SAVE SKYDIVE THE POINT!!!!

[Unstable 8]

For the love ~ in the last few years, I've heard about 5 stories almost identical to this one ~ what is USPA doing with the Airport Access Defense fund? [email]

=========Shaun ==========

[stratostar 5]

Quote

what is USPA doing with the Airport Access Defense fund?

The problem here is most members fail to understand how that fund works. First and foremost you MUST proceed with the full process of the FAA complaint process, that means, first a part 13 informal complaint, in that process a number of things can or can not happen that could favor the person or business making the claims and requires enough facts to be true in order for the FAA to take action, such as a safety study, the whole process can take a couple years if the FAA find enough facts to proceed.

It could be resolved because the airport sponsor is educated and understands it contractual duties to the tax payers, or they can say fuck off.

At some point the part 13 informal complaint becomes a part 16 formal complaint and then the lawyers get involved and the cost skyrockets for the person or business making the compliant, and the airport sponsors, in most cases have deep pockets thanks to your tax dollars and the person/ business may or may not have a pile of cash.

Regardless of the amount of cash you have to take on such an undertaking, you MUST spend a substantial amount of your own money FIRST to fight the fight..... after you have spent your own pile of cash you can then file a request for AAD funds to the full BOD.

The BOD then can choose to award you a reimbursement for your expense or they too can say fuck off. The USPA will not back or spend money on a lost cause, you must stand a chance of winning your case and, the case more then likely will have a national impact for all of skydiving.... (in other words, they don't just hand out money for each airport/DZ problem)

In the most recent case of Skydive Sacramento, Mr. Garcia had spent almost 3 years and a large amount of funding to fight the city and airport sponsor, he even bought land next to the airport so he could operate his business while undertaking the FAA part 13 informal & part 16 formal complaint process, the BOD awarded him 2000 dollars total.... his lawyers fees are more then likely in excess of 25 K and climbing to this date and the part 16 formal case is still pending a finding, last I checked.

For more information in understanding the part 13 and part 16 process you can read "this"

(please note the FAA made changes to many links in this thread, but the numbers are still searchable on the FAA website www.faa.gov)

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

[SStewart 13]

Strat, you are right but this is not an airport access issue.
This is a hangar access issue. There is nothing keeping skydivers from using the airport itself, just the building they operate out of.

As far as I can tell the other option is to build your own hangar/clubhouse which would be a very costly undertaking or move to another building. The last time I was there a few years back there were not any empty buildings to move into.

From my limited experience (5 or 6 trips there, boogies, and less than 100 total skydives) the airport would be a ghost town without the jumpers. Why you would evict your best and only customer is beyond me.

I would guess USPA will throw everything they can at this one since the DZO is a paid employee on the staff and it is a busy turbine operation in the state of VA, home of USPA headquarters. If this was a small Cessna DZ in backwater USA they would not get involved at all.

Sorry, but that is how it works, seen it too many times.

Onward and Upward!

[stratostar 5]

Quote

but this is not an airport access issue.

It is on many levels, a sponsor can't require insurance that you can't get such as a million dollar policy for parachuting or saying you can take off and land here but you have to have your business off site and other things like that, there is more to the story here then is public, I have spoke to Jim first hand and I know his side of this... It is in fact a part 13 or part 16 type case.

My point to unstable is the AAD funding, many other people will read it and not have a clue what a part 13 or 16 is and I provided the additional link for their education.

As for Jim being a paid USPA guy and the USPA backing him, well I would hope so, there are a number of pending access cases across the country, and if an airport sponsor can start to fuck with a guy like Jim, then it can happen anywhere or place, I can't think of a better case for a few people at FAA in DC to learn about airport sponsor harassment and violations of their contractual obligations.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5190-6/150_5190_6.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5190-7/150_5190_7.pdf

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

[SStewart 13]

It is on many levels, a sponsor can't require insurance that you can't get such as a million dollar policy for parachuting or saying you can take off and land here but you have to have your business off site and other things like that, there is more to the story here then is public, I have spoke to Jim first hand and I know his side of this... It is in fact a part 13 or part 16 type case.***


Well, then you know more than is being discussed here.
I have read they are being evicted from a building, not kicked off the entire airport.
If I own a building on an airport and you lease it from me then I have the keys to the castle and part 13 or 16 can go pound sand.

If there is more to the story then why not make it public?

Onward and Upward!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Well, then you know more than is being discussed here.
I have read they are being evicted from a building, not kicked off the entire airport.
If I own a building on an airport and you lease it from me then I have the keys to the castle and part 13 or 16 can go pound sand.

If there is more to the story then why not make it public?

We essentially are being kicked off the airport. We asked to buy or lease land elsewhere on airport property so we could build our own buildings with our own money. They don't want us physically located on their land. The quote from the airport authority attorney in a recent news article is "The Authority is not banning skydiving operation at the airport, it is only requiring that West Point Skydiving Adventures move a portion of its operations off of airport property."

[stratostar 5]

Could you please scan or link the news story.

Mr. Stewart,

There are a number of items that Mr. Crouch and I talked about, it is his place to make public those things, it is also his place to not make light those items, for one thing anyone getting ready to take on legal action would be well advised to hold ones cards close to chest, no reason to share the game plan with the other team before kickoff.

And as for your "pound sand" comments, that show you really have no understanding of how the FAA views such actions by airport sponsors and how they will take action to adjust your attitude , should you fail to comply with your grant funding contract they can and will sue you in federal district court as well as cut off your funding.... then see who will be pounding sand.

http://www.uspa.org/NewsEvents/News/tabid/59/ctl/Detail/mid/797/xmid/3018/xmfid/19/Default.aspx

In the linked part 16 case (above) if you read the full case file, the DZO still lost because he was an asshat and out of line, however USPA was able to step up and correct improper actions taken by the city and the FAA in favor of skydiving.

Also worth a read is this case, you'll have to search it because I don't know how to make the files 300 kb or less, or ask Randy Ottinger for a copy.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, DC
____________________________________
Skydive Paris Inc.
Complainant v. Henry County, Tennessee
Docket No. 16-05-06

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

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Could you please scan or link the news story.

Scans were too big to upload. Here's a link to the two scans.

http://pilot168.smugmug.com/Other/WPSA-Eviction/14814444_HAkgK

[CDRINF 1]

On the the Discussions tab "Summary" thread of the "Stop the eviction of the skydivers from West Point" Facebook page, Jim Crouch gives a good outline of the situation http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/topic.php?uid=169715333049873&topic=254 It's about use of the hanger, not prohibition of skydiving.

CDR

[Andy9o8 0]

In addition to my suggestions up-thread to take your campaign to local merchants generally, I see that West Point, VA has a local Chamber of Commerce. That's good! Go to them - not just one person, but all the various movers & shakers. Try to speak to the next local Chamber meeting.

http://www.westpointvachamber.com/

Follow the money, and the money interests. The now-cliche "It's the economy, stupid" should be the motto of your campaign.

[SStewart 13]

Quote

you really have no understanding of how the FAA views such actions by airport sponsors

Sorry but you are wrong. I understand this subject quite well and have been personally involved in airport access cases as a USPA regional director. Not sure why you are attacking me I am totally on your side.

I was merely pointing out that everything being discussed publicly says the issue is the use of a building not access to the airport itself.

Onward and Upward!

[stratostar 5]

CDRINF, I never said it was about prohibiting skydiving, however under the FAA grant funding contracts this is an airport access issue on many levels plain and simple.

Mr. Stewart, not attacking you sir, but when you make such statements as you have, it tells me you don't fully understand FAA order 5190B airport compliance manual nor it's accompanying advisory circulars 5190/150-6 & 5190/150-7

Have any of you who keep blowing the "it not an airport access" horn ever heard of "economic discrimination" ?

From 5190/150-7http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_circular/150-5190-7/150_5190_7.pdf

Quote

d.
Sponsor Prerogative to Establish Minimum Standards. When the airport sponsor imposes reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory minimum standards for airport operations through the use of reasonable minimum standards, the FAA generally will not find the airport sponsor in violation of the Federal obligations. Considerations for applying those standards may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1)
Apply standards to all providers of aeronautical services, from full service FBOs to single service providers;
(2)
Impose conditions that ensure safe and efficient operation of the airport in accordance with FAA rules, regulations, and guidance;
(3)
Ensure standards are reasonable, not unjustly discriminatory, attainable, uniformly applied and reasonably protect the investment of providers of aeronautical services to meet minimum standards from competition not making a similar investment;
(4)
Ensure standards are relevant to the activity to which they apply; and
(5)
Ensure standards provide the opportunity for newcomers who meet the minimum standards to offer their aeronautical services within the market demand for such services.

When the new airport manger and new board start in on some bullshit about how the dz must carry a one million dollar insurance policy for parachutes that fail to open and other such outlandish requirements that are in fact unattainable they are now in violation for their contract, you can not require something that you can't get, nor can you require (for example) a skydiving operator to get a "special use permit" and no other users such as life flight. You also can't require one commercial operator to house a major part of his business off the airport property while allowing another to do so, like a flight school having on site classrooms and banning the skydiving center class rooms to off site. both are violations of exclusive rights & are unjustly discriminatory.

All of this new crap about fire codes etc. it just the latest bullshit in an ongoing attempt to remove skydiving from the airport.

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

[SStewart 13]

I am sure you mean well but you are barking up the wrong tree.
I understand what is going on here. I just read Jim's FB statement for the second time and he himself states quite clearly that this is a building lease issue and not an airport access issue. (His words) Maybe you should read it too.
It is bullshit I know, using building code violations as an excuse to terminate the lease on the hangar. But, that is what is happening according to the man himself. Apparently the DZO is also blowing the "it is not an airport access issue" horn too.
There is absolutely no mention of million dollar insurance policies or special use permits. I suppose a claim of discrimination could be made but claiming it and proving it are two different things. It would likely end up in court with tons of legal fees and no guarantee they would win, seen it too many times before.

I fully support STP and I hope they can work this out and renew the lease on the hangar. It would be a shame to see another DZ close it's doors.

Onward and Upward!

[Andy9o8 0]

The semantics are irrelevant. It is what it is. Now let's fight it.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I am sure you mean well but you are barking up the wrong tree.

You're both barking up the right tree. The Authority did ask us to buy a form of insurance that was unattainable and they are not applying standards uniformly. They also seem to want their hangar back and they're using fire code violations to get us out of it. There's enough injustice going on that it can be approached from many angles.

[stratostar 5]

I have read every post on FB by Jim, but just because he works for the USPA don't mean he knows shit about Government Relations, that is Randy Ottinger's job and he spends a great deal of his time rubbing elbows with the big wigs on the Capital Hill in FAA and he dose a damn good job of it... Jim I'm sure is becoming educated in an expressed manner.

It is a common misunderstanding that this is not an access case, I advise you to reread the airport compliance handbook and it's accompanied advisory circulars till you understand it fully.

FYI- I have used a couple common tactics used in current pending part 13 & part 16 cases to try to make a point & as an EXAMPLE....... I never said that is the case here, but the insurance one is pretty close.

What is funny here is here you have one airport sponsor saying... "you can skydive here but you must move your business off airport property"

And in another current pending part 13 case the airport sponsor is saying,.... "you can have your business here and build a hanger, but all skydiving & parachuting MUST take place off airport property"

These types of things don't sit well with the FAA and in fact there is a very high level meeting that should be taking place in Washington DC (I think after first of the year) all about the very things we are talking about, it is my understanding that the FAA in DC has sent out a memorandum to all field offices and regional ADO's telling them to halt any and all finding or rulings on skydiving operations until the head honchos in DC have this meeting and issues more clear guidance... Why?

Because not only do the general public, airport sponsors and others like you who read the current FAA orders and AC's that are the guidance to follow here NOT understanding it..... But even the FAA field inspectors fail to understand & follow their own friken rules! That is why, and it's happening in more then one current pending case.

Again IMHO, this is a great case for many reasons that USPA and Jim should use this issue to help educate a couple high ranking FAA people, who I personally know have already expressed an interest in a "tour" of modern skydiving operations to better understand skydiving operations.... It is my understanding that this was going to happen this season, until a medical issue put it off......

I'll give you one guess what DZ was picked to be "toured".

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

[SStewart 13]

Quote

I have read every post on FB by Jim, but just because he works for the USPA don't mean he knows shit about Government Relations.

That is a kind of a shitty thing to say and way off base. Randy is awesome at his job and helped me out at least twice that I can remember but Jim is pretty well schooled on govt relations as well.

Quote

that is Randy Ottinger's job and he spends a great deal of his time rubbing elbows with the big wigs on the Capital Hill in FAA and he dose a damn good job of it... Jim I'm sure is becoming educated in an expressed manner.

Quote

I think Randy is also great and much better than the former guy. I also know that Randy is smart enough to fight the battles you can win.

Quote

It is a common misunderstanding that this is not an access case, I advise you to reread the airport compliance handbook and it's accompanied advisory circulars till you understand it fully.

And I advise you to stop being so condesending and stop talking to me like I am a child. I have been dealing with airport access issues for almost 3 decades now with some success and some failures but I have always tried my best. Again, you are barking up the wrong tree!

Quote

FYI- I have used a couple common tactics used in current pending part 13 & part 16 cases to try to make a point & as an EXAMPLE....... I never said that is the case here, but the insurance one is pretty close.

Close, but no cigar

Quote

What is funny here is here you have one airport sponsor saying... "you can skydive here but you must move your business off airport property"

Not funny, typical tactic from whuffos. They know the law is not on their side so they have to find loopholes to get their way

These types of things don't sit well with the FAA

Have you lost your mind? The FAA does not give a rip about skydivers and they never have. We are nothing more than the bastard children of aviation to them and sometimes we get our way and sometimes we don't.

You need a reality pill and maybe a shot of tequila to wash it down with.

C-ya

Onward and Upward!

[stratostar 5]

Quote

That is a kind of a shitty thing to say and way off base.

First thing, I didn't say he did or didn't know shit.... Just pointing out the fact that because a person works for USPA will not make them an automatic expert in all things aviation related, such as access rights, other wise Randy O. would be out a job, nothing shitty about pointing that out.

Quote

And I advise you to stop being so condesending and stop talking to me like I am a child.

Sorry dude but you continue to make statements that speak loudly of your total lack of understanding the current FAA order 5190 B and it's additional advisory circulars.... so if I have to dumb it down for you to grasp, I'll try only once or twice...

Quote

FYI- I have used a couple common tactics used in current pending part 13 & part 16 cases to try to make a point & as an EXAMPLE....... I never said that is the case here, but the insurance one is pretty close.

Close, but no cigar

What part of :

Quote

The Authority did ask us to buy a form of insurance that was unattainable and they are not applying standards uniformly.

Do you not understand?

That is a clear violation of 5190/150-7 and is economic discrimination in the eyes of the FAA's grant funding contract.

I said:

Quote

What is funny here is here you have one airport sponsor saying... "you can skydive here but you must move your business off airport property"

And in another current pending part 13 case the airport sponsor is saying,.... "you can have your business here and build a hanger, but all skydiving & parachuting MUST take place off airport property"

You reply:

Quote

Not funny, typical tactic from whuffos. They know the law is not on their side so they have to find loopholes to get their way

So you think telling a FBO or SASO operator to move off airport property to conduct business or jump op's, is finding some kind of loop hole eh..... I got news for you sir that is a clear cut case of violations of the grant funding contract and very easy to prove when the airport sponsor is stating such in the news media.

I said:

Quote

These types of things don't sit well with the FAA

Your reply:

Quote

Have you lost your mind? The FAA does not give a rip about skydivers and they never have. We are nothing more than the bastard children of aviation to them and sometimes we get our way and sometimes we don't.

As to my mind, maybe a tad dealing with twits who don't comprehend the written guidance and force taking part in an FAA enforcement action.

As to the FAA not caring about skydivers..... First of all maybe if you try to remove your emotions from this topic you might start to understand the points being made here.

1. remove the word skydiving and use any other approved aeronautical activity, the FAA has made clear it is to be a fair and equal playground for all approved aeronautical activity's! And they have backed it up with case findings in favor of skydiving: see Yazoo city Ms. & Skydive Paris Tn Vs Henry Co. part 16 wins, that is direct wording from the general counsel (FAA lawyers) in Washington DC.

Quote

Federal law requires that recipients of Federal grants (administered by the FAA) sign a grant agreement or covenant in a conveyance of property that sets out the obligations that an airport sponsor assumes in exchange for Federal assistance. The FAA’s policy recommending minimum standards stems from the airport sponsor’s grant assurances and similar property conveyance obligations to make the airport available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination.

and

Quote

1.1. POLICY. The airport sponsor of a federally obligated airport agrees to make available the opportunity to engage in commercial aeronautical activities by persons, firms, or corporations that meet reasonable minimum standards established by the airport sponsor. The airport sponsor’s purpose in imposing standards is to ensure a safe, efficient and adequate level of operation and services is offered to the public. Such standards must be reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory. In exchange for the opportunity to engage in a commercial aeronautical activity, an aeronautical service provider engaged in an aeronautical activity agrees to comply with the minimum standards developed by the airport sponsor. Compliance with the airport’s minimum standards should be made part of an aeronautical service provider’s lease agreement with the airport sponsor.
The FAA suggests that airport sponsors establish reasonable minimum standards that are relevant to the proposed aeronautical activity with the goal of protecting the level and quality of services offered to the public. Once the airport sponsor has established minimum standards, it should apply them objectively and uniformly to all similarly situated on-airport aeronautical service providers. The failure to do so may result in a violation of the prohibition against exclusive rights and/or a finding of unjust economic discrimination for imposing unreasonable terms and conditions for airport use.

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.

Quote

n. Specialized Aviation Service Operations (SASO). SASOs are sometimes known as single-service providers or special FBOs performing less than full services. These types of companies differ from a full service FBO in that they typically offer only a specialized aeronautical service such as aircraft sales, flight training, aircraft maintenance, or avionics services for example.

Or a skydiving school! If the FBO or flight school can have a class room on site or life flight can have sleeping quarters on site..... then so can any other commercial user who meets the minimum standards as long as the standards are uniformly applied & attainable!

Quote

We are nothing more than the bastard children of aviation to them and sometimes we get our way and sometimes we don't.

And with that continued type of attitude in the ranks it's no wonder that other aviators and airport sponsors think they can walk all over our rights, this is not 1975 anymore and with today's modern sport operating million dollar aircraft and being held to higher standards by the FAA and NTSB, we are in fact given a shit about in many ways today by the FAA.

Quote

Federal Aviation Administration also proposed fining an owner of a California parachute jumping operation $664,000 for flying a plane more than 2,600 times with critical equipment overdue for replacement and without making required inspections.

That even means on airport access we are being represented and in fact the FAA will not stand for unequal access rights, if what I'm saying don't hold water then we wouldn't see the likes of :

Rich Grimm & Tsunami Skydivers, Oceanside ,CA
Abbie Marshal & Snake river skydiving
Greg Upper & The Triangle Skydiving Center

Using the very information I'm quoting and talking about to win approval to access their airports of choosing....

Quote

You need a reality pill and maybe a shot of tequila to wash it down with.

If anyone is in need of a reality pill and maybe a shot of tequila... It might be you, noting personal dude, just saying. Instead of spending so much of your time to try to fight me on this, try getting up to speed here and help Jim and skydive west point to win this battle in a non emotional and educated and factual manner!

Good day.

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

[crashtested 0]

Wow! if you two guys finished your dick swinging contest online and used all this information that you have to hand or have researched to help the dz, they would not have a problem!!!

Just an idea

[Designer 0]

There was a meeting yesterday with almost erverybody important(not me).Would like to know kinda what was said.No way in hell should any elmer fudds push around bugs bunny(You know of course this means war)Is it really only about drinking and spending the night?doubtful

[SStewart 13]

OK, fair enough. I appreciate a well thought out argument. Up until now the FAA had such a dismal record concerning skydivers and our rights on federally funded airports. I am so glad those days are over!

I spent several years of my life trying to convince the FAA that federally funded airports were legally obligated to provide equal access to all airport users.
Even Skydivers!

It warms my heart to know the FAA is now getting involved in disputes over building leases.

I am so glad the FAA is now on our side. Somebody should have sent me an email. This is a major break through!

Thanks StratoStar!


PS Too bad all the other DZ's that have been shut down in the last 10 years didn't get the memo

Onward and Upward!

[3331 107]

Front Page !

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/dec/06/dive06-ar-697112/

I Jumped with the guys who invented Skydiving.

[liftedtitan 0]

I have a question, and I openly admit I dont know shit.

Are these hangars privately owned? If so, is it like housing in that the landlord pretty much makes the rules of his/her hangar? I own several apartments and rental properties, if I want a tennant out for whatever reason, I get them out. (only happened once so far) Whats stopping these owners from doing that?

Moriuntur omnes, sed non omnes vixerunt.

[Ron 7]

Quote

It is bullshit I know, using building code violations as an excuse to terminate the lease on the hangar.

I don't think it is bullshit. I think that is a perfectly valid reason to evict someone.

The fact that he admits he said the repairs were done and some were not even started does not help him.

"I had told the authority that all of thr repairs had been made and I was just waiting for the door to arrive. The fire marshal showed up to inspect the premises again, and he found that some of the original issues had not been addressed properly, or at all in the cases of two items".


1. They told him to fix X, Y, Z.
2. He said he fixed X, Y, but Z still was not done.
3. They inspected and found X was not started, Y was not finished, and Z was (like he said) not complete.

I can't speak to the other things people are claiming the airport is doing, and the idea of getting rid of a profitable business that brings money to the area seems like a stupid idea.... But kicking a tenant out for fire code violations after he said he fixed them but didn't.... That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

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

[Southern_Man 0]

What is the status now? Are Jim and the club still trying to negotiate with the Airport Authority? Are you all making plans to move to an alternate airport?

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"