Great Letter to County - Thanks!

[HoUdino]

I'll put up a few of the letters I receive...this one definitely
deserves to be read by the County and the media.

Keep 'em coming!
LT


October 24, 2011

Supervisor Jeff Stone
37600 Sky Canyon Dr. Suite #505
Murrieta, CA 92563

RE: Soaring at Hemet Ryan- HMT Master Plan and Environmental Impact
Report

Dear Supervisor Stone,
I want to make it clear from the beginning that I am a sailplane
pilot with many years of enjoying the soaring at Hemet-Ryan airport.
I recently had the opportunity to read the referenced plan and
report. In summary, I am very disappointed by the information being
supplied to the board. The EDA clearly identifies issues and yet
appears to ignore them in the plan. In addition, projections for the
future do not appear to be based on realistic data. Finally I would
question the future role of the study contractor and relationship of
the contractor with the various affected federal, state, county and
local agencies affected by the environmental impact report.

Let me be more specific.
Chapter 1: In Chapter 1, the plan clearly recognizes the long
history of Hemet-Ryan airport as an outstanding soaring center and
identifies the fact that the soaring operations were terminated in
third and fourth quarters of 2011. This termination was by edict with
threats of legal action to be taken against any persons that delayed
in vacating the airport. At significant financial losses involving
tens of thousands of dollars incurred by pilots who were using
sailplane hangers at the time, the sailplanes and hangers were
removed.

It is true that sailplane operations were declining and the fixed
base operator (FBO) closed. There is no statement in the report
addressing the reason for that decline. It certainly was not the lack
of interest in soaring by the pilots. The FBO was known to be anxious
to retire and move out of the area and was not motivated to expand
soaring operations such as training of new pilots or upgrading
facilities. As a result, the resident soaring clubs were taking it
upon themselves to at least provide training services and investing in
new modern aircraft to achieve that goal. This was primarily the
Cypress Soaring Club and the Orange County Soaring Association. I can
speak for Cypress and tell you that a team of 4 dedicated instructors
were volunteering every weekend and training long hours each weekend
day.

I have been told that these two clubs have cooperated to produce
and provide to the board a joint proposal to reestablish the soaring
operations at Hemet. Based on the effort put forth to date and the
known motivation to expand and improve the club operations, I see no
reason to conclude that sailplane operation “will be reestablished but
only on a temporary basis.” This, of course, assumes that the board
is amenable to a long term commitment to and continuation of the
historical sailplane operations at Hemet-Ryan.

Chapter 2: I quote, “Hemet-Ryan Airport is predominately a
recreationally oriented airport.”
It is my understanding that the FAA recently defended that orientation
and expressed a desire to have the county continue to support
recreational use of the airport.
“Historically about half of all operations were linked to sailplane
use.”
It would seem that there is historical precedent for continuing in
accordance with the FAA’s expresses desire and that such a facility
should be included in the Master Plan.
“The closure of the sailplane runway in 2010 eliminated most sailplane
operations. The reopening of the sailplane runway will mean an
increase in sailplane operations. However, because the previously used
turf landing areas will not be reopened, sailplane activity is not
expected to return to historical levels.”
I don’t believe anyone on the planning team is sufficiently expert in
sailplane operation to make this judgment call. For example,
transition to winch launching from the sailplane runway, the dominant
mode of operation throughout the rest of the world, could easily
increase sailplane operations. Besides, in many airports in the
United States, sailplane operations are conducted by shared use of the
power runway. This is an accepted and common mode of operation.
“…sailplane operations are expected to cease within the 20-year
planning period addressed by this plan. “
I would again ask what the basis for this assumption is. Is it a
recreation airport or not? The “recreational” theme is certainly
repeated many times in the plan.

The “Current Aircraft Activity” comments are misleading. Of course
there are only 4 sailplanes there. We were evicted under threat of
legal action if we remained. An average of sailplane operations over
the last 5 years would be more informative.

Table 2A again presents misleading information. For example, data
presented elsewhere indicates a reduction in “twin engine, piston” as
time goes on. Why is it a constant rate of 23 aircraft? See
“National Factors Affecting Forecast”. Where did the future number of
gliders data come from? Was the soaring community involved in that
estimate? Was the soaring community involved in the preparation of
the plan at all? If not, I would then question whether ANY of the
airport user community was involved in the preparation of the report.
It also appears that those projected 20 gliders are just going to sit
on the ground as “0” operations are projected for them! Is this data
reliable in the case of the other aircraft projections? If true, I
don’t think an increase of 16 more airplanes by 2020 is even
significant and certainly not motivation to delete the soaring
community.

I could go on but I will simply make a comment on the Environmental
Impact Report in which it clearly identifies issues that are expected
to incur “Potentially Significant Impact” and I see no discussion that
addresses these issues.

Before accepting such a plan, I believe that (1) the onus is on the
board to get details as to how these issues will be addressed and (2)
to get some form of concurrence for this plan from all affected
parties involved in those potentially significant impacts. This
should include signatures of those affected to have a clear
understanding of responsibilities for the conclusions presented.

Sincerely,

Name Withheld from the Internet