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

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?

Skydive Twin Cities (Baldwin WI) has run an Otter for 15 years on a grass runway (a PAC 750 this year though). Doesn't seem to hurt the grass at all. Stays green all summer.

Quote

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

I jumped an Otter that was operating off the grass next to a concrete strip. I was told it was to save wear and tear of the tires!

I had an interesting observation Saturday morning, July 19th, about 10:30 am. One of the homeowners taxied from the south to the north end of the runway to take-off in their yellow Piper Cub, into the wind, which was from the south. As they turned around in preparation for take-off, another homeowner took off from south to north, passing over top of the Cub, waiting to take-off in the opposite direction.

They accuse us of being unsafe for taking-off down-wind in only a slight breeze, and yet clearly, one of the two of these homeowners did exactly that themselves. They couldn't have both been taking off into the wind, in opposite directions, at the same time.

They can't even get their own act together and obey the same rules which they claim that we are violating.

Could one of those planes have been flown by lawsuit plaintiff, and skydiver, Bill Green?
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=87900
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=3962V

Didn't catch the # ... but saw another instance of a downwind takeoff by them later in the day ... hmmm ... maybe 1:30 or 2-ish. Of course, winds were light and variable, but if they're not willing to accept that reasoning for the otter, why should it be acceptable for them?

Quote

Didn't catch the # ... but saw another instance of a downwind takeoff by them later in the day ... hmmm ... maybe 1:30 or 2-ish. Of course, winds were light and variable, but if they're not willing to accept that reasoning for the otter, why should it be acceptable for them?

That's funny stuff. As much I like to hear about it, Honestly, i'd document it well (even keep a camera handy on the DZ?) and quit posting information on here until it's settled.

The Texas Skydiving League competition meet was held at Skydive Houston this weekend. Everything went smoothly. A sheriff was hired for site security, to make sure the few homeowners didn't cause any trouble.

The only thing I heard about that the sheriff did was to run a homeowner off who was walking their dog on the taxiway. They allege that it's unsafe for skydivers to land on the taxiway, so by the same token, it should be unsafe to walk your dog on that taxiway. That's the rule they want to play by.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people walking their dogs, or skydivers landing, on the taxiway. It's a private airport, with little traffic. It's real easy to see and hear if an aircraft is rolling up the taxiway. Then you just step aside to get out of the way. But the infamous eight that are suing don't want to go by those common-sense easy-going country-living rules. If they're going to force the skydivers to operate by certain rules under order from a judge, then they have to obey those same rules themselves.

Oh, and we all got quite a fright at the Taylorcraft, tail number N43107, which came in to land and bounced up and down, while wobbling from side to side, all over the runway. We were all sure it was going to crash.

This is despite aviation expert Rigler's court testimony that all the pilot landings are all perfect, even as student pilots, so presumably there's no reason for a student skydiver to ever land outside the main landing area either. How expert is an expert that can't admit that he's never made any kind of mistake in an airplane? To me, it throws into question his honesty and credibility. We all make mistakes. There's no shame in that. You just have to learn from them.

Poor Bill Green, one of the plaintiffs, was unable to participate in the skydiving team competition, because he's banned from the drop zone.

yeah, poor bill, he couldn't jump at the competition, but he sure did a lot of touch and gos on the runway all morning saturday while we were jumping. we were always worried about a little yellow plane flying around in front of us. and the rumor was that he was the one that received the ticket for being on the runway with his dogs - but not really sure if that is true - but sure would be hilarious if it was!!

it was said earlier that the HOA had to pay money for use of facility, if they are not paying the money, and the land is privately owned, they should not be allowed to use the airport. some sort of contract should be in place right? stating what each has obligations for. who was the first to break the conditions? owner or HOA? if HOA was first to break it then they should not be allowed to use the airport until new contract is place, and that should be only if land owner wants to. at last resort owner could always sell land to someone else besides the HOA, say a homebuilder for example, that would build houses on the land instead of keeping it an airport. if that happened the dz could use the money move a little bit down the road, or as it looks like on google earth, buy the land a little to the north of the dz and out in another privatly owned strip with no concesions to the HOA for use (correct me if im wrong but privatly owned land is just that private they couldn't force the owner to do anything that the owner doesn't want to do) and not have to deal with the HOA anymore, if the developer was big enough they would have pockets far deeper than the HOA could ever get for fighting legal battles. leaving them without a airport.

and yet amazingly, they don't seem to understand that concept. they close us down and the property could conceively be sold to someone like a drag strip operator.

Quote

and yet amazingly, they don't seem to understand that concept. they close us down and the property could conceivably be sold to someone like a drag strip operator.

as would be deserving, or the owner could always sell the airport to them at an ungodly high price, law says a person cant sell to someone specifically land at lower than market price if he wouldn't sell to someone else at that price to, but as far as i know law doesn't say u cant sell above market value by say 20 fold the price to someone u don't like.

More info on the ghastly "dog-walking" incident.

The pilot had radioed the drop zone owner that someone was on the asphalt runway at the south end - this is the runway used for skydiving aircraft operations. The aircraft had to hold his ready-for-takeoff position until the runway was clear. The sheriff serving security duty was dispatched to investigate, and she found that the dog-walker was the one and only Bill Green himself. The sheriff attempted to talk to him, but Mr. Green walked away back across the active runway - in front of the oncoming Otter which was now taking off. The sheriff walked after him, and ordered him off the airport property. The sheriff contacted the county District Attorney for advice, who recommended that he be issued a trespass warning (copy attached). This serves as official notice that next time he trespasses he will be arrested. This warning was issued at Bill Green's house in the neighborhood.

I find it more than a bit hypocritical that Mr. Green deems it unsafe for skydivers to land on the runways and taxiways, yet at the same time he thinks it's okay for him to walk his dogs across an active runway, apparently without even bothering to check for oncoming traffic.

Note: The name at the top of the trespass warning is the drop zone operator who leases the property. The address is the business address of Skydive Houston. I've blurred-out the personal information of Mr. Green, to protect the privacy of his birth date and driver's license number.

does that mean he couldnt take off in his plane from that airport?

More info on this lawsuit.

One of the allegations made by the eight homeowners is that it is unsafe for skydivers to land on the taxiway or runways of this private airport. That position is not supported by the Federal Aviation Regulations for an airport with advertised (NOTAM) skydiving operations.

A court hearing was held last month to address a petition by the homeowners to shut down the drop zone, pending the full trial. The judge declined to grant that request, so the drop zone is still operating. However, in order to try and placate everyone, the judge required some concessions to be made in the meantime, until the matter can be settled fully in October.

The main judicial order that I see as a problem is one which forbids skydivers to land on the taxiways or runways.

Please view the attached aerial photos of the drop zone at this point:
1) Aerial view showing the legitimate landing areas (green) before the court hearing.
2) Aerial view showing the legitimate (green), and forbidden (red), landing areas after the court hearing.

For orientation, the strips you see on the airport, from left to right, are:
1) grass taxiway
2) grass runway
3) paved runway

The homeowners are supposed to utilize the grass runway, while the skydiving planes use the paved runway, to keep them separate and avoid conflicts.

The north end area is where the swoop pond resides, and is reserved for high performance landings. The "peninsula" that extends to the west is the regular landing area.

Skydivers are now forbidden to land on any of those red runway/taxiway areas. As you can see, this denies the skydivers about 90% of the airport property that they lease for this purpose.

There are several problems with this arrangement.

First of all, it compresses all of the skydiver landings into a smaller space, thereby increasing the danger of low-altitude canopy collisions, as jumpers compete to all get into the smaller landing area space. Landings in the forbidden area get you grounded for the day, and possibly subject to a contempt of court charge for defying the judicial order. This was done by the judge presumably to promote safety for the homeowner aircraft. But those are few and far between, and this was never a real problem with them before anyway. This is just a lame excuse the homeowners are promoting to try and shut down the DZ. And the irony is that this landing scheme actually increases the danger to the skydivers. Since jumpers are still overflying the runways to get to the landing area, any aircraft waiting to take-off should still hold until the sky is clear. So aircraft have gained nothing by restricting skydiver landings, and the skydivers have to assume even more risk to avoid the forbidden zone.

Second, if you can't get across the runways to the main landing areas, there is still a grass strip on the east side of the runway. However, this strip is also adjacent to a north-south road, with a power line running alongside it. If the winds are from the north or the south, landings are length-wise on this strip, which is okay, but still a bit close for comfort to the power lines. However, if the winds are from the east or west, this makes landing on this eastern strip nearly impossible. If the winds are from the east, you have to pass over the paved runway, and stop before you get to the power lines. If you undershoot, you're on the runway in violation of the court order. If you overshoot, you're in the power lines, in violation of your life. Likewise, if the winds are from the west, you have to fly in over top of the power lines in close proximity, and then get down on the ground before you reach the runway, with the same violations in effect. Once again, this greatly increases danger to the skydivers. And with that grass strip out of play in these east-west wind conditions, that just compresses even more people into the smaller space that remains in the main landing area.

Is someone going to have to get hurt before this folly can be overturned?

This arrangement cannot be allowed to stand permanently. The worst that can happen is that the homeowners might have to wait a few minutes before they can take off, until the sky and runways are clear of jumpers. That seems like a small inconvenience, when weighed against the increased danger to skydivers trying to get to the ground safely.

Quote

does that mean he couldnt take off in his plane from that airport?

Good question. The homeowners have the right to use the airport with their aircraft, as stated in the neighborhood covenants. They shouldn't be walking around on it, as ordered by the judge. So as long as he was in his airplane doing take-offs and landings, I don't think that would constitute a trespass. But I'm no lawyer.

what buildings are associated with the dz, manifest ect.could u highlight those for us that have never been there, how big is the field acre wise at the north end of runway, looks pretty big, and is field on other side of road landable area or are there obst, haz, not see able by Google earth, animals and such or barbwire fences

well either way sounds like the guy is going use the rope he was trying to use to hang the dz with to hang himself

Quote

what buildings are associated with the dz, manifest ect.could u highlight those for us that have never been there, how big is the field acre wise at the north end of runway, looks pretty big, and is field on other side of road landable area or are there obst, haz, not see able by Google earth, animals and such or barbwire fences

Another aerial view attached.

I don't know how to describe the size of the irregular shaped landing area. It's big enough most of the time in good conditions, but can be hard to land in consistently by students, or on windy days, or with many canopies on approach simultaneously.

The airport property which the drop zone leases is 55 acres in size - that's the area inside the green lines. The grass runway is 3,000 feet long, and the paved runway is 4,200 feet long.

Everything else surrounding it is private property. There are many large fields for "out" landings, but also many fences. Plenty of cows and horses, which don't present much of an issue.

thanks that actually helps a lot as i was thinking the dz was actually on the other side looked kind of like a pea pit across the street there and couldn't help but wonder why people would be landing around runway, that was of course before you posted your first set of pics. after that was just confused

[accidentally posted logged into DZ.com as my girlfriend.. deleted that post, now posting as me..]

It appears that the homeowner group believes they have "won" with this injunction. http://www.skylakesairport.org/

Quote

[accidentally posted logged into DZ.com as my girlfriend.. deleted that post, now posting as me..]

It appears that the homeowner group believes they have "won" with this injunction. http://www.skylakesairport.org/

Quote

It appears that the homeowner group believes they have "won" with this injunction.

The original petition would have simple closed the whole drop zone. I don't have a copy of that one, because it's not in the case files, because it wasn't actually signed. But I saw it laying on the bench seat next to the plaintiff's aviation expert.

The way this works, the judge doesn't actually write anything himself. He just signs documents that the lawyers have made up. They make up their best hope in advance and bring that for the judge to sign. If the judge doesn't like that document, he gives them a little time to submit a revised one.

When they couldn't get the closure, this is what they came up with as an alternative. It basically just says that the drop zone will obey the FAR's. Which it's been doing all along anyway. So no big deal. Note all the pages that Judge Beck crossed out with a big slash and his initials. Those were thrown out wholesale. This was not the win that they had hoped for.

It's actually kind of funny and pathetic. Because all the allegations are baloney, and only drummed up as excuses to shut down the drop zone. That's the only outcome they really wanted. So when the judge tweaked a few operating rules and allowed the DZ to continue operating, that's really a loss to the homeowners. They aren't interested in co-existing, or working together for safety.

And notice on the "resources" page of their web site that they have posted a petition signed by most of the other homeowners asking the instigators of this lawsuit to leave. This is a small group of eight people, causing trouble for the drop zone, as well as almost 100 other homeowners in the neighborhood.

The "deed restrictions" document goes back to the 1960's. Paragraph 19 is their shot at closing the DZ, by claiming that the skydivers create a "substantial annoyance" with their use of the airport. We don't. Paragraph 17 is where it says that they have the right to use the airport. Note also in that document it talks about dues being levied for maintenance of the property - they're not contributing to the airport maintenance, even though they use the airport. They're not keeping up their end of the bargain.

"Section 1" refers to the homes with hangers at the south end of the property. These homes have perpendicular taxiways from their rows of hangers leading out to the runway. I believe that "Section 2" is the newer homes at the north end which are sprinkled around the golf course. The Section 2 homes don't have aircraft, nor access to the runways.

"Skylakes" was the original name of the airport. That was changed with the FAA about 10 years ago to "Skydive Houston", by the then DZO, and that's how it now appears on newer aviation charts. However, many places still refer to it by the old name.

Since the legal can of worms has been opened-can the court or it's jurisdiction be held liable if there is an injury than can directly be attributed to the compression of the landing area? It seems that if the court creates an unsafe condition, they should hold a certain responsibility.

you seem to know the most about all of this tussle - it has evidently been several weeks now since all of this drama has been going on - is this guy still being allowed to jump at he regular dropzone(believe you said he was on a team there)? any hints of them supporting any of this?

Quote

Since the legal can of worms has been opened-can the court or it's jurisdiction be held liable if there is an injury than can directly be attributed to the compression of the landing area? It seems that if the court creates an unsafe condition, they should hold a certain responsibility.

That's one of the things that grates on me. The judge is well-meaning guy, but he knows nothing about general aviation or skydiving. He doesn't have any business re-designing airports or their operating rules. That's the purview of the FAA. And the FAA has examined the operation and found nothing wrong with it. So the judge is just trying to get each side to compromise, to meet in the middle, in a deal they can live with. But I think he's stepped outside his limits of authority with airport rules that aren't supported by the FAR's. I'm sure if you threw enough lawyer money around you could overturn this.

This is a rural county, and Judge Beck is a traveling judge that serves several different counties in the area, because none of them have enough business for him by themselves. He does criminal law, family law, civil law, you name it. He's a jack of all trades. You'll find him downstairs in the morning dealing with criminal charges, then going upstairs to work civil cases. He's not specialized in any one area of law. An all around good guy, and does a heck of a job, but he's outside the boundaries of his specialties in this case. But that's what you've got to deal with.

It is my hope that at the October trial that it will be impressed upon him that his restrictions have actually made things less safe, and that they will be lifted at that time. We just have to hang in there and keep everyone safe until then. If these restrictions are made permanent, then I consider that a serious problem.

Quote

Note also in that document it talks about dues being levied for maintenance of the property - they're not contributing to the airport maintenance, even though they use the airport. They're not keeping up their end of the bargain.

This seems like a pretty blatant violation of the agreement. Is anything happening to pursue them to own up to paying maintenance fees?

Why are they continuing to be allowed to use it if they are not paying?

What is the fundamental reason for Bill Green's being such a jerk? (There must be more to the story than him just suddenly becoming such an asshole).