Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue S.W., RM 923M 

Airports Law Branch, AGC-610 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket Re: Docket 16-08-12 

AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW. AGC-600 

T h e Complainant(s ) Keye s an d Fenrell hav e jointl y reviewe d th e Director' s Detenninatio n an d 

submi t th e following . 

Pleas e note , give n th e amoun t of documentatio n previousl y provide d b y th e parties , reference s t o 

existin g material s wil l b e mad e t o th e Inde x of Administratio n Recor d referred t o a s FA A Exhibit 1 

by th e Director. 

/S5ue #1 : Whethe r th e Respondent' s allege d failure t o properl y clos e th e Airport i n 

accordance with FAA and State directives due to a runway line ofsigttt 

discrepancy constitutes a violation of Grant Assurance #19, Operation and 

Maintenance 

The parties agree that the respondent y^as U^U|yp|tt^g^ii»eeiAN»4; SOM^ 4(^ ^ a 

corrective action due to a patOTNiittr#%f^|jm^v1aiibn. Further, it is agreed that the final 

markings required addressing the line of sight safety hazard which existing during this period did 

not begin until six weeks (forty-two days) later on January 11, 2006.^ 

Upon review of the materials submitted, the Director has determined that "The Director is satisfied 

that the Respondent acted reasonably due to the fact that consultants needed to be engaged in 

two corrective plans over the holkiay season'.^ 

The Complainant(s) believe the delay of six weeks to address a safety issue in January 2006, 

which was known, in January 2003 (prior to construction)^, to and documented by, the 

Respondent, the Respondent's design engineering firm, and by TN DOT, acting on behalf of the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under the Block Grant program, is excessive by any 

reasonable standard, even accounting for the holiday season, and should represent a violation of 

Grant Assurances. 

The Director held in "[Platinum Aviation and Platinum Jet Center BMI v. Bloomington-Nomnal 

Airport Authority, Illinois, FAA Docket No 16-06-09 (Director's Determination issued June, 4 

2007)(Final Decision and Orddr i!teued November 28, 2007)] "the issue of whether the 

(Respondent) acted reasonably lies with the justification for its actions and what the record 

establishes'. The record establishes that the Respondent and others knew a deviation to AC 

150/5300-13, which compromised public and pilot safety, two years before, the Respondent was 

notified by TN DOT to take corrective action on December 1, 2005 dosing a portion of the newly 

completed runway. The record further establishes that it took the Respondent an additional six 

weeks to address a temporary fix for the line of sight safety issue until a final repair was 

implemented month's later costing Tennessee taxpayers more than one and one-half million 

dollars. The Complainant(s) can find no justification for the actions of the Respondent or the other 

parties involved; however, it is dear the Respondent was the only party involved, which had the 

legal authority to continue the process. 

f 

FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12, ExhItMt 7 

FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12 

FAA Directors Detemnination - December 18,2009, Page 27 

FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12, Exhibit 1 

FAA Directors Determination - December 18,2009, Page 31 
The Complainant(s) understand the Director has previously held that the Part 16 process is not 

intended to be punitive for past violations; instead it is intended to allow the FAA to correct noncompliance."® 

However, given the egregious nature of the events established, in the record, we believe the 

Director would be justified in making an exception, holding the Respondent and others, at the 

discretion of the Director, accountable for actions in this matter. 

The Complainant(s) respectfully request the Diredorto find the Respondent in Violation of the 

Grant Assurances. 

Issue #2; Whether the Respondent's alleged failure to properly certify plans and 

specifications for the runway extension project, allowing errors and omissions in 

the plans and specifications that were foreseeable at the time of project design, 

violated Grant Assurance #34, Policies, Standards and Specifications. 

Upon reviewing the explanation provkjed, we can appreciate that the Diredor t>elieves he "cannot 

equate the Respondent's decision to take expert advise it was given by its approving authority, 

TN DOT, by virtue of its Block Grant status, to a violation of Grant Assurance 34 or a p oth|iN' 

assurance"^ given its finding in 'JPlgtimjm4i^iiiinii nmtiiWHWTm i\nmSmm'W9i'^\ BldtirtiiitonNormal Airport Authortty, IIHnbis,i^AA Docket No 16-06-09 (Diredor's Determination issued June, 

4 2007)(Final Dedsion and Order issued November 28,2007)].° However, as noted in Issue 1, 

the Respondent was cleariy aware of the defidency well before construdion. The Complainant(s) 

respectfully disagree that the Respondent should be materially relieved of responsibility when 

they knowingly pursued funding and intentionally constmcted a runway with known design flaws, 

which compromised public safety. 

We all concede that the Respondent received bad advice from TN DOT, who was ading on 

behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration; however the evidence suggests that the respondent 

did not attempt to challenge this safety issue which ultimately compromised public safety and cost 

the taxpayers of Tennessee between one and one-half and two million dollars to conned. 

We believe the definition applied to this issue is too narrow in its scope, t)ecause while TN DOT 

failed in their responsibility to ensure public safety by approving the project on behalf of the 

Federal Aviation Administration, the Respondent failed as well. 

The Complainant(s) ask that you reconsider your finding in this matter. 

Issue #3: Whether Respondent violated Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, 

when it allegedly fai/ed to maintain the airport and all fycilities... at all times in a 

safe arxi serviceable condition" by allowing ttie visual approach lighting system 

and other lighting systems to be in a 'state of disrepair" and allegedly failed to 

promptly rmtify airmen 'of any condition affecting aeronautical use of the airport" 

1. Failure to property maintain the ainx>rt's new visual approach systems (NAVAIDs) 

All parties agree the PAPIs became inoperative shortly after the airport reopened in 

December 2005. 

^ FAA Directors Determination - December 18, 2009, Page 28 

^ FAA Directors Determination - December 18, 2009, Page 31 

^ FAA Directors Determination - December 18,2009, Page 31 
Complainant Keyes stated that the visual approach systems are unreliable and have been 

out of service for the majority of there time since their (sic) installation on or about January 

2007." 

Note: Upon review Complainant Keyes discovered a typographical error made by the Complainant with regard to the 

January 2007 date referencing the PAPi system stated above. In the December 17,2008 Part 16 Complaint 

Docketed as 16-08-12, the complainant stated 'January 2007 to present, as a part of the airport improvement 

project...' The January 2007 date was in error and was actually January 2006. 

The Respondent acknowledged at a regulariy scheduled County Commission meeting in 

Odober 2007 that he was aware of the PAPI problem at the airport. 

In the March 22, 2008 Part 13 filing. Complainant Keyes stated "The visual approach system 

for runway 20 failed several months ago as well, and despite of the fad that the Tennessee 

Aeronautical Division had provkJed additional funding to repair this equipment, which should 

have be covered by warranty or performance bond, the equipment remains in a state of 

disrepair."^ 

Based on the information provkJed in the Diredors Detennination we believe the above 

statements are not in contention based on the documentation provided. 

The Diredors Determination staleslhat the Complainant himself admits the units are 

flawed'^° for which we can find no basis. The Complainant did stipulate that "While we could 

debate the 'complexity' of this equipment which contains lamps, a lens assembly, a couple of 

mercury tilt switches and a fairty simple control board, this was new equipment, provided by a 

well established and reputable manufadurer, and yet it took the county a year or more to 

make it fundional."" 

While the Respondent had stated that TN DOT approved Respondent's request for 

"emergency funding", which is not disputed, they did not stipulate when the request was 

made or approved. 

"The Diredors Detennination stipulates that FAA Order 6190.6a offers the following 

guidance: 

"7776 degree of maintenance effort required of an airport owner is a matter of professional 

judgment Compliance with this maintenance obligation is considered satisfactory wtien the 

airport owner: 

(a) Fully understands that airport facilities must be kept in a safe serviceable condition; 

(l)) Has adopted and implemented a sufficiently detailed program of cyclical preventative 

maintenance that in tt)e judgment of the FAA is adequate to carry out this 

commitment; and 

(c) Has available the equipment, personnel, fund and other resources including contract 

anrangement to effectively implement such a program."" ^^ 

While we appreciate the Diredors statement that "Cleariy the Respondent's adions resulted 

in a compliant outcome; therefore the Diredor finds the Respondent is not curently in 

violation"^^, it took the Respondent two years and four months (December 2005 through 

March 22, 2008) to bring the newly purchased and installed equipment used for visual 

^ FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12, Exhibit 31 

"* FAA Directors Determination - December 18, 2009, Page 36 

" FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12, Page 3 

'^ FAA Directors Determination - December 18, 2009, Page 35 and Page 36 

'^ FAA Directors Determination - December 18, 2009, Page 36 
descent guidance on-line. This outcome should be deemed excessive and unacceptable by 

any measure. 

We respecffully submit the fad, that this equipment was allowed to remain inoperable for 

such a long period of time, that it casts doubt on the professional judgment of the 

Respondent, the Respondent's understanding that airport fadlities must be kept in a safe 

serviceable condition and whether the Respondent had/has adopted and implemented a 

suffidently detailed program of cydical preventative maintenance as required by FAA Order 

6190.6a and cited by the Director. 

Further, the TN DOT was aware that equipment they recommended, and which was installed, 

was non-fundional by virtue their approval of the "emergency request' for funding. The 

Complainants respec^ully suggest that accountability and oversight in this matter did not 

exist or at the very least was ineffedive. 

In his response the Diredor stated that the Diredor is concerned that it may have taken the 

Respondent neariy 60 days to conred an inoperative edge lighting fixture". The 

Complainant(s) would assume the Diredor would likewise be concerned that it took over two 

years for the Respondent to repair an aid to navigation. 

If the Diredor believes the Respondent responded to this matter in a timely fashion, 

exerdsed professional judgment and believes that it was acceptable that equipment used for 

visual descent guidance remain out of service for over two years, then the Diredors 

Determination should stand. 

While the Respondent may technically be in compliance today, the Federal Aviation 

Administration should be very concerned about a dear lack of urgency as it relates to its 

systems provided to improve flight safety. 

The Complainant(s) respedfully submit that the Federal Aviation Administration should find 

the Respondent's failure to ad in a timely manner as unacceptable and hold the Respondent 

accountable for there lack of urgency. If the Diredor can not find the Respondent in violation 

of the Grant Assurances because the Respondent finally made the units operational after 

more than two years, then we t)elieved it is appropriate that the FAA provide the necessary 

oversight and follow-up as necessary to ensure future compliance. 

2. Failure to properiy maintain the airport's other liahtina systems. 

While the Part 13 and Part 16 adions are intended to be an expedited process, this process 

can and has taken an extended amount of time to provkje a thorough review for the t>enefit of 

all parties. The Director expressed "An additional concern ... pertains to the Complainant's 

infomnal resolution comments'.^^ "The Diredor finds that the allegation of inoperative edge 

lighting fixtures was not induded in any infomnal discussions under the informal resolution 

process".^^ 

As noted in the Procedural History provkled by the Diredor, this process began with a Part 

13 filing on March 22, 2008 by Complainant Keyes and May 19,2008 by Complainant Ferrell. 

The Part 13 process was discontinued by Complainant Fenrell on July 11, 2008 and by 

Complainant Keyes on September 17, 2008.^® 

We believe the Director's concern about the exdusion of the inoperative edge lighting in the 

Part 13 process, while technically conred, is unfounded. On May 22, 2008, the Respondent 

FAA Directors Detennination - December 18,2009, Page 37 

FAA Directors Determination - December 18,2009, Page 37 

FAA Directors Detennination - December 18,2009, Page 17 
committed to TN DOT to implement four separate adion items which, if implemented by the 

Respondent, in the opinion of the Complainant(s), would have resulted in corredion of the 

edge lighting defidency. Further the Complainant(s) felt that in fairness to the Respondent, 

the Complainant(s) should provide the Respondent a reasonable amount of time (six to eight 

weeks) to ad independently. 

On July 24,2008 TN DOT notified Complainant Keyes that "we will take no further infonnal 

adions and consider the complaint issue 'in-active'.'^^ When it became dear that the 

Respondent was not going to repair the edge lighting units, the original informal process had 

become "in-adive". While it could be argued that a separate Part 13 adion could have been 

originated for this new problem, this failure on the part of the Respondent was consistent with 

past in-adion and therefore it seemed more appropriate to indude this issue in the Part 16 

filing. 

As corredly stated, the Respondent finally repaired the fixture(s) after receipt of Complainant 

Keyes Part 16 filing with the FAA (December 17,2008) and before January 1, 2009. 

The Diredor noted that there is no evidence in the Record' supporting the allegation that the 

fixtures had been damaged since the spring of 2008.^° 

In the February 9,2009 response provided by the Respondent to the Office of Chief Council, 

the Respondent states that "FBO did state that it is not uncommon for mowing crews to push 

a runway or taxiway light over and they have to be straightened".^^ While the photograph 

submitted to support the Complainant(s) allegation was electronically tagged November 6, 

2008 and submitted as such, it seems unlikely that mowing crews were at woric in November 

2008. 

By the Diredors own admission, the Diredor is concemed that it may have taken the 

Respondent neariy 60 days to corred an inoperative edge lighting fixture"^" and if the 

allegation that the fixtures were damaged as stipulated by the Complainant, the Diredor 

would be concemed with the Respondent's maintenance program. We respectfully suggest 

that the Respondents own admission supports the contention that the lights were damaged at 

least during the mowing season, although the Complainant(s) maintain that the edge lights 

were displaced in the spring of 2008. Therefore, the Complainant(s) suggest the Diredor 

should be concemed about the Respondent's maintenance program. 

It is inconceivable, to the Complainant(s), that the Diredor would find that, because the 

"Respondent fixed the displaced lighting fixture once made aware through Keyes' Part 16 

Complaint', months after being displaced, the Respondent's adions would be "indicative of a 

compliant attitude.*^^ 

Given that: 

• Complainant Keyes stipulated that the lighting problem was noticed in the spring of 

2008 while fiying in the evenings with an un-named fiight instrudor. (Note the lights 

were more noticeable t)ecause Daylight Savings Time did not return until March 9, 

2008) 

• the Respondent's commitment to conredive adions to TN DOT on May 22, 2008, 

FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12, Exhibit 34 

FAA Directors Detennination - December 18, 2009, Page 37 

FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9 

FAA Directors Detennination - December 18, 2009, Page 37 

FAA Directors Determination - December 18, 2009, Page 37 

FAA Directors Determination - December 18, 2009, Page 37 
• the Respondent's admission that "FBO did state that it is not uncommon for mowing 

crews to push a runway or taxiway light over and they have to be straightened' 

• the photographic evkjence of displaced lighting fixtures on November 6, 2008 

• the Diredors acceptance that "Complainant Keyes admits. Respondent fixed the 

displaced lighting fixture once made aware through Keyes' Part 16 Complaint' which 

was submitted on December 22, 2008 

The Complainant(s) suggest the Diredor is in error in his assessment that this is "indicative of 

a compliant attitude". On the contrary, the actions taken by the Respondent suggest this is 

indicative of an attitude of "we will fix it, if caught'. 

"The Diredor emphasizes it is interested in current compliance as well in the Respondent's 

behavior in adopting a compliant posture.'^^ 

The Complainant(s) respedfully submit that on this issue, that, while the Respondent is 

technically in compliance having correded the issue after several months of failing to address 

the deficiency, the Respondent's behavior dearty fails to meet the requirements of meeting a 

compliant posture. 

Should the Diredor be unable to find the Respondent in violation of Grant Assurance 19 

because of "current compliance' then the Complainant(s) believe it is incumbent upon the 

FAA to demand the Respondent provide a detailed written conredive adion plan to the FAA, 

which when approved by the FAA, will be publidy posted at the McMinn County airport 

ensuring all users are aware the Respondent must: 

• ensure the airport is inspeded on a regulariy scheduled basis, acceptable to the 

FAA, and 

• the Respondent will ensure that all equipment defidendes will be addressed and 

repaired in a published timeframe acceptable to the FAA. 

The Complainant(s) would recommend that the oversight and follow-up of these issues would 

be better managed and overseen by the Memphis Airports Distrid Office. 

3. Failure to property notify airmen "of any condition affedino aeronautical use of the airport" 

(NOTAM) 

The Diredor states "Based on the evidence submitted to the record, the Diredor cannot 

determine if NOTAMs for the PAPI or any other aeronautical services or repairs were issued 

in a timely manner."^^ 

As stipulated in Issue 3, Item 1 afc>ove, the aforementioned PAPI equipment became 

inoperative shortly after the airport reopened in December 2005. 

The Respondent acknowledged at a regularty scheduled County Commission meeting in 

October 2007, that he was aware of the PAPI problem at the airport and upon request of 

Complainant Keyes had a NOTAM issued the following day. Complainant Keyes verified the 

lack of a NOTAM prior to the County Commission meeting and the existence of the NOTAM 

with Flight Service at the end of the day following the meeting. 

As I am sure the Diredor is aware, most NOTAMs are delivered verisally as a part of the 

Standard Briefing process. Specifically FAR 91.103 mandates that "each pilot in command 

shall, t>efore beginning a flight, t)ecome familiar with all available information concerning that 

flight." NOTAMS provkJe some of the most critical infonnation a pilot might need which is why 

FAA Directors Determination - December 18,2009, Page 37 

FAA Directors Detennination - December 18, 2009, Page 37 & 38 
they are part of the Standard Briefing process. As this infonnation is communicated verbally, 

it is rare that users would have received or maintained a physical copy of this information. 

FAA Order JO 7930.2M Notices to Airmen (September 25, 2008) however requires the 

Federal Aviation Administration to maintain NOTAM logs. While these are apparently not 

available to the pilot community, they surely would be available to the Diredor. A review of 

these logs will more than substantiate the Complainant(s) assertions with regard to the 

absence of issued NOTAMS during the time frames discussed. 

Upon receipt of the Diredor's response, Complainant Keyes was able to find a few examples 

of NOTAMs printed from the FAA Website in past fiight planning information. Copies of those 

documents are submitted and appear to substantiate that NOTAMs were active for the 

McMinn County Airport on December 19,2005 [Attachment 1], August 16, 2006 [Attachment 

2] and August 23, 2006 [Attachment 3] indicating a dosed portion of the runway resulting 

from the line of sight issue, but make no mention about PAPI equipment being out of service. 

It should be noted that during the repair phase of the runway, Local NOTAMs were routinely 

requested to ensure those notations were included in the briefing. 

The Respondent explidtiy stipulated that NOTAMs had been issued during all repairs. This 

statement may be true since repairs were completed after October 2007 following a request 

from Complainant Keyes to issue a NOTAM at the County Commission Meeting. While there 

is also no evidence of support, the Complainant(s) believe it is reasonable to assume that the 

NOTAM that was issued in October 2007 would have remained in effed until the units were 

made operational some time in the future. 

Wrth regard to "allegations that the Respondent 'offers no corredive adions to ensure proper 

oversight,' the Director points to the Respondent's citation of Section 3 (c) 7.0 of Volume II of 

the Airport Management Guide. Issuing NOTAMs. which it provided to its managing FBO"^^ 

as an indication of corrective adion taken. The Respondent in his February 9, 2009 response 

to the FAA Office of Chief Coundl also stated that the above document was issued to ensure 

a proper NOTAM is issued when conditions affect aeronautical use of the airport'. ^ 

The Diredors citation of corredive adion taken above would hardly seem appropriate given 

the fad that the airport owner, the Respondent, should have had this documentation in their 

possession well before February 9, 2009, if it was deemed necessary to properiy issue 

NOTAMs in the time period prior to February 2009. Given that the airport manager, 

contraded by the Respondent, is a FAA certified fiight instrudor, flying regulariy for a major 

airiine, it seems doubfful that lack of the Airport Management Guide. Issuing NOTAMs. would 

have.hampered the airport manager's ability to issues NOTAMs with the assistance of Flight 

Service. The Complainant(s) leave it to the judgment of the Diredor whether absence of the 

Airport Management Guide was a contributing fador in the Respondents failure to issue the 

required NOTAMs. 

Assuming that the corredive action, agreed to by the Respondent on February 9, 2009, was 

implemented shortly after the Respondent's commitinent, it is difficult to explain how the FAA 

NOTAM system and Flight Service are providing NOTAM information today incorredly 

refleding the current status of the McMinn County Airport. 

I hope the Diredor can appreciate that the Complainant(s) do not use the McMinn County 

airport on a daily tiasis. However in July of this year the PAPI for runway 20 was again 

nonfundional. At least 30 days passed t)efore a NOTAM was issued in Septemt>er indicating 

it's out of service status. It is unknown whether the unit was repaired or just started worthing 

again, because on September 22, 2009 the unit was operational. As far as the 

Complainant(s) have been able to detennine, the unit has been functional on each flight since 

25 FAA Directors Determination - December 18, 2009, Page 34 
then, where runway 20 has be used. When Flight Servk^e has been contaded during this 

period they have consistently reported MMI PAPI 20 OTS. 

The Complainant(s) submit the following to corroborate their statements. 

• Attachment 4 - December 25, 2009 printout from the FAA NOTAM website for 

documentation the out of service notation of PAPI 20. 

• Attachment 5 - Digitally time stamped photograph dated Decemtter 26, 2009 

showing the woriting status of PAPI 20. 

• Attachment 6 - December 30, 2009 printout from the FAA NOTAM website for 

documentation the out of service notation of PAPI 20. 

• Attachment 7 - January 8, 2010 printout firom the FAA NOTAM website for 

documentation the out of service notation of PAPI 20. 

• Attachment 8 - Digitally time stamped photograph dated January 8, 2010 showing 

PAPI 20 is operational. 

• Attachment 9 - January 9, 2010 printout from the FAA NOTAM website for 

documentation the out of service notation of PAPI 20. 

Either the Respondent does not know about this issue having once again failed to selfinsped the fadlity and/or the Respondent has failed to raise the expedations of his airport 

management to ensure these issues are dealt with in a timely manner. 

The Complainant(s) have no doubt that the Respondent will corred this defidency upon 

receipt of this document. 

The Federal Aviation Administration stresses the use and reliance of NOTAMs to all pilots. 

The Airman's Information Manual puts it very succindly: 

5-1-3. Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) System 

a. Time-critical aeronautical information which is of either a temporary nature or not 

suffidently known in advance to permit publication on aeronautical charts or in other 

operational publications receives immediate dissemination via the National NOTAM System. 

NOTE1. NOTAM information is that aeronautical infonnation that could affed a pilot's decision 

to make a fiight. It indudes such information as airport or aerodrome primary runway 

closures, taxiways, ramps, obstrudions, communications, airspace, changes in the status 

of navigational aids, ILS's, radar service availability, and other information essential to 

planned en route, tenninal, or landing operations. 

Pilots presume that the infonnation provided will be corred. 

The Complainant(s) respedfully submit that: 

a) The Respondent was in violation of Grant Assurance 19 on the date the Diredors 

Determination was rendered 

b) The Respondent is currently in violation of Grant Assurance 19 

c) The conredive adion dted by the Diredor and the Respondent failed to redify the 

ongoing issue to properiy notify airmen 'of any condition affecting aeronautical use of 

the airport' 

d) The respondent failed to provkle its airport management appropriate guidance for 

complying with the issuance of NOTAMs in the future. 

e) The Respondent failed to recognize the protriem, indicating self-inspedion of the 

airport is ineffective or non-existent. 
The Complainant(s) respectfully request that the Diredor find the Respondent in violation of 

Grant Assurance 19 and we stand by our contention that the Respondent has failed to 

implement the necessary corredive adions to ensure proper oversight of the airport resulting 

in the failure to self insped the airport and properiy issue NOTAMs as required by current 

Federal Aviation Regulations. 

Issue #4; Whether the Respondent's failure to respond to allegation of threats and 

vandalism as well as alleged instarujes of denial of service constitute violation of 

Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance and/or a violation of Grant 

Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination? 

a) Allegations of Threats and Vandalism 

The Complainant(s) are satisfied with the judgment of the Diredor in these 

matters. 

Future events, should they occur, will be immediately direded to the appropriate 

law enforcement agency for resolution. 

The process of attempting to resolve these issues with County Management on 

an informal basis is discontinued. 

b) Allegations of Denial of Service 

The Complainant(s) respectfully disagree with the Diredor's assessment that 

"allegations involve private citizens, not airport or county management.' The 

FBO, contraded by McMinn County, represents the Respondent in airport 

matters. Given the Respondent has delegated its authority to the airport 

management in such matters as safety, issuance of NOTAMs and other related 

matters, the complainant(s) believe the Respondent should be held accountable 

for adions taken by it's airport management. 

The Diredor has found that the Compiainant(s) did not provide suffident 

evidence to support their daims and this matter is not contested. 

Issue #5: Whether the Respondent's alleged failure to ttetter regulate its FBO/Management 

contractor and the discriminatory acts alleged perpetrated by the FBO, constitute 

a violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination; and whether the 

Respondent's alleged abdication of its rights and authority to the FBO and other 

constitute a violation of Grant Assurance 5? 

a) Hangar Waiting List 

The Diredor indicates that the Complainant(s) have not submitted any evidence 

to the records proving Keyes' placement on the list was an intentional ad of 

discrimination'. We would respecffully suggest review of the July 16, 2007 

document submitted by Keyes. Other than notations referred to in the document, 

the only physical evkJence which would have existed, would have been the 

original list which the Respondent was required to maintain and which inexplidtiy 

was misplaced even though the Respondent stipulated on numerous occasions 

he was in possession of the list before management of the airport changed. It is 

also puzzling, that with all of the confusion over the hangar list to which the 
Respondent admits, that when confronted with a mistake in the ranking, why the 

airport manager would knowingly offer hangars out of the corred order. 

While the complainant(s) are prepared to offer additional documentation, given 

the Diredor's finding in Bisti Aviation. Inc. v. City of Farminoton. New Mexico. 

FAA Docket No. 16-07-01 (Diredor's Detennination issued December 4,2007), 

the Diredor help, "77ie successful action by the airport owner or sponsor to cure 

a past violation is gvunds for dismissal of that allegation and the Diredor's 

finding that "as a result, there is no issue of current compliance'^® it seems clear 

that the Federal Aviation Administration is not concemed with whether the 

alleged discrimination occurred or not because it is a past violation. 

a) Airport Management 

Upon Review of the information submitted, the Diredor is satisfied with the 

perfomnance of the Respondent and its Airport Manager therefore the 

Complainant(s) do not challenge this finding. 

Summary 

As members of the flying community the Complainant(s) feel an obligation to bring issues of 

public and pilot safety, as well as alleged discrimination, to the attention of the appropriate 

governmental authorities. We felt it important to exhaust the appropriate administrative remedies 

available to us in an effort to ensure the conredion of the defidendes noted throughout the 

documentation provkled. 

The Diredor has already cited in his Detennination, concerns with the Respondent's maintenance 

program and self inspedion of the airport. 

The Diredor further cited corrective action taken by the Respondent by providing the airport 

manager a copy of the Airport Management Guide. Issuing NOTAMs to ensure a proper NOTAM 

is issued when conditions affect aeronautical use of the airport'^' as stated by the Respondent. 

And yet, on the date this Diredors Determination was issued, the Respondent was dearty in 

violation of the Grant Assurances, failing to have current NOTAMs refled the corred status of the 

very equipment it took the Respondent more than two years to corred. 

By the Respondent's own admission, and as noted by the Diredor, the Respondent has been in 

violation of Grant Assurances in the past, although most have been conreded. While the 

Respondent is currently in violation of the Grant Assurances, the defidency will no doubt tie 

correded upon receipt of this document. Given the failure of the corredive adion taken to date, 

there is litUe reason to doubt that the Respondent will be in violation in the future. 

We again respectfully submit, the evidence submitted casts doubt on the professional judgment 

of the Respondent, the Respondent's understanding, that airport fadlities must be kept in a safe 

serviceable condition and whether the Respondent had/has adopted and implemented a 

suffidently detailed program of cydical preventative maintenance as required by FAA Order 

6190.6a and cited by the Diredor. 

Regrettably, based on the previous findings sited by the Diredor specifically: 

[Roadhouse Aviation v. City of Tulsa Airport Improvement Trust, FAA Docket No. 16-05-

08 (Diredors Detennination issued December 14, 2006)]^° and 

^^ FAA Directors Determination - December 18,2009, Page 49 

^^ FAA Directors Detennination - December 18, 2009, Page 34 

^ FAA Directors Detennination - December 18, 2009, Page 28 

10 
[Goodrich Pilot Training Center, LLC v. Village of Endicott, New Yorit, FAA Docket No. 6-

08-03 (Diredor's Detennination issued April3, 2009)]^® 

The Complainant(s) recognize that it is unlikely that the Part 16 process will bring the 

accountability and change necessary to inhit>it future reoccurrences and failures on the part of the 

Respondent. As stipulated in the above rulings, the Diredor has found the Part 16 process is 

intended to allow the FAA to corred current non-compliance and does not penalize the sponsors 

for past compliance violations. Although [Lanier Aviation LLC v. City of Gainesville, Georgia; 

Gainesville Airport Authority, FAA Docket No. 16-05-05 (Diredors Detennination issued 

November 25,2005)]^ does suggest that the FAA in interested in the Respondent's behavior in 

adopting a compliant posture'^^ 

While the Diredor's Detennination referenced the pursuit of a 49 CFR 18.43 Enforcement Adion, 

the complainant(s) believe it is appropriate to finalize the existing Part 16 process providing the 

FAA the opportunity to identify and implement the required corredion adions necessary to 

resolve the Respondents on-going failures dted by the Diredor and the Complainant(s). 

However the Complainant(s) reserve the right to pursue the 49 CFR 18.43 Enforcement Adion, at 

a future date, should it become necessary. 

The Complainant(s) are satisfied that they have met the requirement of due diligence, bringing 

these issues to each of the governmental authorities involved for resolution, and we leave it to 

those authorities to detennine if the behaviors and repeated failures documented in the Part 13 

and Part 16 processes are acceptable. 

The Complainant(s) wish to acknowledge and thank the Diredor and his staff for the time and 

effort which was dearty put into the Diredor's Detennination. We are hopeful that this effort will 

result in adionable items and Federal Aviation Administration follow-up, which will result in 

improved public and pilot safety at the McMinn County airport. 

Respedfully, 

DeWitt T. Ferrell 

William H. Keyes 

29 

FAA Directors Determination - December 18, 2009, Page 28 

30 

FAA Directors Determination - December 18, 2009, Page 37 

^' FAA Directors Detennination - December 18, 2009, Page 37 

11 
Attachments: 

1 - FAA Website, NOTAMs for MMI - December 19, 2006 

2 - FAA Website, NOTAMs for MMI - August 16, 2006 

3 - FAA Website, NOTAMs for MMI - August 23, 2006 

4 - FAA Website, NOTAMs for MMI - December 25,2009 

5 - Digitally time stamped photograph dated December 28, 2009 

6 - FAA Website, NOTAMs for MMI - December 30, 2009 

7 - FAA Website, NOTAMs for MMI - December 25,2009 

8 - Digitally time stamped photograph dated December 28,2009 

9 - FAA Website, NOTAMs for MMI - December 30,2009 

12 
Certificate of Service 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Response to the Diredors Determination 

on the following persons at the following addresses by United States mail (first dass, postage 

paid) or Certified Mail: 

Mr. John Gentry, County Mayor 

McMinn County Courthouse 

6 East Madison Ave 

Athens, TN 37303 

Mr. Davkl Crews, Chairman McMinn County Commission 

Chairman McMinn County Airport Committee 

McMinn County Courthouse 

6 East Madison Ave 

Athens, TN 37303 

FAA Part 16 Proceedings Docket (3 Copies) 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket Re: Docket 16-08-12 

FAA Office of Airports, Compliance and Field Operations, ACO-100 

Attn: Randall S. Fiertz, Diredor, Office of Airport Compliance 

Dated this day of 11 January 2010. 

,^<^/ ^ 

WillianTH. Key€s 

13 
•Untitled Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2 

Display Selected NOTAMs Reset 

Current NOTAMs 

(as of 19 DEC 22:2 0 GMT) 

The following is a list of NOTAMs within a 5NM radius of MMI. 

MMI MnvtlNN COTJNTY 

D !BNA 12/074 MMI 2/20 N 650 CLSD 

D !BNA 11/204 MMI 2/20 RWYLGTS OTS 

ZTL ATLANTA 

ARTCCs/UIRs/FIRs 

D !rDC 5/9952 2TL CANCELLED BY FDC 5/0059 ON 10/28/05 23:37 

n !FDC 5/9767 ZTL CANCELLED BY FDC 5/9775 ON 10/25/05 19:11 

n !FDC 5/9651 ZTL CANCELLED BY FDC 5/0091 ON 10/30/05 15:32 

D !FDC 5/9609 ZTL SC . FI/T AIRWAY ZTL. V605 SPARTANBURG (SPA) VORTAC, SO TO GENOD INT MEA 

15000. 

n !FDC 5/9607 ZTL SC.. FI/T AIRWAY ZTL. V54 SPARTANBURG (SPA) VORTAC, SC TO BRYDE INT MEA 

15000. 

n !FDC 5/9588 ZTL CANCELLED BY FDC 5/970T ON 10/23/05 11:03 

n !FDC 5/7573 ZTL FI/T AIRWAY ZTL ZJX J89 ICBOD 150 DME FIX, DME UNUSABLE. J89 RESPE 120 DME 

FIX, DME UNUSABLE. J91 JOHNN 130 DME FIX, DME UNUSABLE. 

D !FDC 5/1190 ZTL CANCELLED BY FDC 5/1580 ON 12/14/05 17:07 

D !FDC 5/1129 ZTL CANCELLED BY FDC 5/1189 ON 12/05/05 20:07 

D !FDC 5/0635 ZTL CANCELLED BY FDC 5/0647 ON 11/15/05 19:18 

n !FDC 5/0528 ZTL CANCELLED BY FDC 5/0554 ON 11/10/05 20:02 

D !FDC 5/0314 ZTL GA.. FI/T AIRWAY ZTL V56 MACON (MCN) VORTAC, GA TO PRATZ, GA, NA EXCEPT FOR 

IFR GPS EQUIPPED AIRCRAFT. REASON: FLIGHT CHECK RESULTS. 

D !FDC 5/0292 ZTL FI/T AIRWAY ZTL ZJX V417 ALLENDALE (ALD) VOR, SC TO COLLIERS (IRQ) VORTAC, 

SC MEA 3000. 

n !FDC S/0266 ZTL AL.. FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ANNISTON, AL. EFFECTIVE 1245-2100 UTC MON-THU FROM 

0511071245-0601162100 UTC. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(3), TEMPORARY FLIGHT 

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/geo/geoQuery.html 12/19/2005 
Selected Notams 

The following NOTAM list was selected by the user rrom a previous request. This list may not reflect all 

active NOTi^JVfs for any of the bdow locations. 

Data Current as of: 16 AUG 13:47 GMT 

MMI MCMINN COUNTY 

!BNA 08/203 MMI 2/20 N 3450 CLSD WEF 0608161200 

[BuckjoTopJ 

t:iim!^--r of noTAf-1s selected : 1 End of Repoi.'. 

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/distribution/printQuery.html 8/16/2006 
United States NOTAM Office Attachment 3 Page 1 of 1 

Selected Notams 

The following NOTAM list was selected by the user from a previous request. This list may not reflect all 

active NOTAMs for any of the below locations. 

Data Current as of: 24 AUG 00:09 GMT 

M MI MCMINN COUNTY [Back to Topi 

!BNA 08/294 MMI 2/20 TODA 3000 LDA 3000 

!BNA 08/269 MMI 2/20 N 1700 CLSD 

!BNA 08/214 MMI TOWER 1443 (335 AGL) 6.8 NW LOTS OTS (ASR 1032027) TIL 0609011230 

!BNA 08/181 MMI TOWER UNKN (205 AGL) 2.8 NE LOTS OTS TIL 0608281737 

!BNA 08/177 MMI TOWER 1054 (204 AGL) 5.2 SSE LOTS OTS (ASR 1226271) TIL 0608272110 

lluiii'ei: c-.f tlOTAl-Ls .-.elected : 5 End o£ Repor t 

https ://pilotweb .nas.faa.gov/distribution/printQuery .html 8/23/2006 
PilotWeb NOTAM System Attachment 4 Page 1 of I 

PilotWeb Home 

i Safety Center Radius & Flight rtort h Atlanti c Pacific RVSM 

NOTAMs NOTAMs Path Search Trades Track s Notices 

About PilotWeb 

Selected Notams 

The follawing NOTAM list was selected by the user from a previous request This let may not reflect all active NOTAMs for any of the 

below locations. 

Data Current as of: 25 DEC 19:06 GMT 

MMI MCMINN COUNTY /B«ktoTop; 

SNA OMNW MMI RWY 20 PAPI OTS 

Number of NOTAMs selected : 1 E.nd of Report 

USA.gav | Privacy Policy | Web Policies & Notices | Site Map { Contact FAA | Frequently Asked Questions | Forms 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

llFederal Aviation Administration 

ISOO Indepandance Avanua, SW 

'Washington, OC 20591 

"l-866-TELL-FAA (1-866-835-5322) 

Readers a Viewers: PDF Reader ! MS Word Viewer i MS PowerPoint Viewer i MS Excel Viewer i Zip 

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/distribution/printQuery.html 12/25/2009 

' PilotWeh NOTAM System Attachment 6 Page 1 of 1 

PilotWeb Home About PilotWeb 

i " •*?!-*.•)*?***' 

, . Safet y 

* 1 NOTAMs 

i 

Center 

NOTAMs 

Radius & Flight 

Path Search 

Nort h Atlanti c 

Track s 

i^^^St^^> 

Pacific 

Track s 

RVSM 

Notices 

Back 

Selected Notams 

The fbikjwtng NOTAM list was selected by the user from a previous request This list may not reflect aH active NOTAMs for any of the 

below k>cations. 

Data Current as of: 30 DEC 16:45 GMT 

MMI MCMINN COUNTY Pack to Torf 

!BNA 12/417 MMI RWY 2/20 RWY LGTS PCL OTS MED INTST CONT 

IBNA 09/008 MMI RWY 20 PAPI OTS 

Number of NOTAMs selected : 2 End of Report 

USA.gov I Privacy Policy { Web Polkies & Notices | Sit* Map | Contact FAA { Frequently Asked Questions | Forms 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

[iFedaral Aviation Administration 

' BOO Indepandance Avanua, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

1-866-TEa-FAA (1-866-835-5322) 

Readers & Viewers: PDF Reader | MS Word Viewer i MS PowerPoint Viewer i MS Excel Viewer i Zip 

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/distribution/printQueTy.html 12/30/2009 
PilotWeb NOTAM System Attachment 7 Page 1 of 1 

PikitWeb Home About PilotWeb 

Nort h Atlanti c 

Track s 

Pacific 

Trades 

RVSM 

Notice s 

Selected Notams 

The following NOTAM list was selected by the user from a previous request This list may not reflect all active NOTAMs for any of the 

below locations. 

Data Current as of: 09 JAN 18:45 GMT 

MMI MCMINN COrofTY iBack to TopJ 

!BNA 12/417 MMI RWY 2/20 RWY LGTS PCL OTS MED INTST CONT 

IBNA 09/008 MMI RWT 20 PAPI OTS 

Number of NOTAMs selected: 2 End of Report 

USA.gov ! Privacy Policy | Web Policies & Notnes | Site Map | Contact FAA | Frequently Asked Questions | Forms 

U.S. Dapartmant of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avanua, SW 

FVWashington, DC 20591 

1-866-TEU.-FAA (1-866-835-5322) 

Readers &VieweiB: PDF Reader I MS Word Viewer i MS PowerPoint Viewer | MS Excel Viewer | Zip 

https://pilotwd).nas.faa.gov/distribuli<Mi/printQuay.html 1/9/2010 

PilotWd) NOTAM System Attachment 9 Page 1 of 1 

PikrtWeb Home About PilotWeb 

-feis-^SW^*^ 

Nort h Atlanti c 

Trades 

Pacific 

Track s 

RVSM 

Notices 

Selected Notams 

The fbikMving NOTAM list was selected by the user from a prevknis request This list may not reflect all active NOTAMs for any of the 

t>elow locations. 

Data Current as of: 10 JAN 22:31 GMT 

MMI MCMINN COUNTY /B** to Top/ 

IBNA 12/417 MMI RWY 2/20 RWY LGTS PCL OTS MED INTST CONT 

IBNAOttDOS MMI RWY 20 PAPi OTS 

Number of NOTAMs selected : 2 End of Report 

USA.gov I Privacy Policy | Web Polkies a Notk»s | Site Map | Contact FAA | Frequently Asked Questkins | Forms 

U.S. Dapartment of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

1-866-TEa-FAA (1-866-835-5322) 

Readers & Viewers: PD F Reader | M S Wor d Viewer i M S PowerPoint Viewer \ M S Excel Viewer | Zip 

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/distribulion/printQueiy.html 1/10/2010 

• • - -