St. Marys votes to kick off The Jumping place.

[mjosparky 3]

One thing you are right about....you don't know what is going on.

The best you can come up with is to land in Florida.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[obelixtim 100]

Quote

Quote

Quote

but it is also clear that the Airport Authority has a undisclosed agenda. The Airport Authority reminds me alot of the hillbillies in Deliverance.

If you take the time to study all the known airport access cases, one thing that stands out in those is that they all read verbatim. Like one of those call center script reading classes they all attended.

All airport sponsors have an agenda when it comes to not wanting skydivers on the airport. They all use and say that same stupid shit and tactics with users and the FAA.

All airport boards and sponsors act like and are the "good old boy's" club and if your not in the club you will get the "hillbillies in Deliverance" treatment. None of the actions of St. Mary's is a surprise, in fact many of their actions could have been expected and planned for had the proper actions been followed by the operator, thus giving the the dz the upper hand in any of it's on going access fight.

As it turned out though, some in the skydiving camp thought it would be cute to "test" the city and while at it, thumb their nose at the very agency they are depending on to help with winning the access case.... by conducting a number of well documented via the press, violations of FAR 105.23b. That is what has doomed them, those actions alone sealed their fate, the fact the navy is pissed off now too.... well as one wise old Jap once said "I fear all we have done is awaken the sleeping giant".

All the crap the city was pulling with special permits or what ever bullshit, should have been documented and calls to a lawyer and the ADO should have been on going for months, long before the cops showed up to revoke permission. Had the right steps and actions been taken by TJP owners and staff, this could have "maybe" been a victory for them pretty easy, depending on how the new PLA thing plays out.

From standing on the outside and only having the public record to go by, in reading all, this is a classic example of: "how not to win your airport access case during a time of importance pending standards changes to on airport landing areas".

It's not like this information is not out there and or a paid consultant for all members to seek strong advice and guidance in dealing with these kind of issues, only a fool would not heed his advice and make every effort work with in the system to fix the problem.

I understand all the fucking games they play and all that bullshit about how it hurts her business... yadda yadda yadda. You know what, how's her fucking business now?

If it was worth fighting for that location as much she made a stink about it , then playing by the rules of the fight should have been the plan from day one, there is that paid consultant guy who will help formulate a plan and help you with guidance.... many others have proven that advice and guidance to be reliable and successful if followed.

Quote

The Airport Authority reminds me alot of the hillbillies in Deliverance.

TJP actions are unprofessional to say the least and could harm the industry on a national level.

Thanks grandpa, and it's easy to sit there and say, I told you so when you didn't inform anyone of anything.

Instead you attempted to bait me into a conversation for your own self gratification. Remember this comment

Quote

Can you please provide us with more info on how this airport access funding works?

I told you I didn't know and you appeared to be the expert. Quite cheap on your part honestly. Now tell us all again how you told all of us so.

yadda yadda yadda, nothing is more worthless than saying I told you so.... when you didn't gramps.

Pull your head in.

The airport access issue has been well documented over a long time. use your fingers to search and you will find plenty of information. As Strat says, most are almost identical in the way they have evolved.

Its not rocket science to realise diplomacy is always a good option when dealing with authority, especially when its your business they have influence over.

And it might be an idea for you to listen to the Gramps of the world, it might save you reinventing the wheel some time.

Especially when it comes to skydiving.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[airsport 0]

[/url]http://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/compliance_5190_6/media/5190_6b_chap14.pdf[/url]

Good reading if you want to see the "rules...."

St. Mary's is a "sleepy" airport without the skydiving aircraft operations it may see a few transient flights per day and a couple of rag wing flights doing touch and goes... I can count on one had the # of business jets that have landed this year.

The city has zero basis to completely exclude Skydiving under FAA rules. It's clear.

So when the AAB decides to promote their agenda by fabricating issues, creating problems, attempting to overcharge for permits, and just plain lying. It tends to piss people off.

AAB has truly bullied TJP with out cause. They started out by walking in the door and sucker punching us! Some of you may thing our civil disobedience will hurt the sport. I suspect that the more press this gets the more likely the FAA will act as it should and follow the rules in chapter 14. Tell the AAB that what they have done will cost them the federal funding and St. Mary's will be repaying that cash.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I suspect that the more press this gets the more likely the FAA will act as it should and follow the rules in chapter 14.

Really? What sort of press do you think you can generate with this issue? The St Marys Gazette? The local news? DZ.com?

I'm not sure if you've met the FAA yet, let me introduce you - 800 lb gorilla, meet TJP, TJP meet the 800lb gorilla.

Here's a hint TJP, the FAA isn't going to swayed in any direction by anyone for any reason. Ever.

What TJP might have had on it's side was the rule of law if the AAB had indeed overstepped it's bounds. However, like almost all of these cases, there's a great deal of 'grey' area when it comes to exactly what bounds those are.

So what it comes down to is the opinion of the FAA, and what they think of those bounds, and what TJP has done is burned up a good hunk of it good will in this situation.

Ever go to court for anything? Even when you're in the right, there's merit to behaving yourself in the courtroom and maintaining the decorum the judge wants. In this case, you have kicked in the courtroom door, and walked in shouting and pointing fingers. Good luck with the 800 lb gorilla.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Some of you may thing our civil disobedience will hurt the sport..

Yep. Right-thinking people would think that. Yep. What about you?

You guys blew it. Plain and simple.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[stratostar 5]

Quote

St. Mary's is a "sleepy" airport without the skydiving aircraft operations it may see a few transient flights per day and a couple of rag wing flights doing touch and goes... I can count on one had the # of business jets that have landed this year.

Yep, just like a lot of other places where dz's are and also like some of the airports who all try the same tactic's as St. Mary's has been.

Quote

The city has zero basis to completely exclude Skydiving under FAA rules. It's clear.

Well yes that is true, as the rules state, the airport sponsor is required to submit their reasons to the ADO, see ac 150/5190-7 (page ten) http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5190-7/150_5190_7.pdf

Quote

f.
Skydiving. Skydiving is an aeronautical activity. Any restriction, limitation, or ban on skydiving on the airport must be based on the grant assurance that provides that the airport sponsor may prohibit or limit aeronautical use for the safe operation of the airport (subject to FAA approval). The following questions present reasonable factors the sponsor might contemplate when developing minimum standards that apply to skydiving:
(1)
Will this activity present or create a safety hazard to the normal operations of aircraft arriving or departing from the airport? If so, has the local Airports District Office (ADO) or the Regional Airports Office been contacted and have those FAA offices sought the assistance from FAA Flight Standards (FS) and Air Traffic (AT) to assess whether safe airport operations would be jeopardized?
(2)
Can skydiving operations be safely accommodated at the airport? Can a drop zone be safely established within the boundaries of the airport? Is guidance in FAA AC-90-66A
Recommended Standards Traffic Patterns and Practices for Aeronautical Operations at Airports Without Operating Control Towers, 14 CFR Part 105 and United States Parachute Association’s (USPA) Basic Safety Requirements being followed?
(3)
What reasonable time periods can be designated for jumping in a manner consistent with Part 105? What experience requirements are needed for an on-airport drop zone?
(4)
What is a reasonable fee that the jumpers and/or their organizations can pay for the privilege of using airport property?
(5)
Has the relevant air traffic control facility been advised of the proposed parachute operation? Does the air traffic control facility have concerns about the efficiency and utility of the airport and its related instrument procedures?
(6)
Will it be necessary to determine the impact of the proposed activity on the efficiency and utility of the airport, related instrument approaches or nearby Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)? If so, has FAA Air Traffic reviewed the matter and issued a finding?

Quote

So when the AAB decides to promote their agenda by fabricating issues, creating problems, attempting to overcharge for permits, and just plain lying. It tends to piss people off.

Yea, well welcome too the fucking club, there are a number of other people around the country who have been dealing with these issues for longer then TJP, your not telling those players anything new, it's all SOP right out of the play book. (big surprise there)

Quote

AAB has truly bullied TJP with out cause. They started out by walking in the door and sucker punching us!

Yea that is what they all do, and you document it and record the event FOR THE FAA & YOUR LAWYER!!! not fucking youtube! You call the ADO first after you get enough ducks in a row, have to prove your case. Where is your safety study? You say you all played by the rules, right?, Where is your FSDO published safety study then? Or if it's the economic discrimination card now in play too? Where is your letter of determination from the director?

Oh that's right, starting two years ago, the FAA on a national level, halted all findings in any open part 13 or part 16 cases, while this new PLA study was being conducted and it's findings or new standards where put in place! A great deal of people have been on hold waiting for all this shit to end and a ruling issued. The FAA does NOT move fast!

Quote

Some of you may thing our civil disobedience will hurt the sport.

Well, it makes skydivers look stupid the very high ups in the FAA who, a great deal of people have dealing with for the last few years. I mean here you have Kathy posting Kevin Willis @ FAA's email addy and asking moron skydivers to email him, really.... Did you fucking clowns email him a link too the youtube video? Do you not think he will not see it, do you not think the airport sponsor will use that or show it to high up's like Mr. Willis. Or how about the Navy, do you not think they would not use such video as well? To us skydivers, the video makes you look stupid and uneducated in the art of compliance.

Quote

I suspect that the more press this gets the more likely the FAA will act as it should and follow the rules in chapter 14. Tell the AAB that what they have done will cost them the federal funding and St. Mary's will be repaying that cash.

I suspect that you are wrong, for one thing, the FAA stopped and placed a hold on all part 13 & 16 cases, an order issued by Kathy Lange, that was two years ago when they started the PLA study, no rulings till the study's findings are published, hint the public comments that ended on Monday the 27th and all those USPA published guidance in how to address that issue. I suspect your wrong based on your lack of compliance by that very public display of violations of FAR 105,23B and you should read AC 150/5190-6 http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5190-6/150_5190_6.pdf

Quote

a. Exclusive Rights Violations
1. Restrictions Based on Safety and Efficiency. An airport sponsor can deny a prospective aeronautical service provider the right to engage in an on-airport aeronautical activity for reasons of civil disobedience. A denial based on safety must be based on evidence demonstrating that airport safety will be compromised if the applicant is allowed to engage in the proposed aeronautical activity. Airport sponsors should carefully scrutinize the safety reasons for denying an aeronautical service provider the opportunity to engage in an aeronautical activity if the denial has the possible effect of limiting competition.
The FAA is the final authority in determining what, in fact, constitutes a compromise of safety. As such, an airport sponsor that is contemplating the denial of a proposed on-airport aeronautical activity is encouraged to contact the local Airports District Office (ADO) or the Regional Airports Office. Those offices will then seek assistance from FAA Flight Standards (FS) and Air Traffic (AT) to assess the reasonableness of the proposed action and whether unjust discrimination results from the proposed restrictions on aeronautical activities because of safety and efficiency. 3
3

Again it says, contact the ADO and the FAA has final say..... but you all handed them a golden ticket to the show via, as you say,civil disobedience. No, it's a civil law violation and now the Navy is playing the "safety & efficiency" card too.

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

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

yadda yadda yadda, nothing is more worthless than saying I told you so.... when you didn't gramps.

Check post #131.

He has been telling people about this problem since before you started jumping. I would say you are the one running their mouth and TJP is the one who stepped on their dick.

yadda yadda yadda nothing more useless than someone jumping in without a clue.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

yadda yadda yadda, nothing is more worthless than saying I told you so.... when you didn't gramps.

Check post #131.

He has been telling people about this problem since before you started jumping. I would say you are the one running their mouth and TJP is the one who stepped on their dick.

yadda yadda yadda nothing more useless than someone jumping in without a clue.

Sparky

Pay attention to the geezer, Jinlee, he's old enough to know what he is talking about.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[stratostar 5]

That sleeping giant thing I was talking about, getting woke up, he is awake and moving about and kind of pissed.

http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2012-09-04/story/navy-goes-higher-asking-relocation-st-marys-airport

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

[airsport 0]

Quote

That sleeping giant thing I was talking about, getting woke up, he is awake and moving about and kind of pissed.

http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2012-09-04/story/navy-goes-higher-asking-relocation-st-marys-airport

It's been awake since the Sub base was created. Just bounced around over the years... Now it's front and center again. I can see the security risk--a business jet departing runway 4 having an issue and crashing into the supermax bunker complex... Would be a mess.

Skydiver on the soccer field. No so much....

Move the airport. Great!!

[normiss 622]

Quote

I can see the security risk

It appears that in reality, you do not.

[tristansdad 0]

Well it’s not so much an observation risk. I can get satellite photos from Google maps. And since the no fly zone is below 3000 feet I could still get some very good photos from 4 grand. Terrorism; maybe. If Al Qaida had a vested interest in blowing anything up on that base they would have done so by now. Plus our worst terrorist attack on a military installation(stateside) came from one of our so called own in Ft Hood. Plus who’s to say I couldnt take off from Amelia Island fly to five grand and then crash into the base. And no, of all the time I’ve spent on the base I’ve yet to see anything that resembles anti aircraft weaponry. Either by dry-dock or where they keep the warheads. Oh and unless they are armed you could drop them from the top of a skyscraper and they wont explode. For the life of me I don’t even know why they even have a base in Kings Bay. The Subs have to go something like 11 miles off shore before they could submerge deep enough to launch. Not like in Bremerton where they can untie in the harbor submerge just off the dock and unload their birds. I’m sure the Russians in all their infinite wisdom maintains a few fast attack s off the coast of Georgia and Florida to destroy anything coming out of the St Mary’s river. Oh and speaking of the St Marys river the ASF guys that have to patrol the water leading into the port would have to stay awake long enough to stop anything coming up the river. I seem to remember a few occasions when their boats floated into one of the boomers because the crew was fast asleep. The list goes on and on. Oh and then there was that time when the wives of the Tennessee crew where running a prostitution ring while the boat was at sea. The XO’s wife was the Madam. That was a while ago but still. On top of all this we have military moral in a complete freefall because of downsizing and increased deployments. And now you pesky skydivers want to land on the Submarine Base and add to all this crazyness? I’d get out of there while you still can!!!!

[jamjumps 0]

Amen

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Well it’s not so much an observation risk. I can get satellite photos from Google maps. And since the no fly zone is below 3000 feet I could still get some very good photos from 4 grand. Terrorism; maybe. If Al Qaida had a vested interest in blowing anything up on that base they would have done so by now. Plus our worst terrorist attack on a military installation(stateside) came from one of our so called own in Ft Hood. Plus who’s to say I couldnt take off from Amelia Island fly to five grand and then crash into the base.

You can highlight the security shortcomings at the base all you want. At the end of the day, the Navy is the 800lb gorrila in the room, and it's going to get whatever it wants even if it doesn't make sense.

Any Elsinore jumpers out there? When was the last time someone landed in the lake? How many people end up in the lake every year? I don't know the exact layout of St Marys and the Navy base, but I know that the Lake Elsinore is right at the end of the runway, and that DZ seems to be able to spot Otter after Otter, and train an endless amount of students, without putting people in the water. TJP place couldn't do the same? The gorilla said to stay off it's property, and they couldn't pull that off?

[normiss 622]

Anyone know how much explosive you can carry on a tandem harness?
I do know I have taken a 270 lb person on a military rig before......



This is the Navy's perspective. If 11 people can take flying lessons and punch us in the nuts like they did, surely one could easily tandem in enough to do damage. Or a light sport plane as well. Hence their desire to shut the airport down. They should thank TJP for exposing their vulnerability.

[tristansdad 0]

I will bet my life that the Navy will not pay for that airport to be moved and St Mary's does not have the money to do it. I will however bet that the airport will be demolished and developed into condos or what ever real estate development the city wants to pursue. Because thats what this whole thing is about. And thats why they need to just get out of there. If they stayed all their efforts would be focused on surviving as a business instead of growing. From what I understand they are looking at moving into Statesboro. Alot of my last post was a round about way of questioning the timing of the Navy's statements. Why did they wait until seven and not make the demand at lets say the 5th?

[normiss 622]

Based on some research, this plan has been in the works since around 2005.
I don't think they waited.
I think 7 people put a spot light on the move.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

When this hit the mainstream media it forced the Navy to make a statement. As surprising as it may seem, their statement wasn't, "Ah, It's no big deal. They can land here whenever they want". Maybe the city has a friend on the base now and they decided to work together to get what they both want.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

When this hit the mainstream media it forced the Navy to make a statement. As surprising as it may seem, their statement wasn't, "Ah, It's no big deal. They can land here whenever they want". Maybe the city has a friend on the base now and they decided to work together to get what they both want.

You can bank on it that there is someone on the base that will do quite well in the St Mary's real estate market when their time in the Navy comes to an end.

[airsport 0]

Quote

Anyone know how much explosive you can carry on a tandem harness?
I do know I have taken a 270 lb person on a military rig before......



This is the Navy's perspective. If 11 people can take flying lessons and punch us in the nuts like they did, surely one could easily tandem in enough to do damage. Or a light sport plane as well. Hence their desire to shut the airport down. They should thank TJP for exposing their vulnerability.

Or just fly over the base at 3k and dump out whatever you have...

1.1 jumpers/year of operation landed inside the fence-last 2 right near the main gate in the recreation area. None inside P-50. If the rental police are overwhelmed by the obvious arrival of wayward parachutes we should be worried about base security...

A few high ranking folks made money when that base was put in St. Marys and no doubt there will be more cleaning up on the debacle that is the airport and its board members.

[theonlyski 3]

Quote

Or just fly over the base at 3k and dump out whatever you have...

It's that kind of mentality that could potentially get flight restrictions placed over military bases from the ground till Class A airspace.

Quote

1.1 jumpers/year of operation landed inside the fence-last 2 right near the main gate in the recreation area. None inside P-50. If the rental police are overwhelmed by the obvious arrival of wayward parachutes we should be worried about base security...

Accidentally bypass security and somehow get into the Pentagon without permission and after being told to cut it out. Then say, "Well, it was just the cafeteria, nothing sensitive".

"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

[Andy9o8 0]

You're being a dolt, and reading your and your pals' posts is like listening to a 15 year old's arguments on why there's no harm in his behaving like a dumbass. The concept of Unlawful entry onto a restricted military base requires no argument or explanation. Time to grow up and move on.

[pchapman 261]

If one wants to continue the slightly silly arguments about basically whether the military are a bunch of scaredy cat wusses, one can can ask this:

Did any Staff or Students of The Jumping Place land on the base? Did their plane fly through restricted airspace? If not, one could argue that it is a matter between the military and the individuals who landed on the base. A ski lift operator can't always control people who decide to ski out of bounds.

Still, it is natural that the military will still see TJP (and the airport location) as the ultimate cause of the problems.

I'm curious, when was the airport built?
While King's Bay (according to wiki) was army land since '54, it wasn't selected for a Navy base until '78.

Info is hard to find but one very detailed airport directory says the airport was activated in 1941.

You know how it is when it comes to airports and new subdivisions and complaining home owners:

Clearly the right thing to tell the Navy is "We were here first, you know where you can stick your submarines!" I'm sure that will help the situation.

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

Based on some research, this plan has been in the works since around 2005.
I don't think they waited.
I think 7 people put a spot light on the move.

Post 119

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4367243#4367243

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals