FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 

SKYDIVE MYRTLE BEACH, INC., 

Complainant, 

vs. 

HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

AIRPORTS, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

_______________________________ ) 

FAA Docket No.: 16-14-05 

COMPLAINANT'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 

Background. 

Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc., (SDMB) is a successor interest in Skydive Myrtle 

Beach, LLC, organized in 2012 to promote skydiving and conduct skydiving operations at 

the Grand Strand Airport (GSA) in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. As a disabled 

veteran owned business, SDMB prides itself in operating a professional, safe, and cutting 

edge full-service parachute operation, that operates within all applicable rules, 

regulations, industry standards, and training. It desires to deliver and create new 

standards of safety and professionalism for the industry. At all times, SDMB has operated 

within the governing Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), United States Parachute 

Association (USPA), and manufacturer statutory, regulatory, and published guidance. 

Harry County Department of Airports (HCDA) owns and operates in Harry County, 

South Carolina, and manages four airports: Myrtle Beach International, (MYR), Grand 

Strand Airport (GSA), Conway Airport, and Loris Airport. On information and belief, it 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd.fin 1 
leases commercial hangar space at each of its airports, sells fuel, rents commercial tenant 

space, oversees maintenance and other aviation and non-related activities at each 

airport. 

SDMB's Part 16 Complaint comes before the FAA under the authority granted by 

Congress pursuant to 49 USC§ 40103. HCDA receives federal funding and must operate 

in a manner consistent with federal law, namely without unjust discrimination pursuant to 

Grant Assurance 22. HCDA admits that "claims of 'harassment' are paired with claims of 

'discrimination' under Grant Assurance 22, [and] may be considered together". See 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss at 

page 19, citing Roadhouse Aviation v. City of Tulsa & the Tulsa Airports Improvement 

Trust, FAA Docket No. 16-05-08, 32-33 (Dec. 14, 2006). 

Since SDMB filed its Part 16 Complaint on July 1, 2014, new evidence has 

surfaced clearly indicating HCDA's intent was to remove SDMB from Hangar 7 in order 

to rehabilitate the GSA ramp. 

ISSUES 

The underlying issues were and remain: 1) HCDA intended to remove SDMB from 

GSA utilizing whatever means possible 1; 2) HCDA has continuously refused to permit 

SDMB to relocate from Hangar 7 to an available fully serviceable hangar at the north end 

of GSA Hangar 1; 3) ignoring Part 105 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

HCDA continues to interfere with parachute operations by unreasonably restricting and 

reporting authorized parachute drops through spurious enforcement mechanisms; and 4) 

HCDA is also attempting to remove Banner Tow from the hangars adjacent and connected to 

Hangar 7. Banner Tow has also refused to enter into the new permit terms set forth in HCDA's Space Use Permit. 

140825.sdmb.part 16. response .mtd. fin 2 
HCDA continues its pattern of harassment and interference of SDMB's aeronautical 

activity. 

STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS2 

During its skydiving operations from Aprii2012-September 2013, SDMB received 

no complaints. In late August 2013, HCDA purchased Ramp 66's management interest 

and notified SDMB that a new lease would be necessary between it and HCDA to 

continue operations at GSA. In good faith, SDMB entered into a temporary Space Use 

Permit agreement with HCDA for no more than a six-month period (Initial Permit). See 

Exhibit 2. The Initial Permit required a monthly payment of $1,200.00 for Hangar 7. The 

Initial Permit was intended to be a "bridge term" that would permit the statutorily required 

Harry County Council3 readings and acceptance of the Initial Permit for a final long-term 

lease. No long-term lease has ever been presented to SDMB by HCDA. 

Sometime in October 2013, HCDA notified the GSA tenant's and advised them 

that the north half of the Airport would undergo re-surfacing . HCDA notified SDMB that it 

would be necessary to relocate the landing zone (LZ) to the southern end of the airport in 

front of the ATC sometime in the future. 

During the period between October 2013 and February 2014, HCDA began to 

initiate a series of quasi-legal complaints against SDMB that increased in severity and 

frequency to the current point of harassment. 

2 SDMB incorporates by reference its recitation of facts and exhibits iterated and attached to its Part 

16 Complaint dated July 1, 2014, herein, and has attempted to present these additional facts in support of its 

Statement of Material Facts. 

3 At HCDA's Myrtle Beach Magistrate's Court hearing, Deputy County Attorney H. Randolph Haldl, 

testified that the Initial Permit had not been sent to the County Council by HCDA and it had "fallen through the 

cracks". A transcript of the hearing is not available at this time. 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd.fin 3 
Although the ATC has gas operated grill in plain view at its tower, HCDA lodged a 

complaint against SDMB for grilling but permitted the ATC to use its gas grill. 

SDMB has requested airport rules to abide by and has also attempted to meet the 

growing demands of HCDA. Other than changing oral admonitions from multiple HCDA 

managers stationed at MYR, no written rules have ever been provided. 

In October 2013, HCDA initially objected to SDMB's planned event due to security, 

crowd control, permit requirements and other HCDA rule concerns. In response, SDMB 

presented a detailed Operations Order. Following several meetings and email, the event 

took place with no further objection from HCDA. 

However at the event, HCDA sent two uniformed county policemen to observe the 

entire event. During the event, the police ordered SDMB to remove a meal truck, 

prohibited customer parking in the GSA terminal parking lot, limited ingress/egress to the 

south gate adjacent to the FBA and next to Hangar 7, prohibited alcoholic beverages and 

smoking on airport property by SDMB customers, and ensured that doors were closed at 

9:00 p.m. per the Operations Order. The police made no arrests. 

Following this event, HCDA airport manager, Tim Jackson, began to require GSA 

terminal employees to refuse mail and parcel delivery for any SDMB packages or mail 

requiring a signature. 

During the month of January 2014, SDMB aircraft was placed on increasing holds 

during jump runs and on ramp access. Additionally, pedestrian and golf cart "incursion" 

complaints were being alleged by HCDA with increasing frequency. SDMB stated it was 

in compliance with Part 105, industry standards, and associated FAA guidance, indicated 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd.fin 4 
its strict adherence to rules and regulations and demanded a meeting with HCDA and the 

ATC and requested the authority for the alleged violations. 

On February 5, 2014, a HCDA employee was observed trespassing SDMB's 

Hangar. The HCDA employee indicated he regularly went in the Hangar by removing the 

French links from the Hangar door and had authority to do so at any time for any reason. 

On February 7, 2014, a meeting between HCDA, ATC and SDMB took place at 

SDMBs request. During the meeting SDMB attempted to resolve issues relating to mail 

delivery, unauthorized hangar entry, alleged incursions, mail delivery interruptions, 

hangar maintenance and safety concerns, alleged rule violations, a new LOA and 

requested a status report on the long-term lease. With regard to the unauthorized entry, 

HCDA manager, Tim Jackson, refused to discuss the matter as it was "under 

investigation". Mr. Jackson also represented that he did instruct GSA employees to 

refuse parcel and mail for SDMB.

4 SDMB indicated that it would be required to file a 

police report for the unauthorized entries for insurance purposes but it did not intend to 

press charges or pursue the matter, only that it wanted the unauthorized practice to 

cease. A police report was filed. See SDMB's Part 16 Complaint (P16), Ex. 2, at 25-46. 

On February 19, 2014, HCDA, through its property manager and deputy county 

attorney, H. Randolph Haldi, notified SDMB that a long-term lease would not be 

forthcoming. See P16, Ex. 5, at 21-24. HCDA cited twelve rule violations and three 

ongoing violations in support of its denial but offered a new Space Use Permit with 

materially different terms, including, inter alia, the greater of$ 1,200.00 or 24% or gross 

Mr. Jackson requested correction to the prepared minutes In that only parcels and mail requiring 

signatures was to be rejected. See SDMB's Part 16 Complaint (P16}, Ex. 1, at 167. 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd.fin 5 
revenue per month use fee, restriction of skydiving activity to GSA property, additional 

rules and a 24 hour termination clause for any violation of the terms. /d. The new Space 

Use Permit would also expire on July 31, 2014, and was subject to a 72 hour take-it-orvacate deadline. /d. 

On Saturday, February 22, 2014, the HCDA deadline, two uniformed police officers 

and multiple HCDA staff gathered in the GSA FBA observing SDMB operations. 

On April 7, 2014, a letter from Foley and Lardner represented that the terms of a 

new Space Use Permit "were consistent with the fees charged other commercial 

operators at CRE." See P16, Ex. 3, at 23. (emphasis supplied). To avoid legal action, 

the new permit had to be accepted by April15 2014 (eight days). /d. 

By letter dated April28, 2014, HCDA, through its Boston attorneys, issued a Notice 

of Termination that included a thirty day deadline or May 27, 2014, to accept the Space 

Use Permit and thus avoid litigation. See P16, Ex3. at 19. 

On May 24, 2014, HCDA responding to an ATC email from manager Glenn Ray, 

filed an "Unusual Incident Report" alleging a parachutist's unauthorized crossing of an 

active runway and taxiway. See P16 Ex. 2, at 12.

5 Each of these reports were initiated 

by alleged ATC "Mandatory Occurrence Reports6". 

5 Despite multiple requests, no other written allegations of violations from HCDA have been 

provided to SDMB. As such these "Mandatory Occurrence Reports" from the ATC or other "Unusual Incident 

Reports" by the county other than this have been provided to SDMB. 

6 During the June 25, 2014, LOA meeting, ATC manager Glenn Ray stated the multiple incident 

reports were requested by HCDA. HCDA stated that its reports were a result of ATC and FAA complaints and the 

source of its "safety concerns". Both HCDA and ATC are justifying the need for "safety violations" based on the 

request the other. This bootstrapping of subjective observations styled as safety violations and reporting appears 

to be a procedure for GSA only and no other commercial enterprise has been cited under this system. On July 8, 

2014, SDMB requested this policy, all violations, and any reports generated by this system in its discovery request 

to HCDA. HCDA has not provided any documents to date. 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mld.fin 6 
On May 28, 2014, HCDA objected to the twenty-two delay, renewed its offer but 

indicated that rejection would require SDMB to "immediately vacate all premises it 

occupies at CRE and remove its aircraft from the airport.'' See P16 Ex. 3 at 14-15, 

(emphasis supplied). 

On June 2, 2014, SDMB conditionally accepted HCDAs counter offer provided 

counsel for SDMB's ethical obligations to have consent of the two other law firms handling 

the state litigation were present or consented to the increased scope of representation by 

the Boston law firm to include state law matters. See P16, Ex. 3, at 8-9. Counsel for 

HCDA was also advised that he was potentially exposing himself to criminal and civil 

liability in the event he expanded his scope of representation. /d. 

On June 13, 2014, SDMB filed a Motion to Remove the Ejectment proceeding to 

consolidate HCDA's ejectment proceeding as part of an answer to SDMBs claim or 

retaliatory eviction. See Exhibit A at 35. 

On June 19, 2014, a Motion for Consolidation, injunctive relief and emergency 

hearing was filed by SDMB to remove HCDA's ejectment proceeding in magistrate's 

court. See Exhibit A at 40. 

On July 1, 2014, SDMB refiled its Part 16 Complaint with FAA. 

On July 2, 2014, Myrtle Beach Magistrate's Court denied SDMBs request to 

remove the ejectment complaint. 

On July 10, 2014, HCDA, through its director, Pat Apone, admitted to a new 

reporting policy. She stated: 

As one measure to improve safety, as we discussed, within 

the past few months, HCDA has adopted a policy of 

documenting incidents and accidents with respect to 

operations at CRE. In just three months, CRE Tower, 

140825.sdmb.part 16.response.mtd. fin 7 
private operators at CRE and HCDA staff have 

documented 10 such incidents and accidents involving 

SDMB, including five pedestrian or vehicular incursions into 

the runway or operating taxiways at CRE after landing well 

outside of the designated landing zone, and several other 

serious incidents, including a SDMB parachutist landing on 

top of a fuel tank, and another landing in front of a moving fuel 

truck. This regular failure of SMB parachutists to land within 

the designated landing zone at CRE as well as to observe the 

bar on crossing active taxiways and runways without 

permission from CRE ATC could lead to serious injuries, 

property damage or the death of skydivers or other persons 

at CRE. These conditions are simply not acceptable to 

HCDA. 

* * * 

As a result of our recent meeting and SDMB's history of 

repeated excursions from the designated landing zone, HCDA 

is instituting the following changes and conditions with respect 

to SDMB's operations at CRE: 

1. SDMB must maintain a log of all jumpers and their 

U.S.P.A. licensure status, or indicate that they were a tandem 

jumper, and make that log available to HCDA staff for 

inspections and copying upon request; 

2. All SDMB staff and skydivers must be instructed that, 

if they land outside the landing zone, no one may cross the 

taxiway or runway without permission from CRE ATC. If a 

landing on a taxiway or runway cannot be avoided, the 

skydiver must exit the taxiway or runway as quickly as 

possible, and any such landing must be reported to CRE ATC 

and HCDA immediately by SOMB. 

3. SDMB and its employees, agents, customers and 

guests must cooperate fully with any investigation by HCDA, 

FAA, or other governmental entity with jurisdiction into any 

past or future incidents or accidents related to SDMB's 

operations at CRE. 

* * * 

HCDA has the obligation to monitor all operations at CRE, 

including those of SDMB. If we find that SDMB's skydivers 

cannot consistently land within the landing zone at CRE 

and operate in a safe manner, HCDA reserves the right to 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd.fin 8 
impose additional conditions on SDMB's operations at 

CRE, up to and including barring SDMB and its 

customers and guests from landing at CRE. We recognize 

that skydiving is an aeronautical activity and we are making 

every reasonable effort to accommodate SDMB's operations 

at CRE. However, HCDA's overarching obligation is to 

operate CRE safely for all aeronautical users of the airport. If 

SDMB's operations conflict with that obligations, then HCDA 

will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that safety 

is maintained at CRE. 

See Exhibit A at 23-5, (emphasis supplied. 

On July 11, 2014, in response to a report by SDMB about the dangerous condition 

of Hangar 7 doors,

7 HCDA stated: 

To be clear, Skydive's continued occupancy of Hangar 7 is at 

its own risk and without HCDA's authorization or permission. 

Should Skydive notice future operational difficulties with the 

door to Hangar 7 before the ejectment proceeding is 

concluded, including its mechanism, Skydive should 

immediately cease any attempts to move the door in the 

interest of safety. HCDA reserves the right to recover from 

Skydive any costs associated with repairing any damage to 

Hangar 7, including the door, caused by Skydive or its 

employees, agents or invitees. If before the ejectment 

action is concluded Hangar 7 becomes unsafe to use for 

any reason, as the owner of Hangar 7, HCDA reserves the 

right to restrict any or all use of the Hangar by any party, 

including Skydive. If Hangar 7 must be closed, Skydive 

would be required to immediately vacate Hangar 7, 

remove its personal property from the hangar, and make 

arrangements to undertake its non-aeronautical 

operations, such as classroom instruction, customer 

check-in, and parachute packing, from another location, 

remote from CRE. In such an event, HCDA would work with 

Skydive to develop a plan that would permit Skydive to 

continue its aeronautical operations at CRE, consistent with 

law and HCDA policies. 

7 SDMB has reported this defective and dangerous condition to the county on multiple occasions. 

This is the same door that HCDA pried open to access and remove the French links to gain unaut horized entry on 

multiple occasions and has degraded significantly since HCDA resumed control of GSA. 

140825.sdmb. part 16. response .mtd. fin 9 
See Exhibit Bat 1-2, (emphasis supplied). 

On July 18, 2014, SDMB requested reconsideration by the magistrate's court. See 

Exhibit A at 72-74. 

On July 21, 2014, through its Conway, South Carolina lawyers, HCDA objected to 

SOMBs reconsideration request concluding: 

Harry County respectfully request that the ejectment hearing 

proceed as scheduled. Harry County has planned a 

construction project for approximately Three Million Dollars for 

Ramp Rehabilitation which Harry County scheduled to begin 

on September 2, 2014. The rehabilitation project is 

expected to require anyone occupying Hangar 7 to vacate 

the premises while the rehabilitation of the ramp is being 

completed. Bids have been received and Harry County is 

prepared to award the bid as soon as it receives grant 

approval for the project from the Federal Aviation 

Administration. Approval is expected in the very near future. 

Harry County contends that SDMB's occupation of Hangar 7 

and delaying tactics, if successful, will frustrate Horry 

County's Ramp Rehabilitation project and cause significant 

financial damage to Horry County. If SDMB has a valid 

defense, they should present it at the hearing scheduled for 

July 23, 2014. 

See Exhibit A at 77 (emphasis supplied). 

On July 23, 2014, SDMB's Motion to Remove was denied and a bench trial was 

conducted relating to the HCDA ejectment proceeding. At the bench trial, Aaron Holly 

testified for SDMB and H. Randolph Haldi testified for HCDA.8 Mr. Holly testified that he 

had made arrangements to move into an alternate and suitable hangar at the north end 

of GSA from Malcom Odom but it required HCDA authorization. Mr. Haldi testified that 

the original Space Use Permit had somehow slipped through the cracks and not been 

presented to the County Council by HCDA. In response to an inquiry by the judge, 

A transcript of this trial is not yet available. 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd.fin 10 
Council for HCDA represented to the Court that Hangar 1 was not appropriate for SDMB 

as it would require three parking tie downs to be removed causing unnecessary harm to 

HCDA. Following testimony, the magistrate's court found in favor of HCDA and issued a 

Writ of Ejectment no later than Monday, July 28, 2014. See Exhibit A at 75. 

On July 25, 2014, SDMB appealed. See Exhibit 21 . On August 1, 2014, a Bond 

to Stay Execution Pending Appeal was granted by the Myrtle Beach Magistrate's Court. 

See Exhibit A at 2-1 09. 

On August 28, 2014, HCDA posted no parking signs in the parking spaces across 

from Hangar 7 at the site of the peat moss pile identified in the Part 16 Complaint and has 

renewed its parking complaints during operating hours with SDMB. 

ARGUMENT 

I. Discriminatory Conduct by HCDA 

SDMB alleges that HCDA has specifically violated Grant Assurance 22 

discrimination prohibition and 14 CFR § 139.329 and FAA Compliance Manual, FAA 

Order 5190.6B (Sept. 30, 2009). As set forth in this Statement of Material Facts and 

contrary to federal and state law. HCDA has acted and continues to act as the sole arbiter 

and compliance enforcement division with regard to SDMB's parachute operations. 

Additionally, under the cloak of safety concerns and "good faith" efforts to resolve 

issues relating to SDMB's ongoing skydiving operations, HCDA has utilized the full 

resources of Horry County and its staff in an attempt to remove SDMB from its jurisdiction. 

HCDA has attempted to style SDMB's complaints of a continuing pattern of 

harassment with increased severity and frequency which, individually identified and 

scrutinized may not represent a federal claim, but in toto can only be styled as an 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd.fin 11 
aggressive campaign designed to remove SDMB from the airport and remove a 

recognized aeronautical activity from legally operating at a federally supported airport. 

HCDA has also complained about SDMB's failure to negotiate in "good faith" to 

have FAA dismiss a Part 16 complaint while it simultaneously filed an eviction proceeding 

in a third forum through one of its South Carolina law firms. 

As its defense has materialized, HCDA has attempted to separate, and thereby 

change the issues, in an effort to have SDMB's claims dismissed in both federal and state 

forums. By employing the services of three discrete law firms practicing in two states, 

HCDA's arguments attempt to prevent SDMB from discussing the supporting facts 

underlying its attempt to exercise and protect its federally protected aeronautical activity 

from discriminatory treatment by HCDA. 

HCDA's disingenuous conduct is prohibited under both federal and state law. 

HCDA has attempted to limit SDMB's legitimate complaints by presenting half the story 

to FAA and the other half of the story to state forums, thereby obfuscating its 

discriminatory and harassing conduct. In the state forum, HCDA argues that the court 

lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim because it is a federal matter. Before FAA, HCDA now 

argues that recitation of identical acts in support of a Part 16 discrimination complaint is 

jurisdictionally precluded because it concerns matters of state law and is not actionable 

before FAA. 

Earlier, HCDA objected to SDMB's initial complaint for want of "good faith" efforts 

to resolve matters. HCDA refused to address operational issues clearly within federal 

jurisdiction through its Boston attorneys, blaming the FAA for the delay.

9 In contravention 

9 In its notice of termination letter dated Aprll28, 2014, HCDA advised SDMB that FAA was reviewing 

the new LOA and "[o]nce t hat review is complete ... local FAA st aff and HCDA will contact [SDMB] to attempt to 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd. fin 12 
to South Carolina law, the correspondence relating to SDMB's operational complaints 

was limited to lease negotiations through HCDA's Boston attorneys10 and did not address 

SDMB's aeronautical operational complaints until June 25, 2014, almost a month after an 

ejectment proceeding in state court was filed by HCDA's Conway, South Carolina, law 

firm. 

HCDA's intent was best articulated on July 21, 2014, by its Conway, South 

Carolina, attorney in its ejectment proceeding. HCDA stated to the court: 

Horry County has planned a construction project for 

approximately Three Million Dollars for Ramp Rehabilitation 

which Horry County scheduled to begin on September 2, 

2014. The rehabilitation project is expected to require 

anyone occupying Hangar 7 to vacate the premises while 

the rehabilitation of the ramp is being completed. Bids 

have been received and Horry County is prepared to award 

the bid as soon as it receives grant approval for the 

project from the Federal Aviation Administration. 

See Exhibit A at 77. (emphasis supplied). 

SDMB's Part 16 Complaint against HCDA is based on the discriminatory treatment 

from by HCDA relating to its skydiving operations. HCDA owns and operates four 

municipal airports. Apparently, its position is that different tenants may be treated 

differently so long as all tenants at an individual airport are equally treated, an "equal but 

separate" standard. Since resuming control of GSA, only three commercial aeronautical 

resolve any open issues.'' See SDMB's Part 16 Complaint Exhibit (P16) 3 at 20. The meeting finally occurred June 25, 

2014, almost three weeks after HCOA filed its ejectment action in local magistrate's court. 

10 None of Foley and Lardner, LLC attorneys on record are licenses to practice law in South Carolina. 

S.C. Code Ann. § 40-5-310 provides that practicing law without a license is a felony. South Carolina courts have 

defined the practice of law broadly. See In re Duncan, 65 S,E.2d 210 (1909) (general advice and preparation of legal 

instruments constitutes "practice of law" ); South Carolina v. Buyers Serv. Co., 357 SE2d 15 (SC 1987) (practice of law 

extends to fields that require specialized legal knowledge). 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd. fin 13 
operators remain: SDMB, Banner Tow, and Executive Helicopters.11 (Although Hertz and 

Avis leases vehicles and another commercial enterprise operates a parking lot within the 

curtilage of GSA independent of HCDA, HCDA has not provided SDMB the commercial 

operator leases to verify SDMB's discrimination complaint.12) 

Black's Law Dictionary defines discrimination as "differential treatment, esp., a 

failure to treat all persons equally when no reasonable distinction can be found between 

those favored and those not favored." BLACK's LAw DICTIONARY, gth Ed. 2009 at 534. 

HCDA would have the FAA support its position that it can treat any activity differently, 

even in violation of state law, so long as all individuals at one of its four airports are treated 

the same. Ostensibly, HCDA argues that since 100% of the tenants at location A, 

representing 25% of its total tenants under its jurisdiction, are treated the same, they are 

incapable of discrimination. Ignoring the other 75% of tenants, HCDA implies its disparate 

conduct is not discriminatory so long as each separate area is treated the same, the whole 

must be non-discriminatory. 

On one hand HCDA has argued that SDMB's continued occupancy of Hangar 7 

will disrupt a planned ramp rehabilitation project but, on the other hand, it refuses to 

consent to SDMB's assumption of the Hangar 1 lease, something that will not disrupt the 

ramp project or SDMB's parachute operations. Before the state court, HCDA argued that 

SDMB's harassment complaints are matters for the FAA to ·determine, and before the 

ll HCDA has issued Banner Tow a notice of termination to its occupancy of an adjacent hangar 

according to its owner. 

12 On July 8, 2014, SDMB requested documents from HCDA in its civil action. As of September 8, 2014, no 

documents have been produced. 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd.fin 14 
FAA, HCDA continues to argue that SDMB's claims are simply tenant disputes under 

state law delegated to South Carolina Courts and outside FAA's jurisdiction. 

If successful, HCDA will close down a legitimate business enterprise, prevent 

SDMB from airing its grievances before FAA, and have no accountability for a wellsupported pattern of behavior which is at best, poor and at worst may be criminal. 

II. Targeted Harassment Intended to Cause SDMB to Vacate Hangar 7 and 

Remove its Aeronautical Activity From Grand Strand Airport 

At first blush, all appears proper and in order. However a global view reveals a 

well-orchestrated continuous plan to remove a federally recognized aeronautical activity 

and preclude it from legally operating. HCDA has launched a first class legal campaign 

employing all the state resources at its disposal and those of an international law firm 

specializing in pretrial dismissal tactics. 

HCDA's actions are irrefutable. It has: cancelled a long-term lease, lost a bridge 

lease, denied SDMB's request to assume another hangar lease or move to another airport 

area with adequate space, presented a lease no rational business could agree to, and 

finally evicted SDMB. Its failure to act and inform SDMB about policy changes is 

thunderous. Ultimately, this has caused SDMB tens or thousands of dollars in lost 

business and legal fees and substantially interfered with its business. 

HCDA cannot produce any safety violations against SDMB while GSA was 

managed by Ramp 66. The frequency and severity of alleged incidents has increased 

incrementally as more FAA grant money has become available. 

As a threshold matter, SDMB agrees that matters of state law are generally outside 

ofF AA jurisdiction. However, SDMB is asserting facts that are inseparable from its state 

claims that also are actionable under federal law and under FAA's jurisdiction. HCDA 

140825.sdmb.part16. response .mtd .fin 15 
admits that it is subject to Grant 22 Assurances as a recipient of federal funds provided 

by FAA. 

HCDA has been malleable with regard to permitting skydiving activities since 

February 2014. While reserving the right to prohibit skydiving sua sponte if HCDA 

determines safety is at risk, it argues that no discrimination exists. However, HCDA's 

conduct portrays the reality and past practice of restricting skydiving without comment to 

SDMB and is demonstrative of an apparent malevolent intent and unjust discrimination. 

A great deal of time and energy have been spent on 14 CFR § 139.329(b) by 

HCDA. Throughout its interaction with HCDA, SDMB's chief complaint has been a failure 

of HCDA to communicate or publish its rules HCDA relating to its operating rules and 

regulations but continually complain about SDMB's recurrent violations. HCDA, however, 

fails to include subsection (e) in its argument. Notably the requirement that HCDA, 

Ensure that all persons are trained on procedures required 

under paragraph (b) of this section prior to the initial 

performance of such duties and at least once every 12 

consecutive calendar months, including consequences of 

noncompliance, prior to moving on foot, or operating a ground 

vehicle, in movement areas or safety areas; 

14 CFR § 139.329 (e). 

Throughout this process, HCDA has implemented unpublished policies, targeted the 

skydiving activity solely to SDMB at GSA and to no other aeronautical activity in the 

county. SDMB has exhausted all efforts to ensure that FAA regulations are simply 

followed by all parties equally to include HCDA. HCDA fails to meet its obligations under 

14 CFR § 139.329 to inform tenants of unpublished agreements then cites 14 CFR § 

139.329 as justification for its safety concerns and new unpublished policies. These 

practices are per se discriminatory. 

140825.sdmb.part16.response.mtd.fin 16 
CONCLUSION 

FAA, not HCDA, has the final say with regard to safety matters and whether or not 

discrimination against SDMB has occurred. ''In all cases the FAA is the final arbiter 

regarding aviation safety and will make the determination regarding the reasonableness 

of the sponsor's proposed measures that restrict, limit, or deny access to the airport." 

FAA Order 5190.6B, § 14.3 at 14-3. HCDA has implemented its actions as demonstrated 

by its actions identified in SDMB's Part 16 Complaint and this Statement of Material Facts 

and respectfully requests FAA to exercise its jurisdiction. 

For these reasons, Complainant, Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc., respectfully requests 

FAA to deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. 

Eastman & Associates, LLC 

Merritt Island, FL 

Dated: September 8, 2014 

140825.sdmb.part 16.response.mtd. fin 17 

Ro ert G. Eastman 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

SC Attorney ID 75900 

PO Box 180 

Charleston, SC 29402 

(843) 329-9657 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Complainant's Response 

to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss on the following persons at the following addresses, 

both by first class mail and by electronic mail in accordance with 14 CFR § 16.13(h): 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

ATTN: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

9-AWA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

Merritt Island, FL 

DATED: September 8, 2014 

140825.sdmb.pa rt16. response.mtd. fin 

David Y. Bannard, Esq. 

Jeffrey R. Blease, Esq. 

Jaclyn V. Pilch, Esq. 

Foley and Lardner LLP 

111 Huntington Avenue 

Boston, MA 02199 

dbannard@foley.com 

jblease@foley. com 

jpilch@foley.com 

Counsel for Horry County Department of 

Airports 

18 

Attorney for Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. 

EASTMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC 

PO Box 180 

Charleston, SC 29402 

(843) 329-9657