UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASIDNGTON, DC

FrankHinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. d/b/a Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving L.L.C. Complainant, FAA Docket No.16-12-04


### v.
The State ofHawaii Respondent.

REQUEST FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION

On August 18,2014,the Director ofthe Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis issued the Director's Preliminary Determination for the above-referenced matter preliminarily fmding the Respondent to be in violation ofits federal obligations with respect to Grant Assurance 22, EconomicNondiscrimination and Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive Rights. The Director found that the Respondent was not in violation ofGrant Assurance 5, PreservingRights andPowers.
The Director's decision to issue a preliminary determination was predicated on the Director's expectation that the Respondent would submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) acceptable to the FAA clearly identifying howthe Respondent will proceedto finalize and implementthe HanaAirport OperatingRules andStandards 1 resulting in immediate aeronautical access for the Complainant. Additionally, the Respondent was directed to negotiate in good faith with the Complainantto develop temporary parachute landing area procedures to allowthe Complainantto beginparachute operations at HNM during the pendency ofthe finalization ofthe OperatingRules andStandards. The Director confirms that the Respondenthas submitted a CAP acceptable to the Director identifYing the steps the Respondent is taking to finalize and implement its Airport Rules. The Director also notes that the Respondent has taken steps to negotiate with the Complainanttemporary operating rules and procedures for parachute operators seekingto skydive onto HNM.
Itis the Director's understanding that, onNovember 25,2014,the Respondent hosted a meeting atthe Honolulu International Airport in an attempt to reach agreement onthe development oftemporary airport operational procedures to be followed by skydiving and transient users ofHanaAirport (HNM). As directed by the Dire<;tor's Preliminary Determination, the temporary operational procedures are necessary to maximize the safety of

1Nowreferenced by the Respondent as the HanaAirportRules for Skydive and TransientAircraft Operations.operations at the airport until the Respondent finalizes and implements its revised airport rules for skydiving and transient aircraft operations at HNM. The record indicates that you participated inthis meeting along with a number ofother HNM aeronautical users, the Respondent, and the FAA. 2

TheNovember 25, 2014, meeting minutes ofrecord indicate that a number ofoperational proposals were discussed, most ofwhich centered around aircraft communication recommendations and requirements for aeronautical users, including skydive operators, to assist in overall situation awareness and safety ofoperations. The record indicates that the Respondent seeks to include in its temporary (and permanent) airport rules and procedures a provisionrequiring skydive operators to communicate onthe CommonTraffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) in addition to communication with the appropriate air traffic control facility (Maui HCF) as required by 14 CFR 105.13(a). One area ofconcern identified by the FAA and the Respondent is the Complainant's vocal oppositionto communicating onthe CTAF for HNM before, during, and/or after the proposed skydiving operations. The record indicates that the Complainant intends to only communicate onrelevant air traffic control frequencies (Maui HCF) in accordance with 14 CFR Part I05 requirements.

Pursuantto 14 CFR § 16.29(b), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that the Director's investigation into the Respondent's request and the Complainant's objection needs to be supplemented by limited, additional information. The Complainant is requested to respond to the following information request within 20 days from the date of issuance ofthis request.
I. Describe the Complainant's objectionto communicating onthe Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) and/or any other local island communication frequency before, during, and/or after the performance ofskydiving operations onto HanaAirport, as requested bythe Respondent and the FAA. Provide a detailedjustification for the Complainant's objection to the proposed CTAF communications requirement. Also, provide a detailedjustification for the Complainant's objection to the proposed HNM CTAF requirement in light ofthe Complainant's acceptance ofthe virtually identical communications requirement for Upolu Airport.2

The Respondent is requested to respond to the following information within 20 days from the date ofthe issuance ofthis request.
I. Describe the Respondent's reason(s) and rationale for proposing to require parachute operators seeking tojump onto Hana Airport to communicate on CTAF in addition to the relevant air traffic control communications required under 14 CFRPart I05. Provide a detailedjustification for the proposed communication requirement.

2 By letter ofMarch 16, 2012, the Respondent granted Skydive Hawaii permission to operate out ofUPP under the condition that "Jump aircraftmust monitor CTAF for UPP, 122.9 for traffic andmakeappropriate radio calls on that frequency as well as the appropriate HCF [Honolulu Control Frequency]." The record indicates that the Complainant accepted the CTAF communications requirement and purportedly continues to operate out ofUPP under these terms and conditions.

### 3

The Directorreminds the parties that the prescriptive requirements ofDirector's Preliminary Determination were predicated onthe good faith efforts ofboth parties to develop temporary airport operating procedures tenable to both parties. However, the Director's Preliminary Determination in the matter does not compel the Respondent to provide unconditional access to HNM. Accordingly, based onthe parties' responses to the foregoing, the Director will determine whether, ornot, the proposed communication requirement is reasonable relative to the circumstances existing at HanaAirport and in compliance with the Respondent's federal obligations. Such determination will be incorporated into the final Director's Determination in the above-referenced matter.

Randall S. Fiertz Director ofOffice ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis Date ICERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that onFebruarya;Q_, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe foregoing document addressed to:
Richard J. Durden Attorney At Law 27987 Richmond Hill Road Conifer, CO 80433 T: 616-901-6516 avlawyer@yahoo.com
Counsel for Complainant
Glenn I. Kimura Deputy Attorneys General Via U.S. Mail

Via U.S. Mail Department ofthe Attorney General, State ofHawaii 465 S. King Street, Room 300 Honolulu, HI 96813
Counsel for Respondent Copyto: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airports Compliance Division, AC0-100 Western Pacific Region Airports Division, AWP-600 Honolulu Airports District Office

Claudia Roberts Office ofAirport Compliance

and Management Analysis