BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

) 

FRANK HINSHAW, SKYDIVING SCHOOL, INC., ) 

d/b/a SKYDIVE HA WAil and ISLAND SKYDIVING, L.L.C. ) 

) 

Complainant, ) 

) 

10), [E ~ [E ~ 'W [E fni 

UULMAH - 21on 1~ AIRPORT/EriVIRONM ENTAL 

LAW, AGC-GOO ___ _, 

vs. ) DockefNo.: NotYetissued 

) 

THE STATE OF HAWAII ) 

) 

Respondent ) 

14 CFR Part 16 COMPLAINT 

Please Serve: 

Richard J. Durden 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Rd. 

Conifer, Co. 80433 

T: 616/901-6516 

avlawyer@.vahoo.com 

Counsel for Complainant 

L Entities/Persons That Are the Subject of the Complaint 

Frank Hinshaw brings this Complaint for himself and as the owner of Skydiving School, 

Inc., a Hawaii corporation and its d/b/a, Skydive Hawaii and managing partner oflsland 

Skydiving, LLC, a Hawaii Limited Liability Company; the pertinent address is P. 0. Box 75520, 

Honolulu, Hawaii, 96836 ("Complainant"). Complainant has been operating commercial 

skydiving services as an aeronautical user of State-owned airports in the State of Hawaii (The 

"State") since the 1980s. 

1 
The State is the owner and operator of the two airports, Hana Airport ("Hana" or 

"HNM") on the island ofMaui and Upolu Airport ("Upolu" or "UPP") on the island of Hawaii 

that are the subject of this Complaint. 

As represented by counsel, Complainant makes the following Complaint under FAA 

Rules of Practice For Federally-Assisted Airport Proceedings, 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

("CFR''):Part U>;foi violations of49USC §§ 47167, 401 o3(e)and (hint Assurances 5, RTghis 

and Powers, 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, and 23, Exclusive Rights, failure to comply with 

grant obligations and Federal Aviation Administration Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance 

Manual, and Advisory Circulars prohibiting establishment of exclusive rights at an airport, 

unjust discrimination against a commercial aeronautical activity seeking airport access and the 

establishment of arbitrary, unattainable and discriminatory standards for a commercial 

aeronautical activity seeking airport access, against the State of Hawaii ("State") as the owner 

and sponsor of Hana and Upolu airports, as will be more fully set out below. 

The State of Hawaii, through its Administrator, Department of Transportation, Airports 

Division, may be reached at 400 Rogers Boulevard, 7th Floor, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96819-1880. 

Upon information and belief, the post of Administrator is currently vacant; the duties are being 

handled by other employees ofthe department. 

II. 14 CFR §16.21 Certification 

On July 17, 2007, Complainant made a request to begin commercial skydiving operations 

on to the Hana Airport. (Exhibit I) The State did not respond until October of that year; then 

stating that due to changes in use of the Hana Airport, it would need some time to determine if 

2 
skydiving could be conducted safely. (Exhibit 2) The State asked the FAA to evaluate the 

safety of skydiving onto Hana Airport. On November 20, 2007, the FAA concluded that it could 

be conducted safely if properly coordinated. (Exhibit 3) Nevertheless, after a delay of more than 

a year after the initial application, the State responded to Complainant with a denial based on 

safety. (Exhibit 4) 

During the time it was hiking the State to make a deCision on Hma, Complainant 

approached the State regarding the possibility of establishing commercial skydiving operations 

on other airports in the State, including specific dates for skydiving on Upolu. On April10, 

2008, the State approved skydiving at Upo1u on those dates. (Exhibit 5) 

Following the State's denial at Hana, Complainant, the State and the FAA carried on an 

email and telephone correspondence regarding skydiving safety at Hana Airport. For the sake of 

brevity, this extensive correspondence is not attached to this Complaint. 

The correspondence between Complainant and the State lead to an FAA safety study for 

skydiving at Hana. On March 16,2009, the Honolulu FSDO found that skydiving could be 

conducted safely at Hana. (Exhibit 6) 

The State disagreed. Complainant sought and obtained Part 16.21 mediation conference 

with the State and the FAA regarding skydiving in Hawaii and specifically on Hana Airport. 

(Exhibit 7) It took place on October 7, 2009 in the FAA's offices in Honolulu. (Exhibit 8) 

At the mediation conference, the State agreed to come up with skydiving rules for 

operations at Hana. It again delayed more than a year before doing so, coming out with 

proposed rules in 2011. (Exhibit 9) Complainant responded to the proposed operational rules 

with suggested amendments in both March and June 2011. 

3 
Since that time, the State has not just delayed in taking action, it has simply done nothing. 

The proposed rules have not been fmalized, with or without Complainant's suggestions. He has 

been, therefore, unable to begin operations on Hana Airport. 

Because of the lack of action by the State and response to Complainant's inquires, and 

even though it had received permission to operate skydive onto Upolu Airport, Complainant 

wrotetothe State igairi., iriosfreceni:ly ori December 15, 20 n, askirigfoi- corifiiiriaiiori that It had 

permission to operate a commercial skydiving operation on Upolu. (ExhibitlO) No response has 

ever been received. 

The State of Hawaii has effectively denied access to Hana and Upolu by the creative 

approach of refusing to do anything. 

By signature of counsel, below, Complainant hereby certifies that it has undertaken the 

pre-complaint resolution actions outlined above. 

m. Factual Background 

A. Complainant. 

Frank Hinshaw is an experienced skydiver who has operated commercial skydiving 

services since the 1980s. He is the owner of Skydiving School, Inc. and its d/b/a, Skydive 

Hawaii and managing partner ofisland Skydiving, L.L.C. He currently provides sport 

parachuting services on Dillingham Airfield on the island of Oahu. 

B. The Airports. 

4 
Hana Airport is a non-towered, single-runway airport on the island of Maui. It has two 

aircraft based on the airport and has limited 14 CFR § 135 service. For further information see: 

http://hawaii.gov/hnm 

Upolu is a non-towered, single-runway airport on the island of Hawaii. It has one aircraft 

based on the airport and no air carrier service. For further information see: 

http://hawaii.gov/upp 

C. Application. 

Complainant applied to operate a commercial skydiving service at Hana Airport on July 

17, 2007. (Exhibit 1) He has also requested to erect a hangar on the Hana Airport to support the 

servtce. 

Because of delays with the application at Hana, Complainant applied to operate a 

commercial skydiving service at other airports in Hawaii, including Upolu Airport in the winter 

of2008. He requested dates certain (in April2008) for initial jumps at Upolu. The State gave its 

approval on April 10, 2008. (Exhibit 5) He has requested to erect a hangar on Upolu Airport to 

support the skydiving service. 

D. Approval and Denial. 

As stated above, the State approved jumps on to Upolu but the approval letter did not 

mention the application for a commercial service on the Upolu Airport and did not respond to the 

request to erect a hangar. 

The FAA made an evaluation of skydiving safety at the Hana Airport and found it could 

be conducted safely with appropriate safeguards in place. (Exhibit 3) The State denied the 

5 
application for airport access at Hana for Complainant's business on August 11, 2008, citing 

safety as the reason. (Exhibit 4) 

E. FAA Involvement. 

Following the denial of access at the Hana and other airports in Hawaii, Complainant 

sought out assistitriceTroiri theFAA.·· .. There was extel1sive.correspoiidenc£ between the ·state; the 

FAA and Complainant. As stated earlier, the vast majority is not provided here because of 

volume. 

The FAA conducted a safety study regarding skydiving onto the Hana Airport; on March 

16, 2009, it concluded it could be done safely. (Exhibit 6) 

The State disagreed. Additional correspondence ensued and Complainant, through 

counsel, requested a Part 16.21 mediation conference with the State and FAA. (Exhibit 7) The 

mediation conference was held on October 7, 2009. At the conference, the State agreed to allow 

skydiving onto the Hana Airport and to provide operating rules. 

F. Draft Rules, Hana. 

The promised draft operating ru1es were not forthcoming until early 2011. (Exhibit 9) 

After receiving them, Complainant noted that they did not allow equal access to the Hana Airport 

with other users (only when the Airport was not being used by anyone else), had other 

restrictions that were inconsistent with the FAA's safety findings and did not address his request 

to erect a hangar. He twice responded to the State with suggested amendments and again asked 

for approval to erect a hangar. 

6 
H. State's Failure to Act. 

Since that time the State has done nothing. It has not provided the final rules and has not 

approved Complainant's operation at Hana. 

Because of the State's behavior and the language of the initial approval to operate at 

Upolu, Complainant again sought approval to operate a commercial skydiving service on the 

tJpolu Airport, most recently in a letter of December 15, 2011. (Exhibit 10) 

The State has never responded. 

With this Complaint, Complainant asserts that the State's tactic of taking no action to 

complete the approval of Complainant's service at Hana and Upolu Airports constitutes denial of 

access in violation of the Grant Assurances. 

IV. Violations by the State of Hawaii 

A Applicable Law 

49 USC§ 47101, et seq., provides for Federal airport financial assistance for the 

development of public-use airports under the Airport Improvement Program (AlP) established by 

the Airport and Airway Improvement Act (AAIA), as amended. 49 USC§ 47107, et seq., sets 

forth assurances to which an airport sponsor agrees as a condition of receiving Federal financial 

assistance. Upon acceptance of an AlP grant, the assurances become a binding contractual 

obligation between the airport sponsor and the Federal government. The assurances made by 

airport sponsors in AlP grant agreements are important factors in maintaining a viable national 

airport system. [See Florida Aerial Advertising v. St. Petersburg-Clearwater International 

Airport, FAA Docket No. 16-03-01, Director's Determination (December 18, 2003 ).] 

7 
The FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport operators comply with the 

sponsor assurances. 

49 USC§ 47107(a) states, in part: 

"General Written Assurances. - The Secretary of Transportation 

may approve a project grant application under this subchapter for 

an airport development project only if the Secretary receives written 

assurances, satisfactory to the Secretary that- ( 1) the airport will be 

available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust 

discrimination; . " 

As a recipient of federal grants for its airports, the State of Hawaii provided written 

assurances of compliance with its obligation to make its airports available for public use for all 

types of FAA-recognized activities, including skydiving, without unjust discrimination. 

The owner of any airport developed with Federal grant assistance is required to operate 

the airport for the use and benefit of the public and to make it available to all types, kinds, and 

classes of aeronautical activity on reasonable terms, and without unjust discrimination; see Grant 

Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, of the prescribed sponsor assurances which 

implements the provisions of 49 USC§ 47107(a)(l) through (6). 

Specifically, Grant Assurance 22 states, in part, with regard to the airport owner/sponsor: 

"a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use and on reasonable terms 

and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, 

including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport. 

Grant assurance 5, Rights and Powers, obligates an airport sponsor to refrain from any 

action that will deprive it of rights and powers to perfonn in accordance with the requirements of 

the Grant Assurances. Among the responsibilities of an airport sponsor is to make the airport 

available for all types and classes of aeronautical activities. 

Grant assurance 23, Exclustve Rights, implements statutory provisions 49 §§ 47103(3) 

and 47107(a)( 4) providing, in summary, thatthere shall be no exclusive right for the use of any 

8 
landing area on which Federal funds have been expended and there will be no exclusive right for 

the use of the airport by any person providing or intending to provide, aeronautical services to 

the public. 

An exclusive right is defined as a power, privilege, or other right excluding or debarring 

another from enjoying or exercising a like power, privilege, or right. [See Florida Aerial 

Advertising, above.] Such a right conferred on one or more parties, but excluding others from 

enjoying or exercising a similar right or rights would be an exclusive right. [FAA Order 

5190.1A, Exclusive Rights at Airports, p. 1] It is the FAA's policy that the sponsor of a federally 

obligated airport will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, 

or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public ... will not, either directly or indirectly, 

grant or permit any person, firm, or corporation, the exclusive right at the airport to conduct any 

aeronautical activities. [Florida Aerial Advertising] 

The application of any unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory requirement or standard 

to proposed aeronautical use of such airports is considered a constructive grant of an exclusive 

right contrary to applicable law and FAA regulations. [Florida Aerial Advertising] By 

unreasonably denying access to a proposed aeronautical activity, an airport sponsor is in 

violation ofthe exclusive right prohibition. 

FAA Order 5l90.6B,Airport Compliance Manual, describes in detail the responsibilities 

assumed by the owners of public-use airports developed with Federal assistance. It clearly 

defines parachute activities as an aeronautical activity and gives that activity no greater or lesser 

weight than other aeronautical activities protected by grant assurances. Chapter 14 explains that 

parachute activities are given equal access to airports developed with Federal assistance as are all 

other defined aeronautical activities. 

9 
49 USC§ 40103(e) prescribes, in part: 

"No Exclusive Rights at Certain Facilities. --A person does not have 

an exclusive right to use an air navigation facility on which Government 

money has been expended." 

FAA Advisory Circular AC150/5190-6, was created by the FAA to provide guidance to 

airport sponsors in complying with the statutory prohibition on granting of exclusive rights ( 49 

USC § 401 03( e) and unjustly discriminating against aeronautical users of airports. It makes 

clear in Section 1.2 Agency Policy: 

"An exclusive rights violation occurs when the airport sponsor 

excludes others, either intentionally or unintentionally, from 

participating in an on-airport aeronautical activity." (emphasis added) 

In section 14.3 of FAA Order 5190.6B, quoting Grant Assurance 22, the FAA makes it 

clear that: 

"an airport sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class 

of aeronautical use of the airport if such action is reasonable or necessary 

for the safe operation of the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation 

needs ofthe public." 

The FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with sponsor 

assurances under the Federal Aviation Act and Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 as 

amended and recodified, specifically under the statutes referenced above. FAA Order 5190.6B 

provides the policies and procedures to be followed by the FAA in carrying out its legislatively 

mandated functions related to federally obligated airport owners' compliance with their sponsor 

assurances. The FAA monitors the administration of the valuable rights pledge by airport 

sponsors to the people of the United States in exchange for monetary grants to ensure the public 

interest is being served. The FAA considers it inappropriate to provide Federal assistance for 

improvements to airports where the benefits of such improvements will not be fully realized due 

10 
to inherent restrictions on aeronautical activities. [See Sky dive Paris, Inc. v. Henrv County, 

Tennessee, FAA Docket No. 16-05-06, Director's Determination (January 20, 2006).] 

B. Specific Violations 

By taking no action, by refusing to act, the State has violated Grant Assurance 5, as its 

inaction effectively deprives it of rights and powers to perform in accordance with the 

requirements of the Grant Assurances; Grant Assurance 22, because the airports are not available 

for public use for all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities and Grant Assurance 23, 

because its inaction has excluded Complainant from enjoying a use privilege on the airports. 

V. How Complainant Has Been Affected 

Complainant and his company have simply been unable to take any action in pursuit of 

business on the Hana and Upolu Airports because the State has refused to institute the ru1es for 

skydiving on Hana and confirm that it may take place on Upolu. 

Complainant has incurred the costs of instituting this Complaint against the State because 

the State has refused to do the work it is obligated under the grant assurances. 

VI. Relief Desired 

Complainant seeks an Order from the FAA requiring: 

That the State of Hawaii issue, within 30 days, confinnation of its approval for 

Complainant to begin parachute operations at the Hana Airport, and its approval for Complainant 

11 
to erect a hangar at that airport; and that the State of Hawaii issue, within 30 days, confirmation 

of its approval for Complainant to begin parachute operations at the Upolu Airport, and its 

approval for Complainant to erect a hangar at that airport. 

Dated: February 29, 2012 

12 

Respectfully submitted, 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

Attorney for Complainant 

By: 

den 

ond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

(616) 901-65156 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint on 

the following person at the following address by overnight delivery: 

Administrator, Department of Transportation, Airports Division 

400 Rogers Blvd. 

7th Floor 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96819-1880 

Dated this 29th day of January, 2012 
Gt~ il 

Skydiving at Hana 

2 messages 

Frank Hin&haw <frankhln&haw@yahoo.com> 

To: airmaui@hawaii.gov 

Aloha, 

Frank Hin&haw <frank.hin&haw@gmail.c:om> 

Tue, Jul 17,2007 at2:15 PM 

How may I make arrangements for tandem skydiving operations at Hana Airport? We would 

like to tie down a Cessna 206 and have operations between 1 O:OOam to 3:00pm beginning 

October 1, 2007. 

Sincerely, 

Frank Hinshaw 

Skydive Hawaii 
Gr~ Frank Hinshaw <frank.hinshaw@gmall.com> 

Re: Hana skydiving operations 

3 messages 

Frank Hinshaw <frankhlnshaw@yahoo.com> Fri, Oct12, 2007 at 9:43AM 

To: roy.sakata@hawaii.gov 

Cc: Clarence Lopez <ciarencelopez@hotmail.com>, Phil Nemey <psnemey@yahoo.com>, dale.tsubaki@hawaii.gov, 

Kathleen.N.Wade@hawaii.gov, martinez.jacobs@hawaii.gov 

Aloha Mr. Sakata, 

Contact has not been made to schedule any type of meeting. The FAA does not appear to want or need to take 

any action on this matter. 

Skydi-..ing at Hana Airport is presently authorized to another company, so I am ha-..ing some difficulty 

understanding how my request changes anything at Hana Airport. I have offerred to use another state airport on 

Maui if you prefer. 

We would like to start using Hana Airport next week for skydi-..ing operations. How long to you intend to allow 

these excuses to delay the request to lawful use of a federally funded state airport? 

Blue skies, 

Frank Hinshaw 

roy.S!!kala@bawail. qov wrote: 

Mr. Frank Hinshaw, 

I apologize for this late acknowledgement of your request to conduct skYdi-..ing operations at the Hana 

Airport. There have been significant changes to the Hana Airport which warranted deeper fe\Aew Into 

your request. 

1. Hana Airport has been recently certificated under Part 139 due to the scheduled air carrier operations 

by an aircraft designed with a seating capacity over 9 seats. Pacific Wings with its Cessna Gara\IBO 

aircraft with a design capacity of up to 14 seats, compelled the State of Hawaii to upgrade the Hana 

Airport to meet Part 139 requirements. 

With this new Part 139 certi~cation, the State queried the FAA· AIRPORTS, the AIR TRAFFIC 

and the FLIGHT STANDARDS dl-..isions for their re-..iew and inputs to this new operation being 

asked at the Hana Airport. This re-..iew is ongoing. 

2. The next step would probably be a meeting with all related representatives i,e, FAA- All Di-..isions, 

commuter alr carriers and Airport 01-..ision personnel. Will notllY you as soon as this can be 

established. 

As of yesterday, a new permanent Maul Airports District Manager was selected. Mr. Mar-..in Moniz will 

be the new manager starting on November 1, 2007. We will be working together as we transition 

responsibilities. 

Your request is being addressed. 

Thank you, 

Roy K. Sakata 

Acting Maul Airports District Manager 
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the 

intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or pri..,leged information. Any re..,ew, use, 

disclosure, or distribution by unintended recipients is prohibited, If you are not the Intended recipient, 

please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy aU copies of the original message. 

Frank Hlnshaw <frankhiUfhaW@whoo,com> 

0912712007 09:56AM 

To Roy Sakata <roy Sf!kata@hawii.gop 

cc Phil Nerney <mnemey@yahoo.com>, ctarence Lopez 

<c!arencelopez@hotmai! com> 

Subject Hana skydlvfng operatlotts 

Aloha Mr. Sakata, 

It has been over a month since I have requested your permission to conduct a lawful 

aviation activity at Hana Airport. I have been advised that your staff has determined that 

my request is not safe, but neither yourself, your staff nor the FAA has been able to 

advance a single example of how my request would be unsafe. 

Since another company is aUowed to conduct skydiving operations at Hana Airport, I 

have a hard time understanding a rational basis for the position taken by your staff. I 

would be willing to show you video of my staff conducting skydiving operations at Hana 

Airport as recent as 2005 with another operator. 

I believe ample time has been provided to formulate a basis for your staffs 

determination that my request is unsafe. If you believe that skydiving operations would 

be safer at Kapalua Airport, that could be considered. Since you have chosen not 

addressed my request made over a month ago, I again request your approval for my 

skydiving operations under FAR 105 be conducted at Hana Airport. 

Blue skies, 

Frank Hinshaw 

Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. 

Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Jojn Yahool's user panel and fay it on us. 

Frank Hinshaw <frank.hlnshaw@gmall.com> 

To: Go\Relations@uspa.org 

--Forwarded message--

From: Frank Hinshaw <ftankhinshaw@yahoo.CQm> 

Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM 
U.S.Oep.":l~l 

of rr~x.....-::"J~icn 

Fedwol Avtoflon 

Administto1ion 

Novl!mber 20, 2007 

Department Of Transportation 

Airports Division, Operations Br.ar.:::h 

Mr. Roy Sakata 

Suite 700, Inter-Island Terminal 

400 Rodgers Blvd. 

Honolulu, Hf 96819 

D•~3r Mr. Sakma: 

Hc>nn'';'tJ H.gh~ S:n:-L!,~dll ~!-"i':-' c~~r 

13!\ Na:<;c!Q P!~::-e 

Hot.o!ulu, HI 96819-~843 

(8C8) !!31-8350 

(S:'i-S) 637.1)3991<~-cr~~ire 

This !ct1er is \r, response to your ca;;ccrns ofpilrachuting acth·iti~s ::::the H;!na. i "il a!rpon. 

Regulations 14 C'FR Pnrt 105 covers parachuting requirements in lhw- ]\'.;!tio:1al Airsp<!.cc 

System (NAS). The responsibility for safe- parnchcting opcr--..1ions rests with th-e pm-.1r.h~ttist 

and the pllot-in-comma.nd of the aircraft fi-om which the parochutc jump opct·ations 

originate. This rule covers th(.! entire gamut of oper11tions, including the reqllircment ro 

obtain permission of the airport ma.'"l~jler for parachute operations over or into his airport. 

All types and fonns of avir..tion operations routinely occur safely on a d::ily basis in the 

NAS, including o.n, ar-ound, and O\·er.tinto airports. These 11umcrous events take p1:.tcc- safely 

becuuse participantS- willingly adhere to the federal aviation rcg:1\mions and ac;:cp~::d 

published practices. Published pr2ctiees I refer to ore found in numerous public111irms, such 

as, Adviscry Circulars (AC). Airman Infom:ation Manu.a1. indllstry and trade public::tions, 

and local standard operating procedures (SOPs). Further, local communicati(m ht!~wccn the 

various i.lirsp:t.cc users and airport management foster the: basis for a vibr:lnt safety cult>;:-e. 

In a recent con~..·crsution with Larry \\"ilkir:son, your conccms were discus~;:.\i ;loout 

parachuting operations over and into rhc Hana airport. All of the n~ctors that \\-;:rc discu.~(':l 

c-oncerning these types of op::-mti011s at H;;tna_ such as the r~-dl!ral rcgd:i!tions. :JI"c:!r<cj 

prm:tices, local weather phcnomc-JlOn. m~x of aitc.r:lft ope-rn1ions, md cmnmunicar\ons. de., 

arc ull \":!lid" concerns and should be considcrl!d by <:II participants. 

We would suggest a rmrnbcr of steps to address these concerns. First, frequent. scheduled 

airport ~tscr meetings should be held, invohing all tenants, ~II airport ~s,-rs, scheduled 

andJor on.dcmand operators. parachutists and pilots. and airport m:J.n-agcmen: to incrc:!Sc 

awareness~ nddress concerns, foster a safely culture, and open communicatiims bc~vcen the 

airport users. Second, the airport management should develop ar;d make :n'"3ilabh:: tmt! 

distribute a SOP to all current and potentia! users of the airport. The SOP should contain 

instructions addrcssir.g the various types of operations tha:t coWd occur at the <'lirpnrt and the 

airport management cxpectttt\ons of how these operations could blend smoothly and S":!feiy 

at the airport. Third, airport management should closely monitor activities at the airport In 

ensure the safest possible operati-ons. If it is reported or dercmdned that safety is being 

impacted, all users should be encouraged to report this to airport r!l;!!l.::!.g_emcnt ::md 1he FAA 

for appropriate investigation. 
, i 

' 

' 

' 

r 

2 

Ultimately, 14 CFR Part 105 requires the parachutist to obt2in pcnnission from airport 

management before conducting opern.tions over or into that airport. 

I hope I have provided you with information you \vill fi!'ld useful in m:Jking yocr .decision on 

parachute operations at the H :ma ~.irport, 

Sincerely, 

';J d£.:_;:,-; .... ·,t{~ Wil!i<Jm L. Miller 

Acting Manager, Honolulu FSDO 
Mr. Frank Hinshaw 

STATE OF HAWAII 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

AIRPORTS DIVISION 

400 Rodgers Boulevard. Suite 700 

Honolulu, Hawa!i 96819-1800 

Augusl II, 2008 

1717 Ala Wai Boulevard, #1106 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96815 

Dear Mr. Hinshaw: 

SRENNON T. MORIOKA 

DIAECTOR 

Oel!L<lY Od<:ett~~5 

l.~lCi'IAEl D •DAAlBY 

FF!ANC!S PAUL KE'I:'/!.0 

BRIM> H SEO(t{;UC!-!1 

INI'tEPLYR£F£RfO 

AJR-LG 

OX.!:!S~ 

After a careful review and assessment, we are unable to approve your request to conducl 

parachute operations at Hana Airport due to the following safety and operational considerations. 

I. The single Department of Transportation, AitPorts Division employee at Hana 

would be unable to provide adequate monitoring of the activity to ensure safety. 

2. Access to a drop zone at the approach end of Runway 8 or along either side of the 

runway would require movement on or ncar the runway creating potential conflict with aircratt 

traffic. Personnel and equipment present at the drop zone would also constitute a hazard. 

3. A drop zone at the approach end of Runway 8 or along either side of the runway creates 

.a potential conflict with local aircraft traffic. There are no air traffic control (ATC) services at 

Hana, nor is there a UNICOM operator to provide traffic and safety advisories to pilots in lhe 

area. Moreover. as an uncontrolled field, there is no regulatory requirement that aircmft using 

Hana be equipped wirl1 two-way radio capability. 

4. in rhe evem of an accidenr and/or injul)', there is very iimitcd emcrgcnt:y rc3pon;-;c 

capability to the airport, Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) capability has been reduced 

effective July, 2008. Limited City and County assets responding to a parachuting accident or 

injury \VOuld leave the Hana area without emergency response coverage. 

As a recipient of federal grant funds for Hana Airport, the Hawaii Department ofTrtJnsportation, 

Airports Division (DOTA) is obligated to meet certain Grant Assurances. Specific to this issue 

is Grant Assurance 22. Economic Nondiscrimination. Specifically, while Section 'a' states that 

the sponsor ,;will make the airpon available as .an airport for public use on reasonable terms and 

without unjust discrimination to all types. kinds and classes of aeronautical activities ... ", 

Section •j' states thal "The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type. kind or class of 

aeronautical usc of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport .... " 
Mr. Frank Hinshaw 

August 11, 2008 

Page 2 

AIR·LG 

08.1258 

Advisory Circular 150/5190.7 (AC). Minimum Standards tor Commercial Aeronautical 

Activities, lists factors to consider, including whether the activity would create a ha:?ard to 

normal operations and whether a drop zone can safely be established within the boundaries of the 

airport. The AC further states that if a hazard would be present or created. the sponsor should 

seek assistance from Federal Aviation Administration. Flight Standards and Air Traffic, lo assess 

whctl1er safe airport operations would be jeopardized. The Airport Compliance Handbook (fAA 

Order 5190.6A. Section 4-8 b. Parachute Jumping) states that tl1e "airport owner is not required 

to permit this activity i!', in his judgment, it create.-; a saf~1y bJ.z~:.:·d to norma: c.peraticm:-. <.)f 

aircrdft arriving or departing from the airport." It further states that "It may be appropriate to 

initiate an FAA airspace study to determine the reasonab-leness of the airport owner's 

restrictions," and states that "In all cases, the FAA win make the tinal detem1ination .... " 

To that end, we requested the Honolulu Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) perfom1 a risk 

assessment for conducting skydiving operations at Hana. In their r(!sponse, the FSDO stated. in 

pat1, "The Honolulu FSDO has detennined that parachute operations at this airport increases the 

safety risk of operations at this airport. Parachute activities to include free falling from high 

altitudes into an active tleld such as Hana, is in our opinion not conducive to safe airport 

operations." They further state, "Our conclusion is parachute operations in this aill)ort 

environment increases the safety risk factor, not ... just for parachute participants but for other 

operators using this airport as well during this type of activity.'' '''With all factors considered ... 

the Honolulu Flight Standards District Office would not accept this increased safety risk." 

Members of the local community have also expressed opposition to the proposal citing safety 

concerns~ and the impact an airfield emergency would have on their ability to get prompt 

emergency response elsewhere in the community. 

If you have any further questions. please contact Mr. Henry Bruckner, General Aviation Officer, 

at 1&08\ 838-8701. 

Sincerely. 

{ --' .-\ "~:;·. .- c: ... ···--.4- -. .f 

ROY K. SAKATA 

Airports Operations Officer 
·''" 1.11\!Cll! ..-0\ICANOrt 

$TATE OF HAWAII 

OEP&A'Tf.ft:NT or TRANSPORTATiON 

AlRPORTS OIVISION Kona-lnternt.ti~! .\kpon 

73-.roo Kup.p• -st~t 

KM.IJ~i/!1•1'\rnt~, H1 QQ71t0 

Apnl 10, 2t¥1X 

81'1~'''~"MOHJ~ 

;:Jil't.:t: ..... 

Q"llltl\'!lr~:~-:1~ 

Mlel o<-t. (> I'Q"'MII1 

,lw.r•·~""UU.IItt•.co 

11\!'ltl>l.liilll\1~;,..: 

AIR~H 

u~.onn 

Mr Ptauk Hiu~lww 

Presidtnt 

SK YIIIVt; HAWAII 

r.o. Bv• 75120 

Honolulu, ll<~waii 96836-.0S·,l(} 

PF.RMI~SIO;I,' TO LAI<D ~PORT PAI<ACHl:'l'liS 

lipnh! Alrpott, W111n11:11-Kr-ll'utl11 AlfJ)(_Ifl, A~'rill5 & 1(1, ZOOS 

Tha11k YOI{ fur )'Vur n:qu<,:~~ fl>r pcruth~iun to l::md sport parnchutel nr tlpnlu and Waitw:>t·K(.lbuln A1rpw1 

ouApnll!'i &. 16. 

I. Jwnp::. ~hAll he made on!)' dllrln& 11nylig11t houn. l'll April 15 & 1~. 2008. While ti'n"r-t: 1s uo dwp 

l.Vrt~· l:lliL~blillllc-d fot_~r t:P'Jiu, w1: ;&!:<k il!IL )'OIJ n:frain from l:mdmg on tht"- f\IIIV.·ay vr Lh..: ~.\tended 

line: o( lh<t runwa)' iii!d ~' in~\(;UJ the ¥fiL"iliY alt!tl.'i 1m t;ther o:;ijll' nf 1h1.: nmway: nQnh C\nd sooth. 

:!, t-'ee:; for plrat"bUte-laMmg:; for tta~ ennt ~halll"'Je ... nivl!-rl, lm\H"\'C:!, kmdlng f~t!<:. fl'lr mr~·rMt $hilt 

apply 

l Sky Dive Hawaii ~hall h<~vt· in f!Jl\'1..' a t·umm~n:ial j'enerallitlbihry U1~lltall\:tC flnlk·~ in lhe 3mo1u'11 

of one milliun Jollurs (.$ J .000,000) thea names the- Srnt~ of H~v.-1tii. an :uJdl!iorrOJ.! e-n~urt!d pnny 

Pmni~o$io.~ for lnnding itt W<lh11~il·Kohnll\ is dttlkd f!llhis time tlur,: lv ~:.fc:ty con.."ltrn-::_ We tr.r\: however 

a5S<:S~ing: the sttu:\tion for sat~ •Jpportunitlt'S lan\ling sport PQ;rachutes in tht fuurr1: 

Should Yllll h:tv\~ any qm~:.n~m~ ur ~'mlt'(nlli r~-w1tdiug ltlis m~Htt:r you maY C.i\1\ me ilf U'IDH) ).27-9520. x. 122 or t-mail rnt· <~lCb!untT\o.~!l@lhawf!ii_~pY 

('WY 
Federal Aviation 

Administration 

~~======~======================~--

Memorandum 

Date: March 16, 2009 

To: George Ai~ Manager, Safety and Sta11dards Branch, AWP-620 

Copy: Tony Garcia, AWP-620.1 

From: William L. Miller, Manager, Honolulu FSDO 

Prt.!pared by; Timothy Cislo/Jon Murakami 

Subject: Satety Dctcm1ination at Airports in llawaii- Hann and Dillingham 

Tbis memorandum is written in response to your request for a safety .determinati{m regarding 

parachute operations at Hana and Dillingham. 

The general consensus is that parachute activities can take place in a safe mann~ if participants 

willingly adhere to the federal aviation regulations and accepted published practices. Hana 

operations were reviewed and the recommendations published on November 20, 2007 > Those 

recommendations were reviewed and are stiU valid today. 

Dillingham 

The request for detennination specifically requested that night time parachuting at Dillingham be 

addressed. The State of Hawaii Department ofTransponation Oahu District Manager informed 

us that the US Anny prohibits night time parachute operations via the land lease & letter of 

extension. 
26May2009 

Mr. Ron V. Simpson 

ADO Manager 

Honolulu Aixports District Office 

federal A viat!onAdministration 

P.O. Box 50244 

Hom?lUlU, HI 968:50-0001 

LawOilices 

ROBEB.Tk FELDMAN 

8900 SW tO'J't Avet~ue 

SviteJfJ3 

M"ISJlli, Flonaa JJJ.,76 

Tekpbt)ue: 305 • 5!}84841 

T~lecopie!; 305-598-4842 

Board Certified ,4.v/atlo>t lall()W 

By U.S. Mail and Fax (808-541-3566) 

Re: Refusal ofHaoa Airport Authorities to permit parachute jumping activities.at HNM Aixpo11 

Dear Mr. Simpson: 

I represent Skydive Hawaii in the above-referenced matter. Skydive Hawaii has requested 

authorization to conduct skydiving operations at and above the HanaAirport, atHana, Maul, Hawaii 

(HNM). 

!he airport management personnel (HanaAirport Operations Officer and StateofHawaiiDOT) have 

refuBed to permit them to conduct this aViation activity at the aitport, even though such activity has 

been sB.fely conducted there in the past, and even though a safety study was conducted by the FAA, 

in November, 2007, which found that skydive activities at the airport could ''take place in a safe 

ml!llner, if partiCipants willingly adhere to the federal aviation regulations and accepted published 

pxactices ." The findings of that safety study were reiterated in an FAA Memorandum, dated 16 

Ma{ch 2009, which stated that the study and its recomm.endations "were reViewed and are still valid 

today." · 

Skydive Hawaii has requested that the Ha.na Airport trumagement personnel engage in mediation to 

resolve the disputed matter, but they have refused to do so. 

As a result of the Hana Airport Authorities' refusal to permit Skydive Hawaii to conduct skydiving 

activities at the airport, the allport has failed to comply with grant assurances, specifically Grant 

AsslU'ance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. Skydive H~waii is directly and substantially affected 

by the decision buause it cannot conduct the desired parachute jumping activities. 
Mr. Ron V. Simpson 

26May2009 

Page Two 

As a directly and substantially affected party, and in a further effort to achieve an infonnal 

resolution, pursuant to FAR Part !6.21, we hereby request assistance from the HNL ADO to assist 

in informal resolution of the matter so that the aviation use of skydiving can be conducted at the 

Hana Airport. To that end, we would like to set up an in-person meeting at the HNL ADO with the 

responsible personnel from Hana Airport and the personnel fonn SkydiveHawaii. I will also attend 

the meeting. · 

Please advise me as to your procedures fur setting up suoh a meeting in the near future. If you have 

any questions, please contact me at lillY time. Thank you in advance for yoqr assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Robert L. Feldman 

RLF/ljf 
of5 

Fw: Reminder: Hana Skydiving - Informal Resolution Meeting Revised 

Date to 1017/09 @ lOam 

From: Frank Hinshaw (frankhinshaw@yahoo.com) 

Sent: Wed 12/28/111:32 PM 

To: rick.durden@hotmail.com (rick.durden@hotmail.com) 

--- Forwarded Message ----

From: "Steve.Wong@faa.gov" <Steve.Wong@faa.goV> 

To: roy.sakata@hawaii.gov; brian.sekiguchi@hawaii.gov; curtis.j.whaley@faa.gov; debbie.saito@faa.gov; 

Robert Feldman <feldmans48@hotmail.com>; Frank Hinshaw- SD Hawaii <frankhinshaw@yahoo.com>; 

henry.p.bruckner@hawaii.gov; marvin.a.moniz@hawaii.gov; moses.akana@faa.gov; naomi.tsuda@faa.gov; 

robert. rabideau@faa. gov; Ron. V. Simpson@faa. gov; Steven. Hicks @faa. gov; william. Lmiller@faa. gov; 

Anthony. Garcia@faa.gov 

Cc: CheryLTsutsuse@faa.gov 

Sent: Monday, October 5, 2009 1 0:40 AM 

Subject: Reminder: Hana Skydiving -Informal Resolution Meeting Revised Date to 10/7/09@ 10am 

To All: 

Just a reminder for the upcoming meeting this Wednesday at lOam, 

Interisland Terminal 7th flr., Conference Rm. C. 

Naomi, there is a bridgeline for you to call-in (808) 840-6065, passcode 

6035#. We'll call-in from our room too. 

Thank you. 

Steven Wong 

Program Manager 

FAA, Honolulu Airports District Office 

(808) 541-1225 

roy .sakata@hawaii 

.gov 

To 

08113/2009 08:36 

AM 

Steve Wong! A WP/F AA@F AA 

cc 

t··· · ··.,Curtis 

J Whaley/ A WP/F AA@F AA, Debbie 

Saito/ A WP IF AA@F AA, Robert Feldman 

>,Frank 

Hinshaw- SD Hawaii 

119/2012 2:51PM 
of5 

ALL: 

Akana/ A WP/F AA@F AA, Naomi 

Tsuda/AWP/FAA@FAA, Robert 

Rabideau/ A WP/F AA@F AA, Ron V 

Simpson/ A WP IF AA@F AA, Steven 

Hicks!AWP/FAA@FAA, WilliamL 

Miller/ A WP IF AA@F AA 

Subject 

Re: Hana Skydiving- Informal 

Resolution Meeting Revised Date to 

10/7/09 

DOT-A has reserved Conference Room #Cat the Inter-Island Terminal 7th 

Floor DOT-Airports Division offices for thls meeting from 1000-1200 on 

October 7, 2009. 

Roy K. Sakata 

Airports Operations Officer 

(808) 838-8607 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attaclunents, is 

for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential 

and/or privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or 

distnbution by unintended recipients is prohibited. If you are not the 

intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy 

all copies of the original message. 

v 

08/10/2009 10:25 

AM 

To 

Robert Feldman 

,,. '·'··'Frank Hinshaw 

1/9/2012 2:51PM 
HANA AIRPORT 

OPERATING RULES FOR SKYDIVING OPERATIONS 

Sport parachuting (skydiving) operations at Hana Airport must meet or exceed 

the Basic Safety Requirements (BSR) of the United States Parachute Association 

(USPA), comply with all pertinent Federal Aviation regulations (FARs) and Advisory 

Circulars (AC) governing parachute operations and operations into non-towered 

airports, to include 14 CFR Part 61, 91, and 105. In addition, all skydiving operations 

and companies must conform to the following operating rules to integrate safely with 

other aeronautical operations. 

The parachute drop zone at Hana is small and is also a designated transient 

helicopter parking area. Strict compliance with these operating rules is essential for the 

safety of all airport users. Failure to do so may result in that company or individual(s) 

being denied approval to conduct skydiving operations at Hana Airport . • 

1. Skydiving operations will be limited to tandem skydives only. D-level tandem 

instructors may make training jumps to familiarize themselves with local conditions and 

procedures. 

2. No skydiving operations will be conducted when one or more helicopters is 

arriving, departing or operating in the vicinity of or parked on the drop zone. Because of 

the drop zone's proximity to the runway and taxiways, no skydiving operations will be 

conducted when any other aircraft are in the airport traffic pattern, taking off, landing, or 

taxiing. No parachutist may exit the jump aircraft when an aircraft inbound to HNM is 

reported within 10 nm of the airport. 

3. No skydiving operations will be conducted at times that coincide or conflict with 

scheduled air carrier operations at the airport. It will be the skydive operato(s 

responsibility to deconflict with any scheduled operations. 

4. No persons will be allowed on the runway, taxiways or within the runway safety 

area. 

5. All skydivers/parachutists will be escorted bY air or ground crew members at all 

times using extreme caution while transiting to and !rom the drop zone, aircraft, terminal 

and parking lot and will not be permitted to linger while crossing the ramp. All persons 

will remain clear of the rarnp if any aircraft on the ramp is in motion, or has an engine 

running. 

6. The skydiving company or companies will have a suitably trained responsible 

party on the ground equipped with a working two-way VHF air-band radio to provide 

safety and advisory information to skydive aircraft regarding any situation which might 

pose a hazard to parachutists or other aircraft during skydive operations. 

7. No equipment, markers or debris will be left on the drop zone or in any area of 

the airport not specifically assigned to the skydive operator(s) through lease, rental 

agreement or written permission of the Airport Manger. 

8. The skydive company must obtain a designated aircraft parking space from the 

Airport Manager. Use of transient aircraft parking spaces lor loading/unloading drop 

aircraft must be approved by the Airport Manager. Skydive aircraft will not use the 
runway, ramp area fronting the terminal nor any taxiway for loading/unloading or 

parking. 

9. In addition to the radio communications required by 14 CFR Part 105.13 (1 ),(2), 

"jumpers away" calls must also be made on the airport Common Traffic Advisory 

Frequency (CTAF) 122.9 MHz and the Island Traffic Advisory Frequency (ITAF) for 

Maul, 120.65 MHz. Both CTAF and ITAF frequencies must be monitored to listen for 

low altitude area traffic not visible to ATC. 

10. Skydive operators will hold semiannual meetings with other airport 

users/operators and airport management to discuss procedures, issues and concerns of 

mutual interest. These meetings may be conducted more frequently if necessary, and 

will be coordinated with the Maui Airports District Manager. 
JU:N\l:'S \NCI. \\1\'liOc\ CON;;l.T!JNC, I".( 

Richard J Durden 

Chauncey Wong Yuen 

Upolu Airport Manager 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 

\V\V\V.rick.durden@hotmail.com 

December 15, 2011 

73-200 Kupipi St, Kona Int'l Airport at Keahole 

Kailua-kona, HI 65740-2645 

Re: Skydiving Access to Upolu Airport 

Dear Mr. Wong Yuen: 

I represent Mr. Frank Hinshaw and Sky dive Hawaii. Mr. Hinshaw and jumpers with 

Skydive Hawaii have, in the past, made parachute landings in the grass on the mountain side of 

the runway at Upolu Airport. He has requested that you approve commercial skydiving 

operations onto a Upolu Airport but, to date, has not received the courtesy of a reply. 

This is to again request that a Parachute Landing Area on Upolu Airport be designated in 

the area previously used for landings and that he be given approval as a commercial skydiving 

operator on Upolu Airport. 

Your delay thus far in responding to Mr. Hinshaw's request may be considered a denial 

under the terms of the Federal Grant Agreements you signed to receive federal monies for the 

Upolu Airport. Such a denial, without appropriate cause, may be grounds for loss of future 

federal funding for the Airport. 

I look forward to receiving your approval of Mr. Hinshaw's request before January 5, 

2012 so that the boundaries of the PLA may be established and he can begin operations without 

further delay.