airport on chopping block in Creswell

http://www.kval.com/...osure-139066649.html

CRESWELL, Ore.--The City of Creswell is considering closing its airport.

City leaders say the legal battle with Eugene Skydivers over using the airport is just too expensive and may force them to close the Creswell Airport entirely.

This battle goes back to 2006 when the city of Creswell stopped letting the Eugene Skydivers use the airport to land saying it was too dangerous.

Both sides have racked up large legal fees that are threatening both the small business and the future of the Creswell Airport.

“’I’ve sold cars and trucks and motorcycles and the furniture inside the house has been sold," said Urban Moore with Eugene Skydivers.

Moore said that since the city denied his small business permission to land skydivers at Hobby Field in Creswell back in 2006, business has taken a toll.

“We have to sell our house, it’s pretty much empty on the inside,” said Moore.

Moore said the city shouldn't be able to keep his skydiving company from using airport land because the city is obligated to work with airport tenants based on federal grant guidelines.

“Were a part of aviation,” said Moore. “We're a legitimate use of air space and airports and for them to not allow us to jump is a discrimination.”

Creswell City Administrator Mark Shrives says the city is also suffering financially. Facing legal costs of up to $100,000 could make it too expensive to keep the airport open, he said.

That’s forcing the city to ask themselves if the airport is worth it.

“How long do you continue to take funds from the city's general fund to fund the airport?” Shrives asked.

This all stems from the City's concerns about determining if it’s safe to use their airport for skydiving. Both sides want the Federal Aviation Administration to weigh in.

“It’s been really frustrating trying to get some guidance from the FAA," said Shrives.

Now that Eugene Skydiving’s original informal complaint has become a formal complaint the city is looking at their legal cost if they could in fact legally shut the airport under federal rules.

The City of Creswell wants to know if residents think the airport is worth the legal battle before making any initial assessment.

The city is asking for public comment regarding the future of the airport after a special executive session at the Creswell Community Center, Feb. 14, at 6:30 pm.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Feb 11, 2012, 8:16 AM
Post #17 of 109 (8180 views)
Shortcut
Re: [IanHarrop] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Just a question here... who owns the land?


grimmie  (D 18890)

Feb 11, 2012, 8:23 AM
Post #18 of 109 (8171 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

This is posturing by the city. If they have accepted FAA funding, they are obligated to keep the airport open.

Don't try to understand why some airport sponsors restrict access to skydiving and other commercial aeronautical operations. It will make you just shake your head.Crazy

Signed,
Fighting for airport access since March, 2010.


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Feb 11, 2012, 12:14 PM
Post #19 of 109 (8133 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Rich,

Quote:
If they have accepted FAA funding, they are obligated to keep the airport open.

I'm not able to quote line & verse from any FARs regarding this type of thing, but these are my thoughts on this also.

Stay tuned, film at 11.

JerryBaumchen


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 11, 2012, 1:00 PM
Post #20 of 109 (8119 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Hi Rich,

Quote:
If they have accepted FAA funding, they are obligated to keep the airport open.

I'm not able to quote line & verse from any FARs regarding this type of thing, but these are my thoughts on this also.

Stay tuned, film at 11.

JerryBaumchen

Jerry,

It's a contractual obligation, not a FAR,


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 11, 2012, 2:02 PM
Post #21 of 109 (8097 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

It's in chapter 4 of FAA order 5190.6B airport compliance manual.


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Feb 11, 2012, 2:11 PM
Post #22 of 109 (8092 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi strat, and John,

Thanks for the info.

It would seem as though the small town of Creswell, Oregon is digging a deeper & deeper financial hole.

This is the type of thing that can bankrupt a small town.

Too bad in my book, Mad

JerryBaumchen


FastRon

Feb 11, 2012, 2:22 PM
Post #23 of 109 (8089 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

 
<Well put.

As I understand the local scuttlebutt, the City of Creswell really wants to get rid of the airport completely.

JerryBaumchen>

I agree-
In other venues, we've seen the real agenda behind efforts like the City of Creswell- driven by behind-the-scene developer money. Is there already a buyer for the airport property? Is Creswell proactively spending money on the issue? Do cities usually do that unless they anticipate a method to recoup? Cities usually employ people to advise them on 'issues' like that, to make (better?) financial decisions...

I don't know Creswell but airport properties don't reqire a lot of earthwork to prep for buildings and parking for stuff like malls, industrial parks, casinos and racetracks. Don't they all bring more tax revenues to the city, than airports do?
Just saying.


kallend  (D 23151)

Feb 11, 2012, 3:14 PM
Post #24 of 109 (8067 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FastRon] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
<Well put.

As I understand the local scuttlebutt, the City of Creswell really wants to get rid of the airport completely.

JerryBaumchen>

I agree-
In other venues, we've seen the real agenda behind efforts like the City of Creswell- driven by behind-the-scene developer money. Is there already a buyer for the airport property? Is Creswell proactively spending money on the issue? Do cities usually do that unless they anticipate a method to recoup? Cities usually employ people to advise them on 'issues' like that, to make (better?) financial decisions...

I don't know Creswell but airport properties don't reqire a lot of earthwork to prep for buildings and parking for stuff like malls, industrial parks, casinos and racetracks. Don't they all bring more tax revenues to the city, than airports do?
Just saying.

If the city tries to close an airport that has received FAA grant money, then AOPA will undoubtedly get involved.


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 11, 2012, 3:25 PM
Post #25 of 109 (8056 views)
Shortcut
Re: [FastRon] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

The question at hand is when did the city last take federal funds? That is when the clock starts, you can't close the airport if the contractual requirements have not been met under the AIP funding.

from FAA order 5190.6B chapter 2 page13.

Quote:
(1) Grant agreements for development other than land purchase. Pavement and other facilities built to FAA standards are designed to last at least 20 years, and the duration of the obligation should generally be assumed to be 20 years. The duration may be shorter for grants made exclusively for certain equipment, such as a vehicle, that clearly has a useful life shorter than 20 years.

From chapter 4 page two4.3. The Duration of Federal Grant Obligations. Federal obligations relating to the use, operation, and maintenance of the airport remain in effect throughout the useful life of the facilities developed under the project, but not to exceed 20 years. In cases where land was acquired with federal assistance under AIP, the federal land obligations remain in perpetuity.

In cases where land was acquired with FAAP or ADAP grants, FAA should review the language of such grants when it is necessary to determine the status of the sponsor’s obligations since most FAAP land grants and some ADAP grant documents do not impose a perpetual obligation. For
disposal of a specific parcel, the sponsor’s obligation to reinvest the proceeds may depend on the grant history for that particular parcel. (More information about this process is contained in this Order in chapter 22, Releases from Federal Obligations.)

Before concluding that a sponsor’s grant obligations have expired, the FAA should review all land grants at the airport to ensure that no land grant contains a perpetual obligation. All AIP land grants and most surplus property deeds of conveyance include the obligation to operate the airport property as an airport in perpetuity.
Quote:


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 15, 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #26 of 109 (1818 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

This is going to get interesting to watch, the airport is already broke and costing the city.

http://www.registerguard.com/...oblem-moore.html.csp


(This post was edited by stratostar on Feb 15, 2012, 12:36 PM)


mirage62  (C 15580)

Feb 15, 2012, 1:00 PM
Post #27 of 109 (1794 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

sell it to the dz.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 15, 2012, 1:57 PM
Post #28 of 109 (1774 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

They've got some hard-headed folks over there. At least 4 of them anyway. Unfortunately, it's the voting four.


brucet7  (C 38954)

Feb 15, 2012, 5:40 PM
Post #29 of 109 (1737 views)
Shortcut
Re: Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

I have a pilot friend in the area who has proposed the city try to acquire some land adjacent to the airport on which skydivers could land. I don't live near there (though I did jump there three years ago) so I don't really know if it is possible. I think the idea is just too practical to really be pursued. When people decide something is unsafe, there is little you can do to convince them otherwise. And if they have the idea that it is their job to protect skydivers from themselves, then we have real trouble.


SStewart  (D 10405)

Feb 15, 2012, 6:07 PM
Post #30 of 109 (1717 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This is going to get interesting to watch, the airport is already broke and costing the city.

http://www.registerguard.com/...oblem-moore.html.csp

Absolutely unbelievable! They had a strong skydiving business that brought money to the airport and the local community and they shut it down and now they are trying to figure out a way to bring business back to the airport?

Hello! simple solution; Let the jumpers back on the airport, sell them gas and whatever other revenue they bring and continue to get federal funding (free money)

I fucking hate whuffos


mirage62  (C 15580)

Feb 16, 2012, 2:45 AM
Post #31 of 109 (1677 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Seems like it's nothing more than a pissing match. BTW for you people that have jumped there....was the landing area tight or is the idea that skydiving isn't safe??

If they have lost 300K over the years I would assumn that was while the dz was operating.


SStewart  (D 10405)

Feb 16, 2012, 9:43 AM
Post #32 of 109 (1625 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mirage62] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

You would be assuming wrong. The money they have been losing has been since they began their war on skydivers. Mostly from legal fees but also from lost revenue. It has been going on for years now. At one point there were two dropzones on the same airport.

To answer your other point Hobby field is plenty big enough to accommodate skydivers and the other GA use the airport supports. This is a small DZ, not a multi-turbine large operation.
I honestly can't remember what sparked the battle but as I remember someone complained about skydiving and it escalated from there.


Krip  (Student)

Feb 16, 2012, 4:02 PM
Post #33 of 109 (1575 views)
Shortcut
Re: [SStewart] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
You would be assuming wrong. The money they have been losing has been since they began their war on skydivers. Mostly from legal fees but also from lost revenue. It has been going on for years now. At one point there were two dropzones on the same airport.

To answer your other point Hobby field is plenty big enough to accommodate skydivers and the other GA use the airport supports. This is a small DZ, not a multi-turbine large operation.

Lawyers love this BS. They can't afford to work for free.Unsure
I honestly can't remember what sparked the battle but as I remember someone complained about skydiving and it escalated from there.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 16, 2012, 4:47 PM
Post #34 of 109 (1564 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Krip] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

My prediction for who is going to win this battle:
Lawyers!


brucet7  (C 38954)

Feb 16, 2012, 8:48 PM
Post #35 of 109 (1528 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mirage62] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

When I jumped there we landed in a farmer's field about 7 miles from the airport.


Andy9o8  (D License)

Feb 17, 2012, 4:26 AM
Post #36 of 109 (1507 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
My prediction for who is going to win this battle:
Lawyers!

Well, every cloud has a silver lining, thank god.


popsjumper  (D 999999999)

Feb 17, 2012, 5:23 AM
Post #37 of 109 (1493 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Andy9o8] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
My prediction for who is going to win this battle:
Lawyers!

Well, every cloud has a silver lining, thank god.

Every lawyer has a silver cloud.
Attachments: Silver Cloud.jpg (6.43 KB)


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 18, 2012, 7:44 AM
Post #38 of 109 (1408 views)
Shortcut
Re: [popsjumper] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

A couple interesting radio interviews for those who would like to follow this case. One call in to the DZO and one call into the mayor.

http://www.kxl.com/...404&feedID=10628


(This post was edited by stratostar on Feb 18, 2012, 11:23 AM)


SStewart  (D 10405)

Feb 18, 2012, 11:05 AM
Post #39 of 109 (1373 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

A little trivia here; Lars Larson was a Portland news anchor back in the 80's in Portland and he made a tandem jump that was aired on his news show. I was on the load. So over the years he has been sympathetic to the cause of skydivers and airport access in Oregon. Since he made his jump 5 dropzones have been closed in the state.


Skydive2  (D 24800)

Feb 19, 2012, 3:03 PM
Post #40 of 109 (1307 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

wow that mayor is a huge douche!

Quote:
A couple interesting radio interviews for those who would like to follow this case. One call in to the DZO and one call into the mayor.

http://www.kxl.com/...404&feedID=10628


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 19, 2012, 5:04 PM
Post #41 of 109 (1272 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Skydive2] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

The funny thing is that same mayor has done a jump there and landed in the field he is trying so hard to refuse the dz to now use because they (city) say there is no room on airport property to use... Check out Google earth of that airport and see if there is not room.

Also in that interview, he goes on to talk about the DZ not getting insurance for the city in case of a skydiving accident... I guess he and the bright minds at the city have not done any research of late to learn about the latest part 16 in CA that was all about insurance.


jumpsalot-2  (D 33093)

Feb 19, 2012, 5:45 PM
Post #42 of 109 (1255 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The funny thing is that same mayor has done a jump there and landed in the field he is trying so hard to refuse the dz to now use because they (city) say there is no room on airport property to use... Check out Google earth of that airport and see if there is not room.

Also in that interview, he goes on to talk about the DZ not getting insurance for the city in case of a skydiving accident... I guess he and the bright minds at the city have not done any research of late to learn about the latest part 16 in CA that was all about insurance.
In reply to:
Did they charge the Mayor for the Tandem jump, or was it a gift ? Gotta keep the Mayor happy ya know.....


Amazon  (D License)

Feb 19, 2012, 7:08 PM
Post #43 of 109 (1233 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
The funny thing is that same mayor has done a jump there and landed in the field he is trying so hard to refuse the dz to now use because they (city) say there is no room on airport property to use... Check out Google earth of that airport and see if there is not room.

Also in that interview, he goes on to talk about the DZ not getting insurance for the city in case of a skydiving accident... I guess he and the bright minds at the city have not done any research of late to learn about the latest part 16 in CA that was all about insurance.

Ain't it fun dealing with the biggest control freaks in the tiny little pools


grimmie  (D 18890)

Feb 19, 2012, 11:10 PM
Post #44 of 109 (1206 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Amazon] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

noTongue


normiss  (D 28356)

Feb 20, 2012, 5:17 AM
Post #45 of 109 (1184 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpsalot-2] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

unless it's illegal for a politician to accept gifts.....
Wink


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 20, 2012, 5:43 AM
Post #46 of 109 (1172 views)
Shortcut
Re: [jumpsalot-2] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

My impression from the interview was, he made the jump before becoming mayor, so I assume he paid for his jump.


mirage62  (C 15580)

Feb 20, 2012, 6:55 AM
Post #47 of 109 (1152 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I guess he and the bright minds at the city have not done any research of late to learn about the latest part 16 in CA that was all about insurance.

Hey could you share some details or where I might look at these details? I have always been interested in this twist and if there has been a ruling about this angle I'd really like to read about it.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 20, 2012, 7:17 AM
Post #48 of 109 (1143 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
This is going to get interesting to watch, the airport is already broke and costing the city

Without really looking into this beyond this thread, I can't see why the city is trying to run the DZ off the airport.

Sometimes you see complaints from the neighbors, but more times than not, there's expansion plans for the airport, and the city is eyeballling it as a cash-cow, and can't see a DZ co-existing with a 'flood' of biz-jet traffic and high-dollar avaition businesses. The solution, in their eyes, is to run off the DZ and then it's onwards and upwards for the airport and the city.

In this case, however, I can't see the angle. If sounds like the guy was doing a brisk business, and we all know what that brings to a city - money. Taxes on all the money spent at the DZ, taxes on the money spent by the DZ (fuel), and taxes on the money spent around the DZ by jumpers/customers (food, beer, gas etc). With that in mind, and the almost certainty of a legal battle stemming from trying to give the DZ the boot, why would they even try?

Without knowing how far this was going to go, the city could have easliy required that they (or the state DOT) be included into the DZ waiver as the land owner of the LZ. If they had a hint of how far it was going to go, they could have left the DZ alone, and banked the $300k in an investent account and had it as a legal defense fund in the case they were sued.

None of it explains why the city is tyring to put the squeeze on a succesful, tax paying business.


grimmie  (D 18890)

Feb 20, 2012, 7:55 AM
Post #49 of 109 (1115 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

A shopping mall doesn't make noise.


davelepka  (D 21448)

Feb 20, 2012, 8:19 AM
Post #50 of 109 (1109 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
A shopping mall doesn't make noise

Not like an airplane, that's for sure.

I did see it mentioned that a motive could be land developers, but it seems like there's a lot of pieces that would have to fall into place for that to be the reality.

For example, this fight has been going on since 2006 (I think), and six years is a long time for a developer to be 'standing by' with a confirmed deal. I can't see any city shutting down an airport (or any other property) because a developer 'might' want to build something, there would have to be plans written up and financing deals in place before a city would go to that length. Truth is, the city itself would have to be involved in the planning, as the developer would be looking to them for tax breaks and infrastructure support, so the whole business would have been on the public record before either party was willing to commit to anything.

Let's also keep in mind the turnover of city government. If it's been six years on-going with the DZ, and then the time it takes to close the airport, build the mall, and for the city to see a return, it's going to be several administrations down the road, so you can pretty much shit-can the idea of a 'behind the scenes' deal with payoffs and the like.

None of this is mentioning the FAA, and the problems they're going to have with them. Again, the scope and time-line of getting a federally funded airport closed just doesn't match up with the idea that a land developer is behind this situation.

If this was simpler matter, like a vote at a city coucil meeting, where a couple of yays or nays in one direction or the other could seal the deal, I would buy the land developer angle. It that's all it took, and the DZ and airport were closed within 90 or 180 days, then you might have something, but a 6+ year battle with the DZ, all before getting into the ring with the FAA just seems like a long shot for developer (especailly in this economy).


(This post was edited by davelepka on Feb 20, 2012, 8:21 AM)


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 20, 2012, 8:34 AM
Post #51 of 109 (2265 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mirage62] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.uspa.org/...bid/547/Default.aspx

case files: http://part16.airports.faa.gov/pdf/16-09-09b.pdf


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 20, 2012, 8:48 AM
Post #52 of 109 (2263 views)
Shortcut
Re: [davelepka] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

fact 1. Been going on for 8 years.
2. two dz's were on the airport, one closed when this started.

3. the city only started this closing the airport crap when the lawyer they hired told them it was a choice, and it would cost a 100K to fight the part 16 Mr. Moore filed.

4. FAA ruled skydivers could safely land on the airport, city hired more then one consultant to say other wise and has refused to comply with the FAA's findings.

5. A part 13 informal complaint is open ended and can drag on for years, there is no time frame for the FAA to act, however in a part 16 there is a required time frame the FAA has to take action.

http://www.faa.gov/...mpliance/complaints/
Quote:
The FAA accepts formal complaints in writing under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 16 (Part 16), Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement Proceedings. Parties filing under Part 16 must be substantially affected by the alleged noncompliance. FAA headquarters staff looks into these complaints.

Part 16 imposes strict deadlines for filing, adjudication, and appeal. The Regulation lists specific requirements for filing a Part 16 complaint.

In short there is no mall waiting in the wings.


mirage62  (C 15580)

Feb 20, 2012, 11:55 AM
Post #53 of 109 (2239 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Stratostar - Thank you for the links, having read them both fast I have a question perhaps you can answer or some one else.

In "Finding and conclusions" (VI) first paragraph it seems says that the city was wrong because insurance wasn't avaliable

But in the second it seems to say that the city has a right to have the skydiving center pay them for not being able to get insurance....

(it won't let me copy and paste)

Wouldnt that just be used like the insurance demands...just make it to high and in effect you are in compliance?


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 20, 2012, 12:23 PM
Post #54 of 109 (2225 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mirage62] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Reading all that bullshit will make your head hurt. All that really matters is what page 36 says in directors determ.

I'm not an expert on saying what the FAA has to say, if your not clear on what the 36 pages really say, you could try asking the FAA or Randy Ottinger because he can help you to understand it way better then I can, just remember Randy is busy keeping us in the air and the FAA on our side, so please don't waste his time on trivial matters.

Quote:
Wouldn't that just be used like the insurance demands...just make it to high and in effect you are in compliance?

No, that is in effect what the airport sponsor tried to do and what others have done in the past. You can't require me get something I can't get.


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Feb 20, 2012, 2:40 PM
Post #55 of 109 (2205 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi strato,

I do not know the factual details; mostly what a good friend/jumper who livers near there has told me over the years.

I have known Urban for 25+ years and consider him a good person.

What I 'understood' was the first problem was that some of the 'older' pilots ( who like to laze around in the sky with their airplanes ) complained because they were using 3 miles or so for their final. The jumpship cut in front of them for landing and it spooked them. So off to the city to complain.

The other dz that closed was due to his loss of his Caravan ( I think it was a Caravan ). That, along with some other issues, was his death knell.

When the city began to raise H*** with Urban he dug in and gave them the line & verse regarding FAA & access.

Small town politics then kicked in & this is where it is at.

IMO anyone who makes a substantial amount of their income from anything that is regulated by the federal gov't should be contributing to re-election campaigns of both your two US Senators & your local Congressman/woman. Those are the folks who can actually make the FAA move forward when they really want to just drag their feet.

Again, I am not a party to this battle.

JerryBaumchen


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 20, 2012, 2:57 PM
Post #56 of 109 (2197 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

I hear, you I can only speak of news stories and any info from people like you who Urban or another local. And I can understand a lot of the past cases due in thanks to the ongoing education from USPA's Mr. Ottinger. or those in the FAA I have personally had contact with in regards to my own part 13 case. That is what I base my comments on, I don't always get it right, but do my best to keep it factual.

And as you know dealing with the politics or FAA can make your head hurt.

Standard disclaimer:
(I'm not speaking for USPA, the FAA or any other person in the industry, I'm posting my own personal thoughts on the matter. I could be wrong, get your own facts, no one appointed me the guru of airport access issues!)


(This post was edited by stratostar on Feb 20, 2012, 2:59 PM)


mirage62  (C 15580)

Feb 21, 2012, 8:50 AM
Post #57 of 109 (2138 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Strato....

I wish someone with knowledge would look at the second paragraph (bullet) page 36.

I would guess that if they charged to much that could be excluding but the devil in the details. They could look at a renter on the airport that has the highest insurance cost and use that.....

My only point was to question this paragraph.... it looks like a win for our side but not some clear cut victory.

For the record I wasn't planning on wasting anyones time (Randy Ottinger) just perhaps people that hang out here wasting there on time... Tongue

Thanks, good luck with whatever your fight is.


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 21, 2012, 11:36 AM
Post #58 of 109 (2113 views)
Shortcut
Re: [mirage62] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
I wish someone with knowledge would look at the second paragraph (bullet) page 36.

Page 36 bullet two says:

Quote:
The city's requirement that Skydive Sacramento compensate the city for Skydive Sacramento's lack of required insurance is not unjustly discriminatory because Skydive Sacramento is not similarly situated to other aeronautical service providers at LHM; and therefore, the City is not in violation of grant assurance 22 nor the City's obligations contained in the surplus property quitclaim deed with regard to unjust economic discrimination.

To the best of my understanding the answer your seeking is on page 29, it states:

Quote:

Skydive Sacramento points to no LHM leaseholder that cannot or dose not provide liability insurance for its main operation. In fact, the record evidence shows that other tenants at LHM provide insurance coverage that meets the City's general requirements, all of which are above that which Skydive Sacramento offers and are similar to the Cit's requirement on Skydive Sacramento . Skydive Sacramento admits, and argues forcefully, that it cannot meet these requirements, making Skydive Sacramento dissimilar. Consequently, since Skydive Sacramento is not similarly situated to any other party that must provide proof of insurance to the City, Skydive Sacramento's allegation of unjust economic is inapt and unpersuasive.

The director found, above, that it is unreasonable to require unattainable insurance. However, here, we state that the admittedly different treatment of Skydiving versus other aeronautical activities with regard to insurance in not inequitable, because the difference in class is clear: those activities that are insurable and those that are uninsurable. Just because the application of a requirement is not discriminatory, dose not mean it is not unreasonable. To be clear, requiring unattainable insurance is unreasonable because it dose not exist, but it is not unjustly discriminatory to treat aeronautical activities dissimilarly.


So all that it says (page 26 bullet 2) is, it is not a violation of grant assurance 22 economic discrimination. The rest of it spells it out as to how and why the FAA sided with Skydive Sacramento & skydiving.


(This post was edited by stratostar on Feb 21, 2012, 11:43 AM)


stratostar  (Student)

Mar 19, 2012, 6:33 AM
Post #59 of 109 (2004 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

The Mayor is a moron. City counsel member AJ O’Connell is one of the good guys, but is out numbered by the morons on the counsel.

http://www.registerguard.com/...swell-hicks.html.csp


Ronn

Jun 21, 2012, 9:44 PM
Post #60 of 109 (1874 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Eugene Skydivers has issued a press release on this matter.

Eugene Skydivers files FAA part 16 complaint against City of Creswell and Airport

http://www.eugeneskydivers.com/news-and-media.html


stratostar  (Student)

Jun 22, 2012, 5:41 AM
Post #61 of 109 (1859 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronn] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.eugeneskydivers.com/news-and-media.html


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Jun 22, 2012, 8:57 PM
Post #62 of 109 (1796 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi strat,

I sure hope that USPA is supporting this 100+ %.

Good for Urban,

JerryBaumchen


stratostar  (Student)

Jun 22, 2012, 9:33 PM
Post #63 of 109 (1789 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

I can't speak for USPA. I can tell you that in my personal contacts with Mr. Ottinger on my own case, it is clear to me, they are well advised of ALL access cases in the USA. I know they, or mostly Mr. Ottinger has been helping or advising Urban, the same as they/he would do for any member in good standing. I'm sure if you call Urban he will have a lot of good things to say about that office in HQ.

One thing I would like to make clear here. A lot of people totally fail to know and understand how the AAD fund works and they automatic think the USPA start handing out money to defend an operator or to help win access to an airport. That is not how it works.

But I would think it's safe to say, USPA is supporting this 100%.


Ronn

Jun 27, 2012, 1:55 PM
Post #64 of 109 (1700 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

There is another discussion that's going on that seems to gotten positive results.
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4335249;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Jun 27, 2012, 5:01 PM
Post #65 of 109 (1673 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronn] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
There is another discussion that's going on that seems to gotten positive results.
http://www.dropzone.com/...;;page=unread#unread


(This post was edited by skyjumpenfool on Jun 27, 2012, 5:03 PM)


Ronn

Jun 30, 2012, 11:39 PM
Post #66 of 109 (1618 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the repost. How to I get the link to be active? I've tried several times and failed miserably.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Jul 1, 2012, 7:42 PM
Post #67 of 109 (1567 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronn] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Smile


(This post was edited by skyjumpenfool on Jul 1, 2012, 7:43 PM)
Attachments: Links.gif (38.3 KB)


Ronn

Jul 31, 2012, 10:16 AM
Post #68 of 109 (1460 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Thank you.
By the way Eugene Skydivers is flying up-jumpers now at there interim landing site.


Ronn

Aug 20, 2012, 10:55 AM
Post #69 of 109 (1329 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronn] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
Thank you.
By the way Eugene Skydivers is flying up-jumpers now at there interim landing site.

Here is the latest news release from Eugene Skydivers.

http://www.eugeneskydivers.com/...lease-08-20-2012.pdf


stratostar  (Student)

Aug 23, 2012, 12:42 PM
Post #70 of 109 (1239 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronn] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks for the update, hope you all been writing the feds about the PLA request comments.


stratostar  (Student)

Sep 13, 2012, 7:15 AM
Post #71 of 109 (1167 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Skydiving company sues Creswell over ban

http://www.bendbulletin.com/.../NEWS0107/209130352/


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Sep 13, 2012, 1:30 PM
Post #72 of 109 (1124 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Strato,

They brought it onto themselves.

It was only a matter of time.

Payback can be a b****.

JerryBaumchen

PS) I doubt it will ever see the inside of a courtroom.

"Now just how much would you take to settle this now?"


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Sep 13, 2012, 6:41 PM
Post #73 of 109 (1088 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
PS) I doubt it will ever see the inside of a courtroom.

"Now just how much would you take to settle this now?"

Um.... looks like $700K. Smile


stratostar  (Student)

Oct 4, 2012, 6:12 AM
Post #74 of 109 (1009 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.thecreswellchronicle.com/...y.cfm?story_no=10698

Quote:
A special meeting to hear public input regarding the city's handling of the pending lawsuit against the city filed by Eugene Skydivers, LLC will not be held after one of the city councilors requesting the meeting withdrew his support.

Three Creswell city councilors, A.J. O'Connell, Jane Vincent and Jacob Daniels, had jointly submitted a letter to City Administrator Mark Shrives invoking Resolution 2011-19, Council Rule 3.3 to convene a special meeting.

The letter's stated purpose for the meeting was "to receive Public Comment on the City of Creswell's course-of-action regarding the civil lawsuit filed by Eugene Skydivers LLC and to have a subsequent Council discussion on the comments received."

After several days of consideration and conversations with residents, Councilor Daniels decided to withdraw his support for convening the special meeting.

"I decided to withdraw my request for a special meeting because there is no sense in taking public input regarding settlement of the Eugene Skydivers lawsuit until after a new council and mayor are elected in November," Daniels said.

He continued, "At this point there are only three councilors who support skydiving at the airport – Councilor O'Connell, (Councilor) Vincent, and myself – and thus forcing a decision at this time would be pointless."

Councilor O'Connell said, "It's disappointing that the City Council is going to the lawyers first. It's become the M.O. of the current administration to go to the lawyers before listening to the public."

Of Councilor Daniels' change of heart, Councilor O'Connell was understanding: "I respectfully disagree, but he's following his principles."

O'Connell summed up his feelings by saying, "I feel that we need to listen to the public."


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Oct 4, 2012, 11:36 AM
Post #75 of 109 (961 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi strat,

Thanks for the update.

Re: "I decided to withdraw my request for a special meeting because there is no sense in taking public input regarding settlement of the Eugene Skydivers lawsuit until after a new council and mayor are elected in November," Daniels said.

Stay tuned, film at 11:00.

JerryBaumchen


stratostar  (Student)

Nov 15, 2012, 6:30 AM
Post #76 of 109 (2460 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.thecreswellchronicle.com/...y.cfm?story_no=10806

Safe to assume the extenuation of the time delay is due to the new & pending PLA standards to be issued in AC 150/5300-13. CrazyPirate


stratostar  (Student)

Jan 29, 2013, 12:45 PM
Post #77 of 109 (2363 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
http://www.thecreswellchronicle.com/...y.cfm?story_no=10806

Safe to assume the extenuation of the time delay is due to the new & pending PLA standards to be issued in AC 150/5300-13. CrazyPirate

Headline read to the story linked above: FAA postpones skydiving decision until Feb. 2013

Yep.... going out on a limb here and I'm going to state on the record what I think is about to happen. But before do that.... Let me go on the record for the "posting police" and state once again that:

Quote:
(I'm not speaking for USPA, the FAA or any other person in the industry, I'm posting my personal thoughts on the matter. I could be wrong, no one appointed me the guru of airport access issues!)

This PLA will be issued in February of 2013, yep next month! That is as long as the legal dept @ FAA signs off on the drafted addendum to AC 5300-13. That would clear the way for this to become factual and the new standards..... Why would I think such is pending?

1. I have a open part 13 case and I have regular contact with the FAA in regards to my case... ( I hold their feet to the fire) 2. Because of my pending case, I have become rather studied in the rules, law, and pending changes and how those changes could help or hurt my case. Now, why did I link the news story above? As I understand it, when you file a part 16 formal complaint the FAA is required under law to process the case in a timely manner, I recall reading 120 days. The whole Creswell fight is over the landing area, same as in a number of other pending cases that are all hold up on this PLA bullshit.

Based on my research and communication about my case, I strongly believe that we will see that PLA draft come out of FAA legal in the next month, provided they don't mandate changes to what ever they are getting ready to send our way.... the drafted document that is currently under review. And let's not forget that the public comments were closed a long time ago.

As long as no changes are needed, we will see that come out.... NEXT month.... also leading me to believe such is true, is the extension on the part 16 in Creswell Oregon linked above. Now if we see another story come out about another extending of the Creswell case, then it's safe to think they are still working it or they wouldn't be seeking to extend the time. They will not rule on that case or any case till this PLA crap is issued.

Hope you all get UR seat belts on the ride is about to get bumpy!


(This post was edited by stratostar on Jan 29, 2013, 1:41 PM)


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 6, 2013, 6:20 AM
Post #78 of 109 (2241 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

This video of the former mayor running his mouth is to classic to not have on this thread. Now you see the stupidity in action and this will help explain why access fights take so long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvYyQ5hQTS0


normiss  (D 28356)

Feb 6, 2013, 6:42 AM
Post #79 of 109 (2230 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Sounds like they don't want their grant monies.
Crazy


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 6, 2013, 6:45 AM
Post #80 of 109 (2227 views)
Shortcut
Re: [normiss] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

It's an older video from a few yrs back, but now you can clearly see the morons at the helm in action.... yea they voted to spend 100K to hire a lawyer to tell the FAA to fuck off. Now the pending PLA shit is about to rock their world. At least there is a new mayor in town now and he is pro small business and skydiving.


Xitesmai  (Student)

Feb 6, 2013, 7:47 AM
Post #81 of 109 (2203 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

It seems strange that the city would spend over $125,000 to fight this, rather than issue a temporary use permit for the former ODOT land, than they have been using from 1999 to 2006.

Definitely another agenda going on here.

Hopefully a decision will be made soon, and access rights will be stronger for DZs across the country.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Feb 6, 2013, 1:33 PM
Post #82 of 109 (2145 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
This video of the former mayor running his mouth is to classic to not have on this thread. Now you see the stupidity in action and this will help explain why access fights take so long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvYyQ5hQTS0

Mayor Hooker... "The FAA does not control, opperate or mannage the airport, the city does!"
Did he really say that? Cool This guy should have stuck to the "family" business.


Iago  (D License)

Feb 6, 2013, 4:43 PM
Post #83 of 109 (2083 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
It's an older video from a few yrs back, but now you can clearly see the morons at the helm in action.... yea they voted to spend 100K to hire a lawyer to tell the FAA to fuck off. Now the pending PLA shit is about to rock their world. At least there is a new mayor in town now and he is pro small business and skydiving.

Here's another one from a year ago. Not skydiving related but the former mayor definitely comes off as a bully by blackballing one of the council members off all the city committees.

http://www.youtube.comwatch?v=BJaeS0q5iFw


theonlyski  (D License)

Feb 6, 2013, 6:33 PM
Post #84 of 109 (2051 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Iago] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
It's an older video from a few yrs back, but now you can clearly see the morons at the helm in action.... yea they voted to spend 100K to hire a lawyer to tell the FAA to fuck off. Now the pending PLA shit is about to rock their world. At least there is a new mayor in town now and he is pro small business and skydiving.

Here's another one from a year ago. Not skydiving related but the former mayor definitely comes off as a bully by blackballing one of the council members off all the city committees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJaeS0q5iFw

Clicky fixed.


grimmie  (D 18890)

Feb 6, 2013, 7:18 PM
Post #85 of 109 (2038 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
This video of the former mayor running his mouth is to classic to not have on this thread. Now you see the stupidity in action and this will help explain why access fights take so long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvYyQ5hQTS0

Mayor Hooker... "The FAA does not control, opperate or mannage the airport, the city does!"
Did he really say that? Cool This guy should have stuck to the "family" business.

He's mostly correct. The FAA allows sponsors to operate, manage and control their airport however they want as long as they follow the Airport Compliance Manual. The FAA also does not act on issues until a Part 13 is started. That is an informal process. A Part 16 then becomes the real deal and subjective to the ADO's interpretation. Thus, we as skydivers face long odds at some airports for access because of the system. A Part 16 hearing can cost $20,000 or more for the DZO. A sponsor can find many ways to try and keep us off the airport that was made for public use. Guys like the mayor exist in a lot of places.Mad


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 6, 2013, 9:15 PM
Post #86 of 109 (2014 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Quote:
Thus, we as skydivers face long odds at some airports for access because of the system. A Part 16 hearing can cost $20,000 or more for the DZO. A sponsor can find many ways to try and keep us off the airport that was made for public use. Guys like the mayor exist in a lot of places.Mad

Oh but did you not get the memo...... the PLA standards are going to solve all these problems.Laugh


(This post was edited by stratostar on Feb 6, 2013, 9:16 PM)


stratostar  (Student)

Aug 17, 2013, 7:14 AM
Post #87 of 109 (1803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

This case is damn near 9 yrs old! Many of you have not clue what all is involved with an airport access fight. This win is huge for the area and for skydiving as a whole. Please now go out and support that dz and make some skydives! And while you are in town, be sure to fill up the gas tank, buy some food and no matter what, make sure you let the business folks know that is skydiver money being spent there.

Carry on....

http://lanetoday.com/...th-eugene-skydivers/


(This post was edited by stratostar on Aug 17, 2013, 7:14 AM)


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Aug 17, 2013, 11:33 AM
Post #88 of 109 (1719 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi strat,

Thanks for the update. Glad to see some common sense getting into the discussion.

I would not have settled for $50k.

JerryBaumchen


wolfriverjoe  (A 50013)

Aug 17, 2013, 12:53 PM
Post #89 of 109 (1673 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

The one thing that is a shame is that the taxpayers will foot the bill.
I wish there was a way that the idiots who were responsible for causing the issue could be somehow held responsible for the outcome (financially).

But that won't happen.

It's good to see it turn out this way. I know that it doesn't always.


BigMikeH77  (B 39490)

Aug 17, 2013, 1:00 PM
Post #90 of 109 (1671 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

I do recall reading the part 16 complaint and thinking "Gee, those guys are getting screwed".. I'm REALLY happy to hear they will (presumably) start up again soon. I'd love to see the pacific northwest!


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Aug 17, 2013, 1:21 PM
Post #91 of 109 (1648 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi strat,

One additional thought.

Quote:
This win is huge for the area and for skydiving as a whole.

Actually, I do not agree. It was a settlement not a judicial determination. It cannot be used in court as a prior ruling.

But yes, it is a win for the area.

JerryBaumchen


grimmie  (D 18890)

Aug 17, 2013, 1:29 PM
Post #92 of 109 (1640 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Something doesn't smell right with that article.
Where was the DZO interview after the meeting?
No mention of the pending FAA Part 16?
And what is up with the county requiring some sort of permitting process?
I doubt that a $50K settlement would legal fees the DZO has incurred.
I would like to hear from the DZO what is really going on.

I don't think we have heard the end of this. IMHO


stratostar  (Student)

Aug 17, 2013, 5:28 PM
Post #93 of 109 (1555 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree 100%! However I think it is a major step in the right direction. This story just says the city agreed to settle the law suit the dzo filed for 750K. There is no word on the part 16, that was an open and pending case. I too would like to see a FAA ruling. All that a side, Mr. A.J. O'Connell & I have talked, he emailed back when I sent comments into the city counsel via the city website, right after they voted to hire a lawyer out of Denver Co. A.J. was the only one who voted no and he was the only smart one, he got pissed off about the wasteful spending fighting this and went to work. He asked a lot of questions about airport access fights across the USA, he is on the skydivers side here and he fully understood the city was not in compliance and acting retarded wasting thousands of tax payer monies. So I still think it a major win over all and it's still case that in the end still proves airport sponsors will be in the end held to the grant funding contracts they sign. Other wise there would have been no pressure to settle. Additional newly elected city counsel members were informed as to the real truth, is my understanding and they then voted wisely.

Let us not forget the PLA is still pending, but I hear it has gone back to the legal dept but is still a pending issue
"soon" to show up. (soon) define FAA's version of "soon".


(This post was edited by stratostar on Aug 17, 2013, 5:32 PM)


stratostar  (Student)

Aug 18, 2013, 7:47 AM
Post #94 of 109 (1445 views)
Shortcut
Re: [grimmie] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

This might help to clear up some questions as to where all this came from.... and help provide more info.

http://www.registerguard.com/...ion-council.html.csp

http://www.registerguard.com/...uncil-cross.html.csp


Ronn

Aug 27, 2013, 11:43 AM
Post #95 of 109 (1254 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Update to the Eugene Skydivers airport access fight.


(This post was edited by Ronn on Aug 27, 2013, 11:44 AM)
Attachments: Eugene Skydiver Press Release-5.pdf (89.6 KB)


JerryBaumchen  (D 1543)

Sep 10, 2013, 10:55 AM
Post #96 of 109 (1102 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi strat,

I saw this in today's newspaper:

http://www.heraldnet.com/...dispute-nears-accord

The one thing that is simply not true is this:

"The airfield is one of Oregon's busiest general aviation airports."

Aviation was nearly dead at Creswell until the skydivers arrived.

JerryBaumchen


gorillaparks

Dec 24, 2013, 8:06 AM
Post #97 of 109 (894 views)
Shortcut
Re: [JerryBaumchen] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

So, it looks like there is jumping here! I am a fun jumper recently moved to Eugene. What is the best way to get loads together? Do you guys coordinate to get the plane up? I'd like to make some jumps asap:)


SEREJumper  (D 29555)

Dec 24, 2013, 12:12 PM
Post #98 of 109 (827 views)
Shortcut
Re: [gorillaparks] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

How about call them?

http://eugeneskydivers.com/


ChrisD  (No License)

Feb 3, 2014, 9:48 AM
Post #99 of 109 (628 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

And todays (2/3/14) response about mediation is:

http://www.mediation.com/...creswell-oregon.aspx

If you don't want to click here is the jist of it:

"Mediation Over Skydiving Hits Snags in Creswell Oregon
Monday, February, 3, 2014
In Creswell Oregon, there has been a long running dispute over whether Eugene Skydivers should be able to skydive near Hobby Field. Originally, the skydiving club's owner, Urban Moore, had filed a complaint against the city with the Federal Aviation Administration. On suggestion from an anonymous email, Moore decided to pursue mediation with the city.
The City Council Balks at Civil Mediation
Due to the complaint with the FAA, Creswell's City Council is not agreeing to enter mediation with Mr. Moore. The basic argument is that they are too busy preparing for the litigation to concern themselves with mediation. If Mr. Moore drops the complaint with the FAA, they would agree to the civil mediation.
Moore has yet to agree to drop the complaint. From his perspective, the city council should be able to handle both litigation and mediation, and compares it to “walking and chewing gum.” Moore said that he would agree to drop the complaint if some kind of compromise is worked out. This dispute has been deadlocked this way for the past 6 years.
Trust Is the Issue in This Government Mediation
The primary snag in this mediation is that neither party is truly acting in good faith. Neither side trusts the other, and the process of entering mediation itself needs to be mediated. This dispute has already been plagued by complaints, responses, counter responses and lawsuits.
Of course, distrust is often an issue with mediation, and it isn't even necessary that the parties act fully in good faith. However, to get to a resolution, there has to be an olive branch somewhere. Already, some of the Council members are pushing for agreeing to the mediation, arguing that it would save the city from spending the $100,000 allotted for the litigation."


The thing is this is over 3 years old, but the way the opposition has the web site set up it list's this as "new" news. This to me speaks volumes about the people opposing the access and how they operate. Old news really, but create a little derision and public sympathy by implying that both sides won't come to the table???
Is this a shitty technique or am I missing something again?

C

(On another note can someone tell me who Amy Aul is???)


(This post was edited by ChrisD on Feb 3, 2014, 10:13 AM)


BigMikeH77  (B 39490)

Feb 3, 2014, 11:07 AM
Post #100 of 109 (578 views)
Shortcut
Re: [ChrisD] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

It's clear that the city of Creswell wants off the hook - and that is understandable because IIRC there have already been Part 16 proceedings that favoured Eugene Skydivers.

Last I heard there was speculation of an unknown settlement (although it was estimated at the relatively small amount of $50,000) that Creswell would pay to Eugene Skydivers to cover lost revenues, legal expenses, etc., and that settlement amount was clearly lower than what E.S. could have sought.

Alas, it seems as though this is not the case now. Creswell won't come to the mediation table with any sort of active litigation in progress. That, IMO, is the only thing that fails to display good faith. Eugene Skydivers shouldn't be expected to withdraw their complaint just for the opportunity to negotiate with a city that obviously doesn't want to negotiate.

Creswell economically discriminated against the dropzone. Now it's simply an issue of getting them to eat lima beans. The longer they drag this out the worse it will taste.

All this from the outside looking in though... Just my opinion.


ChrisD  (No License)

Feb 5, 2014, 6:49 AM
Post #101 of 109 (944 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BigMikeH77] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

BigMikeH77 wrote:
It's clear that the city of Creswell wants off the hook - and that is understandable because IIRC there have already been Part 16 proceedings that favoured Eugene Skydivers.

Last I heard there was speculation of an unknown settlement (although it was estimated at the relatively small amount of $50,000) that Creswell would pay to Eugene Skydivers to cover lost revenues, legal expenses, etc., and that settlement amount was clearly lower than what E.S. could have sought.

Alas, it seems as though this is not the case now. Creswell won't come to the mediation table with any sort of active litigation in progress. That, IMO, is the only thing that fails to display good faith. Eugene Skydivers shouldn't be expected to withdraw their complaint just for the opportunity to negotiate with a city that obviously doesn't want to negotiate.

Creswell economically discriminated against the dropzone. Now it's simply an issue of getting them to eat lima beans. The longer they drag this out the worse it will taste.

All this from the outside looking in though... Just my opinion.

Thanks Big Mike!

I was also trying to draw some attention to this purportedly unbiased computer mediation site, that if you carefully read it,...

It clearly takes a stand against Eugene skydivers. In addition to the fact that the way the site works in search engines it's designed to come up as fresh daily news. To me someone is funding this sophisticated smear tactic and whilst at the same time trying very hard to appear fair. This sucks and is at the heart of the treachery this "board" of supervisors has demonstrated time and time again. At the very heart of this are a few individuals that are very opinionated, and most likely operate their own GA aircraft, the real shame is that in order to advance their own agenda they have no moral compulsion against using public funds to advance their own agenda and their own personal wish's. Creswell isn't the kind of community that I would want to consider moving to, one only wonders how much other forms of bigotry and discrimination exist there with such a close minded sense of misguided leadership??? I don't believe that this is the wish of the "City of Creswell," the citizens are being kept in the dark by the use of their very own hard won tax dollars by a few that are used to getting their way.
C


Ronn

Feb 12, 2014, 9:17 PM
Post #102 of 109 (830 views)
Shortcut
Re: [BigMikeH77] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Hey all!
EUGENE SKYDIVERS REGAINS RIGHT TO LAND AT CRESWELL AIRPORT
Attachments: image.jpg (137 KB)
  image.jpg (97.2 KB)


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 12, 2014, 9:58 PM
Post #103 of 109 (821 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronn] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

congrats, great news.


Boogers

Feb 13, 2014, 10:29 AM
Post #104 of 109 (713 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronn] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Woohoo! This "ADF" Airport Defense Fund he refers to, is that the USPA "AAD" Airport Access Defense fund?


(This post was edited by Boogers on Feb 13, 2014, 10:29 AM)


stratostar  (Student)

Feb 13, 2014, 10:32 AM
Post #105 of 109 (707 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

yes


Ronn

Feb 13, 2014, 11:46 AM
Post #106 of 109 (682 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Boogers] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

yes
In reply to:


Boogers

Feb 13, 2014, 1:46 PM
Post #107 of 109 (645 views)
Shortcut
Re: [stratostar] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Thanks, I was wondering if it was the same thing, or if there was some other fund out there which I had not heard of before.


skyjumpenfool  (Student)

Feb 15, 2014, 2:42 PM
Post #108 of 109 (540 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ronn] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Ronn wrote:
Hey all!
EUGENE SKYDIVERS REGAINS RIGHT TO LAND AT CRESWELL AIRPORT

Hey Gibby... are you paying attention? You're next!!!! Tongue

Congratulations for all that were involved in this victory! It's a victory for the skydiving community and we thank you for your hard work. You are fighting the good fight! Cool


(This post was edited by skyjumpenfool on Feb 15, 2014, 2:44 PM)


Ronn

Feb 18, 2014, 6:36 PM
Post #109 of 109 (400 views)
Shortcut
Re: [skyjumpenfool] Eugene Skydivers- Airport Access Fight [In reply to] Can't Post

Here is the updated NR that correctly IDs the defense fund.
Attachments: Eugene Skydiver Press Release-6.pdf (86.1 KB)



Forums : Skydiving : General Skydiving Discussions

 


Search for (options)