FAA rules in favor of skydiving!

[stratostar 5]

Another airport access victory!

Posted: Thursday, September 5, 2013 4:43 pm | Updated: 4:56 pm, Thu Sep 5, 2013.

Quote

FAA rules in favor of skydiving at South County Airport

Quote

The Federal Aviation Administration sees no reason why skydiving should not be allowed at South County Airport in San Martin, and has denied the County’s appeal to forbid Garlic City Skydiving from opening up on its premises.

For Garlic City Skydiving owner Jeff Bodin, the 4.5-year battle with the County’s airport division may finally be over.

“I want to open up the business,” said Bodin, who last week learned of the FAA’s favorable ruling and is now awaiting the County’s next move. “I’m a Gilroy guy. I don’t want to move. South County Airport is ideal. It’s sparsely used. It’s a beautiful location.”

The Santa Clara County’s problem is this: They don’t want skydivers landing near the airstrip situated close and parallel to U.S. 101, and argue that it’s unsafe for the skydivers, passing motorists and aircrafts taking off and landing. They also point to the fact that the airport operates as a reliever airport to the three Bay Area metropolitan airports for small, unscheduled flights.

However, the FAA – which previously did studies on the safety issue and said the findings don’t support the County’s take – concluded none of those are "persuasive arguments" to overturn its initial decision.

Bodin is still hesitant to call the FAA’s ruling a complete victory, however.

“It’s always bittersweet because I don’t know what the County is going to do at this point,” said Bodin, whose attorney, Richard Durden, has already reached out to the County about starting up the skydiving business in San Martin “as soon as possible so that a successful business can provide a benefit to both the County and Mr. Bodin.”

But Bodin said the County can still delay his business from getting off the ground - even though that means existing federal sanctions preventing South County Airport, as well as the two other County-run airports (Palo Alto Airport and Reid-Hillview Airport in San Jose), from receiving valuable federal grant funds through its Airport Improvement Program, will remain intact.

“It’s still a waiting game,” Bodin said.

Bodin estimated that his thrill-seeking business would have generated half a million dollars in fuel costs and paid close to $50,000 in rent to the airport over the last 4.5 years. He estimates that his business would draw between 100 to 200 weekend visitors to the area and “provide a revenue stream for the City of San Martin, Gilroy and Morgan Hill.”

But instead, he continued, the County has decided to spend thousands of dollars on attorney fees to fight him every step of the way. In the meantime, he says the County airports, and its occupants, are suffering the consequences.

“It makes absolutely no sense,” said Bodin as to why the County refuses to comply with the FAA ruling to allow skydiving at South County Airport. “The County is in blatant violation to its federal grant agreement.”

In its final determination, signed Aug. 12 by Associate Administrator for Airports Christa Fornarotto, the FAA upheld its original Dec. 19, 2011 ruling stating that there is no reason why Garlic City Skydiving can’t use San Martin’s general aviation airport as its home base and landing spot for thrill-seeking customers.

Assistant Director Eric Peterson for County Airports said that “the County’s next move has not been decided but that decision will come from the Board of Supervisors.” Peterson wasn’t sure exactly when the decision would be made, but “you can be sure it won’t be too long,” he said in an e-mail.

Bodin said the County could take two courses of action to prevent him from doing business. The first would be to sue the federal government and the second would be to simply forget about any future federal funding, set their own rules and spend their own money on airport improvements.

According to FAA spokesman Ian Gregor, it is not uncommon for skydivers to land on airport property. Federal regulations allow airport landings as long as there is prior approval from airport officials, the parachutist is at least 2,000 feet above the airport’s traffic pattern and a two-way radio is used for communication between the pilot and control tower.

At two other local airports in Watsonville and Hollister, where skydiving companies are allowed to operate, skydivers land at a designated area away from the airport property and are transported back. The County had asked Bodin to follow that same procedure in order to start his new business in San Martin.

“The skydiving community is huge. There are 400-500 skydivers just in Bay Area alone,” concluded Bodin, who wants to provide a more convenient service to those customers instead of them having to travel to airports in Davis or Lodi. “We’re going to have a great community here in San Martin and become a very active and contributing member to the airport.”

http://www.morganhilltimes.com/articles_from_gilroy/faa-rules-in-favor-of-skydiving-at-south-county-airport/article_e674c91f-dc8b-5047-90d8-1dfa2c47e9d3.html

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

[babz 0]

Bloody NIMBYs, I can't understand how the local authorities can then carry on to object on safety grounds when the FAA have cleared it.

Nice work for the FAA for putting forward a sensible line and for Jeff Bodin to push his cause. Hope he wins and gets the DZ established :)

[Deisel 35]

Well, it's good news that they were able to finally clear this hurdle. My only question here is where was the USPA in all of it? Were they on the sidelines or actively involved? I don't think that there's a more clear place for them to be active in promoting the sport.

D

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[dwhenline 0]

In the rock climbing world, we have a specific fund called the access fund to help negotiate and pay for problems such as this. USPA should really get on board and start such a fund. If each small airport dealth with a large well oiled parachute access "machine", then these issues could probably get resolved easier and quicker. I am sure that a well healed legal team would be more imtimidating to a county board, then a lone operator trying to open a dropzone.
I am new to the sport, but it makes sense that USPA move to create such an entity

dwh

[Deisel 35]

USPA has had an airport access defense fund for years. The issue that I've seen is that they rarely use it to support these types of fights. I don't know what the numbers are, but I wonder just how many of these conflicts that USPA decides to stay out of. More interesting would be WHY they decide to not get involved in some but do in others.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[normiss 620]

That entity IS USPA

[stratostar 5]

Quote

My only question here is where was the USPA in all of it? Were they on the sidelines or actively involved? I don't think that there's a more clear place for them to be active in promoting the sport.

You would have to ask Jeff Bodin or USPA as to how much involvement there was. I can tell you in my experience, one guy @ HQ is very helpful and as involved as he can, but it's only one guy.

I think a great deal of USPA members fail to understand how USPA works in regards to airport access and the AAD fund.

First, the AAD fund is not available to everyone with a access problem. Those funds are only to help with cases that set a national standard, such as the skydive Sacramento vs Lincoln Ca. case with the insurance. http://part16.airports.faa.gov/index.cfm?page=CaseFileDetail03.cfm&Docket_Number_Year=09&Docket_Number_Seq=09

Even then, you have to spend a good deal of your own money and wade through the paper work and you might get a few grand to help.... however most access cases start out as a part 13 informal compliant, and that all takes time, then it can move to a part 16 formal complaint, that means lawyers and big $$$ to fight. If it's just a simple access case, meaning; "you can't skydive here, it's not safe. go away".... well then, most likely, it's tough shit and good luck with all that, let us know it works out for you. The reason so many of you fail to understand how the AAD fund is setup, again is USPA's fault, they do a good job of making a lot of you believe that is a DZO or a operator is having a problem with airport access, there is a pool of money to help fight the good fight and it's set aside for all cases...... WRONG O! Again a major lack of informing the members how shit really works. Then again a lot members too f'ing lazy to vote let alone give a shit about any of this! (lot's of blame to go around)

All that said, where USPA helps is in one guy. Randy Ottinger's office who is over worked & understaffed & underfunded. His office is the place to contact for guidance in how to proceed in dealings with the access process with in the FAA and past case files as well as any government issue or info. He is a huge help to those who need his help and the guy get's very little kudos or lime light, but is a major player in keeping tabs on the FAA and keeping us in front of the FAA, we are lucky to have him there.

The problem is USPA wastes, that's right, WASTES shit loads of members due monies on a fucking PR firm and a shitty mag with fluffy feel good stories. You will never see a press release or news stories about these issues in the local, state or national media to spot light the issue and educate the many who seem to think we are not allowed on federal funded airports. It's all up to that one guy @ HQ.

Have you ever seen real advocacy out of the USPA? The answer is no! Only on major issues like the tax.

I'm not talking about the little fluffy parashitty stories about how we won some small victory after the fact or that bullshit put out by the PR firm... I'm talking about advocacy on the level of AOPA kind of advocacy. Have you ever seen USPA draft a formal letter and release it as a press release, like the AOPA has done?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aopa.org%2FNews-and-Video%2FAll-News%2F2013%2FMarch%2F28%2FIllinois-airports-rules-fly-afoul-of-FAA-regulations&ei=l9opUtfHCo_a8ASotoCgBw&usg=AFQjCNF5-0PkKlyVRy74w7hL9DOgFu6S-Q&sig2=pRKIgLdlczACQSdpY_c-6g&bvm=bv.51773540,d.eWU

No. We only allocate one staff person to this most important office. When it's clear that a great deal of USPA members are also AOPA members, we should invest time & money to work more closely with the AOPA to address the airport access issues.... oh but wait, that's right we have a full time staff @ HQ & a PR firm to address the media and provide the positive spin on how great we are at looking cool, but little effort or value in these issues.

When that AOPA written item was first published, it was sent out as a press release and it also ran in the print media and was carried by all the aviation industry outlets. You will never see that out of USPA, despite that fact they employ a PR firm to keep news stories about skydiving in the media, it's only the local team weenies did good at nationals type of crap they publish and promote, just wait and see in a few weeks. That is why you have a whole shit load of uneducated pilots & airport boards, mangers & operators/sponsors running around thinking they can do what ever they damn well please to kick out and treat skydiving like shit in clear violation of their agreed to grant assurances. The FAA is not much help in the educating department, but they do publish the info, just most are to stupid to understand it, so they have "advisory circulars" and still most are too stupid to understand those. The FAA fails to hold accountable airport sponsors in a timely manner, 4.5 yrs on this case to make a ruling!

If you want trade group for skydiving industry along with excellent advice & guidance on things , you join USPA. If you real advocacy for general aviation, you join the AOPA, just saying.

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

[TaeKwonDoDo 0]

A billion hours went into this from the USPA - Thank God for them and Randy O. The average skydiver has no idea how much the USPA protects the sport (often, from our own stupidity).

"That's not flying, it's falling with style."

[grimmie 173]

The USPA is VERY involved with ALL access issues. The main problem for the Airport Access Defense Fund is that skydivers don't often donate to it. Those funds are reserved for FAA Part 16 hearings. So the next time you renew your membership, buck up for the fund.

During my own 2 year access battle with the city of Oceanside, Randy Ottinger, USPA's director of government relations, went above and beyond the call of duty to assist every step of the way. What goes on behind the scenes with access issues would amaze you. The work load is incredible to battle the red tape.

Attorney Rick Durden is the USPA's go to guy for these issues. He assisted in my access issues.

[Deisel 35]

TaeKwonDoDo

A billion hours went into this from the USPA

Please provide some details on this if possible. I'm very interested in knowing what USPA did.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[Deisel 35]

grimmie

What goes on behind the scenes with access issues would amaze you.

Why is it behind the scenes? Why don't we (the membership) know what's actually going on? Is there some secret being protected?

And for the record - Randy O is a great guy and we all owe him a huge debt. I'm certainbly not saying that he's done anything wrong.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[grimmie 173]

Phone calls all hours of the day and night, and weekends, a few thousand e-mails, trips to FAA HQ, conference calls, paperwork, etc.

I'm not sure what your angle is here, but trust me, Randy O is keeping all of us at airports the best he can and no one cares more. Plus, as skydivers, we keep screwing up enough to make airports not want us around.

Nothing dubious is going on and no secrets are being protected.

One other note. Some prospective DZO's are dummies and don't follow great advice, leading to longer battles. IMHO

[Deisel 35]

Well stated. I now realize that I know absolutely nothing about this PR firm. Interesting.

Re Grimmie - no angle or ax to grind. Just very interested in this issue as it relates to the future of the sport and USPA's role in it. I'm a big supporter of open discussions in public forums, that's all.

BTW - I was stationed at Camp Pendleton for around 10 years in the 90s and was very happy to see you get your place running.

The brave may not live forever, but the timid never live at all.

[TaeKwonDoDo 0]

grimmie

The USPA is VERY involved with ALL access issues. The main problem for the Airport Access Defense Fund is that skydivers don't often donate to it. Those funds are reserved for FAA Part 16 hearings. So the next time you renew your membership, buck up for the fund.

During my own 2 year access battle with the city of Oceanside, Randy Ottinger, USPA's director of government relations, went above and beyond the call of duty to assist every step of the way. What goes on behind the scenes with access issues would amaze you. The work load is incredible to battle the red tape.

Attorney Rick Durden is the USPA's go to guy for these issues. He assisted in my access issues.

DZ.com needs a "Like" button... ^^^

Completely agree with Mr. Grimm - Priceless.

"That's not flying, it's falling with style."

[DanG 1]

Quote

The problem is USPA wastes, that's right, WASTES shit loads of members due monies on a fucking PR firm and a shitty mag with fluffy feel good stories.

How much money do you think USPA wastes on Parachutist?

(Hint: advertising in Parachutist isn't free)

Quote

.... oh but wait, that's right we have a full time staff @ HQ & a PR firm to address the media and provide the positive spin on how great we are at looking cool, but little effort or value in these issues.

How many people do you think work at USPA HQ? How much would you be willing to increase your dues to have an AOPA sized staff?

(Hint 2: AOPA membership is about 20x USPA membership. Maybe we can't afford the same size staff)

- Dan G

[Ron 7]

TaeKwonDoDo

A billion hours went into this from the USPA - Thank God for them and Randy O. The average skydiver has no idea how much the USPA protects the sport (often, from our own stupidity).

A 'billion' huh?

114,000 days of work........

And it still took 4.5 years.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Southern_Man 0]

Jumpers need to contribute more to the airport access fund. I can't afford very much but I contribute a little bit every year when I renew my membership. Please consider doing the same.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Ron 7]

Southern_Man

Jumpers need to contribute more to the airport access fund. I can't afford very much but I contribute a little bit every year when I renew my membership. Please consider doing the same.

I refuse to send an extra dime to the USPA. The BOD has shown not to listen to the members, and in this very thread we have been told the USPA does not get involved in airport access issues unless it is a big issue.

The USPA is more interested in forming a demo team and getting PR than anything else.

I'll send my money to the AOPA and EAA. By accident they do more for skydiving than the USPA

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,379]

>Why don't we (the membership) know what's actually going on?

Because we (the membership) don't care. Airport defense actions are discussed all the time in PARACHUTIST, often within the first few pages. No one reads them.

If you want to know more about what USPA is doing, then call USPA and ask them; they'll be happy to give you an overview.