Should a USPA member who is suing to shutdown a USPA Group Member Drop Zone be allowed to jump at any USPA Group Member Drop Zone?

Quote

Are USPA funds being used to defend the DZ?

I'm willing to say NO I bet not, the the AAD funding dose not work like that, it is for part 16 cases and you pretty much have too spend a shit load of money first and you need to be about ready to lose the case before the AAD funding could come into play. The AAD funding is not a fund for just any old lawsuit, it must be president setting and impact airport access nation wide.

One of the reason I post this /cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3590949;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread (we're not done with that thread yet FYI just waiting on a few things to go down) is for those who wish to understand the rights and the process of how this kind of crap works, based on the the number of replies in the thread, it clearly show too many jumpers could care less and many times think it's of no concern to them and dosen't affect them. It's not untill some asshat or a group of asshats try to ban them in their local area then all of a sudden we see a sudden interest in "getting help" from USPA or the skydiving community as a whole.

If you know and understand your rights for national airspace access and how to go about taking a stand, BEFORE this kind of crap you can plan on spending a lot of money for a lawyer. If on the other hand your well virsed in this area you can do a lot without a legal team and the expense.

One draw back to this case is the private land factor and not being federal funded airport. With that said, the FAA is well virsed in dealing with "safety issues" raised by "concerned citizens" and 90% of the time those folks are not just wrong, but really wrong and this is where knowing all this crap comes into play.

I wish my friends in Waller the best of luck, nice place to visit, good peeps over there.

Karma doesn't win court cases, but it sometimes takes care of business. Bill Green, good luck with your next malfunction Bro.

Why isn't the DZ owner of the airport imposing and forcing maintenance fees on the homeowners? It seems to be allowed under the convenants if it was done and the home owners assoc. wants to? I'd certainly be excersing that right as the property owner. Or seek to invalidate and cancel their access based on non payment.

This is a property dispute. The guys an asshole but has the right to be. USPA isn't a right (although the skyride lawsuit might imply that) but they shouldn't get involved or take action based on a private property dispute. But I certainly wouldn't choose to welcome him at me DZ.

Sounds like a new verb in the making; billgreened.

billgreened (bilgrend), v.,

I will not let him jump on my DZ. I would advise to consult KWB because she handles the marketing and punishing program at SDH. Other than that, Educate the DZO of the other respective facility to figure it out. He's your team rate athlete now!!
SDH

Wow, just wow, I am speechless.

Hi JR

This sounds almost lke a carbon copy of what happened to a DZ in Wa state. The only difference is Mcnasty wasn't a jumper just a home owner on the DZ who's wife left his sorry ass for a skydiver.

Mcnasty had FAA on speed dial, video of jump ops, all that BS. plus he didn't have to use a lot of his own money to sue, he used the county prosecutor to go after the DZO.

Mcnasty devoted 10-15 yr's of his sorry life getting the DZ closed. The DZ incured significant attorney fee's and eventually moved.

But IMO McNasty lost 15yr's of his life devoted to a negative bs cause, and is a sorry excuse for a human being and will never be happy because the world isn't as perfect as he wants it to be.

The lawyers always win

Here is a copy of the injunction that the homeowners were trying to get the judge to sign, to shut down skydiving operations at the airport:

http://picasaweb.google.com/JohnRich3rd/Injunction?authkey=Gv1sRgCL_Tj47QgLeVYQ#5355805759833802498

It consists of 8 pages.
Click on "full screen" at top-left to read the pages.
Click the arrows to scroll through the pages.
If that's not large enough print for you, start over again and click the magnifying glass at top-right.

The names of other defendants in the lawsuit have been removed. They are the land owners from whom the DZ leases the premises, and the jump pilot. I'm going to protect their privacy here.

This was a temporary injunction, to try and shut the drop zone down pending the full court trial.
The judge declined to sign this order at the hearing, so the drop zone is still operating.
The trial is in October, whereupon the plaintiffs will try again to shut it down.

Here is the "aviation expert" that the plaintiffs have hired to testify against the drop zone:

http://gforceinc.com/profile.html

Pay them enough money, and they'll say things in court for you, like:

• "Down wind take-offs and landings are unsafe, even in only a slight breeze."

• "Flying a right-hand landing pattern is unsafe."

• "A long straight-in final approach to landing is unsafe."

• "Skydivers landing on the airstrip are unsafe."

• "Skydivers crossing the traffic pattern below 3,000 feet are unsafe."

• "Doing take-offs and landings with an Otter on a grass strip is unsafe."

Tomorrow, I'll post some of the things that the plaintiffs have demanded with "Production of Documents". Stay tuned.

This message will detail the items that the plaintiffs, which includes skydiver Bill Green, have demanded from Skydive Houston, in a legal document called a "Request for Production of Documents":

1) All documents regarding usage of the land at the Skydive Houston Airport.
2) All documents regarding usage of the Otter jump plane.
3) All documents regarding usage of the C-182 jump plane.
4) All documents involving the airport from the airport land owners.
5 & 6) All documents from the airport land owners involving the jump plane.
7) All FAA documents involving the airport.
8 & 9) All FAA documents involving the jump planes.
10 & 11) All log books, including pilot log books, involving the jump planes.
12 & 13) All licenses for pilots who have flown the jump planes.
14) All licenses for any skydiving instructors who work for the drop zone.
15) All FAA documents regarding the skydiving business.
16) All complaints about the skydiving business.
17 & 18) All complaints about the jump planes.
19) All documents showing payments made for use of the airport land.
20) All documents showing payments made for use of the jump planes.
21, 22 & 23) All documents regarding maintenance and improvements of the airport.
24, 25 & 26) All documents showing maintenance and improvements to the jump planes.
27 & 28) All documents relating to downwind takeoffs of the jump planes.
29 & 30) All documents relating to downwind landings of the jump planes.
31 & 32) All documents relating to right-hand traffic patterns flown by the jump planes.
33) All photos and videos of any plaintiff or plaintiff's aircraft.
34) All documents related to conduct of plaintiff's or the operation of their aircraft which the drop zone contends to be dangerous or in violation of any rule.
35) All documents that the plaintiffs lack standing.
36) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are not subject to restrictive covenants.
37) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred by res judicata.
38) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred by estoppel.
39) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred due to unclean hands.
40) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred by laches.
41) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred by failure to mitigate damages.
42) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred by waiver.
43) All documents showing conditions precedent to recovery have not been met.
44) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred by assumption of risk and/or coming to the alleged nuisance.
45) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred by statutes of limitations.
46) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred because the drop zones activities were carried out legally.
47) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred because they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
48) All documents that the plaintiffs claims for injunction are barred by public policy.
49) All documents that the plaintiffs claims for injunction are barred as the balance of equities is in defendant's favor.
50) All documents that the plaintiffs have tortiously interfered with drop zone operations.
51) All documents that the plaintiffs claims are barred because they are frivolous and constitute
vexatious litigation.
52) All documents that plaintiffs claims constitute malicious prosecution and abuse of process.
53) All documents relating to any skydiver that failed to land on the airport.
54) All documents relating to any injury suffered by a skydiver.
55 & 56) All documents relating to any emergency that caused the jump planes to land down wind.
57 & 58) All documents relating to any emergency that caused the jump planes to take off down wind.
59 & 60) All documents relating to any emergency that caused the jump planes to fly a right hand pattern.
61 & 62) All jump manifests for the jump planes.
63) A copy of the waiver or release forms signed by customers.
64) All rigger log books.
65) All reserve chute repack cards.
66) All documents related to payment of property taxes for the airport.
67) All documents related to payment of electricity bills for the airport.
68) All documents related to payment of water bills for the airport.
69) All documents related to the shut-off of water supply to the housing subdivision.

* * *

Each DZO can decide who he wants as a customer. And why he thinks so.

It's really nobody else's problem other than the customer and the DZO.

Bonus points go to anyone who can figure out how things like rigger log books, reserve repack cards, and electric bills, have any bearing upon the homeowners utilization of the airport runway. Anyone?

Quote

rigger log books, reserve repack cards,

Trying to show a lack of compliance with BSRs.

Electricity?

Trying to make Al Gore cry?

Not that I see a way it has anything to do with their case, but does the dz's electric bill include the runway lights?

Quote

Quote

rigger log books, reserve repack cards,

Trying to show a lack of compliance with BSRs.

Those items won't do that by themselves. You would also have to prove that someone jumped a rig that was out of date. How would they do that?

This is just a fishing expedition for harassment purposes. It has nothing to do with their ability to use the airport runways.

If a lawyer that is trying to shut down your drop zone subpoenaed your rig's reserve packing data card, would you give it to him? How would you then jump that rig without the data card proving when you packed the reserve? Gosh knows when you would ever get that document returned to you.

The drop zone's legal response to this request is as follows:

"Defendant objects to this request as it is overly broad and seeks documents not relevant to the claims set forth by Plaintiff's in their Original Petition. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, deal purely with the effect of the jump plane on the grass runway, the flight patterns taken by the jump plane, and the path of descent of skydivers. The condition of the parachutes or "rigs" used by Defendant has not been brought into issue. Therefore, as worded, this request for production seeks documents that have no bearing on these allegations and are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

The defendant, responding in kind, asked for the skydiving log book of plaintiff Bill Green. He responded that he doesn't keep a log book, therefore there's nothing for him to submit. You folks who jump at his current drop zone, should keep a look-out for him writing in such a log book. If he actually has one, then he lied to the court.

Quote

does the dz's electric bill include the runway lights?

The electric bill is thousands per month. The contribution of the runway lights to that amount is tiny. I don't think there is any way to separate that out, to prove for example, that the runway lights aren't working.

It could be that the plaintiffs themselves did something to disable the runway lights, as part of their harassment campaign to try and get the DZ in trouble for "inadequate maintenance". Maybe they were hoping that the DZ wouldn't be sharp enough to file the necessary NOTAM, and get them in FAA trouble that way. See the attachment - 37X is the airport code for Skydive Houston. (Anyone want to interpret that for us?)

With the money they've spent on lawyers, they could have easily fixed this themselves, or gone half-and-half with the drop zone. That's what was done a few years ago when the cabling was old. The drop zone bought the mile of new cable, which was a significant expense, and the homeowners rented the ditch machine, laid the cable, and wired it to the lights.

But now instead of cooperating for the common good, they're only interested in suing to shut it down. Then they'll be out all their money for the lawyer, and will still have to fix the runway lights by themselves.

The DZ did fix the rotating beacon, which is sort of an antique, and was hand re-built by one of our engineers.

And this issue of runway lights is kind of ironic, because in court they objected to the idea that their small airplanes should have to carry an aviation radio so they could hear the "jumpers away" calls, to know when the airspace is busy, and stay safe. And activating those runway lights requires a radio tuned to a specific frequency. So how are they gonna turn the lights on without a radio?

And yet another irony is that with the drain of money that they've forced upon the drop zone, desired airport maintenance is impacted because of legal expenses. Furthermore, with the threat of a shutdown, there is no motivation to invest in any infrastructure improvements. So the homeowner lawsuit is killing their own golden goose, which was providing them an airport free of charge.

So this is a bunch of crazy rich people who don't want a dz near their houses and this is the only way they can go about it....

Good luck, you'll be fighting them forever. Is it going to be worth it in the long run to stay at a place you are despised? What is the endgame here? The dz will run out of money first I imagine.

That's right - skydivers should just pack up and leave whenever the neighbourhood starts to object.

Quote

The dz will run out of money first I imagine.

The handful of suing homeowners deem themselves the board of directors of the homeowners association (that's in dispute in another lawsuit from the other homeowners). This handful of homeowners are spending a pot of money that belongs to the homeowners association - they've invested nothing from their own personal wealth. I figure they're already spent about half or two-thirds of their pot of free money.

The drop zone has had to take out a loan to pay for their legal expenses.

Combine these two things though, and you see that the homeowners have a finite amount of money, and once it's spent, they're done. I don't think they'll invest their personal fortunes in this fight. The drop zone, on the other hand, has a continuing stream of income from a thriving business. So if it goes to a long-run game, I think the drop zone could out-last the homeowners.

But in the end, of course, only the lawyers will gain from the fight. Everyone else loses.

Quote

That's right - skydivers should just pack up and leave whenever the neighbourhood starts to object.

I didn't say that. I was merely stating that you should chose your battles wisely. If it is going to put you in the poor house and make the dropzone a miserable place to be because it is surrounded by a bunch of Mcnasty's.. is it a wise battle?

You should stand your ground of course, but only a fool would fight an obvious losing battle. According to the next post, this jumper doesn't feel like it is going to be a losing battle. Even better.

To the OP.. I wouldn't trust the guy if I was a different dzo, but we all have agendas. Perhaps the situation benefits the other dz.

Hi John,

One possible response by the dz is to counter-sue.

That might just scare them a little.

Looks like a %#@&-storm no matter what.

JerryBaumchen

Quote

One possible response by the dz is to counter-sue. That might just scare them a little.

Yep, I'd like to see that.

Back in the 1960's when this airport and neighborhood was built, the homeowners all paid a monthly maintenance fee for the upkeep of the airport. That fell out of practice decades later when no one seemed to be caring for the place any more.

Then the DZ entered the picture and bought the airport.

So it seems to me that the right to those maintenance fees should pass over to the current owner of the airport. After all, he's contractually bound to maintain the airport for the use of the homeowners, but they're no longer paying anything. So if he's legally bound to provide that service with his land, then he should also have the legal right to the maintenance fees provided for that by the covenants.

I'd like to see the DZ land owner counter-sue the homeowners for retroactive unpaid maintenance fees. They bitch about maintenance, but don't contribute anything to help perform that maintenance. It's time for them to pony up, by reconstituting the original plan, with the fees going to the land owner. And hitting them for back fees, going back a decade or more, will hurt 'em bad.

I have no idea how that would work out in contract law. But it seems to me that a land owner shouldn't have to provide a service to others for nothing.

They'll either have to pay up and get the maintenance they want. Or shut up and be happy with what they're getting for free. Right now they're like spoiled brats that want everything for nothing.

By the way, can anyone comment on whether or not a DHC-6 Twin Otter is "too heavy" to operate on a hard-pack grass strip, without damaging it?

It seems to me that the Otter is designed as a bush plane, for operation from unimproved fields. That's why it has high ground clearance and big fat tires.

Are there other airports where Otters routinely take off on grass strips which they share with other aircraft?

Quote

By the way, can anyone comment on whether or not a DHC-6 Twin Otter is "too heavy" to operate on a hard-pack grass strip, without damaging it?

It seems to me that the Otter is designed as a bush plane, for operation from unimproved fields. That's why it has high ground clearance and big fat tires.

Are there other airports where Otters routinely take off on grass strips which they share with other aircraft?

SDDallas runs an Otter and Caravan on a packed grass runway. There's not a lot GA coming in there but there is some. It never and issue here.