| Author | Post |
|---|
tomogo
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 11th, 2008 08:12 am |
|
A small victory for those in opposition of this proposed amendment to the special use permit was gained today as the zoning commission's approval removed helicopters from the stipulation and added the requirement for airpark operations to be modified prior to final implementation. So the recommendation to the Town Council is to allow very light jets and turboprops but not helicopters. Also, the allowance of jets and turboprops is pending implementation of changes to the current flight operations that will redefine the traffic patterns into and out of Pegasus.
I was very disappointed that the group of us in opposition to the change were not allowed to present a cohesive professional presentation. We had requested that the zoning commision allow a group of about 10 people to allot their 3 minute speaking time to one person to be able to present a 30 minute presentation. We were denied this request based on the commission rules. As a consequence 4 of us took 3 minutes each to verbally state our position in an attempt to offer facts into the record as to why this change will not benefit the overall community. The Pegasus contingent requesting this change were allowed to go on for hours and were able to field many questions from the commission.
It was an interesting experience for me, having never been involved in local planning meetings before. What I learned is that the people soliciting the zoning change have an incredible advantage to present their position as compared to those people that are in opposition of a change. What I also learned is that despite having over 200 signatures opposing the change, some on the zoning commission favored the benefit of a few over the benefit of the community as a whole. The fight is not over yet, as this still needs to go before the Town Council. I urge anyone that is in opposition to get involved and let the council members know how you feel.
I would like to thank the people at Pegasus for working with the public with the flight demonstrations held at the airpark. However, for me it reinforced why this change will do nothing more than add more noise to our environment, increase the consequences should an accident occur, decrease surrounding property values, and benefit only a very small group of investors looking to move property within Pegasus. The Pegasus contingent even admitted we would probably have no more than 5 helicopters and 2 or 3 Jets operating out of Pegasus if this change is approved. So why go against the wishes of 100's of residents for the gain of less than 10 new homes?? How many homes won't be built in the surrounding communities or will go unsold because of this change?
Last edited on Thu Sep 11th, 2008 08:14 am by tomogo
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 08:58 pm |
|
Diane C. wrote: Actually, I spoke with some Pegasus residents who were not in favor. They were concerned about speaking up in public, but told me in person that they did not approve of the changes and were not happy with the neighborhood associations in general.
I believe you, but how individuals voted on the issue was not public information. The tabulated results were the only thing that was disclosed. It seems odd to me that if someone were opposed, that they would vote in favor.
|
orchardranchres
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 41 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 09:44 pm |
|
Diane C. wrote: Actually, I spoke with some Pegasus residents who were not in favor. They were concerned about speaking up in public, but told me in person that they did not approve of the changes and were not happy with the neighborhood associations in general. Same thing with our association. I am one of the people who doesn't like our association in general. My neighbors are concerned about speaking out in public too, but are ok with the changes and would be happy to see same size only quieter jet planes. We don't want helicopters though. Most of the neighbors I talk to also are ok with the second small fuel tank since it is safer than what is there now.
|
Diane C.
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 08:27 pm |
|
| Actually, I spoke with some Pegasus residents who were not in favor. They were concerned about speaking up in public, but told me in person that they did not approve of the changes and were not happy with the neighborhood associations in general.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 05:29 am |
|
leftboston wrote: This looks like another typical situation where someone who doesn't actually live in the the area, wants to dominate or rewrite the rules of the area.
This proposal was put to a vote by Pegasus residents before it was submitted to TOQC. The results were unanomously in favor. Many here have made this same assertion and it simply is not true.
|
leftboston
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 30th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 04:15 am |
|
| It wasn't 5 years ago whe Pegasus Airpark sought changes from TOQC to change lots from aviation to equestrian. Lets face it, Bellero directly to the west has not sold squat or a section of dirt, Orchard Ranch has not broken ground on new houses in over a year, Pegasus is stagnant. This looks like another typical situation where someone who doesn't actually live in the the area, wants to dominate or rewrite the rules of the area. Rewind and look at the history of Gary Meecham. What does Vanderbilt Farms think of this plan? Their development is right under the flight path. Ask Conley Wolfswinkel, get his take on it, because that takes it to a different level. And if you don't know who any of these people are then you are pissing up a rope complaining here.
|
Diane C.
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 06:37 pm |
|
| Thanks for the info. I'll do my best to get enough of a description to enable identification. Not looking forward to getting up at 5:45am to go out and capture data...ugh.
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 11:52 pm |
|
GClark wrote: Ron, won't the Gateway Tower and Phoenix TRACON work with Pegasus to coordinate current traffic patterns to improve safety without the PAD amendment? Isn't this a current safety issue for Pegasus?
Thank you,
GClark
RonS wrote:
There are procedural changes in the works that would reduce the traffic directly over Orchard Ranch but their implementation would not take effect until after our PAD Amendment was approved. We have been working very closely with both the Phoenix TRACON and the Gateway Tower personnel to directly address the coordination of traffic. We will probably repeat our presentation showing the proposed changes at the Planning Commission Meeting on September 10, 2008, with the slight changes and refinements that have developed since the first meeting.
Greetings Greg,
The PAD Amendment brought to light a number of traffic issues that we are working with Gateway Tower along with the Phoenix TRACON to improve. These issues are operational issues and can improve safety in the future but I would not call them current safety issues. As I said before, everything is tied together and one cannot pull a piece out and expect to implement it on its own. For example the proposal to publish an arrival procedure which would require transient traffic to fly through the area at 3,000 Ft. MSL or deviate around Pegasus depends on us publishing a Pegasus Helicopter Arrival Procedure. The dealings with Gateway to work out a Letter of Agreement to use part of their Class D airspace or work out a specified procedure with them depends on our modifying the traffic patterns to include jet arrivals. Neither of these could be accomplished without the PAD Amendment because they are inherently part of it.
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 11:26 pm |
|
Bambi wrote: GClark wrote: Ron, why does the PAD amendment have to be approved before these changes can take place, whay can't they be changed without the PAD amendment?
Perhaps it is Leverage Greg. Often used in changes.
I flew over that southern air space over the San Tans in the helicopter. You are also flying over homes there.....mine included. Is it your intention Pegasus, to direct most of your traffic to come thru that southern airspace and isn't it unregulated? Remember, I'm a novice, so may not be using the correct terms.
Also, are the crop dusters out? Could it have been a crop duster at 6 a.m.? Do they also file a flight plan? Are they allowed to fly over these homes at a low elevation prior to descending to the level for dusting? I know they are subject to hitting power lines when they pull up. And are they subject to certain hours of the day for their flights? They have been known to be loud and dangerous. I grew up with them, as I lived on a citrus ranch. Woke me up every a.m., but that was 50 years ago...ugh. I believe many farmers are using helicopters now. It appears that Fulton Homes future subdivision is getting ready to farm the land this season. That will mean cropdusters in the area.....in fact, just to the east of Pegasus is where Fulton is located, in Pinal County. Does your flight path cross that area? Are you required to contact the effected area's governing body? That land area of Fulton's will soon be occupied by 2000 homes, once Fulton starts building it out. How does that effect your flight path? I think we have to look long term and the effects that "may" arise.
Just trying to look at the entire scope of this air traffic over residences (mine included) and how it impacts the local residents that are most subject to their effects.....both in Q.C. and in Pinal County. Your jets are quiet. Quieter than your props. Are they as safe and how do your define safe in this conversation respect to airplanes around residences? Safety is the most paramount issue here as I see it. Both on the ground and in the air.
And the hangar condominiums? Non residents buy them? Can those people take off and land there, and if so, how many condo hangars do you have and/or will have at buildout?
Questions, questions, questions.... answers bring resolution. thanks. Some of these questions perhaps have already been asked or resolved and if so, I apologize. These are questions that have come to my mind since my flight in the chopper, which was wonderful to me, and your presentation at Pegasus, which was also very informative. Just a few dangling participles.
Greetings Bambi,
I’m glad you enjoyed the helicopter ride. I’m sure we can do it again in the future. I’ll try to address your questions.
Is it your intention Pegasus, to direct most of your traffic to come thru that southern airspace and isn't it unregulated?
The airspace to the south is uncontrolled from the aspect of Air Traffic Control but not unregulated. All aircraft must still abide by the FAA procedures as outlined in the Aeronautical Information Manual and FAR part 91of the Federal Aviation Regulations. Our proposal to modify the fixed wing traffic pattern would put both runways (08 and 26) traffic on the south side during daylight only. This would not necessarily create more traffic over any specific location but would allow the traffic to be spread out over the entire 3 mile area designated for the downwind traffic pattern. Some aircraft would fly a tighter pattern then others thereby spreading out the traffic. The problem arises on the north side due to the close proximity of Gateway’s controlled Class D Airspace. Pilots could fly in Gateways airspace but would have to contact them first so the result is that most if not all fly a tighter pattern no farther then 0.9 miles north of Pegasus to avoid the Class “D”. This puts all the runway 08 traffic directly over Orchard Ranch and that is what we are trying to reduce. Pegasus Airpark does not have any traffic flying around in the pattern. Those types of operations are prohibited so the traffic is just coming and going which is much less then the transient traffic in the area. When Pegasus builds out in the future and traffic increases I believe it will still be less then the transient traffic. Right now Pegasus is a check point for the Gateway traffic departing and arriving to and from the south and southeast training areas and our efforts to publish a traffic procedure should reduce it or at least require a higher transition altitude.
Also, are the crop dusters out? Could it have been a crop duster at 6 a.m.? Do they also file a flight plan? Are they allowed to fly over these homes at a low elevation prior to descending to the level for dusting? And are they subject to certain hours of the day for their flights?
I am not familiar with the times farmers use for spraying except I believe they spray to defoliate cotton before harvest. It certainly could be a crop duster out at 6:00 AM. The early morning with calm wind is a prime time. I was surprised when I moved to Arizona to see crop dusters flying at night with landing lights to guide them. That would require the pilot to be more aware of any hazards in the area. I don’t think helicopters are used as often because their operational costs are much higher then fixed wing although I have heard some farmers like the effects better with helicopters. The rotor downwash tends to cause better spray coverage of the plant leaves. As for flying low over houses they would not do it intentionally but what could you expect if a field is surrounded by developments. This type of operation does not require filling a flight plan and is not subject to any particular hours of operation. There are probably a lot of EPA requirements but I’m not familiar with that end.
Does your flight path cross that area? (The east of Pegasus where Fulton is located, in Pinal County). Are you required to contact the effected area's governing body?
The only controlling agency for the lower altitudes (below the Phoenix Class B Airspace) in our area is Gateway tower and their control extends 6 statue miles from the center of the airport. Beyond that, control follows the FAA procedures as outlined earlier. In our efforts working with Gateway tower we learned they are planning an airspace change for the future to add a Class “E” airspace section to their southeast. This would appear on a map as a key shape extending from the edge of their Class “D” to the southeast in line with the main runway 30 approach. The purpose will be to protect the airspace for their instrument arrivals to runway 30 and will probably be a year or more before it is implemented. Our efforts to modify and publish procedures for Pegasus will fit in with this future change. It will be a specified departure procedure for Pegasus departures going east and would not require contact with the tower. You will see this in one of the slides in our revised presentation at the Planning Commission Meeting. I’m not sure how far east the Fulton development is that you refer to but if it conflicts with Gateway’s airspace now or in the future it would just be a simple matter for a crop duster pilot to contact the tower to coordinate flight in or under the area.
How does that effect your flight path?
The proximity of a farm field would not affect our flight path unless it was occupied by a crop duster at the time and it would be the responsibility of both pilots to see and avoid and communicate on the CTAF (Common Traffic Advisory frequency). In the future, if a development is put in, Pegasus can modify its procedures to keep up with the times. That’s why we say our procedures are subject to review and modification as the entire area builds out.
Are they as safe (regarding jets) and how do your define safe in this conversation respect to airplanes around residences?
As you saw at the Pegasus Demonstration the jets were quieter then the louder piston prop planes flying at Pegasus and this is true for almost all the jets in the category of 12,500 pounds and under that could use Pegasus. As for safety, the modern turbofan engine is typically more reliable then piston engines. Most jet aircraft have two engines, are flown by pilots with more experience and training then average and the aircraft have a well established safety record. I remember in my younger days how people used to say flying was 20 times safer then driving. That was when we were killing 50,000 a year in automobiles. Most aviation accidents always make the news but could you imagine if the news always reported the traffic fatalities.
And the hangar condominiums? Non residents buy them? Can those people take off and land there, and if so, how many condo hangars do you have and/or will have at build out?
The present plan at Pegasus could have room for 111 hangars. The third building is under construction which will bring the number of units from 31 to 47. Quite a few are owned by people who live at Pegasus or have a lot there and I expect this trend will continue since Pegasus has 104 equestrian lots without runway access. Hangars owners do not have to live at Pegasus but they are required to be a member of the Flight Association as is anyone else that owns an aviation lot so they are as familiar with the procedures as anyone else when flying there.
|
GClark
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 07:49 pm |
|
Ron, won't the Gateway Tower and Phoenix TRACON work with Pegasus to coordinate current traffic patterns to improve safety without the PAD amendment? Isn't this a current safety issue for Pegasus?
Thank you,
GClark
RonS wrote:
There are procedural changes in the works that would reduce the traffic directly over Orchard Ranch but their implementation would not take effect until after our PAD Amendment was approved. We have been working very closely with both the Phoenix TRACON and the Gateway Tower personnel to directly address the coordination of traffic. We will probably repeat our presentation showing the proposed changes at the Planning Commission Meeting on September 10, 2008, with the slight changes and refinements that have developed since the first meeting.
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 06:33 pm |
|
Hi Greg,
Everything is tied together. At this time Pegasus Airpark has no helicopter traffic pattern so how can something be modified that does not exist.
Regards,
Ron
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3282 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 06:17 pm |
|
GClark wrote: Ron, why does the PAD amendment have to be approved before these changes can take place, whay can't they be changed without the PAD amendment?
Perhaps it is Leverage Greg. Often used in changes.
I flew over that southern air space over the San Tans in the helicopter. You are also flying over homes there.....mine included. Is it your intention Pegasus, to direct most of your traffic to come thru that southern airspace and isn't it unregulated? Remember, I'm a novice, so may not be using the correct terms.
Also, are the crop dusters out? Could it have been a crop duster at 6 a.m.? Do they also file a flight plan? Are they allowed to fly over these homes at a low elevation prior to descending to the level for dusting? I know they are subject to hitting power lines when they pull up. And are they subject to certain hours of the day for their flights? They have been known to be loud and dangerous. I grew up with them, as I lived on a citrus ranch. Woke me up every a.m., but that was 50 years ago...ugh. I believe many farmers are using helicopters now. It appears that Fulton Homes future subdivision is getting ready to farm the land this season. That will mean cropdusters in the area.....in fact, just to the east of Pegasus is where Fulton is located, in Pinal County. Does your flight path cross that area? Are you required to contact the effected area's governing body? That land area of Fulton's will soon be occupied by 2000 homes, once Fulton starts building it out. How does that effect your flight path? I think we have to look long term and the effects that "may" arise.
Just trying to look at the entire scope of this air traffic over residences (mine included) and how it impacts the local residents that are most subject to their effects.....both in Q.C. and in Pinal County. Your jets are quiet. Quieter than your props. Are they as safe and how do your define safe in this conversation respect to airplanes around residences? Safety is the most paramount issue here as I see it. Both on the ground and in the air.
And the hangar condominiums? Non residents buy them? Can those people take off and land there, and if so, how many condo hangars do you have and/or will have at buildout?
Questions, questions, questions.... answers bring resolution. thanks. Some of these questions perhaps have already been asked or resolved and if so, I apologize. These are questions that have come to my mind since my flight in the chopper, which was wonderful to me, and your presentation at Pegasus, which was also very informative. Just a few dangling participles.
Last edited on Mon Aug 25th, 2008 06:24 pm by Bambi
|
GClark
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 10 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 05:22 pm |
|
Ron, why does the PAD amendment have to be approved before these changes can take place, whay can't they be changed without the PAD amendment?
|
Delta Echo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 02:47 pm |
|
Diane: Ron is correct with his suggestion to try and identify the aircraft. But may I emphasize; the basic identification is most important since the N number may be nearly impossible to see, and the N numbers of some aircraft are assigned to obscure corporations in Delaware.
Identify if the aircraft is: Single or two engines? High or low wing? Basic color and trim color? Wheels up or down?
The wheel issue may not seem important since an aircraft departing Pegasus would already have it's wheels up. But it would at least rule out a fixed gear aircraft if there was a suspect.
I am going to guess that your culprit is a low wing (Piper) sometimes twin, sometimes single, and always white with blue underbelly and wingtips. It is one of many that fly from the flight schools headed south to what is called the 'South East Training area'.....the flat spot in the desert just South of the SanTans. If you had a scanner you would hear fledgling pilots reporting "South bound 1 mile North of Pegasus crossing midfield for the South East training area". Or "Crossing Johnson Ranch, or the 'Witches Hat' or 'Mr. Volcano' or 'the Wash' " or a dozen other reporting points! At any one time from 5:00AM till noon weekdays there are at least 20 such aircraft on those training missions. And not ONE would be going to or from Pegasus. During the summer the training rush usually ends by noon because of the heat.
Another good indicator that the craft is from a flight school is the repetitious time frame. Training aircraft are rentals and the time slots are very similar on a day to day basis. I would guess your culprit returns just less than an hour later. Or for that matter, is returning from a training flight that took off an hour earlier. Not all training flights follow the same flight route in and out. A familiar training tool is the 'triangle' route to prevent pilots from following the same old roads (I F R ) . But one way or the other, anything North of Pegasus is clearly bound by airspace restrictions and is following directions given by a 'controller'.
A side note here: If there was a real issue, every flight, time and date is graphed and capable of being printed by the ATC. I looked at one such printout a year ago and only 1/2 dozen flights were over Orchard one day. All were identified and an issue was resolved by identifying a training helicopter out of Gateway.
If the aircraft is from a training school, we can't really complain. The valley is one of the best flight training areas in the country with the excellent weather; the very reason the rest of us moved here as well. But the aircraft have been training here far longer than the rest of us that moved here. And, as Ron pointed out is well within the rights and rules put forth by the FAA.
I understand your concern and I truly am not arguing with you, only trying to help us all understand some of the issues.
While we are at it, let me ask this: As far as noise is concerned why in 'God's name' do some people have to have those stupid 'Wind Chimes'? Is it really necessary to hang some dumb pipe on a rope that sounds like garbage cans clanking all night long? And speaking of garbage! Why do we need 20 different garbage carting companies trekking and grinding day in and day out in every development? Why not just ONE COMPANY picking up one day a week?........and why do we need a hundred school buses smelling and screeching and rumbling......why when I was a kid we walked to school.................. (tongue in cheek)
Delta
Last edited on Mon Aug 25th, 2008 05:07 pm by Delta Echo
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 08:21 am |
|
Greetings Diane,
I would request that you start a log and write down the date and time that the aircraft fly’s over. The important thing is to also have a description of the aircraft and if possible the N number. With the N number it is easy to find out who the plane is registered to. Without it that is nearly impossible but at least try to get the model and color and determine if it is always the same plane. If it turns out to be a Pegasus resident we can request some fly neighborly modification to their routine. Pegasus Airpark residents are good neighbors and will comply with fly neighborly procedures. I don’t know of any residents that actually fly their plane every day and there is the possibility that the aircraft disturbing you is some transient traffic out of Gateway Airport. Did you actually see it landing at Pegasus? Can you determine the direction of travel as it passes overhead?
At this time and since it was established Pegasus Airpark has left traffic for runway 08 and left traffic for runway 26. Orchard Ranch is under the pattern and there is no restriction from flying over it. All aircraft are required to comply with the FAA operating practices outlined in the Aeronautical Information Manual regarding the use of Uncontrolled Airports and FAR part 91of the Federal Aviation Regulations. This procedure for landing traffic is to enter the downwind leg at midfield on a 45 degree angle. You may be aware of the discussion about the close proximity of Gateway Airport’s Class D Airspace. This acts to channel the downwind traffic for runway 08 right over Orchard Ranch. Another factor is that runway 08 is designated as the calm wind runway. Normally aircraft departing Pegasus would not fly over Orchard Ranch but the runway 08 landing traffic would. Landing traffic would normally have a reduced power setting making the single event noise level less then a departing aircraft.
There are procedural changes in the works that would reduce the traffic directly over Orchard Ranch but their implementation would not take effect until after our PAD Amendment was approved. We have been working very closely with both the Phoenix TRACON and the Gateway Tower personnel to directly address the coordination of traffic. We will probably repeat our presentation showing the proposed changes at the Planning Commission Meeting on September 10, 2008, with the slight changes and refinements that have developed since the first meeting.
|
Diane C.
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 05:23 am |
|
Ron and other Pegasus members,
I’d like to ask a quick question about the flight patterns of those flying into and out of Pegasus. As I understood your presentation at one of the town meetings, planes flying into Pegasus are not supposed to fly over Orchard Ranch. Am I correct, or have I misunderstood? I ask because I believe one of your pilots may be flying over my home in Orchard Ranch several days a week at around 6am. I would like to ask your assistance in determining if the pilot flying over my home is one of your residents, guests, or hangar owners. This pilot wakes me and my family up at 6am or so every time he or she flies over, making it difficult for us to get a full night’s sleep. How might I go about determining who this person is, and if it is one of your folks, what could you do to help?
|
Ron S.
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 6th, 2008 04:24 am |
|
Last edited on Sun Aug 10th, 2008 11:40 pm by Ron S.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 28th, 2008 12:15 am |
|
CrimeFighter wrote: David, here's a backup one for your files
Now, now. I'm being nice here and didn't mean to imply anything other than 'peace'. 
|
CrimeFighter
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1104 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 07:15 pm |
|
David, here's a backup one for your files:
or perhaps this:
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 05:17 pm |
|
Hi Bambi, I thought you might.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3282 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 05:08 pm |
|
Hi David. Love your avatar
 Peace
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3282 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 05:06 pm |
|
Gosh. That sounds very interesting. I would love to know who your grandpa is. Anyway, has this all been verified thru the local Historical Society? Not questioning your granpa's memory, but I've been out here for quite a while and I don't remember any C130 landing on that strip. I have seen some touch and go's with bigger planes in the past, but nothing of that size in the last 10 years. WOW.
My dad was a citrus rancher in northeast Mesa. We were located in what they called the "banana belt" of the Valley. Nicer weather. Citrus in this area would freeze when ours would not.
Billy Hawes and his brother were big potato growers out here. Billy would take his plane from Falcon Field to out here to look over his crops. I think his brother's name was Wilford? but not sure. Me and my brothers would hitch a ride with him once in a while, but I don't remember where we landed....too young. There was practically nothing out here back then....late 50's. When my friends wanted to go for a "long" ride, we would come out here. It was considered very far back then, and almost all farm land with migrant workers abundant.
Thanks for your rendition and sharing your grandpa's memories.
Keep up with your studies. Sounds like you will go far in life.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 04:58 pm |
|
It seems this airstrip has a lot of history. Thanks for sharing Libby!
What a sight it would be to see a C-130 landing in pegasus now. 
|
Little Libby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 04:35 pm |
|
My grandfather told me the strip of land from Riggs to the mountains and from Arizona Ave to Ellsworth was owned by Mr Chandler and sold as citrus farms. But the packing and transportation of the fruit was very sporadic. At the same time the farms East of Ellsworth became famous for potato chip potatoes. So the Empire Fruit Company built a building on Empire Road and specialized in packing and shipping fruit and potatoes. About the same time Phoenix had become popular as a winter spot for tourists and because the big multi engine airliners were going back east empty right at fruit picking time Empire built a paved runway so they could stop and take back loads of fruit and vegetables. If you look at the Empire fruit company building even today, you will see it was designed to look like an air terminal. I was told the Pegasus runway is one mile long, way too long just to be for crop-dusters and light airplanes so this makes even more sense. In the 1950's or 60's when jets were starting to be used by the airlines Empire was getting ready to double the length of the runway to accommodate the 727 airliners. But at the same time some big freight companies also started to use the airliners and put Empire out of the air shipping business. However, Empire did have all the permits and approvals by the FAA and the runway was certified for airliners and jets. That is why Pegasus still carries the FAA number 5AZ3 as the official designation of an approved airport, only private. In 1960 or so people were using it as a dragstrip so someone cut a ditch across the middle and eventually powerlines were strung there too preventing everyone except cropdusters from using it.
When Pegasus bought the property they offered to remove the taxiway that was built for real heavy airliners and put in a new light weight taxiway so the town would be assured heavy airplanes would not use it anymore. But even 10 years ago after the runway was fixed big C-130s would still land there just for practice. One thing I realized after starting college is lots and lots of people really don't know anything about what can be done and what can't be done when it comes to Real Estate and how some municipal laws and Federal laws conflict. Sometimes home rule does take precedence but usually Federal (like the FAA and FCC, IRS etc.) is the winner.
Someone mentioned Pinal county could put in a dragstrip right across the street. Well Pegasus also could very easily succeed from Maricopa and join Pinal. In fact, this was already explored just 2 years ago when the guy from San Tan tried to pull a big hunk of Queen Creek away. People from Pegasus had even gone to the statehouse and started the questions but everyone in Real Estate suggested not doing that as property values associated with Pinal County were dropping really fast. I know I am rambling and I'm not even sure I remember everything correctly, but I like to throw in my 2 cents too.
Libby
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3282 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 01:52 pm |
|
Little Libby wrote: Regardless, this issue is unrelated to the proposed change to the Special Use Permit.
That is kinda what I was saying in the first place. But also, if you look real close at the constitution of the USA there is a real order to the rules that we all have to play by. First off, the Federal Rules have precedent. Then State, then County and then municipal. Finally local and last any Home Owners Associations. This has been proven over and over again in many courts across the country. While the Township 'stipulations' may be nice-nice for people to abide by, they are not necessarily in the proper order. It is like little towns all across the country that enact 'Sunday sales rules' or Beach passes. It may be ok if no-one tests the ruling, but it never holds up in Federal Court. The so-called 'stipulations' we are talking about is actually worthless because any aviation rule is held by Federal precedent. Pegasus is being very generous by abiding by the wishes of Queen Creek, but in reality they do not have to follow any rules other than those promulgated by Federal law. Queen Creek allowed a 5000 foot runway to be built 50 years ago so now they cannot change the rules anytime later. Just like Pinal allowing San Tan Flat to build a restaurant and then claiming people can't dance there. CC and R's or stipulations not withstanding, for a township to prohibit any aircraft to land there is similar to some town trying to prohibit dump trucks from delivering gravel on a local road. If there is a reason, such as a bridge not holding the weight, then it is legal. But to prevent a legal entity from using something simply for 'nuisance factors' is totally illegal. Perhaps that is the reason Queen Creek stuck in the 12000 pound weight limit. But that is as far as they are allowed to go.
I know, I am only a 23 year old RE agent in a law school program but law is law and the days of the good 'ol boys and the church runnin the show are over!"
Libby
Q.C. did not allow the runway to be built. They weren't incorporated back then. Maricopa County authorized that, I assume, and I think it was for crop dusters only....farm use, not a runway for civilians. Now what? What's the rule of law for that type of case I wonder?
Looking at other cases nationwide, where change was requested, I notice they all went before their local government for permission. Courtesy perhaps?
Good for you Libby, for going into real estate and law. I am a realtor/teacher combo. Keep up your studies and help your fellow man with what you learn....as you are doing now. Much appreciated.
Hold on. Just checking over my post to be sure I didn't mention any incarcerated politicians.
Last edited on Sat Jul 26th, 2008 02:05 pm by Bambi
|
Little Libby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26th, 2008 03:18 am |
|
Regardless, this issue is unrelated to the proposed change to the Special Use Permit.
That is kinda what I was saying in the first place. But also, if you look real close at the constitution of the USA there is a real order to the rules that we all have to play by. First off, the Federal Rules have precedent. Then State, then County and then municipal. Finally local and last any Home Owners Associations. This has been proven over and over again in many courts across the country. While the Township 'stipulations' may be nice-nice for people to abide by, they are not necessarily in the proper order. It is like little towns all across the country that enact 'Sunday sales rules' or Beach passes. It may be ok if no-one tests the ruling, but it never holds up in Federal Court. The so-called 'stipulations' we are talking about is actually worthless because any aviation rule is held by Federal precedent. Pegasus is being very generous by abiding by the wishes of Queen Creek, but in reality they do not have to follow any rules other than those promulgated by Federal law. Queen Creek allowed a 5000 foot runway to be built 50 years ago so now they cannot change the rules anytime later. Just like Pinal allowing San Tan Flat to build a restaurant and then claiming people can't dance there. CC and R's or stipulations not withstanding, for a township to prohibit any aircraft to land there is similar to some town trying to prohibit dump trucks from delivering gravel on a local road. If there is a reason, such as a bridge not holding the weight, then it is legal. But to prevent a legal entity from using something simply for 'nuisance factors' is totally illegal. Perhaps that is the reason Queen Creek stuck in the 12000 pound weight limit. But that is as far as they are allowed to go.
I know, I am only a 23 year old RE agent in a law school program but law is law and the days of the good 'ol boys and the church runnin the show are over!"
Libby
|
tomogo
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 11:27 pm |
|
If we can get back to the issue at hand please.
I will be attending the noise demonstration also and actually look forward to meeting some of the folks that reside in Pegasus. I believe we can have intelligent discourse on this topic and disagree on the best approach while still remaining civil and respectful.
|
tomogo
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
Little Libby...no you please read it again. In case you didn't read it, this is the STIPULATION FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FROM THE TOWN. Its included in the CC&R's because the TOQC required it to be included. I'm not a lawyer, but I would venture to say the TOQC does have authority to enforce its own zoning rules. I believe you haven't read the entire document, because the section I posted is from Exhibt D which contains the Stipulations for the special use permit which Pegasus is authorized to conduct flight operations under. This is the amendment that Pegasus is seeking to alter in the first place, to allow other types of aircraft.
As far as resident versus condominium owner, I fully realize I can buy my own hangar condo at Pegasus and become a member of the flight association. But according to the use stipulation, I can't rent it to someone else and certainly can't have my friends park their planes there, unless they also become members of the flight association. After closer review of the requirements for Flight Association membership, I agree that the CC&R's allow for non-residents to become Flight Association Members. Regardless, to operate aircraft out of Pegasus, they need to be Flight Association Members which implies they have agreed to the rules governed by the Association.
However, the non-resident allowance contradicts with what was verbally stated at the P&Z meeting. I may be mistaken in that the presenter may have said member of the Flight Association, but I recall hearing Resident Owner or Hangar Condo owner.
Regardless, this issue is unrelated to the proposed change to the Special Use Permit.
Also, thank you very much for reinforcing the concerns of those in opposition to the change with regard to the town's ability to enforce any of the CC&R's. From that piece of information, I can only conclude any restrictions or special provisions for flight operations need to be called out explicitly in the Special Use Permit.
EXHIBIT D
TOWN OF QUEEN CREEK
STIPULATIONS TO WHICH
SPECIAL USE PERMIT SU 01-97
IS SUBJECT Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 11:11 pm by tomogo
|
Little Libby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 10:24 pm |
|
Tomogo.......Please read it again. You are missing a very important point. Everything you say is true except it is referring to having Guests! That is all. If you read the C C and R's even deeper you will see that contrary to someone else's cornball statement, the person that owns the hanger is responsible for what the person leasing the hanger does. Therefore it would behove that person to be sure his or her tenant adheres to the rules. Besides, you are quoting a statement that reads: "A Flight Association Member" etc.. If you read the rest of the CC and R's you will see any aviation lot or hanger owner must be a flight association member. But the Flight Association membership is not restricted to residents.
I'm sorry, but I studied those rules and other rules from other developments very closely when I was preparing for my Real Estate License. Also, something someone else seemed to miss, The Township or any other government agency cannot enforce HOA rules or CC and R's. It is 'hands off'! The only exception is age and race discrimination.
Lib
Last edited on Sat Jul 26th, 2008 03:30 am by Little Libby
|
gsbill
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 08:33 pm |
|
| The thing to do here is go to the open house/ sound demonstration. I'm going and will see and hear whats proposed. I am up the road from Pegasus. If a picture is worth a thousand words a LIVE demo must be worth at least 1,001 words! See ya at the sound demonstration.
|
DavidB
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 336 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 08:15 pm |
|
orchard ranch resident wrote: Even though David and I obviously disagree on the issue, I would like to stick up for him. I havent' seen David respond negatively to anyone but the folks attacking him first"
Thanks so much for pointing that out.
I would like to respond to your statement about David. He has pm me more than once and is very hateful and accusatory. I wrote back stating he ripped Bambi a new a....hole with his derrogatory statements that he made to her on her first comment, and other following comments, and it was unfair, and not to pm me again. And he continued cause he stated he thinks its deserving? His last pm to me today, which I have told him not to pm me anymore or I'll call the police, he stated that "he did rip her a new a..hole, and that she deserved it." He goes on to state that "Christ" she deserved it and is being sued for running her yap." "That's what she gets for trying to smear me." Other things were said too, but I'll let Bambi handle that with her attorneys as soon as I forward this to her.
Nice work paraphrasing what I said to fit your agenda. I was trying to appeal to your logic. That was a huge mistake. I was totally polite in my first message to you and got a nasty tirade complete with profanity in return. I won't post her response here because I don't know if I can do that. Since I'm being threatened once again with legal action, I'm not taking the chance. What someome posts in public is fair game. I don't think that's true of private messages. I invite the poster to post her response since clearly she wants this on the table. I doubt you will see it.
I have no problem, however, posting what I sent as the first message. I sent her this pm in response to the public accusation that I am demeaning people:
"Someone critisizes my English and attempts to humiliate me in public, while making so many grammatical errors its comical, and you think I should just accept that because she's an old lady? How am I supposed to know that and what difference does it make? Nobody should be insulted like that and nobody has the right to do that to someone and not expect a rebuttal.
Someone calls me a liar - by lying - and you want me to just sit there and let them do it?
Its demeaning to defend yourself? Put yourself in my shoes and I suspect you wouldn't just sit there and take that crap either.
I have been completely respectful to those asking questions, direct with people making false assertions, and fierce in defending my honor and reputation. None of which I aplogize for. I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, but I won't be talked down to by an idiot either.
I'm sorry your mind has been made up over an issue that can help the town because you don't like the way I carry myself. Fortunately, this will be voted on by people who will study the issue from a logical perspective, not an emotional one.
It's too bad that the 1/2 dozen morons on the forum have turned it into a mud slinging contest. Looking at their posting history though, it's pretty clear that its not their first time. I embarassed myself by arguing with them, but I am happy I exposed some of them for what they are. If that's what you mean by demeaning, then fine. I'm guilty.
There have been some good questions and good data presented by very knowledgable people on both sides of this debate. But some seem to just ignore all that and get to the fireball, jets crashing, paranoia because they don't want to understand it. The "I'll show you, you rich bastard" mentality.
I am done with trying to bring some sanity to that discussion. It's like trying to hammer nails with your forehead. Even if you get the nail in, you lose. It absolutely is chicken litte, and they can sit around waiting for the sky to fall all they want.
"Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference."
That's the person you are defending Tomogo. That's the way he thinks and acts. Thats my neighbor that wants this change and can't understand why people don't want it too.
I'm done posting on this site.
Please do not pm me again David.
No worries there. Reaching out to the wrong people here is reason to get your hand bitten off apparently.
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 08:31 pm by DavidB
|
orchard ranch resident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
Even though David and I obviously disagree on the issue, I would like to stick up for him. I havent' seen David respond negatively to anyone but the folks attacking him first
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I would like to respond to your statement about David. He has pm me more than once and is very hateful and accusatory. I wrote back stating he ripped Bambi a new a....hole with his derrogatory statements that he made to her on her first comment, and other following comments, and it was unfair, and not to pm me again. And he continued cause he stated he thinks its deserving? His last pm to me today, which I have told him not to pm me anymore or I'll call the police, he stated that "he did rip her a new a..hole, and that she deserved it." He goes on to state that "Christ" she deserved it and is being sued for running her yap." "That's what she gets for trying to smear me." Other things were said too, but I'll let Bambi handle that with her attorneys as soon as I forward this to her.
That's the person you are defending Tomogo. That's the way he thinks and acts. Thats my neighbor that wants this change and can't understand why people don't want it too.
I'm done posting on this site. Please do not pm me again David.
|
tomogo
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | Queen Creek |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 05:46 pm |
|
After all, anybody that claims: " 'drunken pilots' are flying low over their houses and waiting to crash" has a lot to be desired in the logic department.
Edited after reviewing previous posts: It appears that a few folks did mention pilots drinking and flying. Its a valid concern but not at all relevant to the proposed change.
Even though David and I obviously disagree on the issue, I would like to stick up for him. I havent' seen David respond negatively to anyone but the folks attacking him first. While we should all try to restrain our personal attacks on a public forum such as this, the internet unfortuantely makes it all to easy to "flame" folks with little provocation. Qcdads accusation of David being a liar for posting a joke that I personally found funny, is reaching a bit.
With regard to the issue of whether or not aircraft parked at Pegasus are actually owned by the residents, its a matter of trust and enforcing existing rules. The rules do not allow non-resident aircraft to operate out of the airfield, except under the conditions called out in the CC&R's. The logic behind this is to limit operations of aircraft to those bound by the CC&R's, and to prevent sublease of hangar space. The restriction prevents quasi-commercial operations from coming in and buying up a bunch of hangars for the sole purpose of leasing them back to the public. From what I have gathered, its a fairly common requirement for private residential airparks.
Tomogo: What's with the big deal over who uses a hanger.
Excerpt from the CC and R's posted:
Guests will not be allowed by those persons who own or lease hangars or own or lease tie-downs and do not reside on a permanent basis at Pegasus Airpark.
Read the whole CC&R.
Such prior permission shall be granted only to persons having a
bona fide reason for landing at the Airpark, such as persons staying overnight or longer
EXHIBIT D
with Pegasus Airpark residents or Flight Association members who also reside at Pegasus
Airpark. No person other than those defined herein shall be permitted to use the airpark,
Its 100% clear that the guest policy is just for that, guests of residents of Pegasus who happen to own airplanes and fly in to visit. The restriction against hangar and tie down members is obvious, since there would be no legitimate reason for them to have a "guest" fly in to visit them at their hangar or tie down spot.
If this particular restriction is not adhered too, it is a relevant indicator of what we can expect for compliance to other operating restrictions. And for the record, I have no information indicating that the existing rules aren't being followed. I was merely following up on a post about a "RUMOR" that non-resident aircraft were hangared at Pegasus.
What cracks me up about something like my post on the CC&R's is I can post it in black and white, and folks will still argue about the rule, as if I'm making something up here. I'm not accusing anyone of being in violation of that rule. I merely responded to the counter arguement that it didn't matter who was parking their plane at Pegasus as long as they didn't exceed the total number of aircraft allowed. It was also clearly stated at the P&Z meeting that "only" Pegasus residents and hangar owners would be allowed to operate out of Pegasus, up to a total of 225 aircraft.
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 09:42 pm by tomogo
|
Little Libby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 05:24 pm |
|
orchard ranch resident wrote:
Where did I say I was not including facts and logic in my decision?
Right here------->
orchard ranch resident wrote:
Thanks for making up my mind for me.
)))))as Little Libby who does not live in Pegasus or personally know anyone from Pegasus shakes her head in amazement(((((
PS: I live in the Rabbit Warren, I don't fly, I don't vote, I work for a RE agency, I'm not busy and I think they should pave our streets.Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 05:28 pm by Little Libby
|
orchard ranch resident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 05:14 pm |
|
Little Libby wrote: Queen Creek Public Issues Forum
This is a forum for open discussion of public issues. If you disagree with somebody else's comment, please respond by posting your own. No personal attacks or profanities, please.
It sounds to me like some of you should read that!
Orchard Ranch Resident, If that is the criteria you use for making up your mind instead of facts and logic, I suspect your mind was made up a long time ago!
You are just like the rest of them that are jumping to conclusions. Do you all belong to the same exclusive club? Where did I say I was not including facts and logic in my decision? You don't know me and how much I have investigated this so please don't try to allude to actions by me that are not true. You make your decision, I will make mine based on facts and logic and words spoken on here and other sources. These guys just helped me reach that decision as they represent the mindset of some of my Pegasus neighbors. One that is different than mine. I have read the discussions and the personal attacks on those that don't believe the same as they do, and I just simply don't trust that way of thinking whether the guy is a pilot or not. I have now posted my own comment as the rules state and my discussion is over. Back to work.
|
Little Libby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:46 pm |
|
Queen Creek Public Issues Forum
This is a forum for open discussion of public issues. If you disagree with somebody else's comment, please respond by posting your own. No personal attacks or profanities, please.
It sounds to me like some of you should read that!
Orchard Ranch Resident, If that is the criteria you use for making up your mind instead of facts and logic, I suspect your mind was made up a long time ago!
Tomogo: What's with the big deal over who uses a hanger.
Excerpt from the CC and R's posted:
Guests will not be allowed by those persons who own or lease hangars or own or lease tie-downs and do not reside on a permanent basis at Pegasus Airpark.
I think that paragraph is very clear. The only restriction I see is that a person who owns or 'leases' a hanger or who 'leases' a tiedown and does not live in Pegasus may not invite 'guests' to fly in and use the airpark. I think that is exactly what you are complaining about but it appears they already have that well under control.
That is exactly what Delta Echo tried to tell you a few posts back! That someone, whether from Orchard ranch or SanTan, or even you, could buy, rent or lease a spot in Pegasus and be counted as one of the total number of aircraft based there. But as an off premise user you cannot have a 'guest' . What is wrong with that?
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 05:11 pm by Little Libby
|
Delta Echo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 04:01 am |
|
Hmmmmm, interesting comment considering I too am a Orchard Ranch Resident???
But I am tired of listenening to untruths and non-related arguments that are supposed to 'just stop dead' after being spouted.
And yes, I do think some people are morons.............but isn't that what the person wanted me to think? After all, anybody that claims: " 'drunken pilots' are flying low over their houses and waiting to crash" has a lot to be desired in the logic department.
Last edited on Fri Jul 25th, 2008 01:42 pm by Delta Echo
|
orchard ranch resident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 03:46 am |
|
| I am an Orchard Ranch resident and I have been reading these posts and all I have to say is Ron is wasting his time on bringing in the demonstration for us. I vote no. I think it is disgusting how the posters David and Delta are treating other people's legitimate concerns and are demeaning them in public. That means they think of us the same way. Yes I shutter also to think these few smart elic Pegasus (did I spell it right?)residents will be at the controls of anything that moves. Thanks for making up my mind for me.
|
Delta Echo
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jul 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 03:08 am |
|
| < |