UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASIDNGTON, DC 

Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc. 

d/b/a Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving L.L.C. 

Complainant, FAA Docket No.16-12-04 

v. 

The State of Hawaii 

Respondent. 

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

On August 18,2014, the Director of the Office of Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis issued the Director's Preliminary Determination for the above-referenced matter 

preliminarily fmding the Respondent to be in violation of its federal obligations with respect 

to Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination and Grant Assurance 23, Exclusive 

Rights. The Director found that the Respondent was not in violation of Grant Assurance 5, 

Preserving Rights and Powers. 

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 how the Respondent will proceed to finalize and implement the 

Hana Airport Operating Rules and Standards1 resulting in immediate aeronautical access for 

the Complainant. Additionally, the Respondent was directed to negotiate in good faith with 

the Complainant to develop temporary parachute landing area procedures to allow the 

Complainant to begin parachute operations at HNM during the pendency of the finalization 

of the Operating Rules and Standards. The Director confirms that the Respondent has 

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 Complainant temporary operating rules and procedures for 

parachute operators seeking to skydive onto HNM. 

It is the Director's understanding that, on November 25,2014, the Respondent hosted a 

meeting at the Honolulu International Airport in an attempt to reach agreement on the 

development of temporary airport operational procedures to be followed by skydiving and 

transient users ofHana Airport (HNM). As directed by the Dire<;tor's Preliminary 

Determination, the temporary operational procedures are necessary to maximize the safety of 

1 Now referenced by the Respondent as the Hana Airport Rules for Skydive and Transient Aircraft 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 in this meeting along with a number of other HNM aeronautical users, the 

Respondent, and the FAA. 

2 

The November 25, 2014, meeting minutes of record indicate that a number of operational 

proposals were discussed, most of which centered around aircraft communication 

recommendations and requirements for aeronautical users, including skydive operators, to 

assist in overall situation awareness and safety of operations. The record indicates that the 

Respondent seeks to include in its temporary (and permanent) airport rules and procedures a 

provision requiring skydive operators to communicate on the Common Traffic 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 of concern identified by the 

FAA and the Respondent is the Complainant's vocal opposition to communicating on the 

CTAF for HNM before, during, and/or after the proposed skydiving operations. The record 

indicates that the Complainant intends to only communicate on relevant air traffic control 

frequencies (Maui HCF) in accordance with 14 CFR Part I 05 requirements. 

Pursuant to 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 of this request. 

I. Describe the Complainant's objection to communicating on the Common Traffic 

Advisory Frequency (CTAF) and/or any other local island communication 

frequency before, during, and/or after the performance of skydiving operations 

onto Hana Airport, as requested by the Respondent and the FAA. Provide a 

detailed justification for the Complainant's objection to the proposed CTAF 

communications requirement. Also, provide a detailed justification for the 

Complainant's objection to the proposed HNM CTAF requirement in light of the 

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 of the issuance of this request. 

I. Describe the Respondent's reason(s) and rationale for proposing to require 

parachute operators seeking to jump onto Hana Airport to communicate on CTAF 

in addition to the relevant air traffic control communications required under 14 

CFR Part I 05. Provide a detailed justification for the proposed communication 

requirement. 

2 By letter of March 16, 2012, the Respondent granted Skydive Hawaii permission to operate out ofUPP under 

the condition that "Jump aircraft must monitor CTAF for UPP, 122.9 for traffic and make appropriate 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 Director reminds the parties that the prescriptive requirements of Director's Preliminary 

Determination were predicated on the good faith efforts of both 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 on the parties' responses to the foregoing, the Director will 

determine whether, or not, the proposed communication requirement is reasonable relative to 

the circumstances existing at Hana Airport 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 of Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 

Date I 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on Februarya;Q_, 2015, I caused to be placed in the 

United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the 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 of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii 

465 S. King Street, Room 300 

Honolulu, HI 96813 

Counsel for Respondent 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket 

FAA Airports Compliance Division, AC0-1 00 

Western Pacific Region Airports Division, A WP-600 

Honolulu Airports District Office 

Claudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis