Rumor Has It?

[stratostar 5]

Popsjumper says:

Quote

I can see the USPA and the feds getting in on this. Airport Access Defense, anyone?

One point of mis-understanding in your thinking here. AAD funds, or airport access defense funds. No USPA will not just jump up to the plate and start spending AAD funds. It dose not work that way.

In short, an operator would have to have gone through the process of a part 13 informal complaint with the FAA and then have that go to part 16 formal complaint, have spent a large sum in legal already of their own expense, the case ruling will have national impact on the sport as a whole before the full BOD will take a vote to spend the AAD funds.


Diver1 says:

Quote

bla bla bla, I just don't see where Airport Access can be an issue in this case.

First you might want to start here for airport access fights , Some of the links are no longer working due to even more new updates in the last few months to the info on the FAA's side, if you search the FAA's site for the keywords or FAR/AC/Order number you will find the newer released info.)

We need ask a few questions to get the answer.

1. Is it federal funded ?
2. If yes, then yes they can not renew the lease for ASC in some cases and not violate the grant funding contract.

What they can't do (if federal funded) is say the farm is no longer allowed to use the airport too, or tell another skydiving operator they can't open a S.A.S.O. on the field. (They can try too)

As for the USPA, I don't see why or how USPA would pick up the fight on behalf of ASC, that is not their job. ASC is only afforded the same and equal support from USPA as any other group member, no more, no less. In other words someone will answer the phone and provide the guidance the same as they would to any member. That dose not mean sending USPA lawyers after Poke county.

If it's not a federal funded airport, they do as they damn well please and you can fuck off!

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

[hallux 0]

WOW people have sunk to a new low. Now slandering people by name by posting totally irrelevant and unsubstantiated claims. Fincher and Owen made fat jokes????? WOW they must be horrible people. Its not like everyone in the world, including most every comedy on TV uses obesity as a punch line. I'm sure no other jumpers at any DZ would ever make such comments in jest.

I'm sure every tandem guy everywhere sees a big person walk in and thinks "God I hope they arent here to jump" and then they make jokes about it later.
What a new low.....personal attacks over totally normal human behavior. I'm guessing the OP has never made a fat joke or joked about anyones appearance? The hipocracy here is a joke. Earlier Driver1 told jumpdude to not get on here and talk about his illegal demos. He told him to just lie about it so he didnt open himself up to attacks. He told him he should have reworded it so as not to give himself away. Yet these are the same people that actively seek out any offense they can that is perpetrated by a staff member at a ASC dropzone. Yet they just proved that they are made of the same material. Did something that was against the "rules" and will sweep it under the blanket. Isnt that SKYDIVINGs nature??
We are all skydivers and picking peoples life and words apart just because of where they jump is uncalled for and quite frankly its detrimental to the sport. Just as much as skyride has been.

I guess I will never understand why people feel the need to drag jumpers and staff into these arguments. I'm quite sure that the jumpers at these DZ's choose to jump there for reasons that are more honorable than you give credit for. They cant all be vicious heartless evil people. I actually doubt someone of that description would be accepted in that group. I'm sure its lke any DZ, and they have a strong family like bond and jumping/working with thier friends means more to them than the morality of the owner. Would you sacrifice your relationships over something a stranger was doing in another state? THINK ABOUT IT! Who ever wants to leave their home DZ and the people that they started jumping with? Its not easy to turn your back on something you have worked hard to build. It IS A RELATIONSHIP. I'm sure the staff gets aggrevated with skyride too. But maybe they want to work to change it. Scams arent happening at the DZ. Scams are happening in states where there arent DZ's to accept GC's. Thats where the skyride battle should be focused.

Anyway thats just my opinion, but its based off what I know about these people and what I've seen and experienced in my life.

By the way, From driver1's sig line I would say they obviously make fun of customers at his DZ too.....I mean havent we all???

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I can tell you without a doubt that if Cary bought one of the DZs that I frequent I would never step foot on it again.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

I can tell you without a doubt that if Cary bought one of the DZs that I frequent I would never step foot on it again.

Seconded.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

"The last Skydivers we had, trashed our town and made us look bad on a National level, so, no, Mr. (New DZO), you cannot set up a DZ here"???

Throughout my event planning I have traveled to many different airports. You would not believe how many of them will fight tooth and nail to keep skydiver off of their airport. Some just don't want anything new going on but many have stories of the skydivers that were there in the 70s or 80s that could not behave, acted like assholes both on the airport and around town. There are many that remember the skydiver involvement in the drug running in the 80s.

So yes, they are doing long lasting damage to the sport of skydiving everytime they get thrown off of an airport. They can try to blame the people here that speak out against them but when it's all said and done, If they were good neighbors the airports would not see the need to get rid of them. The fact that they act like assholes, Jr. high ones at that, just help to seal their fate.

[Jumpdude 0]

Quote

Quote

I can tell you without a doubt that if Cary bought one of the DZs that I frequent I would never step foot on it again.

Seconded.

Third!!!

Refuse to Lose!!!
Failure is NOT an option!
1800skyrideripoff.com
Nashvilleskydiving.org

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I guess I will never understand why people feel the need to drag jumpers and staff into these arguments

It's simple. Sooner or later, every single one of them became aware of the Skyride situation, and yet they continue to patronize, or directly work for, the crooks that are responsible.

Here's a thought, did you ever consider that all of the money the Skyride crew made was money that would have gone into the pocket of a local DZO in a state where Skyride did it's thing? The Arizona court system did, and they came up with the number $6 million.

I guess it's one thing to rip off a consumer, charge them extra for the 'big plane'. Ok, I can see that. Most tandem students are one-time-wonders, so whatever money you can squeeze out of them on their one trip to the DZ is more cash in skydiving and less cash in the rest of the world. Worst case scenario that tandem student becomes a dedicated skydiver. If the guy calls you on it two years later, you admit your guilt, and buy him a jump to pay him back.

Here's the thing, though, the Skyride money was made on the backs of other DZOs. Every DZ in Smalltown, Iowa that lost out on customers because their competing DZ over in Littleville was in bed with Skyride. Even the Littleville DZ took a hit because Skyride always got their cut of the profits.

I've said it before, and I'll repeat it now - Skyride didn't do anything to bring new customers to skydiving, they just found a way to intercept existing customers, and wedge themselves in between those customers and their local DZs. The money Skyride made was money that would have went to these local DZs, and to their staff, and to make improvements for all of their dedicated fun jumpers.

You wonder why anyone who supports these people have a bad name in the sport? Really?

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Dave, They really don't wonder, nor do they care. They just come here to stir the pot and ask us to please "stop the hating"

That is the self absorbed persons way of saying we know we are wrong but we don't plan to change so you might as well get over it.

[BillyVance 34]

First off, I do not know what made the Polk County Commission decide not to renew ASC's lease. As far as I know, I had no direct involvement in that. I am just the messenger here. I am trying to find more information nonetheless. But remember THIS: Atlanta Skydiving Center in Cedartown is the birthplace of Skyride. This DZ was built partly (exactly how much is subject to debate) with money scammed off of innocent customers.

I do think that with all the negative attention Skyride has accrued, that you can draw your own conclusions on this lease non-renewal deal.

Cary Quattrocchi would steal your friend's, your mom's, hell even your grandma's money to help his DZs grow. Sad but true. And anybody that supports this crap by working for him and choosing to ignore or rationalize it, well, let's just say they need a serious look at themselves in the mirror and ask was it worth it?

I've lost count of how many did just that and quit the ASC/Skyride bandwagon and jumped over to greener (sometimes literally) pastures. I like those people better.

I remember when I first started posting on dz.com. 7 of my first 8 posts were in an incidents thread involving ASC's Pell City location. Man, did I butt heads with one of ASC's most vocal and die-hard supporters (marks).

It was quite interesting a few years later when I saw he had jumped ship and started bashing ASC/skyride just as vehemently or more so than myself. I don't know what it was that made him see the light, but I do remember when it was discovered that Skyride had ripped off Tennessee Skydiving Center's phone number right after its DZO Chris Martin died, and had it set to ring at Skyride's call center, a good number of ASC jumpers quit. Maybe they didn't mind the other shit that happened before but that took things to a new low.

Trust me on this: If they will steal from the family of a recently deceased and beloved figure, they're capable of anything, and anybody still supporting the perpetuator and his businesses, has lost my respect.

And if you don't like it or agree with it, you can shove it where the sun don't shine.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Well, it is no longer a rumor. The Polk County Commission made the decision last month not to renew ASC's lease effective April 2010.

Uh, Cary? Remember when you said "go ahead and sue me, I've got more money than God"?

I hope you knew Karma would come back and bite you in the ass someday.

This is not all that you've got to deal with, far from it.

Have a nice evening!

Be interesting to see how long they can drag this out. If payments are still made they can probably continue on a month to month basis for a while and then fight the eviction for longer.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

Well, it is no longer a rumor. The Polk County Commission made the decision last month not to renew ASC's lease effective April 2010.

Uh, Cary? Remember when you said "go ahead and sue me, I've got more money than God"?

I hope you knew Karma would come back and bite you in the ass someday.

This is not all that you've got to deal with, far from it.

Have a nice evening!

Be interesting to see how long they can drag this out. If payments are still made they can probably continue on a month to month basis for a while and then fight the eviction for longer.

That's true. Never underestimate how they might use the judicial system like say, getting a stay of eviction or suing the commission or something. Let's hope Polk County has all its ducks in a row this time.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[johndh1 0]

I'm not completely certain as to whether or not the airport authority can actually disallow them from loading and taking off in the plane (good news for the Farm, obviously) or landing on the airport property; however, the Federally funded St. Clair County Airport (Pell City) found before their eviction that the airport was not legally obligated to provide them with shelter space on the property. The SCCAA actually told them they were welcome to keep loading and leaving from there (and buying fuel), but no hangar lease, and they had to land parachutes somewhere else.

It's obviously hard to run an operation on the yard.

Roll Tide Roll

[stratostar 5]

Quote

the Federally funded St. Clair County Airport (Pell City) found before their eviction that the airport was not legally obligated to provide them with shelter space on the property. The SCCAA actually told them they were welcome to keep loading and leaving from there (and buying fuel), but no hangar lease, and they had to land parachutes somewhere else.

I have no idea what year that was, but under todays rules, that wouldn't happen without the FAA saying so, not the SCCAA. Any federal funded airport is required to keep open for the people, by the people, of the people & see my sig line from AC 5190/150-7 http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5190-7/150_5190_7.pdf

You might want to read about airport land lease issues Here

For the record, I think they've screwed the pooch due the companies local and regional reputation and dealings. The reason I would say such has a lot to do with the Yazoo City MS case you can read about it Here but for the good details you need to read the case files and you can get that from USPA.

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

[johndh1 0]

It was 2007 I believe.

I read through all of it quickly, and I didn't see the part where the airport is required to lease hangar space to an operation like this. As far as a land lease, having been in a business that had/has one on the same airport, the land itself was leased for a certain amount a year, building was paid for by the business up-front, and after a certain period of time the building would become property of the airport authority. That's generally the way it's done, no?

If what you're implying is correct, no airport can refuse a dz, and yet they do all the time, and this particular one (SCCA) had one removed.

Your sig line says nothing about giving them a building to use.

Roll Tide Roll

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

I'm not completely certain as to whether or not the airport authority can actually disallow them from loading and taking off in the plane (good news for the Farm, obviously) or landing on the airport property; however, the Federally funded St. Clair County Airport (Pell City) found before their eviction that the airport was not legally obligated to provide them with shelter space on the property. The SCCAA actually told them they were welcome to keep loading and leaving from there (and buying fuel), but no hangar lease, and they had to land parachutes somewhere else.

It's obviously hard to run an operation on the yard.

It didn't help matters when they installed the barbed wire fencing along the edge of the LZ and erected two communications towers smack dab across the middle of it too. They about completely pulled the welcome mat from the DZ with those.

The good old days (pre-skyride) of course were the boogies where you just pulled up and parked right off the gravel driveway along the edge of the LZ and pitched tents, packing mats/canopies and had a great time. Thanks to the ASC people, that won't happen there again.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[stratostar 5]

Quote

3. Space Limitation. A single enterprise may expand as needed, even if its growth ultimately
results in the occupancy of all available space. However, an exclusive rights violation occurs when
an airport sponsor unreasonably excludes a qualified applicant from engaging in an on-airport
aeronautical activity without just cause or fails to provide an opportunity for qualified applicants to be
an aeronautical service provider. An exclusive rights violation can occur through the use of leases
where, for example, all the available airport land and/or facilities suitable for aeronautical activities
are leased to a single aeronautical service provider who cannot put it into productive use within a
reasonable period of time, thereby denying other qualified parties the opportunity to compete to be an
5
The grant assurances do not prohibit an airport sponsor from entering into long-term leases with commercial entities, by
negotiation, solicitation, or other means. An airport sponsor may choose to select FBOs or other aeronautical service
providers through an RPF process, and, if it chooses to do so, it can do it each time a new applicant is considered. This in
and by itself is not unreasonable or contrary to the Federal obligations.
5

AC 150/5190-6 1/4/2007
aeronautical service provider at the airport. An airport sponsor’s refusal to permit a single FBO to
expand based on the sponsor’s desire to open the airport to competition is not a violation of the grant
assurances. Additionally, an airport sponsor may exclude an incumbent FBO from participating under
a competitive solicitation in order to bring a second FBO onto the airport to create a more competitive
environment.
A lease that confers an exclusive right will be construed as having the intent to do so and, therefore,
be an exclusive rights violation. Airport sponsors are better served by requiring that leases to a single
aeronautical service provider be limited to the amount of land the service provider can demonstrate it
actually needs and can be put to immediate productive use. In the event that additional space is
required later, the airport sponsor may require the incumbent service provider to compete along with
all other qualified service providers for the available airport land. The grant of options or preferences
on future airport lease sites to a single service provider may be construed as intent to grant an
exclusive right and therefore, the use of leases with options or future preferences, such as rights-of-
first refusal, must generally be avoided. This is because a right of first refusal can allow an existing
tenant, at little or no cost, to hold a claim on airport land that could be used for a second FBO, then
lease that land when there is a prospect of competition.

5190 also talks about airport sponsors leasing all the usable space to one user and saying no to another, in other words, for example, an airport sponsor can't lease all the undeveloped airport property that is to be used for aeronautical activities, to a farmer to grow crops on and tell you a dropzone owner, the reason you can land on the airport is because there is no usable area thats not crops. In fact skydivers can land in the OFA areas next to and between runways. Many airport sponsors try and do this stuff all the time and unless you call the ADO and report it, then nothing will be done to stop it. It's pretty clear in the Paris Tn vs Henry County part 13 & 16 cases as to what the office of fAA general counsel has had to say on the matter, this is why in time most all the airport sponsors called out on the grant assurance violations are for in violation by the FAA and skydiving wins. This has happened a number of times now (triangle skydiving, skydive columbus, Paris Tn, Yazoo MS)and a number of pending one are out there.

As for my sig line, that is not about leasing, it's about who gets to say you can't use an airport for skydiving......... THE FAA NOT THE AIRPORT SPONSOR!

The FAA has made clear it affords skydivers the same operational lattitude as any other aircraft in flight or taxing. Skydiving is an aeronautical activity, commonly found on airports, 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).

Airport sponsors are REQUIRED to contact the ADO and seek a safety study.

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

[johndh1 0]

Are you Glyn Johnson?

Am I missing something? What part of all that guarantees that an airport authority has to provide an operation with desirable facilities access on the airport property?

Had they pushed it at PLR they may possibly have been able to takeoff and/or land there sometime after their eviction by injunction, but they would have been packing and manifesting and whatever else outside on the ground, year 'round. I am guessing the same goes for Polk County. Not knowing who paid for the building there (or how long the land lease is for, if in fact it was paid for by ASC originally), I can't say for sure. I do, however, like to trust that the Polk County Commission is not going against this blindly.

Roll Tide Roll

[stratostar 5]

If it is a federal funded airport, correct ???, the contract for getting the funding states, it is a PUBLIC airport and they agree to not discriminate against any type kind or class of aeronautical activity.

Quote

a. Aeronautical Activity. Any activity that involves, makes possible, or is required for the operation of aircraft or that contributes to or is required for the safety of such operations. Activities within this definition, commonly conducted on airports, include, but are not limited to, the following: general and corporate aviation, air taxi and charter operations, scheduled and nonscheduled air carrier operations, pilot training, aircraft rental and sightseeing, aerial photography, crop dusting, aerial advertising and surveying, aircraft sales and services, aircraft storage, sale of aviation petroleum products, repair and maintenance of aircraft, sale of aircraft parts, parachute or ultralight activities, and any other activities that, because of their direct relationship to the operation of aircraft, can appropriately be regarded as aeronautical activities. Activities, such as model aircraft and model rocket operations, are not aeronautical activities.

There is also all kinds of wording about offering leased space and use of the airport property to one group, person, business and not to all comers. (see Exclusive Rights and Minimum Standards for Commercial
Aeronautical Activities)

If the FBO and life flight and a flight school are allowed to operate on that field and skydivers are not allowed to land on field or use the airport at all, that is a violation of the grant assurance # 22 and 23. in most cases.(Exclusive Rights and Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities)

It is clearly stated in the AC linked, it is NOT the place of the airport sponsor and it's board members to decide what approved aeronautical activities get to use the airport and what ones don't. ONLY THE FAA HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CALL< UNDER FEDERAL LAW.

The airport sponsor is required under the 5190 contract for federal funding to contact the local ADO or regional airports office and request and safety study be done by the local fSDO office and ATC should they seek to 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).


If you still fail to read and understand the info, then you may need to try to reach Mr. Ottinger at USPA's HQ and check a few of the facts I've stated, however please keep in mind he is a busy guy keeping us in the air and on fields across the country and educating members who seek to operate and access the national airspace system and provide people like you a place to jump and should not be bothered because of some post on dorkzone.com that you choose not to understand or believe. It's not an easy mess to read and understand, try reading it slowly a few times over and it will sink in, trust me I know, call your ADO airport compliance orricers and ask them, you write their pay checks!

http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_compliance/overview/

Could they kick off ASC in PELL and be legal, hell yes, it is legal to tell you that you can't open a place on Pell now because of those assholes, NO it's not if it's on a federal funded airport.

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

[johndh1 0]

I'm pulling my hair out here.

Again: are you saying that somehow in all this I should read that if someone wants to skydive at a Federally funded airport, the airport must give them a building to use to pack and manifest, etc.?

I've not disputed the field/ramp/runway access issue. I think I've covered that more than once.

Roll Tide Roll

[popsjumper 2]

Nobody says that the airport authority has to provide facilities.

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

[jumpwally 0]

true, yes and for the entire web..........so

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[stratostar 5]

That is right, but they also CAN NOT play the sorry we've leased all the usable space to other users and there is no room for you here. Or you can have your business here and fly your airplane here, but you can't land your parachutes here.

If you act like a total asshat they are free to kick your ass off. (see Yazoo MS vs USPA, A part 16 win for USPA, but a loss to a DZO)

They are required to allow access to the airport of all types, kinds & classes, under contract for federal funding.

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

[stratostar 5]

To be a little more clear, in the FAA order 5190-b airport compliance manual and follow up AC's 5190/150-6 and 5190/150-7, it talks about this stuff.

For example, you try to go to Pell city, a public (federal funded) general aviation airport and try to open a dz. On the airport is a nice 5 acre plot of open field area to make a LZ.

The airport manger and Board members, say nope you can't use that space or any other space to land your parachutes on the airport property.

Why can't we land in that grass area?

The FBO has that leased and has first right to refuse in his lease.

That is a violation of grant funding contracts! So is saying your not allowed to land on airport property!

In the last few weeks I had a phone call with a current part 13 inspector conducting a informal part 13 safety study, who asked me about "where did you propose to land your parachutes" The answer was "every place I proposed to use the Airport sponsor said I couldn't land there because it was leased crop land or in the OFA's"

(OFA) Object free area

The inspectors reply back to me was "I see nothing in the reg's that says you can't land on the runway if you want too!"

In AC 90-66A operations at uncontrolled airports, is the only document that makes any note of parachutes should avoid active runways and taxiways when landing. It also says that in the BSR's and the FAA views the BSR's for guidance in dropzone operations.

The point of the inspectors statement about being able to land on the runways and be legal, was to state to me, the bullshit excuses and reasons for denial are not covered under the FAR's and the grant funding contract, period, no gray area, and his report will make clear the operational limits of skydiving on the airport. (see FAR 105 & AC 90-66A)

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

[stratostar 5]

Quote

I've not disputed the field/ramp/runway access issue. I think I've covered that more than once.

I must have missed that. Another thing that comes to mind under all this, ok lets say they could say fuck you keep out and off our property there is nothing open to lease and we don't like skydivers anyway.

You show up and try to fly out for a demo one day, and they try to have the cops haul you off for trespassing because they told you before your not allowed to use the airport. And try to claim your a "through the fence operator" to the FAA when you call to file a complaint.

Some of you people reading this thread might want to read up on "through the fence operators" because it may become a future issue for you. Because when a county/city airport decides they don't want you there is a number of things they will try to claim, best to be ready for them and well versed.

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

[CSpenceFLY 1]

I'm looking forward to reading that report.

There are a few airports I would like to jump at just to make a point.