Citizens for quiet skies

[stratostar 5]

Are you talking about them fighting to use the Boulder Municipal airport for on airport landings or are you talking about them fighting to continue to use an off airport site, private farm property as a landing area?

There are two different issues. The issue at hand right now is the county saying someone can't use a private property under 105.25 for a parachute landing area because they can't assure 100% on target landings and that if, for example some silly Crew dog got all tangled up in a flag jump and then rode a malfunction in and crashed into a vineyard, that it would be considered trespass.

Did the cops show and bust you for that Top? No and we all know why.

The future issue, I believe, based on my research, is that in the near future we will this become an access case, because now they have made it clear 105.25 don't apply in Boulder County. That means this DZO must find another place to go and he is already located on that airport as a business, he, like many places was told he could use that airport for an LZ, hint the off site area that he can't use now.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[topdocker 0]

stratostar

Are you talking about them fighting to use the Boulder Municipal airport for on airport landings or are you talking about them fighting to continue to use an off airport site, private farm property as a landing area?

There are two different issues. The issue at hand right now is the county saying someone can't use a private property under 105.25 for a parachute landing area because they can't assure 100% on target landings and that if, for example some silly Crew dog got all tangled up in a flag jump and then rode a malfunction in and crashed into a vineyard, that it would be considered trespass.

Did the cops show and bust you for that Top? No and we all know why.

The future issue, I believe, based on my research, is that in the near future we will this become an access case, because now they have made it clear 105.25 don't apply in Boulder County. That means this DZO must find another place to go and he is already located on that airport as a business, he, like many places was told he could use that airport for an LZ, hint the off site area that he can't use now.

Your last line is confusing. Are you saying the DZ was initially offered an airport landing area, but that was rescinded? The DZ then found an off site, and that was refused?

This is an access issue, disguised as zoning issue. It does an operator no good to be granted access to conduct business at an airport and to fly from that airport if they are not granted permission to land. Something which the FAA says it is only necessary to have the landowner's permission, not the local council.

The easy solution would be to file a NOTAM or 7711.2, land on the property, and if the police are dumb enough to arrest anyone, start the civil rights and wrongful prosecution lawsuits. The business is engaged in a lawful activity with a business license. By definition, they are on a property with landowners permission with a letter from the landowner. The FAA holds the only authority on airspace and aviation activities, not the council. They cannot deny a business use permit because the business is conducted at the airport (reference cases of river rafting, hiking, etc. the "business" is the physical building where transactions take place, not where the activity may take place.) Jumpers landing in other areas must be given the opportunity to leave and refuse before they can be arrested for trespassing, that is clearly defined by local statute and the FAA already.

The council is trying to avoid making this an access issue by saying it is a permitting issue, but in reality it is about access, plain and simple. Start the part 16 complaints, get AAD funds going, but most importantly, show the council that the law is on our side (which means getting letters from the FAA stating this).

Don't get caught up in their game of meetings and permitting. They have said not to land on the airport, and the legally operating business has bent to their requests and found an alternative property which adds to the overhead of the business unnecessarily. Now the council is denying the land use stating they have authority to determine where parachutes can land, which they absolutely do not. So, bring in the outsiders to educate the council on the errors in their thinking before the legally operating DZ gets the FAA to force the county to let them land on the airport.

BTW, you cannot be arrested for landing off (even the guys that landed in the active nuclear submarine base!) if you can show you landed there unintentionally and are working to exit the premise (or are physically unable).

top

Jump more, post less!

[stratostar 5]

Quote

Your last line is confusing. Are you saying the DZ was initially offered an airport landing area, but that was rescinded? The DZ then found an off site, and that was refused?

Sorry typos I missed and past edit times.
My understanding is. They have the dropzone business located on the Boulder Muni airport, they were told they couldn't use that airport for an LZ from the get go, never rescinded. They then went and found a off site location in the county, on a farm in an unpopulated area. The county claims he needs a special use permit for that kind of land use.

Along comes crazy ass bitch who complains to everyone she can and next thing you know this DZO is standing before the county commissioners who then told him you can't land there anymore and you will have to find another area, without providing any other suitable locations in the county for them to go. Special use permit not renewed and now business shut down till another LZ can be found.

I'm under the impression that now the dz will force the issue of landing on the airport per FAR 105.23b. I believe they have already been told no and a informal complaint process is under way.

If it was me, I would keep on jumping and landing there, making sure to not violate any FAR's, they don't need a 7711, it's not in a populated area. I would do it to force the issue, unless my lawyer advised me not to do so. I guess you could pull a 7711 just as CYA, it wouldn't hurt, but would the FAA issue one or get pissed off for wasting their time to do it when it's not required or needed.


I believe the county is now placing the city in a corner and the city will now find it's self in a legal problem if they ban, limit, denied or restrict on airport landings, as I believe they have already done so in the past and this operator was being nice by going off site.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Along comes crazy ass bitch who complains to everyone she can and next thing you know this DZO is standing before the county commissioners

Yep.

This thread has been a stimulating intellectual exercise, but it all pretty much misses the mark.

[stratostar 5]

I call it the way I see, if you don't like it don't read it. I'm not standing in a court of law in a monkey suit, I'm exchanging concerns with in my peer group. I know good old Kim Gibbs and her band of flakes is reading this, I don't care, there is nothing here I would say to her face or to the county officials.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

if you don't like it don't read it

Sorry, that wasn't what I meant. I'll take the blame for that for being vague.
I'm completely on your side, and I was addressing almost everyone in the thread.
I wasn't being critical, I was being coyly cryptic.

I'm now transmitting my actual point to you via telepathy.


Hope you receive 5/5.

[skyjumpenfool 2]

I've been closely watching this issue. Last time I got vocal, I ended up on Gibbs Hit List. Not that it's of any concern....

USPA, FAA, and others need to get involved here. Maybe this is not the ideal place for a Landing Area? If that's the case, find a new LZ. But, do not be "Bullied" by Gibbs and her merry band of Nutjobs. How can we (individual jumpers) help?

Birdshit & Fools Productions

"Son, only two things fall from the sky."

[craigbey 0]

Quote

Last time I got vocal, I ended up on Gibbs Hit List.

Which proves once again that she is just reaching out in any way she can. She has been following what she believes to be the appropriate processes and simply pushing very hard to get her way. She also seems to have the luxury of time and money to fight the battle.

She may continue to use any legal means necessary to fight and she may continue to have the financial resources to do so.

Quote

How can we (individual jumpers) help?

Contribute to the USPA AAD fund?

[Doug_Davis 0]

stratostar

You can read all about it here. http://www.bouldercounty.org/property/build/pages/docketdetails.aspx?docid=630

From an email I have from the dzo.

Quote

The issue they ultimately shut me down on was trespass. I could not guarantee 100% accuracy 100% of the time. Thus causing an undue burden to the community.

Again this is why I said if this is allowed to stand, and is not challenged then kiss 105.25 good bye. And every dz in the country that is using an off airport landing area should be taking notice and and doing something about this case to help. IMHO this is a national case and issue!

Then quite frankly he needs to man up and file suit.

Quote "Off-Airport Jumps. A skydiver may make parachute jumps away from the usual on-airport parachute school, club, or center location, as long as landowner permission is obtained for the off-airport location."
And tell them they (the city/county) dont have the authority to shut him down. File for an injunction.

The end.

Edited to add:

topdocker

The easy solution would be to file a NOTAM or 7711.2, land on the property, and if the police are dumb enough to arrest anyone, start the civil rights and wrongful prosecution lawsuits. The business is engaged in a lawful activity with a business license.

^ This.

Heck I have friends in Boulder. Im not a local. I would volunteer to fly out there, jump, allow them to try and arrest me as the test case. Ive got nothing better to do. As long as the USPA will provide probono attorney.

[stratostar 5]

Quote

As long as the USPA will provide probono attorney.

That the best f'ing laugh I've had in a long time!

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[topdocker 0]

Doug_Davis

***You can read all about it here. http://www.bouldercounty.org/property/build/pages/docketdetails.aspx?docid=630

From an email I have from the dzo.

Quote

The issue they ultimately shut me down on was trespass. I could not guarantee 100% accuracy 100% of the time. Thus causing an undue burden to the community.

Again this is why I said if this is allowed to stand, and is not challenged then kiss 105.25 good bye. And every dz in the country that is using an off airport landing area should be taking notice and and doing something about this case to help. IMHO this is a national case and issue!

Then quite frankly he needs to man up and file suit.

Quote "Off-Airport Jumps. A skydiver may make parachute jumps away from the usual on-airport parachute school, club, or center location, as long as landowner permission is obtained for the off-airport location."
And tell them they (the city/county) dont have the authority to shut him down. File for an injunction.

The end.

Edited to add:

topdocker

The easy solution would be to file a NOTAM or 7711.2, land on the property, and if the police are dumb enough to arrest anyone, start the civil rights and wrongful prosecution lawsuits. The business is engaged in a lawful activity with a business license.

^ This.

Heck I have friends in Boulder. Im not a local. I would volunteer to fly out there, jump, allow them to try and arrest me as the test case. Ive got nothing better to do. As long as the USPA will provide probono attorney.

Also, maybe invite the local FAA FSDO to inspect the landing area and watch the jumpers land in it. Then it could be quite the argument with the local police if they try and arrest someone.

top

PS. Yes, if at all possible, I would come out and jump

Jump more, post less!

[mjosparky 3]

Doug_Davis

Quote

I would volunteer to fly out there, jump, allow them to try and arrest me as the test case. Ive got nothing better to do. As long as the USPA will provide probono attorney.

Top

Quote

Also, maybe invite the local FAA FSDO to inspect the landing area and watch the jumpers land in it. Then it could be quite the argument with the local police if they try and arrest someone.

top

PS. Yes, if at all possible, I would come out and jump

You guys sound like you are trying to turn this into the Gunfight at the OK Corral. What you are dealing with is a possible violation of a use permit. I am not sure it is even a crime.

There are several things you need to consider before take any action.
You will want up to date written permission from the property owner.
Make sure the pilot and the owner of the aircraft understand the situation.
Figure out how to make sure all the players, Commissioners, Cops, FAA, property
Owner, will be there.
Be aware of the fact that you will probably have to do more than land to get arrested.

When you get this all done ask the DZO if he wants your help in this way. Best guess would be no.

Quote

File for an injunction………………..start the civil rights and wrongful prosecution lawsuits

Makes you wonder why the rest of the world thinks we are sue happy.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[dzswoop717 5]

In my home state ,PA, if farm land is zoned "agricultural", it cannot be used for other unrelated business. I traveled this road in the early 1990's when I started a DZ on a local farmers private grass runway. Shortly after jump operations started I was informed that the land use did not include aviation business unless it was related to agriculture. A crop dusting business was permitted but not skydiving. Our local officials were very accommodating and helped me jump through the hoops to allow a skydiving CLUB continue to operate on the farm. My father and I owned the aircraft and equipment and leased it to the club. Everyone who jumped at the dz had to be a club member. Our business address for the airplanes and equipment was different than the clubs location. It was a way to get around the rules and the local township was very friendly and helpful. I know of at least one popular dz that uses a tactic like this to get around land use rules.

[grimmie 173]

Nice work! It helps to have officials that want you in their city.

I have my own noise complainers here. It's at every airport these days.
https://thecoastnews.com/2014/02/airport-neighbors-complain-of-noise-and-safety-issues/

[Doug_Davis 0]

dzswoop717

In my home state ,PA, if farm land is zoned "agricultural", it cannot be used for other unrelated business. I traveled this road in the early 1990's when I started a DZ on a local farmers private grass runway. Shortly after jump operations started I was informed that the land use did not include aviation business unless it was related to agriculture. A crop dusting business was permitted but not skydiving. Our local officials were very accommodating and helped me jump through the hoops to allow a skydiving CLUB continue to operate on the farm. My father and I owned the aircraft and equipment and leased it to the club. Everyone who jumped at the dz had to be a club member. Our business address for the airplanes and equipment was different than the clubs location. It was a way to get around the rules and the local township was very friendly and helpful. I know of at least one popular dz that uses a tactic like this to get around land use rules.

I see what you are saying. And they are trying to make the same land use zoning argument in Boulder.

The key LEGAL difference is he isnt operating a business on the guys backyard/field. He is picking up jumpers who landed off as allowed under FAA and DOT regulations. He is operating his business from the airfield.

Quite frankly I dont understand why the DZO ever attempted to get a zoning change or special use permit for the guy's backyard in the first place. Under FAA and DOT guidelines he didnt need one. It was that zoning hearing that allowed them to shut him down.

So the only way forward is for him to file suit in federal court seeking an injunction against the county commission's denial of use, or to just keep letting people jump and see if the cops try and arrest someone (ie a test case).

[FastRon 0]

I know there are several attorneys who post here. What kind of legal fees will be required? Can we get 20,000 folks to contribute $5 or whatever? Would $100,000 be even a start?

As an aside- as mentioned- if you are going to jump in defaince and have all those folks present- make double sure the cops know what law(s) you believe are in play... You might get arrested- and you can very probably beat the charges, but you will probably not beat the ride.

[ryoder 1,380]

Doug_Davis

Quite frankly I dont understand why the DZO ever attempted to get a zoning change or special use permit for the guy's backyard in the first place. Under FAA and DOT guidelines he didnt need one. It was that zoning hearing that allowed them to shut him down.

Independent Skydive Company has been using the North 79th Street property as a landing site since September 2011. Boulder County got a zoning complaint about that use earlier this year. Gibbs said Tuesday she made the complaint. Divan has been allowed to continue using it pending his application for formal county approval.

Source: http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24558826/boulder-county-planning-panel-review-skydiving-application

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[craigbey 0]

Quote

Can we get 20,000 folks to contribute $5 or whatever?

Seriously?

Quote

if you are going to jump in defiance

I know that was not directed at me, but as someone else already pointed out, any action should start with the DZO. It's their business. Respect that and reach out to them first if you want to help.

[stratostar 5]

Quote

any action should start with the DZO. It's their business. Respect that and reach out to them first if you want to help.

You might want to rethink advocy, where it starts and who it starts with... many people can't be bothered to give a damn, till it starts to happen to them too. Once one is let to stand, then that starts the door open.

I think a lot of people better sit up and take notice.... you know wake up and smell the coffee.

http://thesandpaper.villagesoup.com/p/flagged-for-zoning-violation-skydive-east-coast-faces-scrutiny/1114491

Quote

Stafford Leader
Flagged for Zoning Violation, Skydive East Coast Faces Scrutiny
Eagleswood Township Residents Rally Against Airport Use
By VICTORIA FORD |
Feb 15, 2014


Controversy swirls in Eagleswood Township over a skydiving business operating at Eagles Nest Airport, among several other airport-related topics including noise, procedure and protocol, jurisdictional interpretation and lawyerly rhetoric.

At the heart of the matter is the question of whether the skydivers need amended site plan approval in order to continue to operate. The adversarial activity on the residents’ part is being driven, in part, by social networking. And following Tuesday’s four-hour hearing before the Eagleswood Township Land Use Board, it’s far from over, with more public hearings to take place in the next two months.

Skydive East Coast opened in the spring of 2013, owned and managed by John Todorov. The business is not a “jump school” – a term that was a point of contention – but rather a tandem jump service, with a few certified jump experts, pilots, and one Cessna 205 with a three-bladed prop. During a perfect month of June, Todorov estimated, his business might do a total of 300 jumps, with two jumpers per plane trip, meaning 150 takeoffs and landings.

Todorov’s attorney, John Novak, an aviation enthusiast himself, presented his case for the skydiving operation’s sterling record of safe, responsible practices. His client has agreed to use only three-bladed props, because they are quieter, and to have his prop governor inspected every 100 hours, Novak said. Todorov instructs his pilots to make every effort to steer clear of noise-sensitive areas, he said.

Chief pilot Dave Pankove testified to the painstaking care that goes into noise abatement for the neighbors’ sake.

Novak’s somewhat brash style of conducting himself, at times, made audience members audibly bristle. The tension in the air gradually increased as dozens of people stood for hours in the tightly packed meeting room. As the end of the fourth hour rolled around, tempers quickened and quarrels broke out. At 11 p.m. the board cut off testimony, which had become mostly bickering, and voted to carry the hearing to the April 8 meeting.

In the meantime, at the March 11 meeting, airport owner Peter Weidhorn, with his attorney Howard Butensky, will present a companion application: seeking amended site plan approval to shift a runway 400 feet on its west end, which would enable pilots taking off from that runway to turn earlier, away from the residential area within earshot. They were prepared to present this month, but a clerical error caused the published notice of the hearing to misprint in the newspaper under the Little Egg Harbor heading for public notices, instead of Eagleswood. That rendered the notice insufficient, the board decided, for members of the public who may have wanted to be heard.

In general, it seems, the neighbors in the airport’s immediate vicinity consider the airport, and everything that takes place there, to be a nuisance or, worse, a danger. Since purchasing the airport in 2009, Weidhorn has faced something of an uphill battle to win over the town officials and some residents.

Six months ago, in August 2013, Laurel Hill Lane resident Michele Paccione created a Facebook community page called Stop Eagles Nest Airport. It currently has 66 members. Its objective is “to halt the expansion of Eagles Nest Airport in West Creek, and reduce the noise, lead contamination and crash risk.” Communities all over the nation are fighting airports and winning, including getting skydivers’ drop zones shut down, Paccione told the board.

The Facebook page is filled with links to articles about airport safety, skydive accidents, and the aviation industry’s contribution to lead pollution in the atmosphere. There are numerous updates referring to communications with Weidhorn, public meeting reminders, specific dates and times of illicit night landings spotted at the airport and sightings of other activity deemed suspicious or unpleasant – such as the Coast Guard helicopters that practiced a night drill there Tuesday, Feb. 4. All the posts underscore a general sense of a neighborhood rallying for a fight, and pilots ready to fight back.

Paccione told the board she suspected the skydivers orchestrated an act of harassment when suddenly one day the planes deliberately “buzzed” all the houses nearby, flying low enough, she claimed, to harass homeowners for half an hour, simultaneously as the Facebook page was bombarded with hateful messages from pilots near and far.

The reason for Skydive East Coast’s appearance before the land use board was a zoning violation issued by Eagleswood zoning enforcement official Carl Sillitoe on Nov. 8 for what appeared to be an expanded use of the airport operation, therefore requiring a site plan review.

Complaints from residents had prompted his investigation, Sillitoe testified, which revealed a skydive operation in full swing, at which point he referred back to the town’s original resolution approving the airport. Finding no explicit mention of skydiving as a permitted use at the airport, he determined the skydiving business was an expansion of the original site plan, which now must be reconsidered by the land use board.

When Novak asked Sillitoe if he felt he had conducted a thorough investigation, Sillitoe thought carefully and said, “As thorough as I needed to be to write that letter.”

So Skydive East Coast is asking for an interpretation of Sillitoe’s letter and appealing his decision, based largely on the fact that the airport is under state and federal jurisdiction, Novak said. The town is “superceded and preempted” by the state Department of Transportation’s Division of Aeronautics and by the Federal Aviation Administration, both of which have approved the skydiving operation – as well as dirigibles, hot air balloons, guys with jetpacks, and any number of other activities – as an acceptable thing to happen at an airport.

Part of the appeal was also to clarify for the record that the operation is not a “school,” as Sillitoe referred to it in his letter and others have referred to it, errantly, in the past. East Coast Skydive is licensed as a “sport parachute center and drop zone.”

As Novak reminded the board numerous times, he believed he and his client shouldn’t even be there, because the question of land use was moot. “We’re not disturbing a blade of grass, or overturning a pebble,” he said. In fact, he added, the impact of skydiving on land is less significant than building a birdbath.

Furthermore, skydiving is not a change in the use of the land but, rather, a change in the use of the airspace, he argued. And because the ultimate decisions were not Eagleswood’s to make, the town can’t regulate the airplanes’ noise, speed or altitude, he said, only the use of the land.

“A small-town land use board cannot come in and dabble in the affairs of the FAA and the New Jersey Department of Transportation,” the lawyer said.

Once the floor was opened to the public, some residents, including Phyllis Klick of Tanglewood Drive and Susanne Ricciardi of Rose’s Swamp Road, commented that skydivers could be heard screaming profanities during their descent. Klick said she feels police aren’t doing enough to protect residents, and “nobody’s looking out for us.”

Residents Pat Filardi of Tanglewood Drive and the Rev. James Occhipinti of Forge Road also shared concerns about safety.

Offering the opposing viewpoint was Roger Laplant of Rodeo Drive in the Royce Run Estates, a flying enthusiast who told the naysayers they’re facing a foe that’s “on another level” and to realize “nobody’s doing anything they’re not supposed to be doing.”

Following Paccione’s remarks, Novak tried to cross-examine her and quickly accused her of spouting “a diatribe of nonsense” and slandering his client, at which point board attorney Terry Brady intervened, for the record, to make clear that “nothing Mr. Novak has said is testimonial or evidential. Absolutely nothing.”

Novak said his cross-examination of Paccione would continue at the April meeting.

[email protected]

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[kawisixer01 0]

I bet this lady really likes motorcycles and cars with custom exhaust. Anyone know any local bike or car clubs? ;)

[Doug_Davis 0]

stratostar

You might want to rethink advocy, where it starts and who it starts with... many people can't be bothered to give a damn, till it starts to happen to them too. Once one is let to stand, then that starts the door open.

I think a lot of people better sit up and take notice.... you know wake up and smell the coffee.

Agreed.
As I posted in another thread this past weekend. I had been looking at movign to Amelia Island Florida. I reached out to the owner of Skydive Amelia to see if he did fun jumps as his website didnt mention anything.
He informed me that under the operating agreement with the city he "wasnt allowed to."
Well I did some digging and they are a city owned but federally funded airport which means, based on the Creswell case and others if Im reading everything right, they cant be legally denied that usage.

Again its his planes so if he doesnt want to deal with fun jumpers that his decision. But it appears more and more small municipalities are overstepping their legal jurisdiction in regulating airfield activities.

[hillson 0]

Internet skydivers are as bad as internet lawyers.

ISTM that the DZO is conducting an approved aviation activity onto a federally funded airport with a working operating agreement with the airport management / owners...don't seem to be any overarching Part 105 problems.

Planes go up, people jump out, parachute thingy opens, people land. Seems no denial of legal activities to me.

Oh, you mean sport jumping? Lemme get out my book and see where we have an access issue. Hmmm...can't find one.

There are a million reasons why sport jumping is disallowed. Here are just a few in no particular order:

Maybe there are some difficult to manage landing conditions that are not suitable for novice skydivers

Maybe the city is uncomfortable with the notion of skydiving generally but agreed to allow "professional" skydiving to occur without having to deal with a bunch of asshole (#5497) meatbomb sport jumpers on the property.

Maybe the DZO just wants to run a tandem business and keep himself, a pilot and a few full-time professional skydivers gainfully employed.

The reality is that it is probably some varied combination of the above weighted towards "you can skydive here, yes, but only tandems" by the city. Perhaps there is a silent grand plan by the small business owner to demonstrate that tandems are good for the airport and the city (and his working small business) and, perhaps, approach the city at a later date with limited sport operations under likely heavy restrictions.

There is a lot to be said for harmony in the local community when it comes to skydiving. Particularly when there is no real access issue per say but more of "I don't even live in the state and I found something on the internet that pisses me off."

Airport owners and operators do have a role to play and it is slightly larger than: I took a few federal pennies therefore any doofus with a parachute must be allowed to do whatever he wants over my airport.

Not that there aren't 20+ other year round DZs in FL...which is where many of the TDM-only folks go to hang out with other skydivers when they're not busy making money.

[Doug_Davis 0]

hillson

Blah blah blah. Damn kids stay off my lawn.

All of which ignores the fact that according to everything I have read, ie Creswell and other locations, municipalities cant restrict or tax skydiving activities.

Whether or not you think they should be able to is beside the point.

Quote

There is a lot to be said for harmony in the local community when it comes to skydiving.

There is also a lot to be said for not allowing others to restrict your legal rights.

[topdocker 0]

hillson

Internet skydivers are as bad as internet lawyers.

ISTM that the DZO is conducting an approved aviation activity onto a federally funded airport with a working operating agreement with the airport management / owners...don't seem to be any overarching Part 105 problems.

Planes go up, people jump out, parachute thingy opens, people land. Seems no denial of legal activities to me.

Oh, you mean sport jumping? Lemme get out my book and see where we have an access issue. Hmmm...can't find one.

There are a million reasons why sport jumping is disallowed. Here are just a few in no particular order:

Maybe there are some difficult to manage landing conditions that are not suitable for novice skydivers

Maybe the city is uncomfortable with the notion of skydiving generally but agreed to allow "professional" skydiving to occur without having to deal with a bunch of asshole (#5497) meatbomb sport jumpers on the property.

Maybe the DZO just wants to run a tandem business and keep himself, a pilot and a few full-time professional skydivers gainfully employed.

The reality is that it is probably some varied combination of the above weighted towards "you can skydive here, yes, but only tandems" by the city. Perhaps there is a silent grand plan by the small business owner to demonstrate that tandems are good for the airport and the city (and his working small business) and, perhaps, approach the city at a later date with limited sport operations under likely heavy restrictions.

There is a lot to be said for harmony in the local community when it comes to skydiving. Particularly when there is no real access issue per say but more of "I don't even live in the state and I found something on the internet that pisses me off."

Airport owners and operators do have a role to play and it is slightly larger than: I took a few federal pennies therefore any doofus with a parachute must be allowed to do whatever he wants over my airport.

Not that there aren't 20+ other year round DZs in FL...which is where many of the TDM-only folks go to hang out with other skydivers when they're not busy making money.

The FAA makes no distinction in airport access for tandems or fun jumpers. Airport access is "all aviation activities" not the ones some county board or airport authority choose. Once they accept federal funds, they are on the hook to support all compatible aeronautical activities. Yes, "skydiving" is on of them, not "tandem jumping" or "sport jumping," but skydiving.

Maybe the FAA needs to send a more strongly worded directive to local airports in light of these continued problems.

top

Jump more, post less!

[FastRon 0]

[Quote/] I know that was not directed at me, but as someone else already pointed out, any action should start with the DZO. It's their business. Respect that and reach out to them first if you want to help.

Yep, seriously. Is there a legal defense fund/account? I will send a check when I get up tomorrow morning.
FWIW- These kind of battles are not merely occurring with skydiving- The are happening to water ski lakes, race tracks/ off-road parks, and shooting ranges. Some NIMBY group decides they can't abide some activity that's been going on for maybe 50 or 60 years, and the fight starts. Having the FAA nominally on (our) side is a huge benefit- a lot of the fights mentioned are one small business individual against several- often well-heeled ones. The several have been winning often enough.

I was personally arrested in one of those DZ fights long ago, and it took all summer to get it resolved with dropped charges. I think a local government giving any group like "Quiet Skies" traction is wrong, I and have nothing better to do with $5, $10 or $20 right now-