UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N

WASHINGTON , D C HELIOPS , LL C Complainan t V . NORWOO D MEMORIA L AIRPORT ; NORWOO D AIRPOR T COMMISSIO N

Respondent s Docke t No . 16-09-1 0



### PARri6E)0CKET S REPL Y BRIE F L INTRODUCTIO N Th e Complainant , Heliops , LL C ("Heliops") , files thi s Repl y Brie f i n respons e t o th e Respondents ' (collectivel y "Norwoo dMemorial" ) Answer , Partia l Motion t o Dismiss , an d Affirmativ e Defense s (hereinafte r "Answer") . Notwithstandin g th e length o f Norwood Memorial' s Answer , thi s Repl y wil l focu s primaril y o n onl y ahandfu l o f ke y points . First , becaus e Heliop s i s not

basedou t

o f Norwoo dMemorial , Heliop s an dth e base dcommercia l operator s (Blu e Hil l Helicopter s an dAeria l Productions ) ar e no t "similarl y situation " fo

r purpose s o f

determinin g whethe r

th e tie-down/hange r

an doffic e spac e requirement s shoul d appl y t o Heliop s an dcomparabl y situate doperators . Second , Norwoo dMemoria l appear s t o b e arguin g tha t

Part 13 5 operator s canno t

perfor mpick-up s an ddrop-off

s unles s the y mee t

th e physical presenc e requirement s —apositio n that woul dcertainl y com e a s asurpris e t o any numbe r o f charte r operation s acros s th e country , whos e entir e purpos e i s th e flexibility o f droppin g of

f an dpickin g u p passenger s a t variou s locations . It

i s als o inconsisten t

with it s ow n regulations . I f

Norwoo dMemoria l doe s no t requir e transien t

commercia l Part-13 5 operation s t ohav e aphysica l presenc e a t NorwoodMemorial , but require s transien t

Part-9 1 commercia l operator s t o hav e one , tha t woul db e a

n arbitrary an deconomicall y discriminator y position . Third , Norwoo dMemoria l makes anumbe r o f factua l allegation s tha t

ar e neithe r

apposit e no r accurate . 11 . ARGUMEN T 1 . Heliop s an dBlue Hil l Helicopter s an dAeria l Production s Ar e No t Similarl y Situate dFo r

Purpose s o f

th e Regulation s A t

Issue . NorwoodMemoria l appear s t o insis t tha t Heliop s i s comparabl y situate dt o certai n commercia l operator s base dou t o f Norwoo dMemoria l becaus e Norwoo doffer s similar commercia l service s base dou t o f Norwood . Thi s argumen t lack s meri t

fo r tw o reasons . First , despit e NorwoodMemorial' s assertio n to th e contrary , Heliop s i s no t "based " ou t

o f Norwoo d Memorial . Indeed , tha t

i s th e reaso n thi s disput e exists : becaus e Heliop s i s not base dou t

o f Norwoo dMemorial , i

t makes n o sens e for

Heliop s t o b e require dt o mee t al l o f th e sam e requirement s a s thos e operator s tha t ar e base dou t

o f Norwood . Th e fac t

that Heliop s note s in it s advertisement s tha t

Norwoo di s on e o f

th e location s fro mwhic h passenger s ma y b e picke du p doe s no t transformNorwoo dMemoria l int o Heliops' s "base. " Presumabl y majo r commercia l Part-13 5 operations , suc h a s NetJets , may , fro mtim e t o tim e advertis e th e variou s locale s availabl e fo r

th e pick-u p an ddrop-of

f o f potentia l customers ; tha t fac t woul dno t

rende r thes e variou s location s NetJet s bases . Moreover , althoug h Norwoo dMemoria l assert s tha t Heliops' s us e o f

th e airport

i s no t episodic , tha t

i s precisel y what

it is . Norwoo dMemoria l doe s not specif y ho w man y Part-9 1 an d othe r run s Blue Hil l Helicopter s an dAerial Production s make , bu t presumabl y i

t i s anumbe r

tha t greatl y exceed s th e twent y Part-9 1 flights performe db y Heliops . No r doe s characterizin g Heliops ' operatio n a s a"shadow " o r "gypsy " operatio n advanc e th e argument .Second . Heliop s i s no t similarl y situate dt o th e basedoperator s for purpose s o f

th e tie

dow n an doffic e spac e requirements . Th e fac t tha t th e underlyin g commercia l activit y may b e th e sam e ha s n o bearin g o n th e fac t that it simpl y make s n o sens e t o impos e upo n episodi c users th e sam e physica l presenc e requirement s tha t appl y t o regula r

users. ' Blu e Hil l Helicopter s an d Aeria l Productions , whic h ar e base dou t o f Norwoo dMemorial , mak e greate r demand s o n resource s tha n d o mor e episodi c users . Moreover , it makes sens e for

operation s basedou t

o f a n airport t o mak e a

n investmen t

in establishin g aphysica l presence . Fo r operator s suc h a s Heliops , i t make s n o sens e at

all . Heliop s i s no t

lookin g for

specia l treatment , an dwoul db e please dt o compl y with reasonabl e requirement s tha t bea r som e relatio n t o th e actua l us e it make s an d woul danticipat e makin g o f th e airport . 2 , Norwoo dMemorial' s Argument s Regardin g Part-13 5 Operator s Ar e Unavailin g Norwoo dMemoria l suggest s tha t al l Part-13 5 operator s mus t establis h aphysica l presenc e at

Norwoo dMemorial . (Answer , at 25) . Thi s i s no t

correct . NorwoodMemorial' s ow n Minimu mStandard s an dGenera l Regulation s sugges t tha t commercia l Part-13 5 operator s that are no t base dou t

o f NorwoodMemoria l d o not nee dt o compl y wit

h th e offic e spac e an dtie

dow n requirements . Despit e th e broa dlanguag e se t fort h in th e Minimu mStandards , Par t III o f th e Minimu mStandard s contain s a"Specia l Note " pertainin g t o "transien t operators, " specifyin g that the y requir e acommercia l permi t for certai n operations . (Answer , Exhibi t B , at 6) . Thi s "Specia l Note " can onl y b e take n t o mean tha t transien t operator s ar e treate ddifferentl y tha n

' NorwoodMemorial' s referenc e t o Jimsai r Aviatio n Servs. , Inc . v . Sa n Dieg o Count y Reg

Airport Authority . FA A Docke t

No . 16-06-0 8 (Apr . 12 , 2007) , i s inapposite . In tha t case , th e Complainant , th e airport

tenant , objecte dtha t

non-tenant s wer e allowe dt o provid e similar services , bu t

di dno t hav e t o "pa y rent s o r

concessio n fees. " Th e tenant s an dnon-tenant s wer e similarl y situate dwith respec t t o havin g t o pa y fees , an dth e airpor t shoul dhav e require dth e non-tenan t

t o pa y fees , bu t

Jimsai r di dnot hol dtha t tenant s an dnon-tenant s hadt o b e treate d identicall y i n al l respect s simpl y becaus e the y performe dth e sam e services .base doperators , which , o f course , woul dmak e perfec t sense . Th e Genera l Conditions , in turn , set s fort h th e condition s for

th e allowanc e o f

apermi t (includin g meetin g th e Minimu m Standards) , bu t

the n specifie s tha t

thes e requirement s ar e not intende dt o include , inte r alia , "transien t user s operatin g unde r

FA RPart

135 . Ai r Taxi. " (Answer , Exhibi t C , at 1 3 (emphasi s supplied)) . Thus , th e applicabl e rule s expressl y envisio n Part-13 5 operation s tha t d o no t compl y wit h th e tie-dow n an doffic e spac e requirements . Indeed , transien t commercia l Part-13 5 operator s d o us e NorwoodMemorial . Thi s bein g th e case , th e questio n —whic h Norwood Memoria l ha s no t

answere d—i s wh y transien t commercia l Part-9 1 operation s ar e require dt o hav e aphysica l presenc e a t NorwoodMemorial , bu t no t transien t commercia l Part-13 5 operators . I f NorwoodMemoria l di dimpos e aphysica l requiremen t upo n transien t

commercia l Part-13 5 operations , thi s woul db e a n unfai r burde n o n a

n entir e industr y tha t

relie s upo n flexibility. Operator s suc h a s MarquisJet , Netjets , an dSentien t al l pic k u p an ddro p of

f passenger s in airport s al l aroun dth e country ; an dofte n al l aroun dth e globe . Thes e operator s d o no t hav e base s in al l thes e locations , an dthei r businesse s woul dsoo n groun dt o ahal t wer e suc h arequiremen t

imposed . Needles s t o say , economi c competitio n woul db e ill-serve db y imposin g thes e sort s o f

burdens . Th e standard s impose db y a n airport shoul dbear

som e relatio n t o th e use s mad e o f

thes e airports , wit

h differen t

uses , and , notably , varyin g frequenc y o f use , callin g fo r som e differenc e i

n treatment . Norwoo dMemoria l shoul dno t b e abl e t o hid e behin damantr ao f across-the-boar d consistency t o impos e requirement s tha t swee p entirel y to o broadl y an dmak e n o sens e a s applie d

^ I f thi s i s in fac t

it s position ; th e length y Answer , thoug h replet e with material , i s somewha t opaqu e o n thi s an dan y numbe r o f points .t o acertai n clas s o f operators , particularl y wher e operator s that hav e comparabl e impac t o n th e airport (th e Part-13 5 operators ) d o no t hav e t o bea r

suc h burdens . 3 . Th e Answe r

Contain s aNumbe r

o f Factual Allegation s Tha t Ar e Inapposit e an d Inaccurate . Th e Answe r

allege s a n "afte r hours " inciden t

o n Marc h 24 , 2009 . (Answer , a t 9-10) . I t i s difficul t t o understan dho w thi s allege dtransgressio n bear s o n th e matter s a t hand , an di

t shoul db e observe dtha t

despit e thes e allege dissues , i t woul dappea r

tha t Norwoo dMemoria l woul dwelcom e Heliop s i f it complie dwit

h th e tie-down/hange r

an doffic e spac e requirements . (Answer , Exhibi t

H) . I n an y case , NorwoodMemorial' s accoun t o f th e "afte r hour s incident " i s no t accurate . First , ther e i s n o suc h thin g a s "afte r hours. " Althoug h Norwoo dMemorial' s Contro l Towe r i s manne db y th e FAA part time , like mos t

smal l genera l aviatio n airports , i t i s ope n t o th e publi c 2 4 hour s aday , 7 day s aweek . Th e Fligh t Leve l FB O i s ope n fromapproximatel y 6:00A M t o 9:00P M a s lon g a s Fligh t Leve l personne l ar e on-site . Th e functio n o f th e FB O i s t o provid e service s t o airport customers . Th e FB O i s no t responsibl e for

securit y a

t th e airport , but , lik e th e pilots , th e FB O contribute s t o security b y followin g voluntar y TS A guideline s whe n it i s open . Whe n th e FB O i s close dacces s i s throug h alocke dgat e tha t ma y b e opene dfromth e inside . Thi s sam e typ e o f gat e syste mi s use dat

man y smal l genera l aviatio n airport s in Massachusetts . A s fo r Heliops ' conduc t

an dth e conduc t

o f it s customers , th e fact s ar e these : Heliop s pilo t me t it s customer s at

Norwoo dAirport

an descorte dthe mt o th e aircraft . Whil e sittin g in th e Norwoo dparkin g lot , on e o f th e customers hadbee n questione db y th e Norwoo dPolic e becaus e th e ca r wa s runnin g an dn o light s wer e o n (i t wa s acol dnight) . N o polic e report wa s "filed. " I

t wa s jus t logge da s havin g bee n checked . Becaus e th e FB O wa s closed , th e Heliop s Pilo tescorte dth e customer s t o th e aircraf t fromth e outsid e fenc e gate , a s i s th e norma l procedure . Heliop s use dth e ramp are aclos e t o th e gat e becaus e i t wa s dark an dth e lightin g wa s significantl y bette r

tha n th e poorl y li t

helicopte r

parkin g circle s o r

helipad . Th e ramp was deserte dexcep t

for asingl e smal l airplan e o n th e side . Heliop s haduse dthi s ramp are aman y time s before with permissio n o f th e FB O s o it

wa s no t uncommo n t o d o so . Heliop s hadaSafet

y Man (studen t

pilot ) t o hel p conduc t

th e vide o operation . Th e first flight wa s t o vide o atake-of

f an dalandin g t o splic e int o th e final product . Fo r thi s flight, th e Safet y Man , tw o videographer s an dtw o technician s staye do n th e groun dan dth e pilo t an d "talent " too k

off , hovere din alarg e circl e an dlanded . Th e purpos e o f th e secon dflight was t o depart th e airport , vide o th e flight ove r Boston , an dreturn t o th e airport . Prio r t o departur e for

thi s flight, th e pilo t

instructe dth e Heliops' s Safet y Man , on e videographe r

an don e technicia n t o exi t throug h th e fenc e gate , whic h the y did . Ther e was n o on e insid e th e fenc e durin g th e flight. Th e pilot , on e videographer , on e technicia n an dth e "talent " wer e o n boar dth e helicopter . Whe n thi s flight

wa s complete , th e pilo t

landed , shu t

down , an descorte dth e 3 passenger s t o th e fenc e gate . Th e Safet y Man wa s let

bac k throug h th e gate , th e gat e was close dan dlocke d an dth e Pilo t

an dSafet

y Man returne dt o th e aircraft , pre-flighted , an ddeparte dNorwoo dt o retur n t o th e Heliop s bas e o f operation s at

Plymout h Airport . I n sum , nothin g imprope r o r unsaf e hadoccurred . I n th e interes t

o f space , Heliop s wil l mak e on e additional observation : Norwood Memoria l ha s suggeste dtha t Heliop s i s seekin g a"blanke t waiver " beyon dth e offic e spac e an d tie-dow n requirements . (Answer , at 21) . Thi s assertio n i s puzzling . A s Mr . Maguire' s lette r o fAugus t

13 , 200 9 (Answer , Exhibi t L ) make s plain , nobod y was confuse da s t o what Heliop s wa s seeking : awaive r

o f th e offic e an dtie-down/hange r spac e requirements . Wit h respec t t o th e othe r

argument s previousl y mad e b y Heliops , includin g thos e relatin g t o th e dorman t

Commerc e Clause , Heliop s rest s o n it s prio r submission . IV . CONCLUSIO N Fo r th e foregoin g reasons , th e Complainant , Heliops , LLC , respectfijll y suggest s that thi s matte r warrants , a

t th e very least , further

investigation , an dask s that th e Commission' s orde r denyin g Heliop s apermi t o r waive r b e reverse dan dtha t

Heliop s b e permitte dt o undertak e Part 9 1 commercia l flight

operation s ou t

o f Norwoo dMemorial , notwithstandin g th e fac t tha t Heliop s doe s no t maintai n aphysica l presenc e a t th e airport . Respectfull y Submitted ,

HELIOPS , LLC , B y it s attorneys .

Kevi n C . Cai n (BB€

) #550055 ) Timoth y M . Pomarol e (BB O #660827 ) Peabod y & Arnol dLL P Federa l Reserv e Plaz a 60 0 Atlanti c Avenu e Boston , M A 0211 0 (617)951-210 0 kcain@peabodyarnold.co m tpomarole@peabodyamold.co m

Decembe r

4th , 200 9CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I , Timoth y M . Pomarole , certif y tha t o n Decembe r

^ ^,2009, 1 serve dacop y o f th e foregoin g documen t vi ae-mai l an dfirst-class mai l to : Michae l C . Lehane , Esquir e Brando n H . Moss , Esquir e Murphy , Hesse , Toome y & Lehane , LL P 30 0 Crow n Colon y Drive , Suit e 41 0 Quincy , M A 0216 9 mlehane@mhtl.co m bmoss(?/^;mhtl.com

Timoth y M . Pomarol e

PABOS2:TPOMARO:714065_ I 15483-9394 9