Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n

80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S.W. , R M 923 M Airport s La wBranch , AGC-61 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : FA APart 1 6 Airpor t Proceedings Docke t Re : Docke t 16-08-1 2 AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTA L LAW
. AGC-600

T h e Complainant(s ) Keye s an d Fenrel l hav e jointl yreviewe d th e Director' s Detenninatio n an d submi t th e following
. Pleas e note , give n th e amoun t o f documentatio n previousl yprovide d b yth e parties , reference s t o existin g material s wil l b e mad e t o th e Inde xo f Administratio n Recor d referre d t o a s FA AExhibi t 1 b yth e Director
. /S5u e #1 : Whethe rth e Respondent' s allege d failur e t o properl yclos e th e Airpor t i n

accordanc e wit h FA Aan d Stat e directive s du e t o a runwa ylin e ofsigtt t discrepanc yconstitute s a violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e #19 , Operatio n an d Maintenanc e Th e partie s agre e tha t th e responden t y^as U^U|yp|tt^g^ii»eeiAN»4 ; SOM ^ 4(^ ^ a correctiv e actio n du e t o a patOTNiittr#%f^|jm^v1aiibn
. Further , i t i s agree d tha t th e fina l marking s require d addressin g th e lin e o f sigh t safet yhazar d whic h existin g durin g thi s perio d di d no t begi n unti l si xweek s (forty-tw o days ) late ro n Januar y11 , 2006. ^ Upo n revie wo f th e material s submitted , th e Directo rha s determine d tha t "Th e Directo ri s satisfie d tha t th e Responden t acte d reasonabl ydu e t o th e fac t tha t consultant s neede d t o b e engage d i n tw o correctiv e plan s ove rth e holkia yseason'. ^ Th e Complainant(s ) believ e th e dela yo f si xweek s t o addres s a safet yissu e i n January2006 , whic h wa s known , i n Januar y200 3 (prio rt o construction)^ , t o an d documente d by , th e Respondent , th e Respondent' s desig n engineerin g firm , an d b yT N DOT , actin g o n behal f o f th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) unde rth e Bloc k Gran t program , i s excessiv e b yan y reasonabl e standard , eve n accountin g fo rth e holida yseason , an d shoul d represen t a violatio n o f Gran t Assurances
. Th e Directo rhel d i n "[Platinu m Aviatio n an d Platinu m Je t Cente rBM I v . Bloomington-Nomna l Airpor t Authority , Illinois , FA ADocke t N o 16-06-0 9 (Director' s Determinatio n issue d June , 4 2007)(Fina l Decisio n an d Ordd ri!teue d Novembe r28 , 2007) ] "th e issu e o f whethe rth e (Respondent ) acte d reasonabl ylie s wit h th e justificatio n fo rit s action s an d wha t th e recor d establishes'
. Th e recor d establishe s tha t th e Responden t an d other s kne wa deviatio n t o A C 150/5300-13 , whic h compromise d publi c an d pilo t safety , tw o year s before , th e Responden t wa s notifie d b yT N DO T t o tak e correctiv e actio n o n Decembe r1 , 2005 dosin g a portio n o f th e newl y complete d runway . Th e recor d furthe restablishe s tha t i t too k th e Responden t a n additiona l si x week s t o addres s a temporar yfi xfo rth e lin e o f sigh t safet yissu e unti l a fina l repai rwa s implemente d month' s late rcostin g Tennesse e taxpayer s mor e tha n on e an d one-hal f millio n dollars
. Th e Complainant(s ) ca n fin d n o justificatio n fo rth e action s o f th e Responden t o rth e othe r partie s involved ; however , i t i s dea rth e Responden t wa s th e onl ypart yinvolved , whic h ha d th e lega l authorit yt o continu e th e process . f

FA AExhibi t 1 , Ite m 12 , ExhItM t 7 FA AExhibi t 1 , Ite m 1 2 FA ADirector s Detemninatio n - Decembe r18,2009 , Pag e 2 7 FA AExhibi t 1 , Ite m 12 , Exhibi t 1 FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18,2009 , Pag e 3 1Th e Complainant(s ) understan d th e Directo rha s previousl yhel d that th e Par t 1 6 proces s i s not intende d t o b e punitive fo rpas t violations ; instea d i t i s intende d t o allowth e FA At o correc

t non compliance."

® However , give n th e egregiou s natur e of th e events established , i n th e record , w e believe th e Directo rwoul d b e justifie d i n makin g a n exception , holdin g th e Responden t an d others , a t th e discretio n of th e Director , accountabl e fo raction s i n thi s matter
. Th e Complainant(s ) respectfull yreques t th e Diredort o fin d th e Responden t i n Violatio n of th e Gran t Assurances
. Issu e #2 ; Whethe rth e Respondent' s allege d failure t o properl ycertif yplan s an d specification s fo rth e runwayextensio n project , allowin g errors an d omission s i n th e plan s an d specification s tha t wer e foreseeabl e a t th e tim e o f project design , violate d Gran t Assurance #34 , Policies , Standard s an d Specifications
. Upo n reviewin g th e explanatio n provkjed , we ca n appreciat e that th e Diredo rt>elieve s h e "cannot equate th e Respondent' s decisio n t o take exper t advis e i t was give n b

yit s approvin g authority , T N DOT , b

yvirtu e of it s Bloc k

Gran t status , t o a violatio n of Gran t Assurance 34 o ra p oth|iN ' assurance"^

give n it s findin g i n 'JPlgtimjm4i^iiiini i nmtiiWHWT m i\nmSmm'W9i'^

\ Bldtirtiiiton Norma l Airpor

t Authortty , IIHnbis,i^A

A Docket N o 16-06-0 9 (Diredor' s Determinatio n issue d June , 4 2007)(Fina l Dedsio n an d Orde rissue d Novembe r28,2007)]. ° However , a s note d i n Issu e 1 , th e Responden t wa s cleari yawar e o f th e defidencywel l befor e construdion
. Th e Complainant(s ) respectfull ydisagre e that th e Responden t shoul d b e materiall yrelieve d of responsibilit ywhe n the yknowingl ypursue d fundin g an d intentionall yconstmcte d a runwa ywit h know n desig n flaws, whic h compromise d publi csafety
. W e al l conced e that th e Responden t receive d bad advice fro m T N DOT , wh o wa s adin g o n behal f of th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration ; howeve rth e evidence suggests that th e responden t di d no t attempt t o challeng e thi s safet yissu e whic h ultimatel ycompromise d publi csafet yan d cos t th e taxpayer

s of Tennesse e betwee n on e an d one-hal f an d tw o millio n dollars t o conned
. We believe th e definitio n applie d t o thi s issu e i s to o narro wi n it s scope , t)ecaus e whil e T N DO T faile d i n thei rresponsibilit yt o ensur

e publi csafet

yb yapprovin g th e projec

t o n behal f of th e Federa l Aviatio n Administration , th e Responden t faile d as well
. Th e Complainant(s ) as k

tha t yo u reconside ryou rfindin g i n thi s matter
. Issu e #3 : Whethe rResponden t violate d Gran t Assuranc e 19 , Operatio n an d Maintenance ,

whe n i t allegedl yfai/e d t o maintai n th e airpor t an d al l fycilities... a t al l time s i n a saf e arx i serviceabl e condition " b yallowin g tti e visua l approac h lightin g syste m an d othe rlightin g system s t o b e i n a 'stat e o f disrepair " an d allegedl yfaile d t o promptl yrmtif

yairme n 'o f an yconditio n affectin g aeronautica l us e o f th e airport " 1
. Failur e t o propert

ymaintai n th e ainx>rt' s ne wvisua l approac h system s (NAVAIDs ) Al l partie s agre e th e PAPI s becam e inoperative shortl yafte rth e airpor t reopene d i n Decembe r2005
.

^ FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 2 8 ^ FAADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 1 ^ FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18,2009 , Pag e 3 1Complainan t Keye s state d that th e visua l approac h system s ar e unreliabl e an d hav

e bee n ou t of service fo rth e majorit yof there tim e sinc e thei r(sic ) installatio n o n o rabou t Januar y 2007. " Note : Upo n revie wComplainan t Keye s discovere d a typographica l erro rmad e b yth e Complainan t wit h regar d t o th e January200 7 dat e referencin g th e PAP i syste m state d above
. I n th e Decembe r17,200 8 Part 1 6 Complain t Dockete d a s 16-08-12 , th e complainan t state d 'Januar y200 7 t o present , a s a part o f th e airpor t improvemen t project... ' Th e Januar y200 7 dat e wa s i n erro ran d wa s actuall yJanuar y2006
. Th e Responden t acknowledge d a t a regulari yschedule d Count yCommissio n meetin g i n Odobe r200 7 that h e wa s awar e o f th e PAP I proble m a

t th e airport
. I n th e Marc h 22 , 200 8 Par t 1 3 filing
. Complainan t Keye s state d "Th e visua l approac h syste m fo rrunwa y2 0 faile d severa l month s ag o as well , an d despit e of th e fa d that th e Tennesse e Aeronautica l Divisio n had provkJed additiona l fundin g t o repai rthi s equipment , whic h shoul d hav e b e covere d b

ywarrant yo rperformance bond , th e equipmen t remain s i n a stat e of disrepair."^ Base d o n th e informatio n provkJed i n th e Diredor s Detenninatio n we believe th e above statement s ar

e no t i n contentio n base d o n th e documentatio n provided
. Th e Diredor s Determinatio n staleslha t th e Complainan t himsel f admits th e unit s ar e flawed'^° fo rwhic h we ca n fin d n o basis
. Th e Complainan t di d stipulat e that "Whil e we coul d debat e th e 'complexity ' of thi s equipmen t whic h contain s lamps , a len s assembly , a coupl e o f mercur ytil t switche s an d a fairt

ysimpl e contro l board , thi s wa s ne wequipment , provide d b

ya wel l establishe d an d reputabl e manufadurer , an d yet i t too k th e count

ya yea ro rmor

e t o mak e i t fundional." " Whil e th e Responden t had state d that T N DO T approve d Respondent' s request fo r "emergenc

yfunding" , whic h i s no

t disputed , the ydi d no

t stipulat e whe n th e reques t wa s mad e o rapproved
. "Th e Diredors Detenninatio n stipulate s that FA AOrde r6190.6 a offer

s th e followin g guidance : "777 6 degre e o f maintenance effor t require d o f a n airpor

t owne ri s a matte ro f professiona l judgmen t Compliance wit h thi s maintenance obligatio n i s considere d satisfactor ywtie n th e airpor t owner : (a ) Full yunderstand s tha t airpor t facilitie s must b e kep t i n a saf e serviceabl e condition ; (l) ) Has adopte d an d implemente d a sufficientl ydetaile d progra m o f cyclica l preventative maintenance tha t i n tt) e judgmen t o f th e FA Ai s adequat e t o carr

you t thi s commitment ; an d (c) Ha s availabl e th e equipment , personnel , fun d an d othe rresource s includin g contrac t anrangemen t t o effectivel yimplemen t suc h a program." " ^ ^ Whil e w e appreciat e th e Diredor s statemen t that "Cleari yth e Respondent' s adion s resulte d i n a complian t outcome ; therefore th e Diredo rfind s th e Responden t i s no t curentl yi n violation"^^ , i t too k

th e Responden t two year s an d fou rmonth s (Decembe r200 5 throug h Marc h 22 , 2008 ) t o brin g th e newl ypurchase d an d installe d equipmen t use d fo rvisua l

^ FA AExhibi t 1 , Ite m 12 , Exhibi t 3 1
" * FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 6
" FA AExhibi t 1 , Ite m 12 , Pag e 3
' ^ FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 5 an d Pag e 3 6
' ^ FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 6descen t guidance on-line
. Thi s outcom e shoul d b e deeme d excessive an d unacceptabl e b y an ymeasure . We respecffull ysubmi t th e fad , that thi s equipmen t was allowe d t o remai n inoperabl e fo r suc h a lon g perio d o f time , that i t casts doubt o n th e professiona l judgmen t of th e Respondent , th e Respondent' s understandin g that airpor t fadlitie s mus

t b e kept i n a saf e serviceabl e conditio n an d whethe rth e Responden t had/ha s adopte d an d implemente d a suffidentl ydetaile d progra m of cydica l preventative maintenance as require d b yFA AOrde r 6190.6 a an d cite d b

yth e Director
. Further , th e T N DO

T wa s awar

e that equipmen t the yrecommended , an d whic h wa s installed , wa s non-fundiona l b

yvirtu e thei rapprova l of th e "emergenc yrequest ' fo rfunding
. Th e Complainants respec^ullysuggest that accountabilit yan d oversigh t i n thi s matte rdi d no t exist o ra t th e ver yleast wa s ineffedive
. I n hi s respons e th e Diredo rstate d that th e Diredo ri s concerne d that i t ma yhav e take n th e Responden t neari y6 0 day s t o conre d a n inoperative edg e lightin g fixture". Th e Complainant(s ) woul d assum e th e Diredo rwoul d likewis e b e concerne d tha t i t too k ove rtwo year s fo rth e Responden t t o repai ra n ai d t o navigation
. I f th e Diredo rbelieve s th e Responden t responde d t o thi s matte ri n a timelyfashion , exerdse d professiona l judgmen t an d believe s that i t wa s acceptabl e that equipmen t use d fo r visua l descen t guidance remai n ou t of servic e fo rove rtwo years , the n th e Diredor s Determinatio n shoul d stand
. Whil e th e Responden t ma ytechnicall yb e i n compliance today , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n shoul d b e ver yconcerne d abou t a dea rlac k o f urgenc yas i t relate s t o it s system s provide d t o improve flight safety
. Th e Complainant(s ) respedfull ysubmi t that th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n shoul d find th e Respondent' s failur e t o a d i n a timelymanne ra s unacceptabl e an d hol d th e Responden t accountabl e fo rthere lac k of urgency . I f th e Diredo rca n no t find th e Responden t i n violatio n o f th e Gran t Assurance s becaus e th e Responden t finallymad e th e unit s operationa l afte r mor e tha n two years , the n w e t)elieve d i t i s appropriat e that th e FA Aprovid e th e necessar

y oversigh t an d follow-u p a s necessar yt o ensur

e futur e compliance
. 2
. Failur e t o properi ymaintai n th e airport' s othe rliahtin a systems
. Whil e th e Par

t 1 3 an d Par

t 1 6 adion s are intende d t o b e a n expedite d process , thi s proces s ca n an d ha

s take n a n extende d amoun t of tim e t o provkj e a thoroug h reviewfo rth e t>enefit o f al l parties
. Th e Directo rexpresse d "A n additiona l concer n .. . pertain s t o th e Complainant' s infomna l resolutio n comments'.^ ^ "Th e Diredo rfinds that th e allegatio n o f inoperative edg e lightin g fixture s wa s not indude d i n an yinfomna l discussion s unde rth e informa l resolutio n process".^ ^ As note d i n th e Procedura l Histor yprovkle d b

yth e Diredor , thi s proces s bega n wit h a Par t 1 3 filing o n Marc h 22 , 200 8 b yComplainan t Keye s an d Ma y19,200 8 b

yComplainan t Ferrell
. Th e Par t 1 3 proces s wa s discontinue d b yComplainan t Fenrel l o n Jul y11 , 200 8 an d b y Complainan t Keye s o n Septembe r17 , 2008.^ ® W e believe th e Director' s concer n abou t th e exdusio n o f th e inoperative edg e lightin g i n th e Par t 1 3 process , whil e technicall yconred , i s unfounded
. O n Ma y22 , 2008 , th e Responden t FA ADirector s Detenninatio n - Decembe r18,2009 , Pag e 3 7 FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18,2009 , Pag e 3 7 FA ADirector s Detenninatio n - Decembe r18,2009 , Pag e 1 7committe d t o T N DO T t o implemen t fou rseparat e adio n item s which , i f implemente d b yth e Respondent , i n th e opinio n o f th e Complainant(s) , woul d hav e resulte d i n corredio n o f th e edg e lightin g defidency
. Furthe rth e Complainant(s ) fel t tha t i n fairnes s t o th e Respondent , th e Complainant(s ) shoul d provid e th e Responden t a reasonable amoun t o f tim e (si xt o eigh t weeks ) t o a d independently
. O n Jul y24,200 8 T N DO T notifie d Complainan t Keye s tha t "w e wil l tak e n o furthe rinfonna l adion s an d conside rth e complain t issu e 'in-active'.'^ ^ Whe n i t becam e dea rtha t th e Responden t wa s no t goin g t o repai rth e edg e lightin g units , th e origina l informa l proces s ha d becom e "in-adive"
. Whil e i t coul d b e argue d tha t a separat e Part 1 3 adio n coul d hav e bee n originate d fo rthi s ne wproblem , thi s failur e o n th e part o f th e Responden t wa s consisten t wit h pas t in-adio n an d therefor e i t seeme d mor e appropriate t o indud e thi s issu e i n th e Part 1 6 filing. A s corredl ystated , th e Responden t finallyrepaire d th e fixture(s ) afte rreceip t o f Complainan t Keye s Part 1 6 filing wit h th e FA A(Decembe r17,2008 ) an d befor e Januar y1 , 2009
. Th e Diredo rnote d tha t ther e i s n o evidenc e i n th e Record ' supportin g th e allegatio n tha t th e fixture s ha d bee n damage d sinc e th e sprin g o f 2008.^ ° I n th e February9,200 9 respons e provide d b yth e Responden t t o th e Offic e o f Chie f Council , th e Responden t state s tha t "FB O di d stat e tha t i t i s no t uncommo n fo rmowin g crew s t o pus h a runwa yo rtaxiwa yligh t ove ran d the yhav e t o b e straightened".^ ^ Whil e th e photograp h submitte d t o support th e Complainant(s ) allegatio n wa s electronicall ytagge d Novembe r6 , 200 8 an d submitte d a s such , i t seem s unlikel ytha t mowin g crew s wer e a t wori c i n Novembe r 2008
. B yth e Diredor s ow n admission , th e Diredo ri s conceme d tha t i t ma yhav e take n th e Responden t neari y6 0 day s t o corre d a n inoperativ e edg e lightin g fixture"^ " an d i f th e allegatio n tha t th e fixture s wer e damage d a s stipulate d b yth e Complainant , th e Diredo r woul d b e conceme d wit h th e Respondent' s maintenanc e program . W e respectfull ysugges t tha t th e Respondent s ow n admissio n support s th e contentio n tha t th e light s wer e damage d a t leas t durin g th e mowin g season , althoug h th e Complainant(s ) maintai n tha t th e edg e light s wer e displace d i n th e sprin g o f 2008
. Therefore , th e Complainant(s ) sugges t th e Diredo r shoul d b e conceme d abou t th e Respondent' s maintenanc e program . I t i s inconceivable , t o th e Complainant(s) , tha t th e Diredo rwoul d find that , becaus e th e "Responden t fixe d th e displace d lightin g fixtur e onc e mad e awar e throug h Keyes ' Part 1 6 Complaint' , month s afte rbein g displaced , th e Respondent' s adion s woul d b e "indicativ e o f a complian t attitude.*^

^ Give n that : • Complainan t Keye s stipulate d tha t th e lightin g proble m wa s notice d i n th e sprin g o f 200 8 whil e fiying i n th e evening s wit h a n un-name d fiight instrudor
. (Not e th e light s wer e mor e noticeabl e t)ecaus e Dayligh t Saving s Tim e di d no t retur n unti l Marc h 9 , 2008 ) • th e Respondent' s commitmen t t o conrediv e adion s t o T N DO T o n Ma y22 , 2008 ,

FA AExhibi t 1 , Ite m 12 , Exhibi t 3 4 FA ADirector s Detenninatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 7 FA AExhibi t 1 , Ite m 9 FA ADirector s Detenninatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 7 FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 7 FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 7• th e Respondent' s admissio n that "FB O di d stat e that i t i s not uncommo n fo rmowin g crews t o pus h a runwa

yo rtaxiwa

yligh t ove ran d the yhave t o b e straightened ' • th e photographi cevkjence of displace d lightin g fixtures o n Novembe r6 , 200 8 • th e Diredor s acceptance that "Complainan t Keye s admits
. Responden t fixed th e displace d lightin g fixture once mad e awar e throug h Keyes ' Par

t 1 6 Complaint ' whic h wa s submitte d o n Decembe r22 , 200 8 Th e Complainant(s ) suggest th e Diredo ri s i n erro ri n hi s assessmen t that thi s i s "indicative o f a complian t attitude"
. O n th e contrary , th e action s take n b yth e Responden t suggest thi s i s indicative of a n attitud e of "w e wil l fixit , i f caught'
. "Th e Diredo remphasize s i t i s intereste d i n curren t compliance a s wel l i n th e Respondent' s behavio ri n adoptin g a complian t posture.'^ ^ Th e Complainant(s ) respedfull ysubmi t that o n thi s issue , that , whil e th e Responden t i s technicall yi n compliance havin g correde d th e issu e afte rsevera l month s of failin g t o addres s th e deficiency , th e Respondent' s behavio rdeartyfail s t o meet th e requirements of meetin g a complian t posture
. Shoul d th e Diredo rb e unabl e t o find th e Responden t i n violatio n o f Gran t Assurance 1 9 becaus e o f "curren t compliance ' the n th e Complainant(s ) believe i t i s incumben t upo n th e FA At o deman d th e Responden t provid e a detaile d writte n conredive adio n pla n t o th e FAA , whic h whe n approve d b

yth e FAA , wil l b e publid yposte d a t th e McMin n Count

yairpor t ensurin g al l user

s are awar

e th e Responden t must : • ensur e th e airpor

t i s inspede d o n a regulari yschedule d basis , acceptabl e t o th e FAA , an d • th e Responden t wil l ensur e that al l equipmen t defidende s wil l b e addresse d an d repaire d i n a publishe d timeframe acceptabl e t o th e FAA
. Th e Complainant(s ) woul d recommend tha t th e oversigh t an d follow-u p o f thes e issue s woul d b e bette rmanage d an d oversee n b yth e Memphi s Airport s Distri d Office
. 3
. Failure t o propert

ynotif yairme n "of an yconditio n affedin o aeronautica l us e o f th e airport " (NOTAM ) Th e Diredo rstate s "Base d o n th e evidence submitte d t o th e record , th e Diredo rcannot determin e i f NOTAM s fo rth e PAP I o ran yothe raeronautica l service s o rrepair s wer e issue d i n a timelymanner."^

^ A s stipulate d i n Issu e 3 , Ite m 1 afc>ove , th e aforementione d PAP I equipmen t becam e inoperative shortl yafte rth e airpor t reopene d i n Decembe r2005
. Th e Responden t acknowledge d a t a regulart

yschedule d Count

yCommissio n meetin g i n Octobe r2007 , tha t h e was awar e o f th e PAP I proble m a

t th e airpor

t an d upo n request o f Complainan t Keye s had a NOTA M issue d th e followin g day
. Complainan t Keye s verifie d th e lac k of a NOTA M prio rt o th e Count yCommissio n meetin g an d th e existence of th e NOTA M wit h Fligh t Service a

t th e en d of th e da

yfollowin g th e meeting
. As I a m sur

e th e Diredo ri s aware , most NOTAM s ar e delivere d verisall ya

s a par t of th e Standar d Briefin g process . Specificall yFA R 91.10 3 mandate s that "eac h pilot i n comman d shall , t>efor

e beginnin g a flight, t)ecom e familia rwit h al l availabl e informatio n concernin g that flight." NOTAM S provkJ e som e o f th e most critica l infonnatio n a pilot migh t nee d whic h i s wh y
FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18,2009 , Pag e 3 7 FA ADirector s Detenninatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 7 & 3 8the yar e par t of th e Standar

d Briefin g process . A s thi s infonnatio n i s communicate d verbally , i t i s rar e that user

s woul d hav

e receive d o rmaintaine d a physica l cop yo f thi s information
. FA AOrde rJ O 7930.2 M Notice s t o Airme n (Septembe r25 , 2008 ) howeve rrequire s th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n t o maintai n NOTA M logs
. Whil e thes e ar e apparentl yno

t availabl e t o th e pilot community , the ysurel ywoul d b e availabl e t o th e Diredor
. Areview o f thes e log s wil l mor

e tha n substantiat e th e Complainant(s ) assertion s wit h regar d t o th e absence o f issue d NOTAM S durin g th e time frame s discussed
. Upo n receip t of th e Diredor' s response, Complainan t Keye s wa s abl e t o find a fewexample s o f NOTAM s printe d fro m th e FA A Websit e i n pas

t fiight plannin g information
. Copie s of thos e documents ar

e submitte d an d appea rt o substantiat e tha t NOTAM s were activ e fo rth e McMin n Count

yAirpor t o n Decembe r19,200 5 [Attachmen t 1] , August 16 , 200 6 [Attachmen t 2 ] an d August 23 , 200 6 [Attachmen t 3 ] indicatin g a dose d portio n of th e runwa yresultin g fro m th e lin e of sigh t issue , bu t mak e n o mentio n abou t PAP I equipmen t bein g ou t of service
. I t shoul d b e note d tha t durin g th e repairphas e o f th e runway , Loca l NOTAM s wer e routinel y requeste d t o ensur

e thos e notation s were include d i n th e briefing
. Th e Responden t explidti ystipulate d that NOTAM s had bee n issue d durin g al l repairs
. Thi s statemen t ma

yb e tru e sinc e repairs wer e complete d afte rOctobe r200 7 followin g a reques t fro m Complainan t Keye s t o issu e a NOTA M a t th e Count

yCommissio n Meeting
. Whil e there i s als o n o evidence o f support , th e Complainant(s ) believe i t i s reasonable t o assum e tha t th e NOTA M that was issue d i n Octobe r200 7 woul d have remained i n effe d unti l th e unit s wer e mad e operationa l som e time i n th e future
. Wrt h regar

d t o "allegation s that th e Responden t 'offer s n o corrediv e adion s t o ensur e prope r oversight, ' th e Directo rpoint s t o th e Respondent' s citatio n o f Sectio n 3 (c ) 7. 0 of Volum e I I of th e Airpor t Managemen t Guide
. Issuin g NOTAMs
. whic h i t provide d t o it s managin g FBO"^ ^ as a n indicatio n o f corrective adio n taken
. Th e Responden t i n hi s Februar y9 , 200 9 response t o th e FA AOffic e of Chief Cound l als o state d that th e above documen t wa s issue d t o ensur e a prope rNOTA M i s issue d whe n condition s affec t aeronautica l us e o f th e airport'
. ^ Th e Diredor s citatio n of corrediv e adio n take n above woul d hardl ysee m appropriat e give n th e fa d tha t th e airpor

t owner , th e Respondent , shoul d hav e had thi s documentatio n i n thei r possessio n wel l befor

e Februar y9 , 2009 , i f i t was deeme d necessar yt o properi yissu e NOTAM s i n th e time perio d prio rt o Februar y2009
. Give n that th e airpor t manager , contrade d b

yth e Respondent , i s a FA Acertifie d fiight instrudor , flying regulariyfo ra majo r airiine , i t seem s doubffu l tha t lac k of th e Airpor

t Managemen t Guide
. Issuin g NOTAMs
. woul d have.hampere d th e airpor t manager' s abilityt o issue s NOTAM s wit h th e assistance o f Fligh t Service
. Th e Complainant(s ) leave i t t o th e judgmen t o f th e Diredo rwhethe rabsence o f th e Airpor t Managemen t Guid e was a contributin g fado ri n th e Respondents failur e t o issu e th e require d NOTAMs
. Assumin g tha t th e corrediv e action , agree d t o b yth e Responden t o n Februar y9 , 2009 , wa s implemente d shortl yafte rth e Respondent' s commitinent , i t i s difficul t t o explai n ho w th e FA A NOTA M syste m an d Fligh t Service are providin g NOTA M informatio n toda yincorredl y refledin g th e curren t statu s o f th e McMin n Count yAirport
. I hop e th e Diredo rca n appreciat e that th e Complainant(s ) d o not use th e McMin n Count y airpor t o n a dail ytiasis
. Howeve ri n Jul yo f thi s yea rth e PAP I fo rrunwa y2 0 wa s agai n nonfundional
. A

t least 3 0 day

s passe d t)efor

e a NOTA M wa s issue d i n Septemt>e rindicatin g it' s ou t of servic e status
. I t i s unknow n whethe rth e uni t wa s repaire d o rjus t starte d worthin g again , becaus e o n Septembe r22 , 200 9 th e uni t was operational
. A s fa ras th e Complainant(s ) hav

e bee n abl e t o detennine , th e uni t ha s bee n functiona l o n eac h flight sinc e 2 5 FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 4then , wher e runwa y2 0 ha s b e used
. Whe n Fligh t Servk^ e has bee n contade d durin g thi s perio d the yhav

e consistentl yreported MM I PAP I 2 0 OTS
. Th e Complainant(s ) submi t th e followin g t o corroborat e thei rstatements
.
• Attachmen t 4 - Decembe r25 , 200 9 printou t fro m th e FA ANOTA M websit e fo r documentatio n th e ou t of servic e notatio n of PAP I 20
. • Attachmen t 5 - Digitall ytime stampe d photograp h date d Decemtte r26 , 200 9 showin g th e woritin g statu s o f PAP I 20
. • Attachmen t 6 - Decembe r30 , 200 9 printou t fro m th e FA ANOTA M websit e fo r documentatio n th e ou t of servic e notatio n of PAP I 20
. • Attachmen t 7 - Januar y8 , 201 0 printou t firo m th e FA ANOTA M websit e fo r documentatio n th e ou t o

f servic e notatio n of PAP I 20
. • Attachmen t 8 - Digitall ytime stampe d photograp h date d Januar y8 , 201 0 showin g PAP I 2 0 i s operational
. • Attachmen t 9 - Januar y9 , 201 0 printou t fro m th e FA ANOTA M websit e fo r documentatio n th e ou t o

f servic e notatio n o

f PAP I 20
. Eithe rth e Responden t doe s not kno wabou t thi s issu e havin g once agai n faile d t o self inspe d th e fadlit yand/o rth e Responden t has faile d t o raise th e expedation s o f hi s airpor t managemen t t o ensur

e thes e issue s ar

e deal t wit h i n a timelymanner . Th e Complainant(s ) have n o doubt that th e Responden t wil l corre d thi s defidencyupo n receipt of thi s document
. Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n stresse s th e us e an d relianc e of NOTAM s t o al l pilots
. Th e Airman' s Informatio n Manua l puts i t ver ysuccindly : 5-1-3
. Notice t o Airme n (NOTAM ) Syste m a . Time-critica l aeronautica l informatio n whic h i s of eithe ra temporar ynatur e o rno t suffidentl yknow n i n advance t o permi t publicatio n o n aeronautica l charts o ri n othe r operationa l publication s receive s immediat e disseminatio n vi a th e Nationa l NOTA M System
. NOTE 1
. NOTA M informatio n i s that aeronautica l infonnatio n that coul d affe d a pilot' s decisio n t o mak e a fiight. I t indude s suc h informatio n as airpor t o raerodrom e primar

yrunwa y closures , taxiways , ramps , obstrudions , communications , airspace , change s i n th e statu s of navigationa l aids , ILS's , rada rservic e availability , an d othe rinformatio n essentia l t o planne d e n route , tenninal , o rlandin g operations
. Pilot s presum e that th e infonnatio n provide d wil l b e corred
. Th e Complainant(s ) respedfull ysubmi t that : a) Th e Responden t wa s i n violatio n of Gran t Assurance 1 9 o n th e dat e th e Diredors Determinatio n was rendered b) Th e Responden t i s currentl yi n violatio n of Gran t Assurance 1 9 c ) Th e conredive adio n dte d b yth e Diredo ran d th e Responden t faile d t o redifyth e ongoin g issu e t o properi ynotif yairme n 'o f an yconditio n affectin g aeronautica l use o f th e airport ' d ) Th e responden t faile d t o provkl e it s airpor t managemen t appropriat e guidance fo r complyin g wit h th e issuance o f NOTAM s i n th e future
. e ) Th e Responden t faile d t o recognize th e protriem , indicatin g self-inspedio n of th e airpor t i s ineffective o rnon-existent
.Th e Complainant(s ) respectfull yrequest that th e Diredo rfind th e Responden t i n violatio n o f

Gran t Assurance 1 9 an d we stan d b you rcontentio n that th e Responden t has faile d t o implemen t th e necessar

ycorrediv e adion s t o ensur e prope roversigh t o f th e airpor t resultin g i n th e failur e t o sel f inspe d th e airpor t an d properi yissu e NOTAM s as require d b ycurren t Federa l Aviatio n Regulations
. Issu e #4 ; Whethe rth e Respondent' s failure t o respon d t o allegatio n o f threat s an d

vandalis m a s wel l a s allege d instaruje s o f denia l o f servic e constitut e violatio n o f Gran t Assurance 19 , Operatio n an d Maintenance and/o ra violatio n o f Gran t Assurance 22 , Economi cNondiscrimination ? a) Allegation s of Threat s an d Vandalis m Th e Complainant(s ) ar

e satisfie d wit h th e judgmen t of th e Diredo ri n thes e matters
. Futur e events , shoul d the yoccur , wil l b e immediatel ydirede d t o th e appropriat e la wenforcemen t agenc

yfo rresolution. Th e proces s o f attemptin g t o resolve thes e issue s wit h Count yManagemen t o n a n informa l basi s i s discontinued
. b) Allegation s of Denia l of Service Th e Complainant(s ) respectfullydisagre e wit h th e Diredor' s assessmen t that "allegation s involve privat e citizens , no t airpor t o rcount ymanagement. ' Th e FBO , contrade d b

yMcMin n County , represents th e Responden t i n airpor t matters
. Give n th e Responden t has delegate d it s authorit yt o th e airpor

t managemen t i n suc h matter s as safety , issuance o f NOTAM s an d othe rrelated matters , th e complainant(s ) believe th e Responden t shoul d b e hel d accountabl e fo radion s take n b

yit' s airpor

t management
. Th e Diredo rhas foun d that th e Compiainant(s ) di d no t provid e suffiden t evidence t o suppor

t thei rdaim s an d thi s matte ri s no t contested
. Issu e #5 : Whethe rth e Respondent' s allege d failure t o ttette rregulat e it s FBO/Managemen t

contracto ran d th e discriminator yact s allege d perpetrate d b yth e FBO , constitut e a violatio n o f Gran t Assurance 22 , Economi cNondiscrimination ; an d whethe rth e Respondent' s allege d abdicatio n o f it s rights an d authorit yt o th e FB O an d othe r constitut e a violatio n o f Gran t Assuranc e 5 ? a) Hanga rWaitin g List Th e Diredo rindicate s that th e Complainant(s ) have no t submitte d an yevidence t o th e records provin g Keyes ' placemen t o n th e lis t wa s a n intentiona l a d o f discrimination'
. W e woul d respecffullysuggest review o f th e Jul y16 , 200 7 documen t submitte d b

yKeyes
. Othe rtha n notation s referre d t o i n th e document , th e onl yphysica l evkJenc e whic h woul d hav

e existed , woul d have bee n th e origina l lis t whic h th e Responden t wa s require d t o maintai n an d whic h inexplidti y wa s misplace d eve n thoug h th e Responden t stipulate d o n numerou s occasion s h e wa s i n possessio n of th e lis t befor e managemen t o

f th e airpor

t changed
. I t i s als o puzzling , that wit h al l of th e confusio n ove rth e hanga rlis t t o whic h th eResponden t admits , tha t whe n confronte d wit h a mistak e i n th e ranking, wh yth e airpor t manage rwoul d knowingl yoffe rhangar s ou t of th e corre d order
. Whil e th e complainant(s ) ar e prepare d t o offe radditiona l documentation , give n th e Diredor' s finding i n Bist i Aviation
. Inc
. v . Cit yof Farminoton
. Ne

wMexico
. FA ADocket No
. 16-07-0 1 (Diredor' s Detenninatio n issue d Decembe r4,2007) , th e Diredo rhelp , "77i e successfu l actio n b yth e airpor t owne ro rsponso rt o cure a pas t violatio n i s gvund s fo rdismissa l o f tha t allegatio n an d th e Diredor' s finding that "as a result , there i s n o issu e o f curren t compliance'^ ® i t seem s clea r tha t th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n i s not conceme d wit h whethe rth e allege d discriminatio n occurre d o rno t becaus e i t i s a pas

t violation
. a) Airpor

t Managemen t Upo n Reviewof th e informatio n submitted , th e Diredo ri s satisfie d wit h th e perfomnanc

e of th e Responden t an d it s Airpor t Manage rtherefore th e Complainant(s ) d o no

t challeng e thi s finding. Summar y As member

s o f th e flying communit

yth e Complainant(s ) fee l a n obligatio n t o brin g issue s of publi can d pilo t safety , as wel l as allege d discrimination , t o th e attentio n of th e appropriat e governmenta l authorities
. W e fel t i t importan t t o exhaust th e appropriat e administrative remedie s availabl e t o u s i n a n effor t t o ensur e th e conredio n of th e defidende s note d throughou t th e documentatio n provkled
. Th e Diredo rha

s alread ycite d i n hi s Detennination , concern s wit h th e Respondent' s maintenance progra m an d sel f inspedio n o f th e airport
. Th e Diredo rfurthe rcite d correctiv e actio n take n b yth e Responden t b

yprovidin g th e airpor

t manage ra copyo f th e Airpor t Managemen t Guide
. Issuin g NOTAM s t o ensur e a prope rNOTA M i s issue d whe n condition s affec t aeronautica l us e of th e airport'^ ' as state d b yth e Respondent
. An d yet , o n th e dat e thi s Diredor s Determinatio n wa s issued , th e Responden t wa s deartyi n violatio n o

f th e Gran t Assurances , failin g t o hav e curren t NOTAM s refle d th e corre d statu s of th e ver yequipmen t i t too k

th e Responden t mor

e tha n tw o year

s t o corred
. B yth e Respondent' s ow n admission , an d as note d b yth e Diredor , th e Responden t ha s bee n i n violatio n of Gran t Assurance s i n th e past , althoug h mos t hav e bee n conreded
. Whil e th e Responden t i s currentl yi n violatio n o f th e Gran t Assurances , th e defidencywil l n o doubt ti e correde d upo n receipt of thi s document
. Give n th e failure of th e corrediv e adio n take n t o date , there i s litU e reason t o doubt that th e Responden t wil l b e i n violatio n i n th e future
. W e agai n respectfullysubmit , th e evidence submitte d casts doubt o n th e professiona l judgmen t of th e Respondent , th e Respondent' s understanding , that airpor t fadlitie s mus

t b e kept i n a saf e serviceabl e conditio n an d whethe rth e Responden t had/ha s adopte d an d implemente d a suffidentl ydetaile d progra m of cydica l preventative maintenance as require d b yFA AOrde r 6190.6 a an d cite d b

yth e Diredor
. Regrettably , base d o n th e previou s findings site d b yth e Diredo rspecifically : [Roadhous e Aviatio n v . Cit yo f Tuls a Airpor

t Improvemen t Trust , FA

A Docket No
. 16-05 - 0 8 (Diredor s Detenninatio n issue d Decembe r14 , 2006)]^ ° an d

^ ^ FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18,2009 , Pag e 4 9 ^ ^ FA ADirector s Detenninatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 4 ^ FA ADirector s Detenninatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 2 8 

### 1 0[Goodric h Pilot Trainin g Center , LL C v . Villag e of Endicott , Ne wYorit , FA

ADocke t No
. 6 - 08-0 3 (Diredor' s Detenninatio n issue d April3 , 2009)]^ ® Th e Complainant(s ) recogniz e that i t i s unlikel ythat th e Par t 1 6 proces s wil l brin g th e accountabilit

yan d chang e necessar

yt o inhit>i t future reoccurrence s an d failure s o n th e par t of th e Respondent
. A s stipulate d i n th e above rulings , th e Diredo rhas foun d th e Par t 1 6 proces s i s intende d t o allowth e FA

A t o corre d curren t non-compliance an d doe s not penaliz e th e sponsor s fo rpas t compliance violations
. Althoug h [Lanie rAviatio n LLC v . Cit yo f Gainesville , Georgia ; Gainesvill e Airpor

t Authority , FA

ADocket No
. 16-05-0 5 (Diredor s Detenninatio n issue d Novembe r25,2005)] ^

doe s suggest that th e FA Ai n intereste d i n th e Respondent' s behavio ri n adoptin g a complian t posture'^ ^ Whil e th e Diredor' s Detenninatio n reference d th e pursui t of a 4 9 CF R 18.43 Enforcemen t Adion , th e complainant(s ) believe i t i s appropriat e t o finalize th e existin g Par t 1 6 proces s providin g th e FA Ath e opportunit

yt o identif

yan d implemen t th e required corredio n adion s necessar yt o resolve th e Respondents on-goin g failure s dte d b yth e Diredo ran d th e Complainant(s)
. Howeve rth e Complainant(s ) reserve th e right t o pursu e th e 4 9 CF R 18.43 Enforcemen t Adion , a t a future date , shoul d i t becom e necessary . Th e Complainant(s ) ar

e satisfie d that the yhav

e me t th e requiremen t of du e diligence , bringin g thes e issue s t o eac h of th e governmenta l authoritie s involve d fo rresolution , an d w e leave i t t o thos e authoritie s t o detennin e i f th e behavior s an d repeated failure s documente d i n th e Par t 1 3 an d Par t 1 6 processe s ar

e acceptable
. Th e Complainant(s ) wis h t o acknowledg e an d than k th e Diredo ran d hi s staf

f fo rth e time an d effor t whic h was deart ypu t int o th e Diredor' s Detennination
. W e are hopefu l tha t thi s effor t wil l resul t i n adionabl e item s an d Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n follow-up , whic h wil l resul t i n improve d publi can d pilot safet ya t th e McMin n Count

yairport
. Respedfully ,
DeWit t T
. Ferrel l

Willia m H
. Keye s

2 9 FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 2 8 3 0 FA ADirector s Determinatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 7 ^ ' FA ADirector s Detenninatio n - Decembe r18 , 2009 , Pag e 3 7 

### 1 1Attachments : 1 - FA AWebsite , NOTAM s fo rMM I - Decembe r19 , 200 6 2 - FA AWebsite , NOTAM s fo rMM I - Augus t 16 , 200 6 3 - FA AWebsite , NOTAM s fo rMM I - Augus t 23 , 200 6 4 - FA AWebsite , NOTAM s fo rMM I - Decembe r25,200 9 5 - Digitall ytim e stampe d photograp h date d Decembe r28 , 200 9 6 - FA AWebsite , NOTAM s fo rMM I - Decembe r30 , 200 9 7 - FA AWebsite , NOTAM s fo rMM I - Decembe r25,200 9 8 - Digitall ytim e stampe d photograp h date d Decembe r28,200 9 9 - FA AWebsite , NOTAM s fo rMM I - Decembe r30,200 9



### 1 2Certificat e o f Servic e

I hereb ycertif ytha t I hav

e thi s da yserve d th e foregoin g Respons e t o th e Diredor s Determinatio n o n th e followin g person s at th e followin g addresse s b yUnite d State s mai l (firs t dass , postag e paid ) o rCertifie d Mail : Mr
. Joh n Gentry , Count

yMayo r McMin n Count

yCourthous e 6 Eas t Madiso n Av e Athens , T N 3730 3 Mr
. Davk l Crews , Chairma n McMin n Count yCommissio n Chairma n McMin n Count yAirpor t Committe e McMin n Count

yCourthous e 6 Eas t Madiso n Av e Athens , T N 3730 3 FA APar t 1 6 Proceeding s Docket ( 3 Copies ) Attn : FA APar t 1 6 Airpor

t Proceeding s Docket Re : Docket 16-08-1 2 FA AOffice of Airports , Compliance an d Fiel d Operations , ACO-10 0 Attn : Randal l S
. Fiertz , Diredor , Office of Airpor t Compliance
Date d thi s da

yof 1 1 Januar

y2010
. ,^<^/ ^ WillianTH
. Key€

s



### 1 3•Untitled Attachmen t 1 Pag e 1 o f 2 Displa ySelecte d NOTAM s Rese t Curren t NOTAM s (a s o f 1 9 DEC 22:2 0 GMT ) Th e followin g i s alis t

o f NOTAM s withi n a5N M radiu s o f MMI . MM I MnvtlN N COTJNTY D !BN A12/07 4 MM I 2/2 0 N65 0 CLS D D !BN A11/20 4 MM I 2/2 0 RWYLGT S OT S

ZT LATLANT A ARTCCs/UIRs/FIR s

D !rD C 5/995 2 2T L CANCELLE D B Y FD C 5/005 9 O N10/28/0 5 23:3 7

n !FD C 5/976 7 ZT L CANCELLE D B Y FD C 5/977 5 O N10/25/0 5 19:1 1

n !FD C 5/965 1 ZT L CANCELLE D B Y FD C 5/009 1 O N10/30/0 5 15:3 2 D !FD C 5/960 9 ZT L SC . FI/ T AIRWA Y ZTL . V60 5 SPARTANBUR G (SPA ) VORTAC , S O T O GENO D INT ME A 15000 .
n !FD C 5/960 7 ZT L SC. . FI/ T AIRWA Y ZTL . V5 4 SPARTANBUR G (SPA ) VORTAC , S C T O BRYD E INT ME A 15000 .
n !FD C 5/958 8 ZT L CANCELLE D B Y FD C 5/970 T O N10/23/0 5 11:0 3

n !FD C 5/757 3 ZT L FI/ T AIRWA Y ZT L ZJ X J8 9 ICBO D 15 0 DM E FIX , DM E UNUSABLE . J8 9 RESP E 12 0 DM E FIX , DM E UNUSABLE . J9 1 JOHNN13 0 DM E FIX , DM E UNUSABLE . D !FD C 5/119 0 ZT L CANCELLE D B Y FD C 5/158 0 O N12/14/0 5 17:0 7 D !FD C 5/112 9 ZT L CANCELLE D B Y FD C 5/118 9 O N12/05/0 5 20:0 7 D !FD C 5/063 5 ZT L CANCELLE D B Y FD C 5/064 7 O N11/15/0 5 19:1 8

n !FD C 5/052 8 ZT L CANCELLE D B Y FD C 5/055 4 O N11/10/0 5 20:0 2
D !FD C 5/031 4 ZT L GA. . FI/ T AIRWA Y ZT L V5 6 MACO N(MCN ) VORTAC , G AT O PRATZ , GA , NAEXCEP T FOR IF R GP S EQUIPPE D AIRCRAFT . REASON : FLIGH T CHEC K RESULTS . D !FD C 5/029 2 ZT L FI/ T AIRWA Y ZT L ZJ X V41 7 ALLENDAL E (ALD ) VOR , S C T O COLLIER S (IRQ ) VORTAC , S C ME A3000 .
n !FD C S/026 6 ZT L AL. . FLIGH T RESTRICTION S ANNISTON , AL . EFFECTIV E 1245-210 0 UT C MON-THU FRO M 0511071245-060116210 0 UTC . PURSUAN T T O 1 4 CF R SECTIO N91.137(A)(3) , TEMPORAR Y FLIGH T https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/geo/geoQuery.html 12/19/200 5Selecte dNotam s

Th e followin g NOTA M lis t wa s selecte db y th e use r rro mapreviou s request . Thi s lis t ma y no t reflec t al l activ e NOTi^JVf

s fo r an y o f th e bdo w locations
. DataCurrent

a s of : 1 6 AU G13:4 7 GM T MM I MCMIN N COUNT Y !BN A 08/20 3 MM I 2/2 0 N 345 0 CLS D WEF060816120 0 [BuckjoTop J

t:iim!^-- r o f noTAf-1 s selected : 1 En do f Repoi.'
.

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/distribution/printQuery.html 8/16/200 6Unite dState s NOTAM Offic e Attachmen t 3 Pag e 1 o f 1 Selecte dNotam s Th e followin g NOTA M lis t wa s selecte db y th e use r fro mapreviou s request . Thi s lis t ma y no t reflec t al l activ e NOTAM s fo r

an y o f th e belo w locations
. DataCurrent

a s of : 2 4 AU G00:0 9 GM T M M I MCMIN N COUNT Y [Bac k t o Top i !BN A 08/29 4 MM I 2/2 0 TOD A 300 0 LD A 300 0 !BN A 08/26 9 MM I 2/2 0 N 1700 CLS D !BN A 08/21 4 MM I TOWER144 3 (33 5 AGL ) 6. 8 N WLOT S OT S (AS R1032027 ) TI L060901123 0 !BN A 08/18 1 MM I TOWERUNK N (20 5 AGL ) 2. 8 N E LOT S OT S TI L060828173 7 !BN A 08/17 7 MM I TOWE R105 4 (20 4 AGL ) 5. 2 SS E LOT S OT S (AS R1226271 ) TIL060827211 0 lluiii'ei : c-.

f tlOTAl-L s .-.elected : 5 En do £Repor t

http s ://pilotwe

b .nas.faa.gov/distribution/printQuer y .htm l 8/23/200 6PilotWeb NOTAM System Attachmen t 4 Pag e 1 o f I

PilotWe b Hom e 

# i Safet yCente rRadiu s & Fligh t rtort h Atlanti cPacifi cRVS M NOTAM s NOTAM s Pat h Searc h Trade s Track s Notice s Abou t PilotWe b

Selecte d Notam s
Th e follawin g NOTAM lis t wa s selecte d b y th e use rfro m a previou s reques t Thi s le t ma y no t reflect al l activ e NOTAM s fo ran y o f th e belo w locations
. Data Curren t a s of : 2 5 DE C 19:0 6 GM T MM I MCMIN N COUNT Y /B«ktoTop ; SN A OMNW MM I RW Y 2 0 PAP I OT S Numbe r

o f NOTAM s selected : 1 E.n do f Repor t USA.ga v| Privac yPolic y| We b Policie s & Notice s | Sit e Ma p { Contac t FA A| Frequentl yAske d Question s | Form s U.S
. Departmen t o f Transportatio n llFedera l Aviatio n Administratio n ISOO Indepandanc e Avanua , S W 'Washington , O

C 2059 1 "l-866-TELL-FA A (1-866-835-5322 ) Reader s a Viewers : PD F Reade r! M S Wor d Viewe ri M S PowerPoin t Viewe ri M S Exce l Viewe ri Zi p

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/distribution/printQuery.html 12/25/200 9' PilotWehNOTA M Syste m Attachmen t 6 Pag e 1 o f 1

PilotWe b Hom e Abou t PilotWe b

i " •*?!-*.•)*?*** '

, . Safet y * 1 NOTAM s i Cente r NOTAM s Radiu s & Fligh t

Pat h Searc h Nort h Atlanti c Track s i^^^St^^ > Pacifi c Track s RVS M

Notice s Bac k Selecte d Notam s Th e fbikjwtn g NOTAM lis t wa s selecte d b yth e use rfro m a previou s reques t Thi s lis t ma yno t reflect a

H activ e NOTAM s fo ran yo f th e belo wk>cations
. Data Curren t a s of : 3 0 DE C 16:4 5 GM T MM I MCMIN N COUNT Y Pack to Tor f !BN A12/41 7 MM I RW

Y 2/2 0 RW

Y LGT S PC L OT S ME D INTS T CON T IBN A09/00 8 MM I RW

Y 2 0 PAP I OT S Numbe r o f NOTAM s selected : 2 En do f Repor t USA.go vI Privac yPolic y{ We b Polkie s & Notice s | Sit * Ma p | Contac t FA A{ Frequentl yAske d Question s | Form s

U.S
. Departmen t o f Transportatio n [iFedara l Aviatio n Administratio n ' BO O Indepandanc e Avanua , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 1-866-TEa-FA A (1-866-835-5322 ) Reader s & Viewers : PD F Reade r| M S Wor d Viewe ri M S PowerPoin t Viewe ri M S Exce l Viewe ri Zi p

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/distribution/printQueTy.html 12/30/200 9PilotWe b NOTA M Syste m Attachmen t 7 Pag e 1 o f 1

PikitWe b Hom e Abou t PilotWe b

Nort h Atlanti c Track s Pacifi c

Trade s RVS M

Notice s
Selecte d Notam s Th e followin g NOTAM lis t wa s selecte d b yth e use rfro m a previou s reques t Thi s lis t ma yno t reflect al l activ e NOTAM s fo ran yo f th e belo wlocations
. Dat a Curren t a s of : 0 9 JA N 18:4 5 GM T MM I MCMIN N COrofT Y iBac k to Top J !BN A12/41 7 MM I RW

Y 2/2 0 RW

Y LGT S PC L OT S ME D INTS T CON T IBN A09/00 8 MM I RW T 2 0 PAP I OT S Numbe r o f NOTAM s selected : 2 En d o f Repor t

USA.go v! Privac yPolic y| We b Policie s & Notne s | Sit e Ma p | Contac t FA A| Frequentl yAske d Question s | Form s

U.S
. Dapartman t o f Transportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avanua , S W FVWashington , D C 2059 1 1-866-TEU.-FA

A (1-866-835-5322 ) Reader s &VieweiB : PD F Reade rI M S Wor d Viewe ri M S PowerPoin t Viewe r| M S Exce l Viewe r| Zi p

https://pilotwd).nas.faa.gov/distribuli<Mi/printQuay.html 1/9/201 0PilotWd ) NOTA M Syste m Attachmen t 9 Pag e 1 o f 1

PikrtWe b Hom e Abou t PilotWe b -feis-^SW^*

^ Nort h Atlanti c Trade s Pacifi c

Track s RVS M

Notice s
Selecte d Notam s
Th e fbikMvin g NOTA M lis t wa s selecte d b yth e use rfro m a prevkni s reques t Thi s lis t ma yno t reflec t al l activ e NOTAM s fo ran yo f th e t>elo w locations
. Dat a Curren t a s of : 1 0 JA N 22:3 1 GM T MM I MCMIN N COUNT Y /B* * to Top / IBN A 12/41 7 MM I RW Y 2/2 0 RW Y LGT S PC L OT S ME D INTS T CON T IBNAOttDO S MM I RW Y 2 0 PAP i OT S Numbe r o f NOTAM s selected : 2 En do f Repor t USA.go vI Privac yPolic y| We b Polkie s a Notk» s | Sit e Ma p | Contac t FA A| Frequentl yAske d Questkin s | Form s

U.S
. Dapartmen t o f Transportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S W Washington , D C 2059 1 1-866-TEa-FA A (1-866-835-5322 ) Reader s & Viewers : PD F Reade r| M S Wor d Viewe ri M S PowerPoin t Viewe r\ M S Exce l Viewe r| Zi p

https://pilotweb.nas.faa.gov/distribulion/printQueiy.html 1/10/201 0

• • - -