Bully Board at Jackson Hole Uses Willing, Dummy Press

At first, we though it best not to comment on these pages; a letter to the reporter, we thought, would suffice. Since we haven't heard back, and it's been a couple days, we thought maybe we should let you know how an aero-ignorant reporter can spread damage to aviation. First, we'll show you a few excerpts from the Jackson Hole News & Guide, an article written by one Rebecca Huntington. Lest you think we're showing a non-representative sample, we've included a link to the whole story below, along with the paper's email address, where we sent our original letter.

After reading the article, we wrote the lady; but she hasn't acknowledged our note, nor has she apologized for letting herself be so used by the local politicians. Here goes:

from (August 25, 2003), titled, "Seismic spat on," By Rebecca Huntington

Note how she leads the story: "Despite safety concerns, the Jackson Hole Airport Board gave the go-ahead to scenic glider flights because board members said they had no other choice. ...[Dan] Matzke is proposing offering a 45-minute ride for $199 and a 90-minute ride for $299 in a Diamond Xtreme Motor-Glider."

"Matzke would fly primarily south and southeast to avoid flying over Grand Teton National Park, which prohibits scenic flights originating from the Jackson Hole Airport from flying over noise-sensitive areas of the park."

Then her attack began in earnest:

"Airport Manager George Larson advised board members that they had to consider Matzke's proposal and could only deny it for safety or space reasons. Since the operator was not asking for airport office space, board members could not deny his request based on space, he said."

...and, "Jackson Hole Aviation owner Jeff Brown said flying south would put the glider in the middle of a busy air traffic corridor. 'A glider playing around up there,' Brown said. 'That scares me.'"

...and she even went to former Board members: "Former airport board member Patrick Smith said... the proposal "seems like it's going to run the [air traffic control] tower crazy."

...and the dimmest bulb on the tree: "Board member George Erb, however, suggested the board ought to be able to suspend the pilot if the board receives complaints from the air traffic control tower."

Yes, we wrote. No, she didn't write back.

Dear Ms. Huntington:

There are a number of items in your story [attached for reference] which could use clarification.

One: The Diamond HK-36 is an extremely competent motorglider, and it uses a standard, certified airplane engine. It is no more "scary" than any other certified airplane, and may be less-so, due to two things:
1) It is designed to glide long distances, and therefore, in the event of an engine failure at altitude, can travel many miles to a safe landing.
2) It is designed as a glider, and, as you pointed out, can usually climb, even without the engine's running.

Two: Since the Diamond motorglider (http://www.diamondair.com/contentc/xtmain.htm) is indeed a glider for most of its airborne life, its impact over "noise-sensitive" areas should be a moot point -- it doesn't make any noise.
As for the Rotax 912S engine and its attendant muffler, the noise it makes is roughly the same as a Honda Civic -- you probably couldn't hear it, once it climbed to a thousand feet or so (which would occur near the airport).
(If the glider used the more-powerful, optional, turbocharged model 914 -- that engine is even quieter.) In any event, a glider operator could easily, as pointed out in the point above, make his entire excursion over the "noise-sensitive areas" with the engine turned off, altogether. No noise -- no "noise-sensitivity" problems.

Three: "Even though Smith said the proposal 'seems like it's going to run the [air traffic control] tower crazy.'" Some sentence. Anyway, if the glider flights make the tower 'crazy,' the tower will know what to do. Just how those few flights would irritate the tower personnel to such a degree is not explained -- and needs to be, if the allegation is to carry any more authority than any other ill-informed rant.

Four: "Board member George Erb, however, suggested the board ought to be able to suspend the pilot if the board receives complaints from the air traffic control tower." George Erb needs to understand that his Board, nasty as it seems, has nothing to say about whether a pilot keeps his license or not.

It seems that the Board is looking for any excuse to prohibit Matzke's flights, regardless his arguments. That position seems to be bolstered by the various Board members' comments about how, if Matzke wanted space, they would prohibit his operation altogether (because they could).

Please, the next time you get a chance, see if you can work some of the above into your follow-up. Lacking that, talk with the FAA and find out just how much smoke these Board members are blowing in your face; or just ask Dan Matzke -- he certainly knows a whole lot more about aviation than the Airport Board does.

Tim Kern
News Editor, Aero-News Network

FMI: http://www.jhnewsandguide.com; editor@jhnewsandguide.com