1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

ll 

12 

l3 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

LUTHER KURTZ and 

SKYDIVE COASTAL CALIFORNIA 

d/b/a PHOENIX AREA SKYDIVING 

Complainant, 

vs. 

THE CITY OF CASA GRANDE 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) Docket No.: 16-16-01 

) 

) 

~ RECEIVED 

) APR 11 2016 

) 

) PART 16 DOCKETS 

) 

________________________ ) 

CITY OF CASAGRANDE'S ANSWER, STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

The Respondent, City of Casa Grande (hereinafter "City,) by and through its attorney 

undersigned, hereby files its Answer, Statement of Facts, and Affirmative Defenses .(the 

"Answer") in response to tbe Complaint filed against tbe City in this proceeding. 

Designation of Persons to Receive Service 

City may be served in this proceeding by service upon their City Attorney, 

Brett D. Wallace, at tbe following address: 

Brett D. Wallace 

City Attorney's Office 

510 E. Florence Blvd. 

CasaGrande, Arizona 85122 

T: 520-421-8613 

bwallace@casagrandeaz.gov 

INTRODUCTION 

Complainant has operated a skydiving operation for over 9 years utilizing the Casa 

Grande Municipal Airport (the "Airport"). Throughout tbat time, Complainant has used a 

Landing Zone/Drop Zone/Parachute Landing Area (collectively "PLA") located a few miles 

-1-
1 

2 

3 

4 

north of the Airport. By all indications this PLA has served Complainant well, and the City has 

not objected to the location of the off-site PLA, located off the Airport grounds. In fact, and 

contrary to his statements throughout this process, Complainant has, to the City's knowledge, 

operated his skydiving business consistently using this safe and efficient PLA. This Complaint 

5 

is NOT a result of the City prohibiting the use of the Airport for Complainant's flight operations. 

6 

This Complaint is NOT a result of the City seeking an end to Complainant's operations at the 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

off-site PLA. Instead, this Complaint has been manufactured by Complainant to reduce his 

business costs at the direct expense of Airport safety by seeking to force the City to allow him to 

relocate his PLAto a site that either (1) is located directly between the runway and taxiway of 

this single runway airport or (2) is located in a functional drainage basin that is both directly 

adjacent to the taxiway and that requires drops directly into the missed approach pathway 

routinely used by flight schools in the area. The simple fact is that Complainant's desire to 

reduce his business costs by increasing risk to his clients and other users of the Airport should 

not be permitted and Complainant can, and should, continue his safe operations with a PLA 

located a safe distance from the Airport runway and approaches. 

Instead of simply continuing to use the existing PLA as he has for several years, 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Complainant has filed a Part 16 Complaint alleging that the City is not complying with its grant 

assurances and obligations to the FAA because the City has not permitted an unsafe PLA next to 

the runway and taxiway as proposed by Complainant. The City, however, is in full compliance 

with its grant assurances and obligations to the FAA. A careful review of the facts and 

supporting materials - even those contained in the Complaint itself- demonstrates that the City 

has and will continue to work to meet its federal obligations and there is no basis in fact or law to 

find the City in non-compliance. The City's actions support the overall FAA policy to provide 

-2-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

for a system of airports that are safely operated and best protect property and individuals on the 

ground. 

CITY OF CASAGRANDE'S ANSWER 

The Respondent, City of Casa Grande, Arizona, submits this answer to the Complaint by 

Luther Kurtz and Skydive Coastal California. The Complaint fails to provide a clear and concise 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

statement of the facts the Complainant relies upon, as required by 14 CFR § 16.23(b )(3). Instead 

the Complaint is a jumble of sensationalized factual allegations belied by the very documents he 

attached to his Complaint, presented in a narrative that makes it difficult for the City to fully 

understand and prepare a response to Complainant's factual allegations. To help facilitate the 

review of the pleadings the City has numbered the individual paragraphs of the Complaint (a 

copy of which, without original Exhibits, is attached as Exhibit 1 hereto) in order for the City to 

refer to the Complaint's allegations in an orderly fashion. 

The City responds to the individual allegations of the Complaint as follows: 

1. Upon information and belief, City admits that Complainant started using the Airport 

in 2006 for skydiving operations and that the PLA was located north of the Airport. 

City admits that it had a lease for terminal space with Complainant but asserts that the 

lease was a month-to-month lease and denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 

1. 

2. Answering Paragraph 2, City admits that Complainant has operated a business for 

several years using the Airport as a take-off and landing-area and using the off-site 

PLA located in a very large, undeveloped, unused area north ofthe Airport. City is 

without sufficient information to admit the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 

2 but has no reason to contest the same. 

-3-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

3. Answering Paragraph 3, City admits Richard Wilkie was appointed as airport 

manager1 and that Mr. Wilkie did deliver a notice to Complainant that the City would 

be terminating his month-to-month lease in accordance with its terms as a result of 

renovations to be made to the terminal. City denies all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 3. 

4. Answering Paragraph 4, City admits Complainant met with Mr. Wilkie and denies all 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 4. 

5. Answering Paragraph 5, City admits that Mr. Wilkie was amiable in face-to-face 

dealings and emails, denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 5, and further 

asserts that Mr. Wilkie worked diligently with Complainant to allow the operation to 

remain in the terminal longer than originally planned in order to help Complainant 

relocate and as a result of a delay in the renovation project. 

6. Answering Paragraph 6, City is without sufficient knowledge or information 

concerning the date of the proposal, but admits that Mr. Wilkie received a written 

proposal from Complainant. 

7. Answering Paragraph 7, City admits that Mr. Wilkie denied the request for an onAirport PLA as a result of safety, insurance, and efficiency concerns. City denies all 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 7. 

8. City admits the allegations of Paragraph 8. 

1 Mr. Wilkie no longer acts as Airport Manager for the City of Casa Grande. The current Airport Manager is Mr. 

Kevin Louis. 

-4-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

9. Answering Paragraph 9, City admits that Mr. Wilkie responded by email to 

Complainant and asserts that the contents of the email speak for itself and does not 

respond to the out-of-context quotes in the Complaint. 

10. City admits that Mr. Kurtz made a Part 13 Informal Complaint but is without 

sufficient koowledge or information concerning his motivation for doing so. 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11. Answering Paragraph 11: City admits it was informed of the Complaint; admits that 

Mr. Wilkie reached out to other users to learn about their view of the safety of 

integrating parachuting operations through a PLA at the Airport; admits that Mr. 

Garcia sent a response with a number of his opinions concerning what information he 

deemed appropriate to consider during the process; and admits that Mr. Garcia said h 

had asked Flight Standards to determine whether skydiving could be integrated. City 

affirmatively alleges that the contents of the documents speak for themselves, and 

denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph II. 

12. Answering Paragraph 12, City is without sufficient koowledge or information to form 

a belief as to whether Mr. Kurtz or the USP A was contacted by FSDO but 

affirmatively alleges that such contact was not necessary to conduct the independent 

assessment performed by FSDO, and affirmatively alleges that FSDO did not contact 

Mr. Wilkie either when conducting their individual assessment. City alleges that, 

upon information and belief, FSDO did visit the Airport during its assessment. City 

admits that FSDO fonnd that skydiving could not be integrated safely into the 

Airport, and denies all further allegations in Paragraph 12. 

13. Answering Paragraph 13, City admits Complainant sent a letter to Mr. Garcia and 

alleges the contents of that letter speak for themselves. City admits that Mr. Garcia 

-5-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

and Mr. Millard met with Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Wilkie to conduct an audit using an 

unofficial checklist. City denies that Mr. Garcia and Mr. Millard met with all parties 

with the most knowledge of the Airport and affirmatively allege that they refused to 

meet with other users of the Airport to discuss parachuting operations or otherwise. 

City admits Mr. Wilkie did not sign the Risk Assessment checklist, but denies all 

further allegations of Paragraph 13. 

14. Answering Paragraph 14, City admits that it received a Skydiving Safety Risk 

Assessment Report dated September 17, 2015 and alleges the contents of the 

document speak for themselves. City specifically denies that the conclusion of the 

FAA was that skydiving could be safely conducted on the Airport. 

15. Answering Paragraph 15, City admits it has been attempting to obtain the underlying 

forms used in preparing the Risk Assessment but has routinely been denied access to 

these records and requested information concerning the parties participating in the 

Risk Assessment, which to the City's information and belief did not include 

representatives of the FSDO. City admits that Mr. Wilkie told Mr. Kurtz he would 

reach out to stakeholders to discuss the results and did not identify specific parties 

within City management that he might consult during that process. City admits it 

received correspondence from Mr. Garcia, and denies all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 15. 

16. Answering Paragraph 16, City admits that Mr. Garcia and Mr. Kurtz contacted Mr. 

Wilkie but asserts that the contents of the emails speak for themselves. 

-6-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17. Answering Paragraph 17, City admits that Mr. Wilkie contacted Complainant by 

email and asserts that the content of that email speaks for itself. City specifically 

denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 17. 

18. Answering Paragraph 18, City admits it received an email from Mr. Garcia and that 

Mr. Wilkie did notify Mr. Kurtz that the Board was scheduled to meet in January and 

denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 18. 

19. City denies any allegations in Paragraph 19 and affirmatively asserts the Part 13 

Informal Complaint process was still pending at the time of filing this Part 16 

Complaint. 

20. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 20 are legal arguments, City does not 

respond to the same. City denies the factual allegations of Paragraph 20. 

21. City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the 

allegations of Paragraph 21 and on that basis denies the same. 

22. City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the 

allegations of Paragraph 22 and on that basis denies the same. 

23. City admits that Mr. Kurtz began operations in Casa Grande in 2006, admits that he 

rented land for a PLA north of the Airport and leased space in the Airport terminal. 

City is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to any further 

allegations and therefore deny the same. To the extent Complainant relies on 

documentary support, City asserts the contents of those documents speak for 

themselves. 

24. Answering Paragraph 24, the City admits that operation of Complainant's business 

was permitted with the off-site PLA. City is without further information or 

-7-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

knowledge to form a belief as to the remainder of the allegations but does not contest 

the same. 

25. City admits the allegations of Paragraph 25. 

26. City admits the allegations of Paragraph 26. 

27. City admits that Mr. Wilkie notified Complainant that his month-to-month lease 

)'Vould not be renewed, and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27. To the 

extent Complainant references documentation, the City asserts such documents speak 

for themselves. 

28. Answering Paragraph 28, City admits that Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Wilkie met and denies 

all further allegations. 

29. Answering Paragraph 29, City admits that Mr. Wilkie permitted Mr. Kurtz to remain 

in the terminal in order to provide him more time to relocate because the renovations 

were being delayed. City admits Mr. Wilkie has a friendly persona toward skydiving 

when using the off-site PLA, and denies all further allegations ofPanigraph 29. 

30. City admits the allegations of Paragraph 30. 

31. City denies the allegations of Paragraph 31. 

32. Answering Paragraph 32, City admits Complainant applied for a variance with the 

County to allow him to build a building on his existing PLA site, admits that the City 

does not have jurisdiction to grant or deny the variance request, admits that the City 

sent a letter, the contents of which speak for themselves, to the County concerning the 

zoning of this property that falls within the City's plarming area under Arizona law, 

and denies all further allegations of Paragraph 32. 

-8-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

33. Answering Paragraph 33, City denies Mr. Wilkie intentionally delayed, but admits all 

further allegations of Paragraph 33. 

34. City admits the allegations of Paragraph 34. 

35. City admits the allegations of Paragraph 35. 

36. City admits that it entered into negotiations with a similar user (emergency helicopter 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

service) that had just vacated the office space due to their similarity to the departing 

operation and because that operation did not involve providing unrestricted access to 

the public as proposed by Complainant. To the extent the Complainant refers to 

documents the City asserts the contents of those documents speak for themselves. 

City denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 36. 

37. City admits that Mr. Kurtz has not rented office space or unused land on the Airport. 

City asserts that the contents of any documents referred to speak for themselves, and 

denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 3 7. 

38. City admits the allegations of Paragraph 38. 

39. Answering Paragraph 39, City admits Complainant proposed a new on-Airport PLA 

in a functioning drainage basin located adjacent to the taxiway, asserts that the 

contents of any documents speak for themselves, and denies the remaining allegations 

of Paragraph 39. 

40. Answering Paragraph 40, City asserts the contents of any documents speak for 

themselves, and admit the remaining allegations in that Paragraph. 

41. Answering Paragraph 41, City asserts the contents of any documents speak for 

themselves. City denies all further allegations of Paragraph 41. 

-9-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42. Answering Paragraph 42, City admits that Mr. Kurtz filed a Part l3 Informal 

Complaint and denies the remaining allegations and characterizations of Paragraph 

42. 

43. Answering Paragraph 43, City admits that it responded to the Part l3 Complaint 

solely based on the real safety issues presented with Complainant's proposal. City 

asserts the contents of any documents speak for themselves, and denies the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 43. 

44. City denies all allegations and characterizations of Paragraph 44. 

45. Answering Paragraph 45, City denies that Mr. Wilkie did not include specific 

information in his response showing how PLA' s at other airports were further 

removed and less burdensome to air traffic than the one proposed by Complainant. 

City admits the remaining allegations in the Paragraph. 

46. City denies all allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 46. 

4 7. Answering Paragraph 4 7, City admits that Complainant's staffer was denied 

admission to the meeting. City denies the remaining allegations and characterizations 

of Paragraph 4 7. 

48. Answering Paragraph 48, City asserts the contents of any documents speak for 

themselves but admits the remaining allegations in Paragraph 48. 

49. Answering Paragraph 49, City admits Mr. Garcia again in his letter opined in favor of 

parachuting as he did throughout the process at the request of Mr. Kurtz, admits that 

Mr. Garcia said he would ask FSDO to make a determination as to safety of the 

proposed PLA, and admits the remaining allegations. 

-10-
1 

2 

3 

4 

50. Answering Paragraph 50, City admits the Scottsdale FSDO evaluation indicated that 

they could not support the proposed operation. The City is without sufficient 

knowledge or information to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of the 

Paragraph and therefore denies the same. 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51. Answering Paragraph 51, City admits that Mr. Kurtz was given a copy of and 

responded to the FSDO evaluation. City further asserts that Mr. Garcia told Mr. 

Wilkie that the document relied upon by Mr. Kurtz was for internal review only and 

denied Mr. Wilkie's request to review the document so the City cannot respond to 

any allegations concerning the same. 

52. Answering Paragraph 52, City admits that after Mr. Garcia received the FSDO denial 

and Mr. Kurtz asked him to reconsider, Mr. Garcia and Mr. Millard conducted a Risk 

Assessment, including meeting with Mr. Kurtz and Mr. Wilkie. City denies all 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 52. 

53. City denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 53. 

54. Answering Paragraph 54, City admits that it continued to not allow an on-site PLAin 

light of the significant safety concerns given the Risk Assessment's determination 

that there was a medium risk even after the proposed mitigation efforts. City admits 

it requested information concerning the Risk Assessment and denies all further 

allegations in Paragraph 54. 

55. Answering Paragraph 55, City denies the allegations and characterizations therein. 

56. City denies the allegations and characterizations of Paragraph 56. 

57. City admits that Mr. Wilkie did not send his draft response to Mr. Garcia, and denies 

the remaining allegations and characterizations of Paragraph 57. 

-11-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58. Answering Paragraph 58, City admits that it has not implemented procedures for an 

on-site PLA as requested by Complainant. City is without sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a belief as to the remaining allegations of this Paragraph and thus 

denies the same. 

59. Answering Paragraph 59, City asserts the contents of any documents speak for 

themselves. City admits Mr. Kurtz asked for the names of the committee members 

and denies the remaining allegations and characterizations therein. 

60. City denies the allegations of Paragraph 60 and affirmatively asserts the Board 

canceled the meeting of their own volition. 

6 I. Answering Paragraph 61, City denies any allegations veiled within this Paragraph. 

62. City denies the allegations in Paragraph 62. 

63. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 63. To the extent the 

paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 

64. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 64. To the extent the 

paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 

65. Answering Paragraph 65, to the extent the paragraph consist oflegal arguments and 

conclusions, no response is required. City denies the remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 65. 

66. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 66. To the extent the 

paragraph consist of legal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 

67. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 67. To the extent the 

paragraph consist of legal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 

-12-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68. Answering Paragraph 68, to the extent the paragraph consist of legal arguments and 

conclusions, no response is required. City denies all other allegations in Paragraph 

68. 

69. Answering Paragraph 69, this Paragraph is argument. To the extent there are veiled 

factual allegations and characterizations, the City denies the same. 

70. Answering Paragraph 70, this Paragraph is argument. To the extent there are veiled 

factual allegations and characterizations, the City denies the same. 

71. Answering Paragraph 71, this Paragraph is argument. To the extent there are veiled 

factual allegations and characterizations, the City denies the same. 

72. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 72. To the extent the 

paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 

73. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 73. To the extent the 

paragraph consist of legal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 

74. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 74. To the extent the 

paragraph consist oflegal arguments and conclusions, no response is required. 

75. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 75. To the extent the 

paragraph consist oflegal arguments, argument, and conclusions, no response is 

required. 

76. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 76. To the extent the 

paragraph consist of legal arguments, argument, and conclusions, no response is 

required. 

77. Answering Paragraph 77, this Paragraph is argument. To the extent there are veiled 

factual allegations and characterizations, the City denies the same. 

-13-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78. Answering Paragraph 78, this Paragraph is argument. To the extent there are veiled 

factual allegations and characterizations, the City denies the same. 

79. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 76. To the extent the 

paragraph consist of legal arguments, argument, and conclusions, no response is 

required. 

80. There are no factual allegations contained in Paragraph 80. To the extent the 

paragraph consist oflegal arguments, argument, and conclusions, no response is 

required. 

81. City denies Paragraph 81 in its entirety. 

82. Answering Paragraph 82, City denies that Complainant's continuing of its business 

model for the past 9 years constitutes a financial loss, denies that the City has taken 

any unreasonable action, and denies all further allegations of the Paragraph. 

83. City is without sufficient knowledge or information concerning the allegations made 

in Paragraph 83 and on that basis, denies the same. 

84. City denies all allegations in Paragraph 84. 

RESPONDENT'S STATEMENT OF FACTS 

I. The City hereby provides this Statement of Facts in accordance with 14 CFR Part 

16.23(i) to substantiate the responses contained with its Answer. This Statement of 

Facts will also be used to demonstrate the steps that the City has taken in 

investigating all of Complainant's proposals, participated in all safety assessments, 

and offering locations for Complainant to house his skydiving company. 

2. Complainant throughout this process has portrayed the City as unwilling to permit his 

skydiving business at the Airport (including claiming that the City has refused to 

-14-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

B 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

allow him to use the Airport to take off and land his planes.) These claims are simply 

not accurate as the City has allowed Complainant's business to operate out of the 

Airport terminal for several years and continue to allow him to use the airport like 

any other user even after Complainant had to move his business out of the terminal. 

3. When it came time for City to remodel its terminal to better serve all of the users of 

the Airport, Complainant's month-to-month lease was not renewed in accordance 

with its terms and he was forced to move his business from the terminal. However, 

even in tenninating said lease, the Airport Manager consistently worked with 

Complainant to give Complainant sufficient time to find an alternate location. In fact, 

the original lease termination date was November 1, 2013 but due to a combination o 

requests by Complainant and delays in starting the terminal improvements, 

Complainant was allowed to stay in the terminal building until July 6, 2014 to give 

them ample time to find another location. (Complaint, at Exhibit 1 ). 

4. During the interim period between notice to Complainant that the City could not 

renew the lease and the move-out date, the Airport Manager pointed out several 

locations for rent or purchase in the City's adjacent Airport Industrial Park. 

Additionally, Complainant has at all times been given the option to purchase land on 

the airport on which they could build a hangar to house all of their equipment, 

including their plane, as well as having the ability to conduct their business 

operations. (Complaint, at Exhibit 1 ). 

5. The City has never discriminated against the business of skydiving from conducting 

its operations at the airport, nor has it ever prevented a skydiving company from 

using the airport to take off and land. In fact, Complainant rents both aT-Hanger that 

-15-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

houses ills planes and an equipment shed that houses his skydiving gear from the 

Airport. 

6. Although the City supports Complainant's business, the City does, however, object to 

the placement of a landing area on Airport property as proposed by Complainant. As 

two safety assessments have shown, the Airport cannot safely integrate skydiving into 

the Airport without implementing at least 23 mitigating procedures. (Complaint, at 

Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 10). Under 14 CFR Part 105.23(b) the City, as the operator of 

an Airport without a control tower, has exercised its authority, in accordance with 14 

CFR Part 105.23(b), to not allow skydivers to land on the Airport due to the safety 

hazards and inefficiencies it will create to the Airport's air traffic. The City takes its 

responsibility to provide a safe environment to all of the users of the Airport, both in 

the sky and on the ground, seriously. The Airport also has a duty to try to be selfsustaining by being financially responsible and, as the FSDO report showed, the 

Airport cannot integrate a landing area without it substantially interfering with the 

normal traffic flow of the Airport and that traffic flow would need to be substantially 

interrupted to avoid hazards. This substantial disruption could cause users ofthe 

Airport to go elsewhere whereby causing a negative financial impact on the Airport. 

7. The CasaGrande Municipal Airport is a non-towered, Class E airspace airport 

located 7.9 nm from Ak Chin Regional Airport, 12.7 nm from Eloy Municipal 

Airport, 17 nm from Coolidge Municipal Airport, 19 nm from Chandler Municipal 

Airport, and 22 nm from Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. The CasaGrande 

Municipal Airport is located in the Stanfield VOR, initial approach to the CGZ ILS, 

and falls within the Albuquerque Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and the 

-16-
1 

. 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Prescott Flight Service Station areas. The UNICOM frequency is 122.7. The airport 

property is 640 acres, but over half of this acreage is located directly underneath the 

pattern. The Airport's one runway (5/23) is 5,200' x 100' has a single wheel capacity 

of 16.5 and a double wheel capacity of 65.0. Its navigational aids include a 2-light 

Precision Approach Path Indicators (P API) on right for runway 5 and on the left for 

runway 23, a medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment 

indicator lights (MALSR), and an instrument approach landing system (ILS). 

Currently there are I 0 I aircraft based at the airport, and the estimated average numbe 

of aircraft operations is 328 per day and almost 120,000 a year, making it one of the 

busiest airports in the state. (Complaint, at Exhibit 6). 

8. With approximately 328 aircraft operations per day, the airspace above CGZ is 

heavily congested. A major contributor to these daily operations are numerous flight 

training schools that utilize CGZ to practice their ILS and missed approaches. 

9. In October of2006, Complainant was leased office space in the Airport terminal so 

he could conduct his skydiving operations. Complainant continued to lease that space 

in the Airport terminal uninterrupted until, in September of2014, Manager Wilkie 

inform Complainant that the City would have to terminate his lease and that he would 

have to relocate his operation within thirty days as the terminal was to undergo a 

renovation. (Complaint, at Exhibit I). 

10. Complainant first proposed a PLAto Manager Wilkie on October 4, 2013. The 

proposed PLA was sandwiched in between the Airport's runway and taxiway. 

During the time that Manager Wilkie was reviewing the proposal of Complainant, 

Complainant asked for numerous extensions of his lease termination date so that he 

-17-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

could find a new place to locate. Upon every request for an extension, Manager 

Wilkie agreed allowing Complainant time to find a new place. Manager Wilkie 

continued giving Complainant extensions until May of2014, when Manager Wilkie 

told Complainant that he had to be out of the Airport terminal by June 6, 2014 so that 

the renovations could commence. (Complaint, at Exhibit !). 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

II. In July of2014, after careful review, Manager Wilkie determined that this PLA 

would cause a major safety hazard for both the skydivers and the patrons using the 

Airport (both in the air and on the ground.) Additionally, having a PLA located so 

close to the runway would cause a disruption in the Airport's efficiency which could 

affect the viability of the Airport. (Complaint, at Exhibit 4). 

12. On July 25,2014, Complainant sent in a revised proposal where he moved the PLAto 

a location just south, but still adjacent to, the taxiway. This new location created a 

new safety hazard because the skydivers would be dropping directly through the 

established missed approach flight path. Additionally, the revised proposal did 

nothing to show how Complainant would alleviate either the safety or efficiency 

concerns that a PLA so close to either the runway or the taxiway would cause. While 

Complainant did relocate the PLA south of the taxiway, this revised location is 

actually a retention basin that is not a flat surface and is used for runoff and storage o 

storm-water. Upon receipt of this revised proposal, Manager Wilkie advised 

Complainant that he would review the new proposal and let him know of his decision 

within a few months after he had time to review the proposal and consult with others 

in the City. 

-18-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13. On August 8, 2014, before Manager Wilkie even had time to digest the revised 

proposal from Complainant, much less make a determination, Complainant filed an 

Informal Complaint with the FAA against the City of Casa Grande. In this complaint 

Complainant unjustly accused Manager Wilkie of unreasonably terminating his lease 

and not helping him find another place to locate. First, there was nothing 

unreasonable about terminating Complainant's lease as the City, as the owner of the 

terminal, needed the office space that Complainant was renting to renovate the 

terminal to enhance its features for all airport users. Additionally, Manager Wilkie 

was extremely reasonable and helpful in Complainant's search for a new location by 

extending his move out date by more than seven months and in that time Manager 

Wilkie, even though there was no office/classroom space available on the airport, 

pointed out several places in the Airport Industrial Park that Complainant could rent 

or purchase and offered Complainant an opportunity to purchase a lot at the Airport 

on which Complainant could have built a hangar. 

14. On October 3, 2014, Manager Wilkie sent his response to the Informal Complaint 

outlining why he denied Complainant's proposal for a PLA. Manager Wilkie again 

described his reasons for denying Complainant's PLA proposal which included the 

safety of skydivers and that the users of the Airport would be compromised if the 

PLA was approved at the location requested in the proposal. Manager Wilkie also 

described how a PLA that close to the runway would substantially interfere with the 

air traffic that uses the Airport and would affect the efficiency of the Airport and 

thereby could affect the revenues the Airport receives from these users. (Complaint, 

at Exhibit 6). 

-19-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15. Manager Wilkie then goes on in his response to respond to Complainant's revised 

proposal to point out that the new PLA is in direct conflict with the missed approach 

flight pattern that has been established and that the new PLA is in a retention basis 

which is not of a flat surface. 

16. As part of this Informal Complaint Process, the FAA asked the Scottsdale Flight 

Standards District Office (hereinafter "FSDO") to evaluate the Airport and whether 

skydiving onto the Airport could be safely integrated. 

17. On February 5, 2015, James H. Guthrie, who at the time was the Acting Manager of 

the Scottsdale FSDO, sent his findings to Nicholas Reyes, who was the Manager of 

the Regional Flight Standards Division, in a memo which stated "a significant amount 

of disruption to normal traffic flow will be required to avoid a hazard to other aircraft 

utilizing CasaGrande Municipal Airport." The memo goes on to say that the 

"requirements of 14 CFR sections 105.5 and !05.23(c) have not been met to avoid the 

traffic pattern, thereby creating a hazard to other aircraft." The conclusion of the 

memo was that the Scottsdale FSDO "did not support the proposed parachute 

operation." (Complaint, at Exhibit 8). 

18. After receiving this report, Western-Pacific Region Airports Division of the FAA 

conducted another safety evaluation on July I, 2015 with FAA officials, Anthony 

Garcia and Mike Millard. On September 17, 2015, Brian Armstrong, the Manager of 

the Safety and Standards Branch of the Western-Pacific Region Airports Division, 

sent Manager Wilkie their findings in a Skydiving Safety Risk Assessment whereby 

stating that as the Airport currently operates, there were nine risk factors judged to be 

low-risk and five risk factors judged to exceed the desirable low-risk level, including 

-20-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

two that were determined to be at a high-risk level. Within this Assessment, Garcia 

provided Manager Wilkie with 23 mitigation measures that could lower these risks 

levels to a medium and speculated that after implementation the risk could even be 

shown to be lower. (Complaint, at Exhibit 1 0). 

19. This assessment from the FAA left many unanswered questions and concerns for the 

City including: who will be responsible for implementing the 23 mitigation 

measures, some of which are outside the City's control; even after implementing 

these mitigation measures, the formal determination was that the risk would be 

medium with no guarantee that implementing these mitigation measures will lower 

the risk level to the desired low level; how will implementing these mitigation 

measures affect the efficiency and, in turn, the financial viability of the Airport and 

all of its users; and the effect the potential increase in insurance coverage to cover a 

skydiving activity will have on the Airport's finances. After receiving this 

Assessment, Manager Wilkie told Complainant that he was going to take all of the 

information to the appropriate persons and boards to get feedback. While Manager 

Wilkie was working through the evaluation of the Assessment and the Informal 

Complaint process, Complainant filed this 14 CFR Part 16 Formal Complaint prior to 

the Part 13 Informal Complaint Process having run its course. 

20. On March 14,2016, the City received a letter from Mike Williams, the Manager of 

the Phoenix Airports District Office, stating that the City had 14 days to compile a 

corrective action plan to introduce skydiving and to initiate negotiations of reasonable 

terms to allow for a skydiving operation at the Airport. This letter shows how 

Complainant jumped the guu on the Part 16 Formal Complaint process by not 

-21-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

allowing the Part 13 Informal Complaint Process to run its course. In fact, by 

prematurely filing the Part 16 Formal Complaint and serving an improper party, 

Complainant has cause a lot of confusion for the City and the FAA, as the proper 

parties in the City did not receive the Notice of Docketing. Moreover, it appears that 

neither Mr. Garcia nor Mr. Williams was even aware during the Informal Complaint 

process that Complainant is still operating his skydiving business in CasaGrande. 

Clearly not all of the parties involved in the Part 13 Informal Complaint Process were 

even aware that Complainant had already filed a Part 16 Formal Complaint. 

DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

I. The Complaint does not establish a reasonable basis for fnrther investigation by the 

FAA. 

2. The Complaint does not contain sufficient evidence to meet Complainant's burden of 

proof to establish that the City has violated any Grant Assurance or 49 U.S. C. § 

40103(e). 

3. The City has acted in good faith in response to Complainant's request to establish a 

PLA adjacent to the runway and taxiway at the Airport. 

4. The City is, and has been, in compliance with its grant agreements and FAA 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

obligations. 

5. Complainant failed to either complete or abandon the Part 13 Informal Complaint 

process he initiated prior to filing the Complaint. 

6. Complainant has failed to serve a property party to initiate this Complaint against the 

City of Casa Grande. 

-22-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Relief Requested 

City respectfully requests that the FAA terminate the pending Part 13 proceedings and 

any purported obligations of the City thereto as a result ofthis Part 16 action, and deny all relief 

requested by Complainant. 

DATED this 61

h day of April, 2016. 

City Of Casa Grande, Arizona 

By ]rLJd 1J0 

Brett D. Wallace 

Attorney for Respondent 

City Of Casa Grande 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing CITY OF CASA 

GRANDE'SANSWER, STATEMENT OF FACTS, AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

on the following person at the following address by mail: 

Richard J. Durden 

Richard J. Durden, Attorney at Law 

27987 Richmond Hill Rd. 

Conifer, CO 80433 

Counsel for Complainant 

Dated this{;_ day of April, 2016 

-23-

By 1MfrJJl 

Brett D. Wallace 

Attorney for Respondent 

City Of Casa Grande 
EXHIBIT ONE 
·:;. 

} 

\ 

; 

) 

) 

) 

I 

) 

. · ... ·•·· ... ··.·•·· .· ..... · .·. < .. . •·••··•·•·••·· .. · .. ··. . 

. ~~~-·~1W.TION :.:-":._;·-·<<· :--:<:.-.. \ ·:·:·_:·:::·-:.-.---::- .. ··.'. .- · .. 

LUTHER KURTZ and ....•. ·. ·•.·· .. • ••. ·.•.··· ..••.•...• <··.·. .. .. r .. 

SKYD1VE COASTAL CALIF()RNlA .··· ·. · .. ) . d/b/a PHOENIX AREA SKYl)IVING.. ) · 

Complainant, · 

vs. 

· THE CITY OF CASAGRANDE, ARIZONA 

Respondent 

) 

).· 

) 

) Docket No.: Not Yet Issued 

) 

) 

) 

) 

14 CFR Part 16 COMPLAINT 

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 

L Entitles/Persons That Are the Subject of the Complaint 

Luther Kurtz brings this Complaint for himself and as owner of Sky dive Coastal 

California, d/b/a Phoenix Area Skydiving ("Mr. Kurtz" or "Complainant"). Since October 2006 

Complainant has been a commercial aeronautical user at Casa Grande Airport, Arizona 

("Airport"), which is owned by the City of CasaGrande, Arizona ("City"). As represented by 

counsel, Complainant makes the following Complaint under FAA Rules of Practice for 

Federally-Assisted Airport Proceedings, 14 Code ofFederal Regulations ("CFR") Part 16 for 

1 
) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

. . 

,;,lotio~ of 49 USC 1!41I0.~@i<)~~~-~-' Nondiscrimination and23,E#:l:Js~e~ii~(s,£aA~~;t{) cb~ply mth grant obligations and Federal . ' . . ~::_- .·; .. ·: 

Aviation Administration (Jr4ersi9fi.l!i.B;Ai1k∈;c.;,;itpltdttc~Manual, and relttted Advisory . . ·· .... , ............. ... : · .... , ....... · .. : ... ·· ··. . . . . . 

Circulars prohibiting establishiU¢fitofe)(dl!sivi,) r~ghtsat imairport, unjust discrimination against 

a commercial aeronauticalactivits~k~iafrport~es~andthe establishment of arbitrary, 

unattainable and discrimi!latory staridards for ~ c()@nercial aeronautical activity seeking airport 

access, against the City of CasaGrande, Arizona as the owner and sponsor of the Airport, as will 

be more fully set out below. 

The City of Casa Grande, Arizona, through its City Manager, James Thompson, may be 

Teached at 510 E. Florence Blvd~ CasaGrande, Arizona, 85122. 

II. 14 CFR §16.21 Certification 

Complainant began services as a commercial skydiving center on the Airport in 2006 

under an agreement through which it would rent space in the airport terminal until such time as 

rental office and classroom space became available on the Airport. (Exhibit 2) 1 At the time the 

parachute landing area (PLA)/drop zone (DZ)/landing zone (LZ) was located some three miles 

north of the Airport on rented land. (For convenience, the space used by skydivers for landing 

) will be defined as a PLA, LZ or DZ, interchangeably.) 

) 

) 

_) 

1 Due to the large number of emails relevant to this matter, for convenience most have been collected into one, 

multi-page document and labeled as Exhibit 1. Throughout this Complaint, when reference is made to evidence in 

an email, it will be to Exhibit l and the appropriate page number or numbers of the exhibit. The single-document 

exhibits begin with Exhibit 2. 

2 
\j 

:;:~ l 

j) 

} 

;~ 

::"Y 

} 

) 

>·--

'~) ·y 

) 3 

"" ,_,. 

j 

:; 

:-~ 

J 

-:-, 

·~ 

'"' 

;,j 

) 

) 

-.,_~ 

~ ~,. 

j 

) 

] 

j 

) 

) 

) 

) t) 

t 

\ 

I 

) 

' ,_, 

} [p 

) 

' ' ' ··•··•···· .··.· << > ' .• >' . 

Shortly after sta1ting its s~nrice,@p~pla)n~tw~stold by the City that it could not 

operate a skydiving busiuess ollth(\~o~. fJo~~uicatiOJ1 b~een Complainant, the City, the 

Scottsdale FSDO and Los Angeles ~it:.tld~~j)ivisi~n re$olved .the situation and Complainant 

began what became several years df:successf:utandsafe opeiati(ln. (Exhibit~) ', :· .· -. :·:·._:·: . :_ .-.-: ·:: .. : .. ::-.--_·-: -:,: .. ·' -.: ...... · . ' ... - . . -

. After Complainant had:been o~tatillg o)l the Airport for over six years, a new airport ; -' -. -· ··- -._· .. - . 

manager, Richard Wilkie, was appointed. Within a short time manager Wilkie began to execute 

his strategy for full denial of airport ac.cl:lSS for skydiving. It first surfaced on September 25, 

2013, when he left Mr .. Kurtz a voicemail advising him that his business was being evicted from 

the office space in the terminal it had occupied continuously since 2006. (Exhibit 2) 

Mr. Kurtz met with manager Wilkie on October 4, 2013 to point outtbathe had been 

trying to rent other space on the airport for over six years. At the meeting Wilkie not only said 

that Complainant's company was not going to be able to continue to rent its space in the 

tenninal, it also would not be allowed to rent any spac.e on the Airport and would not even be 

allowed to fly its clients out of the Airport. (Exblbit 2) 

Mr. Kurtz reminded manager Wilkie of the Airport sponsor's obligations to allow 

airplanes carrying skydivers-or any other occupants-to take off from its Airport and manager 

Wilkie .backed down on the ban, agreeing to continue to allow Complainant's aircraft to take off 

carrying skydivers. (Exhibit 2) Wilkie also agreed to delay eviction of Complainant's business 

from the terminal for an indeterminate time and, initially, was amiable in face-to-face dealings 

and emails. (Exhibit 1, generally) 

Later on the same day, Complainant made a written proposal to manager Wilkie to 

establish a PLA on the Airport. (Exhibit 3) 

3 
) 

,! ' 

) 

) 

) 

I 

A~ mili~ on~~~1¥Po¥~~~.~loly 7, 2014, =-Wi~o ~~ Complainant a letter (EXhibi~J.kaie 17 ~4k~blf~) d~~ymgthe request for an on-~irport 

PLA citing safety, insuran~eap<f~{[j~i¢llg;, 

On July 25, 2014,· Mr.Kurttbtovided~••·Ietter.to.manager Wilkie addressing each ofthe .·__ .. _-_:_.:_.... .· .. ·.: ... · .. _ _.-_ . 

reasons relied upon for the denial and with a new proposal that met each one. (Exhibit 5) 

On August 1, 2014, manager Wilkie responded by saying that he wocld meet mth airport 

users and City officials to discuss the proposal over the next few months "if at all possible." 

(Exhibit 1, page 22, also see Exhibit 1, pages 18-21). 

As a result of manager Wilkie's actions, Mr. Kurtz made a Part 13 Informal Complaint to 

the FAA Airports Division, Westem~Pacific Region. (Exhibit2) 

Airports Program Compliance Specialist, Western-Pacific Region, Anthony Garcia, 

informed the City of the Complaint. Manager Wilkie issued a letter to the aviation community in 

the Phoenix area seeking support for his opposition to skydiving at CasaGrande and held a series 

of meetings only open to those who were opposed to skydiving. The City, .through manager 

Wilkie, then responded to the Part 13 Complaint with its reasons for skydiving denial. (Exhibit 

6) After consideration ofthe City's response, Mr. Garcia of the FAA informed the City, on 

October 8, 2014, that its denial was notreasonable, ihat it was inappropriate to reach out to flight 

schools based on other airports to seek reasons to deny skydiving at CasaGrande and that the 

issue of safety was for the FAA to detennine, not the sponsor. Mr. Garcia requested that Flight 

Standards determine whether skydiving could be integrated into the Airport's operations "in spite 

of the reasons" provided by the City. (Exhibit 7) 

4 
) 

} 

) 

-} 

J 

) 

) 

i 1 :~/ ' 

) 

) 

) 

i 

) 

) 

On Fob<- 5, 2frl5:<ws~~~Po"<Uf,~.w~~ . . _,_. ,•', . . .. . ' ' -. 8) ootiioillg fu'="'" 

of its safety audit. . The persoJ)Ilei ~~<! @Mu~t¢dille aQi:liti.lld not visit the Airport to perfonn ,,<-... 

the audit. They did not contacrJ.:J1thirkurtfotfueUrH!iedstatesParach4ie Association to get 

expert input on parachute operations,;rhe~~enlo{ExhibitJ~)appeared to track the Part 13 

opposition letter (Exhibit 6) Written b;rm~~gerWiWe and concluded thatthe FSDO did not 

· support the proposed parachute operation .. 

. . . 

Luther Kurtz immediately sent a lettertoMr. Garcia, Airports Program Compliance 

Specialist,Jisting the shortcomings in the Scottsdale safety audit. (Exhibit 9) On July l, 2015, 

IVfike Millard; Aviation Safety Inspector, ·General Aviation Operations Branch; AFS-830; Flight · 

Standards Service- General Aviation and Commercial Division, and Anthony Garcia, Airports 

Compliance Specialist, Western-Pacific region, Airports Division- Safety & Standards Branch, 

traveled to the Airport to conduct an on-site safety audit and meet with the parties most 

knowledgeable about the Airport and its operations, including manager Wilkie and Mr. Kurtz. 

They carried out their review in accordance with the FAA's Risk Assessment for Airports with 

Parachute Operations checklist Upon· completion of the on-site review, manager Wilkie refused 

to sign the Risk Assessment checklist acknowledging his presence at the review. (Exhibits 10 

andll) 

On September 17, 2015, Brian Annstrong, Manager, Safety and Standards Branch of the 

Western-Pacific Region sent the fmdings made by the FAA during its on-site review and Risk 

Assessment evaluation. Its conclusion was that with application of the risk mitigation measures 

outlined by the FAA, skydiving could be safely conducted onto the Airport. (Exhibit 1 0) 

5 
) 

) 

) 

) 

) ,.7 ) 

) 

) 

The City's resp6nse to th~FAA ·wasto delb®dJlte ~nderlying fonn the FAA used in tlle 

safety audit and to !mow who ~t~efAJ\~asinviivea iq rellching the decision (Exhibit 1, pages 

. 58-61) and to ignorelMr. Kmiz'sr~tlests tol!egotiakthe~cessary arrangements to establish . 

skydiving. Manager Willdethen saidhewasgoing tPn~achout to "stakeholders" to see if it 

would be possible for skydiving to •tal\:e pl;l.Qe. {ExJljbit 1, page 60) Rather th® take any action . . . .· . · ... ·.. .. . . . 

to work with the Airport users and Mr. Kurtz and bill com.pany, m®agerWilkie refused to hold 

any meetings in which Airport users and Mr .. Kurtz could discuss integration of skydiving onto 

the Airport. In addition, manager Wilkie refused to respond to Mr. Kurtz's requests that he 

provide the names of t.'los.e hereferred to as "stakeholders;' so that Mr. Kurtz could reach out to 

them regarding integrationofskydiving at the Airport. 

The FAA, through Al!thony Garcia, responded immediately to Manager Wilkie's dem®d 

for underlying information on the report and stated: 

''We are providing this response as a timely reply to your request, 

but we shall be communicating with you again shortly to detennine 

what actions the City is taking to make the airport available for all 

kinds and classes of aeronautical activities, which includes 

skydiving." (Exhibit 1, page62) 

On October 20, 2015, Mr. Garcia followed up his communication with an email to 

Manager Wilkie demanding to know why the City was continuing its stance of delaying rather 

than 'laking action to allow seydiving on the Airport. (Exhibit 1, pages 62.fi4) Complainant 

Luther Kurtz attempted to contact manager Willie following Mr. Garcia's email, but Mr, Wilkie 

refused to respond or take any action to negotiate procedures for skydiving on tlle Airport. 

(Exhibit 1, pages 64-66) 

On November 20,2015, a full month after Mr. Garcia's email, manager Wilkie finally 

responded with an email that did not agree to allow skydiving but said that an old airport 

6 
'~ :7 

'WI 

;.;;.7 

j) 

;~ 

?~ 

,:·:·? 

}:~ 

;} 

) 3 

) 

') 

;:;,_-7 

,J 

) 

':'''< I g ·. '~ ;,r 

') 

J 

.. ,. 

~J 

) 

) 

) 

:;;. 

j 

.~. 

} 

J 

) 

l ~ ) 

) 

i ~0 ) 

committee, long defunct, :()f,q~<l,en#~td lt)>'nrbers had been brought back into existence to 

"move the discussion'' on skY~~~~. ~bitl,•p~ge65).lW;. Kurtz asked manager Wilkie for 

contact information for the:rtu:orl1bkrsso heei)uldprovideinforrrtation on skydiving to them. 

(Exhibit 1, page 65) WhenJvtr: I{Urtt said• he \'louldprovidetheminformation on parachute 

operations at the next commi~ee,lfi~ting,MaflgerWilkie cancelled the meeting and then said 

that Ul) action would be taken bytheconunittee ~tilatleastJanuary or February of2016. 

(Exhibit 1, page 67) 

Upon receiving a copy of lminager Wilkie's statement that no action would be taken on 

skydiving until after the fmlt ofthe year, Airports Program Compliance Specialist Garcia sent 

another email to Wilkie advising him that the delay was unreasonable and asking why the City 

was continuing to drag its feet. (Exhibit 1, page 65) Wilkie responded by stating that the 

committee to discuss sk-ydiving might ormight not get to the .subject in January 2016. 

As may be seen from the above; Complainant hereby certifies that he and his company 

have made a substantial and reasonable good faith effort to resolve the matter informally, 

including a Prut 13 Complaint that found in his favor, and there is no reasonable prospect of 

practical and timely resolution of the dispute. 

As a result of Complainant's repeated requests for access to the Airport, the FAA's 

findings on safety and the City's passive aggressive policy against the FAA's requirements to 

equally allow aeronautical users access to its Airport despite assertive action by the FAA office 

involved, Complainant elected to file this Complaint and respectfully requests that the FAA find 

) he and his company have fulfilled its 14 CFR § 1621 obligations. 

l 

/ 

7 
.l 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

. . . 

·· .. ··· .•... · ' · .. ···· · .. ·· .· .·· .·.· .•. · .. 

·. ·\: .. _·:... . - . ·. . ·_, . . -. . 

· ~)\ ~actllatB~Ickgroulld ·· 

A. The Long-Established Stcydi~i~~;(Operati<ln ... • ·. · . - -- _· .· .·' ·_<--:->:':_<·_: ... :_·.,:.-·,_:---< .. · __ --. -_ .. . . . . .. . 

Luther Kurtz has beena skydiyer since l997. · He holds, or has held, the following United 

States Parachute Association ratings: ~~dentinstructor/Examiner, AFF Instructor, 

Coach/Examiner, Static Line Instructor, and IAD Instructor. He has completed over9,00(} 

jumps. He also holds an FAA Co111tnercial pilot certificate and has approximately 1,200 hours of 

flying time, mostly in sk-ydiving operations. Mr. Kurtz started offering sk-ydiving services to the 

public in 2001 through SkydiveHarborSprings, Inc. in Michigan. Later, while attending the 

University of California at San Diego he started another skydiving center, Pacific Coast 

Skydiving Inc. Following graduation, he went into the business of stinting skydiving centers 

around the country. 

Since 2007, Mr. Kurtz has successfully negotiated with more than 20 airports to offer 

skydiving services to the public. Eight of the operations served major metropolitan areas 

including; Phoenix, San Diego, Los Angeles, Detroit, Washington DC, Atlanta, Fort Myers, and 

:Miami. Currently, Mr. Kurtz's businesses offer skydiving services at more than ten airports, 

with six near major metrQpolitan·areas. 

In 2006, Mr. Kurtz approached the Casa. Grande Airport about operating a commercial 

skydiving company on. the Airport. During the course of discussions, it was agreed that he 

would rent land for a PLA some three miles north of the Airport and base the business in the 

Airport tenninai because there was no office/classroom space available for rent on the Airport. 

8 
) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(Exhibit 2) Mr. Kurtt advised (Jity p~rso~e!Jbath~wisbedtotent such space on the Airport 

should it become avaihtble. · ..·· 

. ·.··: ··:. · .. 

A sh~rt time afrers.tartm·· .. ·.g····· .. o .. p .erations: the.Cizytold~. Kum that his company could not ... ·, ... · .... ··.· ..... : ,_.. . . . 

operate its business on the }\jl'port Once Mr. Ku~ c~?lU.Ull;)llicated with the Cizy, the Scottsdale, 

Arizona FSDO and the Los Angel~sAfrports Divisiort,the City again agreed that );Jr. Kurtz's 

company could operate .a co!l1!11eTcial<ikydiving business from the tenninal. (Exhibit 2) 

The operation of Mr. Kum' s skydiving business at the Airport went so well that when he 

applied to open a commercial skydivillg operation on an airport in Virginia, Kevm Louis, the 

CasaGrande Airport Director, wrote a letter praising Kut'a:'s operation as safe, professional and 

courteous. (Exhibit 12) Later, manager Wilkie;. ill writing, described Mr. Kurtz's company as a 

good Airport tenant. (Exhibit l, page 11) 

B. The Airport. 

CasaGrande Airport is a smgle-runway, general aviation airport owned by sponsor, the 

Cizy of Casa Grande,. Arizona, the recipient of federal AlP grant funds. According to the Cizy, 

there are some 101 aircraft based on the field and in the year endingApril 29; 2014, the Airport 

average 328 aircraft operations per day-a portion of which-were Complainmt's aircraft. During 

the time Complainmt has operated from the Airport there have been a number of aircraft 

accidents and incidents on or near the Airport. None involved skydiving. 

c. Notice of Eviction from Office Space in the Tenninal. 

· Shortly after Richard Wilkie became the new airport manager, he began an apparent 

three-pronged strategy to deny all skydiving access to the Airport-evict Complainant from its 

9 
established office space o11 ~¢ AJ~o~, r¢fut~etorentitneWofjlce space anywhere on the 

Airport and prevent it frolllbUici~g·~ ~?fice adj;i6~~ttoi~ Orf"aiiport PLA. Step Me occurred 

without warning on Septernb¢!·23,idij l1l~~ger~iilkie'le~avoicemail for Mr. Kmiz telling 

him that his business was.!)eing:tbto'YlioiltoftheAirp~rtterminal and he had 30 days to vacate 

~ the premises. (Exhibit2)Manager~Hltie;s subsequt1!1tjustification for eviction from the 

~ terminal included, 

;~~ 

:3 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

} 

" ... theplannedrenovatioi).s to the terminalalso.presented the city 

with an excellent opportunity to reprogram the very limited space 

iii the terminal in onierto erthance the image and reputation of the 

airport, to better meetthe needs of the increase in flight operations 

that the airport is. vurr~tly experiencing and is anticipating with 

the development of the PhoenixM:artinternational Business 

Sourcing Center, and to position the airport to be able to capture 

some of the significall.ttourism dollars that are rt1lated to the major 

events held in the valley by promoting our airport as an alternative 

to the more congested airports ilp in the valley." (Exhibit 1 p. 11) 

Mr. Kurtz was allowed to meet with manager Wilkie on October 4, 2013. Wilkie told 

Mr. Kurtz that in addition to his skydiving operation being evicted from a space it had used for 

six years, it was not goingto be allowed to rent space anywhere on the Airport and would be . . 

prohibited from flying skydivers from the Airport. (Exhibit 2) 

Manager Wilkie was reminded by Mr. Kurtz that the Airport sponsor could not prohibit 

airplanes engaged in a legitimate aeronautical activity-that of carrying skydivers-from taking 

off from the Airport. At that point, Mr. Wilkie backed down on the skydiving takeoff ban and 

agreed to delay eviction of the company from the terminal. (Exhibit 2) Emails show that 

manager Wilkie then presented a friendly persona toward skydiving for a tin1e. (Exhibit 1) 

D. On-Airport PLA Application. 

10 
): 3~ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

l-mmclyfull•~•"~"'"' ~~i~#twn~< M' M-, maw. 

proposal and application to·th~Cio/tbrOU~-~~ag~t~i!Jd~to-establish a PLA on the Airport 

and to establish oifice and da8s~ool'l1faciliti¢s o!} fue'f>ltp<n:f. {Exhibit 3} 

The City, through manager~il~e,delayedrespondingto the proposal for eight months. 

E. Off-Airnort Office Proposal.·· 

Due to the hostility toward skydiving exhibited by manager Wilkie, Mr. Kurtz began 

looking for options. to continue to ope;rate his blJsiness in away that minimized the need to deal 

with Wilkie and the City .. He. obtained. permission from the ovmer of the rural property he was 

renting for a PLA to erect a building to house his company ori site. Mr. Kurtz then applied to the 

local County (the City did .not have jurisdiction or control over the site) to have the zoning of that 

property changed so that he could build the building. Ten days before the hearing for the zoning 

variance, despite a lack of jurisdiction or control over the site; City personnel sent a lettertothe 

County Zoning Board opposing the variance. (Exhibit 13) The variance was denied. Manager 

Wilkie originally denied involvement with the City's opposition to the variance; however, the 

. langliage oftheCity's letter was composed by someone with knowledge of Complainant's 

business. Later, another denial by manager Wilkie regarding his actions proved to be false. He 

held a number of meetings for area pilots to stir up opposition to sk-ydiving on the Airport. At 

one, he denied admission to a staffmemberofMr. Kurtz's company, repeatedly claiming that the 

) meeting was only for invitees, yet the group that announced the meeting at manager Wilkie's 

) request produced evidence that manager Wilkie's request was for a public meeting. (Exhibit 1 

) 

pages 30-42) 

F. Office Space Denial. 

) 11 

) 
) 

) 

) 

·~ 

;? 

) 

) 

The proposal. f&ran:on-Ai;porl:'PLAi:n.;i@6ci l1' prqposal for office spaeeonthe Airport . 

. (Exhibit 3) After eight l11onthsof®lay,)U~~~r~il~e denied both the PLA and the office 

spare. 

On June 30,· 2014, Mr. Kum againmact~~requestfor .• office space on the Ai;portto 

manager Wilkie. (Exhibit l, p.14)Mr. Wilkie r:ep~ed~atdaysaying there was no commerdal .·. ·. . · .. ·.. . .. . . 

space available, but '~as the airportcontinuesto grow there will come a time where additional 

()Omrnercial space will be needed and you will ofc{}ursehave the opportunity to make a proposal 

to utilize the space," (Emphasis added, Exhibit l, p. 15) 

Following the PLA denial, Mr. Kurtz again asked manager Wilkie to" ... start an open 

dialogue in regards to f'mding a more permanent location for me to operate on the ai;port ... " 

(Exhibit 1, p. 21) 

Despite Mr. Kurtz having requested office space on the Airport other than the terminal, 

when space opened up, manager Wilkie gave it to anyone except Mr. Kurtz: On September 29, 

2014, Mr. Kum became aware of office space that was open on the Airport and llpproached Mr. 

Wilkie to rent it. (Exhibit 1, p; 42) Mr. Wilkie rented it to someone else. Mr. Kurtz called-Mr. 

Wilkie on his "no office space for skydiving strategy on November 19, 2014. (Exhibit I, page 

43) 

Mr. Wilkie's strategy was so egregious that it was noticed and commented on adversely 

by Anthony Garcia ofthe FAA's Airports Division, Western-Pacific Regioll'-"repeated denials 

will likely create a pattern indicating that the City is purposely denying access to Mr. Kum for 

any purpose:" (Exhibit 1, page45) The remainder ofExhibit l hasemailsbetweenMt:. Kurtz 

and manager Wilkie as Mr. Kurtz tries to get office space and manager Wilkie holds out and then 

12 
. ·- . · .. _·._.... .- . . .· .. :'· . 

. .· ·. .. ·,__ .... ·,_·· .. :··<· >' . _· : .·· 

f) . withdraws a number of.•Pqteritlal19cations ... Man~gerWi1kie has·still not rented either .existing 

' ~ 

·~ j 

:~l 

; 1:.\1 ,;7 ~0 :_':%, 

·.$ 

,;;,<> 

·.·.··.···'· 

"7! •' 

_) 

) 

) lh"'l 

1 IV 

-1 

) 

} 

) 

) 

· office space or unused landfor ~~(ld~ar ?ft!(Je to Mr. KUrtz.· .. 

G. On-Airport DZ DeJliat. .·. . . ·.. •'. . ·.. .·. . 

On July 7, 2014, managerWilkie sentalettertoMr. kurtz denying the request for an on ~ - ,• - . . . . . - . . -. . 

Airport DZ. (Exhibit 1, page.17, Exhibit4) The.den:ialcited concerns with safety, insurance and . . · .. ·. . ~ . . .. : . . . . 

a threat to the Airport becoming self-sufficient·because {)fa general fear that skydiving would 

scare away bizjet traffic, but did.not include any evidence to support the perceived threats. 

Complainant Kurtz prepared a response to manager Wilkie's denial of an on-Airport DZ, 

and provided it to him on July 25,2014. (Exhibit 5) In it he addressed each of the concerns 

raised by manager Wilkie through willingness to move the location of the proposed PLA and 

work with the airport "to make the safest enviromnent possible for all users," work with the 

airport on findin:g appropriate insurance (he asked .for the name .of the insurer.used by the City to 

work directly with it) and rebutted the fear ofloss ofbizjets with reference to the real world of 

professional pilots flying bizjets where the owners want to go into airports across the nation that 

have all types ofaeronautical activities operating. (Exhibit 5) 

The response of manager Wiikie (copied 'to Anthony Garcia of the FAA's WesternPacific Region) was to say that he would meet with " ... other major users of the airport ... " 

" ... professional aviation associations and groups, and other airport manager's{sic) within the 

region and the state." Once he· had done that, he would" ... draft up a response that I will submit 

to the city's senior management team and city council for their consideration." Only then would 

Mr. Kurtz get a response. (Exhibit 1, page 18) 

13 
The following day, theFAA'sAnthol).yG~cias<:lntan.~mail to·manager Wilkie noting 

. that Wilkie's plan for disclosur()to.#sersi" ... i$ a~~oiitiv<:l ~toti~n ... " and pointing out that " ... the . · ... ._ 

purpose of the disclost~re slloti\(l })¢ to. s&li<lit ac¢¢Prance a:rldideas for a workable, safe and 

efficient way to integrate sky~villgi11t<1fhe ~tiJortmix ~faeronautical users and activities." Mr. 

Garcia went on to warn, "Itwouldnotbe~ppropriatet() use negative responses from airport 

users related to skydiving, in part ~r~hole, to ~orrn»late a decision that denies skydiving at . - - . . -. . . - _' . 

CGZ." (Exhibit 1, page 19) Despite Mr, Garcia's friendly ·guidance, manager Wilkie went to the . . . . . . . 

state aviation communizy with a letter .stating his opposition to skydiving on the airport because 

he felt it was unsafe (he never asked the ultimate arbiter ofairport safety, the F M, t<J conduct a 

t;afely study) and to " ... meet with as many ofyou as I can ... " in order to " ... clearly identifY the 

•"] safety concerns and compile as much documentation supporting the concerns as possible." 

·:;-

'"O:'i 

•" (Exhibit 1, page 27) 

•:) 

~y 

.) H. Part 13 Complaint. 

On August 8, 2014, after an eight-month delay in responding to his original proposal and 

witnessing the delaying tactic manager Wilkie had announced to avoid responding to his letter 

addressing the PLA denial, Mr. Kurtz filed a 14 CFR Part 13 Informal Complaint with the FAA 

Airports Division, Western-Pacific Region, (Exhibit 2) 

The City responded to the Complaint on October 3, 2014 asserting that its ban on 

) skydiving access to the Airport was purely based on safety issues (Exhibit 6. Note, the 17-page 

) Y 3 response is attached as an exhibit, the additional 16 pages of "supporting docmnents" are not 

! included an attempt to minimize the size of this Complaint. Should those pages be desired, ;< 

j 

) 

) 

14 

) 
-~ df 

31 

I) 

:~ Ys 

'1 

) 

} ' 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Complainant will providetht\m inUliddi~t~ly,) In its re~po11Se, the City dropped its insurance and . .. · .. _... : '-: . . _ .... ·_ ··. -· .' _-.:.·.···. 

frightening away bizjets cdnce!ns. < 

Interestingly, .even thoughth~City!Wdlnuf ei~]}t rl1o11ths to examine specific concerns . . . ' ' - ' . - . - ' . . . . . ' . . 

with safety-which it isassmne~~tdidi;ftacfectfugoodfaith-the City used none of the 

analysis it did during that eight months !nits re~ponse to. the Part 13 Co.mplaint. Rather, it 

scrambled to co.ntact as many usersas~ossibleto getthem to. write up a parade of potential 

ho.rribles were skydiving to. take place on the Airport as a post hoc justification for the original 

denial. It used solely the post-denial material it colle.cted in its Part 13 response-a clear 

indication that the original denial was based on nothing but speculation. 

lVIr. Wilkie asked for and was granted a two-week extension o.ftime to respond to the 

Part 13 Co.mplaint so that he could collect data on safety. In the email granting the extension, 

Anthony Garcia said, 

"The data col!ectio.n should identify airport specific reaso.ns why 

parachuting cannot be reasonably integrated into normal airport 

operations at CGZ. It should consider why other general aviation 

airports that are similar to CGZ can integrate parachuting without 

undermining safety. It should also consider 'l"thy other airpo1ts that 

are busier than CGZ can also accommodate parachuting without 

peril. You may also wish to explore the material benefits to the 

airport of based aeronautical businesses versus transient users., 

(Exhibit 1, page 38) 

Manager Wilkie foHowed none of those recommendations. 

During the eight months manager Wilkie sat o.n the original proposal and two months he 

spent scrambling to come up with denial justifications, he never once met with anyone with 

knowledge of parachuting operations such as Luther Krutz (who operates multiple DZs acwss 

the U.S.), other DZ operators or the United States Parachute Association to. honestly discuss 

15 
;:) 

:;1 

) 

. ~ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

} 

. . > .··.•• •.. ·· •.. ·· .··.· .. ·. •·••·.···· > ·.. ·.. . 

whether skydiving cou14sl1felyheintegtatedintoihe AJrpqrl'$• operations. Then, to prepare his 

response to the Part 13 .C~~~~~ni, he ~d•notggibdtitr~~-pick data that supported his 

preconceived notion thath~di~'t ~a~ts~di~ingo~~e ~rPQrt-hardly an objective, rational, 

safety analysis and clearly e.Videhee dfh.is intent to prohibit skYdiving no matter what. 

Manager Wilkie sentoutthe notice of one ofthe l]nti-skydiving meetings he held inviting 

all users. When one ofC(lmplainant's staffers arrlvedatthetneeting to provide information on .· . . . . ' . . . 

skydiving operations to Airport users, he was denied entrance by Mr. Wilkie. Mr. Wilkie 

subsequently claimed that the meeting was by invitation orily-· however, the meeting organizer 

provided evidence that Mr. Wilkie Was lying. (Exhibit 1, pages 27"37) 

Western-Pacific Airport Programs Compliance Specialist, Anthony Garcia, who was 

assigned to evaluate the Part 13 Complaint, replit:Jd on to the City after receiving its response in 

an October .8, 2014letter entitled Feedback Regarding City's Reply to lnfonnal Complaint. 

(Exhibit 7) In it, Mr. Garcia went through the reasons the City had expressed for denying 

skydiving access and noted that "Interestingly, some of the reasons the City presented to exclude 

skydiving might conceivably be used to exclude other aeronautical activities." He then 

specifically identified additional flight schools, ultralights and helicopters. Addressing the 

unwillingness of flight schools to share an airport with skydivers by stating, " ... it may provide a 

better environment for flight training iftlle mix of airport activities instills situational awareness 

in student pilots." He went on to state, "Furthermore, the complete denial of airport access based 

on local user opinions is also not reasonable in the absence of objective data that might actually 

justify a denial." 

16 
~so ·~e> 

/) 

~:') 

Mr. Garcia closedhiwJ~tt~r by statfug, ''It is 9Ur s~!lSi;\that the .Ci1y's denial of access is 

likely unreasonable and r~pre$i;\nts~ju$tdis~rifukatt~naga~tparachuting." He requested that 

Flight Standards perform asafetyt<v~~ti6nand·~tat~~~~tpehding the safety evaluation his 

letter was a "preliminary informafd~t~r~n~ti~u':byth~~estem-Pacific Airports Division 

at the FSDO sent a memo saying they did not support the proposed parachute operation. 

(Exhibit 8) The memo appears to largely restate the reasons that the City had set out in its letter 

) · in opposition to the Part 13 Complaint. (Exhibits 6 and 8) 

') 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)sJ.. 

) 

'· ) 

) 

) 

J 

Complainant sent a letter to Anthony Garcia-signatory of the FAA's informal 

determination of the Part 13 Complaint-and others, outlining specific concerns with the 

FSDO's review memo. (Exhibit 9} 

The FAA's Western-Pacific Region Airports Division Office made the decision to 

conduct an on-site safety audit. It dispatched Mike Miliard, Aviation Safety Inspector, General 

Aviation Operations Branch, AFS-830, Flight Standards Service- General Aviation and 

Commercial Division, and Anthony Garcia, Airports Compliance Specialist, Western-Pacific 

region, Airports Division- Safety & Standards Branch, to the Airport on July 1, 2015. As a part 

of the- audit, the FAA team· met withcah:port users and those most familiar "With its operations, 

including manager Wilkie and Complainant. (Exhibit I 0) According to the exhibit, the FAA 

17 
:·."'····.··.·.·.· d 

) 

) 

) 

)55 

) 

) 

team carried out its audit i!l<accordliJ1c~ wit,hJ:1ieJ<':t\A's Risk. Assessment for Airports with . - ' - - . . ' . . . . . . ' . 

Parachute Operations checldist ;Wllickwl}lip;i~yiq~dtfl~llllager- Wilkie and Mr. Kurtz. In 

keeping with his intense oppositiontosky4i~in~·ontl1eA·npof1,manager Wilkie refused to even 

sign the checklist acknowledginglllspresencel!~(iinv\iiYe!llentwith the on.site audit. (Exhibit 

10) 

On September 17, 2015, BrianA!'Ilistrong,Manager, Safety and Standards Branch of the 

Western·Pacific Region of the FAA published the findings made by the FAA, and reviewed at 

the highest level of the Airports Division following the ou~site. audit and Risk Assessment 

evaluation. Those findings clearly stated that with some minor risk mitigation measures 

cmnmon to many skydiving operations, skydiving could safely be conducted onto the Airport. 

{Exhibit 10) With the fmal safety study concluded, the October 8, 2014 preliminarY 

determination that the City's denial of access was unreasonable by the Western-Pacific Region 

Airports Office became final . 

. Rather than take steps to begin integrating skydiving into Airport operations, the City 

continued its refusal to allow the aeronautical activity to take place. On September 29, 2015, its 

first public step was to demand that the FAA provide the form used in reaching its decision and 

the identities ofthe persons involved. (Exhibit 1, pages 58 and 61) 

Mr. Kurtz had; by this time, attempted again to work with the City and manager Wilkie to 

set up procedures to integrate skydiving into Airport operations. (Exhibit 1, page 59) He had no 

success. (Exhibit 1, page 60 et. seq.) In masterful bureaucratese, manager Wilkie told Mr. Kurtz 

that he was going to reach out to unidentified and undefined "stakeholders" to see if it were 

possible for skydiving to take place on the Airport. (Exhibit 1, page 60) 

18 
) 

) 

J 

) 

1 I "bO 

) 

j 

) 

By October 20, 2015, Apili~ni G~rci?J haQJ)iovidedmanager Wilkie with all of the 

information he hadrequest¢t! ·.·. ~or~ ~~tillce ah~s~ntanemail to Mr. Wilkie. about. Wilkie's 

repeated requests for•~e same~fottn~tlion~q(]v~rmtioot·dn~gging. (Exhibit 1, page 62) 

Manager WilkierefusedallofMr. Ku~'stequeststo .organize meetings with users, to 

integrate skydiving into operations and refusedto idef1ticy the "stakeholders" he referenced. He 

also refused to answer theuumerous questions asked by Mr. Garcia in his October 20, 2015 

email, including when the never-ending consultation with stakeholders would be concluded. 

The October 20, 2015 .email caused Mr. Kurtz to.again reach out to the City offering to 

work with it to set up procedures to begin operations-to no avait (Exhibit 1, page 64) 

A month after Mr. Garcia's email, manager Wilkie deigned to reply-not stating that the 

City was taking any action to comply with its obligations, but that a defunct committee would be 

·resurrected to "·move·the discussion." (Exhibit 1, page 65)' Upon receipt of a copy of manager 

Wilkie's email, Mr. Kurtz asked for the names of the committee members so he could provide 

information to them. (Exhibit 1, page 65) Mr. Garcia's response to manager Wilkie's referring 

the matter to committee email came the next day~ (Exhibit 1·, p; 66) In it he said; 

"Stakeholder consultations appear to be a way for the City to delay 

an announcement Of the City's actual skydiving policy. In the 

meantime, there have not been apy meaningful negotiations with 

Mr. Kurtz. The City has not been able to tell the FAA whether or 

·not it will allow skydiving. These realities may be caused by what 

appears to be a de facto City policy j:hat actually prevents 

· skydiving at CGZ. Taken all together, the City's actions can 

reasonably be interpreted as a denial of access for skydiving." 

(Exhibit 1, page. 66) 

Manger Wilkie's response was more delay-he cancelled the committee meeting at 

which Mr. Kurtz was prepared to present information on skydiving operations and announced 

19 
) 

) 

) 

) 

) bd-

.) 

) 

\ 

J 

! 

) 

flW ili< commili<e ~-tfu><~~~ ... l,i~~b=ry, lfttwooo.;OOd 00~ the matter under consideration, ~xlJ~itl,page o'7) ••..• ··.>· · .. 

• • • i / > •••.• 

TV. Viol~tions•}lytbe City !lfCasa G~ande, Arizona 

A. FAA Safety Finding and Part 13 Informal Complaint. 

Following the Part 13 Complaint filed by Complainant, the FAA's Western-Pacific 

Region, on September 17, 2015, published its fmding that skydiving could be safely conducted 

onto the Airport with application of the risk mitigation measures outlined. (Exhibit 9) After the 

City, through manager Wilkie, repeatedly stiff-armed the FAA with vague statements that it 

. would talk with "stakeholders" and bring a dead committee2 back to life to possibly look into 

someday allowing skydiving, the FAA, through Anthony Garcia, described the continual 

delaying tactics of the City as unreasonable and that they may result in a determination that the 

City is in violation of its Grant Assurances in a Part 16 action. (Exhibit 1, page 66) 

The City has never disputed the safety findings of the FAA. Rather, it has engaged in 

the tactic of not doing anything while vaguely promising to talk with some people about the 

subject. As set forth above, the FAA's initial decision on the Part 13 Complaint that the City 

was in violation of its Grant Assurances became fmal upon the completion of the safety study by 

its Western-Pacific office. 

B. Law, Argument and Specific Violations by the City. 

2 A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain." Robett A. Heinlein 

20 
1bS 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

49 USC§ 47101, etseq,,~rovide~J<>ff'~4¢r~l~irportfmancialassistanceforthe . 

development ofpublic~use airpo~\U14~tth~~rrpo~~dAi~vay Improvement Act (AAIA), as :·-···:::: .... ··<·-·· ... _ 

amended. 49 USC § 47107,etseq., $ecifotth.~$stif~c~lrto ~hich an ai1port sponsor agrees as a 

condition of receiving Federal fi~~ciat~sl~~!lce. Upo~acceptance of an AlP grant, the 

.assurances become a binding contractualo])Jig~tion·be~eentheairport sponsor and the Federal . . :-_ ·._-. .'·' .. '• ':. ·. . · .. :. '.. . 

government The assurances made by ail'p()tt sponlmrsin AIP grant agreements are important 

factors in maintaining a viable national airport system. [See Florida Aerial Advertising v. St. 

Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, FAA Docket No. 16-03-01, Director's 

Determination (December 18, 2003).] 

The FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure that airport operators comply with the 

sponsor assurances. 

49 USC § 47107(a) states, in part: 

"General Written Assurances. - The Secretary of Transportation 

may approve a project grant application under this subchapter for 

an airport development project only if the Secretary receives written 

assurances, satisfactory to the Secretary that- (1) the airport will be 

available for public use on reasonable conditions and without oojust 

· discrimination.; ... " 

As a recipient of federal grants for its airports, the City of CasaGrande, Arizona provided 

written assurances of compliance with its obligation to make its airports available for public use 

for all types of FAA "recognized activities, including skydiving, without unjust discrimination. 

The owner of any airport developed with Federal grant assistance is required to operate 

the airport for the use and benefit of the public .and to make it available to all types, kinds, and 

classes of aeronautical activity ori reasonable terms, and without unjust discrimination; see Grant 

Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, of the prescribed sponsor assurances which 

implements the provisions of 49 USC§ 47107(a)(l) through (6). 

21 
\}~ 

01 

\} 

•t'!> 

-,_ff 

?) 

if 

;; 

'} ~;: 

~ b8 -,J 

-~; 

'-~ \;;1 

:::·_'~j 

,}lf 

-.-') 

-J 

:) 

;) 

'\ 

-~::1 

-:---. 

) 

c.\ 

.. } 

---; 

) 

J 

) 

"1 

,,~ 

) 

) 

) "~ 

\ 

J 

. ·. . .. ·-~----_ . _. 

1. Grant Assurance 22. · · 

Specifically, GrantAss!lfaJ1cf)~2s~tes, iflpatr,witltrf)gard to the airport owner/sponsor: : --~·-_. . .-:_ .. : 

"a. Itwillirrakethe~irport~v~ila~I¢~ruia~~()rt for public use 

and onrc;:aso11a\)le t~t)lls and Witliqu~~lit1J!l$tdiscdmination to aU 

types, kinds ari4C!~sses .ofaerpna\Joti<?~lll.Ctiyities, including 

coriJmercia:laerona:utical a~tiyiti~s offering services to the public at the airport. . . . . . . . . 

It goes on to say in section {i)that, "[t}he spo.11sormay prohibit or limit any given type, . ' -. . . . . . . 

kind or class of aeronautical use of the airport ifsuch action is necessary for the safe operation of 

the airport or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs ofthe public," however, the provision 

does not provide the sponsor with unilateral authority to ban certain aeronautical uses at its 

airport. [See Jeff Bodin and Garlic City Skydiving v. County of Santa Clara, California, F M 

Docket No. 16-11~06, Final Decision (Augnst 12, 2013)]. F M Order 5190.6B further outlines 

the limitations on a sponsor's restriction of aeronautical activities. It states that any restriction 

must be based on safety and efficiency and adequately justified aud supported; must be 

reasonable and not unjustly discriminatory; and the FAA will be the final arbiter as to whether 

the particular activity can be conducted safely and efficiently and whether the sponsor's 

proposed limitationf are reasonable. (emphasis added) [See Jeff Bodin and Garlic City 

Slrydiving] While the City originally included a speculative prospect of frightening biz jets away 

from the Airport in its original denial of an on-Airport DZ, it dropped that rationalization in its 

response to the Part 13 Complaint. Nevertheless, FAA Order 5190. 6B does not include concerns 

about potential eeonomic loss as a justification for restriction on aeronautical activities. 

Here the City claims Mr. Kurtz is attempting to "inject" himself onto the Airport to make 

money. It fails to recognize and understand that not only has skydivipg been safely taking place 

within three miles of the Airport (and the FAA has stated that the best place for a PLA is on an 

22 
'">'~ um,dj-) ~~~~,J~~ ~~~~W uul~ fum my ofu& 

aeronautical activity iliat.hap~J~cii~b~iavo~~bjtherii~, It al$o fails to understand fuat 

anyone operating a connnerciali\<iro~liuti~atactiyi~hpp~;t~~ake money doing so. 

After six years ofsafeskydi~inihevi~~tYofth¢Airport,the only variable that ' .. -.-·._---· ..... _·, .... ·.· .· ·--: ---1-- .; ···. 

changed was the identity oftheairrott:managet ~.Wilhe·brought in his prejudice against . . - .... :·:.. . :. : \ . :· ... ·. - _- ---,_-

skydiving and. made it the de facto City p()licy .. As set forth above, he was a little heavy-handed 

at first, attempting to throw Compl~na.Ilt out of its office space and prohibit any aircraft carrying 

parachutists from taking off from the Airport .. Once Mr. Kurtz pointed out the ban on departures 

of aircraft carrying parachutists wa.Sn't even close to being.appr<lptiate, manager Wilkie became 

more subtle in pursuing his anti-skydiving agenda. He delayed the eviction, but made sure Mr. 

,') Kurtz couldn't rent office space anywhere on the Airport and made sure the City wrote a letter to 

) the County that was evaluating zoning to make sure l\1r. Kurtz couldn't build an office adjacent 

) to his off-Airport PLA. 

) Manager Wilkie then denied l\1r. Kurtz's application for an on-airport PLA after eight 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

/ ' 

) 

monfus ofdelay on ilie basis of safety, without evidence. Once hi$ safety bluff was called, he 

went out and, in private meetings with anyone he could find that was opposed to skydiving, 

attempted to find evidence to support what he'd claimed was an eight-month detailed review of 

the on-airport PLA application. The FAA did an on-site safety study and concluded that 

skydiving could safely be conducted on the airport by following some routine safety procedures, 

which Complainant was (and is) willing to follow. At that point the City's denial of skydiving 

access became a violation of Grant Assurance 22 as unreasonable. The sponsor may only 

prohibit a given aeronautical use if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport 

23 
'j 

·-·" 

) 

) 

' } 

) 

) 

) 

"""""" In '"" "' <Nil ., •• ., ...... .... ~ ·., ·,,. """" "" Gmm ~=m,~ 22(;) ""Jiff 

Bodin and Garlic City Skydiving] , , • 

2. GrantAssurance23., , ,,, . · ... ·, 

Grant assurance 23, EXqlustve~ights,1mpletnentsstatutory provisions 49 §§ 47103(3) 

and 4 71 07( a)( 4) providing, in summary, illaithete shallhe no exclusive right for the use of any 

landing area on which Federal flllldshavehe¢neXJ.len<ledandthere will be no exclusive right for 

the useof the airport by.any person providingorintending to provide, aeronautical services to 

the public. 

An exclusive right is defined as a power, privilege, or other right excluding or debarring 

another from enjoying or exercising a like power, privilege, or right. [See Florida Aerial 

Advertising, above.] Such a right conferred on one or more parties, but excluding others from 

enjoying or exercising a similar right or rights would, be an exclusive right. [FAA Order 

5190.1A, Exclusive Rights at Airport~,, p. 1] It is the FAA's policy that the sponsor of a federally 

obligated airport will permit no exclusive right for the use of the airport by any person providing, 

or intending to provide, aeronautical services to the public ... will not, either directly or indirectly, 

grant or permit any person, firm, or corporation, the exclusive right at the airport to conduct any 

aeronautical activities. [Florida Aerial Advertising) 

The application of any unreasonable or unjustly discrimilllitory requirement or standard 

to proposed aeronautical use of such airports is considered a constructive grant of an exclusive 

right contrary to applicable Jaw and FAA regulations. [Florida Aerial Advertising] By 

unreasonably denying access to a proposed aeronautical activity, an airport sponsor is in 

violation of the exclusive right prohibition. 

24 
-~ 

~ 

;75 

-~ 

~ 

i» 

.... -· · . . :-. · ..... 

FAA O<"c 5l906B,4ff~ff·¢~1¥f,t~,4<uribe< ;" d~l tho ~powfu;titie. !\SSumed by the own:ers of~ubiic·usea1$o~sdey~lgpedWithFederal assistance. It clearly 

·. defmes parachute activities asa!laerb!iaJri¢a~·~thri~~dg1ves that activity no greater or lesser 

weight than other aerommtical activi~ies pr()teetedljy~rant assurances. Chapter 14 explains that 

. parachute activities are givenequal Mcesst~airpprtsdev~loped with Federal assistance as are all 

other defmed aemnautical activities. . . 

4 9 USC § 401 03( e) prescribes, in part: 

"N9 Exclusive Rights at CertainFacilities,-A person does not have 

an exclusive right to use an air navigation facility on which Government 

money has been expended." 

FAA Advisory Circular AC150/5190~6, was created by the FAA to provide guidance to 

airport sponsors in complying with the statutory prohibition on granting of exclusive rights ( 49 

USC § 401 03( e) and lllljustly discriminating against aeronautical users of aitports. It makes 

clear in Section 1.2 Agency Policy: 

"An exclusive rights violation occurs when the airport spons9r 

excludes 9thers, either intentionally or unintentionally, fmm 

participating in an 9n-airp9rt aemnautical activity." 

As sh9wn ab9ve, the City, through its airpmimanager, has implemented a de facto policy 

) 9fprohibiting skydiving and implemented it through a denial ofoffice space, unreasonable 

) denial of an on-airport PLA on the false gr9unds of safety and then, once it had no more grolUlds 

) 

) 

) 

J 

) 

for denial, refusal to negotiate with Mr. Kurtz on procedures to integrate skydiving into the 

Airport's operati9ns and delay after delay using a never-ending "consultation with stakeh9lders" 

(although it never actually set up any meetings to do SQ 9r identified the s.takeh9lders) and then 

reviving a dead committee made up 9f unidentified personnel that might get around to meeting 

and ''m9ving the discussion" of even all9wing skydiving sometime in the vague future. 

25 
-.-1 

The FAA b$lo~ ~~~,~~~~~iv~km~rt ~'~'' d~iru "'"=· · [See Frank Hinshaw, Skydtving$¢h~#l.tnc.X~b~aS~dive~c;waii and island Skydiving, L.L. C. ···., 

!''}}6 v. The State <?/Hawaii, F AADo¢k~t~().f6,JJl,Q4,lDiteptor'•s•J:>reliminary Determination, 

(August 18, 2014)] Here, the City';ao~orts h~~e•~tfectl~ely 4~rtied airport access to 

\ 

J 

) 

} ' 

J 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Complainant, a violation ofGrantA~~ancets .. ·.·•·· .. ····· 

The FAA has a statutory 111Jl1lqateto el1$urethatairport owners comply with sponsor 

assurances under the Federal A viationAct and Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 as 

amended and recodified, specifically undeithe statutes referen~d above. FAA Order 5190. 6B 

provides the policies and procedures to be folllxwed by the FAA in cacying out its legislatively 

mandated functions related to federally obligated airport. owners' compliance with their sponsor 

assurances. The FAA monitors the administration of the valuable rights pledge by airport 

sponsors to the people of the United States in exchange for monetary grants to ensure the public 

interest is being served. The FAA considers it inappropriate to provide Federal assistance for 

improvements to airports where the benefits of such improvements will not be fully realized due 

to inherent restrictions on aeronautical activities. [See Skydive Perris, Inc. v. Henry County, 

Tennessee, FAA Docket No. 16-05-06, Director's Determination (January 20, 2006).] 

The FAA has statutory authority in making determinations of safety. [See 49 U. S.C. § 

40101, et seq., and40103(b).] While an airport sponsor may or may not agree with the FAA's 

safety determination, the FAA is final arbiter of matters regarding aviation safety. [See Skydive 

Perris] 

As set forth above, the City of CasaGrande, Arizona is in violation of Grant Assurances 

22 and 23. 

26 
"~ 

·}J ·.-.·~ [,Jc/.._ D 'I 

~:;;, 

} 

•• ~ ~!{' ) 

..• 

} 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

' J 

) 

Complainant has. suffered finanCiallosl;.d~•tothe~~sts of transporting its clients from 

the off-airport DZ and the conse~uentde!ay$ ~l~u~fg~Jgnip'flights, costs involved with 

preparing proposals for office spaceandDZ onthe ~~~ttthatwere unreasonably denied by the 

City and lost business due to the City's actions in conquctinganti-skydiving meetings directed at 

users ofthe Airport. 

Mr. Kurtz and his company have paid taxt;ls that have gone into Federal Grants made to 

the City for the Airport, but has !Jeen denied the benefits of using the Airport. 

Complainant has incurred the costs of instituting this Complaint against the City because 

the City has refused all demands by the FAA to comply with its grant assurances. Finally, 

Complainant has incurred costs defending a lawsuit regarding zoning of its off-airport PLA due 

to the actions of the City attacking its use. 

VI. Relief Desired 

Complainant seeks an Order from the FAA requiring: 

That the City of CasaGrande, Arizona, issue within 30 days approval for Complainant to 

begin parachute operations onto the CasaGrande Airport immediately, and its immediate 

approval for Complainant to lease appropriate office and .classroom space convenient for ramp 

27 
'I ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

\ 

•' 

} 

) 

) 

access on the Airport, or install a modulari!ll'tlcrure:J();.4fi'lce<l1Jd classroom space on a site 

convenient for ramp access on the I~~h, 

Dated: December 30,2015 

, ,'•.. ~esp~cltullY submitted, .. ··.-:>-·:. --.,::::':::.'-:_,;."·--.--: __ -::·_.._,_ . •' 

, , ',· R.ic~M~i:l.)urden, Attorney at Law 

· · .•. ·. Atto!:iley.'for Complainant 

28 

. By: •· ~~~~~~­ J. Durden 

. . Richmond Hill Road 

Q:mifer, Colorado 80433 

· .· (6i<H 901-65156 

avlawyer@yahoo.com 
·} 

) 

) 

.. -_ .. ·-_ ': :._·. _· ·.·. __ .... ·-.. ·. · .. :- ".':_:·.. ·._.'.->:_ 

.· ·• ...... · .. • tERT:ffitCAT~.6K~t~~CE ... ·.,-. 

I hereby certify iliaHhilv~ti;ld!iays()fV.f4th¢fof¢~iAg14 CFR Part 16 Complaint on 

the following person atthefollo:Wipgil.dt!ress.i)yfu;til: ....... 

James Thompson 

City Manager 

. '·>--: 

510 E. Florence Blvd 

CasaGrande, Arizona 85122 · · · 

Dated this 30th day ofDecember, 2015 

> i\ i •···.··· .. ·· 

.·-·,: .. 

i' 

' 
EXHIBIT TWO 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

March 15, 2016 

Kevin Louis 

Director of Public Works 

City of Casa Grande 

3181 N. Lear Avenue 

CasaGrande, AZ 85122 

Western~Pacffic Region 

Airports Division 

Phoenix Airports District.Office 

3800 N. Central Avenue 

Suite 1025, 10111 Floor . 

Phoenix, AZ 85012 

Luther Kurtz 

Skydive Coastal California, Inc 

427 Michigan Avenue 

Charlevoix, MI 49720 

Casa Grande Municipal Airport 

Restrictions on Skydiving 

Dear Messrs. Kurtz and Louis: 

The purpose of this letter is to provide the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Western-Pacific 

Region preliminary determination regarding the City of CasaGrande (City) policy preventing 

skydiving at the Casa Grande Municipal Airport (CGZ). 

Federal assistance in the form of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants and surplus 

property conveyances is made available to state and local governments (airport sponsors) for the 

preservation and development of public-use airports. The FAA administers these programs that 

provide taxpayer funds and other assistance to local communities, such as the City. In exchange 

for which, airport sponsors agree to obligations, specified in their agreements with the federal 

government, to operate safe airports that are available for public users to engage in a variety of 

aeronautical activities. Among the specific obligations are the following: 

• Grant Assurance 5, Rights and Powers, obligates the City to refrain from any action that will 

deprive it of rights and powers to perform in accordance with the requirements of the Grant 

Assurances. Among the City's responsibilities is the need to make the airport available for all 

types and classes of aeronautical activities. This includes skydiving. 

• Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, requires that CGZ be available for 

aeronautical activities on reasonable terms. Although reasonable restrictions can be 

imposed for safety and efficiency reasons, a restriction must be necessary and justified. 

There must be factual evidence supporting the need for a restriction as well as the FAA's 

concurrence that the restriction is reasonably needed to ensure the safety and efficiency of 

airport operations. 

In July 2014, Mr. Luther Kurtz submitted a written proposal to conduct skydiving operations at 

CGZ. The City was not receptive to the proposal and proffered that skydiving could not safely 

operate in the airport environment. As a result, a skydiving safety risk assessment inspection 

was performed by the FAA at CGZ on July 1, 2015. The results and conclusions of the FAA 

inspection were provided to the City in a report dated September 17, 2015. The FAA concluded 
2 

that it is feasible from a safety perspective to introduce parachuting/skydiving operations into the 

airspace at CGZ, as. appropriate safety measures can be implemented to mitigate risk. 

Following .the FAA's safety determination, 

communicated with 

the FAA Western-Pacific Region regularly 

the City, the latest being January I 4, 2016, and inquired about the absence of 

for 

communication 

skydiving, as 

with 

well 

Mr. Luther Kurtz. This absence of communication has delayed negotiations 

as the prolonged City deliberations 

prevented any meaningful 

related to skydiving has effectively 

action by the City to allow skydiving. Furthermore, 

advised that the delay 

the City was 

CGZ, especially since there 

appeared 

was 

unreasonable 

no 

because it had the effect of preventing skydiving at 

indication when the City's deliberations would end. 

Since the FAA has concluded that parachuting/skydiving activities can be accommodated 

CGZ and be safely 

at 

integrated into normal airport operations, 

allow skydiving represents 

the City's continued refusal to 

an unreasonable 

the City that its restrictive measures 

restriction. As a result, this notice serves to infonn 

requirements of Grant Assurances 

to prevent skydiving are not in compliance with the 

5 and 22. 

For this reason, the City is expected 

obligations. As 

to take the necessary steps to fulfill its Grant Assurance 

tenns for skydiving 

appropriate corrective action, the City will make CGZ available on reasonable 

and negotiate 

possible. 

in good .faith for facilities and space to make skydiving 

We look forward to receiving 

introducing skydiving 

the City's corrective action plan within the next I 4 days for 

and initiating negotiations over reasonable 

atCGZ. 

tenns for a skydiving operation 

Ifthe City fails to comply with the Grant Assurances, this failure will become a matter of record 

that could affect AIP grant funding for CGZ, as well as other consequences, 

proceedings in accordance with 

such as fonnal 

16. 

the rules of practice in Title I 4 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

This preliminary determination represents 

deliberations conducted 

the conclusion ofthe Western-Pacific Region 

not a fmal agency decision 

under 

and 

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Section 13.1. As such, it is 

is not subject to judicial appeal. Notwithstanding, redress may be 

sought under Title I 4 Code of Federal Regulations Part I 6. 

Sincerely, 

mike. n. wi t; Digitally signed by mike.n.williams@faa.gov 

II ia ms@faa.goyQf\1: cn=mike.n.williams@faa.gov 

. ·Date: 2016.03.15 16:04:11-07'00' 

Mike N Williams, A.A.E. 

Manager, Phoenix Airports District Office 

cc: Jim Thompson, City Manager 

Compliance Division, AC0-100 

Safety and Standards Branch, A WP-620