Socrates 0 #1526 October 3, 2015 And now the airport noise issue is happening in Chicago (non-skydiving related): http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/bensenville-residents-sue-city-claim-ohare-noise-makes-homes-unlivable/ And I gotta admit, since these homeowners were there before the new runway was added, I actually kind of agree with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #1527 October 4, 2015 Socrates And I gotta admit, since these homeowners were there before the new runway was added, I actually kind of agree with them. Agreed! However, Kimmie does not have that argument to fall back on. As I'm watching The Vike's play the Bronco's, Fox just showed POV video of the skydivers jumping into the stadium today. Take that CFQS!Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #1528 October 5, 2015 Kimmers doesn't have that argument anyway. She doesn't live anywhere near an airport. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #1529 October 5, 2015 Doesn't the release they sign when buying their house state that the airport close by may grow in the future? If I bought a place near Logan in Boston I'd understand that another runway may be built closer to me in the future. Of course that would effect my decision in a positive way, but I just like airplane noise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #1530 November 19, 2015 This subject has been quiet for a while. Anything churning out there in "the continuing saga?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #1531 November 19, 2015 "Quiet". Ha, Ha, good one! lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #1532 November 20, 2015 Quote "Quiet". Ha, Ha, good one! Well...i thought it was an honest question. Did I miss the nuance here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #1533 November 20, 2015 Boomerdog This subject has been quiet for a while. Anything churning out there in "the continuing saga?" You said quietDo not stir the ruler of Winkie Country lest ye be sued. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #1534 November 20, 2015 Boomerdog Quote "Quiet". Ha, Ha, good one! Well...i thought it was an honest question. Did I miss the nuance here? Apparently you did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpdude 0 #1535 November 20, 2015 This was the latest email from the Kimmie Propaganda dept! __________________________________________________________________________________________ Friends, We met with Congressman Polis this week and had a very productive dialogue. We are pleased to report that he expressed enthusiastic support for our efforts, and he offered a commitment to introducing viable solutions as part of the FAA Reauthorization. Congressman Polis commented specifically on the large number of Boulder County residents who contacted him in support of Quiet Skies' efforts to adopt reasonable regulations to address our local noise problem. Many thanks to everyone who contacted Congressman Polis! We will keep you posted as the FAA Reauthorization moves forward Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trafficdiver 8 #1536 November 21, 2015 Jumpdude This was the latest email from the Kimmie Propaganda dept! __________________________________________________________________________________________ Friends, We met with Congressman Polis this week and had a very productive dialogue. We are pleased to report that he expressed enthusiastic support for our efforts, and he offered a commitment to introducing viable solutions as part of the FAA Reauthorization. Congressman Polis commented specifically on the large number of Boulder County residents who contacted him in support of Quiet Skies' efforts to adopt reasonable regulations to address our local noise problem. Many thanks to everyone who contacted Congressman Polis! We will keep you posted as the FAA Reauthorization moves forward Kim is the real life version of Joe Izuzu. Anyone remember the old Izuzu commercial with Joe Izuzu? The one where after every claim he made there was a red sign that came up on the bottom of the screen saying "he's lying." That's Kim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,380 #1537 November 21, 2015 Trafficdiver Kim is the real life version of Joe Izuzu. Anyone remember the old Izuzu commercial with Joe Izuzu? The one where after every claim he made there was a red sign that came up on the bottom of the screen saying "he's lying." That's Kim. I recall some time back she claimed to have met with Polis, and the truth came out later that she just met with someone in his staff. BTW Joan Peck won a seat on the Longmont City Council. This was the candidate endorsed by Kim. I'm not aware of Peck saying or doing anything anti-aviation...yet."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #1538 November 21, 2015 Kim must get some amazing medical grade. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oldwomanc6 38 #1539 November 21, 2015 normissKim must get some amazing medical grade. It's Colorado, do you even need an Rx?lisa WSCR 594 FB 1023 CBDB 9 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 100 #1540 November 21, 2015 Trafficdiver ***This was the latest email from the Kimmie Propaganda dept! __________________________________________________________________________________________ Friends, We met with Congressman Polis this week and had a very productive dialogue. We are pleased to report that he expressed enthusiastic support for our efforts, and he offered a commitment to introducing viable solutions as part of the FAA Reauthorization. Congressman Polis commented specifically on the large number of Boulder County residents who contacted him in support of Quiet Skies' efforts to adopt reasonable regulations to address our local noise problem. Many thanks to everyone who contacted Congressman Polis! We will keep you posted as the FAA Reauthorization moves forward Kim is the real life version of Joe Izuzu. Anyone remember the old Izuzu commercial with Joe Izuzu? The one where after every claim he made there was a red sign that came up on the bottom of the screen saying "he's lying." That's Kim. Do you think she's related to those other Kims? You know, the North Korean ones. They rely pretty heavily on B.S. as well.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cpoxon 0 #1541 December 1, 2015 http://www.timescall.com/top-stories/ci_29185177/longmont-city-council-meet-privately-about-mile-hi QuoteThe Longmont City Council will meet behind closed doors on Tuesday to discuss the city's position on a parcel of land that Mile-Hi Skydiving is using at the Longmont Vance Brand Municipal Airport. Longmont city officials and Mile-Hi owner Frank Casares signed a 20-year lease for a parcel of land in 2007, but the contract contained a clause that said that the first $41,566 payment would be due within 30 days of Mile-Hi obtaining a grading permit for the land. Mile-Hi, however, never obtained that grading permit and so didn't pay the initial payment in full then. As of August, the company was using the land as a landing zone and a location to store equipment. City Manager Harold Dominguez told the Times-Call in August that he realized the status of the lease agreement in 2015 might violate a Federal Aviation Administration rule against cities leasing out land for free. The violation of the FAA rule could have put the grant money the airport receives from the FAA in jeopardy. Airport Manager David Slayter said in August that the city told the FAA about the violation and is taking steps to correct it, which could mitigate potential consequences for what may be a violation of rules. Casares agreed to a short-term agreement that went through June, when he would pay the city $36,634 over four payments. The city was trying to negotiate an extension to that agreement where Casares would pay an additional $16,281 by Oct. 1. Assistant City Manager Shawn Lewis said Monday that the extension agreement was never signed. Slayter said, however that Casares is paid up through October. Casares, through a representative, didn't return requests for comment about either the city's upcoming meeting or the unsigned extension agreement. The executive session notice posted on the city's website notes that Dominguez and City Attorney Eugene Mei wish to discuss "negotiation positions and strategy on the Mile Hi Aviation Center, LLC, south parcel lease, operations and potential noise mitigation measures" Local group Citizens for Quiet Skies sued Mile-Hi, alleging that their planes were exceptionally loud and represented a nuisance to residents of some of Longmont and unincorporated Boulder County. Citizens for Quiet Skies lost the lawsuit. While that suit was working its way through district court, the city contracted with Kaplan Kirsch Rockwell LLP, which touts itself as the biggest law firm in the country specializing in aviation law.Skydiving Fatalities - Cease not to learn 'til thou cease to live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jumpdude 0 #1542 December 6, 2015 So, I guess now, Kimmy thinks she can attack "Off site landings" and it seems she thinks she can tell us how to operate! Here's the email she sent out this evening! ________________________________________________________________________________________ Hello everyone, I wanted to share the communication below regarding the lack of reporting of skydiving off-site landings. The Longmont Municipal Code clearly states that all off-site landings are to be reported to the airport manager. However, when I requested a summary for 2015, city staff informed me that there is no such report. I want to urge our Boulder County supporters to contact city council and ask them to require accurate reporting of off-site landings. Stay tuned, I'll send a final update of 2015 tomorrow and then we'll take a well-deserved break for the holidays to enjoy friends and family. All the best, -Kim ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Kimberly Gibbs To: Harold Dominguez ; Polly Christensen ; Gabe Santos ; Dennis Coombs ; Bonnie Finley ; Brian Bagley ; Jeff Moore ; David Slayter Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 3:26 PM Subject: Mile-Hi Skydiving - no documentation of off-site landings Good afternoon Longmont city council and staff, I wanted to bring to your attention some concerns regarding the reporting and documentation of Mile-Hi Skydiving unauthorized, off-site landings. Upon requesting a summary of 2015 off-site landings, I was informed by city staff (below) that "we have no records pursuant to this request as the City has not kept a log of such calls in the past." The lack of reporting is concerning for several reasons. First, the Longmont Municipal Code 13.39.140.(B).2 states very clearly that all off-site landings will be reported to the airport manager. The wording of this section implies that some type of report or summary would in fact be maintained by the airport manager and available for review. Secondly, contrary to the assertion that no log of such calls has been kept in the past, the attached documents (emails from Tim Barth summarizing off-site landings) show that there was at one time a process for reporting the off site landings, although I'm confident that the records are incomplete. It appears that, at some point, the reporting stopped. And finally, this is not a trivial issue to be overlooked. Nor is the lack of accurate information and transparency a simple oversight - it is by design. Without accurate information, you cannot analyze the data and make informed decisions regarding the impact of skydiving operations. In fact, there are numerous off-site landings each year, including one just recently, on about November 19th when a skydiver landed on open space off of St. Vrain Road and 65th Street - quite some distance from the drop zone. I received numerous reports like this throughout the summer. Mile-Hi commonly operates during periods of high winds, which further increases the risk of off-site landings. And student jumpers with no experience are more likely to land off-site than more experienced jumpers. Why are frequent off-site landings an issue of concern? Off-site landings greatly increase the risk of injury to both the jumper and others. They pose a further nuisance to the community, and they result in trespassing and potential property damage. With the increased construction density surrounding the airport, this will become a growing problem. If council were provided with an accurate report of these incidents, I'm sure you would be shocked at the high number and would consider mandatory operating adjustments, such as disallowing flights during high winds and requiring all jumpers to have a minimum of a USPA C license. These restrictions are well within your authority as the airport proprietor (per FAA Advisory Circular 150/5190-7) Why is Mile-Hi Skydiving not currently required to follow the plain language and reasonable requirement specified in the Longmont Municipal Code? I urge you to reinstate this requirement and make full compliance a mandatory requirement of their operating agreement. Thank you for your consideration. -Kim 13.39.140. - Minimum skydive operating requirements. Municode Library ×Close MunicodeNEXT Terms of Use View on www.municode.com Preview by Yahoo ... B. Unauthorized off site skydiver landings. ... 2. Each skydive operator shall within 24 hours after learning of it, report each of its unauthorized off site landings, including those of its skydive jumpers, to the airport manager. -Kim [email protected] LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimberlygibbs ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Sara Rusher To: Kimberly Gibbs Cc: David Slayter ; Harold Dominguez Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 2:59 PM Subject: RE: requesting 2015 report on off-site landings Good Afternoon Kim, I too hope you’re well and enjoying the holidays! Unfortunately, we have no records pursuant to this request as the City has not kept a log of such calls in the past. As always, please let me know if there is anything further you need, and have a wonderful afternoon, Sara Rusher City Clerk’s Office 303-651-8648 From: Kimberly Gibbs [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 11:33 AM To: Sara Rusher Cc: David Slayter; Harold Dominguez Subject: requesting 2015 report on off-site landings Hi Sara, I hope you're doing well and enjoying the holidays. I would like to request a summary of 2015 unauthorized off site skydive landings, per the reporting requirements specified below in section 13.39.140.B(2) below. Can you help me with this request? 13.39.140. Minimum skydive operating requirements.permanent link to this piece of content A. Skydive operating procedures. 1. All skydive operations will comply with applicable State and federal statutes, regulations, advisory circulars and United States Parachute Association (or other nationally recognized skydiving organization's) Basic Safety Requirements (BSR's) and Parachute Licensing Procedures. 2. The skydive aircraft will announce on Vance Brand Airport UNICOM frequency, as frequency congestion allows, skydivers jumping two minutes before the jump and when jumpers exit the aircraft. 3. All skydive operators must provide the airport manager with a copy of their Standard Operating Procedures (SOP'S) which set forth the procedures they will utilize to minimize and prevent unauthorized landings. These SOP's will be used by the city manager or designee, including the airport manager, to evaluate unauthorized landings to determine if there has been a violation of these Regulations. B. Unauthorized off site skydiver landings. 1. Skydive operators and skydive jumpers shall take every reasonable measure to prevent and refrain from unauthorized landings. It is an affirmative defense to a charge of violating this subsection that the unauthorized landing resulted from an emergency that neither the skydive operator nor the skydive jumper could avoid. 2. Each skydive operator shall within 24 hours after learning of it, report each of its unauthorized off site landings, including those of its skydive jumpers, to the airport manager. -Kim [email protected] LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kimberlygibbs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jonstark 8 #1543 December 7, 2015 Seems to me that yhe plain language reporting clause would be satisfied with a mere phone call... "we had a jumper land out today"." Period. I saw no requirement to keep any kind of record. MHS may well be in total compliance. Just because the airport doesn't record it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Fleashit in the pepper Kim. Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShortStack 0 #1544 December 7, 2015 Quotemandatory operating adjustments, such as... requiring all jumpers to have a minimum of a USPA C license. How are jumpers supposed to get a C license if they are forbidden to jump with an A or a B? This would mean no student program at the DZ, and only 200+ jump experienced jumpers allowed. Of course, this is just a back door way of trying to shut down the DZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustShhh 0 #1545 December 8, 2015 Is there even any evidence that newer people land out more than experienced ones?Gary, Gary, Gary, Would you like to play a game? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
topdocker 0 #1546 December 8, 2015 ShortStackQuotemandatory operating adjustments, such as... requiring all jumpers to have a minimum of a USPA C license. How are jumpers supposed to get a C license if they are forbidden to jump with an A or a B? This would mean no student program at the DZ, and only 200+ jump experienced jumpers allowed. Of course, this is just a back door way of trying to shut down the DZ. Clear violation of the judges order to "get along." She is continuing to create issues for the airport and the DZ. Perhaps it is time for to go get a job and pay the legal fees she was ordered. Maybe the DZ could tow a banner around her house asking for her to pay! topJump more, post less! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 3 #1547 December 8, 2015 topdocker Clear violation of the judges order to "get along." She is continuing to create issues for the airport and the DZ. Perhaps it is time for to go get a job and pay the legal fees she was ordered. Maybe the DZ could tow a banner around her house asking for her to pay! top I'm sure after a day of a Pawnee circling her house with a banner on it, the least of her problems would be a Twin Otter flying miles away."I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyjumpenfool 2 #1548 December 9, 2015 topdocker *** Quote mandatory operating adjustments, such as... requiring all jumpers to have a minimum of a USPA C license. How are jumpers supposed to get a C license if they are forbidden to jump with an A or a B? This would mean no student program at the DZ, and only 200+ jump experienced jumpers allowed. Of course, this is just a back door way of trying to shut down the DZ. Clear violation of the judges order to "get along." She is continuing to create issues for the airport and the DZ. Perhaps it is time for to go get a job and pay the legal fees she was ordered. Maybe the DZ could tow a banner around her house asking for her to pay! top It really looks as though she's grabbing at straws? Clearly, she is loosing support and interest. ..... not to many replies or comments on this article? But, I agree with Top, Kimie had her dance - time to pay the band! Birdshit & Fools Productions "Son, only two things fall from the sky." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShortStack 0 #1549 December 9, 2015 topdockerShe is continuing to create issues for the airport and the DZ. Perhaps it is time for to go get a job and pay the legal fees she was ordered. So, um, could the DZ get a seizure of her house to pay her court-ordered debt? Then the DZ could evict her, and be done with her. Sell the house to collect their just dues. Kimmie would move elsewhere. Everyone in Boulder lives happily ever after. Except for Kimmie's new neighbors... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
obelixtim 100 #1550 December 9, 2015 ShortStack***She is continuing to create issues for the airport and the DZ. Perhaps it is time for to go get a job and pay the legal fees she was ordered. So, um, could the DZ get a seizure of her house to pay her court-ordered debt? Then the DZ could evict her, and be done with her. Sell the house to collect their just dues. Kimmie would move elsewhere. Everyone in Boulder lives happily ever after. Except for Kimmie's new neighbors... Surely if she hasn't paid up she is in contempt of court. Isn't it up to the court to enforce their order? Or do the DZ have to initiate that action? If so, they should pull the pin on her. Pronto. Enough is enough.My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
