Office of Airport Compliance

and Management Analysis

800 Independence Ave., SW.

 Washington, DC 20591

Kimberly C. Cole

Cole & Davis, P.A.

1173 E John Sims Parkway

Niceville, FL 32578

R. Christopher Harshman, Esq.

David M. Shaby Il & Associates, APC

11949 Jefferson Blvd., Suite 104

Culver City, CA 90230

Lynn Hoshihara, Esq.

Carly J. Schrader, Esq.

Gregory T. Stewart, Esq.

Nabors Giblin & Nickerson P.A.

February 21, 2023

Clark Partington

Michael J. Schofield, Esq.

125 East lntendencia Street

Pensacola, FL 32502

Gary L. Evans, Esq.

George Andrew Coats, Esq.

Coats & Evans, PC

7764 Eagle Lane

Spring, TX 77379

W. Eric Pilsk

Adam Gerchick

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP

1634 I Street, NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20006 1500 Mahan Drive Suite 

Tallahassee, FL 32308

Re: Timberview Helicopters, Inc. v. Okaloosa County, Florida, FAA Docket No. 16-21-14

Dear Mses. Cole and Hoshihara, and Messrs. Partington, Evans, Harshman, and Pilsk:

Enclosed is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Director’s Determination with

respect to the above-captioned formal complaint under 14 CFR Part 16.

We find that Okaloosa County, Florida, is in violation of its Federal obligations

regarding Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, as set forth in its airport grant

assurances and existing Federal statutes. The reasons for the finding are set forth in the enclosed

Director’s Determination.

All other claims are dismissed.

The Director’s Determination does not constitute a Final Agency Decision and order subject to

judicial review [14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2)]. A party adversely affected by the Director's 

Determination once issued may appeal the initial determination to the FAA Associate 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 29
Administrator for Airports pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.33(c) within 30 days after the service of the 

Director's Determination. 

Sincerely, 

Kevin C. Willis 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

 and Management Analysis 

Enclosure 

KEVIN WILLIS

Digitally signed by KEVIN 

WILLIS 

Date: 2023.02.21 13:56:14 

-05'00'

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 29
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

TIMBERVIEW HELICOPTERS, INC. 

 

 COMPLAINANT, 

v. 

 

OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA 

 RESPONDENT.

FAA Docket No. 16-21-14 

DIRECTOR’S DETERMINATION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the formal Complaint 

filed by Timberview Helicopters, Inc. (Timberview) against Okaloosa County, Florida (Okaloosa 

or County) in accordance with the FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport 

Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16 (Part 16). 

Okaloosa is the owner and sponsor of Destin Executive Airport (DTS or Airport). Timberview 

was a commercial aeronautical tenant at the Airport subject to an Operating Agreement with a 

37-year term, which Okaloosa terminated in 2021 after only four years. 

Timberview alleges that the County has violated Grant Assurance 1, General Federal 

Requirements; Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers; Assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance; Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use; Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination; 

Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan; and Assurance 38, Hangar Construction. Timberview 

further alleges that there are violations of the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990 (49 U.S.C. 

§ 47521(2) (ANCA)). Specifically, Timberview alleges that the Airport violated its grant 

assurances through various actions, including terminating a written operating agreement (2017 

Agreement) which had “contractually entitled [Timberview] to operate until April of 2048,” 

thereby forcing Timberview “to immediately vacate the premises and cease all commercial 

flight operations” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, p. 14). Timberview alleges that the County does not 

allow it to conduct commercial helicopter operations at the Airport because of noise and safety 

concerns (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1). 

The County denies these allegations and requests that the matter be dismissed. The County 

contends that Timberview violated the 2017 Agreement and the applicable Minimum Standards 

and Operating Policy (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6). 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 3 of 29
2 

Based on the evidence of record in this proceeding, the Director, FAA Office of Airport 

Compliance and Management Analysis (Director), finds that Okaloosa County, Florida, is in 

violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, in applying inconsistent and 

unreasonable restrictions on aeronautical activities at the Airport. The Director finds that 

Okaloosa is not in violation of any other grant assurances. 

II. PARTIES 

A. Complainant 

Timberview is a corporation authorized to do business in Florida with a principal place of 

business in Destin, Florida. Timberview provides helicopter services to the aviation and 

aeronautical community and the public, including aerial tours, aerial surveys, search and rescue, 

compassion flights, charity flights and other aviation related services (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, 

p. 4). 

B. Respondent 

Okaloosa County, Florida, is the owner and operator of Destin Executive Airport (DTS). DTS is 

a general aviation airport located on approximately 395 acres within the City of Destin, Florida. 

DTS is served by two fixed base operators (FBOs), both managed by Lynx FBO Destin, which 

operates out of two terminal buildings and several hangars. The County owns three blocks of 

hangars (18 total box and T-hangars) which are leased to aircraft owners for aircraft storage. In 

addition, there are eight rows or blocks of privately-owned hangars on land leased from the 

County (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 4). The Airport had 63,987 aircraft operations for the twelve 

months ending December 31, 2018 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12). 

The development of the Airport was financed in part with FAA Airport and Improvement 

Program (AIP) funding, authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as 

amended, 49 U.S.C. § 47101, et seq. Between 1982 and 2021, the Airport received 

approximately $8,558,130 in AIP funding including grants for land acquisition (FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 14). Thus, the County is obligated to comply with the FAA sponsor grant assurances and 

related Federal statutory law, 49 U.S.C. § 47107. 

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

1. Timberview Helicopters, Inc., filed a Part 16 Complaint against Okaloosa County, FL on 

October 18, 2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1). 

2. The FAA issued a Notice of Docketing for Timberview Helicopters Complaint as 

Part 16-21-14 on November 1, 2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2). 

3. Okaloosa County filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the 

Complaint on November 12, 2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3). 

4. The FAA issued Order for Extension of Time until November 30, 2021, dated and 

docketed November 19, 2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 4). 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 4 of 29
3 

5. Okaloosa County Answer to the Complaint was docketed on November 30, 2021 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5). 

6. Okaloosa County Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Answer to Complaint was 

docketed on November 30, 2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6). 

7. Timberview’s Reply to County’s Answer to Complaint, and Supplement and Case 

Citations was docketed on December 10, 2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10). 

8. Respondent Okaloosa County, Florida’s Rebuttal in Support of Its Answer to the 

Complaint was docketed on December 20, 2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11). 

9. Complainant filed a Motion to File Supplemental Material in Support of Complaint on 

February 22, 2022 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15). 

10. Respondent filed an Opposition to Complainant’s Motion to File Supplemental Material 

in Support of Complaint on March 4, 2022 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 16). 

11. See Index of Administrative Record for other administrative filings (FAA Exhibit 1). 

IV. BACKGROUND

1. Beginning in 2010, Timberview conducted operations from several locations in the 

County but not directly on Airport (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 5). 

2. Okaloosa required Timberview to begin conducting its operations on-Airport beginning 

in 2014 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 6). 

 

3. Timberview operated commercial air tours at the Airport on a year-to-year agreement 

between approximately 2014 and 2017 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 6). 

 

4. On April 18, 2017, the County entered into the 37-year 2017 Agreement with 

Timberview, which required a lease arrangement with Lynx FBO (FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 6, p. 6). 

5. The 2017 Agreement prohibited Timberview from conducting commercial operations on 

the Lynx FBO ramp and required it to comply with the DTS Air Traffic Control Letter of 

Agreement (LOA) for helicopter operations surrounding the Airport (FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 1, p. 2, and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, pp. 6-7). 

 

6. Okaloosa County terminated Timberview’s 2017 Agreement via a Notice of Termination 

letter dated June 16, 2021, which indicated the effective date would be August 16, 2021. 

The Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners (Board) approved 60 days to negotiate a 

new Operating Agreement between Okaloosa and Timberview to address a list of past 

alleged breaches of the 2017 Agreement and to determine the full scope of Timberview’s 

operations (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, p. 3; FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 20). 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 5 of 29
4 

7. County airport staff and Timberview negotiated a new draft Operating Agreement (Draft 

Agreement). However, the Board voted not to approve the Draft Agreement on 

August 17, 2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, p. 15). 

8. County outside counsel emailed a termination letter dated August 17, 2021, to 

Timberview’s outside counsels, which indicated that all commercial operations must 

cease effective August 18, 2021. However, noncommercial operations such as 

nonrevenue flights, hangar lease for storing and maintenance of helicopters, and fueling 

from the FBO, Lynx, were permitted to continue (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 17). 

V. ISSUES 

Upon review of the allegations and the relevant airport-specific circumstances, the FAA has 

determined that the following three (3) issues require analysis under this Determination. 

Issue 1 - Whether the County violated Grant Assurance 1, General Federal Requirements, 

 through ANCA, by denying Timberview the opportunity to commercially operate 

 at the Airport. 

Issue 2 - Whether the County violated Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, by 

 denying Timberview the opportunity to commercially operate at the Airport. 

Issue 3 - Whether the County violated Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, 

 by not approving Timberview’s Draft Agreement to conduct commercial 

 operations. 

VI. APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW AND POLICY 

A. Airport Sponsor Grant Assurances 

As a condition precedent to providing airport development assistance under the AIP, the FAA 

must receive certain assurances from the airport sponsor. Certain sponsorship requirements to 

which an airport sponsor receiving Federal financial assistance must agree are set forth in 

49 U.S.C. § 47107(a). The FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply 

with these sponsor assurances. See the Index of Administrative Record for a list of all the FAA 

grant assurances (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13). 

B. FAA Enforcement Responsibilities 

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C. § 40101, et seq., assigns the FAA 

Administrator broad responsibilities for the regulation of air commerce in the interests of safety, 

security, and development of civil aeronautics. Commitments assumed by airport owners or 

sponsors in property conveyance or grant agreements are important factors in maintaining a high 

degree of safety and efficiency in airport design, construction, operation, and maintenance, as 

well as ensuring the public reasonable access to the airport. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 47122, the 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 6 of 29
5 

FAA is authorized to take actions necessary to assure that airport owners comply with their 

Federal grant assurances. 

C. The Complaint and Investigative Process 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.23, a person directly and substantially affected by any alleged 

noncompliance may file a complaint with the FAA. The complainant should provide a concise 

but complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation and describe how 

the complainant was directly and substantially affected by the things done or omitted by the 

respondents. The regulations governing Part 16 proceedings provide that, if the parties’ pleadings 

supply “a reasonable basis for further investigation,” the FAA should investigate “the subject 

matter of the complaint.” 14 CFR § 16.29(a). 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 16.33(b) and (e), “a party adversely affected by the Director’s 

Determination may file an appeal with the Associate Administrator for Airports within 30 days 

after the date of service of the initial determination.” If no appeal is filed within the time period 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section, the Director's Determination becomes the final decision 

and order of the FAA without further action. 

VII. ANALYSIS 

Before addressing the three issues in this case, we address several preliminary issues. 

A. Preliminary Matters 

The record is extensive and some exhibits were not properly filed. Furthermore, the parties did 

not submit all of their exhibits to the Public Docket. The County did not submit several exhibits 

that did not easily attach to an email for the Public Docket because of their file sizes. Instead, 

they placed the exhibits on their own file sharing directory. The County advised the FAA that it 

could download them from the law firm’s sharefile (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibit 7). 

Timberview counsel’s emailed submittal also stated that Exhibits 1 and 2 to their Reply could be 

accessed via their law firm’s sharefile link (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10). Furthermore, neither asked 

the FAA Public Docket clerk for alternatives to submit these exhibits. 

Nonetheless, in this specific case, the FAA Office of Chief Counsel uploaded the documents 

from both sharefile sites. Accordingly, the Director’s findings here are based on the complete 

record. 

B. Motion to File Supplemental Material in Support of Complaint 

Timberview filed a Motion to File Supplemental Material in Support of Complaint on February 

22, 2022 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15). Okaloosa filed its Opposition to Complainant’s Motion to 

File Supplemental Material in Support of Complaint on March 4, 2022 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 16). 

The Director, in the interest of a full review of this matter and at his discretion, considered the 

information in both parties’ filings. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 7 of 29
6 

C. Allegations concerning violations of Grant Assurances 5, 21, 29, and 38

 1. Grant Assurance 5 

Complainant’s Position 

Timberview alleged that Okaloosa violated Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers, 

“when it allowed other activities, including permitting ongoing residential development to 

encroach into the immediate vicinity of the Airport, and allowing a small but vocal number of 

Airport neighbors demand Okaloosa County address their noise complaints by attacking 

Timberview and its helicopter tour flight operations.” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pp. 18-19). 

Respondent’s Position 

The County responded that “all areas in the immediate vicinity of DTS are in the City of Destin 

and the City of Destin approves or disapproves residential and other development within its 

borders. The County does not.” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 19). 

Director’s Determination 

Part 16 requires “the burden of proof is on the complainant to show noncompliance with an Act 

or any regulation, order, agreement or document of conveyance issued under the authority of an 

Act” (14 CFR § 16.23(k)(1)). The record shows that Okaloosa County does not control 

development around the Airport. Okaloosa also conducted a 14 CFR Part 150 noise study, and 

the FAA approved the Noise Exposure Map in 2013 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, p. 5). Finally, 

Okaloosa took reasonable measures to oppose residential development or other incompatible 

land uses around the Airport even though the city of Destin did not always accept Okaloosa’s 

suggestions (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, pp. 4-5, and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, pp. 2-4). Consequently, 

Timberview did not provide the Director substantive evidence supporting its allegation that 

Okaloosa is in noncompliance with Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers. 

Allegations therefore concerning Grant Assurance 5 are dismissed. 

 2. Grant Assurance 21 

Complainant’s Position 

Timberview alleges that Okaloosa violated Grant Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use, when it 

permitted developers to continue to develop land adjacent to and immediately abutting the 

Airport perimeter resulting in additional noise complaints, and making the Airport less efficient, 

more dangerous, less safe, and less usable by the public at large (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, p. 20). 

Respondent’s Position 

The County answers that Timberview failed to identify any development that the County has 

approved “adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of DTS,” and that “those areas are within the 

City of Destin, which has exclusive land use authority” and thus outside of the County’s 

authority (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 20). Okaloosa also conducted a 14 CFR Part 150 noise 

study, and the FAA approved the Noise Exposure Map in 2013 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, p. 5). 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 8 of 29
7 

Director’s Determination 

The record substantiates that the City, not the County, has the responsibility for development 

immediately around the Airport. Furthermore, Okaloosa took reasonable measures to oppose 

residential development or other incompatible land uses (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, p. 5). Finally, 

with the County’s support and assistance, the City of Destin has adopted an Airport Noise 

Overlay District that limits certain kinds of development in the areas near the airport, including 

residential development, within a defined DNL 65 dB contour (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, pp. 2-3; 

FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibit 2). Under 14 CFR § 16.23(k), “the burden of proof is on the 

complainant to show noncompliance.” Timberview has not provided the Director “reliable, 

probative, and substantial evidence” supporting its allegation that Okaloosa is in noncompliance 

with this grant assurance (14 CFR § 16.31(b)(2)). Therefore, the Director dismisses allegations 

concerning Grant Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use. 

 3. Grant Assurance 29 

Complainant’s Position 

Timberview alleges that Okaloosa violated Grant Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan, when “it 

failed to maintain an up-to-date ALP and has allowed alterations, operations, and development 

Timberview believes to be in conflict with the ALP.” Timberview also alleges that the County 

“created a condition that diversely affects safety, efficiency, or utility of the Airport, i.e. by 

permitting the unparalleled and explosive growth in adjacent neighborhoods and areas since the 

Airport was initially constructed directly resulting in the complaints of noise and flight paths, 

impact which should have been reasonably anticipated by Okaloosa County.” (FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 1, p. 23). 

Respondent’s Position 

The County answered that “Timberview’s complaint fails to state a claim under Assurance 29” 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, pp. 22-23). 

Director’s Determination 

The record shows that the ALP is current, and Timberview does not provide evidence of airport 

development that is inconsistent with the FAA-approved ALP. Under 14 CFR § 16.23(k), “the 

burden of proof is on the complainant to show noncompliance.” Timberview has not provided 

the Director “reliable, probative, and substantial evidence” supporting its allegation that 

Okaloosa is in noncompliance with this grant assurance (14 CFR § 16.31(b)(2)). Therefore, the 

Director dismisses allegations concerning Grant Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan. 

 4. Grant Assurance 38 

Complainant’s Position 

Timberview alleges that Okaloosa violated Grant Assurance 38, Hangar Construction, when the 

County terminated commercial tour flights, thereby preventing Timberview from making a 

return on the investment it had made in the 37 year lease for Hangar 7-1. Timberview contends 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 9 of 29
8 

that this action dramatically reduced the time for Timberview's amortization of the leased hangar 

space (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pp. 23-24). 

Respondent’s Position 

The County responded that “Timberview’s Assurance 38 claim fails to identify any agreement 

with Timberview for the construction of a hangar or that Okaloosa refused to enter into such an 

agreement.” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 2). 

Grant Assurance 38, Hangar Construction, states that an airport sponsor may grant to an aircraft 

owner a long-term lease to construct his or her own hangar, subject to reasonable terms and 

conditions the sponsor may impose (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13). Timberview clearly stated that it 

leased the hangar from a tenant for 37 years (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, p. 2). Timberview did not 

provide any evidence that it constructed its own hangar although Okaloosa provided that 

Timberview did obtain a stake in ownership of Hangar 7-1 in 2020 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, p. 3). 

Furthermore, Okaloosa claims that it terminated only Timberview’s 2017 Agreement and not the 

hangar lease as Timberview claims (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, Exhibit 4, p. 3). 

Director’s Determination 

Although Timberview obtained an ownership stake in Hangar 7-1, the record contains no 

evidence that Timberview entered into an agreement with Okaloosa to construct a hangar, or that 

it was denied the ability to enter into a long-term lease to construct a hangar. Grant Assurance 38 

pertains only to the rights of an aircraft owner with respect to entering into a long-term lease to 

construct a hangar, it does not provide the type of protection on return on investment which 

Complainant seeks. Under 14 CFR § 16.23(k), “the burden of proof is on the complainant to 

show noncompliance.” Timberview has not provided the Director “reliable, probative, and 

substantial evidence” supporting its allegation that Okaloosa is in noncompliance with this grant 

assurance (14 CFR § 16.31(b)(2)). Therefore, the Director dismisses this allegation concerning 

Grant Assurance 38, Hangar Construction.

D. State Court Action 

Timberview filed an action for breach of contract and tortious interference of contract against the 

County in Florida state court. Okaloosa provided an Okaloosa County Circuit Court Order 

Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction, dated July 5, 2022 (FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 21). Okaloosa also recognizes that “state law issues do not bind the FAA with respect to 

Part 16 adjudications” but that because of “the Court’s unequivocal construction of the 2017 

Operating Agreement and findings of fact central to Timberview’s Part 16 Complaint, the 

County believes the Order will assist the FAA’s consideration of this matter” (FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 21, p. 2). Timberview did not respond. 

The Director reviewed the Order. Although a contract may be valid under state law, it may be in 

violation of the applicable Federal obligations. Even where a state court ruling has found 

contracts between an airport tenant and the airport sponsor to be valid and enforceable, a state 

court ruling cannot limit the FAA’s ability and responsibility to adjudicate grant assurance 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 10 of 29
9 

matters. (See Platinum Aviation and Platinum Jet Center BMI v. Bloomington-Normal Airport 

Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-06-09, Director’s Determination, p. 18 (June 4, 2007)). Finally, 

the state court did not even rule on an aviation law claim (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21). Accordingly, 

regardless of the state court ruling, the FAA will continue this Part 16 investigation whether the 

sponsor is in compliance with its Federal obligations. 

E. Discussion of Remaining Allegations 

The Director will evaluate the Complainant’s remaining allegations concerning Grant Assurance 

1, General Federal Requirements; Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance; and Grant 

Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. As stated above, this case presents three issues: 

1. Whether the County violated Grant Assurance 1, General Federal Requirements, 

through ANCA, by denying Timberview the opportunity to commercially operate at 

the Airport. 

2. Whether the County violated Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Safety, by denying 

Timberview the opportunity to operate commercially at the Airport. 

3. Whether the County violated Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, by 

not approving the draft Agreement with Timberview. 

ISSUE 1. Whether the County violated Grant Assurance 1, General Federal 

Requirements, through ANCA, by denying Timberview the opportunity to 

commercially operate at the Airport. 

Complainant’s Position 

Timberview claims that Okaloosa violated Grant Assurance 1, General Federal Requirements, 

“when it refused to make the airport available to Timberview, an act of unjust discrimination.” 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pp. 17-18). Timberview argues that the County violated ANCA by 

unilaterally imposing uncoordinated and inconsistent restrictions on helicopters operating at the 

Airport (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, p. 18). 

Respondent’s Position 

The County responds that it has not imposed a noise or access restriction subject to ANCA (FAA 

Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 15). The County further asserts that it has “the authority independent of the 

Airport Noise and Capacity Act to restrict operations to address safety concerns or to enforce 

lease and other contractual obligations with individual operators.” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, 

p. 12). The County also asserts that “any allegation regarding compliance with the Airport Noise 

and Capacity Act is beyond the FAA’s jurisdiction under Part 16.” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, 

p. 12). The County also requested that the Director not consider ANCA in this matter because 

there is a pending appeal in the Federal court (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 17). 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 11 of 29
10 

Director’s Determination 

Okaloosa claims that the “FAA has the exclusive authority over aviation safety, aircraft flight, 

aircraft noise, and airspace management” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, Item 1, p. 3). The Director 

affirms that the FAA’s role in regulating aviation and aviation safety is extensive and essentially 

plenary in terms of the agency’s statutory, regulatory and policy responsibilities. FAA’s safety 

responsibility includes regulation of the safety of aircraft takeoffs and landings. 

County airport staff presented an exhibit called “Chronological History of Timberview Issues at 

DTS since 2016” (Chronological History) to the Okaloosa Board of County Commissioners 

(County Board) at a public meeting on June 15, 2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7, Exhibit 4). This is 

the same meeting where the County Board provided its 60 day notice to Timberview that it was 

terminating the 2017 Agreement. 

Although the title of the exhibit related to Timberview, the airport staff included compliance 

issues involving other tenants and helicopter owners in the Chronological History. Airport staff 

included specific allegations and dates concerning Timberview’s alleged noncompliance with 

Okaloosa’s operational restrictions for nighttime or limits to specific times during the day. These 

allegations of non-compliant flight restrictions related to nighttime or time of day restrictions at 

DTS are apparent triggers with ANCA and are found in the Chronological History on the dates 

of 12-31-2020, 5-11-2021, and 5-12-2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 10, pp. 756-758). 

Timberview’s attorney also sent a letter dated June 24, 2021 to the County Board criticizing the 

June 15, 2021 presentation (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 13). Okaloosa’s counsel responded 

by a letter dated July 7, 2021, in which it accused Timberview of not being a good neighbor 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 13). 

Okaloosa’s counsel further articulated Timberview’s helicopter incompatibility with the 

residential nature of the community and encouraged minimization of impacts through flight 

operational requirements in the same letter. These responses include: 

Timberview does not deny that its helicopters operate at low altitudes, particularly above 

the ground and buildings between the Airport and the beach. Although Timberview 

focuses on altitudes above water, the issue is altitudes above homes and people, as well 

as maintaining an altitude over or near the beaches that will allow a safe landing in the 

event of a power failure. Staff understands that the altitudes may be at the direction of the 

DTS Tower, but that does not make them acceptable to County residents or compatible 

with the residential nature of the area, or even safe when the entire environment is taken 

into consideration. In particular, the Tower's assignment of altitudes for Timberview’s 

operations may maintain safety in the airspace, but the altitudes are very low over 

congested and developed areas raising safety concerns for people on the ground that need 

to be addressed. The County supports the efforts of the DTS Tower and the FAA to 

develop routes and altitudes with public involvement to take all of those safety concerns 

into account that will be set forth in a new Letter of Agreement between Timberview and 

the DTS Tower, and incorporated into the new Operating Agreement. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 12 of 29
11 

Increased Volume of Community Complaints. Timberview does not dispute the 

truthfulness that complaints about Timberview's operations have increased in recent 

months as its flight activity has increased. Timberview instead attempts to deflect 

attention from the impact its operations have by noting a general policy of encouraging 

tourist development to accommodate record levels of tourism. That is insulting to area 

residents and visitors, and a gross misstatement of the TDD (Tourism Development 

Department) report's intent. As statements from residents and tourist-oriented businesses 

in Destin have made clear, the impacts from Timberview's operations have a negative 

impact on visitors and diminish the Destin experience for many visitors. The TDD report 

did not imply, as Timberview suggests, that promoting tourism somehow justifies 

allowing activities that disrupt the quality of life of thousands of residents and visitors. 

Staff intends to work with Timberview, DTS Tower staff, and the FAA to ensure that all 

stakeholders have input on routes and flight procedures that minimize the impact of 

Timberview's operations on area residents and visitors while maintaining safety. 

Operations After Sunset. Timberview does not deny that it has conducted operations after 

sunset despite having agreed not to do so in the Operating Agreement. Instead, 

Timberview claims that some of those flights were fireworks video flights that were not 

prohibited. However, the Operating Agreement applies to all of Timberview's operations, 

not just tour operations as Timberview asserts. There is no distinction between the types 

of flights. That has always been the County's position as demonstrated by Timberview's 

acknowledgment that the County insisted that the video flights be included in the 

calculation of Timberview's fees. The current Operating Agreement prohibits 

Timberview flights after sunset. Timberview states that it does not fly “after dark.” It is 

important to clarify that “sunset” occurs earlier than “dark,” so an operation that does not 

occur at dark may still occur after sunset. With respect to the specific flights referenced, 

Staff relied on the reports from the DTS Tower, which tracks the official time of sunset, 

as the entity with control over airspace around the Airport. Staff has not been provided 

the video Timberview refers to and has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report from 

the DTS Tower. (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 13) 

Shortly afterward, Okaloosa’s counsel followed up with a letter to Timberview dated July 9, 

2021, requiring it to accept certain flight operational requirements as part of the Draft Agreement 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 13). The letter explained: 

[A]t our June 24 meeting you agreed to provide proposed language regarding (1) access 

to [Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast] ADSB or similar flight data for 

Timberview's operations at DTS and (2) a cap on hourly operations from DTS. The draft 

Operating Agreement has place-holders for that language and we look forward to 

reviewing your proposed language on those matters. 

Finally, with respect to a new Letter of Agreement with the Tower, our position remains 

that the Letter of Agreement must be completed prior to finalizing a new Operating 

Agreement. Further, we continue to believe that any new Letter of Agreement must 

reflect public input and review. At this time, the County is not prepared to move forward 

with a new Operating Agreement unless a new Letter of Agreement, including proposed 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 13 of 29
12 

helicopter routes and procedures, is presented to the public by the FAA and the public is 

allowed to comment. (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 13) 

Okaloosa’s counsel attached the Draft Agreement to the July 9, 2021 letter with revisions to 

Section 15. Procedures, stating: 

Operator shall conduct tour operations from the hours of 10:00 a.m. to sunset only. It is a 

condition precedent to this Agreement that Operator enter into a letter of agreement or 

similar agreement with the FAA, following an opportunity for public comment, 

establishing how VFR helicopter operations will be conducted using approved traffic 

patterns, areas, altitudes, routes and procedures and in accordance with FAA PART 93 

rules. A copy of the current Letter of Agreement is attached and made a part of this 

Operating Agreement as Exhibit 5 and a replacement Letter of Agreement or similar 

agreement shall be provided to the County if any changes to those routes, altitudes, 

patterns, or procedures are made, following an opportunity for public comment. When 

authorized to deviate from such patterns, routes, altitudes, and procedures, Operator shall 

do so in a manner to avoid low altitude flight over homes adjacent to the Airport to the 

extent consistent with safety and instructions from air traffic control personnel. Operator 

shall be responsible for crowd control of its customers and guests inside and outside of 

the Airport's security fence and shall be required to direct traffic to ensure safety at its 

location. Passengers, guests and bystanders shall be under immediate constant escort at 

all times while on any areas of the airport’s airside locations. Operator further agrees to 

limit the frequency of air tour operations to - operations per hour [Timberview to propose 

additional language]. (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 13) 

Another Timberview attorney responded to Okaloosa’s counsel on July 13, 2021, and suggested 

changes concerning the Draft Agreement dated July 9, 2021 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 13). 

The Record, however, shows Timberview still leases an airport hangar for storing and 

maintaining its helicopters and Okaloosa allows Timberview to operate noncommercial flights at 

the Airport (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7, p. 14). Timberview also provided evidence that other 

helicopters operate at DTS (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 13). A Google map search shows 

other helicopters parked at the Airport in 2022, and there are no helicopter restrictions noted in 

the Airport Master Record (FAA Exhibit 1, Items 17; FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12). 

Even though Timberview did not question the overall validity of the Letter of Agreement or hour 

and frequency restrictions, the FAA has concerns. The Director considers these examples to 

reasonably support Timberview’s argument that Okaloosa knowingly used noise, in part, to 

support its commercial helicopter flight operational restrictions against Timberview in the 2017 

and Draft Agreements. Furthermore, Okaloosa recognizes that there are specific requirements for 

establishing those restrictions, but chose not to follow the 14 CFR Part 161 requirements or 

obtain FAA approval (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, Exhibit 1). 

Airport sponsors have limited proprietary authority to restrict access as a means of reducing 

aircraft noise impacts in order to improve compatibility with the local community. To 

accomplish this, airport sponsors must comply with the national program for review of airport 

noise and access restrictions under ANCA. ANCA requires that certain review and approval 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 14 of 29
13 

procedures be completed before a proposed restriction that impacts Stage 2 or Stage 3 aircraft is

implemented. The FAA regulation that implements ANCA is 14 CFR Part 161, Notice and 

Approval of Airport Noise and Access Restrictions. (See FAA Order 5190.6B, p. 13-13). 

Okaloosa counsel publicly notes that an ANCA study needs to be conducted for any access 

restrictions on Robinson helicopters since they are Stage 2 aircraft (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, 

Exhibit 1, p. 9). 

The right of a municipal airport proprietor to control noise at local airports is “unmistakably 

limit[ed]” by ANCA, and unless covered by grandfather rights which, like in similar cases 

considered by the agency, “do not exist,” and consequently the procedural requirements of 

ANCA are “mandatory and comprehensive.” (See Friends of East Hampton Airport, Inc., et al. v. 

Town of East Hampton, 841 F.3d 133, 138 (2d Cir. 2016)). Local ordinances not enacted in 

compliance with ANCA’s procedural requirements, moreover, are “federally preempted” and 

“any actions taken in violation of legal mandates [i.e., such as ANCA’s] are, by their nature, 

unreasonable and arbitrary.” Thus, as the Director reasoned in a prior case, “if enacted for 

purposes of limiting noise, all noise and access restrictions (unless grandfathered) that do not 

comply with ANCA’s procedural requirements constitute a violation per se of Grant Assurance 

22.” (See Captain Errol Forman v. Palm Beach County, Florida, and Palm Beach County Board 

of County Commissioners, FAA Docket 16-17-13, Director’s Determination, p. 15 (Feb. 22, 

2019)). 

Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, implements the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 

§ 47107(a)(1) through (6), and requires, in pertinent part, that the sponsor of a federally obligated

airport make its airport available as an airport for public use 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. (See FAA Airport

Compliance Manual, p. 13-12).

In summary, the Director finds that the issues raised in this complaint are ultimately based on 

grant assurances and fall well within the FAA’s Part 16 jurisdiction. The fact that ANCA is raised 

as a related or ancillary issue or defense does not divest the Agency of jurisdiction. 

(See Captain Errol Forman v. Palm Beach County, Florida, and Palm Beach County Board of 

County Commissioners, FAA Docket 16-17-13, Director’s Determination, p.12 (February 22, 

2019)). 

The County argues that Timberview’s commercial operations were terminated from the Airport, 

not to restrict noise, but because of violations of the Minimum Standards and terms of the 2017 

Agreement. The County’s argument in support of this specific claim is discussed below in Issue 

3. 

Consequently, the Director finds that the sponsor placing unreasonable restrictions on 

Timberview’s commercial helicopter flight operations and preventing access to DTS is 

inconsistent with Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 15 of 29
14 

ISSUE 2. Whether the County violated Grant Assurance 19, Operation and 

Maintenance, by denying Timberview the opportunity to operate 

commercially at the Airport. 

Complainant’s Position 

Timberview alleges that Okaloosa violated Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, by 

allegedly failing to operate and maintain the Airport in a safe and serviceable condition. 

Timberview further stated that “it has never experienced an accident, incident, or other 

regulatory violation that would begin to legitimize the ‘safety’ complaints articulated by the 

County.” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, p. 19). Yet, Timberview’s commercial operations were 

terminated while other sightseeing and tour operators were allowed to continue their operations. 

Respondent’s Position 

The County responded that “Timberview does not identify a single instance where the County 

has allowed an unsafe operation or condition to occur.” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, pp. 19-20). 

Director’s Determination 

The FAA can only make findings on clear, reliable facts. The FAA will not address issues that 

do not bear directly on the Respondent’s Federal obligations. (See BMI Salvage Corporation & 

Blueside Services, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, Florida, FAA Docket No. 16-05-16, Director’s 

Determination, pp.11-12 (July 25, 2006)). Although Timberview alleges a violation of Grant 

Assurance No. 19, Operation and Maintenance, no substantive support was provided in the 

Complaint that Okaloosa was operating and maintaining the Airport in an unsafe and inefficient 

manner. Under 14 CFR § 16.23(k), “the burden of proof is on the complainant to show 

noncompliance.” Timberview has not provided the Director “reliable, probative, and substantial 

evidence” supporting its allegation that Okaloosa is in noncompliance with this grant assurance 

(14 CFR § 16.31(b)(2)). The Director, therefore, dismisses this allegation. 

ISSUE 3. Whether the County violated Grant Assurance 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination, by terminating the 2017 Agreement with Timberview. 

Complainant’s Position 

Timberview argues that it “has continuously met all financial obligations and all other 

obligations of the 2017 Operating Agreement” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, p. 21). However, 

according to Timberview, Okaloosa allows other aeronautical activities at the Airport without the 

restrictions that it placed on Timberview (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pp. 21-22). 

Respondent’s Position 

The County claims that Timberview’s commercial operations were terminated from the Airport 

because of violations of the Minimum Standards and terms of the 2017 Agreement. Okaloosa 

claims that, over the years, the County has dealt with a large number of compliance issues with 

Timberview, including numerous breaches of the 2017 Agreement and DTS Minimum 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 16 of 29
15 

Standards. Okaloosa contends that the list of compliance issues reveals a pattern of 

noncompliance with procedures, duty of care, and authorities (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, p. 9). 

Director’s Determination 

1. Sub-Issue 1 - Lease and Minimum Standards 

In 2019, Okaloosa asked the Okaloosa County Clerk of Circuit Court’s Department of Inspector 

General (IG) to conduct an audit of Timberview’s agreed-to payments for a percentage of the 

monthly commercial gross revenues to Okaloosa. Okaloosa made this request because it had 

concerns over questionable monthly gross revenue statements and payments. After the audit 

began, Timberview made an adjusted payment (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, p. 3). 

However, Okaloosa alleges that Timberview did not provide the IG the reconciled 

documentation to support the amount of the adjusted payments that it made (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 

7, Exhibit 2, p. 4). 

The IG issued Report INV-19-0 on February 21, 2020 (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7, Exhibit 2). The 

report provided an opinion that Timberview was in noncompliance with the 2017 Agreement. It 

found that Timberview failed to provide requested financial documentation to support the 

recalculated monthly payment that it made to Okaloosa (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7, Exhibit 2, 

pp. 4-5). The Record does not show whether Timberview ever provided the requested financial 

documents to the IG. Nevertheless, nothing in the record indicates Okaloosa terminated 

Timberview’s operating privileges in response to the IG Report findings. Nor did Okaloosa 

specifically mention the underpayments in its termination letter dated June 16, 2021, which 

required Timberview to cure the noncompliance and provide the requisite financial 

documentation (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1 Exhibit 12). 

Okaloosa further claims that Timberview underpaid its monthly gross revenue payments in June 

and July 2021. Okaloosa stated that it did not pursue the missing revenue because the 2017 

Agreement had been terminated (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7, p. 2). The Timberview Helicopters 

Operating Summary was reviewed, but it did not provide any details to substantiate this specific 

claim (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7, Exhibit 1). Additionally, Okaloosa’s termination letter dated 

June 16, 2021 did not state that any underpayments were considered outstanding issues that 

Timberview needed to cure (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 12). 

Okaloosa further claimed that it made repeated requests of Timberview to provide certificates of 

insurance for its helicopter fleet at the Airport (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 12). Timberview 

responded in a letter dated June 24, 2021, claiming that it had promptly provided all certificates 

of insurance for aircraft except for helicopters not based or operating out of the Airport 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 13, p. 4). The record shows that Okaloosa received the 

certificates of insurance when requested (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7, p. 2). Timberview also 

provided exhibits demonstrating that Okaloosa contacted the insurance broker to obtain 

certificates of insurance rather than Timberview itself providing them to the airport staff 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, p. 2). 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 17 of 29
16 

The Director notes that Timberview has a responsibility to understand and adhere to reasonable 

business practices established by the airport sponsor. This includes, but is not limited to, reading 

and understanding agreements before entering into them, negotiating agreements in a timely 

manner, understanding and complying with the Airport’s minimum standards, and cooperating 

with requests from the airport management. (See Gina Michelle Moore, individually, and d/b/a 

Warbird Sky Ventures, Inc. v. Sumner County Regional Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 

16-07-16, Director’s Determination, p. 38 (February 27, 2009)). 

An airport sponsor can restrict aeronautical access on a reasonable basis. The failure to pay rent 

or to provide proof-of-insurance seem like substantial bases to the agreements. (See SeaSands 

Air Transport, Inc. v. Huntsville-Madison County Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-05-17, 

Director’s Determination (Aug. 28, 2006)). It is not imprudent for a sponsor to require resolution 

of outstanding financial matters prior to entering into additional financial arrangements with the 

same airport tenant. (See Jimsair Aviation Services, Inc., v. San Diego County Regional Airport 

Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-06-8, Director’s Determination, (April 12, 2007). 

Grant Assurance 22(a) provides that an airport sponsor: 

 will make the airport available as an airport for public use 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. 

The record reflects that Okaloosa reasonably questioned whether Timberview was complying 

with the terms of the 2017 Agreement. However, the record does not show that during 

negotiations of the Draft Agreement – or written into the Draft Agreement itself – that Okaloosa 

specifically required Timberview to submit reasonable accounting documentation to support its 

past adjusted gross revenue payment identified in the IG Report, or for the alleged gross revenue 

underpayments in June or July 2021. Nor did Okaloosa provide a default notice that Timberview 

was held in violation with the terms of the 2017 Agreement. However, the insurance certificate 

requirement was resolved in the Draft Agreement. Furthermore, the Record clearly shows that 

Okaloosa allowed other tenants who were in noncompliance not to meet airport requirements 

while requiring Timberview to adhere to different practices and standards (FAA Exhibit 1, 

Item 7, Exhibit 4, p. 756). 

The Director expects Okaloosa County to treat similarly situated tenants in similar circumstances 

in a fair and reasonable manner. However, the Board failed to do so when it failed to enforce the 

terms of its agreements with other similarly situated airport tenants while not approving the Draft 

Agreement. Consequently, Okaloosa’s own actions support a finding that the sponsor is 

unreasonably discriminating against Timberview. 

2. Sub-Issue 2 - Flight Safety 

As noted in Sub-Issue 1, Okaloosa has acknowledged the authority of the FAA to determine 

matters in the context of aviation safety and navigable airspace. However, the record also shows 

Okaloosa has exercised authority that it does not possess to deal with Timberview’s operations. 

The Chronological History additionally shows Okaloosa received citizen reports on alleged low 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 18 of 29
17 

flight incidents occurring outside of the Airport, including aircraft that Timberview does not fly 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibit 8, Item 13, and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibit 8, Item 14). 

Okaloosa also submitted a newspaper article concerning three helicopter landings at Blue 

Mountain Beach by an unknown operator (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibit 4). Furthermore, 

airport staff conducted an investigation into a hard landing by a helicopter at the private heliport, 

which is not owned or operated by Okaloosa (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibit 8, Item 24). 

In addition, although the Okaloosa County Board did not vote to approve the Draft Agreement, 

the Director is concerned about several contractual provisions that Okaloosa proposed, including 

flight requirements. For example, Section 2. Flight Procedures, states: 

Operator and the County acknowledge that the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) 

is conducting a comprehensive review of helicopter operations in the vicinity of the 

Airport. That review is expected to result in new routes for helicopter tours and/or 

procedures for air traffic control and helicopter tour operators regarding air tour 

operations in the vicinity of the Airport. It is an express condition of the Agreement that 

Operator comply with any such routes, guidance, or direction and any Letter of 

Agreement or other document memorializing such routes, guidance, or direction. When 

authorized to deviate from such patterns, routes, altitudes, and procedures, Operator shall 

do so in a manner to avoid low altitude flight over homes, resorts, and beaches to the 

extent consistent with safety and instructions from air traffic control personnel. 

Section 2 also states: 

Operator shall conduct tour operations during FAA defined Daylight hours beginning no 

earlier than 10:00 am local time and ending at FAA defined end of Daylight. 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 14, p. 2). 

Additionally, Section 5: Required Reports, provides: 

Flight Data. Operator agrees to provide information regarding the location, speed, flight 

path, and altitude of any of its flights within 48 hours upon request by the County to the 

extent such data is available through Spidertracks or any replacement flight data 

management system that Operator may use in the future. 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 14, p. 3). 

Okaloosa states that it “did not attempt to prescribe routes or flight procedures or otherwise 

displace FAA authority” and that “[t]he County took appropriate action to assure safety while the 

FAA completed its work. Fundamentally, the County wants to have the assurance, and to be able 

to assure the public, that Timberview is operating safely in light of the serious issues that have 

been raised and the grave risks posed by Timberview’s operations.” (FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, 

pp. 38-39). 

The FAA Southern Region, Regional Administrator, Michael C. O’Harra, sent a letter on 

August 19, 2021, to Destin Airport responding to Okaloosa’s concerns about Timberview’s 

alleged safety issues. Mr. O’Harra confirmed to Okaloosa that the responsible FAA Flight 

Standards District Office (FSDO) had assessed all Destin safety complaints within the FAA’s 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 19 of 29
18 

authority and that any findings are shared only with Timberview. Mr. O’Harra also noted that the 

FAA's Air Traffic Organization, Office of Aviation Safety, and Office of Airports, determined 

that a formal Safety Management System evaluation was not warranted at that time 

(FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, Exhibit 7; FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 11). Consequently, this FAA 

letter provides the current FAA FSDO safety assessment on Timberview. 

In spite of Okaloosa’s knowledge and the FAA letter concerning Timberview’s safety 

assessment, Okaloosa negotiated operational requirements in the Draft Agreement above and 

beyond 14 CFR Part 91, which provides the Federal requirements for aircraft equipment and 

flight operations outside of the Airport. Okaloosa also required aircraft operators to adhere to 

canceled Letter of Agreement flight routes and times, and took pictures of a helicopter after a 

hard landing even though it occurred at a private helipad. 

It is inappropriate for an airport sponsor or manager to negotiate or impose conditions or flight 

patterns beyond the Federal requirements, or to assign personnel to conduct oversight and safety 

evaluations despite the FAA having determined that the operator is conducting its operations in 

accordance with applicable Federal regulations. If the operation does not meet FAA safety 

standards, Okaloosa’s exclusive remedy is to continue to bring that conduct to the attention of 

the FAA Regional Office or local FSDO, which will take the appropriate action. The record also 

showed no similar operational flight restrictions imposed on other similarly situated aeronautical 

operations or commercial operators that use DTS facilities. 

Therefore, Okaloosa’s actions imposing local flight operational requirements on Timberview 

beyond what is federally required is unreasonable. This action is in addition to the Director’s 

findings of unreasonable access restrictions and practices identified in Sub-Issue 1. The Director 

further finds that Okaloosa is applying discriminatory terms and conditions in its lease terms and 

minimum standards against Timberview as well as unfair practices against other aeronautical 

users at the Airport. Therefore, the Director finds Okaloosa is in violation of Grant Assurance 22, 

Economic Nondiscrimination. 

VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS 

Upon consideration of the submissions, responses by the parties, the administrative record 

herein, applicable law and policy, and for the reasons stated above, the Director of the FAA 

Office Airport Compliance and Management Analysis finds and concludes: 

The Respondent is not in violation of Grant Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and Powers; Grant 

Assurance 21, Compatible Land Use; Grant Assurance 29, Airport Layout Plan; or Assurance 

38, Hangar Construction. [See Issue (1)]. 

The Respondent is not in violation of the Aircraft Noise and Capacity Act or Grant Assurance 1, 

General Federal Requirements. 

The Respondent is not in violation of Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance. 

[See Issue (2)]. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 20 of 29
19 

The Respondent is in violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Discrimination, for unjustly 

discriminating against commercial aeronautical operator Timberview by imposing unreasonable 

requirements not equitably applied to other similar users. This violation also is in addition to 

Okaloosa’s unreasonable actions imposing local flight operational requirements on Timberview 

beyond what is federally required. Finally, Okaloosa is in violation of unreasonable access 

restrictions and practices that it placed on Timberview without FAA approval. 

All Motions not specifically granted in this Order are denied. 

ORDER 

ACCORDINGLY, it is ordered that: 

1. Okaloosa County shall present a corrective action plan to this office within 30 days from 

the date of the Order. The plan shall explain in detail how the County intends to return 

the Airport to compliance with its Federal grant assurances concerning the elimination of 

unfair and unjust discrimination in the form of unreasonable requirements. This is in 

addition to Okaloosa County revoking and rescinding all unreasonable access and flight 

restrictions and requirements that it placed on Timberview or other users that had not 

been submitted or approved by the FAA. 

 Pending the FAA’s approval of a corrective action plan, this office will recommend to the 

Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming (APP-1), to withhold approval of 

any applications submitted by Okaloosa County for discretionary funding for projects 

authorized under 49 U.S.C. § 47115. 

RIGHT OF APPEAL 

This Director’s Determination under FAA Docket No. 16-21-14 is an initial agency 

determination and does not constitute a final agency decision and order subject to judicial review 

under 49 U.S.C. § 46110 [See 14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2)]. A party to this proceeding adversely 

affected by the Director’s Determination may file an appeal with the Associate Administrator 

within 30 days after date of service of the initial determination. If no appeal is filed within the 

time period specified, the Director’s Determination becomes the final decision and order of the 

FAA without further action. A Director’s Determination that becomes final because there is no 

administrative appeal is not judicially reviewable. [14 CFR § 16.33.] 

 

Kevin C. Willis Date 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

KEVIN WILLIS

Digitally signed by KEVIN 

WILLIS 

Date: 2023.02.21 13:52:56 

-05'00'

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 21 of 29
20 

Timberview Helicopters, Inc., Complainant, 

v. 

Okaloosa County, Florida, Respondent. 

Docket No. 16-21-14 

INDEX OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 

The following items constitute the administrative record in this proceeding: 

FAA Exhibit 1 

Item 1 Timberview Helicopters, Inc., filed Part 16-21-14 Complaint against 

Okaloosa County, FL, on October 18, 2021. 

Exhibit 1 Destin Executive Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Update Narrative Report, 

dated February 2019. 

Exhibit 2 Google Maps Satellite Photograph of Destin Executive Airport and 

community, dated 2021. 

Exhibit 3 Affidavit of Justin C. Johnson, Timberview Helicopters operator, 

September 10, 2021. 

Exhibit 1 Michael J. Schofield, Timberview attorney, letter to W. Eric Pilsk, 

County counsel, dated July 19, 2021, with attached documents 

including emails; Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners 

Agenda request package dated June 15, 2021; Timberview 

Helicopters response to request package; Termination letter of 

Timberview Helicopters, Inc., Operating Agreement at DTS, dated 

August 17, 2021 

Exhibit 4 Operating Agreement for Sightseeing Flight Operations executed between 

Board of County Commissioners, Okaloosa County, Florida and 

Timberview Helicopters, Inc., dated April 18, 2017. 

Exhibit 5 Board of County Commissioners, Okaloosa County, Florida, Minimum 

Standards for Full-Service Fixed Base Operations and Specialty Service 

Operations at Bob Sikes Airport, Destin/Ft. Walton Beach Airport, 

undated. 

Exhibit 6 Destin Executive Airport (DTS) and Bob Sikes Airport (CEW) Operating 

Policy on Aircraft Maintenance and Fueling of Personally-Owned Aircraft 

by Aircraft Owners and their Employees, undated. 

Exhibit 7 Hangar Lease Agreement and Ground Lease Agreement executed between 

Board of County Commissioners, Okaloosa County, Florida and 

Timberview Helicopters, Inc., dated May 1, 2016. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 22 of 29
21 

Exhibit 8 Ramp Space License Agreement executed between Lynx FBO Destin, 

LLC, and Timberview Helicopters, Inc., dated March 1, 2017. 

Exhibit 9 Email from Mike Stenson, Deputy Director of Okaloosa County Airports, 

to Handzon.com with the subject line “F1yDTS.com” concerning changes 

to website and PDF attachment titled Destin Airport Noise Mitigation, 

dated August 26, 2014. The email also contained a compilation of other 

documents concerning residents’ noise and safety concerns; Letter of 

Agreement between Air Traffic Control Tower and Timberview 

Helicopters dated February 22, 2019; and written emails and letters 

between Okaloosa County Airports and FAA Flight Standards District 

Office. 

Exhibit 10 Chronological History of Timberview Issues at DTS since 2016 with 

pictures. 

Exhibit 11 Michael C. O'Harra, FAA Southern Regional Administrator, letter dated 

August 19, 2021 to Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, addressing 

noise and safety concerns about Timberview Helicopter operations around 

the Destin area. 

Exhibit 12 Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, letter dated June 16, 2021 to Justin 

Johnson, Timberview Helicopters, Inc., providing Notice of Termination 

of Operating Agreement with Okaloosa County Lease No. L17-0456-AP, 

executed April 18, 2017, effective August 16, 2021. 

Exhibit 13 Timberview Helicopters, Inc., Composite Exhibit 13 with letters and 

emails between Timberview Helicopters and Okaloosa County concerning 

negotiating a new operating agreement, dated between June 16, 2021, and 

August 9, 2021. 

Exhibit 14 Draft Operating Agreement for Commercial Flight Operations executed 

between Board of County Commissioners Okaloosa County, Florida to 

Timberview Helicopters, Inc. 

Exhibit 15 Timberview Helicopters, Inc., Composite Exhibit 15 with board meeting 

agendas, transcripts, letters, and legal memorandum. 

Exhibit 16 Timberview Helicopters, Inc., Composite Exhibit 16 with board agenda 

minutes and transcripts. 

Exhibit 17 W. Eric Pilsk, Okaloosa County Airports counsel, letter dated August 17, 

2021 to Michael J. Schofield, attorney for Timberview Helicopters, Inc., 

concerning Termination of Timberview Helicopters, Inc.’s Operating 

Agreement at DTS. 

Item 2 Notice of Docketing for Timberview Helicopters Complaint as 

Part 16-21-14, docketed November 1, 2021. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 23 of 29
22 

Item 3 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint, 

filed by Okaloosa County and docketed November 12, 2021. 

Item 4 Order for Extension of Time until November 30, 2021, dated and docketed 

November 19, 2021. 

Item 5 Okaloosa County Answer to the Complaint docketed November 30, 2021. 

Item 6 Okaloosa County Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Answer to 

Complaint docketed November 30, 2021. 

Item 7 Declaration of Allyson Oury in Support of Respondent Okaloosa County 

Florida’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Answer to Complaint 

docketed November 30, 2021. 

Exhibit 1 Compilation of Timberview’s monthly Operations and Total Revenue for 

Company and to County between January 2018 and August 2021, undated. 

Exhibit 2 Okaloosa County Office of Inspector General Report No. INV-19-01 

issued February 21, 2020, on Timberview Helicopters Contract 

Compliance. 

Exhibit 3 Rogers Exhibit 3 Amendment of Lease L08-0326-AP M D Hangar, LLC, 

Hangar Lease at the Destin Executive Airport, dated August 7, 2018. 

Exhibit 4 Rogers Exhibit 4 Chronological History of Timberview Issues at DTS 

since 2016. 

Item 8 Declaration of Robert Chad Rogers in Support of Respondent Okaloosa 

County Florida’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Answer to 

Complaint docketed November 30, 2021. 

Exhibit 1 FAA letter dated January 31, 2020, about FAA conditional approval of 

Airport Layout Plan. 

Exhibit 2 Destin Executive Airport Layout Plan dated December 2019. 

Item 9 Declaration of Tracy Stage in Support of Respondent Okaloosa County 

Florida’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Answer to Complaint 

docketed November 30, 2021. 

Exhibit 1 Copy of City of Destin Zoning Map, dated 8/28/2021. 

Exhibit 2 Copy of City of Destin Land Development Code § 7.15.00 dated 

September 20, 2021. 

Exhibit 3 Richard W. Carlson, Manager, Kansas City Flight Standards District 

Office letter dated August 29, 2013, to Justin Johnson, President, 

Timberview Helicopters, concerning emergency revocation of authority to 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 24 of 29
23 

conduct commercial air tour operations under 14 CFR § 91.147 until 

corrective actions are taken by Timberview Helicopters. 

Exhibit 4 Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners letter dated July 11, 2019, to 

All Bahrami, FAA Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety about 

safety concerns with Timberview Helicopters. 

Exhibit 5 W. Eric Pilsk, County counsel, letter dated July 21, 2021, to Kishawn 

Griffin, Senior Advisor to the FAA Southern Regional Administrator, and 

April Rowe, Acting Technical Advisor to the FAA Southern Regional 

Administrator, about safety concerns with Timberview Helicopters and 

attached emails (some with attached pictures), videos, newspaper articles, 

attachments. 

Exhibit 6 Okaloosa County August 3, 2021 Public Meeting Agenda, about 

Timberview Helicopter Operating Agreement. 

Exhibit 7 FAA Regional Administrator, Southern Region, Michael C. O'Harra, letter 

dated September 10, 2021, to Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, 

about summary of virtual meeting and future action on Destin Executive 

Airport safety issues. Attached are news article, Timberview insurance 

certificates, emails (some with attached pictures). 

Exhibit 8 Submittal email from W. Eric Pilsk, County counsel, stating the below 

exhibits for Tracy Stage Declaration cannot be easily attached to an email 

and that exhibits can be accessed using the link 

https://kaplankirsch.sharefile.com/d569303e28b7f745528b68f7b46b53f290 

Item 1 Timberview Instagram, dated July 4, 2017. 

Item 2 R. Bruce, County Airports staff, sent an email to Pat Bruce, FAA 

inspector, dated August 2, 2017. 

Item 3 Timberview Instagram, dated June 21, 2018. 

Item 4 Timberview Instagram, dated July 4, 2018. 

Item 5 YouTube posting of Destin helicopter ride and manatee sighting, 

dated July 14, 2018. 

Item 6 YouTube posting of Crazy Helicopter Shoot, dated January 4, 

2019. 

Item 7 Fun4 Emerald Coast Kids Instagram, dated March 30, 2019. 

Item 8 Susan Castillo Instagram, dated April 1, 2019. 

Item 9 Chip Cook, County Aviation Board Vice-Chair, email dated 

April 20, 2019, to Tracy Stage, Okaloosa County Airports Director, and 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 25 of 29
24 

Pat Bruce, FAA inspector, concerning allegations concerning helicopter 

flights. 

Item 10 Tracey Stage, County Airports Director, email dated May 15, 

2019, to Pat Bruce, FAA inspector, with attachment. 

Item 11 Attachment from Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, email 

dated May 15, 2019, to Pat Bruce, FAA inspector. 

Item 12 Dan Brown, US Park Service, email dated June 12, 2019, to Chip 

Cook and Tracy Stage, Destin Airport, forwarded US Park Service email 

concerning allegations of helicopter flights over US National Parks. 

Item 13 Chip Cook, County Aviation Board Vice-Chair, email dated June 

14, 2019, to Pat Bruce, FAA inspector, concerning continued violations of 

helicopter tour operators. 

Item 14 Pat Bruce, FAA inspector, email exchange dated June 14, 2019, 

with Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, concerning continued 

violations of Helicopter Tour operators. 

Item 15 Mike Weger, President, Indian Lake Home Owners Association 

email with attachments dated July 26, 2019, to Pat Bruce, FAA inspector, 

and John Greene, FAA contractor, regarding safety inspections at Destin 

Airport. 

Item 16 Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, email dated August 8, 

2019, to Pat Bruce, FAA inspector, Chad Rogers, and Anthony Peterson, 

regarding a link to a Hawaii news story on a passenger’s jump from a 

chopper into Kaneohe Bay prompts federal probe. 

Item 17 Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, email chain dated 

May 25, 2020 2021, to Susan Macdonald regarding FW: Okaloosa County 

Violations of Governor Executive Order Number 20-91 - Destin Airport - 

Destin, FL. 

Item 18 Sherry Crumpler YouTube video dated October 5, 2020 regarding 

Timberview helicopter flight. 

Item 19 Sandra Schreck, private resident, email chain dated December 6, 

2020, to Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, regarding helicopter 

traffic. 

Item 20 Chad Rogers, County Airports Director, email chain dated 

December 30, 2020, to DTS ATCT regarding Timberview Agreement - 

Daylight Flying Only. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 26 of 29
25 

Item 21 Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, email chain with videos, 

dated July 1, 2021, to Susan Macdonald regarding helicopter versus 

parasail. 

 Item 22 Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, email chain with attached 

email, dated May 24, 2021, to Pat Bruce, FAA inspector, regarding new 

message from Craig Mays, a private resident. 

Item 23 Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, email chain dated July 1, 

2021, to Susan Macdonald, regarding Congressional Inquiry - Tour 

Helicopters. 

Item 24 Clay Perkins, FAA inspector, email chain dated June 16, 2021, to 

Chad Rogers, County Airports Director, regarding DTS Hard Landing 

complaint. 

Item 25 Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, email chain dated July 1, 

2021, to Susan Macdonald, regarding FAA FSDO Attendance Request - 

Okaloosa County Board of County Commissioners Meeting - June 15th 

@8:30AM. 

Item 26 Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, email chain dated June 

10, 2021, to Eric Pilsk, and others regarding Destin/Miramar Beach 

Helicopter Noise Complaint filed with the FAA. 

Item 27 TampaAerialMedia YouTube Video (Destin FL A Travel Guide 

for The Emerald Coast) dated June 20, 2021. 

Item 28 Tracy Stage, County Airports Director, email chain dated July 14, 

2021, to Eric Pilsk and others, regarding FAA follow up. 

Item 29 Memorandum from Julian Eugene Cook, III - July 2021 

Summary of Safety Issues with Helicopter Tour Operations. 

Item 10 Timberview’s Reply to County’s Answer to Complaint, and Supplement and Case 

Citations, docketed December 10, 2021. Timberview counsel submittal email 

stated Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Reply can be accessed via the Sharefile link below 

at https://clarkpartingtonl.sharefile.com/d-s6b4d6ee889174bbf838754fa51aa1b4a

Exhibit 1 Timberview Helicopter Operating Agreement Public Meeting PowerPoint 

presentation, August 3, 2021. 

Exhibit 2 Westlaw Legal Cases. 

Item 11 Respondent Okaloosa County, Florida’s Rebuttal in Support of Its Answer to the 

Complaint docketed December 20, 2021. 

Exhibit A Declaration of Robert Chad Rogers in Support of Respondent Okaloosa 

County, Florida’s Rebuttal to Complaint dated December 20, 2021. 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 27 of 29
26 

Item 12 Destin Executive Airport Master Record, dated February 3, 2022. 

Item 13 Link to FAA Airport Improvement Program Grant Assurances (2/20) 

https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media/airport-sponsor-assurancesaip-2020.pdf, dated February 4, 2022. 

Item 14 Destin Executive Airport Grant History, dated February 7, 2022. 

Item 15 Motion to File Supplemental Material in Support of Complaint, filed by Complainant 

on February 22, 2022. 

Item 16 Opposition to Complainant’s Motion to File Supplemental Material in Support of 

Complaint, filed by Respondent and docketed March 4, 2022. 

Item 17 https://goo.gl/maps/WMe5pbXQPNUz6jDg6, dated April 10, 2022. 

Item 18 Link to Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter I, Subchapter A, 

Part 1-Definitions and Abbreviations, dated August 2, 2021, https://www.ecfr.gov/cgibin/textidx?SID=42a92f3811019a3bcab71f14144d4d92&mc=true&node=pt14.1.1&rgn=div5 

Item 19 Notice of Extension of Time until June 17, 2022, docketed April 18, 2022. 

Item 20 Notice of Extension of Time until August 16, 2022, docketed June 17, 2022. 

Item 21 Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Okaloosa County, Florida Order Denying 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Injunction issued July 5, 2022, filed by Respondent 

and docketed July 6, 2022. 

Item 22 Timberview Helicopters’ Notice of Objection to Filing of Respondent Okaloosa 

County, Florida’s Notice of State Court Decision filed July 11, 2022, filed by 

Complainant and docketed July 11, 2022. 

Item 23 Respondent Okaloosa County, Florida’s Motion for Leave to File Notice of State 

Court Decision, docketed July 13, 2022. 

Item 24 Notice of Extension of Time until October 18, 2022, docketed August 15, 2022. 

Item 25 Notice of Extension of Time until December 14, 2022, docketed October 18, 2022. 

Item 26

Item 27 

Notice of Extension of Time until February 10, 2023, docketed December 12, 2022.

Notice of Extension of Time until March 15, 2023, docketed February 10, 2023.

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 28 of 29
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 21, 2023, I caused to be emailed and/or to be placed in 

the Federal Express a true copy of this Director’s Determination for FAA Docket No. 16-21-14 

addressed to: 

For Complainant 

Clark Partington Kimberly C. Cole 

Michael J. Schofield, Esq. Cole & Davis, P.A. 

125 East lntendencia Street 1173 E John Sims Parkway 

Pensacola, FL 32502 Niceville, FL 32578 

mschofield@clarkpartington.com kim@coleanddavis.com 

Gary L. Evans, Esq. R. Christopher Harshman, Esq.

George Andrew Coats, Esq. David M. Shaby Il & Associates, APC

Coats & Evans, PC 11949 Jefferson Blvd., Suite 104

7764 Eagle Lane Culver City, CA 90230

Spring, TX 77379 charshman@shabyandassociates.com

evans@texasaviationlaw.com 

coats@texasaviationlaw.com 

For Respondent 

W. Eric Pilsk Lynn Hoshihara, Esq. 

Adam Gerchick Carly J. Schrader, Esq. 

Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP Gregory T. Stewart, Esq. 

1634 I Street, NW, Suite 300 Nabors Giblin & Nickerson P.A. 

Washington, DC 20006 1500 Mahan Drive Suite 

epilsk@kaplankirsch.com Tallahassee, FL 32308 

Lhoshihara@ngnlaw.com 

GStewart@ngnlaw.com 

CSchrader@ngnlaw.com 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (AGC-600) 

FAA Office of Airport Management and Management Analysis (ACO-100) 

_____________________________ 

Natalie Curtis 

Office of Airport Compliance 

 and Management Analysis 

Case 3:20-cv-03678-MCR-ZCB Document 77-1 Filed 07/20/23 Page 29 of 29