/ 

### MURPHY, HESSE, TOOMEY & 

### LEHANE, LLP Attorneys At Law CROWN COLONY PLAZA 300 CROWN COLONY DRIVE SUITE 410 P.O. BOX 9126 QUINCY, MA 02269-9126 TEL: 617-479-5000 FAX: 617-479

-6469 7S FEDERAL STREET SUITE 410 BOSTON, MA 02110 TEL: 617-479-5000 FAX:617-338-1324 ONE MONARCH PLACE SUITE 1310R SPRINGFIELD, MA 01144 TEL: 888-841-48SO FAX:617-479-6469 www.mhtl.com 

### Please Respond to Quincy

Joshua M. Fox, Esquire Rollins, Rollins & Fox Wellesley Office Park 60 William Street, Suite 220 Wellesley, MA 02481 Mhur P. Mur;>hy James A. Toomey Katherine A. Hesse Michatl C.Lehane John P. Flynn · Regina Williams Tate Edward F.Lenox, Jr. Mary Ellen Sowynla David A.**~Luca** Donald L. Graham Andrew J. Waugh Geoffny P.Wennuth Rober1 S. Mangiarani Kat

hryn M.Mur;>hy Doris R. MacKenzie Ehrens

July 20, 2011



### Re: Boston Executive Helicopters, LLCand Mil

### Aviation Services LLC Dear Attorney Fox: Geoffrey B. M cCulloug h Lorna M. Heber1 Clifford R. Rhodes, Jr. Karis L. Nor1h Thomas W. C olomb Alisia St. Florian Bryan R. Le Blanc Brandon H.Moss Michael J .Maccaro Kevin F. Bresnahan Kathleen Y. Ciampoli Brian P.Fox Lauren C. Galvin Carolyn J. Lyons Samantha E. Kaplan

This letter is in response to your June 13, 20 11 letter to Russ Maguire, Manager ofthe Norwood Memorial Airport ("Airport"). For your information, this firm represents the Town ofNorwood, including its Airport·Commission and Airport management. 

### Please direct all future correspondence to the attention ofthis office only. Without responding to each and every allegation in your June 13,2011 letter, suffice it to say that these allegations are unfounded and are devoid oflegal and factual merit. Consequently, the Airport Commission and Airport management will vigorously defend any legal action by your clients, Mil Aviation Services LLC ("Mil") and Boston Executive Helicopters LLC ("BEH"), to challenge procedures for the safe operation of helicopters at the Airport and will also seek reimbursement for their attorneys' fees and costs arising from such a frivolous lawsuit.

### MURPHY, HESSE, TOOMEY & 

### LEHANE, LLP Attorneys At Law Joshua M. Fox, Esquire Rollins, Rollins & Fox July 2, 2011 Page 2 In essence, you suggest that your clients, MII Aviation Services LLC ("MII") and Boston Executive Helicopters LLC ("BEH"), should have an unfettered ability to operate helicopters on the Airport, including on the Airport's taxiways. Such a position defies the safety and efficient operation ofthe Airport, and is unsupported by federal and state law, the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Grant Assurances, and the Airport's General Regulations. Grant Assurance 22.h (Economic Nondiscrimination) authorizes the Airport Commission, as an airport sponsor, to "establish such reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory, conditions to be met by all users ofthe airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient operation ofthe airport." (Tab 1) (Emphasis added). As discussed below, the Airport Commission and its management have adopted helicopter procedures in the interests ofsafety and efficiency. Similarly, Grant Assurance 5 (Preserving Rights and Powers) does not apply to your clients' concerns about helicopter operations on the Airport. The authority ofAirport management and helicopter procedures are addressed in the General Regulations ofthe Airport ("General Regulations"), which were approved by the then-Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission in 2008 pursuant to M.G.L. c. 90, § 51 J, a statute that requires state approval ofrules and regulations for the use ofmunicipal airports and for the safety ofthe public. In particular, Section XXII (Authority to Prohibit Operations) ofthe General Regulations (Tab 2) authorizes the Airport Manager, " [e]xcept for landings [to] prohibit aircraft and other aeronautical operations at any time, and under any circumstances, which the Airport Manager deems likely to endanger

- persons or property, to be incompatible with Airport operations or current FAA, NTSB , local and Massachusetts aeronautical regulations and other applicable requirements to disrupt the safe and efficient flow ofair traffic, and as are reasonable and necessary for preservation offacilities and protection ofthe public interest." See also 14 C.F.R., § 91 .13; 702 CMR4.02, 4.19(1). Your assertion that the Airport Commission has prohibited take-offs and landings on taxiways is entirely incorrect and misplaced. To the contrary, the Airport Commission and Airport management have prohibited the use ofthe Airport's access/egress gate 

### lanes by helicopters. Nevertheless, the safety and efficiency concerns associated with any helicopters using these gate lanes areas are clear and obvious . These concerns include, but are not limited to the following :MURPHY, HESSE, TOOMEY & LEHANE, LLP Attorneys At Law Joshua M. Fox, Esquire Rollins, Rollins & Fox July 2, 2011 Page 3 1. Gate lanes are the primary access/egress routes for ground traffic and are extensively used. Ground traffic includes but is not limited to motorists, fuel trucks, courier services, and the Norwood Fire Department entering, exiting and transiting the Airport, and fixed-wing aircraft ground-taxiing to and from the Airport's taxiway and runway network. The presence of airborne helicopters attempting to take-offor land in a gate lane's relatively narrow channel, oftentimes between hangars, creates an unnecessary safety risk. 2. Fixed objects such as gates, fencing, hangars, dumpsters and the like, are in close proximity, laterally to the gate lanes. The safety risks associated with these fixed objects is only compounded by ground traffic that is moving or attempting to move along the gate lanes at any given moment. Consequently, helicopters do not have clear and safe approach and departure paths for flight. In fact, ifthere is a partial or complete engine failure on take-offor landing, maintaining a clear helicopter approach and departure path is critical. 3. Safety risks at an airport can be managed when the operations of helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft are segregated as much as possible. The layout ofthe gate lanes, including the narrow movement channels between fixed objects, does not permit such segregation. 4. Airborne helicopters produce considerable rotor downwash, which can endanger personnel, other aircraft, equipment, and vehicles at ground level. 5. Safety concerns dictate the helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft take-off and land into the wind. However, the east/west-oriented gate lanes permit only east and west take-offs and landings. The aforementioned safety concerns are well documented in aviation industry publications. For example, "Operating Safely at Airports -Pointers for Pilots and Safety Managers," appearing in the January/February 1992 issue ofFlight Safety Foundation's Helicopter Safety publication (Tab 3) provides a thorough overview ofthe concerns inherent in the operation ofhelicopters at airports. 

### In addition, other public use airports have similarly adopted procedures and regulations relative to the operation ofhelicopters,i 

### MURPHY, HESSE, TOOMEY & 

### LEHANE, LLP 

### Attorneys At Law Joshua M. Fox, Esquire Rollin!!, Rollins & 

### Fox July 2, 2011 Page 4 Stich as the Santa Monica Municipal Airport Helicopter Procedures and the Long Beach Airport Helicopter Pilot Guide. In 

### any event, the Airport Commission and Airport management have undertaken numerous efforts to accommodate safe and efficienthelicopter operations at the Airport. The Airport Corrunission already established helicopter operating areas, including the heliport located on the south end ofthe north/south taxi-lane (formerly known as "taxiway B") and the helicopter operating area north ofFlight Level Aviation's Fixed Base Operator (FBO) hangar 4 and 

### 5complex, Airport management has also offered BEH the use ofthe heliport on the Airport's south quadrant. Provisionally, Airport management, in concert with cooperation from Flight Level Aviation, is permitting helicopter operations east ofFlight Level Aviation's maintenance hangar on the Airport's north quadrant (which we understand to be the location where BEH has been operating its helicopter, a short ground-handling distance from its hangar). The FAA has indicated that helicopter parking pads located further east ofthe north/ south taxi-lane would require an Airport Layout Plan review by the FAA, including but not limited to whether there are clear helicopter approaches and sufficient taxiing room forjettraffic. The Airport Commission and Airport management remain committed to working with businesses on the Airport to safely expand the helicopter operating areas, subject to safety concerns and any restrictions imposed by the appropriate federal, state and local authorities. For example, Airport management conducted aJanuary 6, 2011 meeting.:t.Q discuss helicopter procedures, which was attended by several helicopter operations (including BEH). The Airport Commission is also exploring design/build changes to the upcoming reconstruction ofthe Airport's north/south taxi-lane by including three (3) additional helicopter parking pads, although this remains suojectto approval by the F 

### M and Massachusetts Department ofTransportation, which are financing agencies and have regulatory oversight. 

## BEH President and**pi~ot** 

### Chris Donovan was abundantly aware of the exploration ofthese**propo~ed** 

### parking pads, which occurs at the same time that BEH'shelicopter operation has continued unabated from Flight Level Aviation's apron, east ofits maintenance facility. The Airport Commission's engineering 

### fum has also prepared and submitted aModification to Standards to the FAA, in order to request permission for helicopter parking in proximity to Runway 17/35. However, 

### in the

### MURPHY, HESSE, TOOMEY & 

### LEHANE, LLP Attorneys At Law Joshua M. Fox, Esquire Rollins, Rollins & Fox July 2, 2011 Page 5 interests ofsafety, the Airport Commission and its management cannot permit helicopter take-offs and landings from the Airport's three (3) gate lanes or the north/south taxi-lane. Finally, you threatened legal action concerning alleged statements by Airport management and 

### the enforcement ofthe Airport's helicopter procedures. As you should be aware, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 258, Section lO(c), preserves sovereign immunity for claims arising out ofintentional torts, including the defamation, intentional interference with advantageous relations, and interference with contractual relations claims that you threatened in your lawsuit. In addition, truth is also a defense to any defamation claim. Your assertion that Airport Manager Russ Maguire has somehow defamed your client is entirely without merit and devoid ofany basis whatsoever. Accordingly, we respectfully request that your clients seriously reconsider their threatened legal actions. 

### It is worth repeating that the Airport Commission and Airport management will vigorously defend their actions and seek recovery oftheir associated attorneys' fees and costs. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter.

MCL/BHM Michael C. Lehane



# To;ttJ~~ 

# Bt.nit/2 N!o1:1

cc: Norwood Airport Conunission (c/o Russ Maguire, Airport Manager) John J. Carroll, General Manager Enclosures

619584vl