REGULAR MAIL 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Richard J. Durderi 

Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

616/901-6516 

February 25, 2013 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

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

L.L.C. 

Docket No. 16-12-04. 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Enclosed for filing please find an original and three copies of Complainants' Reply to 

The State of Hawaii's Response to Request For Additional Information in the captioned matter. 

One copy is unbound, as requested by the FAA. 

en c. 

cc: Glen I. Kimura, Esq. 

Frank Hinshaw 
BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

) 

~% iG lE ll \VJ IE@ 

MAR 5 2013 

FRANK HINSHAW, SKYDIVING SCHOOL, INC., ) L 

dlb/a SKYDIVEHAWAII and ISLAND SKYDIVING, L.L.C.) 

) PART 1"6 DOCKETs --... ~-···----.....,. -- Complainant, ) 

) 

vs. ) Docket No.: 16-12~04 

) 

TIIESTATEOFHAWAII ) 

) 

Respondent ) 

COMPLAJNANTS' REPLY TO THE STATE OF HAW All'S 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADDffiONAL INFORMATION 

Please Serve: 

Richard J. Durden 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Rd. 

Conifer, Co. 80433 

T: 616/901-6516 

avlawver@yahoo.com 

Counsel for Complainant 

Glenn I. Kimura 

Deputy Attorneys General 

Department of the Attorney General, State 

of Hawaii 

465 S. King Street, Room 300 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

T: 808/587-2997 

glenn. i.kimura@hawaii. gov 

Counsel for Respondent 

NOW COME Complainants, Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc., d/b/a Skydive Hawaii and 

Island Skydiving, L.L.C., by and through counsel, and for their Reply to The State of Hawaii's 

Response to Request for Additional Information, state as follows: 

Complainants recognize that the FAA's Request for Additional Information was sought 

from Respondent. However, it is Complainants' assertion that Respondent's February 13 

response was incomplete and therefore this Reply is appropriate. 14 CFR Part 16 does not 

1 
prohibit pleadings outside those enumerated. Complainants recognize that it is up to the 

discretion of the Director as to whether this Reply will be considered . 

The State ofHawaii responded to the FAA's February 4, 2013 Request for Additional 

Information by stating that once it learned that the FAA proposed to issue a change to an existing 

Advisory Circular (AC) that would create FAA guidance for parachute landing areas, the State 

sought further information from an FAA office and then stopped all action toward approving 

Complaints' desired skydiving operation on Hana Airport. 

The State did not let the Director know that it had abandoned all work. It did not file any 

pleading notifying any party to this Complaint of its unilateral decision based on its reading of a 

draft AC, nor did it ask for direction from this tribunal. 

The State, on page two of its Response, incorrectly said that the minimum size and 

setback standards in the draft Advisory Circular would mean there was not enough space for a 

PLA on the Hana Airport. 

Respondent failed to point out that the application made by Complainants and the 

pending Complaint are under the current CFRs and Advisory Circulars, not some changes that 

may come about sometime in the future, with language that may or may not be in place. The 

State is obligated to approve skydiving under the current CFRs and ACs. 

Even assuming that the draft AC were to be issued as worded, the State is incorrect in its 

statement that there is inadequate space for a PLA on the Hana Airport under the terms of the 

AC. The State did not mention that the draft AC sets out flexible shaping procedures for 

defining the shape and size of the PL~ which would easily allow a PLA on a number of 

locations on the Hana Airport. The State also failed to mention that even if a PLA does not meet 

the minimum size guidelines in the draft AC, the draft AC has a mitigation process through 

2 
which the Airport Sponsor and the operator work together with the FAA to create a PLA of 

acceptable size and shape. 

The State has an obligation under its Grant Assurances to make the Hana Airport selfsufficient, which means approving safe commercial operator applications to do business on the 

Hana Airport. This fiduciary responsibility meant that if the State were truly interested in 

complying with its Grant Assurances and believed that a PLA on the Hana Airport would. not 

meet the guidelines of the draft AC, it would have immediately contacted Complainants and 

began the process of working together under the mitigation guidelines of that draft ACto assure 

that skydiving could take place on the Hana Airport without further delay. 

Instead, it appears that the State is using one small part of the draft language of an AC 

that may or may not be finalized, to justify its continued foot-dragging on approving 

Complainants' skydiving operation on Hana Airport. 

Dated: February 23, 2013 

3 

Respectfully submitted, 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

Attorney for Complainants 

By: 

ur en 

7 Richmond Hill Road 

Conifer, Colorado 80433 

(616) 901-65156 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Complainants' Reply to the 

State of Hawaii's Response to Request for Additional Infonnation on the following person at the 

following address by regular mail: 

Glenn I. Kimura 

Deputy Attorneys General 

Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii 

465 S. King Street, Room 300 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

Dated this 25th day of February, 2013 

I 

I 

\' 

4