UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

FAADOCKETNO. 16-15-07 

WILLIAM ALFRED HICKS, JR. 

aile/a BILLY HICKS, 

Complainant 

v. 

CITY OF MOUNT AIRY, NORTH 

CAROLINA; and THE COUNTY OF 

SURRY, NORTH CAROLINA; tlnough 

the MOUNT AIRY/SURRY COUNTY 

AIRPORT AUTHORITY, 

Respondent. 

Submitted By: 

Randolph M. James, 

N.C. Bar No. 10,000 

Attorney for Complainant 

RANDOLPH M. JAMES, P.C. 

P.O. Box 20069 

Winston-Salem, NC 27120 

Phone: (336) 724-7707 

Facsimile: (336) 724-9722 

Email: rmjames01,rmjameslaw.com 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

COMPLAINANT'S REPLY TO 

RESPONDENTS' ANSWER 

RECEIVED 

OCT 2 7 2015 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

Pursuant to 14 CPR, § 16.23( e), William Alfred Hicks, Jr., by and through counsel, 

hereby replies to Respondent's Answer submitted by Respondent Mount Airy/Surry County 

Airport Authority and adopted by the City of Mount Airy. 

CONCISE STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Complainant, William Alfred Hicks, Jr. ("Billy" or "complainant"), a past 

member of the Mount Airy/Surry County Airport Authority and past tenant at the Airport itself, 

filed a formal complaint pursuant to Title 14 CPR, Part 16, against the Mount Airy/Surry County 

Airport Authority, the governing body of the Mount Airy/Surry County Airport ("KMWK"), as 
designated by the City of Mount Airy and the County of Surry, both located in North Carolina, 

who are the Sponsors of the Airport. The Mount Airy/Surry County Airport Authority (herein 

"Airport Authority") are appointed by the Sponsors and make the policy and procedure needed to 

operate the facility. 

Billy's Complaint arises from actions taken by the Mount Airy/Surry County Airport 

Authority ("Airport Authority) that Billy believes violate the Sponsor Assurances assumed by 

the Airport Authority when accepting funding grants. The Federal Aviation Administration 

("FAA'') has jurisdiction to determine compliance with obligations and assurances pertaining to 

the Airport Improvement Program through Title 49 U.S. C. §47101, et. seq., and Airport Sponsor 

Assurances through 49 U.S.C. §47107, et seq. Respondents have filed a Motion to Strike arising 

from Complainants Response to Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative for 

Summary Judgment. 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE 

The matter before the FAA based upon this Complaint arises from allegations the 

Respondent has violated Grant Assurance 4, Good Title; Assurance 5, Preserving Rights and 

Powers; Assurance 19, Operations and Maintenance; Assurance 20, Hazard Removal and 

Mitigation; Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination; Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights; 

Assurance 24, Fee and Rental Structure; and Assurance 25, Airport Revenue. Specifically, 

Complainant has alleged the Respondent: 

1. Engaged in a pattern of deliberate behavior to maintain and protect the airport's sole 

Fixed-Based Operator ("FBO''), Ra-Tech Aviation of Mount-Airy, Inc. ("Ra-Tech"), 

against competition or challenge, in violations of Grant Assurance 5, Grant Assurance 22, 

Grant Assurance 23, and Grant Assurance 25. Actions include assigning the owner ofRa2 
Tech, John Spane ("Spane") the Airport Manager, refusing to investigate discrepancies in 

fuel usage and accounting by Ra-Tech, and removing competing flight training schooo 

which was in competition with the FBO. 

2. Engaged in a pattern of deliberate behavior to protect the airport's sole Fixed-Based 

Operator ("FBO"), Ra-Tech Aviation of Mount-Airy, Inc. ("Ra-Tech"), against 

competition or challenge, including non-enforcement of airport rules and regulations as 

well as retaliating against a board member who questions the relationship with the FBO, 

in violation of Grant Assurance 19 and Grant Assurance 22. 

3. Engaged in a pattern or practice of behavior in unequal enforcement of the rules and 

regulations to protect special interests, including the FBO, in violation of Grant 

Assurance 22. 

4. Engaged in a pattern or practice of behavior which violate Sponsor Assurance 4 in the 

Airport Expansion. 

Respondents have replied to the Complaint, making the same arguments that were in 

Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative Motion For Summary Judgment. As 

such, Claimant incorporates his responses to the Respondent's prior motions, the Motion to 

Dismiss and in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion to Dismiss") as well as 

the Claimant's Response to Respondent's Motion to Strike. 

SHORT STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Billy Hicks, a pilot, hangered his plane at the Mount Airy-Surry County Airport ("KMWK") 

since 2008. Billy was named a Board Member of the Airport Authority in 2010. As a Board 

Member, Billy became concerned about discrepancies in fuel accounting made by the FBO and 

motioned for an audit. Airport Authority Chairman John Springthorpe ("Springthorpe") changed 

3 
the audit to an advisory report, even after discrepancies were found. In 2012, the FBO, 

supported by Springthorpe complained about a flight instructor, Michael Venable ("Venable"). 

Because the airport manager is also the owner of the FBO, the FBO was able to complain 

directly to the Airport Authority about Venable's competition. The Airport Authority Board 

Members prohibited Venable from pilot training at KMWK. Billy opposed the decision, 

supporting Venable's right to provide flight training out ofKMWK. 

After Billy opposed actions taken by Defendant Board Members, Billy began experiencing 

problems: Plaintiff received pressure to resign from the Airport Authority; Billy's lease for 

hangar space was terminated; Billy's name was removed from the waiting list for future hangars; 

and an associate who planned to buy a portion of Billy's plane was also removed from the 

waiting list. 

The pretext for the termination of Billy's lease and his removal from the waiting list was 

Billy painting a portion of his plane, an alleged violation of fire code. Moreever, the Board 

Members voted to terminate Billy's lease prior to an investigation about the alleged violations. 

The Airport Authority Board Members and attorney Joseph Williams ("Williams") contacted 

Surry County Fire Marshal Roger Jones(' Jones"), and Jones issued a "Fire Prevention 

Inspection Report, Order to Comply" without a hangar inspection so Billy's lease could be 

terminated. 

Billy and the Airport Authority have been involved in litigation over the lease tennination, 

including the declaratory judgment action and summary ejectment action relating to the hangar 

lease and a federal lawsuit arising from the retaliation Billy has faced for opposing the special 

treatment of the sole FBO at KMWK. Billy did eventually vacate the hangar, as he had been 

4 
advised the Airport Authority was going to padlock the hangar and forcibly remove his plane. 

(Complainant's Response to Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 1, '\[ 22, Affidavit of Billy Hicks). 

Respondents continue in their attempt to make this FAA Complaint about several discrete 

issues, including the mistaken allegation this action is solely designed to require the Airport 

Authority to assign Mr. Hicks his old lease (an action not actually listed in the requests made by 

Billy in the Complaint). Billy filed his Complaint to ensure that the Airport Authority conducts 

itself in compliance with the Grant Assurances and in the best interest of the Mount Airy/Surry 

County Airport, not tore-litigate issues .. 

REPLY 

In the Part 16 formal complaint process, each party must file documents sufficient to present 

all the relevant facts to determine if an airport sponsor is in compliance. 14 CFR Part 16, §29. 

Here, Complainant has filed documents with each pleading, showing Respondent has engaged in 

a pattern or practice of behavior which violates the Sponsor Grant Assurances. 

I. Jurisdiction 

First the Respondent's Answer alleges the FAA does not have jurisdiction over Billy's 

Complaint. The FAA Compliance program is designed to achieve the airport sponsor's voluntary 

compliance with the Federal obligations the airport accepts when developed with FAA 

assistance. Scott Meyer v. City of Cincinnati, OH, FAA Docket No. 16-12-14 (Director's 

Determination)(Aprill2, 20 14), p. 10. In addressing allegations of non-compliance, the FAA is 

making a decision about whether the airport is currently in compliance with applicable federal 

obligations. !d. The FAA has a statutory mandate to ensure airport owners comply with the 

sponsor assurances. See, e.g., the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended and recodified, Title 

49 U.S.C., §§ 40101, 40113, 40114, 46101, 46104, 46105, 46106, 46110; and the Airport and 

5 
Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended and recodified, Title 49 U.S. C.,§§ 47105(d), 

47106(d), 47107(k), 47107(1), 47lll(d), 47122. 

Specifically, the FAA is empowered to investigate and adjudicate a complaint that an airport 

proprietor has violated the binding Sponsor Assurances. 14 CFR § 16.1(a). The FAA has 

jurisdiction to determine compliance with obligations and assurances pertaining to the Airport 

Improvement Program through Title 49 U.S.C. §47101, et seq., and Airport Sponsor Assurances 

through 49 U.S.C. §47107, et seq. 

The Mount Airy/Surry County Airport is a federally-obligated airport. As such, the Airport 

Authority must comply with the assurances for Airport Sponsors. Though KMWK' s original 

obligations were only pursuant to Title VI, Civil Rights Act and the Statutory Exclusive Rights 

Prohibition as the original grants had expired, KMWK has been accepting new grants since at 

least 2010, which would impose new Federal Obligations tied into those grants and give the FAA 

the jurisdiction to investigate complaints about the Airport Authority's violation of grant 

assurances. 

II. Attempts at Resolution 

Respondent argues in the fact section of its Answer that Billy is attempting to re-litigate 

issues which have been litigated in State court, then offers the contradictory allegation the 

Complainant did not attempt to resolve issues prior to filing the Part 16 Complaint. (Answer pp. 

5, 9-1 0). The parties have been involved in informal dispute resolution and litigation, and a 

portion oftl1e resolution process involving litigation is detailed in Respondent's Answer (pp. 2-

5), and discussed in Claimant's response to the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss in Exhibit 1, the 

Affidavit of Billy Hicks. (Complainant's Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 1). 

6 
III. Respondent's nse of the same arguments in its Answer as used in its Motion to 

Dismiss should be construed as an acceptance of any fact not specifically denied in the 

Answer. 

In its Answer, Respondent re-states its argument from the Respondent's Motion to 

Dismiss: The Claimant has maliciously submitted incomplete documents (Answer, p. 11 and 18 

-The Haynes Strand Documents, p. 16 -the "unnamed acquaintance" allegation) and is merely 

attempting tore-litigate issues already won by the Respondent in State court (Ans. P. 5), in 

retaliation for the lease dispute. (Id.). The duplicate arguments ignore any fact or documents 

submitted with Claimant's response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and does not provide 

any new evidence. 

In fact, Respondent's Answer files no new exhibits, offers no new documentary evidence 

in support of its denial of specific portions of the Complaint, but specifically relies on the same 

arguments and allegations made in the Motion to Dismiss. See Resp. 's Answer, pp. 8, 10, 11, 

12, 14, 15 and 18, where in answer to a specific allegation in the complaint, respondent refers to 

argument or allegation of fact included in its motion to dismiss. 

Respondent states in its Answer that the Respondent did not remove any "unnamed 

acquaintance" from the waiting list. (Ans. pp. 6, 17). Respondent ignores the information 

provided by the Complainant in his Response to the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, in which 

Billy names the acquaintance removed from the waiting list as Bobby Koehler. (Claimant's 

Response to Motion to Dismiss, Ex. l, Hicks Aff., ~ 24). In addition, in the Complainant's 

Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Billy attached an "Advanced Hangar Deposit 

List" to his affidavit, showing Mr. Koehler was on the hangar waiting list right before Mark 

O'Neal. (Claimant's Response to Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 1-B, Advanced Hangar Deposit List). 

Billy is informed and believed that Mr. Koehler was not given Hangar 7 due to his association 

with Billy. (Ex. 1, Hicks Aff., ~ 24). Respondent does not specifically deny that Bobby Koehler 

7 
was removed from the waiting list, or provide documentation on why Mark O'Neal was given a 

lease prior to Bobby Koehler even though Mr. Koehler was first on the waiting list. 

Respondent next argues Claimant did not provide the entire Haynes Strand Audit, stating 

that Claimant had "misleadingly limited" the audit documents submitted with the Complaint. 

(Ans. p. 11; and Resp. Motion to Dismiss, p. 34). However, as stated in Complainant's 

Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, the full audit submitted by Respondent actually 

supports Complainant's contentinos therefore the allegedly misleadingly limited audit Billy 

shared was not limited by Billy or his counsel to mislead. (Complainant's Response to Motion 

to Dismiss, pp. 9-11 ). 

The meeting minutes show Billy made the motion to have the books audited, then the 

Authority goes into a closed session. (Resp. Mot., Ex. 1-B, Meeting Minutes November 14, 

2011). At the end of the closed session, the group returns and direct Chairman John Springthorpe 

("Springthorpe") to engage a bookkeeper to reconcile the records kept by Ra-Tech regarding the 

fuel transactions and hangar rents. (Id.). Chairman Springthorpe sends a description of the 

assigmnent to Hayes Strand by email on November 17, 2011. (Resp. Mot., Ex. 1-E). The Tasking 

for Review of Airport Records lists the review to cover the period of January 2009 through 

October 2011. (Comp., Ex. 1-1 and Resp. Mot., Ex. 1-F). 

In its Motion to Dismiss, Respondent included Exhibit 1-G, a letter from Haynes Strand 

agreeing upon the procedures offered to review hangar rents and fuel transactions from July 2010 

through October 2011. (Resp. Mot., Ex. 1-G). This would be a change in what the agreed upon 

dates for the review were, June 2009 through October 2011. (Comp., Ex. l-1 and Resp. Mot., Ex. 

1-F ). Respondent enclosed the entire Haynes Strand report in Exhibit 4-Bton the Respondent's 

Motion to Dismiss, which notes Haynes Strand were not engaged to and did not conduct an audit 

8 
and if they had performed additional procedures that other matters might have surfaced. (Resp. 

Mot., Ex. 4-B, p. 10). 

In response to Complainant's allegations about the private airstrip run by Board Member 

Kirkman, Respondent argues the Airport Authority does not use or authorize the use of the 

Kirkman strip. (Ans. p. 7). However, Respondent admits the Kirkman property has been used as 

an airstrip and ignores the fact the private individual who owns the strip at issue is a member of 

the Airport Authority, so Respondent, through inaction, ratifies the airstrip and the Board 

Member's actions .. (Comp.'s Resp. to Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 1, Hicks Aff. ~28, Ex. 1-E, 1-F, 1-

G, and Ex. 6). 

Though it is true the Airport Authority does not have broad control over what every property 

owner around KMWK does, the Airport Authority could enforce the rules and regulations and 

sponsor assurances in several different ways. It could direct a Board Member to not endanger the 

approach to RWY 36, or at the minimum, the Airport Authority, upon discovering the use of the 

Kirkman Airstrip, could have reported the field into the FAA such that the Kirkman Airstrip 

would appear on VFR Maps, like other private airfields. 

In the Part 16 formal complaint process, each party must file documents sufficient to present 

all the relevant facts to determine if an airport sponsor is in compliance. 14 CFR Part 16, §29. 

Here, in its Answer, Respondent chooses to file no new exhibits or documents to reflect its 

admissions or denials. In the Part 16 formal complaint process, each party must file documents 

sufficient to present all the relevant facts to determine if an airport sponsor is in compliance. 14 

CFR Part 16, §29. "The proponent of a motion, request, or order has the burden of proof. A 

party who has asserted an affrrmative defense has the burden of proving the affirmative defense. 

This standard burden of proof is consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (AP A) and 

9 
federal case law." Thermco Aviation, Inc. and A-26 Company v. City of Los Angeles Board of 

Airport Commissioners, and Los Angeles World Airports, FAA Docket No. 16-06-07 (Final 

Agency Decision)(December 17, 2007), p. 16. 

In relying upon the arguments made in its Motion to Dismiss, Respondent has chosen not to 

answer the complaint with documentary evidence relevant to the substantive facts underlying the 

Complaint, but issue broad denials regarding those allegations. In the Complaint, Billy alleged 

continuing actions by the Airport Authority which violate the Sponsor Grant Assurances. Billy 

uses the repeated actions made by Respondent Board Members to show a policy and practice by 

the airport which violates the sponsor assurances. 

For each incident shown in the Complaint Respondent, in its Motion to Dismiss, argued the 

FAA had no jurisdiction due to the time period in which the allegation takes place, argued Billy 

had no standing, or that the facts were misconstrued. In its Answer, Respondent relies upon the 

arguments made in its Motion to Dismiss. See Answer, pp. 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 18 where in 

answer to a specific allegation in the complaint, respondent refers to its argument made in 

motion to dismiss and provides no new evidence in support of the denials. 

The FAA Compliance program is designed to achieve the airport sponsor's voluntary 

compliance with the Federal obligations the airport accepts when developed with FAA 

assistance. Scott Meyer v. City of Cincinnati, OH, FAA Docket No. 16-12-14 (Director's 

Determination)(April12, 2014), p. 10. In addressing Billy's Complaint, the FAA is malcing a 

decision about whether the airport is currently in compliance with applicable federal obligations. 

!d. 

Billy submitted his Complaint in good faith, and provided supplementary facts and 

documentation in response to Respondent's prior Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. 

10 
Respondent chooses to repeat the arguments made in its prior motions without presenting new 

documents or information to respond to the facts and documentation supplied by the 

Complainant. 

The FAA may render its initial determination based entirely on the complaint and the 

responsive pleadings, so each party is required for file the docmnents it considers sufficient to 

present all relevant facts and arguments necessary for the FAA to make a determination. 14 CPR 

§ 16.29(b )(1). As Respondents have relied upon their prior pleadings and introduce no new 

doclllllents in their Answer, Respondent has chosen to rest the factual determination on the 

doclllllents submitted with its Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Motion for Summary 

Judgment and Motion to Strike, and not respond to any supplemental information provided by 

Complainant in Complainant's Responses to the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. 

CONCLUSION 

Based upon the information and doclllllents presented in the Complaint, and the Complainant's 

responses to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Motion for Slllllmary 

Judgment and Motion to Strike, Claimant requests a determination by the FAA pursuant to 14 

CPR § 16.29 on whether the Airport Sponsor is in violation of the Sponsor Assurances. 

This, the 19'h day of October, 2015. 

11 

RA DOL M. JAMES, P.C. 

Randolph M. James, N. 

Attorney for Complai nt 

P.O. Box 20069 

Winston-Salem, NC 27120 

Phone: (336) 724-7707 

Facsimile: (336) 724-9722 

Email: rmjames@rmjameslaw.com 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Randolph M. James, certify on October 19, 2015, I filed and served this Complainant's 

Reply to Respondents' Answer (together with all the attachments and exhibits hereto), by placing 

the original and three copies addressed to the FAA in a prepaid, first-class envelope in the 

custody ofthe United States mail as defined by Title 14 CPR Part 16, §16.3, and by mailing a 

copy to counsel of record by depositing the foregoing in U.S. mail, addressed to: 

FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk, 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

(Original and Three Copies) 

Howard C. Jones, II 

105 West Fourth Street, Suite 400-E 

Winston-Salem, NC 27101 

Attorney for Mount Airy/Surry County 

Airport Authority 

12 

Edwin M. Woltz 

119 Rawley Avenue 

Mount Airy, NC 27030 

Attorney for the County of Surry, NC 

Hugh B. Campbell, III 

235 E. Independence Blvd. 

PO Box 1846 

Mount Airy, NC 27030 

Attorney for the City of Mount Airy, NC 

. JAMES, P.C. 

Winston-Salem, NC 27120 

Phone: (336) 724-7707 

Facsimile: (336) 724-9722 

Email: rmjarnes@rmjameslaw.com