KAPLAN, MASSAMILLO & ANDREWS, LLG 

SUSAN cl RUSSELL 

srussell@kmalawfirm.com 

(3 I 2l 345-3029 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

200 WEST MADISON STREET 

16TH FLOOR 

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 

TELEPHONE (312) 345-3000 

FACSIMILE (312) 345-3119 

www.kmalawfirm.com 

March 16, 2015 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: DOCKET NO. 16-14-08 

Walker AG Supply, et al. v. Wahoo Municipal Airport, et al. 

Dear Office of the Chief Counsel, 

NEW YORK OFFICE 

70 EAST 55'" STREET 

251 '' FLOOR 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 1002 2 

T<::!..E:PHONE (212) 922-0450 

FACSIMILE (212) 922-0530 

Enclosed herewith for filing are four copies of the Respondents Wahoo Municipal 

Airport and Wahoo Airport Authority's Opposition to Complainants' Motion to Supplement 

Complainants' FAA Complaint, including the original copy unbound and three additional bound 

copies, and Certificate of Service. 

SJR:kus 

Enclosures 

Very truly yours, 

Susan J. Russell 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINSTRA TION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKER ) 

LUEDTKE, MIDWEST SPRAY SERVICE, LLC, ) 

BRAD GATE, BETTER AIRPORTS, LLC and ) 

WILLIAM FOSTER, ) 

Complainants, 

vs. 

WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT and WAHOO 

AIRPORT AUTHORITY, 

Respondents. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAADocketNo.16-14-08 

RECEIVED 

MAR 17 2015 

PART 16 COCKETS 

RESPONDENTS WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AND WAHOO AIRPORT 

AUTHORITY'S OPPOSITION TO COMPLAINANTS' MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT 

COMPLAINANTS' FAA COMPLAINT 

COMES NOW the respondents WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ("WMA") and 

WAHOO AIRPORT AUTHORITY ("WAA") (collectively "Respondents"), by and through 

their attorneys, KAPLAN, MASSAMILLO & ANDREWS, LLC, and for their Opposition to the 

complainants WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKER LUEDTKE, MIDWEST SPRAY 

SERVICE, LLC, BRAD GATE, BETTER AIRPORTS, LLC and WILLIAM FOSTER 

(collectively "Complainants") latest Motion to Supplement their FAA Complaint, state as 

follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Once again, Complainants seek to supplement their FAA Complaint with more 

unauthenticated, undated photographs that Complainants claim are from Google Earth Images. 

These images simply cannot represent what Complainants claim they do, namely evidence of 

Complainants' wild accusations regarding the number of aircraft served by the airport or Storm 

1 
Flying Services' actions allegedly in contravention of Respondents' Minimum Standards. 

Complainants have already filed a 900-plus page FAA Complaint and a 500-plus page Reply, but 

obviously believe that both pleadings are inadequate and that they need to provide the FAA with 

even more to review. For all of the reasons set forth below, Complainants' latest Motion to 

Supplement should be stricken. 

II. COMPLAINANTS PRESENT NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN 

SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM 

Complainants seek to supplement their FAA Complaint with what they claim are "20 14 

Google Aerial Images," which they incorrectly claim provide evidence of: l) little or no aircraft 

activity at the Airport; 2) an ineffective "'Containment' of chemicals, measures, and practice as 

required by the Minimum Standards" by Storm Flying Services; and 3) a Storm Flying Service 

Ford Fl50 Truck blocking a 'T" Tie-Down Aircraft space. The images that Complainants 

provide suffer from the same issues that all of their images have, namely authentication. Not 

even Complainants know when the purported Google Images were taken. Mot. to Supplement p. 

11. 

Complainants incorrectly claim that the photographs with some added markings are 

additional "evidence" of grant violations by Respondents. Their contention is patently absurd. 

There is no statement under oath regarding who took them, what they are of, when they were 

taken, or that the affiant has personal knowledge of the particular images being represented and 

can attest that the image is indeed what Complainants claim it is. From these unsubstantiated 

photographs, Complainants once again draw a number of unsubstantiated opinions regarding 

Respondents' alleged violations of Grant Assurances. None of these opinions are facts that 

support their allegations. 

2 
Even if the images were authenticated, the photographs cannot, without more, be 

considered "evidence" supportive of Complainants' wild claims: i.e., that darkened areas on 

concrete are proof of chemical spills; that a still photograph is proof of no aircraft activity at the 

airport; or that a picture of a vehicle is proof of a violation of the Minimum Standards. For these 

reasons, Complainants' Motion must be stricken. 

III. COMPLAINANTS' BASIS FOR THE MOTION IS UNTRUE 

Complainants claim that they are seeking to supplement their FAA Complaint with the 

2014 Google Earth photographs now because "[t]hese Google Images were taken sometime 

prior to January I, 2015 and after the Google Aerials in the initial Formal Complaint submission 

on September 22, 20 14." (Mot. to Supplement p. II) Complainants admit in that statement that 

they have no idea when the Google Earth photographs allegedly of the airport were taken. They 

claim they are "newly available" 2014 photographs. Complainants do not state that these 

photographs were not available when they made their Reply in mid-December 2014, or their 

Motion to submit "corrected pages" to their Reply in January 2015. Now, a good month-and-ahalf after all pleadings have been submitted, Complainants would like to submit even more 

unsubstantiated photographs from 2014. 

Respondents respectfully submit that Complainants have had adequate time-and have 

already submitted over 1400 pages of repetitive arguments, accusations and unauthenticated 

photographs to the FAA-and that their Motion at this time, which provides no additional 

useful information, should be stricken. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Not confident that their 1400 pages of pleadings to date sufficiently represent their claim, 

Complainants' latest effort to supplement their pleading must be denied. The absurdity of 

3 
Complainants' latest barrage of accusations cannot be understated. Undated, unauthenticated still 

photographs are not evidence of "no aircraft activity." Undated, unauthenticated photographs of 

dark spots on concrete are not evidence of chemical wash runoff. And, finally, undated, 

unauthenticated photographs of a parked truck are not evidence of a violation of the 

Respondents' Minimum Standards. Even if the photographs could be authenticated, they still 

cannot stand for the wild propositions Complainants have made. Complainants' accusations once 

again are long on speculation, innuendo and insult, but very short on proof. Moreover, 

Complainants' Motion is also untimely. For all of the foregoing reasons, Respondents 

respectfully request that the FAA strike Complainants' latest Motion to supplement their FAA 

Complaint. 

WHEREFORE, Respondents WAHOO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT and WAHOO 

AIRPORT AUTHORITY (collectively "Respondents") respectfully request that Complainants 

WALKER AG SUPPLY, LLC, WALKER LUEDTKE, MIDWEST SPRAY SERVICE, LLC, 

BRAD GATE, BETTER AIRPORTS, LLC and WILLIAM FOSTER Motion to Supplement 

Their Complaint be stricken and for all other relief the U.S. Federal Aviation Authority deems 

just. 

4 
Dated: March 16, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 

( ~~~~~i~=~ ~~~j / "0( 

Larry S. Kaplan, Esq:""-

Keith S. Yamaguchi, Esq. 

Susan J. Russell, Esq. 

KAPLAN, MASSAMILLO & ANDREWS, LLC 

200 W. Madison Street, 161

h Floor 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 335-3000 

Firm I.D. No. 42047 

Attorneys for Respondents Wahoo Municipal 

Airport and Wahoo Airport Authority 

5