Deland control tower news

[normiss 622]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/volusia/orl-vskydive0507jan05,0,2191734.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-volusia

Good luck Skydive Deland!

[quade 3]

Lemme get this straight . . .

The FAA is putting up a control tower and the drop zone wanted an exemption from getting takeoff and landing clearance? Yeah . . . how was THAT gonna work?

If the report in the article is correct, it's simply a ludicrous request.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Mostly_Harmless 0]

Quote

Lemme get this straight . . .

The FAA is putting up a control tower and the drop zone wanted an exemption from getting takeoff and landing clearance? Yeah . . . how was THAT gonna work?

If the report in the article is correct, it's simply a ludicrous request.

I was thinking the same thing, but could they do something like give the skydiving aircraft first priority for take off and landing?

_________________________________________
www.myspace.com/termvelocity

[billvon 2,400]

>but could they do something like give the skydiving aircraft first
>priority for take off and landing?

Uh . . . why? I'd think all users of the airport should get similar treatment. We always make a big deal about how we're compatible with other aviation activities.

[quade 3]

Quote

Uh . . . why? I'd think all users of the airport should get similar treatment. We always make a big deal about how we're compatible with other aviation activities.

They could work out a "Letter of Agreement" which wouldn't give them "priority" but rather an understanding of the operation. At FUL, the Air Combat guys have a LoA with the tower that doesn't give them "priority" but certainly does speed up things. Do they get to cut in line for departures? No. But they also don't seem to ever have to wait very long either. They do formation takeoffs and carrier style approaches. It's not that they have priority, but with what they're doing they can be accomodated and fit into the pattern nicely because the tower already knows what to expect.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[MakeItHappen 15]

That article struck me in a completely different way.

I laughed out loud when I read it.

The city folks agreed to a plan where the dz did not have to contact the tower, yet their motivations for having a tower in the first place was to 'control' the skydiving operations.

Somewhere there are skydivers laughing about this.

You have the city cracking down on you one day, then something or someone changes to make all the crackdowns happen on others, all the while you know the FAA would probably not approve it. Submit it anyway - who knows?

Surprize, surprize - the FAA rejects the plan and, wow, there is another delay in building the tower.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[jeremy_o 0]

If the airport is busy enough to warrant a tower then they should build it, regardless of the operations held at the airport/FBO. When I am flying, I look forward to flying to a class D or higher airport because I know that the operations will be smooth and managed.

Bottom line: If the airport needs a tower, the extra time needed for the pilots to talk to the tower is minimal compared to waiting for other aircraft in the area to land without a tower. I fail to see the argument on either side here.

At my dropzone, we have to deal with aircraft on approach to MSP. An ATC controller that has been in the system there long enough will know that on a nice day, there will be slow planes at 10k. Plus, we are in contact with MSP approach. I'm sure they redirect aircraft because we rarely have any issues. (There probably are other factors here, I'm just speculating)

http://planetskydive.net/ - An online aggregation of skydiver's blogs.

[billvon 2,400]

>They could work out a "Letter of Agreement" which wouldn't give
>them "priority" but rather an understanding of the operation.

That's fine. Although that sounds a lot more like a "letter of explanation" than a "letter of agreement."

When we operated out of Brown we had a great relationship with the tower there. Took the ATC guys on tandems occasionally. For the most part they gave us zero grief, and went out of their way to accommodate us. (There was one guy there who was a hump, but we got to know when he was on.) Overall having a tower there was a benefit; otherwise we'd be trying to figure out if we could get on the runway before the MD-80 on long final got there.

[mark 102]

Quote

At my dropzone, we have to deal with aircraft on approach to MSP. An ATC controller that has been in the system there long enough will know that on a nice day, there will be slow planes at 10k. Plus, we are in contact with MSP approach. I'm sure they redirect aircraft because we rarely have any issues. (There probably are other factors here, I'm just speculating).

I'm going to speculate, too.

I suspect at Wissota the pilots talk to Minneapolis Center, not Approach, who control aircraft in an enroute phase. The jets check in with MSP Approach at 12,000 (about 11,000 AGL) about halfway between Chip Falls and Baldwin, so when they fly in your vicinity they are above most of the jump operations.

Mark

[NickDG 23]

>>The city folks agreed to a plan where the dz did not have to contact the tower, yet their motivations for having a tower in the first place was to 'control' the skydiving operations.<<

The funny part, or sad really, is in light of recent events sport wide, its skydivers under canopy that need a freaking control tower . . .

NickD BASE 194

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

>They could work out a "Letter of Agreement" which wouldn't give
>them "priority" but rather an understanding of the operation.

That's fine. Although that sounds a lot more like a "letter of explanation" than a "letter of agreement."

Actually the FAA term is "Letter of Agreement" and it spells out the operating procedures to be complied with by both parties. It goes a long way to streamlining communications and operations, and helping each party get what they want, if written properly. There of dozens of LOA's I use on the job.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

I was thinking the same thing, but could they do something like give the skydiving aircraft first priority for take off and landing?

With a few exceptions, such as Lifeguard flights and emergencies, service is mandated to be first come, first served. But with a better understanding of how jump operations work and what is needed (or not), service can be expedited by a good controller.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

>They could work out a "Letter of Agreement" which wouldn't give
>them "priority" but rather an understanding of the operation.

That's fine. Although that sounds a lot more like a "letter of explanation" than a "letter of agreement."

Actually the FAA term is "Letter of Agreement" and it spells out the operating procedures to be complied with by both parties. It goes a long way to streamlining communications and operations, and helping each party get what they want, if written properly. There of dozens of LOA's I use on the job.

KGYY has a LOA with the FAA that says they may not allow practice ILS approaches. If you ask for a practice ILS30 approach they will refuse you.

On the other hand, if you ask for a "long approach" to 30 they gladly comply, and ask you report 4 miles inbound. By pure coincidence, the OM is at at 4 miles.

How do we know to ask for a "long approach"? The controllers told us.

...

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

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

How do we know to ask for a "long approach"? The controllers told us.

See? It's all in the communication. Controllers are bound by many rules and agreements, but a good one knows how to work around them to serve the flying public better.

• Quote