The new street looks great and should stand up for years to come.

Thanks to Chuck and his crew for getting this done.

"an extended taxiway, an extended runway, extended parking areas for airplanes and several other projects. Now, whether the city does all those projects is highly debatable. But they might. The city’s airport may not land big commercial jets"

Would these improvements make it more feasible for basketball teams to fly in and out of Lawrence? Or football teams? I remember Penn State had to improve its airport as part of the deal to join the Big 10.

"there is quite a debate going on regarding whether a parachute company should be allowed to use the Lawrence Municipal Airport as a landing zone"

I don't see any problem with that at all, provided the parachute company meets this one single requirement:

They must purchase and keep current a $100 million blanket liability insurance policy that covers 100% of any injuries to anyone or any incident that results in property damage, and a $1 million dollar payout to the family for the death of anyone that is killed, including any parachutist, regardless of circumstances.

A few years back, the City of Lawrence's insurance company had to pay $1 million for an incident that was obviously due to the negligence of a City employee. There was no possible defense for his actions. (I personally know the family involved, and the amount was published in the Lawrence Journal World at the time.)

After that, the City of Lawrence had to self insure, meaning that if there had been another similar incident, the property owners in Lawrence would have been the ones to pay, by having their property taxes raised.

That one incident is why the City of Lawrence was unable to buy liability insurance at any price from anyone in the past, but I don't know if that is still the case. It is possible that today there is an insurance company that is willing to take on the liability risk of the City of Lawrence.

Should the City of Lawrence expose itself to such a liability risk again?

That's the question.

City of Lawrence Insurance Policies

The Risk Management Division manages a portfolio of insurance coverages to protect City property and operations from a variety of potential loss exposures. The program is intended to secure insurance coverage that will minimize the adverse effects of accidental and operational losses on the City of Lawrence. Such insurance coverages include:

Airport Operation Liability Boiler/Machinery Breakage Excess Workers' Compensation Property Fire and Casualty Public Entity Liability

The above clipped from: http://lawrenceks.org/risk_management

The City of Lawrence is taking on the risk for the airport operations. But as far as I know of, there has been only one large claim that was successfully made made against the city, and that was for $1 million.

But that's pocket change, because the city will just raise property taxes if there's a problem.

I think that the Vinland airport would be much more suitable for skydiving. It's only a few miles away, and if it was used the City of Lawrence would be shielded from any liability at all.

The only problem with it is that it's a turf runway.

It's obvious that Lawrence City officials illegally denying parachuting activity at Lawrence Municipal Airport has deep roots in dirty politics. I believe a rational public servant, with a mind towards the future, would undoubtedly come to a different conclusion than exhibited in the past. Unfortunately, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.

Skydiving, with all the associated risks, is safer today than ever. The US Parachute Association (http://www.uspa.org/), has gained international respect for their licensing and safety programs dating back to 1946. Skydivers today come from all walks of life; professionals, students, public servants, aviators, and the like. They follow the rules, they train, they practice safety, the mitigate the risks. In fact, nothing comes without risk. Working on a car, playing golf, jogging, bicycling, flying, etc all have risks. Mr. Holzwarth's suggested minimum insurance is ludicrous; using his logic, I'd unrealistically suggest that all bicycles operated in Lawrence be equipped with anti-lock brakes, air-bags, and a force field that prevents one from hitting a stationary object. Might I suggest a review of this Ally Bank commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suBGbef5p3g) for further inspiration.

For the record, among many other things, I am an instructor pilot, an aircraft owner, a skydiver, a father, and a husband. I enjoy safely living life to its fullest, which does not include locking myself in the basement away from all the world has to offer in the name of safety; nor does it include being reckless and endangering others. I don’t drink and drive, I don’t text and drive, and I don’t stifle other’s desire to pursue recreational activities.

However, if a Lawrence city official asked me what they could do for their city and constituents, I would tell them to promote activity in Lawrence. I would welcome people to visit Lawrence, visit the airport, buy gas, lunch, and lodging from local businesses. I would promote new start-up businesses who will have to hire mechanics, fuel distributors, parachute packers, advertisers, and bankers. I would not inhibit progress in the name of insurance requirements or unfounded risks of aircraft colliding with parachutists in the landing pattern. Again, as an active pilot, I have no fears about flying near parachutists and I teach my students the same; however I do have a fear of having a head-on collision with a 16-year old texting while we travel towards each other at 120 mph only separated by a few feet on each side of that yellow line.

Thank you for reading thus far. Rather than making up reasons defending the unfounded historical no, my suggestion is for everyone involved to take another approach and spend efforts on getting to a solution.

-The Pilot Jumper

Here's my take on the situation:

You don't need a control tower to operate a safe and productive drop zone.  Most airports without a control tower would welcome the possibility of bringing in a small turbine aircraft that has the potential to add 30-60 total take offs and landings a day, which could almost double the airports current statistics.

http://www.skydivemilwaukee.com/ -doesn't have a tower, operates a pac750 turbine all summer and a Cessna 182 all winter.

http://www.skydivecsc.com/ - owner Douglas Smith just recently relocated to Rochelle IL / Koritz Field.  The community provided overwhelming suport and the airport welcomes the two turbines (Twin Otter& pac750) which will be hangered in a new state of the art hanger and facilities that will make it a top rated drop zone!

I still like our (Seven Hills Skydivers of Madison WI) short grass runway and two Cessna 182s!!  We are just a few miles from kmsn and they provide suport!  Skydiving is an amazing sport with a safety record that is better than any non-skydiver would ever believe.  Please visit the USPA website for their great resources and information!!

Thanks for your time, Gene

To Ron ~ if your logic is correct, than any user of the Lawrence should carry the same liability Insurance. Any pilot that takes off, lands, or enters the airspace of Larwrence much purchase $100 Million blanket Liability Insurance and pay $1,000,000 immediatly to the family of any person injured in a flight to/from Lawrence.

Why would you put this constrait on one business an not on the other? What's the difference between flying an aircraft and exiting one with a certified parachute? According to the FAA, nothing. They are both classified as legitimate aviation activites. Why you would even suggest that one be required to purchase an unattainable insurance policy (not a single one of the 250+ dropzones in the US carry this insurance....) is discrimination. Lets require ALL aerospace activities to carry $100,000,000 Insurance policy.

A few comments on the airport issue:

One of the requirements for safe separation between skydivers and pilots is a separate pattern. Right now all four runway patterns at Lawrence are left fraffic (i.e. pilots always make left turns in the pattern.) By changing the pattern to right traffic for 1/33 and left traffic for 15/19 - and keeping the jump runs and parachute patterns on the left side of the airport - you would achieve separation of patterns between both activities. No need to shut anything down.

Skydiving peacefully coexists with general aviation at dozens of airfields across the country. It does take some effort to do this safely, but it takes effort to make any two aviation activities compatible; if a twin engine business jet can share an airport with a Cessna 152, both can share it with skydivers.

It's unfortunate the headline reads "Parachutists vs Pilots" as many parachutists ARE pilots. Parachutists and pilots share the air at over 200 dropzones in the USA, some of them very busy airports with many takeoffs/landings every day. Not only can parachutists and pilots coexist, they can provide economical benefit. A well-run skydiving operation becomes a tourist destination and offers a place for residents to view a fun and mainstream activity. Skydivers certainly understand safety.

The FBO benefits from fuel sales, ramp fees, and safe operations of parachuting businesses may be easily demonstrated through statistics over the past 50 years. The community benefits from an exciting, interesting activity.

The problem with big commercial airliners is not so much the length of the longer runway (15/33), but rather the thickness and strength of the concrete. The big airliners weigh too much, and their landings would dramatically shorten the life of our Lawrence Runways.

The problem with Mr. McCauley is not so much parachuting per se, though the additional operations he would bring to the airport would all occur on weekends, such as race weekends and KU sports weekends, when traffic is already very high.

Another problem is that once skydivers are in the air, they pretty much own the sky. If LifeFlight helicopters gets a dispatch during that time, they must wait until the canopies are on the ground before they leave the ground. No big deal? Yeah, if you aren’t the wounded car accident victim who might DIE due to the delay. Active skydiving at Lawrence would probably drive LifeFlight (a valued airport tenant) away.

The real problem with Mr. McCauley is that he is trying to catch flies with hydrofluoric acid, instead of honey.

You can fix ignorance. You cannot fix stupid, and I don’t think you can fix persistent blatant open hostility either. Mr. McCauley seems to have come here to start a war, and not to promote safe skydiving.

Starting a new business in Lawrence is difficult. Educating government types about risks and rewards is sometimes difficult, and often frustrating. But trying to do that by means of harassment, insults, and lawsuits against government officials, well… Mr. McCauley is simply not welcome in Lawrence, and never will be, unless he has a sea-change of heart.

I hope he finds a better way.

Bilddel, in case you missed it: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1019204

"(2) Parachute Landings on Airports. Airports may designate suitable parachute landing areas. While skydivers attempt to land in such areas, at times there may be inadvertent landings in other grass or hard-surfaced areas. This could include landings on runways, taxiways, and other hard-surfaced areas. Areas such as runways, taxiways, clearways, and obstacle-free zones are not prohibited areas but should not be designated as a primary landing area and should be vacated as soon as practical. Flying a parachute over runways at low altitudes should be avoided where possible. The FAA recommends that airport management work with parachute operators to develop standard operating procedures (SOP) for activities conducted by parachutists."

Do you see where it says we can land in OFA's, Taxiways, runways, clearways, are not PROHIBITED areas! and that little but at the end about " THE FAA recommends that airport management work with parachute operators to develop standard operating procedures (SOP) for activities conducted by parachutists." Dose that say anything holding a public hearing ran by the airport board?

While we are at it Bilddel'

Also: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/3df9402e6cae52048625725d00699cb2/$FILE/150_5190_6.pdf

a. Exclusive Rights Violations "1. Restrictions Based on Safety and Efficiency. An airport sponsor can deny a prospective aeronautical service provider the right to engage in an on-airport aeronautical activity for reasons of safety and efficiency. A denial based on safety must be based on evidence demonstrating that airport safety will be compromised if the applicant is allowed to engage in the proposed aeronautical activity. Airport sponsors should carefully scrutinize the safety reasons for denying an aeronautical service provider the opportunity to engage in an aeronautical activity if the denial has the possible effect of limiting competition. The FAA is the final authority in determining what, in fact, constitutes a compromise of safety. As such, an airport sponsor that is contemplating the denial of a proposed on-airport aeronautical activity is encouraged to contact the local Airports District Office (ADO) or the Regional Airports Office. Those offices will then seek assistance from FAA Flight Standards (FS) and Air Traffic (AT) to assess the reasonableness of the proposed action and whether unjust discrimination results from the proposed restrictions on aeronautical activities because of safety and efficiency. 3"

Do you see that part where it says: "The FAA is the final authority in determining what, in fact, constitutes a compromise of safety." That means Richard Bryant & Richard Haig are not the ones who get to decide if skydivers can conduct operations on KLWC.

In fact you think Mr. Bryant employee of airport development group would understand the fiduciary obligation to follow the FAA rules:

"an airport sponsor that is contemplating the denial of a proposed on-airport aeronautical activity is encouraged to contact the local Airports District Office (ADO) or the Regional Airports Office. Those offices will then seek assistance from FAA Flight Standards (FS) and Air Traffic (AT) to assess the reasonableness of the proposed action and whether unjust discrimination results from the proposed restrictions on aeronautical activities because of safety and efficiency."

So as you can see, the city should have contacted the ADO not me, but seeing how they want to play games, I will take care of it on behalf of all aviation users.

Skydivers don't own the sky. They share the sky with other aeronautical users. A medical helicopter would never be delayed because parachutes are in the sky.

Many of the biggest drop zones in the US have multiple aircraft flying In harmony with other aircraft at non towered airports on very busy weekends. That is a non issue.

In Utah we have the largest commercial skydiving operation in the state operating on the Ogden-Hinkley airport. This is the second largest commercial airport in the entire state second only to Salt Lake International. We are right next door to Hill air Force base which is one of the most active US Air Force bases in the country. Our skydiving operation flies about 25 loads of skydivers in a cessna grand caravan every day in a class B airspace. We have no problem co-existing with the other traffic in the area. We have been doing this since 1993.

In addition to this the United States Forest Service has it's regional hub located just two hangars down from our hangar and they maintain and operate multiple large aircraft during the summer months for their firefighting operations. Smokejumper aircraft, lead planes, helicopters, you name it.

Our airport also has multiple flight schools, helicopter operations, and it is a big source to our local economy. This is a very busy airport and skydivers are a big asset to the local economy

Mr Holzwarth seems to be very mis-informed and totally ignorant of the subject matter being discussed here. Federal law dictates that all federally funded airports provide EQUAL access to all, not just the ones he likes or approves of.

By putting unreasonable and un-obtainable restrictions on certain airport users based on nothing that is justifiable you will be in direct violation of federal law. Plain and simple.

The smart thing to do here is to cooperate, follow the law, and be reasonable.

Scott Stewart USPA Safety and Training Advisor