September 17, 2015 

Michael J. O'Donnell, A.A.E. 

Director of Airport Safety and Standards 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: Skydiving Operations at Grand Strand Airport 

Dear Mr. O'Donnell: 

Thank you for your letter of September 1, 2015 and your recognition of the serious safety concerns 

presented by skydiving operations at Grand Strand Airport (CRE). The Horry County Department of 

Airports (HCDA) has previously detailed similar concerns to the FAA Southern Region Airports Division in 

a letter dated April 27, 2015 (copy enclosed). HCDA has been working diligently and continuously with 

various FAA departments to ensure all avenues available to the airport to mitigate any safety risks have 

been enacted. HCDA has provided the organizer of the SRM panel documentation to support the FAA's 

review of the safety issues created by skydiving operations at CRE and will be participating in the SRM 

panel October 7 & 8 at MYR. Skydiving at CRE is performed pursuant to operating procedures established 

through a letter of agreement (LOA) that was entered into between the FAA, HCDA, and the skydiving 

operator, Skydive Myrtle Beach (SDMB); however, by virtue of the more than 90 incidents you reference, it 

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

zone (LZ) specified under the LOA. 

In its letter of April 27, 2015, HCDA proposed various potential mitigation measures, including 

HCDA's request for FAA consideration of closing the LZ and discontinuing skydiving operations at CRE. 

Though HCDA did not receive any response, it appears that the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) did 

notify the skydive operator directly that the repeated safety violations "appear to constitute in their number 

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

jumpers, but the safety and security of persons and property on the ground" and represent "an intolerable 

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

public safety." Letter from FAA, South Carolina FSDO to Skydive Myrtle Beach, dated May 6, 2015 (copy 

enclosed). 

In the Memorandum from the Eastern Service Center (ESC), Quality Control Group (QCG), AJVE1, 2015 (copy enclosed) issued as a result of an audit on Parachute Operation at CRE, the same 
conclusions were reached, noting specifically the "numerous meetings and efforts of engagement" with this 

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

"ESC, QCG recommends that the LOA be terminated immediately until all parties can meet to mitigate the 

unsafe operation." Memorandum from Michael D. Wagner, Manager, ESC, QCG to John G. McCartney, 

Director, Air Traffic Operations, Eastern Service Area, South, AJT-ES, dated August 4, 2015. It should be 

noted that the situation has become increasingly severe. ESC, QCG noted thirty-nine (39) incidents of 

unsafe skydiving operations, involving in excess of 65 jumpers in the 4% month period between March 15, 

2015 and August 4, 2015. 

Meanwhile, as part of its efforts to assure safe operations at CRE and to assist the FAA, HCDA 

has been collecting data concerning these various incidents to identify possible risk mitigation measures. 

Analysis of this data does not indicate that wind or weather play any significant factor in the inability of 

skydivers to safely land in the LZ. Additionally, HCDA engaged an engineering firm to evaluate the current 

LZ using generally accepted and recommended aeronautical standards. Based on their review, it was the 

determination of the engineering firm that not only could the LZ not be expanded, but in order to improve 

safety at CRE, the current LZ should actually be reduced in size to provide appropriate clearances from 

aeronautical operations and structures. HCDA has repeatedly attempted to work with SDMB to prevent the 

recurrence of safety incidents. However, each attempt has been met with refusal to address any of the 

safety issues. In fact, SDMB has represented only that they are in compliance with CFRs and all rules 

governing skydiving, and contends they have a safe operation at CRE. The FAA itself has been met with 

much of the same. 

The consistently errant landings of skydivers at CRE give HCDA great concern that the limitations 

imposed by the site and other operations at CRE may render it impossible to safely undertake skydiving 

operations at CRE. This conclusion appears to be echoed by the Director of Government Relations for the 

United States Parachute Association, Randy Ottinger, who has informed the FAA that the small size of the 

landing zone at CRE creates a safety issue. 

The obligation to operate CRE in a safe manner for a// aeronautical users and operators of the 

airport is of paramount concern to HCDA. Thus, in the interest of operational and public safety, and with 

the tull support and encouragement ot Horry County's governing body, HCDA HEREBY FORMALLY 

REQUESTS FAA APPROVAL TO IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUE SKYDIVING OPERATIONS AT CRE, CLOSE 

THE LZ, AND WITHDRAW FROM THE EXISTING LOA. HCDA recognizes that FAA is the sole arbiter of what 

restrictions may be imposed due to safety concerns, but this request is supported by the FAA's own findings, 

which state that: 

"[t]he jumpers that have landed outside of the agreed upon Landing Zone are clearly a 

breach of the LOA; moreover, they appear to constitute in their number and on the basis 

of their repetitive nature, an egregious and insensitive disregard for the safety of not only 

the jumpers, but the safety and security of persons and property on the ground." 

Memorandum from Michael D. Wagner, Manager, ESC, QCG, dated August 4, 2015. 

In light of the skydiving operator's steadfast refusal to comply with the terms of the existing LOA, HCDA 

earnestly believes that it is only a matter of time before a catastrophic incident results. As such, HCDA 
implores the FAA to provide their concurrence to this request within seven (7) days of the date of 

this letter, in order to immediately remedy what FSDO described as "an egregious and callous 

disregard" for the safety of CRE users and operators. As this matter is of immediate concern, and 

FAA has exclusive authority to determine the safety of airport operations, please indicate your 

concurrence with HCDA's request by signing below and returning this letter to HCDA at your first 

opportunity. The urgency of this matter is further necessitated by the fact that the skydiving operator at 

CRE is planning a large event on October 16-18, 2015, which HCnA hf!lif!vf! will involvf! A orf!Atf!r numhP.r 

of skydivers than usual, further exacerbating the safety issues. The specifics for this event can be found 

at http://www.dropzone.com/cgj-bjo/calendar/paae.cgj?g=Detailed/6725.html. Thank you for your 

consideration of this urgent matter, and should you have any questions or if I can be of assistance in any 

way, please do not hesitate to call me. 

Director, Horry County Department of Airports 

HCDA is authorized to take such actions as requested above: 

Michael J. O'Donnell, A.A.E. 

Director of Airport Safety and Standards 

Federal Aviation Administration 

cc: 

Winsome Lenfert Heather Haney 

Larry Clark John Marshall 

Ricarldo Washington Ron Caraway 

Herman Smith Marcus Valdes 

Jeffery Coley Rolando Caparas 

Steven Hicks Ruth Maestre 

Thomas Walsh Larry Ayers 

James Cline Gary Pendleton 

Joseph Roberts Glen Ray 

Daniel Jones Tom Moyer 

Reginald C. Govan, Esq. David Bannard,Esq. 

Arrigo Carotti, Esq. Randy Haldi, Esq. 
April27, 2015 

Ms. Heather Haney 

Compliance Specialist 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Southern Region Airports Division 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

Atlanta, GA 30337-2747 

Re: Letter oflnquiry (Grand Strand Airport) dated April7, 2015 

Dear Ms. Haney: 

This letter is in response to your Letter of Inquiry (Grand Strand Airport) dated April 7, 2015 which I 

receivtld un April13, 2015. The Hurry County Department u£ Airports (HCDA), as owner and operator of 

Grand Strand Airport (CRE), shares your concern regarding the number of Vehicle or Pedestrian Deviations 

(VPDs) that have occurred at CRE since November 10, 2013. It Is Important to note that each and every 

VPD Is related to one operator, that being Slcydlve MyrUe Beach (SDMB), which operates a commercial 

sl(ydlvlng business at CRE. Though HCDA has undertaken a series of actions as discussed in more detail 

below, the only real reduction in the number ofVPDs and other incidents involving skydivers occurred during 

a time period in which SDMB was only operating sporadically due to their turnover in aircraft and 

maintenance issues (October 2014-February 2015). Recently SDMB has resumed full operation, and 

numerous VPDs are once again being reported. In fact, attached to this letter is another incident report from 

April 21, 2015 documenting an errant SDMB skydiver running across an active runway in front of an aircraft 

that was attempting to land. 

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

in question failed to land within the designated landing zone (LZ) at CRE. Since the very first VPD, HCDA staff 

has repeatedly offered training, warnings, and provided SDMB with copies of the policy applicable at CRE that 

prohibits crossing an active runway or taxiway without permission from the control tower during tower 

operating hours. In the spring of 2014, and as the direct result of multiple VPDs and other incidents involving 

errant landings of skydivers at CRE, HCDA began collecting data regarding safety incidents at CRE to better 

identify potential causes of such incidents. To date, more than IJOo/o of the safety incident reports occurring at 

CRE has related to an incident involving one or more skydivers associated with SDMB. 

Though HCDA has repeatedly attempted to work with SDMB to prevent recurrence of such incidents, 

as the sole operator of a commercial skydiving operation at CRE, SDMB claims discrimination every time 

HCDA takes any action to alleviate safety issues concerning SDMB's operation. In fact, SDMB has twice 

initiated an FAA Part 16 action against HCDA as a part of their ongoing efforts to prevent HCDA from 

removing them from a hangar at CRE due to their refusal to enter into a new space use permit after their prior 

permit expired. 

In that regard, SDMB has engaged in a pattern of harassment and delay that Includes filing suit in the 

South Carolina courts against both HCDA and individual HCDA employees, and appealing a court order for 

eviction where SDMB admitted that its prior space use permit had expired and that SDMB refused to sign a 

new permit even though one had been offered. Though SDMB has lost every single substantive legal 

argument it has submitted, including the dismissal of the civil action against the individual employees, the 

1100 Jetport Road • Myrtle Boach, SC 29577 • P 843 448 1580 • F 843 626 9096 • www FlyMyrtloBcach com 

- ... "''"'*.t m•n• 
order for eviction of SDMB from CRE, and most recently, their request to prevent HCDA from enforcing 

HCDA's Minimum Standards for operating at CRE against them, SDMB continues to file frivolous legal 

arguments and occupy space at CRE without any legal right. 

In May of 2014, IICDA adopted Minimum Standards for aeronautical service providers operating at 

CRE, and included requirements applicable to all aeronautical operations at CRE. These Minimum Standards 

expressly include commercial skydiving operations. Though SDMB attempted to enjoin the enforcement of 

the Minimum Standards at a recent hearing In a South Carolina state court action, their arguments were 

rejected by the Coul't A l:opy of the Minimum Sl.cuu.lards, as amended in January 2015, is attached as Exhibit 

A. 

Additionally, and in conjunction with the FAA's air traffic control staff in the Myrtle Beach (MYR) 

tower, HCDA has sought to enter into a new letter of agreement (LOA) among SDMB, FAA, HCDA, the CRE 

tower and Jacksonville air traffic control with respect to SDMB's skydiving operations. In June of 2014, 

representative!; nf each party, along with the FAA's Flight Standards Jlistrict Office, met at MYR to try tn 

resolve the remaining open issues with respect to the LOA. SDMB objected to certain provisions, notably, a 

provision that would impose successive penalties on SDMB for failure to comply with existing policies, 

including VPDs, but a compromise was reached that was acceptable to all parties. However, when a revised 

LOA reflecting those terms was circulated, SDMB objected, refused to sign, and refused to address the issues 

further. 

SDMB's refusal to sign documents and pattern of unsafe operations at CRE does not just apply to the 

LOA and the permit to allow SDMB to occupy a hangar, but also includes their refusal to sign a ramp 

agreement to allow temporary relocation of their aircraft during a federally-funded $3.1 million ramp 

Improvement project and SDMB's repeated Interference with the project Ultimately, In order to proceed 

with the project, HCDA was forced to obtain an order from a South Carolina court requiring SDMB to enter 

into the ramp agreement and prohibiting SDMB from interfering with the ramp construction. Nevertheless, 

SDMB ignored the court order by making unapproved revisions to the ramp agreement and by repeatedly 

interfering in the construction area, even going so far as to remove fencing and roll their aircraft directly 

through a construction area that had been milled to a depth of approximately 16H. As a result of SDMB's 

actions, HCDA was forced to hire night time security to monitor the construction site and install TSA 

approved fence locks to prevent future unauthorized entry or deviations from HCDA's FAA-approved 

Construction Safety Plan. As a result of these actions, SD MB is currently facing a contempt hearing in the 

South Carolina courts. 

In light of the ongoing Part 16 action and because skydiving is an aeronautical activity under federal 

law, SDMB has been allowed to continue operating at CRE during the pendency of these legal actions. 

Virtually every communication HCDA attempts with SDMB with regard to the multiple issues raised by 

SDMB's ongoing violations and unsafe operations is cited by SDMB as further evidence of discrimination by 

HCDA. SDMB has made no effort to modify its activities or operations. Rather, SDMB simply denies that any 

incursions have occurred, asserting that skydivers are not pedestrians, even when they are walking on the 

ground, and therefore there can be no VPDs involving skydivers crossing an active runway or taxiway. 

Nevertheless, HCDA staff has provided driver training to certain SDMB staff at CRE, HCDA has provided SDMB 

with the Minimum Standards and offered SDMB the opportunity to comment during a "town hall" 

consultation session for all occupants and tenants of CRE, and SDMB has been provided with copies of 

incident reports detailing safety incidents involving SDMB skydivers. Despite all these actions by HCDA, VPDs 

related to SDMB's operations continue. 

Based upon the regular and frequent instances of failure of SDMB skydivers to land within the LZ at 

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

imposed at CRE to address and prevent further serious incidents. HCDA also recognizes, however, that it 

cannot act unilaterally to impose restrictions on provision of an aeronautical activity, and that the FAA has 

the final judgment in determining what restrictions may be imposed due to safety concerns. Accordingly, 

HCDA would like to meet with FAA staff to propose a range of potential safety restrictions on skydiving at 

CRE, including the following: 

1. closing the LZ at CRE and relocating all such parachute landings to a remote location away from 

CRE where interference with aircraft traffic at CRE can be minimized or eliminated (HCDA's 

preferred alternative); 
2. permitting HCDA to bar SDMB from operating if SDMB continues to violate HCDA rules and 

regulations; 

3. permitting operations only in low wind conditions; 

4. requiring that all skydivers either hold a U.S. Parachute Association license demonstrating a 

certain minimum level of skill, or skydive as tandem jumpers. 

We suggest that appropriate FAA and HCDA staff meet prompdy to discuss these alternatives, as well 

as any other suggestions that FAA may have to address the continuing safet;y issues raised by the inability of 

SDMB's skydivers to land within the LZ.In addition, HCDA has been forced to commence issuance of 

monetary penalties against SDMB for violations of the Minimum Standards to promote compliance with the 

Minimum Standards. HCDA anticipates that SDMB will claim that such penalties amount to further 

discrimination against their operations. 

Set forth below are sped fit: responses to each of the questions posed in your Letter of Inquiry. 

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

movement area. They are attached as Exhibit B. In addition, the Minimum Standards both 

incorporate those rules and regulations by reference, but also contain numerous requirements 

that have been violated by SDMB. The Minimum Standards apply to all persons using or 

operating CRE. See the introduction and Section 3. They regulate operations, vehicular 

operation on the atrstde, and skydiving specifically. See Sections 3, 4 and 6(H). They also 

provide for a variety of sanctions for their violation, ranging from monetary penalties to 

suspension of operations for various periods, escalating as the frequency of violations increases. 

See Section 10. 

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

relating to safe operations at CRE, including aeronautical operations that include skydiving. 

SDMB has been provided with the Minimum Standards and SDMB has commented upon them. 

3. CRE conducts regular driver training sessions for persons operating vehicles inside the fence of 

the airside at CRE. Certain SDMB staff have participated in such training. Starting in 2015 

training session are conducted at a minimum of twice a year, or upon request by a tenant or 

operator. So far, HCDA has offered three classes in April, 2015. HCDA invites FAA staff annually 

to hold a safety event at MYR covering a wide variety of topics relating to aviation safety. 

Although in past years the FAA has covered skydiving, the 2015 meeting did not address this 

topic. 

4. VIolations of the Minimum Standards are enforced through a written notice from the Director to 

the violator. For serious violations, the Director may issue a cease and desist order. For less 

serious violations, the Minimum Standards allow for fines of up to $500 per occurrence, or in 

operating suspensions ranging from a 24-hour bar for the first infraction within a 12-month 

period, to a permanent ban on operating at CRE for the fourth (or more) violation of the 

Minimum Standards. 

5. Partly in response to the VPDs, HCDA adopted and publicized the Minimum Standards. It also 

provided copies of the existing rules and regulations regarding crossing active movement areas 

on the airfield to SDMB and instructed SDMB to inform its customers of these requirements. As 

noted above, HCDA has regularly conducted driver training at CRE. 
HCDA shares the FAA's concern regarding the VPDs resulting from the errant skydivers operating at 

CRE. We suggest that HCDA and FAA working together can develop additional means to ensure that all 

aeronautical operations at CRE can be undertaken in a safe manner, and we look fotward to meeting with you 

and your colleagues to explore additional measures that we can take together. In the meantime, if I can be of 

further assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Cc: Winsome A Lenfert 

Steven Hicks 

Larry Clark 

Ricarldo Washington 

Arrigo Carotti, Esq. 

Jason Terreri, AAE 

David Y. Bannard, Esq. 

;!y, fhvxt7 . PatAp~~r' '~ Airport Director, Horry County 

Department of Airports 
U.S. Dopartm01 11 

of Tronsporlalion 

Federal Aviation 

Administrallon 

MAY 0 6 Z015 

Flight Standards District Olfice 

CERTIFII~D MAIL RECEIPT: 7014 3490 0000 sg<;J 2876 

Mr. Aaron Holly 

Sk.ydivc Myrtle Beach 

2800 Terminal Street 

North Myrtle Bench, SC 29582 

Dear Mr. I lolly: 

125-B Summer Lake Drive 

West Columbia, SC 29170 

This letter is in rcll:rcnce to a numhct' or notilications to which this office has been made 

party. These growing numbers of notilications primarily entail parachute operations in 

which parachutists egressing aircran opc:rutcd by Sky Dive Myrtle Beach are reportedly 

landing in areas other than the landing zone as outlined in your Letter of Agreement with Air 

Traf'tic Control and the Hony County Department or Airports. 

That Lctlcr or Agreement, dated May 11, 2012 nnd to which your company is a signatory 

clearly stales in Section 5. Procedures, (A) (5) 11Skydive Myrtle Beaclt Jml'llclmli.-.t are 

authorized to land in the deji11ed "L(IIu/ing Zone" only ..... " Prudence would almost 

certainly dictnlc that this arliclc or the agreement to which you arc signutory w<ts designed 

ond instulled into the Letter of Agreement in order to ensure not just the salcty or ~my 

jumpers which your aircrall might discharge, but also to protect the safely or persons and 

properly on the ground. 

This orticc has received information which indicates that since March 15. 2015 on at least ten 

di!Terent occasions jumpc1·s discharged from Skydivc Myrtle Bcuch uircmft. h<tvc landed 

outside the designated Landing Zone ns dclincd in your Letter of Agreement. These 

instances in which jumpers huvc landed outside or the agreed upon Landing Zone nrc ckarly 

a brc<Lch or the above mentioned uri iclc of the Letter of Agreement; moreover, they appeor to 

constitute in their number and on the basis of their repetitive nature, an egregious and callous 

disregard lor the safety of' not only the jumpers, but the safety and security of persons and 

pmperty on the ground. 

This violation of the uforcmenlioned Letter of /\grcemenl and the subsequent evident 

Jisregard I(Jr the we11-being of persons and properly represents an intolerable hazard and 

thr;:sc events must be diminished or eradicated wilhout delay in the intcn:sl or operational and 

public sa fi::ty. ll is solely the responsibility of your operation to determine the source or these 

aberrant and unauthorized lamlings and to exercise due diligence in correcting the root 

problem. regurdlcss or its etiology. 

Stl'il'illg.fiN' flel/eclicm - Nea.~e siiCm: your thuughl.l' wi1l1 11:>. 

Stakeholder Feedback 1·-orm 

fltlp:i!www. Hm.g(•v/alwul/o f'ficc org/hcadquarlcrs n fliccs/avs/olliccsluiS/qms 
2 

ll is clearly in the interest or all parties concerned, and more urgently in the interest of 

operational satcty, that this onlce would like to make available to you, solely at your 

discretion. the ofticc of the South Carolina FAASafctyTeam Program Manager. The Safety 

Program Managet·, Freddie Kaiser is available, in a completely non-regulatory role to provide 

you and your staff on site with educational programs focusing on basic safety requirements 

and methods, creating safe operating habits, crew briefings and landing zone issues, etc. 

The acceptance or rejection of the educational services of the South Carolina 

FAASafetyTcam Program manager is solely at your discretion. If you choose to avail 

yourself of this service. this otlicc will coordinate with you the safety education options 

which Mr. Kaiser can provide. 

Please provide this orfice, in wt·iting, with your decision no later than May 15, 2015. If you 

choose to decline this offer of safely education. you will be expected to provide an alternate 

means of correcting this clear safely deficit by the same date. 

I look forward to your response. 

Sincerely. I 

.. 1 / / ;I / 1 ... /_II t: ., . i 

I l1.,1 1 

-'Gary M. Pendleton 

Front Line Marmger, Operations 

South Corolino FSDO 

= "l 
Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Memorandum 

Date: August 4, 2015 

Tn: John G. McCartney, Director 

Ail· Traftic Opemtions. Eastern Service Area. South. AJT -ES 

From: Michael D. Wagner. Munugc1· ~~~~.Lu~ Eastern Service Center (ESC). Quality Control Group (QCG), A.IV -E I 

Suhjc<.:t: Audit of Pnrac.hute Operations in th~ Myrtle Be<K~h. South Carolina Area 

The ESC, QCG has condllcted an audit on Parachute Operations in the Myrtle Beach. South 

Carolina (SC) area. QCG found that the "SkydiW! 1\(vrt/e Beac/1" Compm1y is in violation of 

the I .cucr of Agreement (I .OA) with the Federal A vialion Administration ( F AI\) Air Trame 

Control Tower (ATCf) at the Grand Strand Airport (CRE). 

The Skydive My11le Beach parachutist jump operation incidents arc numerous at the Grand 

Strand Airport. Title 14, Part I 05 states: ''No person may conduct a pamchllle operation. and 

no pilol in c:ommand t~f'an aircrt{/i may a/loll' a paraclmle opera/ion to he cmldm:ted.fi·om em 

(lircrt{/i. !f'that OJ](~ration creates a hazard to air lrt{f/k or to persons or property on /he 

sw:/{1ce . .. Skydive Myrtle Beach is not in compliance with the LOA by consistently violating 

the landing :t:one panunetcrs. This violation is a disregard for the \1

Vell-being or persons and 

property that represents an intolerable hazurd ~mel these events must be diminished or 

eradicated without delay in th~:: interest or operational and public sufcty. 

Skydivc My11lc Beach is a parachute jumping school that has an operation based at the Grand 

Strand Airport (CRE). in My1·t1e Beach SC. The LOA is between: 

• Horry County Department of Airports 

• Skydivc Myrtle Beach 

• Grand Strand ATCT (CRE) 

• Myrtle Beach ATCT (MYR) 
The LOA establishes procedures and responsibilities for conducting skydiving/non-emergency 

parachute operations in Myrtle Beach ATCT (MYR) and Grand Strand ATCT (C'RE) airspace 

and on Grand Strand Airport. There arc two attachments to the LOA imlicuting the .lump Zone 

and the Lunding Zone which is on the nirport property. 

The jumpers that have landed outside or the agreed upon Landing Zone m~.: clearly a breach of 

the LOA: moreover. they appear to constitute in their number and on the busis of their repetitive 

nature, an egregious and insensitive disreg:urd l(lr the safety or not only the jumpers but the 

safety ~md security of persons and property on the ground. Spccilically. we have documented 

thirty-nine operations through Mandatory Occurrence Ret)Orts (MOR's). since March 15.2015. 

where the jumpers landed outside or the Landing Zone as depicted in the I .OA. There were also 

eight (8) Pedestrian Deviation Reports tiled during the same timelhunc. The breakdown of these 

thirty-nine operations is us follows: 

• Total number ofjumpers outside of the Landing Zone- 54 

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

• Total number ol'jump landings that impacted other trartic at CRE- 4 

• Totul number of operntions that landed off the Orand Strand Airport property- 9 

Additionally. on July 25.2015. there were nine (9)jumpers that missed the Landing Zone and 

two (2) of these landed on the movement area. Jumpers have actually walked on the active 

movement area crossing to xi ways and rumvuys. 

Mr. Glen Ray, CRE Air Tmffic Manager (A TM). advised tlmt there have been a number or 

meetings and phone conversations with Skydivc Myrtle Beach to discuss the Landing Zone 

concerns. The landing zone is an men represented by approximately 450 feel long by 150 feet 

wide parallel to taxiway Alpha and 75 feel from the edge of the Fix Base Operator (FBO). This 

is extremely close to arcus of operation from moving vehiclcs/uircrul\. 

Skyc.livc Myrtle Beach instructs their jumpers if they land outside the l.anding Zone, nnd huve to 

cross the movement area to return to the Landing Zone. to call and a vehicle will be dispatched 

to pick them up. This is accomplished with communication betwc~n the Tower and the ground 

vehicle on the Ground Control frequency. 

Mr. Ray further advised that Skydive Myrtle Beach has always participated in a conli·ontational 

posture with minimal results when trying to resolve this situation. As a result. the ATM 

currently coordinates with Skydivc Myrtle Beach via e-mail. 

In addition. Mr. Ray advised that the Air Trallic Conli'Ollers at CRE are awart! of the Landing 

Zone concerns and plan their air tral'lic control operations around the jumpers by dclttying other 

aircrall. The workforce ensures other airport users such as Danner Towers. Hdicoptcr Sight 

Seeing Tours and General Aviation m·e awme of the jumpers and their proximity. Salcty is 

compromised with every 11011-compliuntlanding outsid<;: the Landing Zone. Other impacts to the 

National Airspace System (NAS) us the t\TM advised nrc possible delays to other airport users 

univing or departing to ensure a safe operation and protect the jumpers. Mr. Ray stated that the 

tmftic count during the spring and summer months rung~ fi·om 300 to 600 opcnllions duily. 
Ms. Patricia A pone. I lorry County Director of Airports. and Mr. Jason Terreri. Assistant 

Director of Airports. have advised that there hnve been m1mcrous complaints from other CRE 

users and the City or My11le Beach. Tht: complaints ranged fmm delays hoth into and out of 

CRE. conllictions with jumpers landing on the movement areas. and landing oiT the airport 

without permission. (Sec Attachment) 

Flight Stand~wds District Oflicc (FSDO) in Columbia. SC tried to make an effort to reach muto 

provide some safety U'aining to the Skydivc Myrtle Beach personnel. This training was to 

provide educational programs locusing on basic safety requirements and methods. creating sale 

operation habits. crew briclings and landing zones. This otTer \vas never accepted. 

' ·' 

There have been numerous meetings and efforts of~;:ngagcmcnt from Runwny Sulety (RS). Flight 

Standm·ds District Onice (FSDO). Airports District Ortice (ADO). Southcm Regional 

Administrators Office. and the ESC, Operations Support Group (OSU) and QCU. 

ESC. QCG recommends that the LOA be termina\cd immediately until all parties can meet to 

mitigate the unsafe operation. The Skydivc Myrtle Beach Company has been notili~;:d ofthcir 

llllll-cumpliancc without correcting the situation. CFR Thlc 14 Section 105.25 '"Parachute 

Operations in designate airspace", Paragraph (c), ··The FAA may revoke the acceptance of the 

notitication 1()1' any failure or the organization conducting the puruchutc operations to comply 

with it requirements··. 

Atlachmcnts: 

• Letter of Agreement: Non-Emergency Parachute Operations at North Myrtle Beach. SC 

• Grand Strand, SC AirpOI't Diagram 

• Brieling Summary for CRE Parachute .lump Activity 

• Mandatm·y Occurrence Report (MOR) Data 

• Mandatory Occurrence Report (MOR) Data Ji·om July 25. 2015 

• Vehicle or Pedestrian Deviation Reports 

• FSDO Letter to Skydive Myrtle Beach oflcring !mining 

• Parachute .lump I .og 

• Title 14: Acronuutics and Space, Part I 05 - J>unichutc Operations 

• 1-lorry County Department or Airports Unusual Incident Reports 

cc: Terry Locke. Deputy Director. Air Trnl'lic Op!!rations. Eastern Service Area. South. A.IT-I·:S 

Dianne Sanders. Manager. ESC. QCCI. Operational E\'aluations South Team. A.IV -E 14 

Joseph Kann. Manager. ESC, QC(i, Opwllionul Evaluations North Tc<~m. A.IV-E 13 

Willinm M. Alexander. Director. Eastern Service Center. Air Traflic Organization. AJV-E