^CA(^ 

RONALD J. COZAD - CA BAR NO. 113920 

LAW OFFICES OF RONALD J. COZAD 

2100 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 214 

Carlsbad, CA 92011 

Telephone (760) 431-8200 

Facsimile (760) 454-1705 

roncozad(a), gmail. com 

Attorney for Complainants 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Orange County Soaring Association, Mary 

Rust, Larry Tuohino and Chris Mannion, 

COMPLAINANTS 

V. 

County of Riverside, 

RESPONDENT 

Docket No. 16-09-13 

COMPLAINANT'S REPLY BRIEF 

• • ; / J 

c3 

1. The County Failed to Prove Entitlement to the Limited '^Reasonable and Necessary" 

Exception to Grant Assurance 22. 

The County's Answer reveals that its justification for excluding all non-powered glider 

aircraft from Hemet-Ryan Airport after more than fifty-six years of active and ongoing 

operations is based entirely on the limited "reasonable and necessary" exception to grant 

assurance 22, "Economic Nondiscrimination," (RA* p2). Incredibly, the County relies 

exclusively on just one conclusory declaration (RA ExG) and one self-serving letter (RA ExU) to 

the FAA from its Assistant Airport Director, Colby Cataldi (RA p3 fii2). 

"RA" Refers to "Respondent's Answer." 

Pagel of 7 
r 

Notably absent from his declaration, is any proffer of Cataldi's qualifications or expertise 

to conclude "Closure was absolutely necessary for the continued safe operation of the airport" 

(RA ExG p3). While he asserts that that safety is "a top priority" (RA ExG p2, RA p9) and that 

the County "wrestled" with glider coordination issues over the years, there is an utter failure to 

establish that the FAA or CalTrans support the exclusion as claimed or that a legitimate safety 

study was ever performed. On the contrary, Mr. Cataldi's own testimony and exhibits from 

CalTrans, the FAA and from unnamed consultants show that the "safety issues" resulted from 

the County's ongoing isolation and negligent management and its refusal to collaborate in good 

faith with glider operators, the FAA and CalTrans^. Respondent's exhibits M - T consist 

primarily of routine post-inspection reports and correspondence between the County and 

CalTrans that state the needed efforts by the County to assure safe glider operations. CalTrans' 

recommendations are clearly designed to prompt the County to implement and promulgate 

rational operating rules yet Mr. Cataldi suggests the County merely passed the recommendations 

along to Howell who either ignored or operated in spite of them (See Cataldi Letter, RA ExU). 

No where does CalTrans or the FAA advocate the banning of glider operations as Cataldi 

suggests. Cataldi's admitted practice of dealing exclusively with former glider FBO confractor 

Larry Howell (RA ExG p2) in light of Howell's repeated and acknowledged failures establishes 

only the County's dereliction. If, on the other hand, the County had truly "wrestled" in good 

faith with glider safety, why then, did it admittedly never collaborate with the glider operators, 

their clubs or their representatives? Why did the County run and hide when Mr. Howell 

suddenly declared an early retirement and cautioned that "The County has requested that people 

do not call looking for deals or exemptions as there will be none"? 

A critical reading of the exhibits attached to the Answer reveals that the County blatantly 

took them out of context and misquoted them to falsely imply support for the exclusion. In RA 

ExU, Mr. Cataldi represented to FAA Airport Compliance Specialist, Anthony Garcia (WesternPacific Region Airports Div.) that the County had "extensive dialogue with current occupants of 

the premises, unpowered glider pilots and various parties claiming to represent the interests of 

CalTrans, cited the airport seven times over the preceding seven years for allowing unauthorized use of 

makeshift landing areas utilized by glider operations. At no time were Complainants advised of these inspection 

reports and the continued unpermissible use of areas adjacent to the permitted runway 4-22. 

Page 2 of7 
the unpowered glider community..." and implied FAA and CalTrans disapproval^ of glider 

further operations. But those statements were not true. In his email dated November 21, 2009 

(Ex V), Mr. Garcia made it clear that soaring activities can and should continue with appropriate 

operating guidelines: 

CalTrans post-inspection letters have disclosed a need to implement safe 

operating procedures for glider operations at HMT. Federal obligations require that 

HMT be available for aeronautical activities including glider operations on reasonable 

terms and without unjust discrimination. .. 

Presently, justification for a complete ban on all glider operations at HMT has not 

been established. It appears that glider operations can be accommodated in the near term 

if rules are established that ensure safe glider operations... 

We are making the following recommendation because a complete ban on all 

glider operations at HMT does not appear justified at this time. Rather, it appears the 

airport can accommodate gliders as long as they operate safely, always cognizant of the 

other aeronautical users of the airport. To permit safe airport operations and allow 

gliders to operate safely at HMT, the County should establish glider operating 

procedures. 

We recognize that the County has plans to redevelop the airport. However, we 

don't know when the redevelop will actually begin. It does not appear reasonable to end 

all glider operations well before redevelopment activity gets started. As with other 

aeronautical activities, we recommend that the County allow glider operations as long as 

they operate safely and in compliance with reasonable safety rules... 

Even the County's own consultants never suggested ending glider operations. In RA 

ExA, an unauthenticated section from the 1984 Master Plan, the author assumes a significant 

growth in glider operations and expresses a concern that the useful nmway length may decrease 

on a busy day if many sail planes are lined up waiting for their tows. He/she, therefore 

According to CalTrans Assoc. Environmental Planner David Cohen (CalTrans letter of August 13, 2004 

(RA ExP)), glider operations may be limited to the permitted glider runway 4/22. Tow plane landings may safely be 

restricted to power runway 5-23, causing no conflict with general aviation. "Instead of using unpermitted runways, 

all landings and take-offs for aircraft, including those for gliders, should be limited to Runway 4-22 and Runway 

5/23. As a part of the long-range master plaiming process, a high-speed taxi way between the two permitted runways 

may be considered to increase the efficiency of the glider operations. In addition, the airport should sponsor a plan 

to bring Runway 4-22 up to airport design standards for an A-I runway." 

Given the choice, glider pilots would prefer to take off and land on runway 4-22 as opposed to the 

convention previously established by FBO Sailplane Enterprises and acquiesced to by Respondents over a 7-year 

period. Thus, Complainants are in agreement with CalTrans that safety dictates 0Q\y permitted nmv/ays be used. 

Page 3 of7 
recommended little more than constructing a short 455 foot extension to runway 4-22 and 

instituting some simple launching rules (RA ExA p5-4). Similarly, the attached references to the 

imadopted draft Master Plan of 2004 make no references to closing the gliderport. It states that 

as of 2004, there are only 60 based glidercraft, six helicopters and 2 jets and that "Sailplane 

operations will remain at its present level and possibly decline due to the same factors affecting 

the current based power aircraft owner population, however area population growth coupled with 

increasing visibility of the San Jacinto Valley as a recreation area (e.g., reservoir, upgraded 

casino), will result in an increase in sailplane operations" (RA ExD p2-3). Under its "Analysis 

of Soaring Issues" section, the author concludes that glider operations may be conducted by way 

of an FAA standard modification allowing continuing operations from runway 4-22 along with 

rules setting forth arrival and departure procedures (pp 3-24 to 3-25, 3-29). 

Respondents also toss in several other unsupported arguments to justify the expulsion of 

glider operations. We address them below: 

A. "Runway 4-22 was not built or improved with Airport Improvement program ("AIP") 

funds. There are no federal obligations that require the County to keep the runwav open." 

Response: 

It is well settled that once an airport becomes "obligated," the sponsor is required by 

contract and deed restrictions to observe the grant assurances as to the entire airport. It 

may not parse out various independent features based on which were paid for with the 

federal funds.'* This is especially true when the land for the airport is acquired as surplus 

federal land. 

B. "Gliders also historically display a lack of Radio Telephony (RT) communications and 

adherence to standard operating procedures." 

Response: 

Hemet airport is an uncontrolled field. Although no radios are required, many glider 

aircraft use radios to communicate on the CTAF and Complainants have repeatedly 

indicated their support any reasonable proposal that all aircraft, including gliders, utilize 

radios. 

C. "Complainants were able to move their operations to a nearby airport within Riverside 

County, Skylark Airport, Lake Elsinore, CA." 

Response: 

Skylark Airport is a private airport and gliders are permitted only at the pleasure of the 

property owner for a fee. As the recipient of federal land and grants, the County of 

4 

See, FAA ruling under nearly identical facts in Mr. William Dean Bardin d/b/a Ultralights of Sacramento 

V. County of Sacramento, CA, FAA Docket No. 16-00-11, final Agency decision August 9, 2001. 

Page 4 of7 
Riverside must provide access to the public for all classes of aeronautical activity on 

reasonable terms. It may not advocate that responsibility since alternate temporary 

accommodations may be made through a private party. Currently, the County provides 

NO accommodations for glider operations at any of its airports. 

D. "Most gliders are not designed for landing on hard surfaces, causing damage to gliders 

and to the runwav." 

Response: 

This assertion is false. Most gliders are designed for landing on soft or hard surfaces; the 

optimum landing surface for a glider always being asphalt or concrete. Only antiquated 

gliders lack a front wheel (i.e., a metal skid is present); in any event, this objection is 

easily solved through imposition of a reasonable restriction on gliders with skids. 

E. Complainants had no interest in continuing an organized glider operation at Hemet:"... 

when the County staff met with Complainants about these issues they (Complainants) 

requested a copy of the County's form lease agreement....However Complainants never 

followed up or made a request for a lease, and none was offered by the County." 

Response: 

This claim is patently false. Complainants wrote to Respondents on August 6, 2009 and 

again on August 22, 2009 offering to undertake a lease and to operate a fixed-base glider 

operation. Complainants also repeatedly offered to develop and institute reasonable 

safety guidelines, but were routinely rebuffed (Complainants Exhibits 12, 14, 21, 22 and 

26). Complainants stand ready to move forward with discussion of operational and lease 

arrangements. 

2. The County's Undisclosed Plans to Make Room for Commercial Development of the 

Airport's South Side. 

Notably, the County fails to disclose facts that suggest its motivations are not so noble or 

safety driven - that its real goal is to remove glider operations to make room for commercial 

development of the airport's South side by moving California Division of Forestry ("CDF") 

operations to the now destroyed glider port. Although denied here, the redevelopment plans are 

well known to the Western Region^ and were discussed in a recent media interview with a 

county representative (Complainant's Exhibit 34). Indeed, the County has even commissioned 

architects drawings of the planned redevelopment (Complainant's exhibit 35) but failed to 

publicly disclose them. Exhibits 34 and 35 are attached to the Declaration of Christopher 

Mannion. 

"We recognize that the County has plans to redevelop the airport. However, we don't know when the 

redevelop will actually begin. It does not appear reasonable to end all glider operations well before redevelopment 

activity gets started." Email of Anthony Garcia, FAA Western Region, September 9, 2009, Respondent's Ex V. 

Page 5 of 7 
3. The County's Mis-Citation to the Pacific Flyers Case to Avoid Payment of 

Reasonable Relocation Expenses. 

The County mis-cites Pacific Coast Flyers v County of San Diego (16-04-08 ) in its 

attempt to avoid liability for relocation expenses under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and 

Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). At McClellan-Palomar, an 

existing FBO, Palomar Airport Center "PAC," determined to demolish two dozen World War II 

vintage hangars to make way for the new "Premier Jet Center." There, the Director reasoned that 

Section 4601 does not apply because the project was purely private and did not involve the 

taking ofpersonal property by a governmental agency. Our case is the opposite. Confraryto 

Respondent's assertions, the closing of private FBO Sailplane Enterprises and expiration of its 

lease with Respondent was not the cause of the glider ban. Here, the County itself is removing 

the gliderport and the personal property of sailplane operators to make room for the County's 

redevelopment plans. That the County refuses to disclose its development plans in earnest is of 

no matter. Since the County cannot support its eviction of all gliders and the banning of glider 

operations, at the very least, it is liable for reasonable relocation expenses. 

DATED: January 4, 2010 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Ronald J. Cozad 

LAW OFFICES OF RONALD J. COZAD 

Page 6 of 7 
Certificate of Service 

I certify that I have this day served the foregoing reply brief, declarations and exhibits on 

the following persons at the following addresses and facsimile numbers by first class mail, 

postage prepaid. 

Office of the Chief General Counsel 

ATTN: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 

Room 925 

Federal Aviation Adminisfration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Facsimile: (202) 267-5769 

Original Plus 3 Copies 

Pamela J. Walls 

County Counsel 

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 

3960 Orange Sfreet 

Riverside, CA 92501 

Anita C. Willis 

LAW OFFICES OF ANITA C. WILLIS 

400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300 

Culver City, CA 90230 

Counsel for Respondent County of Riverside 

Dated: January 5, 2010 

Ronald J. Cozad, Esq. 

Page 7 of7 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Orange County Soaring Association, Mary 

Rust, Larry Touhino and Chris Mannion, 

COMPLAINANTS 

County of Riverside, 

RESPONDENT 

Docket No. 16-09-13 

DECLARATION OF LARRY 

TOUfflNO IN OPPOSITION TO 

RESPONDENT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS AND 

DECLARATION OF COLBY 

CATALDI 

Title 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), Part 16 

I, Larry Touhino, declare as follows: 

1. I am the President of the Orange County Soaring Association (OCSA), and also a 

Complainant herein. The testimony herein is based upon my personal knowledge in my 

capacity as President and representative of the Complainant, OCSA. 

2. On August 5, 2009 and again on August 19, 2009, I met with representatives of the 

Economic Development Agency (EDA), Riverside County, to explore both the feasibility 

of continued glider operations at Hemet-Ryan airport, and the feasibility of entering into 

a lease agreement with the County to continue glider operations. 

3. Every meeting was initiated by myself. I was told by Mr. Chad Davies, EDA Airport 

Development Specialist and Mr. Harry Oliver, EDA Airports Supervisor, that no lease 

would be offered and they were shutting down Hemet-Ryan airport to glider operations. 

4. In one of our meetings, Mr. Davies told me very directly that the Sailplane Enterprises 

Fixed Base Operator (FBO) lease was not available to be assumed. 

Page 1 of3 
5. 1 did ask for and received the County's blank lease form agreement, but that document 

was given to me with no offer to lease; indeed, the conversation was quite the opposite. 

My request was prefaced by the hypothetical, "say the FAA agrees with us and not with 

the County, we want to understand the terms now rather than later". This was also the 

time in which I had requested a copy of Mr. Larry Howell's (principle. Sailplane 

Enterprises FBO) then un-terminated lease at which we were told that it would not be 

transferred and any "hypothetical" lease with us would be under new terms. 

6. Therefore, on August 6,2009,1 prepared and sent a letter addressed to Mr. Colby Cataldi, 

Assistant Director for Airports, EDA, County of Riverside, stating, in pertinent part: 

"Orange County Soaring Association, a non-profit 501c(7) corporation for over 

50 years, is interested in opening negotiations in regards to continuing the glider 

operations at Hemet Ryan Airport's north side previously managed by Sailplane 

Enterprises. You may contact the undersigned in regards to those negotiations. " 

(emphasis supplied)(Complainants' Ex 22). 

7. I did not receive any response from Mr. Cataldi, Mr. Davies, Mr. Oliver, the EDA or the 

County of Riverside to my August 6, 209 letter. 

8. Thereafter, on August 22,2009,1 prepared and sent a second letter to Mr. Rob Field, the 

Director of the Riverside County Economic Development Agency (Exhibit 33, attached), 

in pertinent part: 

"This is to follow-up on a series of conversations between Larry Touhino, 

President, OCSA, Chad Davies (EDA Airport Development Specialist) and Harry 

Oliver (EDA Airport Real Property Supervisor) of your offices on Wednesday 

August 5, 2009, and on August 19, 2009, regarding leasing the glider area at 

Hemet-Ryan Airport's north side previously managed by Sailplane Enterprises." 

Page 2 of3 
Jan 04 10 07:27p Chris Mannion C303)439-9553 p. l 

And, 

"OCSA is prepared to undertake the following actions in order to secure the 

ability of the public to continue operating glider category general aviation aircraft 

from Hemet airport: 

1. OCSA agrees to take the lead in developing good faith, reasonable protocols 

and safety procedures to ensure safe integrated operations with all general 

aviation and emergency response aviation at Hemet-Ryan Field. 

2. OCSA would agree to undertake a new lease with the County based on the 

County's sample lease contract with certain modifications, and in turn lease 

tie down and hangar space to glider tenants, (emphasis supplied). 

3. In the alternative, OCSA would find acceptable simply the ability to continue 

leasing tie down and storage space directly from the County. 

4. OCSA would work with County planners in the reconfiguration of runways 

and taxiways in the proposed expansion of Hemet airport so as to preserve 

access to Hemet airport by unpowered gliders."(Attachment 2). 

9. I did not receive any response from the Respondents to my August 22, 2009 letter. 

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed this lO"' day of December, 2009, at Orange County, California. 

y fouhffno. 3sident 

Orange Connty Soaring Association 

Complainant 

Page 3 of3 
\5(ytears) 

fcjrj-^-t^; 

Rob Field 

Director 

Riverside County Economic Development Agency 

P.O.Box 1180 

Riverside, CA 92502 

August 22, 2009 

Re: Continued Access to Hemet-Ryan Gliderport by Unpowered Glider Aircraft 

Dear Director Field, 

This is to follow-up on a series of conversations between Larry Touhino, President, 

OCSA, Chad Davies (Airport Development Specialist) and Harry Oliver (Airport Real 

Property Supervisor) of your offices on Wednesday August 5, 2009, and on August 19, 

2009, regarding leasing the glider area at Hemet-Ryan Airport's north side previously 

managed by Sailplane Enterprises. 

Orange County Soaring Association, a non-profit 501(c)(7) corporation for over 50 years, 

is interested in continuing the glider operations at Hemet Ryan Airport's north side 

previously managed by Sailplane Enterprises. Soaring has a long history at Hemet-Ryan 

Field and our organization would like to see that tradition continue for the benefit of the 

public. OCSA is prepared to undertake the following actions in order to secure the ability 

of the public to continue operating glider category general aviation aircraft from Hemet 

airport: 

1. OCSA agrees to take the lead in developing good faith, reasonable protocols 

and safety procedures to ensure safe integrated operations with all general 

aviation and emergency response aviation at Hemet-Ryan Field. 

2. OCSA would agree to undertake a new lease with the County based on the 

County's sample lease contract with certain modifications, and in turn lease 

tiedown and hangar space to glider tenants. 

3. In the alternative, OCSA would find acceptable simply the ability to continue 

leasing tiedown and storage space directly from the County. 

4. OCSA would work with County planners in the reconfiguration of runways 

and taxiways in the proposed expansion of Hemet airport so as to preserve 

access to Hemet airport by unpowered gliders. 

EntZ-^ 
We wish all parties to see this new opportunity as a moment to correct many of the 

misunderstandings of the past. Time is of the essence; therefore we request your reply by 

way of acceptance, counter-offer, or negotiation agreement within five (5) business days. 

Sincerely, 

Larry Tuohino Chris Mannion 

OCSA President OCSA Vice President 

714-319-9988 951-551-6197 

larswan(g),aol.com zoomie83(S),roadrunner.com 

www.ocsoaring.org 

CC: Harry Oliver, Chad Davies, OCSA Board of Directors, Ron Cozad 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASfflNGTON, D.C. 

Orange County Soaring Association, Mary 

Rust, Larry Touhino and Chris Mannion, 

COMPLAINANTS 

County of Riverside, 

RESPONDENT 

Docket No. 16-09-13 

DECLARATION OF CHRIS 

MANNION FOR THE PURPOSE 

OF AUTHENTICATING 

EVIDENCE 

Title 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), Part 16 

I, Christopher P. Mannion, declare as follows: 

1. I am the Vice President of the Orange County Soaring Association (OCSA), and also a 

Complainant herein. The testimony herein is based upon my personal knowledge in my 

capacity as Vice President and representative of the Complainant, OCSA. 

2. The attached newspaper article entitled "Glider pilots want to keep sharing the air at 

Hemet-Ryan Airport" is a true and correct copy of the original article composed by 

reporter Mike Perrault that appeared in the Riverside County Press-Enterprise newspaper 

on Tuesday, September 18, 2009 (Complainants' Exhibit 34). In that article. Riverside 

Economic Development Agency (EDA) Spokesman Tom Freeman is quoted as saying: 

"The plan calls for Cal Fire to move into the area where gliders operateOnce vacated, the south side of the nmway will be freed up for fiiture 

commercial development opportunities and rentals." 

I have personal knowledge of this fact because a) I discussed the article with reporter 

Mike Pertault prior to publication; and, b) I purchased a copy of the Tuesday, August 18, 

2009 Press-Enterprise newspaper when I learned of the article's publication. 

Page 1 of2 
3. The attached architect's drawing rendered by Dean F. Unger, AIA Inc., entitled "County 

of Riverside/Cal Fire Hemet-Ryan Air Attack/Helitack Base Replacement Project, 

Hemet, California" is a true and correct copy of the drawing I received from 

representatives of the Economic Development Agency (EDA), Riverside County, on 

September 26, 2009, in response to my September 25, 2009 written request under the 

California Records Act (Govt. Code 6250-6270) for "All correspondence ... regarding 

the possibility of relocating the Hemet CDF Air Attack facility from the current location 

on the south side of the airport to the north side of runway 4/22" (Complainant's exhibit 

35). 

1 declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the 

foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed this 4* day of January, 2010 at Riverside County, California. 

stopher P. Mannion 

Vice President 

Orange County Soaring Association 

Complainant 

Page 2 of2 
1/4/2010 Glider pilots want to keep sharing the ai.. 

com 

Glider pilots want to keep sharing the air 

at Hemet-Ryan Airport 

110T P M PPT on Tuesday, August 18,2009 

By MICHAEL PERRAULT 

The Press-Enterprise 

Photo Gallery: Gilding to new heights 

An eclectic group of gliding enthusiasts has for decades swooped in and out 

of Hemet-Ryan Airport, maneuvering sailplanes into thermal air pockets that 

launch them on world-class soaring adventures. 

Take 83-year-old Hemet resident and former American Airlines pilot Leo 

D'Roach. For 35 years the former Boeing 747 pilot has been part of HemetRyan's glider culture ~ he calls it a "family" ~ of teenage beginners, former 

airline pilots and hundreds of others who travel from across Southern 

California to soar out of the Riverside County facility. 

But the gliding era at Hemet-Ryan Is slated to come to an abrupt end on 

Oct. 1. 

story continues below 

Teny Pierson / The Press-Enterprise 

The runvays of Hemet Ryan-Airport are visible under glider pilot Mary 

Rust, 60, of Hemet, as she makes a banking right turn on her way 

back to the field last weekend. Glider owners who have called HemetRyan home for decades will have to find new digs as of Oct. 1. 

Members of two soaring clubs and glider owners were notified in early July 

that they're being evicted. 

The Riverside County Economic Development Agency, which owns and 

operates the airport, says the gliders' departure will make way for expanded 

operations by Cal Fire/Riverside County Fire Department's firefiqhtinq 

pe.com/.../PE_News_Local_S_gliderl9.44... 1/5 

£y3y 
1/4/2010 Glider pilots want to keep sharing the ai... 

tankers. Their exodus will also resolve runway safety issues and'make way 

for future commercial development, said Tom Freeman, agency spokesman. 

"We feel it's in the best interest of the airport and its primary users 

including Cal Fire, the sheriff's aviation unit and general aviation to thank 

the glider pilots for their patronage," Freeman said. "But it's time to move 

on — for both parties." 

Close-knit soaring club members see themselves as primary users, however, 

and believe the 90-day notice seems "sudden, arbitrary and possibly 

politically motivated," said Chris Mannion, vice president of the Orange 

County Soaring Association. 

"(The notice) was not to just cease flying," Mannion said. "It was pack up 

your gliders, move everything off the field, dismantle your hangars." 

The notice also affects Cypress Soaring Club and glider pilots who aren't 

affiliated with clubs. They're all scrambling to meet the county's deadline 

and find alternative airports. 

"When you consider we've been there since the late 1960s, that's a lot of 

stuff you're trying to get rid of in a short period of time," said Larry Touhino, 

president of the 50-year-old Orange County Soaring Association. 

story continues below 

Hemet-Ryan Airport | 

ORANGE GO : Hemt 

THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE 

Flying wit h birds 

Touhino is a Costa Mesa resident who drives to Hemet-Ryan roughly 40 

weekends a year. His flights during the past 17 years have taken him over 

Mount San Jacinto, east to Twentynine Palms or south to the Mexican 

border. 

Occasionally, Touhino enjoys a "Zen" experience as he quietly glides 

alongside flocks of birds. "They accept you," said Touhino, who describes the 

pe.com/.../PE_News_Local_S_gllderl9.44... 2/5 
1/4/2010 Glider pilots want to keep sharing the ai... 

sport as "staying in the air by your wits." 

Mary Rust, a longtime glider instructor at Hemet-Ryan and a founding 

member of the international Women's Soaring Pilots Association, doesn't 

understand why sailplanes can't co-exist with Cal Fire's wildfire operations, 

sheriff's helicopters and general aviation pilots. Such operations work side 

by side at other airports. Rust said. 

"We stay out of their way," said Rust, a Hemet resident and former 

elementary school principal in Anza who has soared the Alps. "It's always 

been very safe." 

Touhino can remember only one glider from his club every having an 

accident, and that was when a sailplane ran into a horse fence. Nobody was 

injured. 

Chad Davies, senior development specialist with the Riverside County 

Economic Development Agency, said in an e-mail that Lake Elsinore Airport 

and Warner Springs Ranch Airport allow sailplane operations and may be 

alternatives. 

Soaring club members said the Perris Valley Airport is another option, but it 

is crowded with skydivers. They're also checking out Redlands and the 

Barstow-Daggett Airport. 

One reason glider enthusiasts are drawn to Hemet-Ryan is its natural 

terrain, which provides columns of thermal air enabling sailplanes to gain 

momentum, said Marc Forsyth, a Covina resident who has been gliding for 

27 years. 

A 25-foot-wide, roughly 2,000-foot-long runway parallel to the main 4,315-

foot, 100-foot-wide general aviation runway has long been used for 

sailplane operations. Depending on the season, as many as 50 sailplanes are 

parked in hangars and trailers near the shorter runway, Mannion said. 

What irks Mannion, Forsyth and other gliding enthusiasts is the apparent 

lack of an imminent reason to boot gliders off the runway. They've dug up 

safety reports and have found a few runway violations several years ago but 

"nothing of substance," Mannion said. 

Davies said the runway has not been in compliance with state aeronautical 

regulations. 

story continues below 

Terry Plerson/The Press-Enterprise 

Mary Rust insists that sailplanes can co-exist with Cal Fire's wlidflre 

pe.com/.. ./PE_News_Loca l_S_gl iderl9.44... 3/5 
1/4/2010 Glider pilots want to keep sharing the ai... 

operations, sheriff's helicopters and general aviation pilots at HemetRyan Airport. "We stay out of their v«By,' she says. "It's always been 

very safe.' 

County's Decision 

Neither the Federal Aviation Administration nor the California Department of 

Transportation's Division of Aeronautics have demanded gliders cease 

operations at Hemet-Ryan, officials at both government agencies said. This 

is the county's decision. 

"We've had several FAA citations issued for violating FAA rules with the 

glider runway in operation," Freeman said. "It is our opinion that once we 

address the issues of the unsafe runway, that we use our main runway. We 

will be directing helicopter and fixed-wing and tanker air-attack missions off 

a single runway." 

The airport has been a main base to launch Cal Fire air tankers to suppress 

wildfires since 1959. In 2007 the Riverside County Board of Supervisors 

approved a multimillion-dollar plan to improve Cal Fire air-attack operations 

rather than move them to March Air Reserve Base. 

A runway extension will accommodate heavier firefighting aircraft and more 

expected corporate jet traffic. 

About 250 aircraft are based at Hemet-Ryan, but that is expected to grow to 

335 by 2025, according to the airport master plan. Air traffic is expected to 

reach 100,000 annual flights within about 15 years, up from 80,000 flights. 

The master plan notes that the state airport permit does not allow for a tow 

plane landing area northeast of the smaller runway. The permit does not 

allow for a sailplane landing area between the two runways. 

Over the years there have been concerns that glider operations at the 

runway parallel to Cal Fire operations were conducted without radio 

communication with other air traffic. 

Airport's Lift factor 

Also, gliders use hills northwest of the airport for convection lift, where Cal 

Fire tankers laden with fire retardants make their initial climbs. 

Mannion and other glider pilots said there are easy fixes for such concerns. 

Radios can be used in all gliders, and Cal Fire tankers laden with fire 

retardants can avoid flying into the hills when making initial climbs, 

Mannion suggested. 

Fontana resident Nick Ounanian has been soaring since 1991 and said there 

are no close airport alternatives. "It's just sad," Touhino said. "It's a 

mindless destruction of a culture. I truly believe there is enough room for 

everybody." 

story continues below 

pe.com/.../PE_News_Local_S_gliderl9.44... 4/5 
1/4/2010 Glider pilots want to keep sharing the ai... 

Terry Pierson/The Press-Enterprise 

Orange County Soaring Assodatron President Larry Touhino and Mary 

Rust, right, celebrate Cherri Orr's fir^t glider ride. 

Sailplane Enterprises owner Larry Howell opted not to renew the lease and 

sent out letters to glider enthusiasts noting he would retire Oct. 1. 

The lease termination opened the door for county aviation officials to move 

forward with long-term plans. 

The plan calls for Cal Fire to move into the area where gliders operate. Once ^^ ^ 

vacated, the south side of the runway will be freed up for future commercial 

development opportunities and rentals. Freeman said. 

Gliders in the area that need to land won't be denied access to the airport, 

Freeman emphasized. 

County aviation officials envision using a single runway for Cal Fire tanker 

air-attack missions, as well as the sheriff's aviation unit. 

"The glider proposes a challenge to those operations, particularly because of 

tow planes involved," Freeman said. 

Mannion said pilots can avoid tow planes and use motorized winch cables to 

launch gliders, already a common practice on many weekend afternoons. 

Glider enthusiasts hope to persuade county aviation officials and county 

supervisors to reconsider the eviction. The newly formed Save Soaring at 

Hemet Today group will meet this month at the Civil Air Patrol building at 

the airport. 

"If there were very patent safety issues, we would be the first ones to say 

we don't want to fly in an unsafe environment," Mannion said. 

Reach Michael Perrault at 951-763-3464 or mperrault@PE.com 

pe.com/.../PE_News_Local_S_gliderl9.44.. 5/5 
E^SJ T