BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

) 

FRANK HINSHAW, SKYDIVING SCHOOL, INC., ) 

d/b/a SKYDIVE HAW All and ISLAND SKYDIVING, L.L.C. ) 

) 

Complainant, ) 

vs. 

THE STATE OF HAWAII 

Respondent 

) 

) DocketNo.: 16-12-04 

) 

) 

\ 

) 

) 

COMPLAINANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

Please Serve: 

Richard J. Durden 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Rd. 

Conifer, Co. 80433 

T: 616/901-6516 

avlawyer!Zi)yahoo.com 

Counsel for Complainant 

Glenn I. Kimura 

Deputy Attorneys General 

Department of the Attorney General, State 

of Hawaii 

465 S. King Street, Room 300 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

T: 808/587-2997 

glenn.i.kimura(@hawaii.goy 

Counsel for Respondent 

NOW COJV!E Complainants, Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving &!mol, Inc., d/b/a Skydive Hawaii and 

Island Skydiving, L.L.C., by and through counsel, and for their motion for sanctions against 

Respondent state as follows: 

OnAugu&t 18, 2014, in its Preliminary Determination~ the FAA f<:Tund that Respondent 

was in violation of AIP Grant Assurances 22 and 23 tor faiiing to allow Complaints to estabiish a 

commercial skydiving operation on the Hana, Hawaii Airport. Among other things, Respondent 

was mdered to negotiate in good faith withComplain&'"lts to establish a mutually agreeable set of 

1 
rules for skydiving on Hana Airport so as to allow Complainants to begin skydiving operations 

on Puma Airport immediately. The F&l\ was extremely critical of the Respondent's u.'lfeasonab!e 

tactic of continuous footcdragging on the matter and noted that, as of the Determination, 

Respondent had refused to take action for seven years. 

Despite being found in violation of the Grant Assurances, having ·its corrective aotion 

plan rejected by the FAA, receiving continued requests by Complainants for skydiving access to 

Hana Airport and to negotiate to establish mutually agreeable rules for such skydiving, 

Respondent has still failed to comply. Respondent has repeatedly defied the FAA by never 

entering into negotiations to establish mutuaily agreeable skydiving rules, failing to submit an 

acceptable corrective action plan and making material misrepresentations of its intent and actions 

to the FAA. 

The most recent act in defiance by Respondent to was the issuance of a set of take-it-orleave-it rules for skydiving at Hana Airport under the guise of an ·"Agreement." (EM~ibit 10-1) 

The rules are in contravention of AIP Grant Assurances, FAA t,>uidance 0n skydiving and contain 

draconian provisions that are applied to no other commercial operators on airports Respondent 

sponsors, including skydiving operations on other airports it sponsors. 

Complainants unders"'umd t.1mt the FAA "Seeks to ·encourage airport sponsors to voluntarily 

comply with the Grant Assurances they sign; however, the FAA has the authority to, and has, 

imposed sanctions on airport sponsors who refuse to come into compliance. As will be 

expl.tiueJ be!uw, Respondent's defiance of lire FAA, its willful refusal to, comply wid.'l its llra.·n 

Assurances and egregious behavior toward Complainants make it appropriate for the FAA now 

to not only stop processing all AIP funding applications by Respondent, but also to take such 

2 
ftu"'iher action against Respondent as it deems appropriate in the malicious set of circumstances 

here, including; l:mtnot limited to, ordering repayment of AIP funds. 

I. Factual Background 

On August 18, 20 14, the FAA -is-sued its -P-relirr_.inary Determination~ finding that 

Respondent had violated Grant Assurances 22 and 23 by refusing to allow Complainant to 

operate a commercial skydiving business on the Hana, Hawaii Airport. In the Determination, the 

FAA noted that four separate FAA safety evaluations concluded it could be conducted safely and 

that Respondent had delayed access via various methods of foot-dragging a stuwing seven years, 

which, the FAA stated, was unreasonable. The FAA further ruled that Complainants had gone 

"above and beyond" in its efforts to work in good faith with Respondent (p. 32) and ordered 

Respondent to negotiate in good faith with Complainants to develop rules for sk-ydiving at Hana 

that were satisfactory to both parties so as to allow Complainants immediate access. 

As soon as Complainants received the Determination, their counsel sent Respondent's 

counsel ail email indicating C0mplainants were fully prepared to begin skydiving operations the 

upcoming weekend. (Exhibit 102) Despite the order to negotiate with Compiainants, 

Respondent replied that it was busy and couldn't deal with Complainants until it published its 

C:orr-ective i-\ction Plan. (Exhibit 1-02) 

Complainant responded that same day, August 27, extending a hand and offering to 

negotiate. (Exhibit 102) 

On August 28, Respondent sent an email saying 1ha1 i1s oniy risk of noncompha.'lcce 

would be for not submitting a Corrective Action plan. (Exhibit 102) 

3 
Complainants sent an email to Randall Fiertz and Kevin Willis on September 2, 2014 

outlining Respondent's refusal to negotiate or take any action toward allowing airport access. 

(Exhibit 103) 

The next day, Respondent sent an email defending its foot-dragging by saying that its 

Corrective Action plan would include temporary skydiving access for Complainants. (Exhibit 

103) It did not address the FAA's order for immediate airport access. 

On September 17, 2014 Respondent mailed its proposed Corrective Action Plan to the 

FA~&... (Ex._llibit 104) · It promised to "commence rulemalting with jYublic hearings the first week 

of November 20 14---they never took place. "In the interim .. "the Respondent promised to 

enter into a Letter ef Agreement with Complainants for commercial skydiving that would have 

various requirements. i!.,t no point did the Respondent indicate it was interested in coming up 

with any mutually-agreeable ruies. As a harbinger of the Respondent's utter unwillingness to 

work with Complainants, a request for an electronic copy of the Corrective Action Plan from 

Respondent was refused. Complainants had to wait for mail delivery, which took a week. 

On September 23, 2014. Complainants sent the FAA a letter (Exhibit 105) noting the 

numerous problems with the proposed Corrective Action plan, including-that the Respondent -had 

not agreed to jointly develop operating nl.les forskydiving and reiterating that Complainants 

were ready to begin operations immediately. 

1-~o flli"iher action was taken by the Respondent to come into compliance. Complainants 

wminued tu advise Respondent tlmt it was ready to begin skydiving operations immediateiy if 

approval came on one day, it had the equipment, personnel and expertise to begin operations the 

next day. Complainants operate commercial skydiving facilities on other airports in Havvaii and 

can start operating on Hana wit.~ less than 24 horns notice. 

4 
On November 13, 2014, Randall Fiertz, Director, Office of Airport Compliance and 

tv1anagement Analysis, sent a letter to Respondent rejecting Respondent's Corrective Action Plan 

as it applies to Complainants and clearly stating that Respondent had failed to negotiate with 

Complainants in good faith as it had been ordered to do. It directed that it provide Complainants 

immediate skydivingaccess to Hana Airport. {Exhibit 106) The letter specifically :warned 

Respondent about continued delays. 

Despite Respondent's Corrective Action Plan being rejected, it has never published a new 

one in an attempt t€H::omply. 

Respondent sent a letter to Randali Fiertz on November 26 (Exhibit I 07), stating it had 

held a "coordination meeting" (not negotiations as it later claimed) with Complainant Frank 

Hinshaw on November I 3, 20 14. At the meeting Respondent simply presented a set ofoperati..'lg 

rules on a take it or leave it basis, no negotiation was allowed. Respondent also created a set of 

"minutes" ofthe meeting that said Mr. Hinshaw had objected to a rule calling for radio 

commtwications during each sk]'dive~which was untrue. He tried to negotiate a number of the 

other rules, but that wasn't one. The November 26 letter falsely stated that Mr. Hinshaw said he 

couldn't be operating on Hana until the end of December. Respondent's November 26letter did 

not address the fact that it had already blown through its own deadline for a public hearing for 

rulemaking set out in its Corrective Action Plan. 

Respondent's November 26, 20!4letter set out a schedule for events that would occur in 

tire nrlema.l;:i:ng process fm fmmalw!es fiJr skydiving at Hana, with all bat two of the events to 

have been completed by now. The schedule proved to be a complete misrepresentation~to date 

none the events has taken place. 

5 
Complainants sent a letter to Randall Fiertz on December 1, 2014 (Exhibit 108) (before 

receiving Respondent's November Bletter-· Respondent had ceased providing courtesy copies 

of its correspondence via email) and asked that the FAA recognize Respondents noncompliance 

with its Grant Assurances and stop all AIP funds until it came into compliance. 

The next day, afteJTeceiving Respondent's November 13, 2014, Complainants vHote 

another letter to Randall Fiertz (Exhibit 1 09) pointing out the misrepresentations in Respondent's 

letter, including the false claim that Complainants couldn't start operating until December 31 and 

the utter lack of negotiation and again calling for AIP funding to Respondent to stop. 

On December 6, Respondent misrepresented to the FAA, via email (Exhibit 110), that it 

was negotiating, but never identified its negotiator (it still has not). 

The end of th-e year came and went without negotiations or approval for operation. On 

January 5, 2015, Complainants sent the first offive emails to Randall FiertzandKevin Willis 

asking for assistance in getting Respondent to comply with the FAA's directives, pointing out 

that there had been no negotiations and that Respondent was engaged in its hisioric pattern of 

delay as a method of denial of access--which the FAA had specifically warned against-and 

again pointing out that Complainants were ready to begin skydiving operations immediately. 

{Ext.ibit H 1) 

Nothing happened untiiMarch 2, 2015, when the FAA sent out a Request for Additional 

Information asking Complainants to justifY an objection to a method of radio communication 

dm i,Eg a skydiving j cnnp 1 uu. 'fire "ubjvcti<m" daitned .:ame fmm the Ul!SUJJPO! ted minutes 

prepared by Respondent of the November 2014 meeting. Complainants responded to the FAA's 

Request by stating they had no objections to the outlined communication procedures. 

6 
On March 19,2015, Complainants sent yet another email to Respondent asking when we 

could start operations-· there wa" no reply. (Exhibit 112) 

On April 9, 2015, a letter was mailed to Frank Hinshaw, not Complainants' counsel, by 

Respondent. It contained the take it or leave it skydiving agreement (Exhibit 101) decreed by 

Respondent containing a provision designed to bankrupt Corupla:ina.'lt Fran_k Hinshaw-as will 

be set forth below. 

II. Skydiving "Agreement" Terms Dictated by Respondent 

Ina letter dated April9, 2015; without negotiation or discussion, Respondent .presented 

its unilateral terms for Complainants to begin operating a commercial skydiving facility on Hana 

Airport (Exhibit 10 1 ). A number of the terms violate the Grant Assurances Respondent signed 

and FAi·, skydiving guidelines and one was designed to bankrnptC<lmp!aimmt Frank Hinshaw. 

The terms were clearly written to be unacceptable so that Respondent could claim it was doing 

its best to allow skydiving access but Complainants wouldn't agree and thus continue its skillful 

delaying tactics in effectively denying Complainants skydiving access to Hana. 

A. Personal .Liability Requirement. 

Section 4 of the Respondent's decreed skydiving rules for Hana requires Complainant 

Frank Hinshaw to be personally liable for "any damages and injuries to any person and 

personal property and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Airports [Respondent] 

from and against any claims, demands, liabilities, suits, actions, judgments, costs, and 

expenses for lose (sic) injury, death, or damage under torts, contract or otherwise, 

including but not limited to, claims of property damage, personal injury, or death of 

pet sons, and economic loss, whenevet such loss, injuty, death, or damage arises out of, 1s 

connected with, or related to Skydive Hawaii's operations at Hana Airport." 

Should anyone make a claim against Respondent for falling down and hurting t.IJ.emselves 

because they saw a skydiver walking on airport property, this term requires Frank Hinshaw to 

personally pay to take over Respondent's defense of the claim-which could bankrupt Mr. 

7 
Hinshaw. There is no possible way any sane adult would sign such an agreement. Further, given 

the Respondent's weU•documentedantipathy to Mr. Hinshaw (it already charges him double the 

square-footage rental rate it charges other commercial operators on Dillingham Airport-Exhibit 

113), it's not unreasonable to expect that it would immediately arrange for such a claim to be 

made. 

Respondent has never required a personal financial guarantee for any commercial 

operator on any of its airports-and does not require it of Mr. Hinshaw and Complainants on any 

of the other airports in Hawaii where 1vfr. Hinshaw has an agreement with Respondent for a 

commercial skydiving operation, notably Dillingham and Upolu. 

The FAA previously ruled that an airport sponsor's requirement for a personal financial 

guarantee is anjust economic discrimination, a violation of Grant Assurance 22, in its Final 

Determination in the matter of Brown Transport, Co. v. City ofHoliand, Michigan, FAA Docket 

16-05-09. 

In additon, never during any of the nearly eight years theRespondent has continued to 

deny skydiving access did it ever indicate that it would add such a draconian term to its 

skydiving access conditions at Hana, Airport. The requirement is nothing more than another 

insidious tactic to deny skydiving ac<'..ess through delay-and the Ff!LA has longsaidthatdelay 

amounts to denial of access, see Jeff Bodin and Garlic City Skydiving v. County of Santa Clara, 

California, FAA Docket 16-11-06. 

B. Req!!h ements to Comply w ifu Advisory Materials 

Term la. of the non-negotiated, dictated skydiving rules requires that Complainants 

"Meet USPA BSR; comply with all pertinent portions of 14 CFR Part 61,91 and 105, 

Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) sections 3-5-4,4-1-9, and FAA Advisory 

Circulars (AC) 9-66, AC 90-42, AC 105-2 governing parachute operations at nontowered 

airports." 

8 
The FAA long ago declared that an airport sponsor cannot require compliance with 

materials thm are "advisory in nature." See attached EJ<..hibit 1 13, FAA Comments to Draft 

Corrective Action Plan at the Henry County, Tennessee Airport. 

Further, compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations is a matter for the FAA to 

enforce, not an airport sponsor--especially regulations that pertain to pilot certification (14 CPR 

Part 61). 

C. Restriction on Drop Zone Use 

Term l h. of the decreed rules states that: "Skydiving operati&llS wilt be limited to 

holders of D-Ievellicenses only due to the restricted size of the Drop Zone (DZ)." 

Respondent does not have the authority to dictate what level skydivers may use a given 

DZ, just as it can..not dictate what airplanes may use a nmway ofa given length. This issue was 

addressed on page 4 of Randall Fiertz's November 13, 2014letter to Respondent (Exhibit 106) in 

which he rejected Respondent's Corrective Action Plan as it applied to Complainants. 

Despite requests and space being available, Respondent has never increased the size of 

the DZ/Parachute Landing Area. 

D. Preference For One Aeronautical Activity Over Another 

Term lc. of Respondent's non-negotiable rules states that "No skydiving operations will 

be made when the runway is in use by landing or departing aircraft or one or more 

helicopters is arriving, departing or operating on the infield adjacent to the DZ." 

Despite losing the Part 16 action and reading the findings of four FAA safety studies for 

skydiving at Harra Anpm t, Respondent still duesn' t seem to W!det stand that aet mmutieal 

activities have equal rights to use the Hana Airport and it cannot prohibit one from operating 

when another is operating. The users have equal rights to the airspace. 

9 
See also the Henry County Airport letter (Exhibit 113) where the FAA dealt with another 

airport sponsor's impwper attempt to ba11 one type of aeronautical activity from the airspace 

when another was in it. 

E. Banning Personnel from Public Areas of the Airport. 

Section 1 e. of the non-negotiated skydiving rules states that "No persons will be allowed 

on the runways, taxiways, or within the Runway Safety Area (RSA). A parachute jumper 

who lands within one of these areas will vacate as soon as practical." 

No similar requirement is made of other airport operators. Further, the FAA does not ban 

persomae! fro.'11 such areas and it's not reasonable at an airport that is so infrequently used as 

Hana. 

Section 1 f of the non-negotiated rules prohibits persons from being on the ramp if an 

aircraft is on the ramp or has the engine running. 

No other operator has such a requirement imposed on it-persons are routinely on an 

airport ramp when an aircraft is on it with an engine running or moving. None oftbe four FAA 

safety studies that found skydiving could be carried out safely at Hana imposed such a 

requirement. 

F. Radio Communication Requirements 

While Complainants have stated they do .not object to the airborne com_munication 

requirements desired by Respondent, they note that they, as weli as the ground radio requirement 

in section lg. are inlproperly based on compliance with USPA advisory materials. 

6~- Pt ov !ding. C.ustoma Inftn n1atiou to ltLASpondent 

Section 2 of the non-negotiated rules require Complainants to provide copies of all 

waivers signed by its customers to Respondent every two weeks. Complainants have will have 

each of its customers sign a waiver that includes Respondent and will provide a copy .of the 

10 
particular waiver signed by a customer should there be a complaint, however, it objects to 

providing all waivers to Respondent as there is no protection that the information provided by 

the customers in them will be protected from public disclosure or leaks by Respondent. Further, 

there is no such requirement at any other skydiving facility in Hawaii, discrimination in violation 

of Grant Assurances. 

ill. Law and Argument 

While the FAA seeks to bring airport sponsors that are in violationwiththeir Grant 

Assurances into compliance through cooperative efforts, it has the authority to take such steps to 

compel airport sponsors to come into compliance-and regularly suspends further AlP grant 

applications under49 U.S. C.§§ 47115 and47114(d)ofthose not incompliance. In general, an 

airport sponsor who refuses to comply with the terms of the Grant Assurances it signs in return 

for AlP funds is denied future funding and may be required to return funds it has received. 

Given the unconscionable behavior by Respondent in this matter and t..he. FAA's unusual delay in 

suspending its AIP grant applications as it routinely does in much less egregious factual 

circumstances, the question has arisen as to whether the FAA has the political will to compel a 

State to come into cmnpliance with its Gnmt Assurances. 

"In accepting Federal financial assistance, the airport sponsor, regardless of the number 

of airports owned, assumes certain obligations, either by contract or by restrictive covenants in 

property deeds and conveyance instruments, to maintain and operate its airport safely and 

efficiently for the use and benefit of the public is the prime obligation set forth in the Federal 

Gtatrl Assurances. [See Otdet 5l'J0.6B § 14.2}" final Agency Decision and Order, JeffBudin 

and Garlic City Skydiving v. County of Santa Clara, California, p. 22. 

In Bodin, the FAA explained that the sponsor had made a commitment to comply with 

the Grant Assurances, hut Jailed to do so, accordingly the FAA suspended approval of further 

11 
grant applications until further notice-and further approval was contingent upon the sponsor 

coming into compliance with its Grant Assurances. 

The FAA explained, on page 22 of Bodin, that Grant Assurances are signed by sponsors, 

not individual airports, and therefore suspension of approval of further grant applications applies 

to the sponsor, not just to the individual airport at which the sponsor has denied access. Thus, 

the suspension of approval of further grant applications applied to ail three of the County of 

Santa Clara's airports. 

Here, as of the time of the August 2014 Preliminary Determination, the FAA ruled that 

Respondent was in violation of its Grant Assurances and specifically referenced the 

extraordinary degree to which Respondent had engaged in delaying tactics as it denied 

Complainants access to Hana Airport-over a period of more than seven years. 

In the Preliminary Determination, at page 31, the FAA outlined examples of what it 

called the attempts by Complainant to negotiate in good faith with the State and the State's 

refusal to negotiate. On page 32 the FAA found that "The Record indicate& that the Complainant 

has gone above and beyond what could only be considered to be reasonable attempts to 

negotiate aeronautical access with the Respondent prior to the filing of the instant Complaint." 

(emphasis added) 

Complainants have continued to go above and beyond in trying to negotiate with the 

State. They are prepared to begin skydiving operations on the Hana Airport inunediately. 

Respondent was otdc:ted to negotiate in good faith with Complainants to establish 

mutualiy-agreeable rules for iuunediate skydiving access at Hana Airport. 

12 
"Negotiate." "To confer with another so as to arrive at the settlement of some matter; to 

deal with; to arrange for or bring about through conference discussion and compromise ... " 

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. 

"Good faith." "Honesty or lawfulness of purpose." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 

Dictionary, Tenth Edition. 

On November 13,2014, Randall S. Fiertz, Director, Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis, sent a letter to counsel for Respondent (Exhibit 1 06) rejecting 

Respondent's Corrective Action Plan and pointing out that Respondent had thus far failed to 

negotiate in good faith with Complainants. The Respondent's response was to hold a meeting at 

which no negotiation was allowed. 

Respondent didn't and still hasn't bothered to prepare a Corrective Action Plan that was 

acceptable to the FAA. 

The November 13, 2014letter rejecting Respondent's Corrective Action Plan referenced 

the State's continuous foot-dragging in allowing Complainant's skydiving access to Hana 

Airport at page 3: "The Director's prescriptive corrective action is in direct response to the 

State's protracted rulemaking process, and the State's more than 7 year delay in granting 

Complainant aeronautical access to 1;INM in contravention of Grant Assurance 22 and Grant 

Assurance 23." 

Despite having its Corrective Action Plan rejected, Respondent has never proposed a 

revised Plan that would be acceptable to tire FAA. 

At page 6 of the November 13, 2014 letter Respondent was directed to "negotiate in good 

faith, with the Complaint's active participation, to develop temporary parachuting procedures to 

allow the Complainant immediate aeronautical access to the Hana Airport." Emphasis added. 

13 
"Immediate." "Occurring, acting, or accomplished without loss or interval of time; 

instant." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. 

Mr. Fiertz closed out his November 13, 2014letter with a warning to Respondent: 

"The Director cautions the State that protracted correspondence or negotiations with the 

Complainant in developing the temporary procedures can be construed as additional 

unreasonable delay and could result in the Director initiating action to withhold the processing of 

the State of Hawaii's applications for Airport Improvement Program discretionary grants under 

49 U.S. C. § 47115 and general aviation airport grants under 49 D. S.C. § 477114(d)." 

Respondent's combination of actions, inactions, failure to submit an acceptable 

Corrective Action Plan, in-your-face defiance of the FAA and Complainants and now, its 

unilateral imposition of a set of rules that are unreasonable and contrary to its Grant Assurances 

make it clear that the time has come for the FAA to act decisively. Complainants respectfully 

ask that the FAA take immediate action to withhold processing of Respondent's applications for 

AlP grants, compel the Respondent to repay grants it has received and such further sanctions it 

deems appropriate to compel Respondent to come into compliance with its Grant Assurances. 

Dated: April 30,2015 

14 

Respectfully submitted, 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

Attorney for Complainant 

By: 

Co ifer, Colorado 

(616) 901-65156 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Complainants' Motion for 

Sanctions on the following person at the following address by regular mail: 

Glenn I. Kimura 

Deputy Attorneys General 

Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii 

465 S. King Street, Room 300 

Honolulu, ill 96813 

Dated this 1st day of May, 2015 

•. Durden 

Complainants 

1 
OAVtDY,IGE 

GOVERNOR 

Frank Hinshaw 

P.O. Box 75520 

Honolulu, HI 96836 

RE: Letter of Agreement 

Dear ;'vlr. Hinshaw: 

i{A,i-·HJLU! !l.lHPORl' 

; ;._·,~'h',.\.~l: i\iF;(';Ji;\ i' HO.A--i), LH'\il'l 5 

KAHUUJL HN/v'AJf liD I ji·Cj6f 

April 9, 2015 

Enclosed is the letter of agreement for the use of Hana Airport for Sport Parachute 

Operations. Review the attachment and sign is the designated areas. 

JADE T 81_!TAY 

MSS M. I JICA8HI 

EDWIN H. SNIFFEN 

DARRELL TYG~NG 

Mail the signed original back to the Kahului Airport in the enclosed stamped envelope. 

Enc. 

f[;oi idJ;r I Cl I 
DAVID Y. IGE 

GOVERNOH 

STATE OF HAWAII 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

AIRPORTS DIVISION • MAUl DISTRICT 

KAHUlUI AiRPORT 

' r--:i-CHUi.UI ,t,_:i-\P!.,__)h;T H.UPD . ._;~J'1T :. 

KAHULUi. HA\NA!i 0€732~232.7 

LETTER OF AGREEMENT 

USE OF HANA AIRPORT FOR SPORT PARACHUTE OPERATIONS 

ROSS M, HJGASHl 

EDWIN H_ SNIFFEN 

DARRELl T. YOUNG 

IN REPLY REFER TO 

AIR· 

15.0130 

Frank Hinshaw, personally and on behalf of Skydiving School, Inc., d/b/a/ 

Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, L.L.C. (Hereinafter referred to as "Skydive 

Hawaii") and the State of Hawaii through its Airports Division, Department of 

Transportation (Hereinafter referred to as "Airports") agree as follows: 

To promote the safe and efficient use of the designated parachute landing area 

(PLA) located in the infield between the Runway Safety Area to the north, taxiway B to 

the west, taxiway C to the east, and the terminal apron to the south for sport 

parachuting, Skydive Hawaii agrees to the following conditions for its parachute 

operations at Hana Airport: 

1. Abide by the following safety rules until they are incorporated into the Hawaii 

Administrative Rules (HAR), until such time as those rules are amended, 

cancelled or superseded: 

a. Meet USPA BSR: comply with all pertinent portions of 14CFR Part 61, 

91, and 105, Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) sections 3-5-4, 4-

1-9, and FAA Advisory Circulars (AC) 90-66, AC 9042, AC 105-2 

governing parachute operations and operations at nontowered airports. 

b. Skydiving operations will be limited to holders of D-levellicenses only 

due to the restricted size of the Drop Zone (DZ). 

c. No skydiving operations will be made when the runway is in use by 

landing or departing aircraft or one or more helicopters is. arriving, 

departing or operating on the infield adjacent to the oz 

d. In addition to the radio communications required by 14 CFR 105.13 

(1 ), (2), Pre-jump and 'jumpers away" calls must also be made on the 

airport Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) 122.9 MHz. An 

"all jumpers down" call will be made on the CTAF after last jumper is 

on surface. 
Letter of Agreement 

April \1, 2U !5 

IUD H 

Page 2 

e. No persons will be allowed on the runway, taxiways, or within the 

Runway Safety Area (RSA). A parachute jumper who lands one 

of these areas will vacate as soon as practicaL 

f. All persons will remain clear of the ramp if any aircraft on the ramp is in 

motion or has the engine n.mning. 

g. Skydive Hawaii will have a responsible party on the ground with a 

working two-way VHF radio, consistent with USPA SSR l 3 

h. No equipment or debris will be left on the DZ while not in use for 

skydiving. 

i. Skydive aircraft will not use the runway or any taxiway for 

loading/unloading or parking. The ramp area in front of the terminal 

may be used for loading/unloading only, a.nd not for aircraft parking. 

2. Skydive Hawa1i will include Airports in all indemnity, hold harmless and waiver 

agreements with jumpers and copy(s) shall be provided to Airports every two 

weeks. 

3. Skydive Hawaii will provide Airports with a copy of its safety plan for operations 

at Hana. 

4. Frank Hinshaw personally and on behalf of Skydive Hawaii agrees to be fully 

liable for any damages and injuries to any person and personal property and 

shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless Airports from and againsn~ll claims. 

demands, liabilities, suits, actions, judgments. costs. and expenses for lose · 

injury, death, or damage under torts, contract or otherwise, including, but not 

limited to, claims of property damage, personal injury, or death of persons, and 

economic loss, whenever such loss, injury, death, or damage arises out of, is 

connected with, or related to Skydive Hawaii's operations at Hana Airport. 

5. Failure to comply with the above provisions may result in withdrawal of 

permission to conduct sky dive activities at Hana. 
Letter of Agreement 

April9, 2015 

Page 3 

Skydive Hawaii 

By its:------------

Date:------------

Frank Hinshaw 

Date: ------------

erAIRM 

15.0130 
4/30/2015 Print 

Subject: Re: Skydive Hawaii, Frank Hinshaw 

From: Glenn.I.Kimura@hawail.gov {Gisnn.!.Kimura@hawaii.gov) 

To: avlawyer@yahoo.com; 

Cc: skydivehawaii@hawaii.rr.com; 

Date: Thursday, August 28, 2014 6:04 PM 

Rick 

According to Director Fiertz's letter dated Auguest 18, 2014, the State of Hawaii is expected to submit a 

Corrective Action Plan within 30 days and a failure to do so, inter alia, will be subject to a formal finding 

of noncompliance. 

Glenn 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 

and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended 

recipients is prohibited. !f you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 

copies of the original message. 

From: Rick Durden <avlawyer@yahoo.com> 

To; "Gienn.I.Kimura@hawaii.gov"<Gienn.I.Klmura@hawaii.goV> 

Cc: "skydivehawail@hawaii.rr.com" <Skydivehawaii@hawaiLrr.com> 

Date: 08/27/201410:22 AM 

Subject: Re: Skydive Hawaii, Frank Hinshaw 

Glenn, 

Thank you for your reply. I am concerned that the State of Hawaii still does not understand that 

skydivers have equal rights to access the Hana Airport with all other aeronautical users per 14 

CFR Part 1 05.25(a)(3). There is no "coordination" required other than the filing of a NOT AM. 

Tne otner users do 110t nave any sort of supe1 io1 1 igl1t to use tl1e ail po, t. 

Mr. Hinshaw's company will notify Air Traffic Control at least 24 hours prior to the start of 

parachute operations and will file a NOT AM at least 24 hours prior to the start of parachute 

operations. 

There is no reason for the State to continue its policy of denial by delay - please confirm that 

temporary permission is granted for the commercial operation to begin on Friday. 

The State needs to take this seriously. If it does not come into compliance, the FAA's practice 

in all of the Part 16 matters of which I'm aware is to stop FAA funding of all of the airports the 

EX .J;J(J 1/ I D 2._. 
4/30/2015 Print 

sponsor owns. This was demonstrated in the matter of Santa Clara County, California. That 

means that the State of Hawaii faces a loss of millions of dollars in grant assurance funding 

shortly if it does not come into compliance quickly. 

My client is willing to work with the State to get this matter resolved. He has extended his hand 

in the past, only to have it slapped- and the FAA made note of that in its ruling. He has 

extensive experience in skydiving operations and the United States Parachute Association is 

willing to assist- those are two valuable assets for the State to use. There simply is no 

individual or group in this country with more skydiving safety expertise than is available through 

the USPA- its personnel are familiar with skydiving operations throughout this country and are 

the authors of the accepted safety guidelines for skydiving. My client does not want the State to 

get penalized, he just wants to get his business up and operating at Hana. I suggest we work 

together to get this resolved quickly - and that would begin with approval to start operations on 

Friday. 

Thank you, 

Rick 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 

On Wednesday, August 27. 2014 1:22PM, "Gienn.I.Kimura@hawaii.gov" <Gienn.I.Kimura@hawaii.gov> wrote: 

Rick 

I don't think this will be possible as we have pending that thirty day period to submit the Corrective Action Plan which 

does not include the time needed to coordinate with other users at the Han a Airport. 

Glenn 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 

and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended 

recipients is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 

copies of the original message. 

From: Rick Durden <avlawyer@yahoo.com> 

To: "Glenn.I.Kimura@hawaH.gov" <Gienn.I.Kimura@hawaii.goV> 

Cc: "skydivehawaii@hawaii.rr.com" <Skydivehawaii@hawaii.rr.com> 

Date: 08/26/2014 08:15AM 

Subject Skydive Hawaii, Frank Hinshaw 
4/30/2015 Print 

Glenn, 

Pursuant to the FAA's Determination in this matter, please arrange to provide approval for Mr. 

Hinshaw's company to begin skydiving operations at Hana as of this Friday, August 29. Mr. 

Hinshaw's company will comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Regulations and industry 

standards and is ready to begin operations now. 

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter, 

Rick 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 
4/30/2015 Print 

Subject: Re: Skydive Hawaii Part 16 

!'rom: Glenn.l.Kimura@hawaii.gov {Gienn.I.Kimura@hawaii.gov) 

To: 

Cc: 

Date: 

Gentlemen: 

kevin.willis@faa.gov; randall.fiertz@faa.gov; 

avlawyer@yahoo.com; frankhinshaw@yahoo.com; 

Wednesday, September 3, 2014 6:14PM 

It is my understanding that the Corrective Action Plan should include the State of Hawaii's response to that direction 

on developing temporary procedures prior to the finalization and implementation of the Operating Rules and 

Standards. 

Thank you for your attention in this matter. 

Glenn 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments., is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) 

and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended 

recipients is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 

copies of the original message. 

From: Rick Durden <avlawyer@yahoo.com> 

To: "randall.fiertz@faa.gov" <randall.fiertz@faa.goV>, "kevin.willis@faa.gov" <kevin.willis@faa.goV> 

Cc: "Gienn.I.Kimura@hawaii.gov" <Gienn.I.Kimura@ hawaii.goV>, ''frankhinshaw@yahoo.com" <frankhinshaw@yahoo.com> 

Date: 09/02/2014 06:30AM 

Subject: Skydhre-HawaH Part 1-6 

Mr. Fiertz and Mr. Willis, 

On August 18, 2014, your office released the Director's Preliminary Determination in the above 

matter On page 47 you found the State of Ha,Naii in violation of fud€lral law and its f€ld€lral Qrant 

obligations and directed it to submit a Corrective Action Plan, acceptable to the FAA for 

skydiving at Hana Airport within 30 days. 

You further directed the State to act as follows: "Additionally, should the Complainant seek to 

begin parachute operations at HNM prior to the finalization and implementation of the Operating 

Rules and Standards, the. State. is directed to negotiate in good faitll to develop temporary 

procedures satisfactory to both the Respondent and the Complainant to allow such operations." 

Having heard nothing from the State, on August 26, I sent the following email to Glenn Kimura, 

counsel for the State: 
4/30/2015 

"Glenn , 

Print 

Pursuant to the FAA's Determination in this matter, please arrange to provide approval for Mr. 

Hinshaw's company to begin skydiving operations at Hana as of this Friday, August 29. Mr. 

Hinshaw's company will comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Regulations and industry 

standards and is ready to begin operations now. 

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter, 

Rick" 

The next day, I received the following email from Mr. Kimura: 

"Rick 

I don't think this will be possible as we have pending that thirty day period to submit the 

Corrective Action Plan which does not include the time needed to coordinate with other users at 

the Hana Airport. 

Glenn" 

I followed up with Mr. Kimura on August 27 again seeking approval for my client to begin 

skydiving operations on Friday and pointing out that the operator has equal rights of access to 

the airport as all other aeronautical users, would file the appropriate NOT AM and advise A TC in 

compliance with 14 CFR 105.25. 

On August 28, I received: 

"28 Rick 

According to Director Fiertz's letter dated Auguest 18, 2014, the State of Hawaii is expected to 

submit a Corrective Action Plan within 30 days and a failure to do so, inter alia, will be subject to 

a formal finding of noncompliance. 

Glenn" 

The State has been directed to negotiate with my client in good faith. Refusing to negotiate at 

all is prima facie evidence of bad faith and noncompliance with your Order. The State has 

refused to negotiate. 

Mr. Hinshaw would like to start parachute operations at Hana immediately f1 1rther delays are a 

continuing economic burden. The State just doesn't seem to get it- skydiving is a regulated 

aeronautical activity with equal right to access Hana Airport as all other aeronautical users. The 

response of the State makes it clear that it will use the Corrective Action Plan and its historic 

practice of interminable delay in establishing operating rules (which it waives for users other 

than skydivers) to continue to deny access to my client. 

I ask that, based on the State's absolute refusal to comply with the first paragraph of your 

Preliminary Order and Instructions by refusing to negotiate, that you immediately initiate the 

sanctions outlined in the second paragraph of the Order. 

Thank you, 
4/30/2015 

Rick 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 

Print 
DAVID M. LOUIE 2162 

Attorney General of Hawaii 

GLENN I. KIMURA #2034 

Deputy Attorneys General 

Department of the Attorney 

General, State of Hawaii 

465 S. King Street, Room 300 

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 

Telephone: (808) 587-2997 

Email: glenn.i.kimura@hawaii.gov 

Attorney for Respondent 

BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FRANK HINSHAW, SKYDIVING 

SCHOOL, INC., d/b/a SKYDIVE HAW AU 

and ISLAND SKYDIVING, L.L.C. 

FAA DOCKET NO. 16-12-04 

STATE OF HAWAII'S CORRECTIVE 

ACTION; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Complainant, 

vs. 

STATE OF HAWAII, 

Respondent. 

STATE OF HAWAII'S CORRECTIVE ACTION 

Respondent STATE OF HA WAil (hereinafter "State"), by and through its attorneys, 

David M. Louie, Attomey General, and Glenn I. Kimura, Deputy Attorney General, hereby 

submits the State's Correction Action Plan in accordance with the Director's Preliminary 

Determination in the above-caption matter as follows: 

hinshaw.DOC 
The State will commence a rule making procedure iti accordance with Section 91-3, et 

seq. Hawaii Revised Statutes !(Jr the adoption of the Hana Airport Rules tor Skydive and 

Transient Aircratt Operations by immediately beginning the processing tor approval with the 

Otlice of the Governor, State of Hawaii, and which includes review by the State Departments of 

Budget and Finance and Business, Economic Development and Tourism in working towards 

having the public hearings scheduled on Matti, State of Hawaii, during the tirst week of 

November 2014. In the interim pending the formal adoption of the said Hana Airport Rules, the 

State proposes to enter into a Letter of Agreement ("LOA") in which the Complainant agrees to 

abide with the proposed Hana Airport Rules that were developed in coordination with 

Complainant's prior attorney and helicopter operators at the Hana Airport but further action was 

pending due to DRAFT AC 150/5300-13 CHG 19 to AC 150/5300-13 Section 214 Guidance for 

Parachute Landing Area. The Letter of Agreement will require maintaining membership in the 

U.S. Parachute Association (USPA) and having Complainant obtain a waiver from the USPA for 

use of the available designated Parachute Landing Area (PLA) as this area does not meet the 

USPA Basic Safety Requirements (BSR) as stated in BSR Section 2-1, paragraph I, l. The 

Complainant will also be required to add the State as an additionally insured under the USP A 

member skydiving liability insurance and include the State in all liability waivers signed by 

participants in the skydiving activity. The State wili confirm with F AAIHNL ADO for approval 

of the designated area within Hana Airport. Skydiving operations at Hana Airport can 

commence upon receipt of the signed LOA and notification that the said IlSPA waiver is granted 

along with providing the certificate of insurance naming the State as an additionally insured. 

hinshaw.DOC 2 
hinshaw.DOC 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 17,2014. 

3 

~-A~, 

GLENN I. KIMURA 

Deputy Attorney General 

Attorney for Respondent 

State of Hawaii 
Randa!! Fiertz 

Richard ]. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 

avlawyer@yahoo.com 

September 23, 2014 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

55 M Street, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Via E-mail and Regular Mail 

Re: Frank Hinshaw v. State of Hawaii 

FAA Docket 16"12·04 

Dear Mr. Fiertz: 

On Monday, September 22, I received the State of Hawaii's proposed Corrective Action 

Plan that was dated September 17 in the mail, despite requesting an electronic 

copy. Accordingly, I have only just had the opportunity to consult with my client and am 

now providing you with Complainant's comments on the proposed Corrective Action 

Pian. 

Despite your office's directive to the State that it negotiate with my client to allow him 

to get his commercial skydiving operation up and running on the Hana Airport, the State 

has thus far refused to do so. Nevertheless, my client and I will continue reaching out to 

the State to solidify a mutual agreement to get his skydiving operation underway 

without further delay. 

My client is willing to enter into a Letter of Agreement with the State, and is willing to 

agree to airport rules. However, the State was not entirely open with your office in its 

Corrective Action document- the Han a Airport Rules that were "developed" by the 

State, were never agreed to and contain some req' 1iremet:tts that contravene the 

Federal Aviation Regulations and need to be stricken. Notably, any portion of the rules 

that gives priority on airport access to a particular type of aeronautical user is a violation 

-particularly those that seek to prohibit skydiving operations when aircraft are in the 

vicinity. Skydivers and aircraft have equal rights to the airport. 

My ciient agrees to name the State as an additional insured under the referenced 

policy. 
As a note, the State is mistaken when it states that the PLAit has defined does not meet 

the USPA's Basic Safety Requirements in Section 2-1, paragraph 1,1. I have been in 

contact with the USPA and confirmed that the PLA meets the BSRs, so no waiver is 

needed. The USPA is the final arbiter of its BSRs. Nevertheless, if the state desires a 

waiver, one will be issued under the USPA procedures for doing so. 

My client is prepared to being operations immediately. He has jumpers who jumped at 

Hana when it had a designated PLA, are experienced at the airport and are ready to 

start within 24 hours of receipt of approval. 

Finally, by copy of this email to the State, my client is renewing the request he has been 

making for 25 years to lease hangar space near the ultralight/trike area, west of the 

maintenance hangar at Hana. 

I look forward to working directly with the appropriate person with the State to finalize 

an operating agreement. 

Very truly yours, 

Richard J. Durden 
U.S. Department 

af Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

November 13,2014 

Glenn I. Kimura 

Deputy Attorney General 

Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis 

Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii 

465 S. King Street, Room 300 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

Counsel for Respondent 

800 Independence Ave., SW. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: FRANK H_INSHA W, SKYDIVING SCHOOL, INC., d/b/a SKYDIVE HA WAH AND 

ISLAND SKYDIVING, LLC v. THE STATE OF HAWAII (Docket No.16-12-04) 

Dear Mr. Kimura: 

On August 18,2014, the Director of the Office of Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis issued the Director's Preliminary Determination for the above-referenced matter 

preliminarily finding the Respondent to be in violation of its federal obligations with respect to 

Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination and Grant Assura.11ce 23, Exclusive Rights. 

The Director found that the Respondent was not in violation of Grant Assurance 5, Preserving 

Rights and Powers. 

The Director's decision to issue a preliminary determination was predicated on the Director's 

expectation that the Respondent would submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) acceptable to the 

FAA within 30 days of the Determination. This CAP should clearly identify how the Respondent 

will proceed to finalize and implement the Hana Airport Operating Rules and Standards 

resulting in immediate aeronautical access forthe Complainant. Additionally, the Respondent 

was directed to negotiate in good faith with the Complainant to develop temporary parachute 

landing area procedures to allow the Complainant to begin parachute operations at HNM during 

the pendency of the finalization of the Operating Rules and Standards. 

On September 17, 2014, the Respondent submitted the State of Hawaii's Corrective Action plan 

for FAA review and approval. The Director's review ofthe proposed corrective actions is 

detailed below: 

DIRECTIVE #1: 

The Director's Preliminary Determination directed the State to: 

"Submit a Corrective Action Plan, acceptable to the FAA, within 30 days 

of the Preliminary Determination clearly identifYing how the Respondent 

1 Now referenced by the Respondent as the Hana Airport Rules for Skydive and Transient Aircraft Operations. 

1 
will proceed to finalize and implement the Hana Airport Operating Rules 

and Standards resulting in immediate aeronautical access for the 

Complainant. " [Director's Preliminary Determination, page 4 7] 

RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION: 

"The State will commence a rule making procedure in accordance with 

Section 91-3, et seq. Hawaii Revised Statutes for the adoption of the 

Hana Airport Rules for Skydive and Transient Aircraft Operations by 

immediately beginning the processing for approval with the Office of the 

Governor, State of Hawaii, and which includes review by the State 

Departments of Budget and Finance and Business, Economic 

Development and Tourism in working towards having public hearings 

scheduled on Maui, State of Hawaii, during the first week of November 

2014." [State of Hawaii's Corrective Action, Page 2] 

DIRECTOR'S RESPONSE: 

The Director acknowledges that the fmalization and implementation of the Hana Airport Rules 

for Skydive and Transient Aircraft Operation! is subject to a State-level regulatory process in 

accordance with the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Accordingly, the Director is amenable to the 

Respondent's proposed corrective actions described above, including the proposed timeline for 

conducting public hearings in November 2014. However, absent from the Respondent's 

proposal is a timeline or schedule identifying any legislative, administrative, and/or procedural 

steps that may be necessary for fmalizing and implementing the Hana Airport Rules after the 

public hearings have occurred. As such, it is unclear to the Director the timeframe for which 

aeronautical access for parachuting operations at the airport will be granted. 

In consideration of the foregoing, and in the interest of transparency, the Director conditionally 

approves the aforementioned proposed corrective action contingent upon the State providing a 

detailed timeframe for which the Respondent expects to finalize the Hana Airport Rules. 

Accordingly, the Director hereby directs the Respondent to submit a comprehensive schedule of 

events, inclusive of the requisite legislative, administrative, and/or procedural steps that may be 

required by Hawaii state law or other mandate identifying the approval process and the projected 

timeframe for approval and aeronautical access. The requisite documentation must be forwarded 

to the Director no later than 15 days from the date of this correspondence. 

DIRECTIVE #2: 

The Director's Preliminary Determination also directed: 

"Additionally, should the Complainant seek to begin parachute 

operations at HNM prior to the finalization and implementation of the 

Operating Rules and Standards, the State is directed to negotiate in good 

faith to develop temporary procedures satisfactory to both the 

2 Previously referenced in the proceedings of this case as the Hana Airport Operating Rules and Standards. 

2 
Respondent and the Complainant to allow such operations. " [Director's 

Preliminary Determination, page 47] 

RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION: 

"In the interim pending the formal adoption of the said Hana Airport 

Rules, the State proposes to enter into a Letter of Agreement ("LOA") in 

which the Complainant agrees to abide with the proposed Hana Airport 

Rules that were developed in coordination with Complainant's prior 

attorney and helicopter operators at the Hana Airport but further action 

was pending due to DRAFT AC 150/5300-13 CHG 19 toAC 150/5300-

13 Section 214 Guidance for Parachute Landing Area. The Letter of 

Agreement will require maintaining membership in the U.S. Parachute 

Association (USP A) and having Complainant obtain a waiver from the 

USP A for the use of the available designated Parachute Landing Area 

(P LA) as this area does not meet the USP A Basic Safety Requirements 

(BSR) as stated in BSR Section 2-1, paragraph I, 1. The Complainant 

will also be required to add the State as an additionally insured under 

the USP A member skydiving liability insurance and include the State in 

all liability waivers signed by participants in the skydiving activity. The 

State will confirm with F AAIHNL ADO for approval of the designated 

area within Hana Airport. Skydiving operations at Hana Airport can 

commence upon receipt of the signed LOA and notification that the said 

USP A waiver is granted along with providing the certificate of insurance 

naming the State as an additionally insured" [State of Hawaii's 

Corrective Action, Page 2] 

DIR.ECTOR'S RESPONSE: 

The Director's corrective action requirement, identified above, compels the State to negotiate in 

good faith to develop and implement temporary skydiving procedures in order to give the 

Complainant immediate aeronautical access to the Ha..11a Airport while the State contemplates 

final implementation of the Hana Airport Rules. The Director's prescriptive corrective action is 

in direct response to the State's protracted rulemaking process, and the State's more than 7 year 

delay in granting the Complainant aeronautical access to HNM in contravention of Grant 

Assurance 22 and Grant Assurance 23. 

Upon review, the Director concludes that the State's proposed corrective actions, identified 

above, were wt developed in good fai..th With the Comp!alnant, nor -,yere they developed in 

accordance with the ~igations under the federal grant assurances. 

Specifically, the Director notes with concern, (1) the State's proposed requirement that the 

Complainant maintain membership in the United States Parachute Association as a condition of 

aeronautical access to HNM, (2) the State's proposed requirement that the Complainant obtain a 

waiver from the USP A for use of the proposed drop zone at HNM,( 3) the State's requirement 

that the State be named as an additionally insured under a USP A member skydiving liability 

3 
insurance policy, and ( 4) the State's request that the F AA/HNL ADO approve the designated 

parachute drop zone (PDZ) within Hana Airport. The Director's analysis of these components of 

the proposed corrective actions is explained in pertinent detail below. 

1. Requirement that the Complainant maintains membership in the United States 

Parachute Association as a condition of aeronautical access to HNM. 

As detailed in the Director's Preliminary Determination, Grant Assurance 22 requires an 

airport sponsor to operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public and to make it 

available to all types, ki..'1ds, a.'1d classes of aeronautical activity on fair and reasonable terms, 

and without unjust discrimination. FAA Order 5190.6B clearly defmes parachute activities 

as an aeronautical activity.3 As such, an airport sponsor may not condition aeronautical 

access to a federally-obligated airport on the aeronautical user's voluntary membership (or 

lack thereof) in an advocacy group such as the United States Parachute Association (USPA). 

While a sponsor has the proprietary right to develop airport rules or minimum standards 

pertaining to the conduct of parachute operations onto its airport, such rules or standards, 

temporary or otherwise, must-be developed in a not unjustly discriminatory manner and must 

be in compliance with the sponsors federal grant obligations. The Director concludes that the 

State's proposed mandatory requirement that the Complainant obtain/maintain membership 

in the USP A in order to gain aeronautical access to a federally-obligated airport to be 

contrary to Grru1t Assurance 22, Economic Discrimination. 

The Director also believes that it is pertinent to point out that the FAA, not the USP A, 

promulgates regulations, rules, orders, circulars, and other official publications pertaining to 

airport, aircraft, and airspace operations under the statutory authority granted to it under 49 

United States Code (USC) § 106. Specifically, 14 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 

91, General Operating and Flight Rules, 14 CFR Part 119, Certification: Air Carriers and 

Commercial Operators, <md 14 CFR 105, Parachute Operations provide the regulatory 

framework for which parachute operations within the national airspace system must be 

conducted, including onto airports. Additionally, FAA Advisory Circular 1 05-2E, Sport 

Parachuting provides suggestions to improve sport parachuting safety and disseminates 

information to assist all pa,"ti.es associated with on-airport parachuting operations. W'nile the 

FAA, to date, has not issued parachute drop zone siting or dimensional standards to be used 

by federally-obligated airports, the absence of any such standards does not give an airport 

sponsor the ability to require the Complainant to adhere to USP A Basic Safety Requirements 

(BSR) in order to gain access to the Airport. The USPA's BSR's are considered best 

practices for skydiving operators and participants; however, the BSRs are not FAAsanctioned safety standards and therefore cannot be required as condition of access to the 

aiJt>gl:t Th~ Direeter alse eeHelttdes that the State's proposed correcnve acbons were not 

developed in good faith with the Complainant, as was directed. 

Accordingly, the proposed corrective action described and evaluated above is not approved 

by the Director due to the inherent unjustly discriminatory nature of the State's requirements. 

3 FAA Order 5190.6B, Appendix Z at 314 

4 
2. Requirement that the Complainant obtain a waiver from the USPA for use of the 

proposed drop zone at HNM. 

In the analysis of issue #I above, the Director found that requiring the Complainant to 

maintain membership in the USP A in order to gain aeronautical access to the Hana Airport to 

be unjustly discriminatory and therefore not in compliance with the State's federal grant 

assurances. Accordingly, the State's requirement that the Complainant obtain a waiver from 

the USP A for the use of the proposed drop zone at HNM is considered a moot point and 

therefore not an approved corrective action in accordance with the federal grant assurances 

and the prescriptive requirements of the IY.rector's Preliminary Determination. 

3. Requirement that the State be named as an additionally insured under a USP A member 

skydiviog liability iosurance policy. 

In the analysis of issue # 1 above, the Director found that requiring the Complainant to 

maintain membership in the USP A in order to gain aeronautical access to the Hana Airport to 

be unjustly discriminatory and therefore not in compliance wifu fue State's federal grant 

assurances. Accordingly, the State's requirement that the Complainant name the State as an 

additionally insured under a USP A member skydiving liability insurance policy is considered 

to be a moot point and therefore is not an approved corrective action in accordance with the 

federal grant assuran.ces and the prescriptive requirements of the Director's Preliminary 

Determination. 

However, the Director affirms that the State, as the proprietor of the Hana Airport, may 

exercise its proprietary right to require general liability insurance on aeronautical tenants of 

the airport, as well as the proprietary right to be named as an additionally insured on such 

insurance policies. The Director cautions that minimum insurance requirements must not be 

unjustly discriminatory and the amounts of coverage should be reasonably consistent with 

other similarly situated airport tenants. The Director also affirms that the State may exercise 

its proprietary right to require the Complainant to include the State in any or all liability 

waivers signed by skydiving participants.4 

4. The State will confirm with F AAIHNL ADO the approval of the designated area within 

Hana Airport. 

The FAA does not formally approve or disapprove of proposed PDZ siting or dimensional 

standards at airports. As discussed in detail in the Director's Preliminary Determination, four 

(4) safety risk evaluations were conducted by the FAA Fli t Standards and/or the FAA · 

r IC rganiZation on the proposed skydiving operations into Hana Airport. In each 

instance, the FAA concluded that the Complainant's proposed skydiving operation at Hana 

Airport can be conducted safely with proper coordination, communication, and airport 

operational procedures in place. Accordingly, it is the airport sponsor's responsibility to 

designate the PDZ and to develop airport rules and regulations governing the safe and 

4 The Director encourages the parties to leverage the existing tenant/sponsor relationship established through the 

Complainant's existing commercial skydiving operations at Upolu and Dillingham airports to develop a tenable 

commercial skydiving lease/use agreement at Hana Airport. 

5 
efficient integration of the PDZ into the overall airport operation in a manner that is 

reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory to the parachute operator. 

CONCLUSION: 

1. The Director conditionally approves of the State's corrective actions identified in 

Directive #1 above. 

In the interest of transparency, the Director's conditional approval is contingent upon the 

State providing (1) a detailed timeframe for which the Respondent expects to finalize the 

Hana Airport Rules and (2) a comprehensive schedule of events, inclusive of the requisite 

legislative, administrative and/or procedural steps that may be required by Hawaii state law 

or other mandate identifYing the totality of the approval process for which the Hana Airport 

Rules will be subjected, and the projected timeframe for approval and aeronautical access. 

The requisite documentation must be forwarded to the Director no later than 15 days from 

the date of this correspondence. 

2. The Director does not approve the State's proposed corrective actions in Directive #2 

above. 

The Director's Preliminary Determination specifically directed the State to negotiate in good 

faith to develop temporary skydiving procedures satisfactory to both the Respondent and the 

Complainant to allow commercial skydiving operations to take place at HNM during the 

pendency of the State's bureaucratic rulemaking process. Instead, the State acted to develop 

proposed temporary procedures that are not consistent with the State's federal grant 

obligations and the Director's Preliminary Determination. More specifically, the Director 

does not concur with: 

a. The State's proposed requirement that the Complainant maintain membership in the 

United States Parachute Association as a condition of aeronautical access to HNM; 

b. The State's proposed requirement that the Complainant obtain a waiver from the 

USPA for use of the proposed drop zone at HNM, and; 

c. The State's requirement that the State be named as an additionally insured under a 

USP A member skydiving liability insurance policy. 

The Director concludes that the State's proposed requirement that the Com lainant 

ers p m e m o er to gain aeronautical access to a federallyobligated airport to be contrary to Grant Assurance 22, Economic Discrimination, as more 

fully described above. 

Consequently, the Director once again directs the State to ne o · ood faith, with the 

Complainant's active participation, to develop temporary parachuting proce ure o ow the 

Complainant immediate aeronautical access to the Hana Airport. Such temporary procedures 

must be in compliance Wit eState's federal grant obligatiOns, including the requirement 

6 
thai the State operate the airport for the use and benefit of the public and to make it available 

to all t~, and classes of aeronautical activity on f'!ir ~d re<(~~ble ~s, and 

withoht'unjust discrimination iu accordance with Grant Assurance 22. ~ 

Please note, it will not be necessary to obtain the Director's direct approval of the temporary 

procedures prior to the start of the Complainant's commercial skydiving operation since the 

Director 

Co~ 

expects the procedures to be developed to the satisfaction_<Jf bQth the..S1:11eJIJ1<:! the 

and iu compliance with the sponsor's federal obligations. .. 

The Director cautions the State that protracted correspondence or negotiations with the 

Complainant in developing the temporary procedures can be construed as additio®l 

unreasonable delay and could result iu the Director initiating action to withhold the 

processmg of the State ot Hawan' s applications for Airport Improvement Program 

discretionary grants lli'"lder 49 U.S.C. § 47115 and general aviation airport grants under 49 

U.S.C. § 47114(d). 

Sincerely, 

Randall S. Fiertz 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

7 
NEIL ABERCROMBIE 

GOV~NCfl 

STATE OF HAWAII 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Randall S. Fiertz 

lAND TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 

ROOM 300, KEKUANAO'A BUILDING 

465 SOUTH KING STREET 

HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 

(808) 587·2992 

November 26,2014 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

And Management Analysis 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration\ 

800 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

DAVID M. LOUIE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

RUSSELL A. SUZUKI 

FIRST DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Re: Franks Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a Skydive Hawaii and Island 

Skydiving, LLC v. The State of Hawaii (Docket No. 16-12-04) 

Dear Mr. F iertz 

This will respond to your letter dated November 13, 2014, regarding the abovereferenced matter. 

A coordination meeting with Mr. Hinshaw took place on November 13, 2014. The 

purpose of this meeting was to negotiate in good faith towards developing temporary procedures 

for use until such time as the Administrative Rules process is completed. Mr. Hinshaw objected 

to most of the provisions in our proposed rules which consisted of matters previously negotiated 

and agreed to with his prior attorney but he did agree to add the State to the waivers signed by 

the jumpers and to comply with applicable federal regulations. Mr. Hinshaw indicated having 

hopes to begin jump operations by the end of December. We expect to meet Mr. Hinshaw's 

schedule barring any unforeseen circumstances. 

Prior to the foregoing, a meeting was scheduled with operators at Hana Airport on 

October 22,2014, to d1scuss the commencement ofskydive opetations. Skydive Hawaii was 

invited but we were advised that its representative was unable to attend due to weather related 

reasons. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss and address concerns on the size and 

location of the Parachute Landing Area, airfield projects, and the integration of skydiving into 

existing operations on and in the vicinity of the Hana Airport. 

Beyond the foregoing, we provide the following schedule which is part of the State of 

Hawaii's procedural requirements for adoption of Administrative Rules: 

1. Proposed draft of rules is essentially completed; 
Randall S. Fiertz 

November 26, 2014 

Page2 

2. Consult with affected small businesses, prepare Small Business Impact 

Statement and submit to Small Business Regulatory Review Board with estimated 

completion by January 15, 2015; 

3. Review comments/recommendations of Review Board and submit proposed 

rules to State Department of Attorney General for approval as to form during 

second week of February 2015; 

4. Upon receipt of approval as to form from the State Department of Attorney 

General, submit memo to Governor, State Department of Budget and Finance, and 

State Department of Business, Economic Development, Tourism from the State 

Director of Transportation for approval to proceed with the public hearings by 

March of2015; 

5. Upon approval from Governor, publish Notice in newspapers statewide at least 

30 days prior to hearings and also post to DOTA web site. Schedule public 

hearings to be completed by May of2015; 

6. Review oral/written comments and revise proposed rules as necessary by June 

of2015; and 

7. Draft final rules for formal adoption by July of 2015 

Please feel free to contact me should there be any questions or comments. 

Very truly yours, 

.. ,.,_ t I 

/!(' .. ··' ; . ·(· v I ,J i '/)"\;"--- ' ·.::::tz.,.,:_...... l" . ---._ ' Glenn I. Kimura 

Deputy Attorney General 
Randall Fiertz 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 

avlawyer@yahoo.com 

December 1, 2014 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

55 M Street, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Via E-mail and Regular Mail 

Re: Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island 

Skydiving, LLC v. State of Hawaii 

FAA Docket 16-12-04 

Mr. Fiertz: 

On November 13, 2014, you sent a letter to counsel for the State of Hawaii clearly 

stating that the State of Hawaii had failed to negotiate in good faith with Frank 

Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC in 

order to allow it to open a commercial skydiving facility on the Hana Airport. On 

page 6 of your letter, you directed the State to allow Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving 

School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC immediate access to 

the Hana Airport. 

This is to advise you that the State has taken no action to negotiate an agreement, 

and still has not approved Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive 

Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC access to Hana Airport. There was one general 

safety meeting regarding skydiving procedures at Hana Airport which was open to 

<'Ill yo11e vvllo vvisl1ed to atte11d but tile Slate still l1as 110L take11 actio II to g1 a11t 

Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, 

LLC access to the Airport. 

Your November 13 letter warned the State about continuing delay in granting Frank 

Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC 

access-it has already delayed for seven years. You advised that if it continued to 

delay, you could initiate action to withhold processing of the State of Hawaii's 
applications for Airport Improvement Program discretionary grants. Due to the 

continued refusal of the State to act in accordance with its obligations under the 

grant assurances, this is to formally request that you immediately act to withhold 

processing of the State of Hawaii's applications for AlP discretionary grants for all of 

its airports until Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and 

Island Skydiving, LLC is operating a commercial skydiving facility on Hana Airport 

under terms that are mutually agreeable to Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. 

d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC and the State. 

Very truly yours, 

Richard J. Durden 

cc via electronic mail: Kevin Willis 

Glenn I. Kimura 

Frank Hinshaw 
Randall Fiertz 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 

avlawyer@yahoo.com 

December 2, 2014 

Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

55 M Street, NW, Suite 800 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Via E-mail and Regular Mail 

Re: Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island 

Skydiving, LLC v. State of Hawaii 

FAA Docket 16-12-04 

Dear Mr. Fiertz: 

Yesterday, after I had sent you an email reporting that the State of Hawaii had 

failed to comply with your directive to allow Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. 

d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC v. State of Hawaii immediate 

access to the Hana, Hawaii Airport for commercial skydiving operations I received a 

copy of letter mailed to you by Glenn I. Kimura, counsel for the State of Hawaii 

erroneously reporting that Frank Hinshaw had met with the State on November 13 

regarding temporary procedures for skydiving. Mr. Kimura's letter made the further 

false statement that Mr. Hinshaw told the State that he hoped to begin jump 

operations by the end of December. 

With this email and letter I reiterate that Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. 

d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving. LLC v. State of Hawaii is ready to start 

commercial skydiving operations immediately at Hana. Not next week, not at the 

end of the month-immediately. Mr. Hinshaw has been ready to start jump 

operations ever since you ordered the State to allow him to do so. 

Mr. Hinshaw's operation will fully comply with 14 CFR Part 105. All that is required 

is for the Hana Airport manager to give approval under 14 CFR Part 105.23(b). It 

still has not been given despite your directive. 
All the State has done, as I pointed out yesterday, is hold a general safety meeting 

on November 25 with a number of operators at the Hana Airport (Mr. Hinshaw 

attended) regarding skydiving. It has never negotiated directly with Mr. Hinshaw 

nor has it even identified its negotiator. 

Because of the State's continued foot-dragging on this matter, which you warned it 

not to do, this is also to reiterate the demand of Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, 

Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC v. State of Hawaii that you 

immediately act to withhold processing of the State of Hawaii's applications for AIP 

discretionary grants for all of its airports until Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, 

Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC is operating a commercial 

skydiving facility on Hana Airport under terms that are mutually agreeable to Frank 

Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC 

and the State. 

Very truly yours, 

Richard J. Durden 

cc via electronic mail: Kevin Willis 

Glenn I. Kimura 

Frank Hinshaw 
From: "Gienn.I.Kimura@hawaii.gov" <Gieiml.Rimura@hawaii.gov> 

To: "randall.fiertz@faa.gov" <randall.fiertz@faa.gov> 

Cc: Rick Durden <avlawyer@yahoo.com>; Frank Hinshaw <frankhinshaw@yahoo.com>; Kevin Willis 

<kevin.willis@faa.gov> 

Sent: Friday, December 5, 2014 5:05 PM 

Subject: Re:: Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC v. State of 

Hawaii FAA Docket 16-12-04 

Dear Mr. Fiertz: 

Please allow me to respond to Mr. Durden by clarifying a date and event referred in my earlier correspondence. That 

meeting held on November 25, 2014, was a direct, good faith negotiation with Mr. Hinshaw devoted entirely to the 

safety measures proposed until such time as the applicable Administrative Rules are formally adopted. Blue 

Hawaiian and Mokulele Airlines operate frequently at Hana Airport and their presence was to add informed 

perspective of the circumstances and did not in any way or form detract from the good faith negotiation with Mr. 

Hinshaw. 

Separate but maybe related, Mr. Hinshaw should have received by now an application for space at Hana Airport for a 

tie-down or any other intended purposes. He has yet to submit this application to the Maui Airport District office. 

Thank you for your attention in this matter. 

Glenn I. Kimura 

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended reclpient(s) 

and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, use, disclosure, or distribution by unintended 

recipients is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all 

copies of the original message. 
4/30/2015 Print 

Subject: Day 140 of the State of Hawaii's Defiance of the FAA 

From: Rjck Durden (av!a,Nyer@yahoo.com) 

To: glenn.i.kimura@hawaii.gov; randall.fiertz@faa.gov; kevin.willls@faa.gov; 

Cc: frankhinshaw@yahoo.com; 

Bee: randyo@uspa.org; 

Date: Monday, January 5, 2015 2:33PM 

Glenn, 

We are now in day 140 of the State of Hawaii's defiance of the FAA's Order to immediately 

provide Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, 

LLC access to the Hana Airport for the purpose of operating a commercial skydiving school. 

Today I received the latest notice of delay from you, indicating that my clients' application for 

space to lease on the Airport to construct a hangar requires "a response from the 

Department." I have been advised that the hangar space application has been tied to approval 

to conduct commercial skydiving on the airport. 

This is notice that my clients, F;ank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and 

Island Skydiving, LLC, are withdrawing the application for space to lease for hangar 

construction on the Hana Airport. 

You have no more excuses for refusing to comply with the FAA's Order-and it's even past the 

end of December, the date you informed Randall Fiertz of the FAA on December 1 that my 

client would be in operation. 

Please send confirmation that my clients are immediately approved to begin commercial 

skydiving operations at Han a Airport. 

Thank you, 

Rick 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 
4130/2015 Print 

Subject: Day 141 of Hawaii's Defiance of the FAA 

From: Rick Durden (avlawyer@yahoo.com) 

To: randall.fiertz@faa.gov; 

Cc: kevin.willis@faa.gov; glenn.i.kimura@hawaii.gov; frankhinshaw@yahoo.com; 

Bee: randyo@uspa.org; 

Date: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 2:26 PM 

Mr. Fiertz, 

On August 18, 2014, the Director of the FAA's Office of Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis issued its Director's Preliminary Determination requiring the State of Hawaii to give 

Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC access 

to the Hana, Hawaii Airport for commercial skydiving immediately and (because the time for 

appeal has long passed) finding the State of Hawaii in violation of Grant Assurances 22 and 23. 

The State of Hawaii took no action to comply. 

On November 13, 2014, you followed up with a letter to the Glenn I. Kimura, Deputy Attorney 

General of the State of Hawaii again directing the State to provide my clients immediate 

skydiving access to the Hana, Airport. 

Again, the State of Hawaii refused to comply. 

In your November 13th letter you stated that, "protracted correspondence or negotiations with 

the Complainant (my client) in developing the temporary procedures can be construed as 

additional unreasonable delay and could result in the Director initiating action to withhold the 

processing the State of Hawaii's applications for Airport Improvement Program discretionary 

gran t s ... " 

It is now Day 141 of the State of Hawaii's Defiance of the FAA's Directive to comply with the 

Grant Assurances it signed. 

The State's absence of action is clear indication that it has no intention of complying with the 

FAA's directives. It is therefore time for your office to take steps to cut off the State's access 

to AlP grants It has shown that it's willing to take the money, h11t not live i 'P to the 

agreements it signed as conditions for the millions of dollars it has received. It has shown that 

for seven years it can, with impunity, thumb its nose at a small businessman simply trying to 

open a business on one of its airports because it does not like skydiving while putting no 

obstacles in the way of new helicopter businesses on that same airport. 

This is, first, to ask you to immediately initiate proceedings to stop processing Hawaii's AlP 

grant applications. 

Second, this is to ask that you now involve the FAA's Criminal Division in this matter for 

investigation into prosecution of Assistant Attorney General Glenn I. Kimura for violation of 18 

U.S. Code section 1001 for the statements he made in his November 26, 2014 letter to you. It 
4/30/2015 Print 

appears he was aware that the State of Hawaii had no intention of complying with the FAA's 

directive to allow Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island 

Skydiving, LLC skydiving access by December 31, 2014, yet he said that the State would do 

so. 

It is time for the FAA to let this airport sponsor know that when the FAA issues a Directive, it's 

serious about it. 

Thank you, 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 
4/30/2015 Print 

Subject: Day 142 of Hawaii's Defiance of the FAA 

From: FUck Durden {avlawyer@yahoo.com) 

To: randall.fiertz@faa.gov; 

Cc: kevin.willis@faa.gov; glenn.i.kimura@hawaii.gov; frankhinshaw@yahoo.com; 

Bee: randyo@uspa.org; 

Date: Wednesday, January 7, 201512:41 PM 

Mr. Fiertz, 

It is now the 142nd day since the Director of the FAA's Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis issued its Director's Preliminary Determination requiring the State of 

Hawaii to give Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island 

Skydiving, LLC access to the Hana, Hawaii Airport for commercial skydiving immediately and 

(because the time for appeal has long passed) finding the State of Hawaii in violation of Grant 

Assurances 22 and 23. 

The State of Hawaii has still not complied. 

Despite being in violation of its Grant Assurances, it is still getting AlP grants. 

Further evidence of the State of Hawaii's antipathy toward general aviation operators emerged 

yesterday in an article in the Hawaii Reporter concerning $35,000,000 in federal funding to the 

Kalaeloa Airport, Hawaii and the State's actions to keep general aviation operators off of the 

airport-which was to be the reliever airport for Honolulu InternationaL The article refers to "an 

unreasonable and often times hostile staff at DOT-A." The article is at: 

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/state-refuses-support-to-private-general-aviation-atkalaeloa/123 

In addition, two days ago my client flew into Hana Airport. In the course of approaching, 

landing, some time on the ramp and then departing-about 20 minutes-there was not an 

aircraft movement on the airport or in the surrounding airspace. The State of Hawaii has no 

rational reason for its continuing refusal to allow commercial skydiving on the Airport. 

My client won the Part 16 Complaint-yet because the State of Hawaii has refused to act in 

anything approaching good faith and comply with FAA Directives he has effectively lost; and 

the ostensible looser, the State of Hawaii, won because it continues to rake in millions of AlP 

money in reward for its defiance of the FAA. 

That is simply not right. 

It is time for the FAA to act decisively to correct this wrong. 

Thank you, 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 
4/30/2015 Print 

Subject: Day 143 of Hawaii's Defiance of the FAA 

From: Rick Durden (avlawyer@yahoo.com) 

To: randall.fiertz@faa.gov; 

Cc: kevin.willis@faa.gov; glenn.i.kimura@hawaii.gov; frankhinshaw@yahoo.com; 

Bee: randyo@uspa.org; 

Date: Thursday, January&, 20151:37 PM 

Mr. Fiertz, 

It is now the 143rd day since the Director of the FAA's Office of Airport Compliance and 

Management Analysis issued its Director's Preliminary Determination requiring the State of 

Hawaii to give Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island 

Skydiving, LLC immediate access to the Hana, Hawaii Airport for commercial skydiving and 

(because the time for appeal has long passed) finding the State of Hawaii in violation of Grant 

Assurances 22 and 23. 

Because the State of Hawaii refused to comply, you sent a letter to the State on November 13, 

2014. On page two, you referred to the State's more than seven-year delay in granting my 

client aeronautical access to Hana Airport in contravention of Grant Assurances 22 and 23. 

You pointed out that the State has not acted in good faith since the Determination. You then 

directed that the State "negotiate in good faith, with the Complainant's active participation, to 

develop temporary parachuting procedures to allow the Complainant's immediate (emphasis 

added) access to the Hana Airport." 

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the State has taken no action to allow access for my 

client. It continues to defy the FAA-now it is not even responding to emails from my client 

asking for access. 

On page seven of your November 13th letter you cautioned the State of Hawaii against 

"additional unreasonable delay." You found the State's delay of seven years to be 

unreasonable in the first place. Does the State get another seven years to comply? 

The days are ticking by as the State of Hawaii rakes in AlP funds and ignores its obligations 

under them -without consequences. 

What must my client do to get the State to comply with FAA directives? He wins a Part 16 

Complaint against the State but has to continue to expend funds in what may be a vain hope 

that the FAA will take action to enforce the victory. 

This wrong needs to be corrected without further delay. 

Thank you, 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 
4/30/2015 Print 

Subject: Day 144 of Hawaii's Defiance of the FAA 

From: Rick Durden (avlawyer@yahoo.ccm) 

To: randall.fiertz@faa.gov; 

Cc: glenn.i.kimura@hawaii.gov; kevin.willis@faa.gov; frankhinshaw@yahoo.com; 

Bee: randyo@uspa.org; 

Date: Friday, January 9, 2015 1 :15 PM 

Mr. Fiertz, 

Another week has passed with the State of Hawaii taking absolutely no action to comply with 

the Director of the FAA's Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis's Director's 

Preliminary Determination requiring the State of Hawaii to give Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving 

School, Inc. d/b/a/Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC immediate access to the Hana, 

Hawaii Airport for commercial skydiving and (because the time for appeal has long passed) 

finding the State of Hawaii in violation of Grant Assurances 22 and 23. 

It is now Day 144 since the Determination was issued. 

The FAA ordered the State of Hawaii to enter into negotiations to establish mutually agreeable 

rules for commercial skydiving onto Hana Airport. In 144 days, the State hasn't complied. 

The FAA ordered the State of Hawaii to allow my client immediate commercial skydiving 

access at HanaAirport In the past 144 days, the State not only hasn't complied, its 

representative has lied directly to you, saying that access would be approved last month. 

For 144 days my client has been ready to start skydiving operations at Hana. It is ready 

immediately. If approval is granted by noon, it can be operating that day. 

The State of Hawaii is still receiving AlP funds despite being in violation of two Grant 

Assurances. Why are our tax dollars still going to an airport sponsor that is incapable of living 

up to the agreements it signed in order to obtain them? The FAA is on a tight budget, but it's 

willing to give squander millions on an airport sponsor that isn't entitled to a single cent. Why 

"th•h . ? IS a, appenmg. 

The State obviously has no intent to comply. There is no incentive for it to do so. The FAA 

needs to provide one. Now. 

Thank you, 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901"6516 
413012015 Print 

Subject: Skydiving Access Hana Airport 

From:- Rid< Durden (avlawyer@yahoo_com} 

To: glenn.i.kimura@hawaii.gov; 

Ce: kevin.willis@faa.gov; randall.fiertz@faa.gov; frankhinshaw@yahoo.com; 

Bee: randyo@uspa.org; 

Date: Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:22AM 

Glenn, 

A few weeks ago, you received my client's agreement to the CTAF communications procedure 

the State wants for operations at Hana. Apparently, that was the only hang up to you issuing 

approval for my client to begin skydiving operations. I haven't heard anything from you since 

then. 

As there are no longer any impediments to beginning operations, when can my client start? 

Thank you, 

Rick 

Richard J. Durden 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 
1. Rental of Build,ngs Other than Passenger Terminals 

X 

':!:: 

'-

' '-

w 

a .. 

Building No. & Name 

91A,IFighter Town 

91 8, Sky Med, Inc. 

91 C, Skydive Academy 

201, plider Plane Booths 

(RrtJ 1 01 and 1 03) 

Type of SQace 

Hangar 

Office 

Office/Retail 

· Retail 

Rate 
09/12/2005 12:20 9016447934 ><ENRy' GJUNTv AIRPORT PASE 02 

U.S. Deportment 

¢f Transportation 

Fedo>ral Aviation 

Admlnis!rallon 

01fieo o' Airport Safety t'\nd 

Standards 

600 lndep$ndence Ave., S.W. 

WO$hington, D.C. 20591 

APR 2 0 2006 

Don Davenport 

Ai1port Manager 

Henry County Airport 

1949 Diggs Rd. 

Paris, Tennessee 38242 

RE: Corrective Action Piau for Henry County submitted January 2006 

Dear Mr. Davenport: 

Thank you for your timely submission of Henry County's draft Corrective Action l'lan (Plan) as 

Ordered in the Director's Determination for Skydive Paris, Inc. v. Henry County. Tennessee, 

FAA Docket No. 16-05 ·06. The Memphis Airports District Office forwarded me your Plan for 

review. 

We conducted our review of your subn1i:ssion in consultation with F~~"'~s Flight Standards 

Service, the FAA line of business responsible for flight safety. In addition to the proposed 

actions discussed in your transmittal letter, we also reviewed the Airport's Skydive Operations 

and Minimum Standards regarding skydiving operators at the Henry County Airport as an 

integral part of the Corrective Action Plan. 

Upon revle\v~ we have determined that several ofHemy County's proposed actions a."l.d 

minimum standards continue to unreasonably restrict skydiving operations on the Airport. 

Additionally-, many cfthe Airport's requirements appear to-.-be un-justly discriminato!).r. 

Accordingly, your Corrective Action Plan does not meet the requirements ofthe Order. 

To assist you in revising your Corrective Action Plan for resubmission, we have provided some 

comments to your requirements and proposed aci!ons. Piease consider these comments wben 

revising your Plan. Henry County shall submit a revised plan to the Memphis Ai!ports District 

Office by May 15, 2006. 
8'3/12/2806 12:20 901544 7'334 

Should you have any questions, please contact Keri Lyn Spem:er of our Aiipott Compliance 

Office at (202) 267-89f. 

Sincerely, 

David L. Bennett 

Director of Airport Safety and Standards 

Attachment 

cc: Lee M. Greer III 
89/12/2006 12;20 9015447934 

FAA Comments to 

Draft Con·ective Action Plan 

Submitted January !5, 2006 

Henry Coumy, Tennessee 

P~SE 04 

1. Proposed Action/Requirement: Henry County requests that activities be scheduled for 

"reasonable time periods". 

FAA Response: While FAA Order 5190.6A, Airport Compliance Requirements, provides that 

an airport owner may designate reasonable ttme-periods for skydiving operations on the airport, 

Henry County cannot use this limitation on the basis of safety. As stated in the Director's 

Determination, FAA's Flight Standards Sen-ice has determined that the airport can safely 

accommodate skydiving activities during normal airport operations. Caution should be used 

when attempting to develop any time of a 'schedule' for these operations as a restrictive 

schedule may prove to be unjustly discriminatory and a violation of Federal obligations. 

2. Proposed Action/Requirement: Henry County Airport will require businesses wishing to 

conduct skydiving activities on the Airport to maintaio minimum insurance requirements, as 

outlined in Index 1 of the Minimum Standards, which are the same amounts and types required 

of all businesses operating on the Airport. 

PAA Re~p~n:!!J~: Not aU businesses operating on ii.it airport are similarly situated and do nvt aU 

require the same types and amounts of insurance. Henry County may want to review these 

requirements to ensure that they are reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory and 

commensurate with the activity being addressed. 

3. Proposed Action/R~qidrement: l-!~nry County Airport requires each skydiver to belong tD 

the United States Parachuting Association (USPA). 

FAA ResponsP: Neither FAA nor airport management can require membership in an 

organization as a condition for conducting an aeronautical activity. This requirement has no 

basis in safety, and cannot be considered reasonable. 

4, Proposed Action/Requirement: Henry County Airport proposes requiring employees of 

any skydiving operation to meet certain designation, duty description, and affiliation criteria. 

This includes requiring a USPA·appointed Safety and Training Advisor that has associated 

responsibilities assigned by the airport manager. 

applicable Federal regulations, it is mappropriate for the airport manager to assign personnel to 

conduct oversight and safety evaluations. This responsibility rests with the FAA. If the 

operation does not meet FAA safety standards, the FAA will take appropriate action. It is also 

noted that no similar restriction is being proposed for other aeronautical operatwns. 

I 

1: 
09/12/2006 12:20 9016447934 HENRV COUNT'! AIRPO"T Pt4GE 05 

5. Proposed Actioo/Requiremeut: Henry County Airport proposes requiring radio reports be 

given in specific verbiage. 

FAA Response: No radio reports are required by any other operations at the airpcrt. The FAA 

leaves the decision regarding the use of radios in similar circumstances to the aircraft operator 

operating under the applicable regulation (i.e. Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 

105. section 13). It is inappropriate for the airport to impose such a condition, and thus it 

should be removed. 

6. Proposed A~tioo!Requlremeot: Henry County Airpcrt requires compliance with the 

Aeronautical Infotnlation Manual and the USPA Skydiver Information Manual. 

FAA Response: Both of these materials are advisory in nature and do not require compliance, 

as the Federal regulations do. 

7. Proposed Action/Requirement: Henry County Airpon seeks to prohibit skydiving exits 

over the airport if tl1ere is an aircraft in the pattern. 

FAA Response: The FAA does not prohibn this maneuver, as it bas not found such operations 

to pose a safety concern. This is especially true given that most exits and parachute openings 

occur well above any pattern altitude ( + 2,000 feet above ground level). 

8. Proposed Actiou!Requlremeut: Henry County Airport proposes that any first time jump 

pilot receive a briefing from the airport management staff before performing operations. 

FAA Response: FAA does not see the necessity in requiring such a pilot briefing considering 

other operators do not have a similar requirement. FAA could agree to such a briefing if it 

were o!Iered to the first time jump pilots on a voluntary basis. 

9. Proposed Action/Requirement: Henry County Airport wishes to require Notices to 

Airmen and radio contact with Air Traffic Control as operating conditions for skydivers. 

1 

i 

I 

I' 

II 

i 

FAA Response: Skydiving requirements are listed in Tide 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulahons Part 105, and it is inappropriate for airport management to impose conditions II ~~;~~~ t== r~~~=:~~~~ ~g~~~/he standards in part I 05 have been deemed appropriate for :