/ 

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: 617-4 79-6469 

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 

Kathryn M. Mur;>hy 

Doris R. MacKenzie Ehrens 

July 20, 2011 

Re: Boston Executive Helicopters, LLC and 

Mil Aviation Services LLC 

Dear Attorney Fox: 

Geoffrey B. McCullou gh 

Lorna M. Heber1 

Clifford R. Rhodes, Jr. 

Karis L. Nor1h 

Thomas W. Colomb 

Alisia St. Florian 

Bryan R. Le Blanc 

Brandon H. Moss 

Michael J. Maccaro 

Kevin F. Bresnahan 

Kathleen Y. Ciampol i 

Brian P. Fox 

Lauren C. Gal vi n 

Carol yn J. Lyons 

Samantha E. Kapla n 

This letter is in response to your June 13, 20 11 letter to Russ Maguire, Manager 

of the Norwood Memorial Airport ("Airport"). For your information, this firm represents 

the Town of Norwood, including its Airport· Commission and Airport management. 

Please direct all future correspondence to the attention of this 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 of legal 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 of the 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 of the airport as may be necessary for 

the safe and efficient operation of the airport." (Tab 1) (Emphasis added). As discussed 

below, the Airport Commission and its management have adopted helicopter procedures 

in the interests of safety 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 of Airport management and helicopter procedures are addressed in 

the General Regulations of the 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 of rules and regulations for the use of municipal 

airports and for the safety of the public. In particular, Section XXII (Authority to 

Prohibit Operations) of the 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 of air traffic, and as are reasonable and necessary for 

preservation of facilities and protection of the 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 of the 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-off or 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, if there is a partial or complete engine 

failure on take-off or 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 of the 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 of the concerns 

inherent in the operation of helicopters at airports. In addition, other public use airports 

have similarly adopted procedures and regulations relative to the operation of helicopters, 
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 efficient helicopter operations at the Airport. 

The Airport Corrunission already established helicopter operating areas, including the 

heliport located on the south end of the north/south taxi-lane (formerly known as 

"taxiway B") and the helicopter operating area north of Flight Level Aviation's Fixed 

Base Operator (FBO) hangar 4 and 5 complex, Airport management has also offered 

BEH the use of the heliport on the Airport's south quadrant. 

Provisionally, Airport management, in concert with cooperation from Flight Level 

Aviation, is permitting helicopter operations east of Flight 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 of the 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 

for jet traffic. 

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 a January 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 of the Airport's north/south taxi-lane by including three (3) additional 

helicopter parking pads, although this remains suoject to approval by the F M and 

Massachusetts Department of Transportation, which are financing agencies and have 

regulatory oversight. BEH President and pi~ot Chris Donovan was abundantly aware of 

the exploration of these propo~ed parking pads, which occurs at the same time that 

BEH' s helicopter operation has continued unabated from Flight Level Aviation's apron, 

east of its maintenance facility. The Airport Commission's engineering fum has also 

prepared and submitted a Modification 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 of safety, 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 of the Airport's helicopter procedures. As you should 

be aware, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 258, Section lO(c), preserves sovereign 

immunity for claims arising out of intentional 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 of any 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 of their 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