U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 

OCT 0 7 2015 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Robert G. Eastman 

Eastman & Associates, LLC 

P.O. Box 180 

Charleston, SC 29402 

David Y. Barmard, Esq. 

Foley and Lardner LLP 

Ill Huntington Avenue 

Boston, MA 02199 

Dear Messrs. Eastman and Bannard: 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina, FAA 

DocketNo. 16-14-05 

Enclosed is a copy of the determination of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with respect 

to the above-referenced matter finding the Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina, 

not in violation of Grant Assurance 22 Economic Nondiscrimination. However, unless immediate 

steps are taken to address skydiving safety at the Grand Strand Airport (CRE), the County will be 

considered to be in violation of Grant Assurance 19 Operation and Maintenance. The reasons for 

the finding of compliance are set forth in the enclosed Director's Determination. 

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

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

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

for Airports pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.33( c) within 30 days after the service of the Director's 

Determination. 

Sincerely, 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Enclosure 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 7 , 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States 

mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the FAA's Director's Determination for FAA 

Docket No. 16-14-05 addressed to addressed to: 

For Complainant 

Robert G. Eastman 

Eastman & Associates, LLC 

P.O. Box 180 

Charleston, SC 29402 

For Respondent 

David Y. Bannard, Esq. 

Jeffrey R. Blease, Esq. 

Jaclyn V. Pilch, Esq. 

Foley and Lardner LLP 

111 Huntington A venue 

Boston, MA 02199 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-1 00 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 
U<S, Department 

of l'runsportallon 

Fedlim:!l Avlmlon 

Admlnmrooon 

for Aiqxms pursuam to 14 

Sincerely. 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 

07 

Bannard: 

County Department 

the Dit·,,c:tor• 

initial determination to the FAA As:;ociate 

within 30 the ser·vH:e 
r:n·rntv that 6!1 201 l cau.sed 

po:;ta1~e paid) a true copy ofthe 

adclresscd to adclressed to: 

! 6 Airpmt Prt•Ce,xliJ:lgs 

Airport Compliance Manag;ementt~nat v'"· !00 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc., 

Complainant, 

v. 

Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina 

Respondent. 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-05 

DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. (Complainant/SDMB) brings this complaint pursuant to 14 CFR Part 161 against 

Horry County Department of Airports (County/Respondent/HCDA), the owner, and operator of the Grand 

Strand Airport (CRE/Airport), South Carolina.2 The complaint makes several allegations, all of which are 

addressed by the Director under Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. In addition, because the 

allegations involve the safe operation ofthe Airport and related actions by the airport sponsor, Grant 

Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance is also considered.3 

The Complainant, a skydiving operator, states that the County's actions, including attempts to restrict the 

landing area (Drop Zone or DZ) and reporting violations as 'safety concerns,' are unreasonably restrictive 

and discriminatory as applied to an FAA-recognized aeronautical activity- skydiving4 

The Complainant characterizes these actions by the County as "spurious enforcement mechanisms that 

greatly exceed FAA regulations and guidance," and adds that the County "has utilized all the powers of 

government to remove SDMB from CRE in a discriminatory and illegal manner that is contrary to federal 

and state law."5 SDMB also alleges that several actions by the County are unreasonable and unjustly 

discriminatory, and contends that the County's actions constitute "harassment."6 

In response, the County denies that its actions are contrary to its federal obligations and argues, instead, that 

they are consistent with said obligations.7 The County affirms that "SDMB currently uses CRE as a base of 

operations for its skydiving business, and ... uses a designated [DZ]Iocated on airport property," but after its 

use permit "for use of Hangar 7 ... expired on January 31, 2014, SDMB has ... refused to enter into a valid 

1 Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations {14 CFR) are the rules, regulations, and guidelines established by the FAA to govern the operation of aircraft, airways, 

airmen, and the safe operation of civil aircraft. 14 CFR Part 16 governs the proceedings involving Federally-assisted airports, such as this case. 

2 1n the Complaint, SDMB names Robinson Aviation, Jnc. (RVA), the provider of ATC services at CRE, as a respondent. However, since RVA is not the airport 

sponsor, the Director rejects any claims made against this entity within the scope of this determination. As noted in the FAA's Notice of Docketing, the CRE 

Tower {ATCT) was not properly named as a respondent. The FAA docketed the Complaint naming the County as the only respondent. RVA's Web site states that 

RVA "is an aviation services company that specializes in air traffic control operations." See http:jfwww.rvainc.net/. 

~See Applicable Law and Policy section. 

4 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 10. 

s FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 2. 

6 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 1. 7 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 15-25. 

Page 1 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Deportment of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Space Use Permit for the use of the hangar."' The County adds that SDMB has also refused to comply with 

the standards and procedures to conduct safe skydiving operations. Specifically, the County states that 

SDMB "has been unable to ensure that its skydivers consistently land within the designated [DZ] ," and has 

failed to "contact the [the ATCT, Air Traffic Control Tower] before crossing active runways or taxiways ... " 

Finally, the County rejects SDMB's claims that the County's actions to ensure safety are "harassment or 

discrimination."9 

With respect to the allegations presented in this Complaint, under the specific circumstances as discussed 

below and based on the evidence of record in this proceeding, the Director finds that the County's actions are 

not in violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. The Director further finds that the 

actions by the County concerning the use of the airport's DZ and related procedures, such as reporting safety 

incidents and deviations, are consistent with its safety obligations contained in Grant Assurance 22(h). 

However, as discussed and substantiated in the record, the Director has determined that skydiving operations 

at CRE are taking place despite unresolved safety deficiencies. The airport sponsor, FAA Flight Standards, 

FAA Airports Southern Region, and the CRE ATCT have all voiced and documented serious safety 

deficiencies concerning skydiving operations at CRE by SDMB. These operations are not taking place 

according to the established safety procedures and requirements in place at the Airport. Therefore, the 

Director fmds that, the County must take additional corrective actions to correct those safety deficiencies and 

to ensure compliance with Grant Assurance 19. 

Because safety has been compromised by SDMB operations at the Airport, and existing safety deficiencies 

have not been corrected, the County must take immediate action such as closing the existing parachute DZ and 

rescinding related approvals until acceptable risk mitigation measures and revised procedures are considered 

and implemented. This temporary closure of the DZ is necessary because its physical characteristics (e.g., 

location, size) as well as related procedures (e.g., Letter of Agreement or LOA) appear to contribute to the 

safety deficiencies that require mitigation. This action is necessary to ensure the safe operation of, and to 

protect the public and all aeronautical users at CRE. As soon as practicable, the County must take action to 

further enhance the safety of skydiving operations at CRE. 

The FAA's decision and supporting documentation, submitted by the parties and reviewed by the FAA, 

comprises the administrative record and is reflected in the attached FAA Exhibit 1. 

Figure 1 - left, an aerial view of the Grand Strand/North Myrtle Beach Airport (CRE) and the location of SDMB on the airport. Source: South Carolina 

Aeronautics Commission. Right, a depiction of the DZ at CRE (in yellow outline). Source; CRE ATCT. 

s FAA Exhibit 1, !tern 5, pages 1-2. 9 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, pages 1-2. 

Page2 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

"' 

m 

~ 

15064 

AIRPORT DIAGRAM AL-<>097 (FM) 

GRAND STRAND (CRB;) 

NORTH MYRTIE BEACH, SOUTH CAROUNA 

A TIS 

119.625 

STRAND TOWER* 

124.6 257.6 

GNOCON 

121.8 257.6 

1 

JANUARY 20 15 

ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE 

0.1" w 

f-'---+---'--.L...---'----'---+--L.....--'---'----'.#:.......j:,:._-.L...--33•49'N 

l 

j 

r.-- HANGAR l 

;,; • --FBO ~ 

-~ '·····.,:_,·,·.· .. _.•.·.·.!,C '6 "-TERMINAl 

··;·~ i . ·~ ---.oHANGARS 

TWR 

RWY 05-23 

PCN 29 f/B/X/1 

S-76, D-112 

CAUTION: BE AlfRT TO RUNWAY CROSSING CLEARANCES. 

REAIJ6ACK OF ALL RUNWAY HOLDING INSTRUGIONS IS REQUIRED. 

J 

J-L---t--.L..-...l...--'---'--+---'--.L..---'---L.....-+-....L-33°48'N 

I 

78°44'W 

AIRPORT DIAGRAM 

15064 

Poge3 

I 

78°43'W 

NORTH MYRTLE BEACH, SOUTH CAROliNA 

GRAND STRAND (CRE) 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina {FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

II. PARTIES 

A. Airport 

Grand Strand Airport (CRE)10 is a county-owned, public-use general aviation airport located in North Myrtle 

Beach, in Harry County, South Carolina. 11 It is located between Highway 17B and the Intracoastal 

Waterway (ICW), 12 close to the Atlantic Ocean. Horry County Department of Airports (HCDA/County), 

South Carolina, operates the Airport. 13 The County is also the owner and operator of three other airports 

located within its jurisdiction. They are Myrtle Beach International Airport (MYR), Conway Harry County 

Airport (HYW), and Twin City Airport (5J9). 14 

CRE covers an area of 427 acres and has one runway designated 5/23 with an asphalt surface measuring 

5,997 by 100 feet. For the 12-month period ending March 11, 2015, the airport reported 46,670 aircraft 

operations, predominately local (13, 117) and itinerant (31, 788) general aviation operations. 15 CRE has a 

designated parachuting landing zone (aka Drop Zone, or DZ) on airport property, which is adjacent to the 

airport's runway and taxiway system (See Figure 1). It also has an operational contract ATCT. 16 

The development of the Airport was financed, in part, with FAA Airport and Improvement Program (AIP) 

funding, authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49 U.S.C. §471 01, et 

seq. 17 Under the provisions of this Act, the County is obligated to comply with the FAA sponsor grant 

assurances and related Federal law, 49 U.S.C. §47107. Since 1982, the County has accepted 19 AlP grants 

for CRE totaling over $10.5 million. 18 AlP funds have been used for a myriad of airport projects including 

runway and taxiway rehabilitation, lighting improvementa, perimeter fencing, apron expansion, obstruction 

removal. Three AlP grants (20 12-2014 ), totaling $2.6 million, were used for a ramp rehabilitation project at 

the Airport.I 9 

B. Complainant 

Complainant, Skydive Myrtle Beach (SDMB), located at CRE, is a commercial skydiving operator that 

engages in the air transportation of individuals for the purpose of skydiving, instruction in skydiving, and 

rental and sales of skydiving equipment20 SDMB currently uses CRE (and its DZ) for its skydiving 

operations. 21 

Ill. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On February 24,2014, SDMB filed a 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint with FAA.22 On March4, 2014, the 

County moved to dismiss the Part 16 Complaint without prejudice and on March 7, raised SDMB's failure 

to attach supporting documents. On March 18,2014, the FAA dismissed SDMB's Part 16 as incomplete.23 

On July 1, 2014, SDMB re-filed the Complaint and stated that there was "no other option than for SDMB to 

refile its complaint for resolution by FAA" and that "without FAA intervention for the reasons enumerated 

10 Sometimes also referred to as the "'North Myrtle Beach Airport." 

11 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13B 

12 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13C. 

H In this decision, the Director refers to HCDA as the "County." 

14 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 3. 

15 FAA Exhibit 1, Item l3B. 

16 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13B. 

17 The Airport Improvement Program {AlP) provides grants to public agencies- and, in some cases, to private owners and entities- for the planning and 

development of public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). CRE is in the NPIAS. 

J.B See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13A, page 3. 

19 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 13A. 20 Parachuting and skydiving are similar activities. For the purpose of this investigation, the terms are used interchangeably. In the United States today, there are 

over 300 active skydiving centers and clubs. Throughout the US, these "drop zones" operate over 500 skydiving aircraft, referred to as jump planes. 

21 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2, page 1. 

22 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1A. 

23 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Item 18. 

Page 4 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

... there is no reasonable prospect for practical, equitable, and timely resolution."24 On July 28, 2014, the 

FAA issued a Notice ofDocketing.25 This was followed on August 22, 2014 by the County filing its 

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, 26 and SDMB filing a Complainant's Statement of Material Facts on 

September 8, 2014. 27 

On October 22, 2014, the County filed its Respondent's Answer and Ajfirmative Defenses.28 On November 

3, 2014, SDMB filed its Complainant's Reply, and on November 10,2014, SDMB filed a Complainants' 

Motion to Supplement the Pleadings. 29 This was followed on November 13, 2014, by the County filing its 

Rebuttal. 30 On December 30,2014, SDMB filed a Complainant's Motion to Supplement the Pleadings. 

This was followed on January 9, 2015, by the County filing a Letter in Opposition to Motion to Supplement 

the Pleadings.31 Finally, on January 14,2015, SDMB filed a Complainant's Letter in Support of Motion to 

Supplement the Pleadings.32 

On June 6, 2015, the Director issued a Notice of Extension of Time followed by another extension on August 

5, 2015.33 

IV. CHRONOLOGICAL BACKGROUND 

On January 1, 2012, the ATCT and the County entered into a Letter of Agreement (LOA) Concerning the 

Control Jurisdiction of Airport Movement Areas at CRE. The LOA defined the responsibility for the control 

of aircraft, vehicular, and pedestrian traffic within the airport movement areas at CRE. The LOA's scope 

was limited to "the Movement Area ... involving aircraft, vehicle, pedestrian, or object on the ground that 

would create a collision hazard and/or loss of separation with an aircraft taking off, landing, or taxiing." 34 

In April2012, SDMB negotiated a lease for Hangar 7 at CRE in order to conduct parachute operations for a 

period of eight years.35 On May 11, 2012, another LOA was signed by SDMB, the County, and Air Traffic 

(including CRE ATCT) for conducting parachute operations at the airport.36 The LOA defmed the location 

of the Landing Zone (or Drop Zone), and provided that "parachutist[s] are authorized to land in the defined 

[DZ] only and are not authorized to land on any runway, taxiway, or ramp area. "

37 

On May 19, 2012, Grand Strand Aviation, d/b/a Ramp 66, LLC, as the airport operator (operating the airport 

on behalf of the County) entered into an agreement with SDMB to conduct skydiving operations at the 

Airport. The agreement, with a 2020 expiration date, contained twenty (20) terms/conditions, covering a 

myriad of issues, including rates and charges, liability requirements, and compliance with applicable local, 

state, and the FARs. One of the terms and conditions in the agreement (No. 20) was that lessor [Grand 

Strand Aviation] "shall not directly or indirectly compete with SDMB, and shall not operate any competing 

parachute jumping or similar operation anywhere within the County ... for ... 8 years."38 

On August 1, 2013, Ramp 66, sold its leasehold interest in operating the airport back to the County and the 

County resumed control of the Airport. From that date on, "all tenants were asked to sign a temporary Space 

4 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 3. 

2s FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2. 

zo FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3. 

Z

7 FAA Exhibit 1, ltem 4. 

2e FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5. 

29 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7. 

30 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8. 

31 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10. 

n FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11. 

33 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 12A and 12B. 

34 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15 and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 178. 

35 FAA Exhibit 1. Item 1, page 3. 

36JFAA Exhibit 1, Item lA. 

37 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 8, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 17A. 

38 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, pages HCDA-00001 and HCDA-000002. The Director notes that term and condition No. 20 is analogous to a granting of an exclusive right, which is prohibited under Grant Assurance 23 Excfusive Rights. However, because the agreement is now extinguished by the County's takeover of the airport, the 

Director will not revisit this issue. 

PageS 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports. South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Use Permit with a six-month term, with the intent that long-term leases would thereafter be 

negotiated ... these Space Use Permits were offered on temporary bases because South Carolina law requires 

counties to utilize a formal 'three-reading' process prior to conveying property rights through lease 

agreements." SDMB was among several commercial aviation tenants who executed these temporary Space 

Use Permits. The others were Executive Helicopters, Inc., and Barnstormers Aerial Advertising, LLC.39 

The Space Use Permit agreed to by SDMB stated that the "company shall fully comply with all safety and 

security policies/directives as established by the Airport."40 As a result, on August I, 2013, the County and 

SDMB entered into an Operating Permit (expired in January 2014) permitting SDMB to conduct skydiving 

operations and requiring SDMB to "observe and comply with ... all [County's] directives ... , which now exist 

or which may be hereinafter be [sic] enacted or adopted." 41 The Operating Permit also provides for 

termination if the operator violates "any [of the County's] rule, regulation, or requirement related to aircraft 

operation or safety ... "42 

In August 2013, the County informed SDMB that it would have to double its liability policy coverage to 

$2,000,000 and pay $1,200 per month for Hangar 7.4' On September 13, 2013, the County and SDMB 

entered into a temporary Space Use Permit allowing SDMB to occupy Hangar 7 through January 31,2014.44 

On September 26, 2013, the County announced that "CRE is preparing for a ramp rehabilitation project" and 

that "the apron rehab project is important in maintaining safe operations at Grand Stand." The County also 

stated that the "project is scheduled to begin during the first week of October 2013, and be completed by the 

end of February 2014."45 As part of this effort, many tenants and airport operations had to be temporarily 

relocated over the course of ramp repairs,46 funded in part with FAA grant funding to rehabilitate the ramp.47 

On October 15,2013, the ATCT notified SDMB of a situation whereby after landing, "some of[SDMB 

skydivers] ... walked across taxiway B, and then onto the ramp." 48 A few days later, on October 27,2013, a 

skydiver landed on the taxiway adjacent to the DZ. This individual was injured, and was evacuated to the 

hospitaL49 Also in October 2013, and following an inspection by a North Myrtle Beach fire inspector, 

SDMB was informed that several electrical modifications/repairs had to be made at its facility to avoid a fme 

or violation. According to SDMB, "due to the County's failure to correct the electrical deficiencies, SDMB 

was issued a fine for the violations by the North Myrtle Beach Fire Department and paid a $205 dollar fine. 5° 

On November 27, 2013, the County wrote to SDMB about an unrestrained dog roaming in the active aircraft 

operating areas of the airport and about overnight guests staying in the Hangar. The County asked that such 

activities cease and noted that failure to take corrective action would result in the revocation of SDMBs 

Operating Permit and Space Use Permit. 51 

On December 4, 2013, the South Carolina Flight Standards District Office (FSD0-13) notified operators at 

CRE that on February 19, 2014, it would be conducting the annual meeting for all operators to discuss 

"safety issues concerning banner tow operations, parasail activities, parachute activities ... " and other 

providers. The FSDO noted that operators "must attend the meeting" and provide "safety plans for [their] 

operations."52 On December 10,2013, the County's Council considered Resolution R-13. This resolution 

39 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, pages &-.9. See Affidavit of Aaron Holly, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, Exhibit A, page 1. 

4

° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page HCDA-00001. 

41 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 8. 

42 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 2, page 7. 

43 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 4, and Exhibit 1, pages 14-15. 

44 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 54-57. 

45 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 25. 

46 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 2. 

47 FAA Exhibit 1, Items, page 2. 

48 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 86. 

48 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 9. 

so FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 4, and Exhibit 2, pages 22-24. 

51 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 2, page 27. 

52 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 131. 

Page 6 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

was to "authorize the renewal of a Space Use Permit for Skydive Myrtle Beach, LLC at Grand Strand 

Airport."53 

On January 6, 2014, SDMB denied the allegations in the County's November 27, 2013 letter.54 

On January 21,2014, the ATCT notified SDMB that "[oftenjumpers]land outside of the landing zone," and 

that "when the season starts with banner tow and helicopter rides, [it is] going to be unsafe to conduct both 

operations at the same time ... " The ATCT reiterated that the LOA " ... does not speak oflanding anywhere 

other than the designated landing zone," and that the ATCT is tasked "with the safety of all ... users. "55 

On January 23, 2014, SDMB requested a meeting with the ATCT to address its safety concerns and discuss 

operations. In response, the ATCT indicated that the County should also be a party to the discussion. In that 

communication, SDMB stated that pursuant to its Operating Permit, it was "permitted to land anywhere 

within 5 (five) miles of the airport, ifnecessary."56 SDMB also requested that at the meeting, legal counsel 

be present in order "to come to a mutually beneficial agreement prior to any irreparable financial harm 

suffered by [SDMB] based on unregulated safety violation concerns or perceived possibilities of such."57 

On January 26, 2014, the ATCT manager notified SDMB that on that day, "people [walked] on the taxiways 

and [drove] golf carts on the taxiways without getting permission from the tower first." The ATCT manager 

also noted that those actions are "against the rules as we have spoken about this before. In an effort to keep 

the operation safe and by the rules can you re-briefyour folks not to enter a taxiway or runway without [first 

contacting the A TCT]." The ATCT manager added that "the rules for entering the taxiway don't have 

exceptions," and that "we may talk with the runway incursion [FAA Runway Safety] folks again [in 

reference to] the golf carts and ... today. "

58 

On January 31,2014, SDMB's 2012 Space Use Permit expired. 59 On February 3, 2014, SDMB was 

contacted by the County about another Vehicle/Pedestrian Deviation (VPD) complaint by the A TCT .

60 

On February I, 2014, an FAA Airport Certification Safety Inspector notified the County that the FAA had 

received "another [VPD] incursion report ... for CRE," and asked the County to "explain [its] response and 

what action has been taken to curtail this activity."61 

On February 4, 2014, and following notification by the ATCT, the FAA requested information from the 

County regarding the January 26, 2014 VPD by SDMB (see above). In turn, the County asked SDMB for 

details on the incident, to which SDMB admitted that its vehicle had "not contacted" the A TCT but that it 

"would request permission prior to entry on taxiway in future." 62 

On February 7, 2014, SDMB met with the ATCT to discuss the ATCT's complaints to the FAA.63 At the 

meeting, the ATCT advised SDMB about the LOA between the County and the ATCTwhereby procedures 

for vehicular and pedestrian entry into 'active areas' have communication protocols. SDMB agreed to 

comply with these provisions, but requested a copy of the LOA so that it could implement internal 

procedures to meet the terms of the LOA. Following the meeting, the ATCT provided SDMB with the 

reference to 14 CFR § 139.329 which was cited as the basis for the complaints to the FAA and the County. 

53 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 20. 

54 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, pages 109-110. 

55 FAA Exhibit, Item 3, page 9. 

56 See reference in FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 148 (LOA). 

57 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, pages 111-114. 

58 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 117. 

59 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 1. 

6

° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 130. 

Gl FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 138. 

52 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, pages 154~158. 

63 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 5. 

Page 7 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Also on February 7, 2014, SDMB requested repairs to its hangar (Hangar 7) for electrical, lighting and street 

side door access to mitigate the difficulties in receiving and accepting parcel deliveries. 64 

On February 10, 2014, the ATCT and SDMB included ground communications as part of a proposed and 

revised LOA.65 The draft LOA provided that "parachutists are authorized to land in the defmed [DZ] only 

and are not authorized to land on any runway, taxiway, or ramp area." The draft LOA reiterated "[ATCT's] 

ground communication" protocols, requiring SDMB to "notify [the ATCT] prior to crossing any identified 

active taxiway or runway during operational hours of [the ATCT]."66 As part ofthis process, the FSDO 

provided input to the draft LOA. 67 

On February 14,2014, and concerning 14 CFR § 139.329 reference provided by FAA, the ATCT stated that 

it "[goes] along with the LOA with the airport." SDMB concurred and added that " .. .in conjunction with the 

LOA this makes complete sense ... now that we have a copy, we have implemented SOPs here where this 

should no longer present itself as an issue henceforth."68 Also on February 14, 2014, [the ATCT] indicated 

that it would attend a safety meeting scheduled for March 8, 2014, adding that it planned to do all it can "to 

make this work for all of us. "

69 

On February 19, 2014, SDMB sent its proposed LOA to FAA Air Traffic.70 Also on February 19, 2014, the 

County notified SDMB that its Space Use Permit had expired on January 31, 2014. The County provided a 

new Space Use Permit for SDMB's review and acceptance. The County's letter communicating this offer 

included a list of multiple instances (1 0) of unsafe jumping practices, as well as vehicle and pedestrian 

incursions onto runways and taxiways, some of which necessitated FAA reporting and investigation. 71 The 

County stated that these incidents constituted a violation ofSDMB's existing (albeit expired) Space Use 

Permit and its Operating Permit72 

Despite this, the County clarified that although it "is unwilling to offer SDMB a leasehold interest in 

the ... hangar [Hangar 7] facility at this time," as an alternative, it "is willing to enter into a new, short-term 

Space Use Permit, with the understanding that a violation of any terms contained in such Space Use Permit 

will result in SDMB being required to vacate the premises after 24-hour notice." 73 The Space Use Permit 

included the following conditions: 

• All jumps in compliance with LOA between the County, Air Traffic, and SDMB; 

• No unauthorized vehicles will be permitted inside the security fence; 

• No flammable substances permitted in any space subject to the agreement; 

• Fees: $1,200/month or 24% of gross revenues, whichever is greater; and 

• Any breach ofthe agreement by SDMB will provide grounds for immediate termination and SDMB 

will vacate the premises within 24 hours after being provided written notice of such termination. 74 

The February 19, 2014letter also noted that, 

64 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 5. On February 17, 2014, SDMB attempted to address its maintenance, mail delivery issues with the County. FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, 

Exhibit 1, page 210. 

65 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 5. 

66 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 165. 

67 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 281. 

68 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, pages 191-192. 

69 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 197. 

7

° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 214. The reference to FAA Air Traffic is related to the entity with oversight responsibility for the airspace over and around 

CRE. 

71 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 54-57. 

n FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 12~13. 

73 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 54~57. 

74 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 54-57. Other requirement included "no overnight occupancy of any space subject to the agreement is permitted, no 

outside vendors unless conditionally approved by the County, and SDMB will provide at least 10 days' notice to the County of any planned events." 

Page8 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

[I]n light of the fact that SDMB is currently occupying County property without authorization, the 

new Space Use Permit must be signed and returned to [the County] within 72 hours from the time it 

is delivered. If SDMB declines to sign and return this Permit within the time set forth, you will need 

to vacate the premises immediately, as [the County] will change the locks and deny access to the 

premises as of the close of business on Saturday, February 22.75 

The County added that it 

certainly [hoped] to be able to maintain an on-going relationship with [SDMB's] skydiving 

operation, as we believe that such a properly conforming business is a welcome and beneficial use of 

the County's [Airport]. We also understand that based upon recent measures on your part, you have 

attempted to address and correct some conditions that have led to certain of these prior incidents at 

the airport. The County is appreciative of these efforts, but requires your full commitment in order 

to continue to allow SDMB the use of County-owned property.76 

On February 21, 2014, SDMB replied to the County letter, denied violating any regulation, asked for a copy 

of the County's operating regulations or authorities, and sought to work out the issues between the County 

either informally or in a court.77 On February 24, 2014, SDMB filed a Formal Complaint with FAA.78 

On February 26, 2014, the County informed SDMB that it did not engage in "good faith" negotiations prior 

to filing its 14 CFRPart 16 complaint and requested that it be withdrawn. By letter dated February 28, 2014, 

SDMB argued that the Part 16 Complaint was discrete from its state court complaint, indicated its 

willingness to resolve the matters, but declined to withdraw its complaint before the FAA. 79 On March 4, 

2014, the County moved to dismiss the Part 16 Complaint. On March 18, 2014, FAA dismissed the 

Complaint for incompleteness80 

On March 20, 2014, the County issued a policy letter for tenant mail and parcel delivery for tenants and 

instituted driver training, 81 while on March 25, March 27, and March 28,2014, SDMB alleges the County's 

driver's training course were scheduled, rescheduled, and eventually cancelled and have not been 

rescheduled to date. 82 The County denies this. 83 SDMB also reported that on April3, 2014, the County 

dumped approximately six (6) yards of peat moss on the SDMB staff parking lot, illustrated by photographs 

in the record.84 

On April!, 2014, the County notified SDMB that, concerning the on-going construction at the airport, it 

would be "acceptable to move the [DZ] back to the location north of the parking ramp ... the construction 

equipment and all movable obstacles have been removed." In addition, the County re-iterated that SDMB's 

operations "must be conducted in accordance with the LOA ... with ... date of 5/11/2012."85 

On April4, 2014, the County presented draft minimum standards to the Administrative Committee of the 

Harry County CounciL 86 The minimum standards covered several issues including rules, regulations, 

insurance requirements, limitations, and operating requirements. As part of these deliberations, the County 

75 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 56-57. 

76 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 57. 

n FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 6. Note that the Complainant states that the reply occurred on February 21, 2012. Given the context, the director assumes that this 

was unintentional error and that the correct date for this event is February 21, 2014. 

1s FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1A. 

~ FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 48. 

80 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 35-44. 

Bl FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 34. 

s2 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 28. The apparent failure to follow through with driver training is not per sea violation of the County's federal obligations, 

but the Director notes that it will have to be implemented as an integral part of any resolution (risk mitigation) to the skydiving safety issues discussed herein. 

83 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 2. See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page HCDA-000159. See FAA Exhibit 1, !tern 5, page HCDA-000179, and 180. 

84 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 234-235 (photographs). 

85 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 232. 

86 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, page 2. 

Page 9 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

stated that "there were some recent issues which have already occurred at [CRE], which have now involved 

them in litigation ... (requiring] some basis or standards set in place as quickly as possible at those GA 

airports, especially at (CRE]."87 

On April 5, 2014, the pilot of a taxing aircraft reported that he "landed on runway 23 and exited at B 

intersection onto B taxiway ... within a few seconds, a green canopy was closing in on my position." The 

pilot noted that he "applied brakes and reached for the mixtnre to cut off the motor, in an attempt to not have 

[the] prop turning if [the skydiver] hit my aircraft." He reported that "ground control quickly warmed me 

about [the skydiver] as he closed on my position within 30 feet. ... [the Skydiver pulled left as he was 

travelling down taxiway B and landed in the drainage ditch just off the runway ... other solo skydivers then 

descended along the edge of the ramp approximately 200 feet to my left ... ground control again warned me 

that they were 'landing everywhere ... ' the controller was less than pleased."88 

On April 7, 2014, the County offered reducing the monthly lease percentage of gross from 24% to 10%. 

This same correspondence covered several issues and conditions and included a reference to eviction 

proceedings if these were not accepted by SDMB. 89 

On April 12, 2014, SDMB threatened to file yet another 14 CFR Part 16 complaint with the FAA because 

one of its aircraft was held up by the ATCT for a banner towing operation.90 That same day, the ATCT 

manager indicated that he would begin to forward his complaints (safety incidents) to the FSDO and the 

County.91 On April 18,2014, SDMB stated that it attempted to negotiate terms for leasing Hangar 7, and 

requested a meeting to finalize the LOA.92 

On April 28,2014, the County issued a Notice of Termination to SDMB. The termination was conditioned 

on SDMB accepting the terms outlined of the above mentioned April 7, 2014 correspondence.93 The letter 

further stated, "SDMB may not base its aircraft or its skydiving operations at CRE," but "as long as SDMB 

operates in accordance with all applicable laws, including the [LOA] ... SDMB may continue to use the 

aeronautical facilities at CRE, including the landing zone as a transient operator." However, the County 

added "without a valid Space Use Permit, SDMB must vacate Hangar No. 7 and may not base its aircraft at 

CRE."94 

On May 10,2014, the ATCT notified SDMB it was forwarding to FAA a complaint for an active taxiway 

incursion.95 That same day, the County wrote to SDMB that the "FAA reached out to us and we're required 

to respond with a plan, hopefully together, to avoid what they see as a serious safety concern." In response, 

SDMB stated that it operates "within the strict guidelines of all F ARs and [advisory] circulars and any other 

regulation concerning skydiving operations ... we always utilize radio communications with the tower ... all 

jumpers are briefed on our airport procedures and if one fails to comply with our rules, we send them home." 

SDMB added that to this date, the [county and the ATCT] has not discussed with us or given us the LOA 

[under] which the two of them operate," and that "we will add this 'harassment' to our federal complaint, 

which is ongoing and to our lawsuit against the County."96 

On May 14, 2014, the County sent a letter to the FAA's Atlanta Airport District Office (ADO) to report 

concerns over two safety incidents (landings outside the DZ) which occurred at CREon April24 and May 

87 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, page 6-7. 

88 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page HCDA-000176. 

89 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 23. 

90 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 240. The Director notes that the ATCT manager provided an adequate explanation for this incident and thus this issue is 

not revisited or further discussed in this Complaint. 91 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 242. 

92 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 21-22. 

S3 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 19. 

'l4 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 7-8. 

95 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 8. 

96 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 251. 

Page 10 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

I 0, 2014. The County also further outlined its plans to temporarily move the DZ (also discussed on April!) 

to accommodate airport construction but expected that the "errant jumps would cease. " 97 

On May 19, 2014, the County requested information from SDMB in order to respond to an FAA Letter of 

Investigation (LOI) regarding the unauthorized runway crossing of May 10.98 The County took the position 

that it was "reaching the end of what we can do to curtail this issue," and that [SDBM] had "to show tangible 

evidence that we're working towards a solution."99 In response, SDMB stated that it "always utilize[ d) radio 

communications with the tower," to which the County repeated that the "FAA reached out to us and we're 

required to respond with a plan, hopefully together, to avoid what they see as a serious safety concern." 100 

The next day, May 20, 2014, the Horry County Council enacted minimum standards for CRE, Conway Horry 

County Airport (HYW), and Twin City Airport (519)."101 The minimum standards, included requirements 

applicable to all aeronautical operations at CRE, including commercial skydiving operations.l 02 

On May 22, 2014, SDMB gave a counter offer to the above mentioned County's Notice of Termination 

involving Hangar No. 7 and again requested a meeting to finalize the LOA. 103 That same day, some of 

SDMB's skydivers landed on or near the beach, instead of in the designated landing zone at CRE, as expected. 

As a result, the A TCT requested SDMB to inform the A TCT in advance if its skydivers were going to land 

somewhere other than the DZ, so that it would be able to advise other aeronautical users. 104 Two days later, 

on May 24, 2014, the ATCT wrote yet again to SDMB noting skydivers had crossed the runway without 

coordinating with the ATCT. 105 

On May 28, 2014, the County rejected SDMBs counter offer and demanded SDMB to vacate Hangar No.7 

and remove its aircraft from CRE. 106 On May 29, 2014, SDMB offered mediation with the County in an 

attempt to resolve the issues. The following day, May 30, 2014, the County conditionally accepted SDMBs 

offer to mediate. 107 

On June 5, 2014, the County conditionally accepted SDMBs offer to mediate with several modifications but 

also filed an Application for Eviction in Myrtle Beach Magistrate's Court. 108 

On June 7, 2014 FAA FSDO inspectors conducted a spot inspection ofSDMB's facilities. SDMB states that 

"during the inspection, the FAA inspectors stated that their [office mailboxes] were 'full from complaints 

about violations from County and Aircraft Control Tower emails.' No discrepancies or violations were 

discovered after inspecting all skydiving equipment and the aircraft for approximately two hours. During the 

inspection, SDMB business was suspended." 109 

On June 10,2014, SDMB was provided with a revised draft of the LOA which incorporated input from FAA 

Air Traffic and Flight Standards. SDMB objected to some of the provisions, including penalty and reporting 

provisions. SDMB also objected to the LOA's provision documenting safety hazards which states "within 24 

hours of any parachute jumper landing outside of the [DZ] or other deviations by the parachute operation ... 

[ATCT] shall notify [the County], in writing, of each incident ... the incident reporting form shall be furnished 

by [the County]." 110 

97 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page HCDA-000154. 

98 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page HCDA-000158-159. 

99 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, pages 245. 100 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 251. 

101 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, page 2. 

10l FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 2. 

103 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 8. 

104 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 244. 

105 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, pages 257 and 268 

106 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 14-15. 

107 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 19. 

106 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 8. 

109 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Affidavit a[ Aaron Hofly. 

11° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, pages 149-151. 

Page 11 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

The next day, June 11,2014, the ATCT manager at MYR, and within the context of a communication with 

SDMB on the subject of the draft LOA, stated "I want to go on record and let you know that the safety of 

parachute operations is a major concern in the National Airspace System. More specifically, it is currently 

one of the top 3 safety concerns." 111 

On June 24, 2014, the County, the ATCT, and SDMB met again to discuss the LOA. At this meeting, it was 

agreed that operations would continue under the terms of the existing LOA until the matter could be finalized. 

Incident reporting was discussed, and the County noted that the ATCT was reporting all skydiver taxiway 

crossings to the County as the County had requested.l 12 On June 25, 2014, the parties met yet again to discuss 

the draft LOA.U3 

On June 27, 2014, SDMB requested information about the regulatory authority under which the ATCT 

reported skydivers on active areas to the FAA. SDMB also requested a discussion concerning 14 CFR Part 

105. In response, the ATCT referred SDMB to the FAA. 114 That same day, the County notified SDMB that 

"incidents involving skydivers that missed the [DZ] ... can pose a serious safety threat to the users of CRE," 

and expressed its desire to "work together to improve the safety at [CRE]." 115 The County added that the goal 

"is to provide a safe, operationally efficient airport ... " and that "as a first step to improving safety and 

efficiency at CRE, [the County has] implemented an incident reporting system for all events that create an 

unsafe operating condition at the airport." 116 

On July 1, 2014, Complainant filed a second 14 CFR Part 16 Complaint with the FAA. SDMB stated that 

there was "no other option than for SDMB to refile its complaint for resolution by FAA" and that "without 

FAA intervention for the reasons enumerated below, there is no reasonable prospect for practical, equitable, 

and timely resolution of the dispute." 117 On July II, 2014, the County wrote to SDMB to raise its concern 

over the "continued occupation of Hangar 7 ." The County noted that the Space Use Permit had expired and 

that SDMB "has refused to sign a second Space Use Permit" and instead "file suit in South Carolina state 

court as we II as filed two separate Part 16 complaints with the [F AA]."118 

On July 28, 2014, the FAA accepted the Complaint and issued a Notice of Docketing. 119 

On October 30, 2014, the County held a public meeting to discuss the minimum standards." 120 On November 

3, 2014, SDMB voiced objections to the minimum standards for CRE and explained that the "entire skydiving 

operation section is written to discourage skydiving operations and could be written more efficiently for safety 

purposes." SDMB objected to several other aspects of the minimum standards including the use of a space 

use permit instead of a lease, insurance requirements, use of vehicles at the airport, planned events, 

restrictions on alcohol use, and the requirement for a safety and efficiency study. 121 

In November 2014, SDMB received a state court Order concerning its proceeding against the County and its 

employees. The Order dismissed the state court claims against individual defendants. 122 SDMB filed an 

appeal to this Order. SDMB then filed a motion to supplement the record with the FAA pursuant to 14 CFR § 

16.23(j).123 

111 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 311. 

m FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 9. 113 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 14. 

114 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 9. 

115 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 10. 

116 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 14·15. 

1

1

7 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 3. 

118 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 4, Exhibit 4, 

m FAA Exhibit 1, Item 2. 

l:W FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 7, note 14. 121 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, Exhibit A, page 106. 

122 Order signed by the Honorable Judge larry B. Hyman, Jr. in the Court of Common Pleas action styled, Skydive Myrtle Beach Inc .. (f/k/a Skvdive Myrtle Beach. 

LLC} v. Horry County Horrv County Department of Airoorts H. Randoloh Heidi Pat Apone. Tim Jackson. and Jack Teal Case No. 2014-CP-26-1193, dated October 

13, 2014, and filed October 17, 2014. 

1

23 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 7, pages 1-2. 

Pagel2 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

On December 31,2014, SDMB filed aMotion to Supplement the Pleadings objecting to the County's 

adoption and enforcing of regulations, as well as state law, County legislative, judicial, and executive 

"irregularities." 124 

On January 9, 2015, the County filed a Letter in Opposition to Motion to Supplement the Pleadings. The 

County arguments included an assertion that SDMB "has not met the standards for showing good cause for 

filing the additional materials ... and the motion should be denied." 125 

On January 14,2015, SDMB filed its response to the County's January 9, 2015 objection. SDMB posited, 

amongst other arguments, that good cause existed for filing additional materials, and that the County 

mishandled the manner in which it made the minimum standards known to SDMB. 126 On January 20, 2015, 

the County Council approved the minimum standards under Ordinance Number 115-I 4. 127 

Aware of the ongoing safety issues concerning skydiving operations at CRE, on April 7, 2015, the FAA's 

Southern Region Airports Division sent a letter to the County raising concerns over skydiving operations at 

CRE. The FAA letter sought "to identify what actions [the] County is taking to address what [FAA) now 

consider[ s) a significant safety trend and accident precursors that must be mitigated" and to "determine if 

[CRE) is safely operating in accordance with the County's federal airport obligations." 128 

The letter referenced eight separate safety events, which had occurred at CRE between November 10, 2013 

and March 28, 20 I 5. The FAA letter referenced the federal obligation requiring "the County to ensure that 

the airport and all facilities necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the airport are operated at all times in a 

safe and serviceable condition" and including that "the County may not cause or permit any activity or action 

on the airport which would interfere with its use for airport purposes." 129 The FAA asked the County to 

respond within 15 days and address (1) rules and regulations to mitigate the safety of ground operations in the 

airport movement area (and their update and enforcement), (2) training for the ground users with access to the 

movement area, (3) details concerning a risk-based safety plan. 130 

On April 27, 2015, the County responded to FAA's letter. The County stated that it "shares [FAA's) concern 

regarding the number ofVPDs" and that "each and every VPD is related to ... [SDMB]."131 In its letter to the 

FAA, the County asserted: 

• Although it has undertaken a series of actions, the only real reduction in the number of VPDs and other 

incidents involving skydivers occurred when SDMB was operating sporadically due to their turnover in 

aircraft and maintenance issues (October 2014-February 2015), but after SDMB resumed full operations, 

numerous VPDs are once again being reported. 132 

• Each and every one of the VPDs involves one or more skydivers, and in each case, the skydiver in 

question failed to land within the designated [DZ] and that more than 90% of the safety incident reports 

involving one or more skydivers associated with SDMB. 133 

• The County has sought to enter into a new LOA, but SDMB objected to certain provisions, notably, the 

provision imposing penalties for failure to comply with existing policies, including VPDs. 134 

124 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, pages 2-9. 

m FAA Exhibit 1, Item 10, pages 1-4. 

126 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, pages 1-6. 

127 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 26. 

12a FAA Exhibit 1, Item 14. 

129 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 14. 

uo FAA Exhibit 1, Item 14. 

131 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 1. 

132 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 1. 

133 The County also states that "since the very first VPD, [CountyJ staff has repeatedly offered train in& warnings, and provided 50MB with copies of the policy 

applicable at CRE that prohibits crossing an active runway or taxiway without permission from the control tower during tower operating hours. In the spring of 

2014, and as the direct result of multiple VPDs and other incidents involving errant landings of skydivers at CRE, [the County] began collecting data regarding 

safety incidents at CRE to better identify potentia! causes of such incidents." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 1. 

Page13 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports. South Carolina [FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

• Because of the ongoing Part 16 process and because skydiving is an aeronautical activity, SDMB has 

been allowed to continue operating during the pending these legal actions, but communication attempts 

with SDMB about SDMB's violations and unsafe operations are cited by SDMB as evidence of 

discrimination by the County. 135 

• SDMB denies that any incursions have occurred, asserting that skydivers are not pedesttians, even when 

they are walking on the ground, and therefore there can be no VPDs involving skydivers crossing an 

active runway or taxiway. 136 

• Based upon the regular and frequent failure of SDMB skydivers to land within the DZ, the County 

believes that additional safety measures, including restrictions on SDMB's operations, must be imposed 

to prevent further serious incidents. 137 The County would like to meet with FAA to propose a range of 

potential safety restrictions on skydiving, including the following (1) closing the DZ and possibly 

relocating it to a location where interference with aircraft traffic can be minimized or eliminated 

(County's preferred option); (2) not permitting SDMB to operate if it continues to violate rules and 

regulations; (3) permitting operations only in low wind conditions; and ( 4) requiring a USP A license 

demonsttating a certain minimum level of skill, or skydive only as tandem jumps.138 

The County responded to each of the questions posed in FAA's letter as follows: 

I. CRE has rules and regulations regarding the management of ground operations in the airport 

movement area. The Minimum Standards incorporate those rules and regulations by reference, and 

contain numerous requirements that have been violated by SDMB, and regulate operations, vehicular 

operation on the airside, and skydiving specifically. They also provide for sanctions from monetary 

penalties to suspension, escalating as the frequency of violations increases. 139 

2. One of the purposes of adopting the Minimum Standards was to clearly state the requirements for safe 

operations at CRE, including skydiving. SDMB has been provided with the Minimum Standards and 

SDMB has commented upon them. 140 

3. The County conducts regular driver training sessions. Members of the SDMB staff have participated 

in such training. Starting in 2015 the training session is conducted at a minimum of twice a year, or 

upon request by a tenant or operator .... the County offered 3 classes in April, 2015. 141 

4. Partly in response to the VPDs, [the County] adopted the Minimum Standards and provided copies of 

the existing rules and regulations regarding crossing active movement areas ... and instructed SDMB to 

inform its customers of these requirements. 142 

Finally, in its letter to FAA, the County states that it shares "the FAA's concern regarding the VPDs resulting 

from the errant skydivers operating at CRE. We suggest that [the County] and FAA working together can 

develop additional means to ensure that all aeronautical operations at CRE can be undertaken in a safe 

manner, and we look forward to meeting with you and your colleagues to explore additional measures that we 

can take together." The County is also seeks "other suggestions that FAA may have to address the continuing 

safety issues raised by the inability of SDMB's skydivers to land within the [DZ]."143 

134 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 2. 

135 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 2. 

136 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 2. 

H 7 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15. 

138 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, pages 2*3, 

1

39 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 3. 

140 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 3. 141 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 3. 

142 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 3. 

143 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 3. 

Page14 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

On May 6, 2015, the FSDO sent a letter to Complainant raising safety concerns about skydiving operations at 

CRE. The FSDO characterized the skydiving incidents at CRE as constituting "in their number and on the 

basis of their repetitive nature, an egregious and callous disregard for the safety of not only the jumpers, but 

the safety and security of persons and property on the ground." The FSDO added that the "evident disregard 

for the well-being of persons and property represents an intolerable hazard and these events must be 

diminished or eradicated without delay in the interest of operational and public safety." 144 

On May 31, 2015, SDMB put 11 jumpers out over the airport, and three of them made it to the airport, and 

eight of them landed on the beach. This was done without the FSDO providing the required authorization. 

The FSDO has sent letters of investigation to SDMB, one regular and one certified return request. However, 

SDMB has not responded to either letter. The FSDO reports (July 2015) that it is proceeding with this as an 

enforcement case. 145 

On July 29, 2015, FAA Safety Inspectors from FSDO-13 visited SDMB and met with Mr. Arron Holly, the 

owner. The FSDO stated that the visit did not produce any satisfactory results. The following excerpts are 

from the memorandum compiled by the FSDO following the meeting: 

" ... Mr. Holly said that he is in full compliance with [14] CFR part 105, and does not believe that any 

parachutist that lands in other than an authorized [DZ] does anything wrong. [The FSDO] showed him the 

(5) Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MOR) for the weekend ... as well as the PedestrianNehicle Deviation, 

and he believes they are all fabrications made up by [the ATCT]. He doesn't think that the tower should 

be at this airport because there is little traffic ... 

. .. [Mr.] Holly said that because there is nothing in writing, there is also no [DZ] at the airport that they are 

required to land in, and that jumpers can, and do, land anywhere on the airport. Mr. Holly believes that 

there is nothing wrong with landing on the taxiway, as long as the jumper gets right off. He also believes 

that a jumper can land anywhere on the controlled airport, because there is no current written agreement 

saying where they have to land ... 

. .. [FSDO personnel] told him that the reason [they were] there was to attempt to reduce the amount of 

parachutists who land outside of the [DZ], and to reduce the possibility of people getting hurt. He says 

that that is not going to happen. He said that no one has been hurt in the three years they have been there, 

and there would not be any reduction in the jumpers landing out of the [DZ], because the airport is where 

they can land, and not the drop zone as we know it ... 

. . . Mr. Holly never mentioned that there were any risks involved or not. [He] believes his company is 

doing everything correctly. No amount of discussion [the FSDO] had with him changed anything."146 

On August 4, 2015, an ATO Memorandum to the Director, Air Traffic Operations, Eastern Service Area, 

South, AJT-ES, concerning an Audit of Parachute Operations in the Myrtle Beach, South Carolina discussed 

the skydiving safety issues at CRE. Some of the statements in the memorandum are as follows: 

"Skydive Myrtle Beach is not in compliance with the LOA by consistently violating the landing zone 

parameters. This violation is a disregard for the well-being of persons and property that represents an 

intolerable hazard and these events must be diminished or eradicated without delay in the interest of 

operational and public safety ... 

.. . The jumpers that have landed outside of the agreed upon [DZ] are clearly a breach of the LOA. 

Moreover, they appear to constitute in their number and on the basis of their repetitive nature, an 

144 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22A. 

145 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22B. 

146 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 228. 

Page 15 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

egregious and insensitive disregard for the safety of not only the jumpers but the safety and security of 

persons and property on the ground. Specifically, we have documented thirty-nine operations through 

Mandatory Occurrence Reports (MOR's) since March 15, 2015 where the jumpers landed outside of the 

Landing Zone as depicted in the LOA. There were also eight (8) Pedestrian Deviation Reports filed 

during the same timeframe. The breakdown of these thirty-nine operations is as follows: 

• Total number of jumpers outside of the Landing Zone- 54 

• Total number of jumpers landed on the movement area at CRE- 8 

• Total number of jump landings that impacted other traffic at CRE -4 

• Total number of operations that landed off the Grand Strand Airport property- 9 

... Additionally, on July 25, 2015, there were nine (9) jumpers that missed the Landing Zone and two (2) 

of these landed on the movement area. Jumpers have actually walked on the active movement area 

crossing taxiways and runways ... 

. . . Mr. Glen Ray, CRE Air Traffic Manager (ATM) advised that there have been a number of meetings 

and phone conversations with Skydive Myrtle Beach to discuss the Landing Zone concerns ... Mr. Ray 

further advised that Skydive Myrtle Beach has always participated [with] a confrontational posture with 

minimal results when trying to resolve this situation ... 

. . . Safety is compromised with every non-compliant landing outside the Landing Zone. Other impacts to 

the National Airspace System (NAS) as the A 1M advised arc possible delays to other airport users 

arriving or departing to ensure a safe operation and protect the jumpers .... 

. . . Harry County Director of Airports and Assistant Director or Airports have advised that there have 

been numerous complaints from other CRE users and the City of Myrtle Beach. The complaints ranged 

from delays both into and out of CRE, conflicts with jumpers landing on the movement areas, and 

landing off the airport without permission ... 

. . . Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) in Columbia, SC tried to make an effort to reach out to 

provide some safety training to the Skydive Myrtle Beach personneL This training was to provide 

educational programs focusing on basic safety requirements and methods, creating safe operation habits, 

crew briefings and landing zones. This offer was never accepted ... 

... ESC [FAA ATO Eastern Service Center] QCG [FAA ATO Quality Control Group] recommends that 

the LOA be terminated immediately until all parties can meet to mitigate the unsafe operation." 147 

On August 12,2015, and as a result ofSDMB's failure to respond to multiple FSDO requests for information, 

FSDO personnel visited SDMB once again. 148 Upon arrival, the FSDO inspectors were denied access to the 

aircraft, records, certificated parachute riggers, and entrance into the hangar. The FAA inspectors notified 

SDMB of the applicable FARs that require the FAA to be allowed access to the aircraft and records. 149 

Because ofSDMB's refusal to accommodate the FSDO's requests, an administrative subpoena was issued to 

SDMB at that time. The FSDO report on the visit noted that: 

" ... this entire event was [recorded] ... outside on the ramp ... something is going to have to get done ... to 

somehow settle this ... and either get the [DZ] redone at the airport, or move the [DZ] off of the airport. 

Otherwise, we will continue to have people landing on taxiways, runways, and may eventually have 

someone hurt, or worse... We have attached a video, and still pictures of a parachutist landing on the 

147 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 30. 

148 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 228. 

l 49 The FSDO report on this matter {FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22B) stated" Mr. Holly {owner of SDMB) ... told us to contact the owner of the aircraft, and we advised him 

that he is he operator. He also said the pilot does not work for him, but works for the owner of the aircraft. Following the denial, we presented Arran Holly with 

the Administrative Subpoena requesting information about eight parachutists landing on the beach on May 31, 2015. We also issue a Pilots Bill of Rights to him." 

Page 16 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

ramp/taxiway area of the airport. These photographs and video show the parachutist land in front of an 

aircraft, the aircraft stopping, and the parachutist pulling his parachute out of the way of the aircraft ... " 150 

On September 1, 2015, the FAA's Director of Airport Safety and Standards (AAS-1) wrote to the County. 

The letter discussed the safety concerns regarding skydiving operations at CRE. The letter stated that the 

FAA "between March 2013 and August 2015, the FAA Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) and the Harry 

County Department of Airports (HCDA), in South Carolina have reported approximately 91 safety 

incidents involving skydiving operations at the Airport. 151 These incidents involving Vehicle Pedestrian 

Deviations, Major Occurrence Reports, and Unusual Incident Reports bring into question Harry County's 

current compliance with its obligation to operate CRE in a safe manner, which includes the Drop Zone 

(DZ) on airport property." 152 

The FAA letter also urged the County "to consider whether immediate steps should be taken to mitigate 

unsafe skydiving practices at CRE and the risks imposed upon other airport users, within the context of 

overall airfield safety." The letter added that "these safety incidents may be indicative of serious systemic 

safety issues involving skydiving operations (e.g., landings outside of the Drop Zone) at CRE" and that the 

County should "use its authority to ensure safe on-airport skydiving landings, to include the DZ." 153 

On September 17, 2015, the County responded to FAA's letter. In the letter, the County refers to the situation 

at CRE as representing "serious safety concerns" and adds that it has "been working diligently and 

continuously with various FAA departments to ensure all avenues available to the airport to mitigate any 

safety risks have been enacted." 154 The County also states that "by virtue of the more than 90 incidents you 

reference, it has become abundantly clear that far too many skydivers are landing outside of the established 

landing zone (LZ) specified under the LOA." 155 

The County refers to the August 4, 2015 Memorandum from ESC, QCG, AJV-E1, 2015156 issued as a result 

of an audit on Parachute Operation at CRE. The County cites the memorandum and stated that "the same 

conclusions were reached, noting specifically the 'numerous meetings and efforts of engagement' with this 

skydiving group, and their consistently confrontational behavior, and concluding with the statement that, ESC, 

QCG recommends that the LOA be terminated immediately until all parties can meet to mitigate the unsafe 

operation." 157 

In its letter to FAA, the County also notes that it "has been collecting data concerning these various incidents 

to identify possible risk mitigation measures" and that "analysis of this data does not indicate that wind or 

weather play any significant factor in the inability of skydivers to safely land in the LZ." Additionally, the 

County adds that it "engaged an engineering firm to evaluate the current LZ using generally accepted and 

recommended aeronautical standards" and that "based on their review, it was the determination of the 

engineering firm that not only could the LZ not be expanded, but in order to improve safety at CRE, the 

current LZ should actually be reduced in size to provide appropriate clearances from aeronautical operations 

and structures." 

Finally, the County states that despite having "repeatedly attempted to work with SDMB to prevent the 

recurrence of safety incidents" but "each attempt has been met with refusal to address any of the safety 

issues," it hereby formally requests FAA approval to immediately discontinue skydiving operations at CRE, 

close the [DZ], and withdraw from the existing LOA." The County "recognizes that FAA is the sole arbiter of 

1so FAA Exhibit 1, Item 228. 

151 This number has been update since this letter was sent out to the County. See Table 1. 

tsz FAA Exhibit 1, Item 29. 

153 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 29. 

154 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 30. 

155 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 30. 

156 1ncluded in the exhibit. 

1

57 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 30. 

Pagel? 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina {FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

what restrictions may be imposed due to safety concerns" and states that "in light of the skydiving operator's 

steadfast refusal to comply with the terms of the existing LOA, [the County] earnestly believes that it is only a 

matter of time before a catastrophic incident results." As such, the County "implores the FAA to provide their 

concurrence to this request within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, in order to immediately remedy 

whatFSDO described as "an egregious and callous disregard" for the safety ofCRE users and operators." 158 

On September 30,2015, the County again wrote to the FAA. In its letter, the County stated that "it is a 

paramount concern for the [County] to maintain safe operations for all aeronautical users and operators at 

[Airport]," and that it seeks to "immediately discontinue skydiving operations at CRE, close the LZ, and 

withdraw from the existing LOA." The County added that "in one incident, an errant skydiver touched down 

outside the landing zone on September 19, 2015, landing between the Air Traffic Control Tower and 

Taxiway Alpha." The County also noted that "on September 27, 2015, a wayward parachutist landed on 

Taxiway Alpha, just northeast of Taxiways Tango and Charlie." Finally, the County states that "while it is 

fortunate that no injuries or property damage were reported as the result of either incident, [the County] fears 

that it will only be a matter of time before we are writing to inform you of a catastrophic result" and thus 

"reiterates its request for FAA concurrence to immediately discontinue skydiving operations at CRE, close 

the LZ, and withdraw from the existing LOA."159 

V. ISSUES 

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

has determined that the following issues require analysis to provide a complete review of the Airport's 

compliance with applicable Federal law and policy: 

Issue 1 -Whether the actions taken by County with respect to Complainant's skydiving 

operations at CRE are in violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic 

Nondiscrimination; 

Issue 2 - Whether the actions taken by County with respect to Complainant's skydiving 

operations at CRE are in violation of Grant Assurance 19, Operation, and 

Maintenance; 

VI. APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW AND POLICY 

The Federal role in civil aviation has been augmented by various legislative actions that authorize 

programs for providing Federal funds and other assistance to local communities for the development of 

airport facilities. In each such program, the airport sponsor assumes certain obligations, either by contract 

or by restrictive covenants in property deeds and conveyance instruments, to maintain and operate its 

airport facilities safely and efficiently and in accordance with specified conditions. Commitments assumed 

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

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

ensuring the public fair and reasonable access to the airport. 

A. The Airport Improvement Program (AlP) 

Title 49 U.S.C., § 47101, et seq., provides for Federal airport fmancial assistance for the development of 

public-use airports under AIP established by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of I 982, (AAJA) as 

amended. Title 49 U.S.C., § 47107, et seq., sets forth assurances to which an airport sponsor agrees as a 

condition of receiving Federal fmancial assistance. Upon acceptance of an AIP grant, the assurances become 

a binding contractual obligation between the airport sponsor and the Federal Government. The assurances 

1ss FAA Exhibit 1, Item 30. 

159 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 31. 

Page 18 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

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

airport system. 

B. Airport Sponsor Assurances 

As a condition precedent to providing airport development assistance under AlP, 49 U.S.C. § 47107, et seq., 

the Secretary of Transportation and, by extension, the FAA must receive certain assurances from the airport 

sponsor. Title 49 U.S.C. § 471 07(a) sets forth the sponsorship requirements to which an airport sponsor 

receiving Federal financial assistance must agree. The FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport 

owners comply with these sponsor assurances. 16° FAA Order 5190.6B, FAA Airport Compliance Manual 

(Order), issued on September 30, 2009, provides the policies and procedures to be followed by the FAA in 

carrying out its legislatively mandated functions related to compliance with Federal obligations of airport 

sponsors. 161 The FAA grant assurances that apply to the circumstances set forth in this Complaint are Grant 

Assurance 19 Operation and Maintenance and Grant Assurances 22, Economic Nondiscrimination. 

1. Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance 

Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, of the prescribed sponsor assurances, implements the 

requirements of Title 49 United States Code U.S.C. § 47107(a)(7) and (a)(8). Assurance 19 provides, in 

pertinent part, that the sponsor of a federally obligated airport will operate the airport and all facilities 

necessary to serve the aeronautical users in a safe and serviceable condition at all times, and in accordance 

with the minimum standards as required or prescribed by applicable Federal, state and local agencies for 

maintenance and operation. 

FAA Order 5190.6B describes the responsibilities under Assurance 19 "a fundamental obligation on the 

sponsor is to keep the airport open for public use" and "Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, 

requires the sponsor to protect the public using the airport by adopting and enforcing rules, regulations, and 

ordinances as necessary to ensure safe and efficient flight operations. Accordingly, the sponsor is more than 

a passive landlord because the assurance federally obligates it to maintain and operate the aeronautical 

facilities and common-use areas for the benefit of the public." It also explains that this responsibility 

includes the following: 

"Warnings. If any part of the airport is closed or if the use of any part of the airport is hazardous, 

the sponsor must provide warnings to users, such as ... Notice to Airmen (NOT AM). 162 

Safe Operations. The sponsor should adopt and enforce adequate rules, regulations, or ordinances 

as necessary to ensure safety163 ••. of aircraft operations and to protect the public using the airport. 

Local Rules and Procedures. One of the most important functions of local regulations is to control 

the use of the airport in a manner that will eliminate hazards to aircraft and people and structures 

on the ground."164 

FAA's Flight Standards office should be involved in all matters related to decisions dealing with, or relying 

upon, a safety assessment. 165 As in the operation of any public service facility, there should be adequate 

rules covering vehicular traffic, sanitation, security, crowd control, access to certain areas, and fire 

protection .... " and that "sometimes, measures are needed to reduce the likelihood of a runway incursion. 

160 See, e.g., the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended and re-codified, Title 49 USC,§§ 40101, 40113, 40114, 46101, 46104, 46105, 46106, 46110; and the 

Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended and re-codified, Title 49 USC, §§ 4710S(d}, 47106(d), 47107(k), 47107(1), 471ll(d), 47122. 

161 The FAA considers it inappropriate to provide Federal assistance for improvements to airports where the benefits of such improvements will not be fully 

realized due to restrictions on aeronautical activities. 

lGZ The NOT AM is a notice or advisory distributed by means of telecommunication containing information concerning the establishment, conditions or change In 

any aeronautical facility, service, procedure, or hazard, the timely knowledge of which is essential to personnel and systems concerned with flight operations. 

See AC 150/5200·28 Notices To Airmen (NOTAMs) For Airport Operators, Date: 1/28/08. 

163 Safety- The state in which the risk of harm to persons or property damage is acceptable. See FAA Order 8040.4A, page A·l. 

164 FAA Order S190.6B, pages 7-7,7-8, and 7·9. 

155 FAA Order S190.6B, pages 22-6. 

Page19 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

FAA Order 5190.6B also stipulates that "FAA compliance personnel should carefully analyze accumulated 

data in evaluating a sponsor's compliance performance and identifYing appropriate actions to correct any 

deficiencies noted."166 It also states that "consistent with the FAA mission, the most important objective in 

FAA's oversight of the compliance program is to ensure and preserve safety at all federally obligated 

airports."167 For example, if a safety problem is identified at an airport, FAA compliance personnel should 

coordinate corrective action not only with the airport, but also with other FAA lines of businesses, including 

Flight Standards and/or Air Traffic. When possible, action should also be coordinated with the FAA Runway 

Safety Action Team (RSA T). The FAA has a number of initiatives underway to prevent runway incursions. 

In addition, several FAA documents can help reduce the potential for runway incursions, and discuss runway 

incursion prevention measures airport operators may consider implementing. 168 

Finally, FAA Order 5190.6B states that "when it becomes unsafe for aeronautical purposes, the airport 

sponsor may have to discontinue an aviation use."169 In addition, as part of an investigation, FAA's Associate 

Administrator for Airports, working in conjunction with Flight Standards and/or the Air Traffic Organization, 

carefully analyzes supporting data and documentation, and make the fmal decision on whether a particular 

activity can be conducted safely and efficiently at an airport170 

2. Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination 

Grant Assurance 22 of the sponsor assurances requires, in part, that the sponsor of a federally obligated airport 

assure: 

a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust 

discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial 

aeronautical activities offering services to the public at the airport. 

h. The sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all 

users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport ... 

i. The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport if such 

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

the public." 

Subsection (h) qualifies subsection (a) and subsection (i) represents an exception to subsection (a) to permit 

the sponsor to exercise control of the airport sufficient to preclude unsafe and inefficient conditions that would 

be detrimental to the civil aviation needs of the public. Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, 

deals with both the reasonableness of airport access and the prohibition of adopting unjustly discriminatory 

conditions as a potential for limiting access. In all cases involving restrictions on airport use imposed by 

airport owners for safety and efficiency reasons, the FAA will make the fmal determination on the 

reasonableness of such restrictions when they appear to deny or limit access to, or use of, the airport. 

C. The FAA Airport Compliance Program 

The FAA discharges its responsibilities for ensuring airport owners' compliance with their Federal 

obligations through its Airport Compliance Program. The FAA's airport compliance efforts are based on the 

contractual obligations an airport owner accepts when receiving Federal grant funds or the transfer of Federal 

166 FAA Order 5190.68, at 2-6. 

167 FAA Order 5190.68, at 2-5. 

168 FAA Order 5190.68, pages 7-7,7-8, and 7-9. 

169 FAA Order 5190.68, pages 22-6. 

170 FAA Order 5190.68, pages 14-2, 14-4, and 14-5. As the United States Supreme Court has stated, the FAA "requires a delicate balance between safety and 

efficiency ... and the protection of persons on the ground .... The interdependence of these factors requires a uniform and exclusive system of federal 

regulation (FAA determines safety] if the congressional objectives underlying the Federal Aviation Act are to be fulfilled." Jeff Bodin and Garlic City Skydiving v 

County of Santa Clara, California, FAA Docket No. 16-11-06, (December 19, 2011) (Director's Determination} at 30 (quoting City of Burbank v. lockheed Air 

Terminal, 411 U.S. 624, 638-639 (1973}). 

Page 20 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

property for airport purposes. These obligations are incorporated in grant agreements and instruments of 

conveyance in order to protect the public's interest in civil aviation and to ensure compliance with Federal 

laws. 171 The goal is to ensure the availability of a national system of safe and properly maintained public-use 

airports operated in a manner consistent with the airport owners' Federal obligations and the public's 

investment in civil aviation. 172 FAA Order 5190.6B sets forth policies and procedures for the FAA Airport 

Compliance Program. 173 The Order establishes the policies and procedures to be followed by FAA personnel 

in carrying out the FAA's responsibilities for ensuring airport compliance. 174 

FAA Order 5190.6B also analyzes the various obligations set forth in the standard airport sponsor assurances, 

addresses the nature of those assurances, addresses the application of those assurances in the operation of 

public-use airports, and facilitates interpretation of the assurances by FAA personnel. 175 Therefore, in 

addressing allegations of noncompliance, the FAA will make a determination as to whether an airport 

sponsor is currently in compliance with the applicable Federal obligations. Consequently, the FAA will 

consider the successful action by the airport to cure any alleged or potential past violation of applicable 

Federal obligation to be grounds for dismissal of such allegations. 

D. FAA Enforcement Responsibilities 

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

broad responsibilities for the regulation of air commerce in the interests of safety, security, and development 

of civil aeronautics. The Federal role in civil aviation has been augmented by various legislative actions, 

which authorize programs for providing funds and other assistance to local communities for the development 

of airport facilities. In each such program, the airport owner or sponsor assumes certain obligations, either by 

contract or by restrictive covenants in property deeds and conveyance instruments, to maintain and operate its 

airport facilities safely, efficiently, and in accordance with specified conditions. 

Commitments assumed by airport owners or sponsors in property conveyance or grant agreements are 

important factors in maintaining a high degree of safety and efficiency in airport design, construction, 

operation and maintenance, as well as ensuring the public reasonable access to the airport. Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. § 47122, the FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with their Federal 

grant assurances. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C § 40113(a) FAA is authorized to issue orders to carry out Part A of 

Subtitle VII of 49 U.S.C. That section provides explicit authority for the Administrator of the FAA to "take 

action the ... Administrator ... considers necessary to carry out this part, including the authority for" issuing 

orders." Pursuant to 49 U.S.C § 47122 the FAA may issue orders to the FAA has a statutory mandate to 

ensure that airport owners comply with their Federal grant assurances. 176 This subchapter includes the grant 

assurances requiring reasonable access and prohibiting unjust discrimination to aeronautical users. 

E. The Complaint Process 

Pursuant to 14 CPR§ 16.23, a person directly and substantially affected by any alleged noncompliance may 

file a complaint with the FAA. The complainant shall provide a concise but complete statement of the facts 

171 The Airport Compliance Program is administered by FAA's AC0-100 Airport Compliance and Management Analysis. The Airport Compliance Division oversees 

the Airport Compliance Program. The division holds primary responsibility for interpreting. recommending, and developing policies and resolving matters that 

involve the Federal obligations of airport sponsors. It also adjudicates formal complaints and FAA-initiated investigations under 14 CFR Part 16. 

172The Airport Compliance Program does not control or direct the operation of airports. Rather, it monitors the administration of the valuable rights pledged by 

airport sponsors to the people of the United States in exchange for monetary grants and donations of Federal property to ensure that the public interest is being 

served. 

m see http://www .faa .gov /a lrports/resources/ publications/ orders/ complia nee_ 5190 _ 6/. 

l74 1t provides basic guidance for FAA personnel in interpreting and administering the various continuing commitments made to the United States by airport 

owners as a condition of receiving a grant of Federal funds or the conveyance of Federal property for airport purposes. 

m The FAA Compliance Program is designed to achieve voluntary compliance with Federal obligations accepted by owners and/or operators of public-use 

airports developed with FAA-administered assistance. 

176 See, e.g., 49 u.s.c. § 40101, 40103(e}, 40113, 40114,46101, 46104, 46105, 46106, 46110, 47104, 47105(d), 47106(d), 47106(e), 47107, 47108, 47111(d), 

47122. Moreover, the FAA Administrator prescribes air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft for navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft; protecting 

individuals and property on the ground; using the navigable airspace efficiently; and preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water 

vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects. 49 U.S. C.§ 40103(b} (2). 

Page 21 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

relied upon to substantiate each allegation. The complaint shall also describe how the complainant was 

directly and substantially affected by the things done or omitted by the respondents. 177 If, based on the 

pleadings, there appears to be a reasonable basis for further investigation, the FAA will investigate the subject 

matter of the complaint. In rendering its initial determination, the FAA may rely entirely on the complaint and 

the responsive pleadings provided. Each party shall file documents it considers sufficient to present all relevant 

facts and arguments necessary for the FAA to determine whether the sponsor is in compliance. 178 The 

proponent of a motion, request, or order has the burden of proof. A party who has asserted an affirmative 

defense has the burden of proving the affirmative defense. The complainant must submit all documents then 

available to support his or her complaint. 179 Title 14 CFR § 16.3l(b-d) provides, in part, that "the Director's 

determination will set forth a concise explanation of the factual and legal basis ... on each claim made by the 

complainant." 

In accordance with 14 CFR § 16.33(b) and (e), upon issuance of a Director's determination, "a party 

adversely affected by the Director's determination may file an appeal with the Associate Administrator 

within 30 days after the date of service of the initial determination;" however, "if no appeal is filed within the 

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

and order of the FAA without further action." A Director's Determination that becomes fmal because there is 

no administrative appeal is not judicially reviewable. Title 14 CFR § 16.247(a) provides for judicial review 

of the Associate Administrator's fmal decision and order, as provided in 49 U.S.C. § 46110 or section 

519(b)(4), 49 USC,§ 47106(d) and 47lll(d). 

F. Minimum Standards 

Advisory Circular AC 150/5190-7, Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities (August 28, 

2006) provides basic information pertaining to the FAA's recommendations on commercial minimum 

standards and related policies. Although minimum standards are optional, the FAA highly recommends their 

use and implementation as a means to minimize the potential for violations of Federal obligations at federally 

obligated airports. In accordance with U.S.C. § 47101, et seq., and the AIP Sponsor Assurances, the owner or 

operator of any airport (airport sponsor) that has been developed or improved with Federal grant assistance or 

conveyances ofF ederal property assistance is required to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the 

public and to make it available for all types, kinds, and classes of aeronautical activity. 

These Federal obligations involve several distinct requirements. Most important is that the airport and its 

facilities must be available for public use as an airport. 180 The FAA suggests that airport sponsors establish 

reasonable minimum standards that are relevant to the proposed aeronautical activity with the goal of protecting 

the level and quality of services offered to the public. Once the airport sponsor has established minimum 

standards, it should apply them objectively and uniformly to all similarly situated on-airport aeronautical 

service providers. 181 

The FAA objective in recommending the development of minimum standards serves to promote safety in all 

airport activities, protect airport users from unlicensed and unauthorized products and services, maintain and 

enhance the availability of adequate services for all airport users, promote the orderly development of airport 

land, and ensure efficiency of operations. Therefore, airport sponsors should strive to develop minimum 

standards that are fair and reasonable to all on-airport aeronautical service providers and relevant to the 

aeronautical activity to which it is applied. 182 

m 14 CFR § 16.23(b) {3, 4). 

ns 14 CFR § 16.29. 

179 14 CFR §§ 16.23, 16.29. 

lSO The terms imposed on those who use the airport and its services must be reasonable and applied without unjust discrimination, whether by the airport 

sponsor or by a contractor or licensee who has been granted a right by the airport sponsor to offer services or commodities normally required to serve 

aeronautical users of the airport. 

181 The failure to do so may result in a violation of the prohibition against exclusive rights and/or a finding of unjust economic discrimination for imposing 

unreasonable terms and conditions for airport use. 

1112 Advisory Circular AC 150/5190~7, Exclusive Rights and Minimum Standards for Commercial Aeronautical Activities (August 28, 2006}. 

Page 22 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

In past decisions, the FAA has found that it is not a violation of grant assurances for airport sponsors to 

increase minimum standards. The FAA recognizes that frequent changes in an airport's minimum standards 

may lead to the appearance of manipulating the standards to protect the interest of one or a few businesses at 

the expense of others. 183 It is through the sponsor's objective and uniform application of its minimum 

standards that allows it to meet the standard of compliance. The FAA expects airport sponsors to apply their 

minimum standards consistently through their interactions with aeronautical users and service providers. 

With that said, the standard of compliance does not require that airport sponsors enforce minimum standards 

so rigidly as to require identical tone and posture toward all airport users that have different records and 

history with the sponsor. 184 

G. FAA Order 5190.68 Airport Compliance Manual (Safety and Skydiving) 

FAA Order 5190.6B contains relevant guidance to the issues under discussion in this case. The Order explains 

that an airport sponsor can deny an individual or prospective aeronautical service provider the right to engage 

in an on-airport aeronautical activity for reasons of safety and efficiency if the kind of activity (e.g., skydiving) 

would adversely impact the safety and efficiency of another aeronautical activity at the airport, typically fixedwing operations. 185 

Any safety concerns with an operator's activities must be brought to the attention of the FAA. However, the 

airport sponsor may fmd that an aeronautical activity as a whole is inconsistent with the safety and efficiency of 

the airport and may, therefore, not permit that activity at all, subject to concurrence by the FAA. The airport 

sponsor may also prohibit access by an individual or individual service provider that has not complied with the 

airport's minimum standards or operations rules for safe use of airport property. Any denial based on safety 

must be based on reasonable evidence demonstrating that airport safety will be compromised if the operator or 

individual is allowed to engage in the aeronautical activity. 186 

FAA Order 5190.6B also states that the FAA is the fmal authority in determining what, in fact, constitutes a 

compromise of safety. As such, an airport sponsor that is contemplating the denial of a proposed on-airport 

aeronautical activity or access is encouraged to contact the local Airport District Office (ADO) or regional 

airports division. Those offices will then seek assistance from FAA Flight Standards and Air Traffic to assess 

the reasonableness of the proposed action because of safety and efficiency, and to determine whether unjust 

discrimination or an exclusive rights violation results from the proposed restrictions. 187 FAA Order 5190.6B 

also states that any restriction, limitation, or ban on skydiving on the airport must be based on the grant 

assurance that provides that the airport sponsor may prohibit or limit aeronautical use for the safe operation of 

the airport (subject to FAA approval). The following questions present some of the reasonable factors the 

sponsor can contemplate when developing minimum standards that apply to skydiving: 

• Will this activity present or create a safety hazard to the normal operations at the airport?188 

• Can skydiving operations be safely accommodated at the airport? 

• Can a drop zone be safely established using FAAAC-90-66A, 14 CFRPart 105, and USPABSRs? 

• What experience requirements are needed for an on airport drop zone? 

• Has the relevant air traffic control facility been advised of the proposed parachute operation? 

183 See Royal Air. Inc. v. City of Shreveport through the Shreveport Aimort Authority, FAA Docket No. 16~02-06, January 9, 2004, pages 28. 

184 See Rick Aviation Inc. v. Peninsula Airport Commission FAA Docket No. 16-05-18, May 8, 2007, page 16, Rick Aviation. Inc. v. Peninsula Airport Commission 

FAA Docket No.lG-05-18, November 6, 2007, page 9, and Springfield Flight Academy v. Citv of Springfield. FAA Docket No. 16~10-03, August 25, 2011, page 15. 

185 FAA Order 5190.66, page 8-8. 186 FAA Order 5190.68, page 8-8. 187 FAA Order 5190.68, pages iii, and 7-8. 138 The guidance also states that "if so, has the local airports district office {ADO) or the regional airports division been contacted and have those FAA offices 

sought the assistance from FAA Flight Standards (AFS) and Air Traffic {ATO) to assess allegations that safe airport operations would be jeopardized?" FAA Order 

5190.68, Appendix C, pages 39-40. 

Page 23 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

• Will an FAA airspace study be necessary? 189 

FAA Order 5190.6B discusses skydiving-related restrictions, including: 

• Limiting skydiving ... to certain tirnes ... to avoid the times of highest operation by fixed-wing aircraft. 

• Banning skydiving ... when the volume affixed-wing traffic would create significant delays. 

• Limiting skydiving ... operations to certain areas of the airfield and certain traffic patterns to avoid conflict 

with fixed-wing pattems. 190 

H. 14 CFR Part 105 Parachute Operations 

The FAA's primary responsibility with respect to skydiving is the protection of air traffic (aircraft) and persons 

and property on the ground. This is principally accomplished through 14 CFR Part 105, promulgated under 49 

u.s.c. 106(g), 40113-40114,44701-44702, 44721.191 

Part 105 was designed to protect the general public and other users of the national airspace from sport 

parachuting activities. In addition, parachute operators and jump pilots must comply with all applicable 

sections of Part 91 General Operating and Flight Rules. 192 The following are relevant sections of 14 CFR Part 

105: 

§ 105.3 Definitions. Drop Zone means any pre-determined area upon which parachutists or objects 

land after making an intentional parachute jump or drop. Other relevant definitions include (I) 

parachute operation, parachutist, and tandem parachute operation. 

§ 105.5 General. No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no pilot in command (PIC) of an 

aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from an aircraft, if that operation creates a 

hazard to air traffic or to persons or property on the surface. 

§ 105.13 Radio Equipment and Use Requirements. No person may conduct a parachute operation, 

and no PIC may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, in or into controlled 

airspace unless the appropriate radio equipment and procedures are adhered to. 

§ 105.21 Parachute Operations Over or Into a Congested Area or an Open-Air Assembly of Persons. 

No person may conduct a parachute operation, and no PIC may allow a parachute operation to be 

conducted from that aircraft, over or into a congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or an openair assembly unless a Certificate of Authorization (COA) for that parachute operation has been 

issued.l 93 

§ 105.23 Parachute Operations Over or Onto Airports. No person may conduct a parachute 

operation, and no PIC may allow a parachute operation to be conducted from that aircraft, over or 

onto any airport unless-

• For airports with an operating control tower: (1) approval has been obtained from the 

management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport, (2) 

approval from the ATCT to conduct parachute operations over or onto that airport, (3) radio 

communications are maintained. 

189 FAA Order 5190.6B, Appendix c, pages 39-40. 

19° FAA Order 5190.66, pages 14-3, and Appendix C. 

191 66 FR 23553, May 9, 2001, unless otherwise noted. 

192 See 14 CFR § 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting ... (b} Except in an emergency, no pilot in command may allow, and no person may conduct, a parachute 

operation from an aircraft within the United States except in accordance with Part 105 of this chapter. 

193 However, a parachutist may drift over a congested area or an open-air assembly of persons with a fully deployed and properly functioning parachute if that 

parachutist is at a sufficient altitude to avoid creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface. 

Page 24 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

• For airports without an operating control tower, prior approval has been obtained from the 

management of the airport to conduct parachute operations over or on that airport. It also 

provides that a parachutist may drift over that airport ... ifthe parachutist is at least 2,000 feet 

above that airport's traffic pattern, and avoids creating a hazard to air traffic or to persons and 

property on the ground. 

§ 105.25 Parachute Operations in Designated Airspace. No person may conduct a parachute 

operation, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow a parachute operation to be 

conducted ... within or into a Class A, B, C, D airspace area without ... an air traffic control 

authorization ... within or into Class E or G airspace area unless the air traffic control facility having 

jurisdiction over the airspace .. .is notified of the parachute operation no earlier than 24 hours before or 

no later than I hour before the parachute operation begins. 194 

I. Advisory Circular 105-2 Sport Parachuting 

Advisory Circular AC 1 05-2E Sport Parachuting provides parachuting safety suggestions and disseminates 

information to assist in compliance with 14 CFR Part 105. It contains information on equipment, on-airport 

parachuting operations, training, and other related procedures for FAA authorizations. The document covers 

several aspects of skydiving on airports. 

Parachute Landing Areas. The FAA recommends that parachute landing areas remain unobstructed, with 

sufficient minimum radial distances to the nearest hazard. 195 

Stipulations for Landing at or Flying Over an Airport. Most parachute operations take place on airports. 

Section I 05 23 requires approval from airport management prior to skydiving onto any airport, but allows 

a parachutist to drift over an airport without airport management approval as long as the he or she remains 

at least 2,000 feet above that airport's traffic pattem. 196 

Additional Aviation Activities. A large number of airports that accommodate parachute operations also 

have different kinds of aviation activities taking place simultaneously, including flight training, helicopter 

operations, transient traffic over or in the immediate vicinity of the airport during skydiving operations. 197 

Parachute Landings on Airports. Airports may designate suitable parachute landing areas. While 

skydivers, at times there may be inadvertent landings in other grass or hard-surfaced areas, areas such as 

runways, taxiways, clearways, and obstacle-free zones should not be designated as a primary landing area 

and should be vacated as soon as practical. Flying a parachute over runways at low altitudes should be 

avoided where possible .... airport management works with parachute operators to develop standard 

operating procedures for activities conducted by parachutists. 198 

J. Advisory Circular AC 90-66A Recommended Standard Traffic Patterns and Practices For 

Aeronautical Operations at Airports Without Operating Control Towers 

Advisory Circular AC 90-66A provides additional guidance related to skydiving operations at an airport. It 

states, in part that "all activities are normally conducted under a NOT AM noting the location, altitudes, and 

~ See 14 CFR Part 105. 

195 AC 105-2, page 4. 

196 AC 150-2, page 5. 

197 AC 150-2, page 5. The FAA recommends that shared-facility airports have operating procedures so that each activity can operate safely by knowing the procedures for each of the other activities. Representatives of each type of airport user group should develop procedures specific to their activity and share these procedures with other user groups. It is the airport management's responsibility to ensure that airport policies and procedures are kept current. This can be accomplished via regularly scheduled meetings with all airport user groups. 

198 AC 150-2, page 5-6. 

Page 25 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

time or duration of jump operations. The Airport!Facility Directory (A!FD) lists airports where permanent drop 

zones are located."199 

Advisory Circular AC 90-66A also states that "when a drop zone has been established on an airport, 

parachutists are expected to land within the drop zone. At airports that have not established drop zones, 

parachutists should avoid landing on runways, taxiways, aprons, and their associated safety areas."200 Pilots 

and parachutists should also be aware of the flight performance limitations of parachutes, and avoid any 

potential conflicts between aircraft and skydivers.201 

K. Development of Criteria for Parachute Landing Areas on Airports (DOT /FAA/ AR-11/30) 

This advisory document discusses the placement of parachute landing areas (PLA) (aka landing Area, DZ)202 at 

airports and discusses related variables in developing aDZ. It also correlates the size of a PLA/DZ and 

experience level. The document includes recommendations for operational procedures and practices.203 

Skydiving landing hazards include telephone and power lines, towers, buildings, paved surfaces (ramps/aprons, 

runways, and taxiways), aircraft, aircraft tie-down areas, NA V AIDs, airfield lighting, signage, open bodies of 

water, highways, automobiles, and clusters of trees covering more than 3,000 square meters.204 The USPA 

categorizes three minimum radial distances from hazards based on the parachutist's experience and type of 

activity. These radial distances were used to calculate the minimum square footage for an on-airport PLA. 205 

Airports should develop an LOA with the skydiving operator that describes specific operating requirements and 

boundaries of the PLAs. This could include movements required by the skydiver operator on the airfield as 

we II as instructions and/or restrictions for crossing runways, operating vehicles on the airfield, radio 

communications, and emergency procedures. The LOA should also address the procedures if a parachutist 

lands outside the designated PLA or in a protected area of the runway. 206 

When applicable, an additional LOA should be established between the skydiver operator and the nearest FAA 

Air Traffic facility. The LOA should defme the skydiving procedures and boundary of the jump zone airspace 

as we II as aircraft operating procedures. Ail on-airport PLAs must be marked to distinguish the PLA from the 

surrounding area. 207 

L. FAA Order J07110.65V Air Traffic Control, Chapter 9, Section 7 Parachute Operations 

FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) has guidance related to skydiving operations. FAA Order J0711 0.65 

prescribes procedures and phraseology in providing air traffic control services. This order applies to all ATO 

personnel and anyone using ATO directives.208 Section 7 of the Order specifically covers parachute 

operations. It includes the following guidance directed at air traffic controllers (a) coordinate any pertinent 

information prior to and at the end of each parachute jump or series of jumps; (b) authorize parachute 

operations only within airspace designated for the jumping activity; (c) separate other aircraft from the 

airspace authorized for the jumping activity; (d) impose, as necessary, any conditions and restrictions to 

support the safety of the operation; (e) handle requests to conduct jump operations in or into Class D airspace 

in which there is a functioning control tower as follows; and (f) handle notifications for operations in other 

Class E airspace.209 

9 AC 90-66A, page 4. 

200 AC 90-66A, page 4 

~01 AC 90-66A, page 4. 202 1n some instances the FAA has used the term "Parachute landing Area," but the FAA notes that the more widely used term for landing areas is "parachute 

drop zones," or 'drop zones' or simply 'PDZs' or "DZ." Accordingly, those terms will be used in this notice interchangeably, "DZ" predominantly. 

203 Development of Criteria for Parachute Landing Areas on Airports {DOT /FAA/ AR-11/30}, page 6. 

204 Development of Criteria for Parachute Landing Areas on Airports (DOT /FAA/ AR-11/30), page 6 and 9. 

205 Development of Criteria for Parachute Landing Areas on Airports (DOT/FAA/ AR-11/30), pages 23. 

205 Development of Criteria for Parachute Landing Areas on Airports (DOT/FAA/AR-11/30), pages 26. 

207 Development of Criteria for Parachute Landing Areas on Airports, DOT /FAA/AR-11/30, page 26. 

208 Section 1-1-1, FAA Order 7110.6SV. It includes contract towers. 

20~ FAA Order J07110.6SV Air Traffic Control, Section 7 Parachute Operations, April3, 2014. 

Page 26 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

M. FAA Order J0721 0.3, Chapter 4, Section 3 Letters of Agreement (LOA) and Chapter 18, 

Section 4 Parachute Jump Operations 

Section 4 ofF AA Order J0721 0.3 Parachute Jump Operations also covers LOAs and parachute jump 

operations. When operational/procedural needs require or when warranted by high-density air traffic or 

constrained airspace, the Order discusses negotiating letters of agreement (LOAs) that designate areas of 

ongoing jump activity as permanent jump sites. In discussing LOAs, FAA Order J072!0.3 addresses many 

aspects of safe skydiving operations including (a) the description and the location of the jump zones and the 

conditions of use; (b) schedules; (c) jump altitudes; (d) communications; (e) notification procedures; (f) 

control of vehicular traffic on airport movement areas, and (g) any other items pertinent to the needs of the 

ATC system and the users.21° FAA Order J07210.3 also states that where ongoing jump sites are 

established, NOT AM (Notice to Airmen) information must be submitted for publication in the A/FD. The 

Order also requires ATC to keep the record of the jump operations in the facility files for 15 days. 211 

N. 14 CFR Part 139 Certification of Airports 

The FAA has the statutory authority under 49 U.S.C. § 44706 to issue Airport Operating Certificates to airports 

serving passenger-carrying operations of certain air carriers and establish minimum safety standards for the 

operation of those airports. The FAA uses this authority to issue requirements for the certification and 

operation of certain land airports through 14 CFR Part 139. Although 14 Part 139 is not a regulatory 

requirement for general aviation airports, it provides reasonable safety guidance in many areas, which are 

relevant to or assist with achieving and maintaining safe operations at any airport. For example, Part 139 

includes guidance concerning self-inspections, paved areas, safety areas, traffic and wind direction indicators, 

pedestrians and ground vehicles, 212 obstructions, public protection, protection ofNA V AIDs, and airport 

condition reporting.213 

0. Airport Movement Safety and Vehicle or Pedestrian Deviations (VPD) Guidance 

The FAA has responsibilities for identifying, analyzing, and tracking hazards which contribute to runway 

incursion and excursion risk. ATO policy governing the identification of hazards and the analysis and 

mitigation of risk in the National Airspace System (NAS)214 is documented in FAA Order I 000.37 ATO Safety 

Management System. It includes the processes used to evaluate and ensure safety of the NAS, including 

valuations, data tracking, and analysis. Runway Incursions are considered "safety events" that must be 

analyzed in order to identifY new hazards or risks and to assess existing safety controls. An A TCT facility 

reports surface events as occurrence reports in CEDAR218 

Runway Safety classifies every event and makes sure appropriate data is captured for the official agency 

runway incursion database. The responsibilities for investigation and analysis include: (a) Potential 

Operational Incidents; (b) Potential Pilot Deviations (P D); (c) Potential Vehicle or Pedestrian Deviations 

(VPD)/16 and (d) Runway Saftty Group. 217 

210 FAA Order JO 72.10.3Y Facility Operation and Administration, paragraph 4-3-1, and 18-4-1. · 

211 FAA Order JO 7210.3Y Facility Operation and Administration, and 18-4-1. 

m Pedestrians and Ground Vehicles(§ 139.329). This section covers, amongst others, limiting access to movement areas and safety areas, establish and 

implement procedures for the safe and orderly access to and operation in movement areas and safety areas by pedestrians and ground vehicles, including 

provisions identifying the consequences of noncompliance with the procedures by all persons, control of pedestrian and vehicles when an air traffic control tower 

is and is not in operation, and track and keep records of any accidents or incidents in the movement areas and safety areas ·mvolving aircraft, a ground vehicle or 

a pedestrian. 

zn For example, 14 CFR § 139.227, 14 CFR § 139.329, and 14 CFR § 139.335. 

:<14 The common network of U.S. airspace; air navigation facilities, equipment, and services; airports or landing areas; aeronautical charts, information, and 

services; rules, regulations, and procedures; technical information; and manpower and material. Included are system components shared jointly with the 

military. [FAA Order 7110.10]. 

ns Comprehensive Electronic Data Analysis and Reporting (CEDAR). 

2l6 The FAA Office of Airports investigates surface events that are potential vehicle or pedestrian deviations, or in the case of events with mechanics taxiing 

aircraft, by Flight Standards. Based on the results of the investigation, the Office of Airports may assign corrective actions to the airport involved. If risks or 

Page 27 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina {FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

P. FAA Order 7050.1 B Runway Safety Program 

Runway safety is one of the FAA's highest safety priorities. FAA Order 7050.1B Runway Safety Program 

prescribes the FAA Runway Safety Program (RSP) and establishes policy, assigns responsibility, and assigns 

authority for ensuriug compliance with this order within each organization of the FAA.218 The RSP is intended 

to improve runway safety by decreasing the number and severity of runway incursions, runway excursions, and 

other surface incidents.219 

Q. Safety Management Systems (SMS) Guidance 

FAA Order VS8000.369 Safety Management System Guidance provides guidance for implementation of a 

common Safety Management System (SMS) within the FAA. This order furthers the practice of managing 

safety by moving to a more process-oriented system safety approach with an emphasis on managing systems 

that ensure risk management and safety assurance. This order applies to the FAA's Aviation Safety 

Organization (A VS), Air Traffic Organization (ATO), and Office of Airports (ARP)220 

FAA Order 8040.4A Safety Risk Management Policy supports FAA Order 8000.369, and establishes 

requirements for how to conduct Safety Risk Management (SRM) in the FAA. It formalizes the use and 

communication of SRM across the FAA and describes the specific steps when performing SRM. The 

objective of SRM is to provide supporting information for decision-makers by identifYing hazards, analyzing 

safety risk, assessing safety risk, and developing controls to reduce risk to an acceptable level. SRM 

facilitates communication and coordination across FAA organizations for enhanced safety risk decision 

making. It also establishes common terms and processes used to analyze, assess, and accept safety risk. The 

design of this policy is to prescribe common SRM language and communication standards to be applied 

throughout the F AA.221 

FAA Order 5200.ll FAA Airports (ARP) Safety Management System provides a SMS framework as a 

consistent means of assessing safety risks at airports. FAA Order 5200.ll is consistent with FAA Order 

8000.369, and its principles are based on the ability to identify and address safety issues before they become 

hazards and thus increase system safety. 222 A hazard is any existing or potential condition that can lead to 

injury, illness, or death; damage to or loss of a system, equipment, or property; or damage to the environment 

(environmental issues are not within the scope of the SMS). A hazard is a condition that might cause (is a 

prerequisite to) an accident or incident.223 

FAA SMS is used to assess, verifY, and control risks, and safety risk management is integrated into applicable 

processes. Appropriate risk controls or other risk management responses are developed and employed 

operationally. Safety risk management provides for initial and continuing identification of hazards and the 

analysis and assessment of risk. The FAA provides risk controls through activities such as the promulgation of 

regulations, standards, orders, directives, advisory circulars (AC), and policies. The safety risk management 

process (1) describes the system of interest, (2) identifies the hazards, (3) analyzes the risk, ( 4) assesses the risk, 

and (5) controls the risk.224 

hazards are identified that are under the control of the ATCT, the Office of Airports notifies the ATCT manager. If the airport investigator identifies a potential 

system-wide safety concern, they must forward that information to the Office of Airport Safety and Standards and ATO through appropr'1ate channels. 

217 See AC 705018, Appendix C. Note: Runway Safety examines every surface event for potential hazards at both Service Area and national levels, This includes 

examining surface event based on initial reports and the results of investigations conducted by the responsible agency organization, follow up actions if necessary 

to mitigate hazards, and issue recommendations 

218 FAA Order 7050.16, cover page. 

219 FAA Order 7050.18, cover page. 

220 See FAA OrderVS8000.369 Safety Management System Guidance (September 30, 2008), page 3. Also, on June 28, 1998, the FAA Administrator issued Order 

8040.4 to establish FAA safety risk management policy. This policy requires al! the Unes of Business (LOB) of the FAA to establish and implement a forma! risk 

management program consistent with the LOB's role in the FAA. 

m FAA Order 8040.4A Safety Risk Management Policy, cover page and pages 3 and 5. 

=See FAA Order 5211 Airports (ARP} Safety Management System (August 30, 2010), pages 4-2 and 4-3. 

223 See AC 150/5200-37 Introduction to Safety Management Systems (SMS) for Airport Operators, page 1. 

224 See FAA Order 5200.11 FAA Airports (ARP) Safety Management System {August 30, 2010). 

Page 28 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

FAA Advisory Circular (AC) No. 150/5200-37 Introduction to Safety Management Systems (SMS) for Airport 

Operators (Feb. 28, 2007) introduces the concept of a safety management system for airport operators. The use 

of SMS at airports contributes to safety by increasing the likelihood that airport operators will detect and 

correct safety problems before those problems result in an aircraft accident or incident.225 

FAA Systems Safety Handbook (SSH) was developed to support the application of system safety policies and 

procedures. As the Federal agency with primary responsibility for civil aviation safety, the FAA develops and 

applies safety techniques and procedures in a wide range of activities. Chapter 15 of the SSH Operational Risk 

Management (ORM) is a decision-making tool to systematically help identity operational risks and benefits 

and determine the best courses of action for any given situation. Risk management, as discussed in the 

handbook is pre-emptive, rather than reactive. The approach is based on the philosophy that it is 

irresponsible and wasteful to wait for an accident to happen, then figuring out how to prevent it from 

happening again. 226 

ATO Safety Management System (SMS) Manual (v.4), in effect since on September 1, 2014 is a formalized 

and proactive approach to system safety. It directly supports the mission of the FAA to provide the safest, 

most efficient aerospace system in the world. A TO's SMS is an integrated collection of principles, policies, 

processes, procedures, and programs used to identity, analyze, assess, manage, and monitor safety risk in the 

provision of air traffic management and communication, navigation, and surveillance services. 227 

R. Other Relevant Guidance 

FAA Order 8900.1 Flight Standards Information Management System contains surveillance procedures 

conducted for FAA Flight Standards FAA inspectors when observing parachute operations. Sport parachute 

surveillance usually involves aircraft, pilots, parachute riggers, owners, operators, aircraft mechanics, and 

parachutists. This surveillance and reporting of sport parachute operations help determine compliance with the 

current CFRs that are applicable to sport parachute operations.Z28 To aid in this function, FAA has developed 

draft guidance to supplement the current language in Chapter 3, Section 5 FAA Order 8900.1 Risk Assessments 

for Various Airport Operations. It addresses several activities including parachuting operation risk 

assessments.229 FAA Order 8900.1 also covers demonstrations or exhibition jumps over or into a congested 

area. It considers satisfactory evidence of the experience, knowledge, and skill equivalent to that required by 

the USPA. This guidance relates to 14 CFRPart 105, which was intended to protect the general public and 

other users of the national airspace from sport parachuting activities. The competence of parachutists is 

extremely important when evaluating the suitability of a landing site- type of landing area v. experience.230 

F AASTeam is a FAA Flight Standards program designed to assist in improving the accident rate by 

conveying safety principles and practices. It is one of the educational outreach arm of the FAA. Each of 

the eight FAA Flight Standards regions now has a Regional F AASTeam Office dedicated to this unique 

safety program and managed by the Regional FAASTeam Manager (RFM). Based on the makeup of the 

aviation community in each region, the RFM has selected a group ofF AASTeam Program Managers 

(FPM) with specific aviation specialties and assigned them to geographic areas of responsibility within the 

region. The FAASTeam uses system safety techniques to shift the safety culture. New risk management 

225 FAA Advisory Circular (A C) No. 150/5200-37 Introduction to Safety Management Systems (SMS} for Airport Operators {Feb. 28, 2007), page i. 

ns See FAA Systems Safety Handbook {SSH), December 30, 2000, Chapter 15, page 15-2. 

m ATO Safety Management System (SMS) Manual (v.4)., page 1. 

m See FAA Order 8900.1, Chapter 3, Section 5- Survef(lance of Sport Parachute Activities. 22g The purpose of the assessment is to determine the risk level for a particular aviation activity at an airport. Airport sponsors should be reminded that, in all 

cases, the FAA will make the final determination on the reasonableness of the sponsor's proposed restrictions. Therefore, the results of the risk assessment 

conducted by the FAA team will be used to help the Regional Airports Division determine whether an activity can be safely accommodated at the airport. For 

additional details, including details on the status of this guidance, contact AFS~830. 

zso FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 6, Section 1, Paragraph 3~150 Parachute Demonstrations. or D license {or equivalent), a minimum of 200 jumps, of 

which 50 jumps were within the last 12 months to include 5 jumps within the previous 60 days on the same make and model canopy to be used for the 

demonstration. Level II and stadium landing areas require a class D license with a PRO rating (or equivalent), and SO jumps in the last 12 months, including 5 

jumps in the previous 60 days. 

Page29 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

tools will be created for individual airmen. In addition, a product to deliver safety management system 

tools to air groups is in the development process. 231 

VII. ANALYSIS 

A. Preliminary Issues 

1. Compliance with 14 CFR § 16.21 lcl 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.2l(c), SDMB certifies that it has made substantial and reasonable good faith efforts 

to resolve the issues with the County and that "there is no reasonable prospect for practical, equitable, and 

timely resolution of the dispute.'m2 A review of the record substantiates this assertion. Therefore, the 

Director finds that SDMB has met the requirements of 14 CFR § 16.21(c). 

2. Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 

In response to SDMB's Complaint, and pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.25(b)(i) and (ii), the County requests that 

the FAA dismiss the Complaint, 233 because the "Complaint does not identity any specific federal law, 

regulation, or obligation that [the County] has violated" and "therefore, at the most basic level, SDMB's 

Complaint is subject to dismissal because it appears on its face to be outside the jurisdiction of the [FAA]." 

The County adds that "SDMB's Complaint should be dismissed because on its face it does not state a claim 

that warrants an investigation or further action by the FAA. "234 

The County argues that "Complaint SDMB presents a disjointed array of allegations, primarily on issues that 

are governed exclusively by South Carolina law" and that "these allegations, which predominantly relate to 

SDMB's occupancy of a hangar ... and its use of other ... facilities, are already being litigated in South 

Carolina state courts and, more importantly, are beyond the FAA's Part 16 jurisdiction."235 

Title 14 CFR § 16.25(b) states that a motion to dismiss shall be accompanied by a concise statement of the 

reasons for seeking dismissal and that a respondent must show that the complaint should be dismissed, with 

prejudice, if (i) it appears on its face to be outside the jurisdiction of the Administrator under the Acts listed 

in§ 16.1, or (ii) on its face it does not state a claim that warrants an investigation or further action.236 

In describing how they were directly and substantially affected by alleged actions of the Respondent, 

Complainant clearly alleges facts and makes legal arguments that fall under the FAA's 14 CFR Par 16 

jurisdiction. Most of the disputed issues in this Complaint, including negative economic impact of the 

county's actions, 237 lease provisions, operational requirements, minimum commercial standards/38 and the 

safety issues that are within the FAA's purview.. Finally, a review of the pleadings supports a structured 

argument concerning the alleged grant assurance violations, which are clearly articulated and referenced. 

The Director fmds that the Complainant has adequately stated claims under the grant assurances and 14 CFR 

Part 16. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is denied. 

3. General Limitations and Scope of the Part 16 Process and State Law Issues 

In reviewing matters pertaining to a sponsor's compliance with its federal grant assurance agreements, the 

Director does not replace or act on behalf oflocallaw enforcement, civil courts, or other legal forums outside 

231 https://www.faasafety.gov/about/mission.aspx. Also see Skydiving and Parachute Operations, P~8740-57 (1997}, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 19. 

232 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 2-3. 

233 FAA Exhib'1t 1, Item 3, page 1. 

234 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 15. 235 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 1-2. 

236 See 14 CFR Part 16.26 {b) (1) {t) and {ii). 

237 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 112. 

238 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 12. 

Page 30 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

the scope of the FAA's 14 CFR Part 16 purview.239 In dealing with airport compliance matters, negotiation is 

important, because both the proponent of an aeronautical business and the airport sponsor have rights and 

responsibilities to negotiate good business arrangements. The Part 16 process is not a substitute for 

negotiation.240 

A proponent of a business at an airport has a responsibility to engage in negotiations regarding terms such as 

location, standards, qualifications, and business issues, including rents and terms. Airport sponsors have the 

proprietary right to demand that aeronautical business proposals include appropriate details, including 

reasonable protection from risk. Similarly, airport sponsors may negotiate to protect themselves from 

liability and litigation. 241 

As part of its Complaint, both parties make state law claims. For example, SDMB argues that the County 

actions are "discriminatory and illegal manner that is contrary to ... state law."242 In addition, SDMB's offer to 

mediate in June 2014 was made in order to meet "ethical requirements relating to South Carolina state 

law."243 Finally, SDMB takes the position that the County refused "to mediate within the bounds of South 

Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (SCRPC) ... "244 

The County also raises issues under state law. For example, the County argues that SDMB's claims "are 

outside the FAA's jurisdiction"245 and that "negotiation or commercial litigation" resides "under applicable 

state and local laws. "

246 The County also argues "following these principles, the FAA typically does not 

consider interpretation oflease terms to be within its Part 16 jurisdiction."247 The County adds, for example, 

that "the issue of whether an eviction action is wrongful is a matter to be resolved under State Law,"248 that 

the FAA does not "opine on matters related to an eviction proceeding as such action is outside the scope of 

14 CFR Part 16," and that the "allegations in SDMB' s Complaint relating to its state law claims are outside 

the FAA's Part 16 jurisdiction and should be dismissed with prejudice."249 Finally, as part of its pleadings, the 

County notes that "though SDMB attempted to enjoin the enforcement of the minimum standards at a recent 

hearing in a South Carolina state court action, their arguments were rejected by the [state] Court."250 

The Director does not opine on issues of state law nor is the FAA bound by state court opinions on issues 

covered by the grant assurances or other federal obligations.251 While in some cases facts may be relevant, 

(and some aspects are discussed below as appropriate), claims under state law are outside the FAA's 

239 Skydive Sacramento v. City of Lincoln. California. Director's Determination, 19, FAA Docket No. 16~09-09 (March 4, 2011). 240 In Penobscot Air Serv·lce v. Knox County. Director's Determination, 24, FAA Docket No. 16-97-04 {September 25, 1997) the Director stated: "The purpose of the 

grant assurances is to protect the public interest in the operation of federally obligated airports. The purpose is not to provide alternative or supplemental rights 

to those normally available to commercial tenants in disputes with their landlords, i.e. negotiation or commercial litigation under applicable state and local 

laws .... " 

241 As stated in Jet Away v. Montrose. CO. FAA Docket No. 16-08-01,Director's Determination, 17 (July 2, 2009} p. 17, "One example of where an airport sponsor 

may exercise its proprietary rights is to protect itself as a going concern in the face of litigation." See also, Kent J. Ashton. Jacqueline R. Ashton v. City of Concord, 

~ FAA Docket No.16-02-01, 27,Director's Determination (August 22, 2003). 

24~ FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 8. 

Z

43 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 8. 

z.u FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page3. 

245 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 15(citing 14 CFR § 16.26). 

246 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 16 {citing Penobscot Air Service. v. Knox City .. FAA Docket No. 16-97-04, 24 (Sept. 25, 1997} (Director's Determination), aff'd, 

Penobscot Air serv. v. FAA, 164 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 1999)). 

247 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 16 (citing Roadhouse Aviation LLC v. Citv of Tulsa & the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, FAA Docket No. 16-05-08, 20 (June 26, 2007} (Final Decision and Order); Long Island Jet Center East. Inc. v. County of Suffolk New York FAA Docket No. 16-04-05, 2005 {Jan. 21, 2005) (Director's 

Determination)}. 

248 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 16 (citing Long Island Jet Center East Inc .. 2005 FAA Docket No. 16-04-05 (Jan. 21, 2005) (Director's 

Determination) and Springfield Flight Acad. v. City of Springfield, FAA Docket No. 16-10-03, 29 {Aug. 25, 2011) (Director's Determination)). 

249 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 16. The County also states that ''SDMB's Complaint also includes many allegations related to matters governed by South Carolina 

law, which appear in FP 3~5, 8-10, 16, 19-20, 23, 26, 31, 33~34, 36-37, 40, 42, and 46. For the most part, these allegations relate to lease and Space Use Permit 

negotiations and other issues related to 50MB's occupancy of a hangar at CRE...SDMB and [the County] have both filed state law actions addressing these 

issues ... As discussed infra§ II, these allegations relate to claims wholly outside the FAA's jurisdiction and should be dismissed." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 7. 

2so FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15. 

251 Jn Arapahoe County Public Airport Authority v. FAA, 242 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2001), and American Airlines v. City of Dallas, 202 F.3d 788 {S1

h Cir. 2000), the 

courts of appeals held that the pending or prior state court litigation did not bar the Federal agency from conducting its own proceeding and determining 

whether an airport was complying with its obligations under Federal Jaw. See FAA v. Naples Airoort Authority. Florida Director's Determination, 26, FAA Docket 

No. 16~01~05 (March 10, 2003}. 

Page 31 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

jurisdiction and are not used in support of a claim against the County for an alleged violation of any of its 

federal obligations. 

Although issues such as an eviction or actions leading to evictions (failure to adhere to a contract or 

agreement), are typical contractual matters to be resolved under State Law, it does not supplant FAA's ability 

to review the matter, which may include consideration of lease terms and provisions, and safety allegations, 

within the scope of the applicable grant assurances. 252 Similarly, the argument by the County that its 

minimum standards were somehow validated because they were accepted by a South Carolina state court 

action, is also rejected since the FAA, not the state, ascertains compliance with the federal obligations. 

Finally, the Director rejects arguments made by Complainant and the County discussing or alleging state law 

irregularities, state law requirements (e.g., requirements of the South Carolina Administrative Procedure Act), 

allegations of the County's legislative and judicial irregularities, and claims before the Horry County Court of 

Common Pleas,253 because those are outside FAA's jurisdiction. 

4. Operator Minimum Standards for Skydiving Operators 

Relevant to this case are the County's skydiving minimum standards, considered in late 2014 and enacted on 

January 29, 2015. The following are key excerpts from the document: 

... A commercial skydiving operator engages in the transportation of persons for skydiving, instruction in 

skydiving, and rental and sales of skydiving equipment. Commercial skydiving is not permitted at the 

airport except in a DZ254 approved by the FAA and the Director, and in strict compliance with these 

Minimum Standards and laws, including without limitation 14 CFR Part 105 and a [LOA] among the 

Operator, the County, and the applicable ATCT. The FAA and the County must determine that skydiving 

will not present, or create, a safety hazard to the normal operations of aircraft arriving or departing the 

airport before aDZ will be approved. Any operator engaged in a skydiving operation shall meet, amongst 

others, the following standards: 

• Assigned area solely to store and maintain aircraft, skydiving equipment, offices, etc .. ; 

• Meet or exceed 14 CFR Part I 05 and related FAA Advisory Circulars, as amended; 

• No operations permitted if they create a hazard to air traffic, persons, or property; 

• Operator shall enter into a LOA with the ATCT and the County; 

• If necessary or desirable by FAA or the County, the County may undertake a safety and efficiency 

study to determine whether the Airport can safely accommodate skydiving operations without 

adversely affecting the efficient operation of the Airport; 

• The County shall seek input from the FAA, and request its own analysis, before making any decision 

on establishment of a new skydiving operation; 

• Operators operating shall monitor wind and other weather conditions as well as air traffic conditions 

and ensure that, given the level of skill or licensure of the persons seeking to skydive, all skydivers 

will be able to land safely within the designated DZ; 

• Operators shall maintain radio contact with the ATCT during its operating hours at all times; 

252 See Platinum Aviation and Platinum Jet Center BMI v. Bloomington-Normal Airport Authority. Final Agency Decision, 18, FAA Docket No.lG-06-09 (November 

28, 2007). 253 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, pages 1-6. 

254 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 26, page 44. 

Page 32 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

• Skydivers shall not enter or cross any runway, taxiway or enter an active portion of the movement area 

without approval ofthe ATCT, and the operator shall ensure that all skydivers, customers and staff, are 

adequately instructed ... ; 

• The County [may impose] additional reasonable restrictions or conditions on commercial skydiving 

operations ... to ensure the safe ... operation of the Airport and protection of persons from harm ... [and] 

operators shall comply fully and promptly with all such restrictions and conditions; 

• Operator shall provide currently FAA certificated commercial pilot with ratings adequate to fly the 

aircraft owned or leased by the operator and a sufficient number of personnel to adequately and safely 

carry out commercial skydiving services. It includes the requirement for the "operator shall provide, 

aircraft properly configured and certificated for skydiving activities" and for the "operator shall 

provide copies of all appropriate FAA certifications and approvals required to operate a commercial 

skydiving activity; 

• Operator shall have on duty an adequately qualified safety officer at all times while skydiving 

operations are taking place; and 

• Operator shall maintain insurance coverage and minimum limits as set forth in Attachment C, unless 

such limits or coverage are superseded by order of the Director."2s

5 

While the FAA strongly encourages airport sponsors to develop and apply minimum standards, they are not 

required to do so by law or the grant assurances. Furthermore, Advisory Circulars are guidance, and they are 

not binding upon airport sponsors. In this Director's Determination, allegations of any failure to develop or 

apply minimum standards will only be considered within the context of enforcing Grant Assurance 22, 

Economic Nondiscrimination. 256 

B. Issue 1 - Whether the actions taken by County with respect to Complainant's skydiving 

operations at CRE are in violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination; 

Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination states in part that the sponsor must" ... make the airport 

available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, 

kinds, and classes of aeronautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to 

the public ... " In reviewing the allegations made by Complainant, the Director organized the claims under 

Grant Assurance 22 as follows: (1) General Harassment Claims, (2) Unreasonableness or Unjust 

Discrimination (General Claims), and (3) Unreasonableness or Unjust Discrimination (Safety). 

1. General Harassment Claims 

In its Complaint, SDMB claims that the County's actions constitute "harassment."257 SDMB claims that it 

has "been continually harassed" by the County cannot be adjudicated as a single issue. Each claim must be 

considered on its own. Evidence must be accompanied by an actual unreasonable denial of access for an 

aeronautical activity or unjust discrimination."258 

SDMB argues that the "harassment" by the County is manifested by (a) the inability to receive mail and 

parcels at its business address during normal business hours, (b) having its secure hangar broken into by 

County personnel, (c) having been cited to meet fire code compliance, (d) the County taking photos of its 

facility and temporarily blocking (locating a pile of peat moss) three parking spaces used by SDMB, 259 and 

255 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Item 8, pages 44-46. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 26. 

256 See Northern Air Inc. v. County of Kent. Michigan Director's Determination, 17, FAA Docket 16-11-10 (March 28, 2013). 

257 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 1. 

2SB BMI Salvage Corp & Blueside Services v. Miami-Dade County. Director's Determination, 16, FAA Docket No. 16-05-16 (July 25, 2006). 

259 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 1. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 18-19 

Page 33 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

(e) the County not providing temporary hangar space during airport/ramp rehabilitation260 Each of these 

allegations is discussed below. 

a. Inability to Receive Mail 

According to SDMB, at certain times, it has been unable to receive mail and parcels at its business address 

during normal business hours.261 This issue appears to have been caused by a delay between receipt of 

County's correspondence and the role of the FBO accepting SDMB' s mail requiring signature. 262 This issue 

does not rise to a level of compliance concerning the County's federal obligations. The record does not 

demonstrate unjust discrimination or unreasonableness on the part of the County. Rather, it shows that on 

March 20, 2014, the County issued a policy letter for tenant mail and parcel delivery for tenants at CRE. 

This reasonably addressed the issue, 263 and the Director rejects this claim. 

b. SDMB's Hangar Broken Into 

SDMB alleges is that its hangar was broken into by County personnel, without SDMB 's knowledge or 

permission. 264 SDMB states that the County "routinely entered Hangar 7 without SDMB permission for no 

legitimate purpose forcing SDMB to completely re-inspect all of its parachutes and aircraft."265 However, 

the record does not contain details on this alleged wrong-doing nor does it expand upon any compliance 

implications. These allegations do not implicate the County's federal obligations and they are 

unsubstantiated. 

The Director notes that the Space Use Permit's Right of Entry section provides that the "County shall have 

the right to enter the Space at any time for any reasonable purpose."266 No "unreasonable" or discriminatory 

purposes have been documented in the record. Based on the above, the Director fmds no violation based on 

the Complainant's allegations of breaking in and entering. 

c. Fire Code Violation 

In October 2013, a local fire inspector informed SDMB that it needed to make certain electrical 

repairs/modifications to its facilities to avoid a violation and fme. SDMB requested the County to correct the 

electrical deficiencies, but eventually, SDMB had the repairs made. SDMB stated that due to the County's 

failure to correct the electrical deficiencies, SDMB was issued a fme for the violations of $205.267 The 

record does not substantiate the allegation that the local frre regulations were unreasonably applied to SDMB 

or that they were applied in an unjustly discriminatory marmer. As a result, the Director finds no violation of 

Grant Assurance 22 related to the fire code violations described in the pleadings. 

d. County Taking Photos of SDMB's Facilities and Interfering with SDMB's Parking Spaces 

SDMB contends that the County took photographs of its facilities and located a pile of peat moss on three 

parking spaces used by SDMB.268 SDMB implies that taking photographs was an action on the part of the 

County taken without SDMB's knowledge or permission or/and somehow constitutes a wrong. Similarly, 

locating a pile of peat moss in three of SDMB 's parking area, possibly as part of airport construction, was 

also described as a confrontational action, and yet no relevant details are provided other than alleged malice 

by the County. 

z60 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 3-4. 

<61 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 1-2. 

262 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, pages 109-110. 

263 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 34, and FAA Exhibit 1, items, page HCDA-000178. 

~ FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 1. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 18-19 

255 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 5. 

266 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, attachment page HCDA-00005. 

267 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 4, and Exhibit 2, pages 22-24. 

268 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 7, 9. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 18-19 

Page 34 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Neither action constitutes a compliance violation since the record does not substantiate unjust discrimination 

or unreasonableness on the part of the County. Therefore, the Director fmds no violations of Grant 

Assurance 22. 

e. Temporary Hangar Space (Use of Hangar 1 l 

As part of its Complaint, SDMB argues that the County did not provide SDMB temporary hangar space 

during airport/ramp rehabilitation at CRE in the summer and fall of2013. 269 SDMB alleges "while all 

other ... tenants [were] accommodated with temporary hangar space, however, although suitable hangar space 

[was] available for SDMB's aircraft, [the County] refused to allow SDMB to hangar its aircraft during 

rehabilitation." SDMB adds that this "caused SDMB to lose its aircraft because the contract for the plane 

required hangar storage when not flying." 270 SDMB also adds that "on one hand [the County] has argued 

that SDMB's continued occupancy of Hangar 7 will disrupt a planned ramp rehabilitation project but, on the 

other hand, it refuses to consent to SDMB's assumption of the Hangar 1271 lease," because it would "disrupt 

the ramp project or SDMB's parachute operations."272 

In response, the County states "in the summer and fall of2013, many tenants and airport operations had to be 

temporarily relocated over the course of the ramp repairs ... During Phase 1 of the project, which occurred in 

the summer and fall of2013, these temporary relocations occurred without incident There is no reason why 

such relocations now constitute discrimination or harassment simply because [the County] is advancing into 

Phase 2 of the project [in 2014]."273 The County explains that it "has never received a formal request to 

sublease Hangar 1," and that in any event, "Hangar I [was] not an available alternative to Hangar 7."274 The 

County provides a reasonable and plausible explanation concerning Hangar 1 's suitability, 275 and this is well 

within its authority to manage assets, services, agreements, and leases during construction.276 It appears that 

the County did not act unreasonably when it declined to grant a lease for Hangar I as a replacement for 

Hangar 7_277 

The Director notes that although the record contains e-mail communications on the temporary hangar space 

between the County and SDMB, those same communications bring the on-going eviction proceedings into 

the discussion. SDMB's Space Use Permit expired in January 2014, 278 and SDMB was not operating with a 

valid agreement with the County.279 SDMB's claim- that the County must accommodate SDMB's requests, 

is not persuasive, especially when SDMB' s inability to obtain hangar space is not a violation of the County's 

obligation to provide airport access. Grant Assurance 22 does not require the County to provide specific 

hangars or hangar types.280 

Finally, the alleged failure to accommodate took place a year ago. In addressing allegations of 

noncompliance, the FAA will make a determination as to whether an airport sponsor is currently in 

259 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 3-4. 

270 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 3-4. 

271 See Figure 2 for the location of Hangar 1. 

272 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 11. 

273 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 2. 

Z

74 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 14. 

275 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, Exhibit A, pages HCDA-000130, and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, pages 14-15. Also see diagram in Exhibit B, page HCDA-000135. 

276 See Thermco Aviation Inc. v. County of Los Angeles. Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners. and Los Angeles World Airoorts. Director's Determination, 

19 and 22, FAA Docket No. 16-06-07 (June 21, 2007). 

277 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 11. 

Z7B FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 1. 

Z

79 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 56-57. 

zso See Thermco Aviation. Inc. and A-26 Company v. County of Los Angeles. Los Angeles Board of Airport Commissioners. and Los Angeles world Airports. 

D'lrector's Determ·lnation, 23,FAA Docket No. 16-06-07 (June 21, 2007). Also, in Thermco Aviation Inc. and A-26 Company v. County of Los Angeles Los Angeles 

Board of Airoort Commissioners and Los Angeles World Airports. Final Agency Decision, 19, FAA Docket No. 16-06-07 (Dec. 17, 2007), the FAA stated that "the 

grant assurances and federal obligations do not require that an airport sponsor recognize past occupancy as a preference for future occupancy. Nor do the 

federal obligations require sponsors to adhere to the location preferences of current tenants and subtenants when planning for the future development of the 

airport." (citing [See Santa Monica Airport Association Krueger Aviation Inc and Santa Monica Air Centerv. Citv of Santa Monica Final Agency Decision, FAA 

Docket No. 16-99-21 {February 4, 2003). 

Page 35 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

compliance with the applicable Federal obligations. The Director rejects SDMB's claim that the County's 

actions concerning the temporary use of Hangar 1 violate Grant Assurance 22. 

f. Other Issues 

In addition to the issues discussed above, SDMB objects to other County's requirements, including the use of 

vehicles at the airport, parking restrictions, and the restrictions on grilling and alcohol use.281 On the issue of 

managing the use of vehicles at the airport and procedures or requirements for holding special events, 282 the 

Director finds that the County, as the airport sponsor has the discretion to implement rules for their 

management, and the obligation to ensure those activities do not create safety hazards. The record does not 

indicate that the County's requirements on the use of vehicles at the airport and requirements for planned 

events were only applied to SDMB. On the issue of alcohol, there is no justification for SDMB to argue that 

not permitting alcohol is contrary to the federal obligations since it is not an aeronautical activity, is an issue 

oflocal control, and in addition, in connection with skydiving operations, its use is prohibited on safety 

grounds.283 

2. Unreasonableness or Unjust Discrimination (General Claims) 

In its Complaint, SDMB alleges that several of the County's actions are unreasonable and unjustly 

discriminatory. SDMB summarizes its position, stating that the County has organized "a well-orchestrated 

continuous plan [including minimum standards] to remove a federally recognized aeronautical activity and 

preclude it from legally operating." SDMB also argues that the County has cancelled a long-term lease, 

denied SDMB's request to assume another hangar lease, only presented a lease no rational business could 

agree to, and fmally evicted SDMB, and that these are actions contrary to the County's federal obligations. 284 

The County rejects SDMB's allegations, and asserts that "SDMB has not met its burden of showing that it 

requested similar terms and conditions as other similarly situated airport users and was denied for unjust 

reasons," did not identifY "any other similarly situated tenants at the airport, i.e., tenants who are making the 

same or similar uses of the airport facilities" or identifY "any other tenants have been offered different lease 

terms or rates than SDMB."285 The County rejects "claims of unjust discrimination" and takes the position 

that SDMB refuses "to abide by a few simple rules grounded in safety and efficiency, and the airport's 

proprietary power, and applicable to all aeronautical users at the airport."286 Finally, the County states that 

"SDMB continues to occupy the hangar unlawfully following expiration of that permit" and the County 

"has filed an ejectment action in South Carolina state court against SDMB and the magistrate judge has 

ordered eviction. SDMB has appealed this order." 287 

The Director organized SDMB's allegations as follows: 

(a) Inability to renegotiate a long-term lease, and eviction; 

(b) Unreasonable conditions; 

(c) Differing treatment of SDMB compared with other commercial tenants, 288 and; 

(d) Minimum standards.289 

2s1 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 5-7. For example, see paragraphs No. 12, 15, 17, and 18. The Director notes that SDMB raises other instances where it claims 

unjust discrimination or other possible violation of the County's federal obligations. Unless specifically discussed, the Director f!nds the following issues as not 

rising to a level of compliance with the County's federal obligations in that the record concerning these issues demonstrates no unjust discrimination or 

unreasonableness on the part of the County. The issues include: grilling, tenants walking v. driving to their aircraft, restricting FBO parking, etc. 

282 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, Exhibit A. 

283 See, e.g., 14 CFR §105.7, 14 CFR §91.17. 

284 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 12. 

285 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 17-18. {citing Springfield Flight A cad. v. Citv of Springfield. Director's Determination, 18. FAA Docket No. 16-10-03 (Aug. 25, 

2011); Skydive Monroe Inc. v. City of Monroe Georgia. Director's Determination, 35 FAA Docket No. 16-06-02 Mar. 30, 2007); and Nat' I Airlift Support Corp. v. 

Fremont Citv. Bd of Comm'rs Final Agency Decision 15, FAA Docket No.16-98-18, (Sept. 20, 1999)) 

286 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 1. 

287 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 1. 

288 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 1. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 18-19 

289 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 7. 

Page 36 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

a. Inability to Renegotiate a Long-Term Lease, and Eviction 

In its Complaint, SDMB claims that the County's actions have resulted in SDMB being unable to renegotiate 

a written long-term lease.290 SDMB adds that the County cancelled its long-term lease [with the previous 

airport operator], denied SDMB the ability to assume another hangar lease, and was only presented a lease 

which no "rational business could agree to." SDMB also states that it was evicted.-"291 

The County rejects SDMB's claims stating that "reasonable access under Grant Assurance 22 means for the 

use of aeronautical facilities on the airport, not necessarily the ability to lease particular space [hangar] on the 

airport."292 The County adds that "where an airport continues to permit access by [the skydiving operator] to 

its aeronautical facilities, including the runway, taxiways, and drop zone, [it] has not created an effective 

prohibition of skydiving operations that would constitute a violation of [Grant Assurance 22].''293 Finally, the 

County notes that SDMB refusal to enter into the offered Space Use Permit for Hangar 7 (after it expired) 

caused SDMB to violate its Operating Permit, but even when the County sent SDMB a notice of termination, 

it stated that "SDMB may continue to use the aeronautical facilities at CRE, including the [DZ] as a transient 

operator. "

294 

SDMB's arguments are not persuasive. As mentioned in the Background section, in August 2013, after the 

County resumed control of the Airport, "all tenants were asked to sign a temporary Space Use Permit with a 

six-month term, with the intent that long-term leases would thereafter be negotiated."295 That is not an 

unreasonable action since the County's assumption of the airport from the previous airport operator 

terminated all existing agreements. 296 

SDMB was among several commercial aviation tenants who executed these temporary permits in 2013 297 

While on-airport operators may need ancillary space to conduct operations, however such services must not 

necessarily be accommodated through a lease, on an aircraft hangar, or a specific hangar. 298 The grant 

assurances require reasonable accommodation. 

The record shows thatthere was reasonable accommodation under the circumstances. On January 31, 2014, 

the Space Use Permit under which SDMB had been operating expired, yet SDMB continues to occupy 

the hangar. 299 On April 7, 2014, months after the expiration, the County notified SDMB that eviction 

proceedings would be initiated if SDMB did not accept the County's offer of a new Space Use Permit300 

SDMB rejected the County's offer because SDMB disagreed with many of the terms. By this time, as the 

record establishes, a series of safety incidents related SDMB's skydiving operations had already taken place. 

As part of the offer for a new Space Use Permit, the County identified multiple instances of unsafe practices 

and incidents by SDMB, 301 all of which constituted violations of SDMB's existing (albeit expired) Space Use 

Permit and its Operating Permit?02 Indeed, the Space Use Permit required SDMB to "fully [comply] with 

VJO FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 1. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 18-19 

29l FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 12. 

m FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 17 (citing Skydive Monroe Inc. v. Citv of Monroe. Georgia. Director's Determination, 20, FAA Docket No. 16-06-02, {Mar. 30, 

2007)}. 

2'!3 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 17 (citing Skydive Monroe Inc. v. City of Monroe. Georgia. Director's Determination, 20, FAA Docket No. 16-06-02, (Mar. 30, 

2007)}. 

294 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 17. 

295 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 9. 

2S6 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 9-10. These Space Use Permits were offered on temporary bases because South Carolina law requires counties to utilize a formal 

'three-reading' process prior to conveying property rights through lease agreements. 

297 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 9. 

298 See Skydive Monroe. Inc. v. Citv of Monroe Georgia. Director's Determination, 10, FAA Docket No. 16-06-02 (March 30, 2007). 

299 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 1 . 

.wo FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 2354-57. 

301 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 54-57. 

02 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 12-13. 

Page 37 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports. South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

all safety and security policies/directives as established by the Airport,"303 while the Operating Permit 

required SDMB to "comply with ... all [County's] directives ... , which now exist or which may be 

hereinafter be [sic] enacted or adopted. "304 

The record shows that despite these violations, the County offered reasonable terms to SDMB. Indeed, the 

County stated that although it "[was] unwilling to offer SDMB a leasehold interest in the ... hangar [Hangar 

7] facility at this time," as an alternative, it was "willing to enter into a new, short-term Space Use Permit, 

with the understanding that a violation of any terms contained in such Space Use Permit will result in SDMB 

being required to vacate the premises ... "305 

In other words, the County opted to offer a permit and not a lease, which is not contrary to the County's 

federal obligations when the denial of the lease is based on documented violations of previous arrangements, 

including safety violations. The County's refusal to renew the existing lease, restricting further permitting, 

and eventually, pursuing eviction, were not unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory. The grant assurances 

requirement of reasonable access would not require SDMB to provide access to an operator who committed 

numerous, documented violations of existing agreements. 

The County and SDMB entered into a temporary Space Use Permit allowing SDMB to occupy Hangar 7 

through January 31,2014,306 but that after its expiration, SDMB refused to enter into a subsequent 

agreement. SDMB continued its use of Hangar 7 and of the airport and facilities (including the DZ) even 

though there was no agreement with the County and an eviction notice had been filed against the operator.307 

As the record indicates SDMB continues to occupy this leasehold despite being responsible for multiple 

safety incidents, many of which can be categorized as violations of the terms and conditions SDMB 

agreed to in its first lease. 

The record establishes that the County did not renew the existing lease and initiated the eviction proceedings 

for cause. The County's actions were within the discretion and authority of the airport sponsor. Moreover, 

not only does the record lack any evidence showing that the County has taken steps to prevent SDMB from 

accessing the Airport, but in fact shows that the County offered a reasonable alternative despite SDMB' s 

record of non-compliance with terms and conditions of the previous lease. 308 SDMB continues to operate at 

CREtoday. 

The Director finds the County declined to enter into a lease with SDMB, in part based on their history of 

lawsuits, Part 16 complaints, and threats of future litigation. Thus, the Director finds that the County is not 

in violation of Grant Assurance 22 by refusing to renew or providing SDMB with a long term lease and in 

pursuing eviction proceedings. 

b. Unreasonable Conditions 

SDMB argues that the County offered unreasonable conditions to continue occupation of its business at 

CRE. 309 According SDMB, it "received an unreasonable offer to continue occupation of its business in 

exchange for 10-24% of its gross proceeds,"310 and the County maintained SDMB "would have to double its 

liability of slip and fall policy coverage to $2,000,000 and pay $1,200 per month for Hangar 7 ... during the 6 

month temporary period for a long-term lease."311 

303 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page HCDA-000001. 

304 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 8. 

305 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 54-57. 

306 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 54-57. 

307 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 1. 

308 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 54-57. 

30~ FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 1. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 18-19. 

31° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 1-2. 

311 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 4, and Item 1, Exhibit 1, pages 14-15. 

Page 38 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

In response, the County denies that its actions are contrary to its federal obligations,312 and argues that 

SDMB's rejection of"[the County's offer]," and refusal "to execute a lease ... on more favorable terms than 

those employed by comparable tenants does not qualify as a denial of access on reasonable terms without 

unjust discrimination." 313 

A review of the record provides no evidence to substantiate the claim that the percentage of gross proceeds 

(I 0-24%), the $1,200 monthly charge, or the $2 million in insurance are unreasonable or unjustly 

discriminatory per se. There is no significant information discussing other rates and charges, or information 

showing that the insurance requirement, were excessive, unobtainable, or applied in an unjustly 

discriminatory manner. 314 

Attachment C of the Minimum Standards, which covers tenant's insurance requirements at CRE, shows that 

the level of insurance imposed upon SDMB (e.g., aircraft liability, commercial general liability, and hangar 

keepers liability) appears to be consistent and within reasonable limits when compared to that imposed on 

other aeronautical service providers and activities. 315 

In that respect, it provides a basis from which to compare what was imposed upon SDMB to that imposed on 

other commercial tenants. A review of the minimum standards shows no evidence that the relevant 

conditions applicable to SDMB (skydiving) unjustly differ from other commercial tenants. In any event, on 

April 7, 2014, the County offered to reduce the monthly lease percentage to 10%,316 therefore 

accommodating SDMB 's concern regarding this "unreasonable" condition imposed by the County. 

Based on this, the County's action concerning Complainant, including rates and charge and insurance 

requirements, are not reasonable, unjustly discriminatory, or contrary to Grant Assurance 22. 

c. Differing Treatment of SDMB Compared With Other Commercial Tenants 

SDMB makes the general assertion that the County's "refusal treat SDMB similarly to comparably situated 

airport tenants ... constitutes prohibited discrimination,"317 and that it was "treated differently from other 

commercial tenants.'m8 In response, the County notes that "the only reference in the record to other tenants 

can be found in correspondence from [the County], which states that SDMB is the only tenant at [CRE] 

operating without either a space use permit or a lease," and that the County "offered SDMB the same terms as 

have been offered to, and accepted by, other commercial aeronautical service providers at [CRE] ... " Finally, 

the County takes the position that SDMB's choice "to reject [the County's offer]," and refusal "to execute a 

lease ... on more favorable terms than those employed by comparable tenants does not qualify as a denial of 

access on reasonable terms without unjust discrimination."319 

SDMB failed to provide any details to support its claims, such as other similarly situated companies, what 

conditions were offered or accepted, or what other entities at the airport have permits instead or leases. The 

record contains no evidence that any other similarly situated tenant with a lease at CRE was either evicted or 

otherwise challenged by the County in any way contrary to the way in which the County dealt with SDMB. 

Further, the record does not provide evidence that other skydiving commercial service providers at CRE have 

3n FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, pages 1-2. 

313 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 17-18 (citing Nat' I Airlift Support Corp. v. Fremont City. Bd of Comm'rs. FAA Docket No. 16-98-18 atlS.) 

314 Local media have reported that another service provider, Huffnman Helicopters has a level of "5% of gross" (See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 16, January 5, 2015 

article) but provides no more information, such as other rates, actual lease, from which to make a valid comparison. 

315 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, Exhibit A, page 84. SDMB argues that the County "presented the Minimum Standards without any input from SDMB and imposed 

$10,000,000.00 Comprehensive Public Liability and Property Damage Premises Policy for skydiving operations but only a $2,000,000.00 liability policy on student 

pilot training flying clubs." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, page 8. However, the actual m·m·lmum standards do not support this assertion. See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, 

Exhibit A, page 85. 

3l

6 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 23. 

3l1 FAA Exhibit 1, Item lA. 

m FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 1-2. 

3

ls FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 17-18. (citing Nat'! Airlift Support Com. v. Fremont City. Bd of Comm'rs. FAA Docket No. 16-98-18, at 15). 

Page 39 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

been provided terms and conditions than those imposed upon SDMB. SDMB fails to identify specific 

similarly situated tenants, preventing any comparison on which to establish unjust discrimination. 

Even if the Complainant described another similarly situated tenant, any difference between any two leases 

or permits is insufficient to establish a violation of Grant Assurance 22 on its own. Differences, had they 

been provided, would depend on their justification. In this case, "similarly situated" would mean another 

tenant with record of non-compliance with terms and conditions or a history of safety incidents and 

violations such as the one SDMB has accumulated. The record contains no evidence of such a tenant. 

Without evidence to support the allegations, SDMB's claims are unsupported. Therefore, the Director finds 

that these actions by the County, are not contrary to Grant Assurance 22. 

d. Minimum Standards 

SDMB argues that the "minimum standards [did] not apply to any tenant with an existing lease ... SDMB is 

the only current occupant without a lease"320 SDMB objects to the timing of the promulgation of the 

minimum standards, in part because "while counsel for [the County] was arguing for dismissal of SDMB's 

initial Part 16 Complaint due to SDMB's lack of good faith, [the County was] in the process of 'covertly' 

drafting punitive and ultra vires minimum standards for presentation and enactment by [the County's] 

Council. "321 

SDMB argues that the manner in which the County acted in adopting the minimum standards was per se 

"discriminatory."322 It adds that "the rules relating to skydiving were drafted ... without any notice to SDMB, 

public comment period, or efforts to develop 'safe' skydiving practices from any recognized sport 

parachuting organization with expertise in skydiving operations."323 SDMB also voiced specific objections 

to the minimum standards and noted that the "entire skydiving operation section is written to discourage 

skydiving operations." Specifically, SDMB objected on many aspects of the minimum standards including 

space use permit v. lease, insurance requirements, use of vehicles at the airport, requirements for planned 

events, restrictions on alcohol use, enforcement provisions, and the requirement for a safety and efficiency 

study.324 

SDMB opposes the minimum standards because they are "additional restrictions beyond those articulated by 

FAA ... ," and that the County "has been retroactively promulgating [them was] clearly tailored to legitimize 

its prior accusations and unwritten policies .. :ms in an effort to justify the allegations of rule and policy 

violations. Finally, SDMB adds that although "MYR [Myrtle Beach International] would have separate 

standards, 326 the County "cannot treat geographically separate airports under its jurisdiction differently for no 

legitimate purpose." SDMB adds "admittedly, CRE is not identical to MYR, HYW or 5J9, but having 

materially different leases, rules relating to customers, food consumption, access, parking, and grilling .. .is 

impermissible discrimination without substantial justification."327 

The County rejects these allegations and states that the "adoption of minimum standards for all [CRE] airport 

users does not constitute unjust discrimination under Grant Assurance 22, and instead" is "consistent with the 

County's obligations under its Grant Assurances as part of operating CRE "in a safe and efficient manner.'ms 

The County defends the adoption of minimum standards because it "is the responsibility [of the County to 

32° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11. 

321 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, page 2. 

322 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, page 5. 

123 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, pages 2, and 4-5. 

324 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 11, page 4. 

325 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, pages 6-7. 326 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 7. 

327 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 3. 

ns FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 1. 

Page 40 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

enforce] adequate rules, regulations, or ordinances as are necessary to ensure the safe and efficient operation 

of the airport. "

329 

The County also recognizes that "such conditions must ... be reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory ... must 

be relevant to the proposed activity, reasonably attainable, and uniformly applied." The County rejects 

Complainant's claim that SDMB was not consulted or provided an opportunity to participate in the minimum 

standards process and states that it has "implemented minimum standards at each of the airports it manages, 

including CRE" and that in the case ofCRE, these were based on the County Council's Ordinance No. 36-14, 

adopted after the required three readings on May 20, 2014.330 

The County takes the position that it not only "enacted minimum standards for CRE that are uniformly 

applicable to all users of that airport," but also that they comply with its grant assurances in a manner 

consistent with "common practice[ s] among municipalities that own more than one airport."331 

Adopting minimum standards is a valid action on the part of the airport sponsor. A review of the minimum 

standards indicates that they cover many aeronautical activities and services including FBO services, aircraft 

maintenance, aircraft sales, aircraft rental, charter operations, and flight training. A review of the minimum 

standards concerning skydiving operations shows that, as written, they are not contrary to the County's 

federal obligations. The standards outlined by the County are generally consistent with FAA's guidance on 

the matter. The provisions that implement a sound and proactive risk-based approach in managing safety of 

operations at the CRE, are especially in line with FAA recommendations and guidance. 

The County's is within its authority to promulgate minimum standards that address skydiving operations as 

an aeronautical activity, references compliance with I 4 CFR Part I 05, require an LOA and adequate ATCT 

coordination, defines aDZ, requires trained personnel and certifications, incorporates a safety and efficiency 

study in the process, and reserves the ability to add safety-based restrictions. 

A review of Section Six (H) of the minimum standards, entitled Skydiving Operator, is consistent with the 

scope and detail of the sections covering other activities. The County's correspondence with SDMB clearly 

states the County's interest in continuing skydiving operations.332 The record establishes that the County has 

published minimum standards for CRE or other airport under its jurisdiction.333 SDMB's claim that the 

County "has been retroactively promulgating minimum standards" is not persuasive nor is it per se a 

violation of the grant assurances. There is a difference between breaking leases or agreements in order to 

impose "new minimum standards" and instituting minimum standards to be applied prospectively. 

Contrary to SDMB's position that the County "cannot treat geographically separate airports under its 

jurisdiction differently for no legitimate purpose," the Director notes that the fact that SDMB itself 

recognizes that "CRE is not identical to MYR, HYW or 5J9," undermines the argument.334 The FAA would 

expect that minimum standards might vary from airport to airport, even within an airport system operated by 

one sponsor. Much can vary across airports including types of leases, services, and levels of service, levels 

of investment, geographic and layout limitations, etc. 

Moreover, in light of the safety issues documented in the record, the County's actions relating to 

establishing, updating, and enforcing minimum standards are not only justified, but necessary. As provided 

in Grant Assurance 22, the County must retain the ability to impose such additional reasonable restrictions or 

conditions on operations from time to time it may deem to be necessary in order to ensure the safe and 

efficient operation of the Airport. 

329 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 1, citing Royal Air .. Inc. v. City of Shreveport. Director's Determination, 12, FAA Docket No. 16-02-06 {January 9, 2004). 

33° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 2. 931 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, pages 2-3. The County cites Royal Air Inc. v. Shreveport. Director's Determination, 6, FAA Docket No.16-02-06{Jan. 9, 2004). 

:;sz FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 57, and FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 1-2. 

333 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 5¥9. 

3g4 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 3. 

Page 41 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Finally, concerning the manner in which the County acted in adopting the minimum standards, the Director 

fmds no violation of the County's federal obligations. While Grant Assurance 22 allows the County to 

establish "such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users of the airport as 

may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the airport .. } 35 it does not impose FAA overview 

over the local or state process governing the adoption of such requirements. 

3. Unreasonableness or Unjust Discrimination (Safety) 

Under Grant Assurance 22(h) ''the sponsor may establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, 

conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the 

airport .... " Under Grant Assurance 22 (i), "the sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of 

aeronautical use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport ... "336 Both 

subsections permit the sponsor to exercise control of the airport sufficient to preclude unsafe conditions or 

activities as long as the sponsor honors obligations to provide access to the airport on reasonable and not 

unjustly discriminatory terms and conditions. 

In all cases involving restrictions on airport use imposed by airport owners for safety reasons, the FAA 

makes the final determination on the reasonableness of such restrictions when those restrictions appear to 

deny or limit access to, or use of, the airport.337 When making 14 CFR Part 16 fmdings regarding matters of 

aviation safety, the Director will rely on other offices within the FAA for their safety expertise and 

experience. 338 

a. Overview of Skydiving Operations 

Parachute jumping (or skydiving) operations, which the FAA defmes as the activities performed for the 

purpose of or in support of the descent parachutists (or skydivers) who jump from aircraft, is a segment of 

general aviation. It is also a recognized aeronautical activity by the FAA. According to the USPA, there are 

approximately 2.16 to 3 million jumps annually in the United States. While in the United States, skydiving is, 

for the most part, a self-regulated sport, basic safety requirements are established by the USP A while federal 

requirements are found in the Federal Aviation Regulations (F ARs ). 

According to 14 CFR 119.1 ( e )(6), parachute operations conducted as nonstop flights within a 25-mile radius of 

the departure airport are exempt from the rules pertaining to commercial operators and are allowed to operate 

under 14 CFR Part 91. Additional parachute operations regulations are contained in 14 CFR Part I 05 

Parachute Operations. 

While most of the regulations concern the aircraft, pilot and rules of flight (e.g. 14 CFR Part 91 ), 14 CFR Part 

105 regulates when, and where jumps may be made, as well as requirements for parachute equipment and 

packing. 14 CFR Part 105 is intended to assure the safety of those not involved in the sport, including persons 

and property on the surface and other users of the airspace. The FAA also regulates certain aspects of 

parachute rigging under 14 CFRPart 65, Subpart F Parachute Riggers. 

In skydiving, the drop zone (DZ) or landing area is a designated area clear of obstacles, and is usually marked. 

Some drop zones are located beneath complex airspace, and jump organizers will have a Letter of Agreement 

(LOA) with the appropriate FAA air traffic control facility to address site-specific issues and concerns. Some 

335 See Grant Assurance 22 (a) and (h). 336 Also see Chapter 14 Restrictions Based on Safety and Efficiency Procedures and Organization, FAA Order 5190.66 Airport Compliance Manual. 337 FAA Order 5190.68, § 14.3 at 14-3. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, 49 U.S.C., § 40101, et seq., assigns the FAA Administrator broad 

responsibilities for the regulation of aviation safety. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C., § 47122, the FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport owners comply with 

their Federal grant assurances, which include the safe operation of the airport [emphasis added], and may issue orders to carry out Subchapter Jon Airport 

Improvement, sections 47101-47142. 

338 See In the Matter of Compliance with Federal Obligations by the City of Santa Monica. Ca!!fornia. Director's Determination, 38, FAA Docket No. 16-02-08 {May 

27, 2008). 

Page 42 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

DZs are located on airport property, and require the airport's permission. Each day, before jumping begins, the 

drop zone operator will contact the FAA Flight Service Station for the latest weather and winds aloft forecast. 

The jump pilot files a Notice to Airmen (NOT AM) at least I -hour before the frrstjump. NO TAMs help alert 

other pilots about the jump. During jump operations, pilots follow procedures in 14 CFRPart 91 and 14 CFR 

Part 105. The pilot will contact air traffic control a few minutes before the jump, advising of the jump altitude 

and exit time. Air Traffic will advise of any other aircraft or unsafe conditions in the area. Once the jump pilot 

ensures all jumpers have exited, he or she advises air traffic control and makes a descent to the airport. 339 

b. Skydiver's Information Manual (SIMl and Basic Safety Requirements (BSRl 

The Skydiver's fuformation Manual (SIM) provides basic skydiving standards BSRs (Basic Safety 

Requirements) and recommendations agreed upon by USP A members for the conduct of safe and enjoyable 

skydiving340 In 20 II, and complementing the SIM, USP A published its Skydiving Aircraft Operations 

Manual. The purpose of this manual is to provide drop zone operators, pilots, aviation support personnel, 

skydivers and others who might be involved in aircraft operations with additional and clarifying procedures and 

practices which supplement, but do not supplant, existing rules and guidelines.341 

Although USP A is a voluntary membership association with no regulatory power, USP A can suspend or 

revoke any USP A license, rating, award, appointment, or membership it issues. Compliance with the BSRs 

contained is mandatory for participation in USP A programs. The BSRs represent the commonly accepted 

standards for a reasonable level of safety. On the issue of drop zones, the SIM states that drop zone 

requirements are as follows: 

• Areas used for skydiving should be unobstructed, with the following minimum radial distances to the 

nearest hazard (a) solo students and A-license holders -100 meters; (b) B-and C-Iicense holders and 

all tandem skydives- 50 meters; and (c) D-license holders- 2 meters. 

• Hazards are defmed as telephone and power lines, towers, buildings, open bodies of water, highways, 

automobiles, and clusters of trees covering more than 3,000 square meters. 

• Manned ground-to-air communications to be present on the DZ during skydiving operations.342 

c. SDMB Position on Safety 

SDMB characterizes the County's actions, including attempts to restrict the landing area and the continued 

practice of reporting authorized parachute operations (landings) as violations .... under the 'sheepskin' of 

'safety concerns' as "unreasonably restrictive and discriminatory as applied to an FAA recognized 

aeronautical activity."343 SDMB asserts that the County has imposed arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions 

and requirements under the "pretext of safety," and thus interfering with SDMB' s aeronautical activityskydiving. 344 

SDMB states that "from May 2012 to August 2013 ... and over 2,500 parachute jumps, SDMB received no 

complaints from FAA, [the ATCT], or [the County],"345 but that "from August 2013, to date (the period 

since [the County] has resumed control of CRE), SDMB has received repeated complaints and been 

339 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 19, Skydivingf and Parachute Operations- P-8740-57. 

:>40 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 246. In 2011, USPA published its Skydiving Aircraft Operations Manual. The purpose of this manual is to provide drop zone operators, 

pilots, aviation support personnel, skydivers and others who might be involved in aircraft operations with the additional and clarifying procedures and practices 

which supplement, but do not supplant, existing rules and guidelines. It can be found at 

http://www.uspa.org/Portals/O/Downloads/GM_USPAAircraftManual.pdf. 

Cl4l FAA Exhibit 1, Item 24A. 

*FAA Exhibit 1, Item 24B, 2014-2015 Skydiver's Information Manual, Section 2, pages 7-8. 

343 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 10. 

344 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 1. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 18-19 

345 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 3. 

Page 43 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports. South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

subjected to other intimidation attempts." SDMB further states that the County and the ATCT have a 

"partnership" that initiated policing "unusual" airport activity and refereeing the boundaries ofSDMB's 

primary [DZ]," and they "are working together to report and enforce subjective unusual incidents." 346 

Complainant believes that it "became the victim of a targeted plan to be removed from CRE by [the 

County] ... "347 

As part of its defense, SDMB states that pursuant to its Operating Permit, it was "permitted to land 

anywhere within 5 (five) miles of the airport, ifnecessary."348 SDMB goes further and states "a skydiver 

landing on a runway is not a 'pedestrian' as intended in Part 139 or other FAA regulations." SDMB cites 

AC 1 05-2E, 116( c )(2) Sport Parachuting, which states in relevant part "while skydivers attempt to land in 

such areas, at times there may be inadvertent landings in other grass or hard-surfaced areas. This could 

include landings on runways, taxiways, and other hard-surfaced areas. 

Areas such as runways, taxiways, clearways, and Obstacle Free Zones (OFZ) are not prohibited areas but 

should not be designated as primary landing area and should be vacated as soon as practicaL Flying a 

parachute over runways at low altitudes should be avoided where possible ... " 349 Moreover, SDMB denies 

knowing about the existing Letter of Agreement (LOA) between the ATCT and the County relating to active 

movement areas, and argues that the County cited "multiple violations of non-existent rules and 

regulations," and created "a new unpublished reporting system tracking parachute landings targeted for 

SDMB and its clients."350 

Finally, SDMB objects to the mechanics of this reporting system itself. SDMB argues that "under the 

direction of [the County], [the ATCT] has initiated a reporting process whereby conduct in compliance with 

14 CFRPart 105 is styled as 'unsafe' and in violation ofPart 139 resulting in the unnecessary expenditure 

of resources of all concerned parties."351 SDMB also states that beginning May 2014, the County "began 

recording Unusual Incident Reports (UIR) and directed [the ATCT] ... to file "Mandatory Occurrence 

Reports" (MORs) withFAA ... "352 and the "overwhelming bulk of the U1Rs are against SDMB. Only two 

UIRs produced by [the County] are unrelated to SDMB."353 

d. The Countv's Position Concerning Safety 

The County responds that it "has properly balanced its obligations ... under Grant Assurance 22 ... to 

maintain [CRE's] movement areas in a safe and serviceable condition." The County adds that it followed 

"FAA protocols for safety risk management [SMS], and is properly tracking safety incidents in order to 

develop means to mitigate the hazards they present."354 The County takes the position that its "conduct falls 

well within the bounds of permissible regulation under Grant Assurance 22 ... "and that SDMB's "objection 

to the reporting protocol [the County] and the [ATCT] have implemented to document safety hazards, 

including vehicle and pedestrian incursions on active runways and taxiways, and ... restrictions on its landing 

zone" are unwarranted.355 The County rejects that these actions "are somehow discriminatory."356 

The County asserts that since at least February 2014, SDMB has known of the LOA, and that in fact, 

"upon review of the LOA and this regulation," SDMB stated that "this provision was reasonable and 

agreed to abide by it. .. to contact the [A TCT] before it or any of its skydivers cross active runways or 

346 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 3. 

347 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 2. 

348 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 112. 

349 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, page 8-9 (and footnotes). 

350 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 5. 

351 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 1-2. 

52 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, page 8-9 (and footnotes). 

353 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, page 8-9 (and footnotes 

354 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 1-2. 

355 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 20. 

356 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 7. 

Page 44 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports. South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

taxiways." However, the County continues, "in the following months, SDMB's skydivers and personnel 

continued to cross active runways and taxiways, either on foot or in golf carts, without first asking the 

[ATCT's] permission. This uncontrolled movement creates a significant safety risk to other 

aeronautical users at CRE ... "357 

The County defends its actions to "mitigate the safety hazard created each time one of these vehicle or 

pedestrian incursions occurred," and that it "developed a standard report form to track such deviations, 

along with all other safety hazards at CRE." The County adds that the A TCT and County staff report "safety 

incidents involving any aeronautical user" at CRE. 358 

The County disagrees with SDMB's objections to the ground communications and documentation protocols 

for safe skydiving operations at the airport's DZ. The County notes that SDMB's position is contradicted 

"by the documents that SDMB attaches to its Complaint, which clearly state the exact location of SDMB's 

proper [DZ]" and that safety is compromised by "the high number of 'inadvertent' landings outside the [DZ] 

by SDMB skydivers ... "359 

The County concludes that "neither the documentation protocol nor the landing zone restrictions violate [the 

County's] Federal Grant Obligations," and adds that it is "expressly authorized" under Grant Assurance 

22(h) to establish "reasonable ... conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the 

safe ... operation of the airport." The County supports this position by stating that such conditions are 

contained in the LOAs, "which requires pedestrians and vehicles to contact the [ ATCT] before crossing an 

active runway or taxiway and potentially causing an accident with aircraft using that runway or taxiway."360 

e. Safety of Skydiving Operations at CRE 

Before analyzing the safety allegations, the Director fmds that it is necessary to review the record in order to 

ascertain the nature, scope and detail, frequency, and severity of the safety incidents involving skydiving at 

CRE. It is a common and expected practice for FAA to collect and analyze safety data on safety events to 

prevent their recurrence. Data collection and analysis is also used to support a more proactive approach to 

managing risk. 

In line with safety management methodologies, FAA analyzes data proactively to support a risk-based 

approach to safety oversight. Risk management is pre-emptive, rather than reactive. The approach is based 

on the philosophy that it is irresponsible and wasteful to wait for an accident to happen, then figuring out 

how to prevent it from happening again. As part of the review of this case, numerous safety concerns 

(safety incidents) have been identified with regard to SDMB's skydiving operations at the Airport. These 

safety incidents are documented in the pleadings submitted by the parties and have been identified as part of 

FAA inquiries. 

The safety of skydiving operations at CRE are represented in terms of skydiving-related safety incidents in 

the form ofVPDs, MORs, and UIRs [Vehicle Pedestrian Deviations (by FAA), Major Occurrence Reports 

(by FAA), Unusual Incident Reports (by County)], and entries in the CRE ATCT skydiving log.361 All of 

these are valid safety management metrics as data collection methodologies. The table below combines the 

data. 

m FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 2. 358 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 3. 

359 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 3-4. 

360 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 23. 

351 In this analysis, the Director combined all of these events as safety incidents: Vehicle Pedestrian Deviations {FAA}, Major Occurrence Reports {FAA), and 

Unusual Incident Reports (County). Occurrence reports are defined and required by FAA JO Order 7210.632, Air Traffic Organization Occurrence Reporting. 

Occurrence reports are filed in the Comprehensive Electronic Data Analysis and Reporting Toot {CEDAR) and are the vehicle by which FAA Office of Runway Safety 

receives reports of surface events. The ATCT skydiving log is incorporated in FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

Page 45 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Table 1-Skydiving Safety Incidents at CRE (March 2013- September 2015) 

": :;, . ; .. -. .. ,. ·._ · .. 

R_eport .·_ .•• _ •.••••.. <~-....... _._ . (. 

Deta_ils 

.·.· .. ···· ' .. ' ... ··. · ... ._.· -

. 

1. March 29, 2013 Two skydivers landed outside the DZ, west of landing zone and east of taxiway A.362 

2. May 18,2013 A skydiver landed between runway and taxiway A, while another crossed the taxiway without 

3. May 22,2013 

4. May 2S, 2013 

s. May27, 2013 

6. JulyS, 2013 

7. July 17, 2013 

8. July 19, 2013 

9. September 3, 2013 

10. September 28, 2013 

11. October 1S, 2013 

12. October 19, 2013 

13. October 19, 2013 

14. October 20, 2013 

1S. October 20, 2013 

16. October 21, 2013 

17. October 27, 2013 

18. November 2, 2013 

19. November 10, 2013 

20. November 13, 2013 

21. November 17, 2013 

22. December 21, 2013 

23. December 23, 2013 

362 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

36a FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

364 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

365 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

366 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

367 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

368 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

369 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

ATC approval.363 

A skydiver landed between taxiway A and runway 23. Picked up by FB0. 354 

A skydiver landed approximately 200 feet to the left of runway 23 approach lights. 365 

A skydiver landed on taxiway A.366 

A skydiver landed between taxiway A and runway 23. Another landed on the southwest side 

of the airport.367 

A skydiver had a cut away and landed in neighborhood or ... golf course. 363 

Two skydivers landed west of runway 23 and abeam the ATCT. 369 

SDMB acknowledged that one of its employees was not properly trained, which resulted in 

an off field landing.370 

Eight (8) out of 10 skydivers landed on the beach, not the airport.371 

ATCT manager reported that skydivers "walked across taxiway B, and then into the ramp." 372 

A skydiver landed at Barefoot golf course pass Highway 31. 373 

Night jump, but skydivers had no lights as per FARs. 374 

A skydiver landed on taxiway Band was injured.375 

Night jump, but skydivers had no lights as per FARs. 376 

The ATCT reported to "uncertified" night jumps with an off-site landing requiring medical 

assistance.377 

A skydiver landed on the taxiway adjacent to the DZ and was evacuated to the hospital. 373 

A skydiver missed the DZ and crossed runway at mid-field.379 

A skydiver walked across the runway. 380 

An incursion onto the active runway occurred when a jumper who missed the DZ walked 

across the runway. 381 

A skydiver crossed taxiway B without approval.382 

Two skydivers landed by Highway 31, while 6 landed northwest of runway, plus a cut away 

chute.383 

out of 14 jumpers, 111anded well outside the DZ, landing on various parts of the runway, 

taxiway, and Highway 31. 334 

370 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 12. 

371 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

372 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 9. 

373 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

374 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

375 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

376 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

377 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 55. 

378 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

379 FAA EXhibit 1, Item 15. 

38° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 381 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 55. 

382 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

383 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

384 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 55. 

Page 46 

# 

Skydivers_ 

Involved 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

1 

8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

8 

11 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

24. January 19, 2014 No notification of first jump. 385 

25. January 20, 2014 The ATCT reported that out of 10 jumpers, 4 ended up well outside the DZ, with jumpers 

landing on various parts of the runway, taxiway, and one at the Barefoot golf course. 386 

26. January 24, 2014 Three skydivers landed way west of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). 387 

27. January 26, 2014 A golf cart entered taxiway C and A to retrieve skydiver that landed on taxiway A. 388 

28. February 1, 2014 An FAA Airport Certification Safety Inspector notified the County that the FAA had received 

"another Vehicle/Pedestrian incursion report {VPS) for CRE." 389 

29. March 9, 2014 One parachute malfunctioned and landed near Highway 17 and 30th Ave. 390 

30. March 15, 2014 A skydiver landed on the tarmac just east of taxiway C/B. m 

31. March 15, 2014 A skydiver landed by the windsock and another landed near Highway 31. 392 

32. March 22, 2014 A parachute malfunctioned and skydiver landed 1 mile east. Another was injured.393 

33. April 5, 2014 A skydiver landed in the drainage ditch just right in front of an aircraft {NSSSBV) on taxiway 

8.394 

34. April12, 2014 No 2 minutes notification. 395 

35. April 24, 2014 A skydiver landed within 5 feet of a business jet and fuel truck and 15ft. from the FBO 

building.396 

36. May 10, 2014 Three skydivers landed in between runway 23 and taxiway A, then crossed taxiway A without 

clearance.397 

37. May 10,2014 Two skydivers landed on the other side of the runway while another landed far northeastern 

field area.398 

38. May 14, 2014 Three skydivers landed outside the OZ, one in front of the ATCT, and two abeam of Runway 5 

threshold.399 

39. May 16, 2014 Two skydivers landed outside the DZ north of the approach for runway 5. 400 

40. May 16,2014 Two skydivers landed we!J outside the DZ west of runway 5/23.4 0

1 

41. May 18, 2014 A skydiver landed right in front of the ATCT. 402 

42. May22, 2014 Three skydivers landed outside the DZ.403 One landed on taxiway A and ran back ran the 

ramp.404 

43. May 23,2014 A skydiver landed on a taxiway and ran back to the DZ without contacting the ATCT. 405 

44. May24, 2014 A skydiver landed on the west side of runway 23 then crossed the runway and taxiway A on 

foot without clearance from the ATCT. 405 

45. May 24, 2014 A skydiver landed on the west of runway 23 then crossed the runway on foot and returned 

to their facility via a golf cart that entered a taxiway without ATCT control clearance. 407 

46. May 24,2014 One skydiver landed between taxiway A and runway 23 and one landed on the west side of 

runway 23 abeam the ATCT. 408 

47. June 7, 2014 A skydiver landed on the northwest side of runway 23. 409 

385 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

386 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, page 55. 

3s7 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

388 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

389 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 138. 

390 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

391 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

392 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

393 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

3'J4 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. The pilot's report on this incident in contained in FAA Exhibit 1, item 5, page HCDA-000176. 

39s FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

396 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4-6. Also see witness report, FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page HCDA-000149. 

397 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15. 

39a FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

399 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4-6. 

4oo FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4-6. 

401 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4-6. 

402 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

403 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4-6. 

404 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

40s FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4-6. 

406 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15. 

407 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15. 

40a FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

Page 47 

1 

5 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

3 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

48. June 15, 2014 

49. June 20, 2014 

so. June 22, 2014, 

51. June 22, 2014 

52. June 29, 2014 

53. July 4, 2014 

54. July 5, 2014 

55. July 10, 2014 

56. July 19, 2014 

57. July 20,2014 

58. July 24, 2014 

59. July 26, 2014 

60. July 27, 2014 

61. August 8, 2014 

62. August 16, 2014 

63. August 27, 2014 

64. August 31, 2014 

65. September 6, 2014 

66. September 13, 2014 

67. September 28, 2014 

68. November 9, 2014 

409 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

41o FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

411 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

A skydiver landed on the west side of the runway, abeam the ATCT and another landed 2 between taxiway A and the runway south oftaxiway 0.410 

A skydiver landed between taxiway A and the runway between taxiways C and 0. 411 1 

A skydiver landed on top of a fuel tank. 412 1 

Two skydivers landed outside the designated landing zone, between taxiways T and C and 1 the ramp.413 

An airport employee reported that a skydiver miss the mark north of the fuel farm. 414 2 

one skydiver landed on the other side of the runway; west of the ASOS. 415 1 

A skydiver landed on the other side of the runway by the VOR. 416 1 

A skydiver landed next to sewage plant and brought back by a city worker. 417 1 

Two skydivers landed in the grass on the west side of the runway north east of runway 23's 

2 numbers.418 

One skydiver landed between taxiway A and the runway. 419 1 

A skydiver landed dose to the runway approach end causing helicopter to initiate a go- 1 around.420 ATCT referred to this incident as a near co!lision.421 

Three skydivers landed outside the DZ in the non-movement area while another landed 

4 between a taxiway and a runway. 422 

A skydiver landed between taxiway A and runway, northeast of taxiway 0.423 1 

Several skydivers landed in the grass on the other side ofthe ramp and were picked up by a 2 golf cart which drove on the taxiway to reach them. 424 

One skydiver landed in the grass on the west side of the runway abeam the numbers. 425 1 

Seven skydivers landed outside the DZ including one in a neighborhood east of the Airport, 7 and one on the public road adjacent to airport property.426 

One skydiver landed near left edge of runway 23, northeast oftaxiway C with JUMP1 aircraft 

1 on short final.427 

One cut away resulted in the skydiver landing between the VOR and the w·1ndsock.428 1 

One skydiver landed between taxiway A and the runway. 429 1 

A skydiver landed on taxiway A near runway 23 run-up pad.430 1 

Several skydivers landed outside the DZ nearly missing the moving blades of a military 2 helicopter preparing to take-off.431 

41~ FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4-6. SDMB rejects several of these reports. For example, in its Replay, SDMB states that "To ensure no harm to airport property 

occurred, SDMB self-reported a parachutist landing near a fuel farm .•. as the parachutist came in contact with the fuel farm. [County] employees then inspected 

the tank and reported no property damage. No physical injury to person or SDMB property took place. SDMB maintains that no landing near a fuel truck 

occurred, let alone a moving truck. Had this actually taken place, physical injury to the skydiver would have occurred and SDMB would have direct knowledge of 

this event. Highway 31 is a busy four to six lane divided highway with posted speeds of 60-70 m.p.h. Had a skydiver landed as [the County] has represented, a 

serious injury would have occurred resulting in multiple official reports in addition to mass media reports. SDMB has no knowledge of any skydiver landing in this 

vicinity or on Highway 31 itself. [The County] has not produced any evidence that this occurred." FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, page 4 {footnotes). Also see FAA Exhibit 

1, Item 21. 

413 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4-6. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

414 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page HCDA-000185. 

415 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

416 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

417 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

418 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

419 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

~° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4-6. 

1 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

= FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4-6. 

423 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

424 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4~6. 

425 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

426 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8, page 4~6. 

427 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

42B FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

429 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

430 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

431 FAA Exhibit 1, Item a, page 4-6. 

Page 48 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

69. March 15, 2015 

70. March 15, 2015 

71. March 28, 2015 

72. March 29, 2015 

73. April1, 2015, 

74. April 3, 2015 

75. April 5, 2015 

76. April13, 2015 

77. April 21, 2015 

78. April 28, 2015 

79, May 2, 2015 

80. May 2, 2015 

81. May 3, 2015 

82. May 4, 2015 

83. May 16,2015 

84. May 16,2015 

85. May 17,2015 

86. May 31, 2015 

87. June 7, 2015 

88. June 8, 2015 

89, June 16, 2015 

90. June 20,2015 

91. July 4, 2015 

432 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15. 

433 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

434 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15. 

435 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

436 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

437 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

438 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

439 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

440 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

441 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

442 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

443 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

444 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

44s FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

446 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

447 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

~FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

449 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

450 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

451 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

452 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

453 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

454 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

455 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

A skydiver landed outside DZ, walked onto taxiway B then onto ramp without 

1 communicating with air traffic contro!.432 

A skydiver landed on the golf course. ATCT received cal1. 433 1 

A skydiver landed outside the DZ on taxiway A between taxiway C and taxiway D without 

1 clearance from the ATCT.434 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MOR with the FAA. 435 1 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MOR with the FAA.436 1 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MOR with the FAA.437 1 

ATCT reported 4 skydiving-related MORs with the FAA.438 4 

A skydiver reported that he landed outside the DZ and was injured.439 1 

A skydiver landed in the AOA and crossed the runway. SDMBN's aircraft was landing at the 

1 time.440 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MOR with the FAA.441 1 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MORs with the FAA.442 1 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MORs with the FAA. 443 1 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MOR with the FAA."' 1 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MOR with the FAA. 445 1 

One skydiver landed between the runway and taxiway A near the approach end of runway 

23 and outside of the DZ,446 another landed within 15 feet east of runway 23, approximately 2 

1,500 feet from landing threshold. This is outside DZ and inside runway safety area. 447 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MOR with the FAA."' 1 

One skydiver landed next to the VOR and outside of the DZ.449 1 

Eleven (11) parachutists jumped with SDMB and eight (8) of the parachutists landed on the 

beach. The other three (3) landed in the designated landing zone at CRE. Public safety was 8 

informed of this incident.4so 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MOR with the FAA.451 1 

Two parachutists jumping with SDMB missed the DZ. One jumper landed between taxiways 

C and T adjacent to the ramp and was able to exit onto the ramp without incident. The other 2 

landed west of the intercostal near the rock mound along Highway 31.452 

One skydiver landed on taxiway A between taxiway C and D and exited to the grass towards 1 the DZ.453 

ATCT reported two skydiving-related MORs with the FAA.454 They landed outside the OZ. 

One came to rest on west side of runway while the other remained on west s"1de of airfield 2 

until retrieved by SDMB.455 

A skydiver landed outside the DZ on taxiway A (VPD) without ATCT authorization. 456 1 

Page 49 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

92. July 5, 2015 

93. July 5, 2015 

94. July 6, 2015 

95. July 19, 2015 

96. July 25, 2015 

97. July 25, 2015 

98. July 25, 2015 

99. July 25, 2015 

100. August 9, 2015 

101. August 9, 2015 

102. August 9, 2015 

103. August 9, 2015 

104. August 9, 2015 

105. August 9, 2015 

106. August 9, 2015 

107. August 22, 2015 

45li FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

457 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

458 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

459 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

460 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

461 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

462 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

453 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

464 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

465 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

466 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

467 FAA Exhibit 1, Item, 228. 

468 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

469 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 47° FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 471 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

4n FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

A skydiver landed beside the intersection of taxiway C and A. The skydiver remained until 

1 permission was granted to retrieve him.457 

A skydiver landed beside the intersection of taxiway C and A. The skydiver remained until 

3 permission was granted to retrieve him.458 

A skydiver landed on the grass between Taxiway A and the runway. After receiving 

permission from the ATCT to move out of the active area, the skydiver gathered his chute 1 

and walked to the ramp. 459 

ATCT reported a skydiving-related MOR to the FAA.460 1 

Three skydivers jumping with SDMB landed outside the DZ. 21anded southwest of the 

Tower, just east of taxiway A, while the other landed in the area between taxiways A, B, and 3 

C,461 

Three skydivers jumping with SDMB landed outside the DZ. 2 landed abeam Runway 23 

3 approach lights, east ofthe runway. 11anded between taxiways T and C.462 

Two skydivers jumping with SDMB landed outside the DZ. One touched down on active 

2 taxiway A, while the other landed near runway 23 approach lighting system. 463 

A skydivers jumping with SDMB landed outside the DZ, landing north east of the landing 1 

zone, abeam Runway 23 approach lights. 464 

A parachutist jumping with SDMB landed outside the DZ, east of the runway, southwest of the 

1 ATCT.46s 

A solo parachutist jumping with SDMB, landed outside the DZ, between taxiway C, T, and the 

ramp. Jumper landed northeast of taxiway A, between ramp and taxiway. Due to the 

skydiver's proximity to taxiway A, a taxiing Citation was stopped by the ATCT until the 

skydiver was clear of the area.466 A FSDO report on the matter stated "there were four 

MORs this weekend ... two were concerns, one a Cessna Citation had to stop on the taxiway to 1 

let a parachutist get his chute off of the taxiway, and another when a jumper had to cut 

away his main, and was away from the other jumpers descending. Tower didn't see this 

jumper ... [and] let an aircraft takeoff, and although not close, was a concern because they 

didn't know the jumper was there."467 

A tandem parachutist jumping with SDMB, landed outside the DZ. The skydivers landed 

2 northeast of runway 23, between taxiway A and taxiway C.468 

A solo parachutist jumping with SDMB, landed outside the DZ. The jumper touched down on 

west side of the runway, southwest end of airfield. It was reported that the jumper had to 

cut away from main chute and deploy back~up. CRE ATC stated that it appeared the 

2 parachutist was following the cut~away chute down to see where it would land. Cut-away 

chute came to rest in the nearby ICW and was retrieved by a passing pleasure boat. Jumper 

remained on west side of RWY until retrieved.469 

A solo parachutist jumping with SDMB, landed outside the DZ, between taxiway C, T, and the 1 

ramp. Jumper proceeded to ramp. No clearance required from ATC.470 

A skydiver landed in the grass between runway 23, taxiway A, taxiway C, and taxiway B. 471 1 

A skydiver landed in the grass on the northwest side of runway 23. Another landed in the 

1 

grass between taxiway C taxiway T, and the rampY2 

A solo parachutist, jumping with SDMB, landed outside the designated landing zone. Jumper 1 

Page 50 
Five skydivers with SDMB landed outside of the OZ. The jumpers touched down on the grass 

108. August 28, 2015 area, abeam the approach end of RWY 5. The jumpers did not cross any active taxiways or 5 

Five skydivers from SDMB missed the DZ and landed in the RSA for runway 5. One skydiver's 

109. September 5, 2015 descent path took him into the approach of runway 5, causing an aircraft (N208TS) to 5 

110. SeptemberS, 201S 

111. September 19, 201S 

112. September 27, 2015 

a 360 maneuver on final. 474 

outside the designated landing zone. The skydiver touched 

the ATC Tower.475 

A skydiver touched down outside the landing zone, landing between the ATCT and taxiway 

A.475 

ATCT observed a parachutist land on taxiway alpha approximately 300 feet northeast of 

taxiway T. Prior to the parachutist landing, jump 1 had landed runway 05 and was exiting the 

feet from the 

1 

1 

1 

The data in Table I and graph below illustrates 112 safety incidents reports representing 211 separate 

skydiving events (individual skydivers involved) at CRE between March 2013 and September 2015.478 In 

addition to the high number of incidents, the data appears to indicate an increase in the rate as well. The 

related trends lines (graph), number of reports and number of skydivers involved, are also a concern, and are 

indicative of systemic safety problems concerning skydiving operations at CRE. The data illustrates that, 

over time, the skydiving safety deficiencies at CRE not only have not been resolved, but have worsened. 

Skydiving Safety Incidents at CRE (March 2013- September 2015) 

2S 

2.3 

22 

20 19 

16 

1S 

12 

.1. . .. -.. ~·•' 

·········'"'·····"········, .......... s .. . 10 

:~li :1· ·r~ I ll 5 

0 

"' ~ "' ~ 

~ ~ 

rn c. 2 <C 

"' ~ 

>. 

rn 

2 

M m M M M M M ~ ~ ~ 

~ ~ % ~ 6 ~ z ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 0 z ~ ~ ~ ~ 

~ Number of Safety Incident Reports 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ v ~ ~ ~ rl rl rl ~ rl rl rl rl rl ~ rl 

~~C~§og_t;~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 z 0 . ~ 

~ Number of Skydivers Involved 

'" '" ~ ~ 

~ 

rn :5. 

2 <C 

·········Linear (Number of Safety Incident Reports) ......... Linear (Number of Skydivers Involved) 

473 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

474 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

475 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

476 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 31. 

4

77 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

'" ~ '" ~ 

>. c rn .;: 2 

'" ';' 

~ 

1S 

'" ~ '" ~ 

;, 

~ "-w 

""' "' 

478 The data are VPDs, MORs, and UIRs [Vehicle Pedestrian Deviations (by FAA), Major Occurrence Reports (by FAA), Unusual Incident Reports (by County)], and 

entries in the CRE ATCf skydiving log. The list and graphical depictions contain only those incidents that the FAA was able to document as part of the record. 

Page 51 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Routine landings outside the DZ are a safety issue requiring mitigation and the type of safety incidents 

associated with SDMB' s operations at CRE cannot be dismissed as "minor," "commonly accepted," or 

"permissible," as SDMB implies. To illustrate this, the airport diagram below illustrates the approximate 

locations of many of the reported safety incidents at CRE479 

1. t 

1\! 

" " :;! ;;, 

N 

~ g 

< ! l< 

"" fi It ~i. ;s 

·:. ~f 

~ l ~ 

If ;J 

" " i!i ,, 

These skydiving incidents at CRE can be categorized as accident precursors, which, unless addressed, can 

lead to an accident.480 Precursor identification, which these data supports, is critical in preventing accidents 

before they happen,481 and analyzing the data for safety trends, causal factors, and mitigation effectiveness, 

results in improved safety, procedures, and protocols,482 and in this case, all related to the safety of skydiving 

operations. From a risk management perspective, and under its federal obligations as the airport sponsor, 

these safety deficiencies must be mitigated by the County. 

479 The chart illustrates some of the safety incidents which could be reasonably located on the airport. Not aU incidents in the record were detailed enough as to 

be placed in a precise or even general location at the airport. 

480 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 14. A failure may, in combination with less favorable circumstances or !eft unattended for longer time periods, lead to a severe 

consequence. If there is indeed potential for the observed anomaly failure to recur and lead to an accident {i.e. a situation that has more severe consequences), 

then the anomaly may be called an accident precursor. 

481 See Causal Factors for General Aviation Accidents/Incidents Between January 1984 and October 2004, page vii. 

482 See FAA National Runway Safety Plan (2015 -2017), page 58. 

Page 52 
Two photographs of the November 9, 2014 safety incident where SDMB skydivers landed outside the DZ nearly missing the moving blades of a Navy SH-60 

helicopter preparing to take~off. Top, the skydiver is seen on the right while the front part of the SH-60 helicopter is visible on the left, in line with the VOR. 

Above, the skydiver is collecting the parachute before walking back to the ramp. Source: FAA Exhibit 1, Item 8. 

f. Case Studies 

In order to illustrate several of the hazards associated with skydiving operations discussed in this case such as 

skydivers missing the DZ, crossing active runways, landing close to moving aircraft, failure to adhere to 

established procedures, inadequate integration of skydiving with normal airport operations, the need for an 

adequate DZ, and potential injury, numerous case studies were reviewed. From a safety management 

perspective, case studies illustrate the consequences of not mitigating the hazards since they are real and 

contextually relevant situations to what has and could occur at CRE. The following excerpts from NTSB, 

FAA, and NASA ASRS483 reports are samples which illustrate several of the safety issues in this case. 

Case l 

On October 21, 2000, a Champion 7ECA, piloted by a private pilot, sustained substantial damage when it 

collided with a skydiver while about to touchdown during landing. In a written statement, the pilot said that 

on final approach he noticed a skydiver and noted that "in my judgment it was clear to land on the sod 

runway as the skydiver was on target over his designated landing spot, well to the left of runway 12. I 

touched the aircraft down and at that time the skydiver must have turned downwind as he ended up landing 

in the middle of the runway. I applied my right rudder to avoid a collision with the skydiver. This action 

resulted in my crossing the paved runway and entering the field. At this point I hit some brush and flipped 

the aircraft. "

484 

Case 2 

In April 2004, a pilot files an ASRS report. In its report, the pilot reported that "parachutists were (on two 

separate occasions) seen landing on the runway surface of runway 3/21. This is not the first time this has 

happened. During these days of heavy parachute traffic, sometimes as many as 25-30 are released at a time 

and they land all over the airport, crossing back and forth over the active runway on their descents. No 

particular drop zone seems to be observed, as they just use the whole airport surface creating a hazard to 

normal airport traffic .. .it is just a matter of time before someone is killed and would like the FAA to monitor 

the sit at this airport to help improve safety."4Bs 

4113 Aviation Safety Reporting System. 

484 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 28, NTSB CHI01LA020. 

485 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 28, NASAASRS Report No. 616472. 

Page 53 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Case 3 

On April23, 2005, a De Havilland DHC-6 collided with a cinematographer parachutist during the downwind 

leg for landing on runway 23at the Deland Municipal Airport, Florida. The commercial-rated pilot reported 

no injuries and the cinematographer parachutist received fatal injuries. The airplane incurred substantial 

damage. According to one ground witnesses, the parachutist was descending and was about 600 feet above 

ground level when the left wing of the airplane collided with him. A representative of the aircraft operator 

was asked by NTSB about the protocol to enter the traffic pattern. [This representative] stated that verbal 

guidance is given to them (pilots) to follow the FAA rules and it up to their discretion. There are no written 

protocols. The only thing is the noise abatement procedures. The acting airport manager stated that there is 

no Letter of Agreement for airport operations between Skydive Deland and the City of Deland, only the lease 

for the property agreement. 486 

Case4 

On May 26, 2005 a Pilatus PC-6 collided with a parachutist on fmal approach for landing. The pilot was not 

able to maintain directional control and the airplane impacted trees and terrain near the airport. The pilot 

stated that he was on fmal approach for landing, when a parachutist "made a rapid descent and accelerated 

from behind [his] right wing." The parachutist hit the right wing and the airplane entered an unrecoverable 

descending right turn, subsequently striking a tree line. The parachutist involved in the accident noted that 

he intended to land in front of the hangar. He reported he did not hear or see the jump plane. The drop zone 

for experienced parachutists was located north of the turf runway and west of the hangar buildings. The 

NTSB determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to include (1) failure of the pilot to maintain 

clearance from the parachutist descent area/drop zone, (2) parachutist's failure to maintain an adequate visual 

lookout for the jump plane during all phases of the jump, and as an additional factor, "the proximity of the 

runway to the drop zone. "487 

Case 5 

This jump occurred early afternoon on January 29, 2006. The winds were from the west, stronger at altitude, 

but about 7 to 20 mph on the ground. Because of stronger uppers, the jumper found it not possible to land in 

the regular landing area. He chose to land just on the other side of the runway in a field east of the drop 

zone. However, he was determining his landing direction according to the windsock that was about 250 

yards away, and faced west for landing, although his canopy was being pushed from his left, a stronger south 

wind in the field he chose. He was crabbing on final approach, and did not flare past his shoulders for 

landing. Hence, the canopy did not slow its descent or forward speed when he hit the ground which caused 

him to time his flare incorrectly. Although he chose correctly to land in a safe, alternate landing area, he 

failed to use his own perception of his direction under canopy, instead of a wind sock that indicated 

something different than what he was experiencing488 

Case 6 

On November 11, 2012, a licensed skydiver exited the jump plane. The freefall and parachute deployment 

were uneventful and the jumper was in control of his parachute. He was seen making a 360 degree turn, 

losing more altitude and landing in a field short of the drop zone. He landed on the ground but his parachute 

was caught in the tree line indicating that he overshot his alternate landing area. The parachute equipment 

was undamaged and in working order. He was taken by ambulance to cooper hospital where it was 

determined that he broke his hip.489 

486 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 28, NTSB MJAOSLA096. 

487 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 28, NTSB CH!05LA130. 

488 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 28, FAA ASIAS Report 2006-01290014491. 

439 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 28, FAA ASIAS Report 2012-11110235191. 

Page 54 
Skydive Myrtle Beach. Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Case 7 

On December 15, 2012, four skydivers exited a jump aircraft and performed a routine free-fall and all four 

parachutes opened normally and had good flying canopies. Three of the jumpers turned west into the wind to 

make an upwind landing and landed without incident. The fourth skydiver continued to fly to the east, 

downwind for approximately one quarter of a mile, missing the drop zone. He struck a tree and fell 

approximately 20 to 25 feet. It is believed that the victim landed on his back on the reserve parachute pack 

causing serious injuries to his spine. It was determined that the victim, due to lack of experience or work 

overload, that he was too low to make the 180 degree turn into the wind to land as the other three skydivers 

had done. The victim was transported to the hospital in serious condition and his injuries included damaged 

vertebra and paralyzed from his mid back down through his legs.490 

Case8 

On March 8, 2014, a Cessna 170B collided with a parachutist and parachute just before touchdown. The 

pilot of the airplane that struck the parachutist reported the following that "he was on final approach for 

runway 32 and was about 15 feet above the ground" when "a parachutist dropped down in front of me and 

was a going to land in the center of the approach end of the runway." He immediately climbed to avoid the 

parachutist and the parachute rigging caught his wing. He crashed nose first into the ground. Two witnesses 

reported that the parachutist's glide path crossed the approach end of runway 32. One of these witnesses 

reported that the right wing caught the parachute's suspension lines, causing the airplane to crash and the 

parachutist to be thrown to the ground.491 

g. Director's Analysis of the Safety Issues 

A review of the pleadings shows SDMB dismisses not only the safety concerns expressed by the County, the 

ATCT, and FAA, but also the safety implications of landing outside the drop zone. The Director will address 

the safety issues presented by the parties as follows: 

• Safety Issue 1 -The LOAs and Related Safety Protocols; 

• Safety Issue 2 - ATCT Role and Actions; 

• Safety Issue 3 -14 CFR Part 139 v. Part I 05 Interpretation and AC I 05-2E; and 

• Safety Issue 4 -FAA Safety Concerns (FAA Airports -FSDO -ATO). 

Safety Issue -The LOAs and Related Safety Protocols 

A LOA is a common protocol to assist airport sponsors, air traffic control, and users in ensuring safe airport 

operations, including skydiving. 492 At CRE, there are two such agreements. The first, dated January 1, 2012, 

is an agreement between the County and the A TCT. It defmes responsibility for the control of aircraft, 

vehicular, and pedestrian traffic within the airport movement areas of CRE in order to "limit ... the movement 

area involving aircraft, vehicle, pedestrian, or object ... that would create a collision hazard and/or loss of 

separation with an aircraft taking off, landing, or taxiing." ATCT responsibilities in the LOAs include (1) 

controlling all aircraft, vehicular, and pedestrian traffic in the defmed movement area and (2) notifying 

airport operations of movement area incursions committed by vehicle operators or pedestrians. The County's 

roles include (1) informing all authorized users on the use of the movement area, including the requirement 

to receive ATCT authorization, (2) informing users of the requirement that vehicles or equipment on the 

movement area must maintain radio communications, and (3) addressing lost communication procedures493 

490 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 28, FAA ASIA$ Report 2012~12150283791. 

491 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 28, NTSB ERA14lA146. 

492 FAA Order JO 7210.3Y Facility Operation and Administration, paragraph 4-3~1, and 18-4-1. For additional cases and investigations, see the NTSB database, FAA 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing {ASIA$) system, and USPA accident data base at 

http://www .uspa.org/USP AM embers/Safety I AccidentReports.aspx. 493 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15, page 86. 

Page 55 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

The second LOA, dated May 11, 2012, is an agreement between the County, the ATCT, and SDMB for 

conducting parachute operations at CRE. It defmes the location (DZ), and the authorization for parachutists 

"to land in the defmed [DZ]." It does not authorize landings on any runway, taxiway, or ramp area of the 

airport.494 LOAs of this type can and should include movements required by the skydiving operator on the 

airport as well as instructions and/or restrictions for crossing runways, operating vehicles on the airfield, 

radio communications, and emergency procedures. 495 

The use ofLOAs and related processes are not only reasonable and consistent with the County's authority, 

consistent with its obligations to operate CRE in a safe manner, and consistent with FAA guidance (e.g., 14 

Part 105.23, Advisory Circular AC 90-66A, Advisory Circular AC 105-2, FAA Order J07210.3Y,496 SMS 

guidance), but essential to achieve an acceptable level of safety in skydiving operations. Both LOAs are 

legitimate and reasonable actions by the airport sponsor in accommodating skydiving operations, 

coordinating with the appropriate FAA air traffic control facility, and addressing site-specific issues and 

concerns. As a measure to mitigate hazards, such as air traffic conflicts and those which can be created by 

uncontrolled access or/and movements in the airport's movements areas, an LOA and related processes are 

common safety practices used by airport sponsors and advocated by the FAA at many other airports in the 

country. 497 

SDMB challenges the LOAs and the use of ground communication and documentation protocols for vehicle 

and pedestrian incursions on active taxiways and runways at CRE,498 and fmds them "unwarranted 

restrictions on its designated landing zone at CRE. "499 SDMB also objected to specific provisions in the 

revised draft LOA (June 2014), including the provisions regarding the documentation of safety hazards 

including landings outside of the DZ, other deviations by the skydiving operator, notification by the ATCT to 

the County,500 and successive penalties for failure to comply with existing policies. Although the record 

shows that a compromise was reached that was acceptable to all parties, following several interactions with 

the County and the ATCT, SDMB refused to sign a revised LOA.501 

The County position is that "the reporting protocol [the County] and the [ATCT] have implemented to 

document safety hazards, including vehicle and pedestrian incursions on active runways and taxiways, and 

its further objection to purported restrictions on its landing zone," are warranted. 502 The County repeatedly 

defends that the "documentation protocol [was] implemented due to stated safety concerns."503 

The Director is not persuaded by SDMB' s claims and arguments. As indicated by the record, the type, 

frequency, and high number of safety incidents involving SDMB' s operations, mainly attributable to landing 

outside the DZ, demonstrate that SDMB is unable to meet several of the safety requisites in both LOAs. The 

LOAs are common and necessary safety practices for safe skydiving operations, as required by, but not 

limited to 14 CFR § 105.23. Both LOAs and the proposed changes to which SDMB objects are in 

accordance with FAA guidance, which recommends that airports develop an LOA with the skydiving 

operator that describes specific operating requirements and boundaries of the DZ. 504 

Even if some ofthe LOA's protocols were considered 'restrictions' affecting SDMB, the record offers no 

evidence for determining these protocols to be anything other than the County acting upon valid safety 

494 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 8. Also see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 17 A. 

495 FAA Exhibit 1, !tem 3, pages 23-24. 

496 See Order J07110.65V Air Traffic Control, Section 7 Parachute Operations and FAA Order J07210.3Y, Section 4 Parachute Jump Operations. 

497See DOT /FAA/AR~ll/30 Development of Criteria for Parachute Landing Areas on Airports at 26, § 8.2.2. 498 FAA Exhibit 1, !tern 3, page 23. 

499 FAA Exhibit 1, !tem 3, page 3-4. 

500 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, pages 149~151. 

501 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 15. 

soz FAA Exhibit 1, Jtem 3, page 20. 

503 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 7. 

504 See FAA Order JO 7210.3Y Facility Operation and Administration, 18~4~1. 

Page 56 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

concerns. The protocols are reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory. As stated in FAA Order 5190.6B, 

"a prohibition or limit on aeronautical operations justified by the sponsor on the basis of safety ... will be 

evaluated based on the stated purpose, justification, and support offered by the sponsor."505 

Both the Complaint and the record make clear that the County, the ATCT, FAA Airports, and FAA FSDO 

have repeatedly presented their safety concerns to SDMB. The record also shows that, although SDMB 

participated in the process, it has been unable to attain the necessary compliance with the required safety 

procedures and expectations while engaged in skydiving operations. Finally, the record does not contain data 

to substantiate the claim that SDMB was or is unjustly targeted by the LOA process, its contents, or its 

application. 

Therefore, the Director finds that the LOAs in place, including related processes and documentation 

protocols, are well within the bounds of an airport's permissible regulation of skydivers under the County's 

federal obligations. 

Safety Issue 2- ATCT Role and Actions 

As discussed above under Safety Issue Count 1, SDMB challenges the safety processes in use at the Airport 

(e.g., ground communications and documentation protocols for vehicle and pedestrian incursions on active 

taxiways and runways at CRE). However, in its Complaint, SDMB goes a step further and argues that the 

County has a "partnership" with the contract ATCT that results in "policing unusual airport activity and 

refereeing the boundaries of SDMBs primary [DZ]." SDMB alleges that the County and the contract tower 

"are working together to report and enforce subjective unusual incidents. "506 

The Director is not persuaded by SDMB's allegations. First, to assert that the County as the airport 

sponsor and the ATCT have effectively engaged in "collusion" of some kind is not supported. As 

discussed above, the actions by the County and the ATCT concerning LOAs and related processes are 

valid and stand as reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory. 

The fact that the ATCT at CRE is a contract tower is also irrelevant. There are no detrimental implications 

concerning the quality, service level, or safety of the operations performed by the contract A TCT at CRE. 

The ATCT at CRE follows and adheres to FAA requirements and guidance507 Moreover, a review of the 

record shows no evidence to suggest that the contract ATCT has misrepresented skydiving safety issues at 

CRE. To the contrary, the level of detail and record keeping maintained by the ATCT508 concerning the 

safety incidents at CRE are indicative of a proactive approach to safety management. 

The record also indicates that SDMB knew the stated purpose of the LOA between the County and the 

A TCT was "to limit to the maximum extent practical a situation on the Movement Area involving 

aircraft, vehicle, pedestrian, or object on the ground that would create a collision hazard and/or loss of 

separation with an aircraft taking off, landing, or taxiing." SDMB also knew that the LOA stated that 

ATCT controls "all aircraft, vehicular, and pedestrian traffic in the defined movement area at CRE." 

SDMB was also aware of the ATCT's obligation, pursuant to the LOA, to "NotifY the airport 

operations ... of observed Movement Area incursions committed by vehicle operators or pedestrians.'609 

505 See FAA Order 5190.68 § 14.4{d) at 14-3. 

506 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, pages 2-3. 

507 FAA Order JO 7210.3Y Facility Operation and Administration, paragraph 4-3-1, and 18-4-1. Also, the ATCT at CRE is a contract tower. The FAA's Contract 

Tower Program allows the FAA to contract with private entities to provide air traffic safety services at low-activity airports. Currently, 250 airports in over 45 

States participate in the program. FAA retains safety oversight of the contract towers, and the controllers who staff them and all contract controllers are certified 

by the FAA. Contract facilities are monitored on a regular basis by the agency, and staffing plans are approved by the FAA. Contract controllers are subject to the 

same rules, medical exam requirements, operational procedures, and training as are FAA controlfers. Therefore, for the purpose of this Complaint, including all 

issues, discussion, or a!legations concerning CRE's ATCT, the Director considers its performance, credibility, and integrity to be equal to any FAA facility of the 

same type, along with all of the related expectations and responsibilities. 506 See FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 509 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 12. 

Page 57 
Skydive Myrtle Beach." Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Therefore, objection to the ATCT documenting and notifying the County of any incidents is 

unreasonable and inconsistent with common safety practices. On this, the Director adds that SDMB's 

claims that it was not aware of the LOAs, or that it was not provided with copies or otherwise that the 

County kept those away from SDMB have no merit. SDMB cannot plead ignorance on how to conduct 

skydiving operations in accordance with such basic requirements as landing on the DZ (not outside), and 

avoiding penetrating movements areas, the runway or taxiways.510 

In any event, the 'partnership' between the County and the ATCT as described in the Complaint is the type 

of collaborative approach to safety management that assists an airport sponsor to achieve safe operations. 

The County sought and seeks to gather safety data regarding incidents and accidents in a manner consistent 

with the guidance in FAA AC No. 150/5200-37 Introduction to Safety Management Systems (SMS) for 

Airport Operators.51I 

The actions of the ATCT, including the actions SDMB objects to (e.g., reporting, documenting), are 

consistent with the applicable FAA guidance, including FAA Order J0711 0.65V Air Traffic Control, Section 

7 Parachute Operations and FAA Order J0721 0.3Y, Section 4 Parachute Jump Operations, FAA Order 

7050.1B Runway Safety Program, and FAA Order I 000.37 ATO Safety Management System. FAA Order 

5!90.6B states" .. .if a sponsor believes that there is a safety issue with the flight operations of an individual 

aeronautical operator. .. " the sponsor should report the issue to the FAA.512 

The Director fmds no detrimental implications with regards to the quality or safety of the operations 

performed by the contract ATCT at CRE. Moreover, a review of the record shows no evidence to suggest 

that the contract A TCT has improperly colluded with the County or otherwise misrepresented skydiving 

safety issues at CRE. Finally, the actions SDMB objects to are consistent with existing FAA safety 

guidance. 

Safety Issue 3- 14 CFR Part 139 v. Part 105 Interpretation and AC 105-2E 

SDMB argues that both the County and the ATCT "are confused about the proper application" of Parts I 05 

and 139 ... "and the difference between 'pedestrians' and 'parachutists' in Parts 139 and 105 respectively." 

SDMB states that the County and the ATCT "are either unable or unwilling to differentiate between Part 139 

'pedestrian' activity and Part 105 'parachutist' activity ... as it applies to legitimate aeronautical practices 

delineated in Part 105, [and] AC 105-2E."513 

AC 105-2E Sport Parachuting, which states that" ... while skydivers attempt to land in [the DZ], at times 

there may be inadvertent landings in other grass or hard-surfaced areas. This could include landings on 

runways, taxiways, and other hard-surfaced areas. Areas such as runways, taxiways, clearways, and Obstacle 

Free Zones (OFZ) are not prohibited areas but should not be designated as a primary landing area and should 

be vacated as soon as practicable."514 

SDMB also argues that although the County and the ATCT "have a [LOA] that requires all pedestrians and 

vehicles to have two-way radios and receive [ATCT] authorization prior to entering active areas defined as 

taxiways and runways at GSA .. .it appears that [the ATCT] and [the County] 'feel' that Part 139 supersedes 

Part I 05 and FAA's interpretation of the regulatory interrelation of sport parachuting operations and airport 

510 See Background section for narratives of this and the related references in the record. 

511 For example, see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, page 23. The essence of this work is to identify hazards, rank risks of hazards by severity and likelihood, mitigate 

unacceptable risks, and review the mitigated hazards to determine whether the risk has been reduced to an acceptable level. The frequent landings outside the 

DZ, many of which have resulted in runway and taxiway incursions, are clearly safety hazards to other aeronautical operations at CRE. 

512 FAA Order 5190.6B, pages 14~2. 

513 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 9. 514 AC 105-2E, ~ 6(c)(2). 

Page 58 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

safety found in FAA AC 1 05-2E." SDMB adds that "this apparent regulatory misinterpretation is the genesis 

of the current issues" in the Complaint.515 

SDMB also contends that the County "negligently failed to meet its obligations under 14 CFR § 139.329 (to 

inform tenants of unpublished agreements) and then cites 14 CFR § 139.329 as justification for its safety 

concerns and new unpublished policies. These practices are per se discriminatory."516 However, SDMB also 

argues that "the safety provisions of 14 CFR § 139.329 do not apply to it because sport parachuting safety is 

governed by 14 CFRPart 105."517 

The County rejects these claims and specifically the claim that SDMB's "skydivers should not be considered 

pedestrians ... , and should not therefore be subject to the requirement to contact the tower before crossing an 

active runway or taxiway."518 The County also questions SDMB's claim that "skydivers do not become 

pedestrians when they land, and instead remain 'parachutists' under 14 CFR Part 105 ... " The County 

contends that "under this self-serving and dangerous interpretation of these two regulations, SDMB's 

skydivers would be allowed to walk across the taxiways and runways with impunity, whenever they chose, 

even if an aircraft were about to take off or land." 519 

SDMB's argument is not credible. First, FAA's guidance concerning skydiving operations' access to 

airports as an aeronautical activity does not consider a skydiver, especially on the ground after landing, to be 

analogous to an "aircraft."520 An "aeronautical activity" is an "activity which involves, makes possible, or is 

required for the operation of an aircraft, or which contributes to or is required for the safety of such 

operations; i.e., air carrier operations, flight training, air taxi, charter operations, aircraft storage, sale of 

aviation fuel, skydiving, ultralight operations, etc ... "521 This definition caunot be construed as granting a 

skydiver the classification of an aircraft and certainly not as permitting walking skydivers 'free roaming 

rights' on the airport's runway, taxiways, or movement areas. 

Certainly, SDMB' s implied argument that when a skydiver inadvertently lands on a runway, taxiway, or 

other surface that is outside the designated landing zone, the parachuting safety protocol to "vacate" the area 

"as soon as practicable" allows it to ignore its obligation to contact the ATCT for permission before crossing 

active taxiways and runways, is not acceptable. 522 If for safety reasons, an aircraft has to adhere to ATCT 

instructions and procedures, so must a skydiver. If a pilot violates a rule by entering a runway without 

authorization (unsafe action), so should a skydiver. A skydiver landing on an active runway or taxiway, or 

one walking across movement areas "unimpeded by the ATCT" are hazards the FAA expects the County to 

mitigate accordingly. This is true regardless of whether the term 'pedestrian,' 'parachutist,' or any other 

name or classification is used. Aviation safety is an area wholly regulated by the Federal Government and 

the FAA is the agency with the authority to implement 49 U.S.C. § 40101 through its regulations and 

guidance, and its interpretation of these statutes receives deference. 523 

515 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 2. 516 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 6, pages 8 and 13. 

s17 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 20-21. 

518 The County states that CRE is not a Part 139 certificated airport, however, !ike many general aviation airports, it looks to Part 139 for guidance in complying 

with its federal grant obligations. FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 3. 

519 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 3. 

szo See Skydive Paris Inc. v. Henrv County. Tennessee Director's Determination, 18, FAA Docket No. 16~05~06 (Jan. 20, 2006). ln that decision, the reference to 

"the coexistence of an OFA with a drop zone is not inherently unsafe, and that each situation must be judged on its individual merits." In addition, while the 

decision did not can skydivers 'aircraft; it did state that "there exists a longstanding precedent for affording skydivers the same operational latitude given to an 

aircraft in flight or while taxiing ... " However, the discussion was limited was limited by noting that the "OF As speak to stationary objects that wlll remain in a 

fixed position," was based on the specifics of that case (e.g., operations in the Object Free Area) and based on a site~specific safety assessment by Flight 

Standards. The discussion and statements were also made within the context of a safety assessment, designed to attempt in mitigating potential, safety 

concerns. In the present case, the safety data, in the form of safety incidents, have been determined by both ATO and Flight Standards, to be unsafe, which is by 

itself, the determinant in the case. Therefore, the distinction between the present case and Skydive Paris, unsafe v. no valid safety data to restrict, precludes the 

Director from finding any relevant similarity. 

521 See FAA Order 5190.68, pages 2-14, and 8-8. 522 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 20-21. 523 See FAA v. Citv of Santa Monica, Director's Determination, 30, FAA Docket 16-02-08 (May 27, 2008). A!so see Chevron USA, !nc. v. National Resources Defense 

Council, 467 U.S 837 {1984). 

Page 59 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Deportment of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

14 CFR Part 105 provides that "no person may conduct a parachute operation ... if that operation creates a 

hazard to air traffic or to persons or property on the surface."524 A skydiver descending upon an 

unsuspecting taxiing aircraft, a skydiver crossing an active runway, or one landing near the rotating blades of 

a helicopter, is a hazard. Not controlling these introduces unnecessary risks. 

The Director notes that while CRE is not a 14 CFR Part 139 certificated airport, it is not unreasonable to look 

to Part 139 for guidance in addressing safety issues at a non-Part 139 airport. Certain elements in 14 CFR 

Part 139 constitute an acceptable process to address a particular safety issue regardless of whether the airport 

has a 14 CFRPart 139 certificate or not. Many general aviation airports voluntarily incorporate appropriate 

elements of 14 CFR Part 139 and their supporting Advisory Circulars to enhance the safety of their 

facilities. 525 

Contrary to SDMB's assertion that skydiving landings outside of the designated drop zone and inside the 

airport should be permitted because skydiving operations are just like any other aircraft, is nonsensical. In 

many cases, skydivers have drifted across the runway and taxiways with aircraft in the proximity, landed or 

intruded upon active movement areas, and this plainly constitutes a hazard to air traffic. 526 

Landing "anywhere at the airport," as SDMB implies, is dangerous, and is not acceptable. SDMB's 

argument here appears to be that, because Part 105 states that in an emergency a parachutist may land 

anywhere at the airport, the "landing zone" now becomes the entire airport. FAA rejects this. 

The guidance in AC 1 05-2E Sport Parachuting is very clear. While skydivers, at times, may inadvertently 

[emphasis added] land outside the DZ [and this could include landings on runways, taxiways, clearways, or 

Obstacle Free Zones (OFZ)],527 this cannot be considered acceptable as a routine practice. Tolerating 

occasional deviations is one thing, but designating any airport areas as a "normal" DZ or primary landing 

areas, is unacceptable. The fact is that very high number of "inadvertent" landings outside the landing zone 

by SDMB skydivers at CRE has created a serious and permanent safety concern that the County must 

manage and mitigate. 

SDMB's claim that it is "permitted to land anywhere within 5 (five) miles of the airport, ifnecessary,"528 

only refers to the airspace to be used, not a particular DZ. The hazards associated with a skydiver "moving" 

anywhere at the airport cannot be ignored. To do otherwise would create unnecessarily dangerous conditions 

in the movement areas of the airport, not just for the skydivers, but other aircraft, people, and possibly 

property as well. 529 

14 CFR Part 105 does not supersede common safety practices, FAA's safety guidance for runways, taxiways, 

and movement areas, VPDs, or related safety elements in Part 139. Such an approach, as SDMB suggests, is 

unacceptable from a safety standpoint, and has the effect of rendering FAA's guidance null and void. 53° For 

example, and using Part 139 as guidance, an airport operator must "establish and implement procedures for 

the safe and orderly access to, and operation in, movement areas and safety areas by pedestrians and ground 

vehicles, including provisions identifying the consequences of noncompliance with the procedures by an 

employee tenant, or contractor."531 Certainly, adopting such practices at a GA airport cannot and would not 

be considered an unreasonable practice. If a skydiver were to land in front of a taxiing aircraft at a 14 CFR 

Part 139 airport, from a safety standpoint (and FAA concern), there is no difference from a situation where 

524 See 14 CFR § 105.5. 

S2S General Aviation Safety and Security Practices: A Synthesis of Airport Practice, Airport Cooperative Research Program, 2007, page 6. 

526 See FAA v. Peters. Woermann NTSB Docket SE-14381, NTSB Order No. EA-4644, March 18, 1998, page 4. 

527 The same logic applies to other safety areas such as Runway Safety Areas (RSA), Object Free Areas (OFA), Object Free Zone (OFZ), Runway Protection Zones 

(RPZ), and Taxiway Safety Areas {TSA). See AC 150-5300.13Airport Design. 

sa FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 148. 

S29 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 3. 

530 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 22. 531 14 CFR § 139.329(b). FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 20. 

Page 60 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

the same occurs at a GA airport. Both are dangerous, and both may require a common mitigating strategy, 

which may be found in 14 CFR Part 139. Even if no reference to Part 139 would have been made in this 

case, the hazards created by landing outside the DZ on a regular basis and being responsible for uncontrolled 

access and crossings of the airport's movement areas constitutes unsafe practices that still require mitigation. 

Therefore, the use of an acceptable process, such as relying on 14 CFR Part 139 to address a particular 

hazard, is not unreasonable.532 

The Director cannot accept that airport safety areas be de facto considered "acceptable" as DZs, as SDMB 

implies. It is a basic concept in airport operations to maintain certain safety areas clear during aircraft takeoff and landing operations. The FAA's Runway Safety Office and other FAA organizations concur with 

restricting the use of airport safety areas as DZs. Although aDZ may, in some cases and under certain 

conditions mitigations) overlap a safety area, as a matter of safety, this is not a blank authorization that a DZ 

can overlap runway and taxiway safety areas. It is a basic airport design premise to maintain these areas 

(e.g., TSA, 533 OFZ) clear during aircraft takeoff and landing operations. 534 

SDMB has agreed to adhere to CRE's established procedures and DZ ... SDMB acknowledges that it "agreed 

to comply with these provisions ... and implemented internal procedures to meet the terms of the ... LOA." In 

fact, as part of discussions with ATCT concerning 14 CFR § 139.329, SDMB stated that it "appreciate[s] the 

heads up and in conjunction with the LOA this makes complete sense. Now that we have a copy, we have 

implemented SOPs here where this should no longer present itself as an issue henceforth." 535 It is reasonable 

for an airport sponsor with an ATCT to "ensure that each pedestrian and ground vehicle in movement areas 

or safety areas is controlled by ... radio ... between each pedestrian or vehicle and the tower." Similarly, it is 

reasonable for the airport sponsor to maintain a "description and date of any accidents or incidents in the 

movement areas and safety areas involving ... aircraft, a ground vehicle, or a pedestrian. "536 The fact that 

both of these are in 14 CFR Part 139 does take away from the fact that the safety benefits of such practices 

are real, consistent with safety management principles, and should be encouraged. 

Finally, as a matter of statutory interpretation the safety provisions of 14 CFR Part 105 and 14 CFR Part 139 

(and related policies and guidance) must be read together to give both meaning and be effective safety 

mitigation tools. The relevant sections in 14 CFR Part 105 and 14 CFR Part 139 are not mutually exclusive. 

They complement each other, as discussed above. Both "point generally in a common direction," as the 

County argues.537 The issue here is not, nor could it be, a violation of 14 CFR Part 139, but rather the use of 

reasonable 14 CFR Part 139 safety guidance to assist the airport and ATCT in mitigating a demonstrated 

safety issue. 

The Director rejects SDMB's arguments (its own interpretation of the regulations) on this matter and fmds 

that the use and interpretation of both 14 CFR Part 105 and 14 CFR Part 139 and related guidance, by the 

County are consistent with ensuring safe skydiving operations at the airport. They are appropriate, 

reasonable, and in this case, necessary. Their use is consistent with the County's Federal obligations. 

Safety Issue 4- FAA Safety Concerns (FAA Airports- FSDO- A TO) 

In all cases involving restrictions on airport use imposed by airport owners for safety reasons, the FAA 

makes the fmal determination on the reasonableness of such restrictions when those restrictions appear to 

532 The variables at play, such as number and type of skydiving operations, number, and type of aircraft operations, specifics in a LOA, and airport geometry, all 

have a role in risk mitigation and in the adoption of a particular DZ or its adjustment. There might be cases where a DZ may extend into a taxiway or runway 

safety area, but this cannot be taken as representing risk free operations at other airports since specific mitigations measures which may be in place (e.g., no 

simultaneous aircraft and parachute operations, or an LOA incorporating specific procedures) are not necessarily avai!able elsewhere. Depending on the specifics 

at hand (e.g., operator, safety record, DZ characteristics, etc.), requiring certain levels of experience, or restricting certain type of skydiving operations may be 

adequate mitigation strategies. 

3 Taxiway Safety Area. 

534 For example, see AC 150/5300.13 Airport Design, page 8, definitions of OFA and OFZ. 535 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 21. 

536 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 21. 

537 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 22. 

Page 61 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

deny or limit access to, or use of, the airport.538 As part of a 14 CFR Part 16 investigation, the Director, 

working in conjunction with Flight Standards and/or the Air Traffic Organization, will carefully analyze 

supporting data and documentation and make the fmal call on whether a particular activity can be conducted 

safely and efficiently at an airport.539 In this case, and in addition to FAA Airports, FAA ATO and Flight 

Standards have been closely involved on the matter of the safety of skydiving operations at CRE. 540 

For example, in April 2014, the ATCT began reporting safety complaints to the FSDO. The record also 

shows extensive coordination between the County and the ATCT. 541 Air Traffic (ATCT) has, in multiple 

instances, over a period of more than two years, consistently voiced safety concerns about the situation at 

CRE. The A TCT has not only reported this to FAA, but also made it known to SDMB many times. As part 

of its numerous communications with SDMB, the ATCT has reiterated the safety concerns over SDMB's 

recurrent incidents, including routinely landing outside the DZ, crossing active taxiways, and causing VPDs 

and MORs to be filed. In fact, as part of this case, on June 11, 2014, the ATCT manager at MYR stated that 

"the safety of parachute operations is a major concern in the National Airspace System. More specifically, it 

is currently one of the top 3 safety concerns. " 542 

On April 7, 2015, FAA's Southern Region Airports Division notified the County that it had been "raising 

concerns over skydiving operations at CRE."543 The FAA letter also noted that "the purpose of this inquiry 

is to identifY what actions [the County] is taking to address what [the FAA] now consider[s] a significant 

safety trend and accident precursors that must be mitigated" and "to determine if CRE is safely operating in 

accordance with the County's federal airport obligations."544 

On May 6, 2015, the FAA's West ColumbiaFSDO sent a letter to SDMB raising safety concerns about 

"number of notifications to which this office has been made party. These growing numbers of notifications 

primarily entail parachute operations in which parachutists egressing aircraft operated by SDMB are 

reportedly landing in areas other than the landing zone as outlined in your [LOA] with [the ATCT and the 

County]," The FSDO added that "prudence would almost certainly dictate that this., .agreement to which you 

are signatory was designed and installed into the LOA in order to ensure not just the safety of any 

jumpers ... but also to protect the safety of persons and property on the ground." The FSDO also offered the 

resources of the FAA Safety team (FAASTeam).545 

The letter also characterized the skydiving incidents at CRE as constituting "in their number and on the basis 

of their repetitive nature, an egregious and callous disregard for the safety of not only the jumpers, but the 

safety and security of persons and property on the ground." The FSDO added that the "evident disregard for 

the well-being of persons and property represents an intolerable hazard and these events must be diminished 

or eradicated without delay in the interest of operational and public safety," 546 

The FSDO offered assistance to SDMB in mitigating the issues, but SDMB declined to pursue such options 

and requested that SDMB provide "in writing, with [its] decision ... " The FSDO also noted that "if [SDMB 

chooses] to decline this offer,,, [SDMB] will be expected to provide an alternate means of correcting this 

clear safety deficit..." by May 15, 2015.547 SDMB did not respond to the FSDO's offer. The FSDO 

characterized its interactions with SDMB as "unproductive in that SDMB brushed aside, rather forcefully, 

s3S FAA Order 5190.68, § 14.3 at 14-3 . . 

539 FAA Order 5190.68, pages 14-2, 14-4, and 14-5. 

541) For example, the FSDO held safety meetings at the airport with operators {e.g., February 2014), which included SDMB, to discuss safety, and provided input to 

the draft LOA (from February 2014 onward}. See Background section. 

541 FAA Exhibit 1, Jtem 1, Exhibit 1, page 242. 

542 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 1, page 311. 

543 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 14. 

544 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 14. 545 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22A. 

546 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 228. 

547 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 22A. 

Page 62 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina [FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

any and all safety concerns raised by the FSDO." Finally, the FSDO stated that SDMB also refused to 

cooperate with the FSDO personnel in the performance of their safety inspection duties.548 

In addition, the August 4, 2015 ESC/QCG Memorandum (Audit of Parachute Operations in the Myrtle 

Beach, South Carolina) discussed the safety of skydiving operations at CRE and re-iterated FAA's concerns. 

For example, the Memorandum noted that SDMB "is not in compliance with the LOA by consistently 

violating the landing zone parameters" and that this "violation is a disregard for the well-being of persons 

and property that represents an intolerable hazard and these events must be diminished or eradicated without 

delay in the interest of operational and public safety ... " The Memorandum also "recommend[ ed] that the 

LOA be terminated immediately until all parties can meet to mitigate the unsafe operation."549 

On September 1, 2015, the FAA's Director of Airport Safety and Standards (AAS-1) in FAA HQ wrote to 

the County and raised the safety concerns regarding skydiving operations at CRE. Citing to safety incident 

data, the letter urged the County "to consider whether immediate steps should be taken to mitigate unsafe 

skydiving practices at CRE and the risks imposed upon other airport users, within the context of overall 

airfield safety." The letter added that "these safety incidents may be indicative of serious systemic safety 

issues involving skydiving operations (e.g., landings outside of the Drop Zone) at CRE" and that the County 

should "use its authority to ensure safe on-airport skydiving landings, to include the DZ."550 

On September 17, 2015, the County responded to FAA's letter and concurred that there are "serious safety 

concerns" at CRE with regards to skydiving operations. The County and adds that it has "been working 

diligently and continuously with various FAA departments to ensure all avenues available to the airport to 

mitigate any safety risks have been enacted." The County references the need to close the DZ and "implores 

the FAA to provide their concurrence to this [closure] request. .. in order to immediately remedy what FSDO 

described as "an egregious and callous disregard" for the safety of CRE users and operators."551 

On September 30,2015, the County again wrote to the FAA and stated that "it is a paramount concern for the 

[County] to maintain safe operations for all aeronautical users and operators at [Airport]," and that it seeks to 

"immediately discontinue skydiving operations at CRE, close the LZ, and withdraw from the existing LOA." 

The County also provided details on additional skydiving incidents which occurred in September. The 

County closed its letter by adding that "while it is fortunate that no injuries or property damage were reported 

as the result of either incident, [the County] fears that it will only be a matter of time before we are writing to 

inform you of a catastrophic result" and thus "reiterates its request for FAA concurrence to immediately 

discontinue skydiving operations at CRE, close the LZ, and withdraw from the existing LOA."552 

After reviewing the record in this case, including safety data and related FAA correspondence concerning the 

safety of skydiving operations at CRE, the Director finds that at all levels-FAA Airports, FAA Air Traffic 

(includes ATCT), and FAA Flights Standards -the unsafe skydiving operations by SDMB at CRE have 

been substantiated. This record contains extensive safety data, which clearly show that unsafe conditions at 

CRE, have, and continue to exist, despite SDMB assertions to the contrary. 

h. Summary on Unreasonableness or Unjust Discrimination (Safety) 

Contrary to SDMB' s claims, the County has not circumvented the FAA "by enacting rules regulating 

skydiving that are clearly within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FAA," nor are the County's actions 

"disguised ... safety rules in an attempt to circumvent the F AA." 553 The Director finds that the County's 

actions were implemented to mitigate valid and substantiated safety deficiencies directly related to SDMB 

548 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 228. 

54S FAA Exhibit 1, Item 30. 

550 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 29. 551 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 30. 

552 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 31. 553 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 9, page 9-10. 

Page 63 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

skydiving operations at CRE. As such, the County has not imposed unreasonable restrictions on or unjustly 

discriminated against SDMB, in violation of Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, but has 

acted in a manner consistent with the safety elements in Grant Assurance 22 (h) and (i). 

C. Issue 2 - Whether the action taken by County with respect to Complainant's skydiving 

operations at CRE are in violation of Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance 

Grant Assurance 19, Operation and Maintenance, of the prescribed sponsor assurances, implements the 

requirements of Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 47107(a)(7) and (a)(8). Assurance 19 provides, in 

pertinent part, that the sponsor of a federally obligated airport agrees that it will operate the airport and all 

facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users at all times in a safe and serviceable condition. 

FAA Order 5190.6B describes the responsibilities under Grant Assurance 19 and requires the sponsor to 

protect the public using the airport by adopting and enforcing rules, regulations, and ordinances as necessary 

to ensure safe and efficient flight operations. FAA Order 5190.6B also provides that when it becomes unsafe 

for aeronautical purposes, the airport sponsor may have to discontinue an aviation use. It adds that there 

should be rules covering vehicular traffic ... , security, crowd control, access to certain areas, and fire 

protection .... " and that "sometimes, measures are needed to reduce the likelihood of a runway incursion." 554 

As noted above, SDMB argues that the County imposed arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions and 

requirements upon the Complainant's skydiving operations at the Airport under the pretext of safety. 555 

SDMB rejects that there are safety issues with its skydiving operations. In response, the County takes the 

position that its efforts are consistent with Grant Assurance 19 and states that it is obligated under Grant 

Assurance 19 to maintain "[t]he airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users 

of the airport ... in a safe and serviceable condition," which extends to active runways and taxiways.556 In 

complementing this, the County adds that it has "followed approved FAA protocols for safety risk 

management, and is properly tracking safety incidents in order to develop means to mitigate the hazards they 

present."557 

A distinction is to be made between the safety elements in Grant Assurance 22 [(Grant Assurance (i) and (h)] 

and safety under Grant Assurance 19. As discussed above, compliance with the safety elements in Grant 

Assurance 22 relate to ascertaining whether the County's actions were unreasonable or unjustly 

discriminatory with respect to SDMB's skydiving operations at CRE. Under Grant Assurance 19, however, 

the Director determines whether the County's actions have sufficed to ensure safe skydiving operations. In 

other words, the County implemented reasonable and non-unjustly discriminatory measures and actions as 

attempts to enhance safety at CRE, but, under Grant Assurance 19, the question is whether those measures 

and actions have been effective in ensuring the safety and efficiency of aircraft operations and to protect the 

public using CRE. In mitigating skydiving safety, it is critical to mitigate the risks imposed upon other 

airport users, as well as non-participant people and property on the ground. 

The record shows that the County attempted to control the use of the airport in a manner that would eliminate 

hazards to aircraft and people and structures on the ground. 558 The underlying safety risks were coordinated 

with and validated by FAA Flight Standards and Air Traffic Control. The County does state that SDMB has 

attempted "to address and correct some conditions that have led to certain of these prior incidents at the 

airport," but asks SDMB to give its "full commitment" in order to continue to allow SDMB to conduct 

skydiving operations at CRE.559 

sS4 FAA Order 5190.6B, pages 7-7, 7-8, and 7-9. 

sss FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, page 10. 

SSG FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, page 20 and 23. 

557 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 3, pages 1-2. 

558 For example, see FAA Exhibit 1, Item 5, pages 20-23. 

559 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 1, Exhibit 3, pages 57. 

Page 64 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

As shown above, the record substantiates that, since 2013, a significant number of safety incidents have been 

documented. The numbers have increased and so has the rate. As recent examples, on July 25,2015, a total 

of nine SDMB's skydivers landed outside the DZ. 560 On August 9, 2015 another five SDMB's skydivers 

landed outside the DZ, one of which landed on a taxiway occupied by a taxiing aircraft.561 On September 5, 

2015, five skydivers from SDMB missed the DZ and landed in the RSA562 for runway 5. One skydiver's 

descent path took hlm into the approach of runway 5, causing an aircraft (N208TS) to perform a 360 

maneuver on fmaL 563 

These incidents bring into question the County's effectiveness in complying with its Grant Assurance 19 

obligation to take action to operate CRE in a safe manner. The fact remains that the County continues to 

allow an unsafe condition related to a DZ on airport property to exist. The high number of routine 

inadvertent landings outside the DZ by SDMB skydivers has created a serious safety concern that the 

County, as the airport sponsor and under Grant Assurance 19, has the obligation to address this to whatever 

extent is necessary. It should do so by coordinating with the FAA, utilizing reasonable protocols for safety 

risk management, revising related procedures, and enforcing those requirements as needed. Skydiving 

operations at CRE take place under LOAs, and these should be updated. Although 14 CFR Part 105 governs 

parachute operations and, as mentioned, requires prior approval from the airport, it does not govern or 

provide guidance for the landing areas located on airports nor does it include FAA licensing requirements for 

skydivers. 

Similarly, FAA's oversight and enforcement authority is limited. It generally covers Part 91 564 and certain 

elements of 14 CFR Part 105 and related activities by the certificated pilot, the aircraft itself, not the 

uncertificated skydivers. 565 The County, as the airport sponsor, bears the responsibility for taking measures 

to manage the safety of its DZ. From a safety and compliance perspective, the County must assert its 

authority in this matter to ensure safe on-airport skydiving landings- that is the issue. 

While the FAA understands the complexities associated with the current skydiving operations at CRE, 

including the contentious relationship between the County and Complainant, the existing unsafe conditions 

must be corrected promptly. The supporting data and documentation in the record demonstrate that the 

current skydiving activities cannot be conducted safely at CRE under the existing conditions, which rely, 

largely, on the existing DZ and related procedures. The safety incidents that have been documented have 

been left unattended for a long time, and must be mitigated. 

Summary on Grant Assurance 19 

Against this background, because safety has been significantly compromised by SDMB operations at the 

Airport, and no satisfactory resolution has been achieved despite the actions of the County, the County must 

take appropriate action such as closing the existing parachute DZ until acceptable risk mitigation measures 

and revised procedures are considered and implemented. The Director fmds that although the County has 

taken steps towards mitigating unsafe skydiving practices, in order to achieve an acceptable level of safety and 

ensure the safe operation of the airport, protect the public and all aeronautical users at CRE, and to be 

consistent with Grant Assurance 19, the County is required to take additional corrective actions. As the 

airport sponsor, the County is obligated to ensure that operations at the airport are conducted with an 

acceptable level of safety. This may require adequate procedures, adherence to relevant standards and 

560 See Table 1. 

5&l See Table 1. 

562 Runway Safety Area. 

SG3 FAA Exhibit 1, Item 21. 

564 Such as Part 91.307 Parachutes and Parachuting. 

565 For example, in a 1993 NTSB Order and Opinion concerning an emergency revocation order, the NTSB reviewed allegations of a violation of 14 CFR 91.9, 14 

CFR Part 105.13, and 14 CFR Part 105.17(a) and (b) when the pilot of a skydiving aircraft was violated because "without prior approval from airport management, 

allowed parachutists to jump from the aircraft ... onto Tahlequah Airport." See Kelly Don Crittenden. v. FAA. NTSB Docket No. 101~EAJA~SE~10865, 08/13/1993. 

Page 65 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

guidance, and the ability to take additional actions when necessary, including enforcement. This is best 

achieved by using safety management principles. 

FAA will also offer any needed assistance from its Airports (ARP), FAA Air Traffic (ATO), and FAA Flight 

Standards (AFS) offices to resolve this matter. Since this request for action by the FAA is based on 

substantiated safety concerns, temporarily closing the DZ would not be considered contrary to the obligation 

to provide access on reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory terms or conditions or other applicable 

federal obligations. Failure to take corrective action, on the other hand, would be inconsistent with the 

County's federal obligations, as discussed above. 566 

D. Safety Summary 

The skydiving activities of SDMB have been documented to be inconsistent with and in contravention of the 

applicable safety guidance and requirements including minimum standards, leases safety requirements, 

requirements in the LOAs, ATC requirements, and 14 CFR Part 105. The findings regarding unsafe 

conditions are based on reasonable evidence and demonstrate that airport safety will continue to be 

compromised if SDMB is allowed to continue the aeronautical activity uncorrected. 567 The background and 

data in this case puts the responsibility for the occurrences on the operator. Of particular concern to the 

Director is the fact that SDMB has denied that there are any safety deficiencies in this case and challenges any 

FAA intervention or recommendations. This posture, indicative of a poor safety culture, compounds the 

safety issue significantly. The Director fmds that the County must immediately address safety problems at 

CRE to ensure safe operations, and to protect the public and aeronautical users at CRE. 

VII. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 

Upon consideration of the submissions of the parties, and the entire record herein, and the applicable law and 

policy and for the reasons stated above, the Director fmds and concludes: 

Issue 1 - The County is not in violation of Grant Assurance 22 Economic Nondiscrimination. 

Issue 2- Unless immediate steps are takeu, up to and including closure of the DZ, the County will be 

considered to be in violation of Grant Assurance 19 Operation and Maintenance. 

ORDER 

All Motions not expressly granted in this Determination are denied. The FAA has also determined that good 

cause exists to take action deemed necessary to carry out the aviation statutes, including 49 U.S.C. § 40113, 

§ 4710l(a)(1), § 47104(a), and 49 U.S.C § 47122. Therefore, the FAA requests that as soon as possible, the 

County take action to mitigate the unsafe skydiving operations at CRE by: 

• (1) Taking appropriate action, such as ciosing568 the existing parachute DZ and rescinding related 

approvals; and 

• (2) Submitting a corrective action plan incorporating acceptable risk mitigation measures and revised 

procedures under which safe skydiving operations may resume. 569 

566 !n addition to the discussion concerning Grant Assurance 19, and although not discussed as a separate issue in this case, the Director notes that the request for a corrective action plan is consistent with Grant Assurance 29 Airport Layout Plan~ implements provisions of 49 U.S. C.§ 47107(a)(16). This 1s because Grant Assurance 29 states that the "the sponsor will not make or permit any changes or alternations in the airport or any of its faciHties that are not in conformity with the Airport Layout Plan as approved by the Secretary and which might, in the opinion of the Secretary, adversely affect the safety, utility, or efficiency of the airport," and "if a change or alteration in the airport or the facilities is made which the Secretary determines adversely affects the safety, utility, or effidency of any federally owned, 

leased, or funded property on or off the airport and which is not in conformity with the Airport Layout Plan as approved by the Secretary, the owner or operator will, if requested by the [FAA], eliminate such adverse effect in a manner approved by the [FAA] .•. " See Grant Assurance 29 Airport Layout Plan. 

567 See FAA Order 5190.68, page 8-8. 

~This temporary closure of the DZ may be necessary because of its physical characteristics {e.g., location, size), the procedures associated with it (e.g., LOA), and its adequacy for a!! classes of skydivers (e.g., solo students, Class A) are all part of the safety deficiencies that have to be mitigated. 

Page 66 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Deportment of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

RIGHT TO APPEAl 

This Director's Determination, FAA Docket No. 16-14-05, is an initial agency determination and does not 

constitute a fmal agency decision and order subject to judicial review. [14 CFR § 16.247(b)(2)]. A party to 

this proceeding adversely affected by the Director's Determination may appeal the initial determination 

pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.33(c) within thirty (30) days after service of the Director's Determination. 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Date 

'.' ' (....- 7 i;'} / /,..- .\ 

5Gs See Item 32. The information contained in Item 32 includes recommendations, gtJidance, and mitigating strategies which may be useful in 

addressing the situation at CRE. 

Page 67 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

INDEX OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 

The following items constitute the administrative record in this proceeding: 

FAA Exhibit 1 

Item lA 

Part 16 Complaint dated February 24,2014. (First Complaint). 

Item lB 

Complaint Dismissal, dated March 18,2014. 

Item 1 

Part 16 Complaint dated July I, 2014, including Exhibits 1-5 with pagination. (Second Complaint). 

Exhibit I 

• E-mails between Complainant and Respondent (pages 1-25); 

• Grand Stand Space Use Permit (pages 26-21); 

Certificate of Insurance, Skydive Myrtle Beach, 9-5-2013 (pages 33-63); 

• Skydive Myrtle beach Operations on the 17th -20th October 2013 (page 64-71); 

• E-mails between Complainant and Respondent and attached correspondence (pages 72-

323); 

Exhibit 2 

• Letter of Agreement, January I, 2012 (page 1-3); 

• Operating permit, August I, 2013 (page 4-9); 

• E-mail from Mr. Aaron Holly to Mr. Robert Eastman (page 10-11); 

• HCDA Unusual Incident Report, 5/26, 2014 (page 12); 

• E-mail from David Y. Bannard to Mr. Robert Eastman, June 27,2014 (page 14); 

• Office photography (page 15-16); 

• Affidavit of Aaron Holly, July I, 2014) (page I 7 -18); 

• Letter of Agreement, 5/11/2012 (page 19-21); 

• Fire Code fme (page 22-24); 

• Voluntary Statements (page 25-26); 

• Letter from Myrtle Beach Aviation to Mr. Aaron Holly, November 27, 2013 (page 27); 

• Certified Mail Receipt (page 28); 

Exhibit 3 

• Correspondence between Complainant and Respondent from April through June 2014 

(pages 1-25); 

• Grand Strand Airport Space Use Permit (not executed) (page 26-33); 

• Memorandum, from Myrtle Beach Aviation all Customers, March 20, 2014 (page 34 ); 

• FAA letter dismissing Complaint, March 18,2014 (page 35-36); 

• Letter from HCDA to FAA concerning Part 16 proceedings, March 7, 2014 (page 37-38); 

Page 68 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

• Letter from Complainant to FAA amending pleadings, March 6, 2014 (page 39-42); 

• Letter from HCDA to FAA concerning Part 16 proceedings, March 4, 20-14 (page 43-45); 

• Letter from Mr. Robert Eastman to Mr. David Y. Bannard, February 28, 2014 Qpage 46-47); 

• Letter from Mr. David Y. Bannard to Mr. Robert Eastman, February 26, 2014 (page 48-49); 

• Part 16 Complaint filed by SDMB, February 24, 20-14 (page 50-53); 

• Letter fromHCDA to SDMB, February 19,2014 (page 54-57); 

• Grand Strand Airport Space Use Permit (unexecuted) (page 58-66); 

• Letters between Complainant and HCDA, February 20I4 (page 67-88); 

Exhibit4 

• Eviction documentation, May-June 17, 2014 (page 1-4); 

• Letter from David Y. Bannard to Mr. Robert Eastman, April28, 2014 (page 5-6); 

• Grand Strand Airport Space Use Permit, September 18,2013 (page 7-11); 

• Operating Permit, August I, 2013 (page 12-15); 

Exhibit 5 

• State Court proceedings, February 20I4 (page 1-36); 

Item2 

FAA Notice of Docketing, July 28, 20 I4. 

Item3 

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, August 22, 20I4, including exhibit A. 

Exhibit A 

• Copy of Part I6 Complaint, dated July I, 20I4. 

Item4 

Complainant's Statement of Material Facts, September 8, 20I4, including Exhibits A, and B with pagination. 

Exhibit A 

• State Court Proceedings documentation, July 25, 20I4 (page 1-109); 

Exhibit B 

ItemS 

• Letter from HCDA to Mr. Aaron Holly, July I1, 2014 discussing the occupancy of Hangar 7 

(page 1-5); 

Respondent's Horry County Department of Airport's Answer and Affirmative Defonses to Complainant' 

Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc.'s Part 16 Formal Complaint and Statement of Material Facts, dated October 22, 

20I4. 

Page 69 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. -Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Schedule A 

• Statement of Facts with Answers (page 1-26), and attachments (page 3-185); 

ltem6 

Complainant's Reply to Respondent's Answer, November 3, 2014, including Exhibit A with pagination. 

Exhibit A 

Item 7 

• Ramp diagram and photography (page 1-4 ); 

• Minimum Standards, January 1, 2015 (page 5-85); 

• E-mails between Complainant and HCDA, Oct-Nov. 2014 (page 86-93); 

• Aircraft Lease Agreement, Draft 7/3112014 (page 94-105); 

• E-mail from Mr. Aaron Holly to HCDA objecting to certsin Minimum Standards provisions, 

November 3, 2014 (page 106-107 ); 

Complainants' Motion to Supplement the Pleadings, dated November 10,2014, including Exhibit I. 

Exhibit A 

• South Carolina State Case No. 2014-COP-26-1193; 

ItemS 

Respondent's Rebuttal in Support of Its Answer and Affirmative Defenses Complainant' Skydive Myrtle 

Beach, Inc. 's Part 16 Formal Complaint and Statement of Material Facts, November 13, 2014, including 

attachments. 

Attachments 

• E-mail from Mr. David Smith to Mr. Aaron Holly, November 12,2014 (page 188-190); 

• Unusual Incident reports and photography (page 191-194 ); 

• Minutes Horry County Council Regular Meeting, May 20,2014 (page 195-200); 

Item 9 

Complainant's Motion to Supplement the Pleadings, December 30, 2014, including Exhibit I with pagination. 

Exhibit 1 

• Minutes Horry County Council, April 4, 2014 (page1-25); 

• Chronological Table of Contents -Record of Appeal (page 26-38); 

Item 10 

Respondent's Letter in Opposition to Motion to Supplement the Pleadings, January 9, 2015. 

Item 11 

Complainant's Letter in Support of Motion to Supplement the Pleadings, January I 4, 2015, including Exhibits 

A and B with pagination. 

Page 70 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Exhibit A 

• Affidavit of Aaron Holly (page 1-8); 

• Letter to Mr. Aaron Holly from HCDA (no date) (page 12); 

• Harry County Hangar Use Permit for N2019X (page 13-20); 

Exhibit B 

• Memo from HCDA revisions to Minimum Standards for Aeronautical Activities, November 6, 

2014 (page 1); 

Item 12A 

Notice of Extension of Time, dated June 10, 2015. 

Item 12B 

Notice of Extension of Time, dated August 5, 2015. 

Item 13A 

Grant History Report, CRE Airport, dated June 10, 2010. 

Item 13B 

FAA Form 5010 for CRE. 

Item 13C 

Harry County Department of Airports Web Page. 

Item 14 

FAA Southern Region Letter of Inquiry, dated April?, 2015. 

Item 15 

Harry County Letter to FAA Southern Region re: Letter of Inquiry, April27, 2015. 

Item 16 

Relevant News Media. 

Item 17A 

Letter of Agreement (LOA) Parachute Operations at North Myrtle Beach, SC, May 11,2012. 

Item 17B 

Letter of Agreement (LOA) Grand Strand Air Trqffic Control Tower and Harry County Department of 

Airports, January 1, 2012. 

Page 71 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Deportment of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Item 18 

Reserved. 

Item 19 

Skydiving and Parachute Operations, P-8740-57 (1997). 

Item20 

Harry County Administrative Committee Agenda, December 6, 2013 and Resolution R-13, December 10, 2013. 

Item 21 

CRE Safety Incidents data (Compiled August 18,2015 byM. Vasconcelos, AC0-100). 

Item22A 

West Columbia, South Carolina FSDO Letter to SDMB, May 6, 2015. 

Item22B 

Memorandum Skydive Myrtle Beach Parachute Issues, from FSD0-13 to AS0-200, July 31, 2015; 

(Updated 8/13115). 

Item23 

USP A Safety & Training Advisor Handbook, January 2015. 

Item24A 

USP A Skydiving Aircraft Operations Manual. 

Item24B 

2014-2015 Skydiver's Information Manual. 

Item 25 

Horry County Press Release, September 26, 2013. 

Item26 

CRE Minimum Standards, January 20, 2015. 

ltem27 

Canopy Risk Quotient risk assessment tool. 

Item28 

Accident and incident reports. 

Page 72 
Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Harry County Department of Airports, South Carolina (FAA Docket No. 16-14-05) 

Item29 

Letter from FAA Director of Airport Safety and Standards to the County, September 1, 2015. 

Item30 

Letter from the County to FAA Director of Airport Safety and Standards, September 17, 2015. 

Item 31 

Letter from the County to FAA Director of Airport Safety and Standards, September 30, 2015. 

Item32 

Skydiving safety recommendations, references, and guidance. 

Page 73