County considers limits at GAI...

One proposal would limit the number of practice flights from pilots. Currently, they are allowed to take off and land repeatedly.

What do "practice flights" have to do with a one time jet crash?


The second proposal would reduce the overall hours of operations at the airpark. The facility operates 24-hours a day.

So mishaps are time sensitive? The utter stupidity of "community officials" is mind boggling. :mad2:
 
I'm sure limiting times when people can drive will eliminate car accidents, too. Limiting the # of practice hours driving will help, too.
 
Is AOPA getting involved in this issue?
 
Wouldn't be far for them to travel.

This seems like a really bad omen for GAI. The proposed restrictions are obviously about noise, with safety as a pretext.
 
"One proposal would limit the number of practice flights from pilots. Currently, they are allowed to take off and land repeatedly"

So then they think that less practice makes a pilot safer?
 
"One proposal would limit the number of practice flights from pilots. Currently, they are allowed to take off and land repeatedly"

So then they think that less practice makes a pilot safer?
Of course.
 
"One proposal would limit the number of practice flights from pilots. Currently, they are allowed to take off and land repeatedly"

So then they think that less practice makes a pilot safer?

I don't think they're saying that. They're unapologetic NIMBYs. They don't want you to do it close to them.
 
Is there any legal ground to stand on regarding 24/7 operation? Assuming GAI receiving some level of federal funds don't they have certain obligations? I don't know how that all works...
 
"One proposal would limit the number of practice flights from pilots. Currently, they are allowed to take off and land repeatedly"

So then they think that less practice makes a pilot safer?

No, there are some in the community that think that folks should practice elsewhere - like FDK (which, oh, by the way, had a mid-air not long ago).

Given that this is in the DC SFRA, even now it's easier to go elsewhere to practice.
 
Given that this is in the DC SFRA, even now it's easier to go elsewhere to practice.

Say what? Once you legally get into the air at GAI, it's not "easier" to go anywhere else. You just stay on the CTAF with the ability to monitor 121.5 until you are done.
 
Say what? Once you legally get into the air at GAI, it's not "easier" to go anywhere else. You just stay on the CTAF with the ability to monitor 121.5 until you are done.
Yes, flying patterns at GAI requires one SFRA flight plan. The nearest alternative (FDK) will require two SFRA flight plans ('out' and 'in'), ~20 miles each way, and a tower to deal with when you get there.
 
Say what? Once you legally get into the air at GAI, it's not "easier" to go anywhere else. You just stay on the CTAF with the ability to monitor 121.5 until you are done.

Yes, that's permitted. But if you're training someone about "how it's done everywhere else", it's easier to go outside the SFRA. My experience has been that it's easier in a learning environment to go elsewhere... YMMV.
 
Yes, that's permitted. But if you're training someone about "how it's done everywhere else", it's easier to go outside the SFRA. My experience has been that it's easier in a learning environment to go elsewhere... YMMV.

Huh? If you're talking about entering the pattern or whatever I might agree with you. But if you're just doing "circuits and bumps" for landing practice, the procedure, radio work, etc... is IDENTICAL once you're in the air with your discrete code.

Believe me I do know the advantages of going elsewhere. My wife learned to fly at IAD and spent a good amount of time at FDK (before the moronic control tower). However, I fail to see the advantage of heading out to FDK (except that they do have a tower) just to practice landings.
 
Back
Top