Citizens for quiet skies

Quote

No it's a great idea, let her piss off more of the local aviation community, that will rally them all to band together.

What needs to happen is that several individuals sue her independently of one another.

one for loss of income....one for loss of xxxxxx and so on....

20-30 individual lawsuits should do it.

MEL

You can read all about it here. http://www.bouldercounty.org/property/build/pages/docketdetails.aspx?docid=630

From an email I have from the dzo.

Quote

The issue they ultimately shut me down on was trespass. I could not guarantee 100% accuracy 100% of the time. Thus causing an undue burden to the community.

Again this is why I said if this is allowed to stand, and is not challenged then kiss 105.25 good bye. And every dz in the country that is using an off airport landing area should be taking notice and and doing something about this case to help. IMHO this is a national case and issue!

stratostar

From an email I have from the dzo.

Quote

The issue they ultimately shut me down on was trespass. I could not guarantee 100% accuracy 100% of the time. Thus causing an undue burden to the community.

Can a cattle rancher give a 100% guarantee that none of his livestock will ever escape from his pasture?

Can Walmart give a 100% guarantee that none of their customers will wander off across adjacent private land?

Can the National Park give a 100% guarantee that hikers will stay within its boundaries?

Shut 'em all down!

stratostar

You can read all about it here. http://www.bouldercounty.org/property/build/pages/docketdetails.aspx?docid=630

From an email I have from the dzo.

Quote

The issue they ultimately shut me down on was trespass. I could not guarantee 100% accuracy 100% of the time. Thus causing an undue burden to the community.

Again this is why I said if this is allowed to stand, and is not challenged then kiss 105.25 good bye. And every dz in the country that is using an off airport landing area should be taking notice and and doing something about this case to help. IMHO this is a national case and issue!

Hey Strat - aren't unintended off-target landings typically exempt from tresspass under the provision that the airman had to land on said property for safety?

Yes that is my understanding, same as if you had to land an airplane or heli due to an emergency... however it will take a lawyer to explain that to the County of Boulder Colorado.

my post about noise exceptions was for Mile-Hi. I know independents issues were ultimately decided by not being able to guarantee there wouldn't be errant jumpers. Could Jeremy have said I guarantee that 100% of the jumpers, not in a emergency situation, will land on the field.

I would think that the county could find it's self in a spot with regards to hot air balloons, by allowing one type yet discriminating towards another type, kind or class of aeronautical use... after all has the County of Boulder pass any any limit, restrictions or bans on hot B's operating or landing in the county? After all HB's go with the wind and a lot of time they land on PP with no permission and it's not even considered an emergency.... granted the chasers will try to gain the land owners permission when they can't, but a lot of the time they can't find them in the middle of no where.

http://www.hotairballoonridescolorado.com/fairwinds_Location.htm

These guys aren't too far from the plaintiff. Hope the noise doesn't bother her. She obviously has a keen sense of hearing.

stratostar

Quote

chuckakers wrote:

Anyone know why the jumpers aren't allowed to land on the airport?

***No room? That looks like a pretty densely-packed airport property.

There is more then enough compliant areas on that field, for some licensed and TDM's, students would be really tight. It's my understanding they were told no they couldn't land on that federal funded airport because of the sailplanes and UL traffic and they choose to go off airport to be nice and accommodating to the other airport users. Now the county is going to be forcing the business owner and the City of Boulder into a tight spot... I think in the near future there will an airport access case with lawyers involved, I base that on research, not just what I think. If they win and I'm sure they can with enough $$$, then Kim Gibbs can bitch all she likes about the noise and there won't be shit she can do about it, nor the county denial of landing on an airport as a land use issue.

I think this would be an optimal solution in that we wouldn't have to drive back. But there is a lot of traffic at the airport with gliders, UL's etc. I would be concerned about hitting one under canopy.

I want to jump here again

It's called VFR flight rules for a reason, see & avoid. Having grown up on a dz and jumped a number of them that catered to UL's, sail planes and crop dusters and light GA aircraft, it can be done and done safely, but it takes everyone play by the rules and watching out for each other.

craigbey they have been bitching about the HB's too and helicopters, if you go read all the BS she spews on that FB page you will see all the bitching by her and her fellow nutcases.

My son did glider training at Boulder. The typical approach of the gliders is a midfield crosswind, downwind, base, and then final. Currently my son flies in owl canyon (ft collins). Although, he received very good training, I always thought that the airspace was very tight. I have not jumped there; but I would feel more comfortable with an off field landing given the chance. The physical space seems much smaller than mile hi.

Quote

The typical approach of the gliders is a midfield crosswind, downwind, base, and then final.

I understand your point, however just because that is how they have done it for years, don't mean that is how they will continue should permission be granted for parachutes to land on airport property under 105.23B. Please review AC 105.2E. http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_105-2E.pdf and AC 90-66a http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC90-66A.pdf

The image attached shows a few legal areas on the other side from the sail planes and one along side them, and the swoop pond area too, LOL. So on the other side of the airport from the Sails, means they get to adjust what they do and have been doing and even if they didn't they are still required to fly VFR and see and avoid.

*** AC 105.2E
b.Additional Aviation Activities. A large number of airports that accommodate parachute operations also have different kinds of aviation activities taking place simultaneously, including flight training, glider and helicopter operations, Emergency Medical Services Helicopter (EMS/H), sightseeing operations, and aerobatic practice over or in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Many airports accommodate a large volume of transient traffic during skydiving operations.
c.
Shared Facility Airports. The FAA recommends that shared facility airports have operating procedures so that each activity can operate safely by knowing the procedures for each of the other activities. Representatives of each type of activity can operate more effectively by knowing the procedures for each of the other activities. Representatives of each type of airport user group should develop procedures specific to their activity and share these procedures with other user groups. Airport management must ensure that airport policies and procedures are kept current, which can be accomplished via regularly scheduled meetings with all airport user groups.
(1)
Traffic Patterns. With a minimum parachute opening altitude of 2,000 feet AGL (most parachutists open much higher), parachutes are nearly always open 800 feet or more above the traffic pattern altitude for any airport. Descending slowly and easy to visually acquire, parachutists and pilots have a shared responsibility to see and avoid each other. With a minimum parachute opening altitude of 2,000 feet AGL, parachutes are most often opened 800 feet or more above the traffic pattern altitude for any airport. Parachutists and pilots have a shared responsibility to see and avoid each other by descending slowly.

I'm still a little confused about trespass. I do not see how a DZO, pilot, or anyone could really be considered a facilitator of trespass when it is obvious that a skydiver does not WANT to land off-site. It is an emergency when it happens. Its like asking your police to stop crime 100%. Unreasonable expectation. If an airplane lands in someone's back yard they don't get cited for trespass; and if the local airport has it happen more than once its an issue with the pilots not the airport. This is all silliness. Also the noise ordinance should be brought up in court as well.

If this went to court there is a reasonable expectation it could be thrown out early by the judge. Question is on costs to fight it for a C182 DZ.

stratostar

Yes that is my understanding, same as if you had to land an airplane or heli due to an emergency... however it will take a lawyer to explain that to the County of Boulder Colorado.

There's your problem right there. The libtards in Boulder don't use rational thought. At the risk of stating the obvious, Boulder is never going to be a good place to try to open a dropzone. Take your money and effort somewhere else. This whole thing is akin to trying to open a gun store in the middle of San Francisco, next to a daycare. Good luck!

If there's one thing there isn't a shortage of in Colorado it's open space... seriously, go somewhere else and let the dirty hippies have their pot stores, shitty parking, poor freeway access, and unplowed streets filled with stranded Priuses.

Part of being a successful business owner is location selection... if I wanted to open a used bicycle shop or buy some rental property to lease to trust-fund babies and liberal-arts majors at ludicrous rates, I'd choose Boulder. Otherwise, that city can suck-it IMO.

mattjw916

***Yes that is my understanding, same as if you had to land an airplane or heli due to an emergency... however it will take a lawyer to explain that to the County of Boulder Colorado.

There's your problem right there. The libtards in Boulder don't use rational thought. At the risk of stating the obvious, Boulder is never going to be a good place to try to open a dropzone. Take your money and effort somewhere else. This whole thing is akin to trying to open a gun store in the middle of San Francisco, next to a daycare. Good luck!

If there's one thing there isn't a shortage of in Colorado it's open space... seriously, go somewhere else and let the dirty hippies have their pot stores, shitty parking, poor freeway access, and unplowed streets filled with stranded Priuses.

Part of being a successful business owner is location selection... if I wanted to open a used bicycle shop or buy some rental property to lease to trust-fund babies and liberal-arts majors at ludicrous rates, I'd choose Boulder. Otherwise, that city can suck-it IMO.

Don't forget to open your vintage clothing store where you sell used garbage for more than most people buy designer brands new.

I feel bad for the jumpers of Boulder though. But worse, if we back down too easily it sets precedent for other DZs to fall victim to similar events. Look at Skydive Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Probably will be gone.

Quote

But worse, if we back down too easily it sets precedent for other DZs to fall victim to similar events.

Not really. Just because a DZ dies somewhere doesn't mean they're going to start dropping like flies. Just look at the victory Oceanside pulled off getting a dropzone a few minutes from the beach in a densely populated area (in Kommiefornia of all places). Plus it's not like you can't drive up the road to Longmont and jump out of an Otter/King-Air/C206 or whatever they have flying lately.

Based on the population dispersion towards the coasts/metro areas soon you'll be able to get a swath of land in the mid-west for nothing and can do whatever the hell you want out there (like the olden days) because there will be little/no one looking over your shoulder. While you're at it you can become a pioneer in running planes on biofuel with all that excess land.

DrDom

I'm still a little confused about trespass. I do not see how a DZO, pilot, or anyone could really be considered a facilitator of trespass when it is obvious that a skydiver does not WANT to land off-site. It is an emergency when it happens. Its like asking your police to stop crime 100%. Unreasonable expectation. If an airplane lands in someone's back yard they don't get cited for trespass; and if the local airport has it happen more than once its an issue with the pilots not the airport. This is all silliness. Also the noise ordinance should be brought up in court as well.

If this went to court there is a reasonable expectation it could be thrown out early by the judge. Question is on costs to fight it for a C182 DZ.

All of the statutes for Colorado for trespass state that one must enter unlawfully. Since skydiving is a legal activity (and no local jurisdiction may make it illegal, the FAA has already weighed in on that), unintentionally landing on someone's property is not trespassing.

http://abclegaldocs.com/Downloads_small/CRS_18-4-502_Colorado_Trespassing_Laws.pdf

So, the county cannot threaten jumpers with prosecution for landing on someone's property unintentionally and cannot use it as a reason for not allowing a legal activity to occur which is not regulated by them.

I am not an attorney, but my brother is.....

top

craigbey

http://www.hotairballoonridescolorado.com/fairwinds_Location.htm

These guys aren't too far from the plaintiff. Hope the noise doesn't bother her. She obviously has a keen sense of hearing.

Those propane burners ARE really loud. Someone needs to drift right over her house, just a few feet above the roof, and then crack open the burners...

topdocker

***I'm still a little confused about trespass. I do not see how a DZO, pilot, or anyone could really be considered a facilitator of trespass when it is obvious that a skydiver does not WANT to land off-site. It is an emergency when it happens. Its like asking your police to stop crime 100%. Unreasonable expectation. If an airplane lands in someone's back yard they don't get cited for trespass; and if the local airport has it happen more than once its an issue with the pilots not the airport. This is all silliness. Also the noise ordinance should be brought up in court as well.

If this went to court there is a reasonable expectation it could be thrown out early by the judge. Question is on costs to fight it for a C182 DZ.

All of the statutes for Colorado for trespass state that one must enter unlawfully. Since skydiving is a legal activity (and no local jurisdiction may make it illegal, the FAA has already weighed in on that), unintentionally landing on someone's property is not trespassing.

http://abclegaldocs.com/Downloads_small/CRS_18-4-502_Colorado_Trespassing_Laws.pdf

So, the county cannot threaten jumpers with prosecution for landing on someone's property unintentionally and cannot use it as a reason for not allowing a legal activity to occur which is not regulated by them.

I am not an attorney, but my brother is.....

top

Your brother may be an attorney but you must first understand the mentality of local politicians, council members, board members, commissioners etc. They can and will do anything they want and will continue to do so unless you drag their ass into court and get a judge to tell them not to. Therein lies the rub. Any legal action you take will cost you money and can take years to settle. They can out wait you and outspend you.

Sparky

You really want to take this to Speaker's Corner? This issue is best addressed by our community as a team effort, and preferably with some adult maturity. If your approach is to announce that half of your teammates can just go fuck themselves right from the get-go, then maybe the best place for you is on the sidelines. We have a common goal, and a common opponent. The first step toward "divide and conquer" is to divide. Doing it to your own team is pretty boneheaded.

mjosparky

******I'm still a little confused about trespass. I do not see how a DZO, pilot, or anyone could really be considered a facilitator of trespass when it is obvious that a skydiver does not WANT to land off-site. It is an emergency when it happens. Its like asking your police to stop crime 100%. Unreasonable expectation. If an airplane lands in someone's back yard they don't get cited for trespass; and if the local airport has it happen more than once its an issue with the pilots not the airport. This is all silliness. Also the noise ordinance should be brought up in court as well.

If this went to court there is a reasonable expectation it could be thrown out early by the judge. Question is on costs to fight it for a C182 DZ.

All of the statutes for Colorado for trespass state that one must enter unlawfully. Since skydiving is a legal activity (and no local jurisdiction may make it illegal, the FAA has already weighed in on that), unintentionally landing on someone's property is not trespassing.

http://abclegaldocs.com/Downloads_small/CRS_18-4-502_Colorado_Trespassing_Laws.pdf

So, the county cannot threaten jumpers with prosecution for landing on someone's property unintentionally and cannot use it as a reason for not allowing a legal activity to occur which is not regulated by them.

I am not an attorney, but my brother is.....

top

Your brother may be an attorney but you must first understand the mentality of local politicians, council members, board members, commissioners etc. They can and will do anything they want and will continue to do so unless you drag their ass into court and get a judge to tell them not to. Therein lies the rub. Any legal action you take will cost you money and can take years to settle. They can out wait you and outspend you.

Sparky

Not necessarily. If you can get the FAA to come to a meeting and explain in very blunt terms that they are in violation of their airport funding agreement (in which there are plenty of precedents of airports losing the fight), then the county attorney will need to weigh in on the costs the county will incur and the threat of losing monies in a situation that is a no-win.

All of the people making the decision are elected and, therefore, subject to what their actions appear. Show that they are going to cost the county lots of money fighting, lose, and cost the county more money- they might rethink their positions. Right now those politicians think this is one small group of county residents against a small business with very little political ramifications. It's another thing for them to see a national organization (USPA and the AAD Fund), the FAA with lots of precedents and rules, and a business backed by other businesses in the area. (get local businesses that have a financial stake to write letters)

You cannot fight the small minds, but you can make the small minds aware of the ramifications of their actions in simple ways.

How involved has USPA been in this so far? A call from them along with an email of cases where airports/counties have been forced to comply with the law to the county attorney can make the him/her nervous. That makes the board nervous. And they can't fall back on the defense that they had no idea what they were getting into.

Also, I would suggest a call to Pat Garcia at Skydive Sacramento. He has been fighting an even nastier group and winning. He also has written out the steps, precedents, and how he has won. (Lots of props to him!)

We are winning these battles, but it is a long, slow, frustrating campaign.

top

Andy9o8

You really want to take this to Speaker's Corner? This issue is best addressed by our community as a team effort, and preferably with some adult maturity. If your approach is to announce that half of your teammates can just go themselves right from the get-go, then maybe the best place for you is on the sidelines. We have a common goal, and a common opponent. The first step toward "divide and conquer" is to divide. Doing it to your own team is pretty boneheaded.

+1 When did our own personal politics become a factor? It didn't, until a few posts ago. Enough of that nonsense.

Quote

If your approach is to announce that half of your teammates can just go fuck themselves

Straw man argument. I didn't remotely say that so don't put words in my mouth kthx.

I'd expect more from an attorney, really...

QUIET. 74 posts and no moderator has put me out of my misery yet?

Quote

Your brother may be an attorney but you must first understand the mentality of local politicians, council members, board members, commissioners etc. They can and will do anything they want and will continue to do so unless you drag their ass into court and get a judge to tell them not to. Therein lies the rub. Any legal action you take will cost you money and can take years to settle. They can out wait you and outspend you.

Sparky

This is probably among the wisest comments in this thread.