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 ofthe 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 oftheir 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 sameconclusions 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 ofwhat 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 StrandAirport) datedApril7, 2015

Dear Ms. Haney:
This letteris in responseto your Letter ofInquiry (Grand Strand Airport) dated April 7, 2015 which I receivtld unApril13, 2015. The Hurry County Departmentu£Airports (HCDA), as owner and operator of Grand StrandAirport (CRE), sharesyour concern regardingthe number ofVehicle or Pedestrian Deviations (VPDs) thathave occurred at CRE since November 10, 2013. ItIs Important to note that each andevery VPD Is related to 

### one operator, thatbeing Slcydlve MyrUe Beach (SDMB), which operates a commercial sl(ydlvlng business at CRE. Though HCDA has undertaken a series ofactions as discussed in more detail below, the only real reduction in the numberofVPDs and otherincidents involving skydivers occurred during a time period in which SDMB was only operating sporadicallydue totheirturnover in aircraftand maintenance issues (October 2014-February 2015). Recently SDMB has resumed full operation, and numerous VPDs are once again beingreported. In fact, attached to this letteris another incidentreport from April 21, 2015 documenting an errantSDMB skydiverrunning across an active runwayin front ofan aircraft thatwas attempting

### to land. Each and every one ofthe cited VPDs involves one ormore skydivers, and in each case, the skydiver in question failed to land withinthe designated landing zone (LZ) atCRE. Since thevery first VPD, HCDA staff has repeatedlyoffered training, warnings, and provided SDMB with copies ofthepolicy applicable atCRE that prohibits crossing an active runway ortaxiwaywithoutpermission from the control towerduringtower operatinghours. In the spring of2014, and as the direct resultofmultiple VPDs and otherincidents involving errantlandings ofskydivers atCRE, HCDA began collecting data regarding safety incidents at CRE to better identify potential causes ofsuchincidents. To date, morethan

### IJOo/o ofthe safety incident reports occurringat CRE hasrelated to anincidentinvolving one ormore skydivers associated with SDMB. Though HCDA has repeatedlyattemptedto work with SDMB to preventrecurrence ofsuch incidents, as the sole operator ofa commercial skydiving operation at CRE, SDMB claims discrimination everytime HCDA takes anyaction to alleviate safety issues concerning SDMB's operation. In fact, SDMB has twice initiated an FAA Part 16 action against HCDA as a partoftheir ongoing efforts 

### to preventHCDA from removingthem from a hangarat CRE dueto theirrefusal to enterinto a new space usepermitaftertheirprior permitexpired. In thatregard, SDMB has engaged in a pattern ofharassmentand delaythatIncludes filing suitin the South Carolina courts againstboth HCDA and individual HCDA employees, and appealing a court orderfor eviction where SDMB admitted thatits prior space use permithad expired and that SDMB refused to sign a newpermiteven though one hadbeen offered. Though SDMB has lost every single substantivelegal argumentithas submitted, includingthe dismissal ofthe civil action againstthe individual employees, the

1100 Jetport Road • Myrtle Boach, SC 29577 • P843 448 1580 • F 843 626 9096 • www FlyMyrtloBcach com 

### - 

# ... "''"'*.t m•n•orderfor eviction ofSDMB from CRE, and mostrecently, theirrequest to prevent HCDA from enforcing HCDA's Minimum Standards for operatingatCRE againstthem, SDMB continues to file frivolous legal arguments and occupy space atCRE withoutanylegal 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 expresslyinclude commercial skydiving operations. Though SDMB attempted to enjoin the enforcement of the Minimum Standards ata recenthearing In a South Carolina statecourt action, theirarguments were rejected by the Coul't A l:opy ofthe Minimum Sl.cuu.lards, as amended inJanuary 

### 2015, is attached as Exhibit A. Additionally, and in conjunction with the FAA's airtraffic control staffin the Myrtle Beach (MYR) tower, HCDA has soughtto enterinto a new letterofagreement (LOA) among SDMB, FAA, HCDA, the CRE tower and Jacksonville air traffic control with respectto SDMB's skydiving operations. In June of

### 2014, representative!; nfeach party, along with the FAA's Flight Standards Jlistrict Office, metatMYR to 

### trytn resolve the remaining open issues with respectto the LOA. SDMB objected to certain provisions, notably, a provision thatwould impose successive penalties on SDMB for failure to comply with existingpolicies, including VPDs, but a compromise was reached thatwas acceptable to all parties. However, when a revised LOA reflectingthose terms was circulated, SDMB objected, refused to sign, andrefused to address the issues further. SDMB's refusal to sign documents and pattern ofunsafe operations at CRE does notjustapplyto the LOA and the permitto allow SDMB to occupy a hangar, butalso includes theirrefusal to sign a ramp agreementto allowtemporaryrelocation oftheiraircraft during a federally-funded $3.1 million ramp Improvement projectand SDMB's repeated Interference with the project Ultimately, In orderto proceed withthe project, HCDA was forced to obtain an orderfrom a South Carolina courtrequiring SDMB to enter into the ramp agreementand prohibiting SDMB from interferingwith the ramp construction. Nevertheless, SDMB ignored the court orderbymakingunapproved revisionsto theramp agreementand byrepeatedly interfering in the construction area, evengoing so far as to remove fencing androll their aircraft directly through a construction area thathadbeenmilled to a depth ofapproximately 16H. As a resultofSDMB's actions, HCDA was forced to hire nighttime securityto monitorthe construction site and install TSA approved fence locks to preventfuture unauthorized entry ordeviations from HCDA's FAA-approved Construction Safety Plan. 

### As a result ofthese actions, SDMB is currentlyfacing a contempthearingin the South Carolina courts. In light ofthe ongoing Part 16 action and because skydiving is an aeronautical activity under federal law, SDMB has been allowed to continue operatingatCRE duringthependency ofthese legal actions. Virtually everycommunication HCDA attempts with SDMB withregard to the multiple issues raised by SDMB's ongoing violations and unsafe operations is cited by SDMB as further evidence ofdiscrimination by HCDA. SDMB has made no effortto modify its activities or operations. Rather, SDMB simplydenies that any incursions have occurred, asserting that skydivers are notpedestrians, even when they arewalking onthe ground, and therefore there can beno VPDs involving skydivers crossing an active runwayortaxiway. Nevertheless, HCDA staffhas provided drivertrainingto certain SDMB staffat CRE, HCDA has provided SDMB with the Minimum Standards and offered SDMB the opportunityto commentduringa "townhall" consultation session for all occupants and tenants ofCRE, and SDMB has been provided with copies of incidentreports 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 offailure ofSDMB skydivers to land within the LZ at CRE, HCDA believes thatadditional safety measures, includingrestrictions on SDMB's operations, mustbe imposedatCRE to address and preventfurther seriousincidents. HCDA also recognizes, however, thatit cannot actunilaterallyto impose restrictions on provision ofan aeronautical activity, and thatthe FAA has the final judgmentin determiningwhatrestrictions maybe imposed due to safety concerns. Accordingly, HCDA would like

### to meetwith FAA staffto propose a range ofpotential safetyrestrictions on skydiving at CRE, including the following: 1. closing the LZ atCRE and relocating all suchparachutelandings to a remotelocation away from CRE where interference with aircrafttraffic at CRE can be minimized or eliminated (HCDA's preferred alternative);2. permitting HCDA tobarSDMB from operatingifSDMB continues toviolate HCDA rules and regulations; 3. permitting operations onlyin lowwind conditions; 4. requiringthat all skydivers eitherhold a U.S. ParachuteAssociation license demonstratinga certain minimum level ofskill, orskydive as tandemjumpers. We suggestthatappropriate FAA and HCDA staffmeetprompdyto discuss these alternatives, as well as any other suggestions that FAA mayhave to address the continuing safet;y issues raised bythe inability of SDMB's skydivers to land within the LZ.In addition, HCDA has beenforced to commence issuance of monetarypenalties against SDMB for violations ofthe Minimum Standards to promote compliance withthe Minimum Standards. HCDA anticipates that SDMB will claim thatsuch penalties amountto further discrimination againsttheir operations. Set forth below are sped fit: responses to each ofthe questions posed inyour LetterofInquiry. 1. CRE has rules and regulations regardingthe management ofground 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, butalso contain numerous requirements thathave been violated by SDMB. The Minimum Standards applyto all persons using or operating CRE. See the introduction and Section 3. They regulate operations, vehicular operation onthe atrstde, and skydiving specifically. See Sections 3, 4 and 6(H). They also provide for a variety ofsanctions for theirviolation, ranging from monetarypenalties to suspension ofoperationsfor various periods, escalating as thefrequency ofviolations increases

. See Section 10. 2. One ofthepurposes ofadoptingthe Minimum Standardswasto clearly statetherequirements relatingto safe operations at CRE, including aeronautical operationsthatinclude skydiving. SDMB has been provided with the Minimum Standards and SDMB has commenteduponthem. 3. CRE conducts regulardrivertraining sessions for persons operatingvehicles inside the fence of the airside at CRE. Certain SDMB staffhave participated in such training. Starting in 2015 training session are conducted ata minimum oftwice a year, orupon requestby a tenant or operator. So far, HCDA has offered three classes in April, 2015. HCDA invites FAA staffannually to hold a safety eventatMYR covering a widevarietyoftopics relatingto aviation safety. Although in pastyears theFAA has covered skydiving, the 2015 meeting did notaddress this topic. 4. VIolations oftheMinimum Standards are enforced through a written notice from the Director to theviolator. For serious violations, the Director mayissue a ceaseand desistorder. Forless serious violations, the Minimum Standards allowforfines ofup to $500peroccurrence, orin operating suspensions ranging from a 24-hourbarfor the first infractionwithin a 12-month period, to a permanentban on operating at CRE for the fourth (ormore) violation ofthe Minimum Standards. 5

. Partlyin response to the VPDs, HCDA adopted and publicized theMinimum Standards. Italso provided copies ofthe existingrules and regulations regarding crossing active movementareas onthe airfield to SDMB and instructed SDMB to inform its customers oftheserequirements. As noted above, HCDA has regularly conducted drivertraining at CRE.HCDA shares the FAA's concernregardingtheVPDs resulting from the errantskydivers operatingat CRE. We suggestthat HCDA andFAA workingtogether can develop additional means to ensurethat all aeronautical operations at CRE canbe undertaken in a safe manner, andwelook fotward to meetingwith you andyour colleagues to explore additional measures thatwe can taketogether. In the meantime, ifI can be of further assistance in anyway, please do nothesitate to contactme.

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 ofAirportsU

.S

. Dopartm01 11 of Tronsporlalion Federal Aviation Administrallon



## MAY 06Z015 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. Ilolly: 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 ofAgreement 

### with Air Traf'tic Control and the 

### Hony County Department 

### orAirports. 

### That Lctlcr or Agreement, dated May 11, 2012 nnd to which 

### your company is a signatory clearly stales 

### in Section 5. 

### Procedures, (A) (5) 11 

### Skydive 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 ofthe 

### Letter of 

### Agreement; moreover, they appeor to 

### constitute in their number and on the basis oftheir 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 safi::ty. 

### ll is solely the responsibility ofyour 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 nfliccs/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 ofcorrecting 

### this clear 

### safely deficit 

### by the same 

### date. 

### I look forward to your response. Sincerely. I


# .. 1 / / 

# ;I /_ II / 1

... 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 ofPnrac.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 ofAgreement 

### (I .OA) with the Federal Avialion Administration (

### F AI\) Air 

### Trame Control Tower 

### (ATCf) at the Grand Strand Airport (CRE). 

### The Skydive My11le 

### Beach parachutistjump 

### operation incidents arc numerous at the Grand Strand Airport. Title 14, 

### Part I05 states: ''No

### person may conduct a pamchllle operation. and no pilol in c:ommand

**t~f'an** 

### aircrt{/i may a/loll' aparaclmle 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 orproperty 

### 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 

# oroperational and public sufcty. Skydivc My11lc Beach is a parachutejumping school that has an operation based at the Grand Strand Airport (CRE). in My1·t1e Beach SC. The 

### LOA is between:



### • Horry County Department ofAirports
• 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. Thejumpers that have landed outside 

# orthe agreed upon Landing Zone

**m~.:** 

### clearly a breach of the LOA: moreover. they appear to constitute in their number and on the busis oftheir repetitive nature, an egregious and insensitive disreg:urd l(lr the safety ornot only the jumpers but the safety

**~md** 

### security ofpersons and property on the ground. Spccilically. we have documented thirty-nine operations through Mandatory Occurrence Ret)Orts (MOR's). since March 15.2015. 

### where thejumpers 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 ofthese thirty-nine operations is us follows:
• Total number ofjumpers outside ofthe 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 ofoperntions that landed offthe Orand Strand Airport property- 9 Additionally. on July 25.2015. 

### there were nine (9)jumpers that missed the Landing Zone and two (2) ofthese landed on the movement area. Jumpers have actually walked on the active movement area crossing toxi ways and rumvuys. Mr. Glen Ray, CRE Air Tmffic Manager (ATM). 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 ofthe Fix Base Operator (FBO). This is extremely close to arcus ofoperation from moving vehiclcs/uircrul\. Skyc.livc Myrtle Beach instructs theirjumpers ifthey 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! ofthe 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 ofthejumpers 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 thejumpers. 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. Ilorry County Director ofAirports. and Mr. Jason Terreri. Assistant Director ofAirports. 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 withjumpers 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 ofthe notitication 1()1' 

### any failure 

# or the organization conducting the puruchutc operations to comply with it requirements··. Atlachmcnts:
• Letter ofAgreement: 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 I05

- J>unichutc Operations
• 1-lorry County Department 

# orAirports 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