0
stratostar

St. Marys votes to kick off The Jumping place.

Recommended Posts

Well Rich, IDK, there are many ways to get it wrong and land off, most of us here at one time have done something stupid and got it wrong. That said, as most people know I strongly believe in equal airport access for skydiving on the proper airports.

And as you know, more then any other poster in this thread, how goddamn important it is to work with in the system and how screwed that system can be. It's not great, but it's what we got to work with. For the life of me I could never here our one trusted "guidance specialist" say he would have ever advised the kind of actions or statements we have seen here.

The dumping of the jumpers onto the base, is just the frosting on the cake, even if it was an accident or emergency, calls into question who was flying, and one would also think, that if your in the spot light already and dancing with the devil, one might want think twice before throwing banana peels on the dance floor and then record it for America's funnest video's.

I'm 100% sure that on opening day of your new place, you all had your I's dotted & T's crossed and made damn sure to get everything right with all the eyes on you, anyone in that position who didn't would be a fool.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I really wish you knew what you were talking about.



On this subject, Airport Access and negative outcomes of poor judgement during an Airport Access dispute, Strat is one of the top experts in the field.

The "have you ever served" comment is irrelevant to the thread, but if you look further up thread you will see the sub base was mentioned with a tongue in cheek joke.

Matt
An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, Matt... But I would go far, anyone with half a brain can look at this see there were some not real smart moves taken by this operator the local support crew, sorry if that offends the cheer leading squad, but the video is what is it is.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I really wish you knew what you were talking about.
Have you ever served?



If you have something to say, just say it.

If you think he doesn't know what he's talking about, then explain why.
If you think military service is somehow relevant, then explain why.

As it stands, you've provided nothing to disprove anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


If you think military service is ssomehow relevant, then explain why.



Only relevant with respect to the fact that there is a difference between Farmer McNasty and Farmer East Coast Storage Facility for Submarine Launched Nuclear Missiles McNasty. A case of beer probably won't calm down the security forces...

And the DZO's actions clearly didn't help.

Not every airport is suitable for skydiving, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I really wish you knew what you were talking about.



On this subject, Airport Access and negative outcomes of poor judgement during an Airport Access dispute, Strat is one of the top experts in the field.

The "have you ever served" comment is irrelevant to the thread, but if you look further up thread you will see the sub base was mentioned with a tongue in cheek joke.

Expert? I call bullshit on that one. Experts don't make basic spelling and grammar errors. [:/]

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Expert? I call bullshit on that one. Experts don't make basic spelling and grammar errors.



Swing and a miss.....spelling has no bearing on the fact he does know what he is talking about.

Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?

Sparky
My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Submarines, where 150 men go out to sea, and 75 couples come back.



See now When they mentioned submarines, what I first thought of was high school days and submarine races at the drive-in....what's so wrong about that?
:D:D:D
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Expert? I call bullshit on that one. Experts don't make basic spelling and grammar errors. [:/]



:D:D:D
This get my nomination for the stupidest, most thoughtless, most asinine post ever.
Unbelievable.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What authority does St Mary's have to restrict the DZ from jumping just because a couple knuckleheads landed on an unrelated property?



They have authority under FAR 105.23b to revoke permission to land a parachute on the airport property for reasons of safety concerns... They would be required to contact the ADO airport compliance specialist and submit reasonable and documented safety concerns, like on more then one time, someone landed on a navy base.

Then the base people making it very clear "it can not happen again!" The FAA will side with the navy and the airport sponsor. On top of the fact, the city sent the cops out there to revoke the written permission she had under 105.23b and it's on video, the DZ responds by making a clear violation of 105,23b on video and post to fucking youtube as a big fuck you city of St. Mary's after being told by the city cop not to land there. (To be legal, she can fly off and land her plane all damn day long, she was told "no parachutes landing here".)

Any reasonable person who has taken part in the FAA part 13 or part 16 process will tell you those actions don't win you any favor as a safe and legal operator with the powers that be.

With all the pending FAA shit going on right now, this was some of the stupidest actions, remarks and posts by someone facing an enforcement action process. And posting and asking people to email Kevin Willis @ FAA airports..... PLEASE, talk about fucking retarded, go read Kathy's posts.

If anyone from that camp did email Mr. Willis like they posted here, they did a lot of damage to their cause.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Expert? I call bullshit on that one. Experts don't make basic spelling and grammar errors.



Pilot –one,

Your right I make spelling and grammar errors in a number of my post, most the time I catch them, sometimes I don’t and the edit feature goes away after 6 hrs. Nice that you, like others here can only take away from the message some errors. It’s all good I can own up these mistakes, I’ve been making them most my life and trying really hard to become a better educated person most my adult life. I had a horrid early childhood education, I was in classes that people like you would call the “dummy class” or people like me called the learning disabilities class.

Yep I’ve always a major problem with grammar, punctuation and math. Can ‘see” in my mind problems to work out it all becomes a tangled mess, when I type words, they can be spelled correct and my mind sees them spelled wrong, they say it’s called dyslexia. Years ago they didn’t have names for it, other then people like you who used all kinds of names thrown around in order belittle and to harass/bully and talk shit to all the people like me in school adding to the difficultly in the learning environment and process. I’ve learned to recognize those challenges in my every day life and have made great strides in always trying to over come them and become a more educated person, laptops and other tools help to cheat, but even then, if you can see well and your hands don’t work worth a shit, typing is a pain in the ass, I hate it, takes a long time for me to type out a post and spell check on here sucks, I don’t use it..... Besides that,if I did that you wouldn’t have anything to talk shit about.

One of the cool things I learned in real estate law class, is how lawyers, if they don’t like the message, then like to attack the messenger or witnesses'. You can attack me all you like, you can poke fun of spelling and grammar errors, it’s all good, I understand why people like you have to stoop to that level. Oh and P.S., I typed this in outlook so I could have spell check just to make you happy with no spelling mistakes.... however I fucked all the punctuation as best I can, just to piss you off.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

What authority does St Mary's have to restrict the DZ from jumping just because a couple knuckleheads landed on an unrelated property?



They have authority under FAR 105.23b to revoke permission to land a parachute on the airport property for reasons of safety concerns... They would be required to contact the ADO airport compliance specialist and submit reasonable and documented safety concerns, like on more then one time, someone landed on a navy base.

Then the base people making it very clear "it can not happen again!" The FAA will side with the navy and the airport sponsor. On top of the fact, the city sent the cops out there to revoke the written permission she had under 105.23b and it's on video, the DZ responds by making a clear violation of 105,23b on video and post to fucking youtube as a big fuck you city of St. Mary's after being told by the city cop not to land there. (To be legal, she can fly off and land her plane all damn day long, she was told "no parachutes landing here".)

Any reasonable person who has taken part in the FAA part 13 or part 16 process will tell you those actions don't win you any favor as a safe and legal operator with the powers that be.

With all the pending FAA shit going on right now, this was some of the stupidest actions, remarks and posts by someone facing an enforcement action process. And posting and asking people to email Kevin Willis @ FAA airports..... PLEASE, talk about fucking retarded, go read Kathy's posts.

If anyone from that camp did email Mr. Willis like they posted here, they did a lot of damage to their cause.



I'm certainly not supporting the clearly thoughtless behavior of some at the DZ, but I still don't see how airport management has the authority to restrict skydiving at the airport under the conditions they site. Unless something has changed, the airport can only restrict landings on airport property due to safety concerns AT THE AIRPORT. They have no jurisdiction over anything that happens OFF the airport.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm certainly not supporting the clearly thoughtless behavior of some at the DZ, but I still don't see how airport management has the authority to restrict skydiving at the airport under the conditions they site. Unless something has changed, the airport can only restrict landings on airport property due to safety concerns AT THE AIRPORT. They have no jurisdiction over anything that happens OFF the airport.



I think that's too narrow an interpretation. I think that airport-based or airport-involved operations (such as skydiving from and/or onto the airport) which directly implicate safety considerations in the vicinity of the airport (such as landing on nearby properties) might, on a case by case basis, be deemed to be within the scope of the "management of the airport" to grant or deny "prior approval" as contemplated by 105.23(b).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They have no jurisdiction over anything that happens OFF the airport.




I never said they did, in fact I quoted

(To be legal, she can fly off and land her plane all damn day long, she was told "no parachutes landing here".)

Yes she can land her parachute next friken door to the airport if she has permission of the land owner and follows all FAR's, and she can take off and land her planes there all day and all nite.

Landing on the airport property with out permission under far 105.23b is a violation and people can be held to account for those actions.... is the point. When the airport sponsor tells the FAA the base has told us "can't happen again", and she states she can't control if parachutist get blown off or land off, and the earlier violations make us feel it's unsafe to allow here. (see video)

Airport sponsors try this shit all the time, only most times it's lame bullshit and not "hey you pissed off the Navy base, again".
Tell ya what, sit back, fetch ya a cool one & some popcorn and see how this plays out.

I hate to say it, but my bet is on the Navy winning out and not Kathy. She might have stood a chance had they not resorted to things like the video and then pissing off the base. As it is now the deck is stacked and not in their favor. Some of this is classic case of skydivers being their own worst enemy and not helping the cause any!
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I'm certainly not supporting the clearly thoughtless behavior of some at the DZ, but I still don't see how airport management has the authority to restrict skydiving at the airport under the conditions they site. Unless something has changed, the airport can only restrict landings on airport property due to safety concerns AT THE AIRPORT. They have no jurisdiction over anything that happens OFF the airport.



I think that's too narrow an interpretation. I think that airport-based or airport-involved operations (such as skydiving from and/or onto the airport) which directly implicate safety considerations in the vicinity of the airport (such as landing on nearby properties) might, on a case by case basis, be deemed to be within the scope of the "management of the airport" to grant or deny "prior approval" as contemplated by 105.23(b).



I agree that from a purely pragmatic perspective it could be said that skydivers landing several miles from the designate drop zone create a safety hazard - sort of - for the GA traffic in that area, but I think there's a valid argument for the municipality not having cause for their actions.

As far as I can see, these jumpers did not cause a danger to traffic at the airport or airport users on the ground.

If these jumpers had simply landed off in more neutral territory - as happens all over the country every weekend - I doubt it would be an issue. Assuming that's the case, it's the high profile nature of the eventual landing area that is at issue, not airport safety.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

They have no jurisdiction over anything that happens OFF the airport.




I never said they did, in fact I quoted

(To be legal, she can fly off and land her plane all damn day long, she was told "no parachutes landing here".)

Yes she can land her parachute next friken door to the airport if she has permission of the land owner and follows all FAR's, and she can take off and land her planes there all day and all nite.

Landing on the airport property with out permission under far 105.23b is a violation and people can be held to account for those actions.... is the point. When the airport sponsor tells the FAA the base has told us "can't happen again", and she states she can't control if parachutist get blown off or land off, and the earlier violations make us feel it's unsafe to allow here. (see video)

Airport sponsors try this shit all the time, only most times it's lame bullshit and not "hey you pissed off the Navy base, again".
Tell ya what, sit back, fetch ya a cool one & some popcorn and see how this plays out.

I hate to say it, but my bet is on the Navy winning out and not Kathy. She might have stood a chance had they not resorted to things like the video and then pissing off the base. As it is now the deck is stacked and not in their favor. Some of this is classic case of skydivers being their own worst enemy and not helping the cause any!



I think the argument on the other side would be that the order not to land on the airport was bogus to begin with based on a lack of jurisdiction on cause, but I doubt it would win the case.

I do agree that the DZO in question sounds like every guy's worst-ever girlfriend pissed off on crack.
Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As far as I can see, these jumpers did not cause a danger to traffic at the airport or airport users on the ground.



That's not the way the FAA is going to look at.

Sparky


105.5 General.

No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from an aircraft, if that operation creates a hazard to air traffic or to persons or property on the surface.



My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think the argument on the other side would be that the order not to land on the airport was bogus to begin with based on a lack of jurisdiction on cause, but I doubt it would win the case.



FAR 105.23b states:

Quote

6. PARACHUTE OPERATIONS ONTO AIRPORTS.

a. Stipulations for Landing at or Flying over an Airport. Most parachute operations take
place on airports, including having the parachute landing area located on the airport property.
Section 105.23 requires approval from airport management prior to skydiving onto any airport.
However, § 105.23(c) allows a parachutist to drift over an airport with an open parachute without airport management approval as long as the parachutist remains at least 2,000 feet above that airport’s traffic pattern. (Airport traffic patterns are generally 1,000–1,500 feet above ground level (AGL).)



No where does it say the airport sponsor can't revoke their permission, and note of fact, permission need not be in writing, it can be verbal. So when the city, or airport sponsor as we call them, calls up the cops and send them to your business and advises you in writing and verbally that you no longer have permission to land there and anyone who does so can go to jail for trespassing, you might want take a chill pill and not land there, while you call the ADO airport compliance people, right after you hang up from your lawyer. NOT produce violations video and post it to youtube.

AC 150/5190-7 make more clear :

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?



It's not a slam dunk, but the city has a fair amount of concern to bring to the table on this operator. The Navy has a lot of clout. This could yet again work out like Yazoo city did??? It remains to be seen the out come and with additional pressing issue on a national level with airport access, this is no time for anything less then professional operations and actions, statements.
you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't like posting too much on here, but this made me laugh so I had to reply

"If these jumpers had simply landed off in more neutral territory - as happens all over the country every weekend - I doubt it would be an issue."

I landed off in a park yesterday and was written a warning for "reckless conduct" because it was city property. St. Mary's city property. 2 or more months ago, anyone could've landed anywhere in St. Mary's city property and not had the police looking for them to give them little yellow slips of paper...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0