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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
I wish someone with knowledge would look at the second paragraph (bullet) page 36.
Page 36 bullet two says:
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:
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)
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%.
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
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."
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.