Viewing page 7 of 71

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

COLONIAL AIRLINES, INC.
N.Y. MUNICIPAL AIRPORT . LA GUARDIA FIELD, N.Y.

Page 2.

tight turns, to shorten the distance. He was now in front of me and about 500' high approaching the boundary of the runway. At the time I first noticed him in front of me, I believe that he was about 2000' away. As he was apparently too close for a normal approach from his high altitude, I was perplexed as to his exact intentions. I observed a lot of skidding, as if the pilot was attempting to see behind him. I continued my approach at reduced speed in order to be in a position to land if the airplane in front of me did not do so. The pilot in front of me continued the flight of the airplane across the field at a height of about 300'. As I could not determine exactly what he intended to do and since it was no longer safe to continue with my intent to land, I proceeded to pass him well to the right, overtaking the airplane at a point opposite the hangar or about midfield.

The entire performance was evidently an attempt to block safe progress of my flight and force me to conform to a traffic pattern that was designed in scope and magnitude to operate only for small aircraft. These actions on the part of the pilot of the small airplane are unexplainable to me. If he was attempting to land, why did he not do so? If he was just dragging the field as a practice maneuver, 300' or thereabouts, is not, I should think, the proper altitude for such practice. Perhaps the airport management condones "jazzing" or "zooming" the field and that was what he was doing. In any event, his circuit around the field was considerably shortened and he did get in the way of a landing aircraft and he made no attempt to land himself. By crossing the flight path of an overtaking aircraft, not only does he show ignorance of the rules relating to the "right of way", but also he forces other aircraft into an unsafe position. Since the aircraft manager feels that I was in the wrong, then any methods used to force me to conform to "his" rules are justified. Even if it jeopardizes safety. If that is the situation and the airport manager continues to be antagonistic, then in the further interest of safety, I think we should not go into that airport at all and let the airport manager assume responsibility to the people of the community for the discontinuance of the service.

Rutland Airport is the only place where we have this trouble. I have heard of these complaints on the part of the airport manager before. If other airport managers felt the same way about our operation, we no doubt would have heard about it by this time. But the fact remains that the only complaints we get are from the Rutland airport manager.

In my opinion it is not good practice for the airport manager to also be