EASTMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC 

Haslachstmsse 39 

79868 Feldberg-Falkau 

GERMANY 

ROBERT G. EASTMAN 

ADMITTED IN DE, FL, GA, MD, NJ, PA, & SC 

ATTORNEYSATLAW 

PosT OFFICE Box 180 

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29402 

USA 

February 24, 2014 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

BOO Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: Part 16 Formal Complaint 

PHONE: (843) 329-9657 

FAX: (843) 723-0005 

robertgeastman@msn.com 

Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. v. Horry County Department of Airports 

Dear Sir or Madame: 

1. Complainant, Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. (SDMB), a North Carolina 

Corporation doing business in Horry County, South Carolina conducts a Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) aeronautical activity, skydiving, at Grand Strand Airport 

(CRE) in North Myrtle Beach, SC. 

2. SDMB rents a hanger, purchases fuel, and otherwise pays fees to 

Defendant, Horry County Department of Airports (HCDA). 

3. On or about May 15, 2012, SDMB negotiated a Letter of Agreement (LOA) 

with the local Air Traffic Control CREATC, Myrtle Beach Control Tower MYRATC, and 

HCDA whereby all parties agreed to allow SDMB to conduct Non-emergency Parachute 

Operations. 

4. Mike Lapierre HCDA, Ricardo Washington MYRA TC, and Glenn Ray 

CREATC agreed to the LOA electronically. 

5. On or about May 1, 2013, the HCDA representative Robert Wernersbach, 

MYRA TC (Ricardo Washington), and Glenn Ray agreed to the identical terms in the 

original LOA electronically. 

6. On or about February 7, 2014, a meeting was held between MYRATC 

(Glenn Ray), HCDA (Tim Jackson, Manager), and SDMB in an attempt to resolve 

perceived airport issues at SDMB's invitation. Representatives from MYRA TC could not 

attend but were provided minutes from the meeting 

140222.sdmb.hcda. faa.complaint 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

February 22, 2014 

Page 2 

7. On or about February 7, 2014, SDMB asked the parties for protocol with 

regard to active taxiway crossing procedures, as it could not find them in the Federal Air 

Regulations (FARs). During the conversations it was discovered that, although 

CREA TC and HCDA had a LOA with active taxiway procedures, neither party had 

provided SDMB the terms or procedures. SDMB requested a copy from both CREATC 

and HCDA. CREA TC described the procedures to SDMB and promised a copy of the 

LOA early the next week. SDMB incorporated the procedures as part of its normal 

routine and trained its personnel. 

8. On or about February 7, 2014, all parties to the meeting and were invited 

to attend SDMBs proposed Safety Day to learn about its parachute operations and the 

applicable standards and FARs associated with sport parachuting or skydiving. 

CREA TC (Glenn Ray) accepted its invitation and said CREA TC looks forward to 

attending. 

9. On or about February 10, 2014, CREATC (Glenn Ray) and SDMB 

discussed the terms of the new SDMB LOA, and Mr. Ray provided SDMB a copy of the 

LOA between the HCDAICRE LOA describing the procedures. 

10. On or about February 19, 2014, the FAA held its annual safety meeting at 

MYR. In attendance were SDMB, CREATC, MYRATC, and HCDA representatives as 

well as representatives from the Columbia, SC FAA or the state FAA officials. 

11. On or about February 19, 2014, SDMB, CREATC, and MYRA TC 

discussed the terms of the proposed LOA, inter alia, and discussed moving forward with 

a new LOA to include Jacksonville Center. In a very positive discourse, emails were 

exchanged with procedures that could possibly improve operations between ATC and 

SDMB collectively. 

12. On or about February 19, 2014, HCDA, through its attorney, HCDA served 

SDMB a take-it-or-leave it lease, with a 72 hour eviction (close of business Saturday, 

February 23, 2014) notice in the event that the SDMB refused to accept the terms. See 

Attached letter and "Space Use Permit" dated February 19, 2014. 

13. On or about February 20, 2014, SDMB received a phone call from 

Jacksonville ATC, and discussed the terms of the new LOA and strategy moving 

forward. 

14. On or about February 21 , 2014, HCDA received SDMB's response to the 

allegations identified in its February 19, 2014, letter - rejecting the proposed Permit 

terms. 

15. To date no communication between HCDA and SDMB relating to the LOA 

has taken place, and no communication is expected in the future. HCDA has, in the 

past, and continues to cite allegations and rules which it has neither produced nor 

140222.sdmb.hcda.faa.complaint 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

February 22, 2014 

Page 3 

provided. HCDA refused to communicate or respond to repeated requests for a 

productive resolution to problems, and now is attempting to coerce SDMB into a lease 

so egregious that it amounts to constructive eviction. 

16. SDMB respectfully requests a formal "Part 16 Proceeding" in accordance 

with 14 CFR § 16.23 (78 FR 56135, September 12, 2013, effective November 12, 

2013). 

17. On or about February 23, 2014 (1315 EST), HCDA, under the direction of 

a note from Mr. Tim Jackson, refuse fuel service to SDMB aircraft. After receiving a 

phone call from CRE FBO staff, Mr. Jackson apparently reversed himself and fuel 

service resumed. This required a 30 minute break in operations and loss of customers. 

18. SDMB respectfully submits that the HCDAs refusal treat SDMB similarly to 

comparably situated airport tenants, refusal to repair its facilities (or allow SDMB to 

repair), refusal to negotiate the terms of a LOA in good faith, and attempted removal of 

SDMB from its facilities, collectively and individually, constitutes prohibited 

discrimination as codified in applicable US Code, Department of Transportation 

regulations and FAA regulations and policies. 

19. SDMB appreciates the cooperation from Jacksonville, Myrtle Beach, and 

North Myrtle Beach ACTs and looks forward to a continued working relationship in 

resolving the issues identified herein. 

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Thank you for your 

attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to 

contact me. 

Robert G. Eastman 

Encl.: Feb. 19, 2014, Letter from Horry County Deputy County Attorney 

Feb. 21 , 2014, Letter from SDMB 

cc: Aaron Holly (via email) 

Pat Apone, Director Horry County Department of Airports 

RGE/fub 

140222.sdmb.hcda.faa.complaint 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

February 22, 2014 

Page4 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing Complaint on the 

following persons at the following addresses and facsimile numbers by first class US 

Postal Service. 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dated this 24th day of February, 2014. 

Robert G. Eastman, Esq. 

For Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. 

140222.sdmb.hcda. faa.complaint 

Pat Apone, Director 

Horry County Department of Airports 

11 00 Jetport Road 

Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 













EASTMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC Haslachstrasse 39 

79868 Feldberg-Falkau 

GERMANY 

ROBERT G. EASTMAN 

ADMITrED IN DE, FL, GA, MD, NJ, PA, & SC 

VIA HAND DELIVERY 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

POST OFFICE Box 180 

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA 29402 

USA 

February 21, 2014 

US Mail & EMAIL (HaldiR@HorryCounty.org) 

H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

Deputy County Attorney 

Property Manager 

1301 Second Avenue 

Conway, SC 29523 

Re: Space Use Permit 

Grand Strand Airport 

Dear Mr. Haldi: 

PHONE: (843) 329-9657 

FAX: (843) 723-0005 

robertgeastman@msn.com 

Thank you for your correspondence, dated February 19, 2014. I represent Mr. 

Aaron Holly, President, Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. (SDMB) (f/k/a Skydive Myrtle Beach, 

LLC), and have managed the company since July 2013. Despite the best efforts of 

SDMB to fully comply with its contractual, city, county, state, federal, and other legal 

requirements, it appears that a significant misunderstanding and communication issue 

necessitated the drafting of your letter and proposed extraordinary changes to the 

Space Use Permit (Permit). 

Simply put, despite numerous attempts to work together with Horry County 

Department of Airports (Airport) management, bureaucratic delay, obfuscation, failure to 

communicate, distribute published rules, or manage the Grand Strand Airport (CRE) 

property uniformly has been the contributing factor with the CRE Air Control Tower 

(ACT). SDMB has always attempted to meet its obligations whether legal, moral or 

financial. SDMB prides itself as a Disabled Veteran business entity employing many 

combat veterans recently returning home and attempting to rebuild lives. 

Historically, numerous phone calls, visits, and emails have been either lost, 

ignored, or simply unanswered for reasons unknown to SDMB. It appears that 

difficulties are due to high Airport management turnover and/or a failure to identify who 

actually is in charge of CRE. This has manifestly limited both the County and SDMB in 

addressing the issues identified in your correspondence, and the issues that SDMB has 

submitted to the County and further addressed in this letter. 

140220. Sdmb. hcdcatty .apauth. final 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21 , 2014 

Page 2 

Fortunately, following a meeting prompted by SDMB February 7, 2014, all ACT 

issues have apparently been resolved amicably and professionally. Interestingly, the · 

meeting rather quickly identified the root causes as the Airport management 's failure to 

perform its legal duty and share the contents of the CRE-ACT Letter of Agreement 

(CRE :LOA). Once ACT and SDMB exchanged copies , all the issues between ACT 

and SDMB appear to have been reconciled. We hope with your arrival on scene, rules 

will be identified and equally applied. 

Initially, many of the concerns outlined in your letter are the unfortunate result of 

jurisdictional misunderstandings. Congress has given the FAA exclusive "authority to 

approve or disapprove aeronautical restrictions based on safety and/or efficiency at 

federally obligated airports." Order 5190-68 § 14.3. In all cases, the FAA is the "final 

arbiter regarding aviation safety and will make the determination regarding the 

reasonableness of the sponsor's proposed measures that restrict, limit or deny access 

to the airport." /d. When an airport accepts federal AAIA grant funds , it must adhere to 

certain policies, conditions, and restrictions. Relevant among these are the following : 

"the airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust 

discrimination[.]" 49 USC§ 471 07(a)(1 ). 

The Authority receives federal money pursuant to 49 USC §§ 47101 et seq., the 

Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA). By accepting these federal grants, 

the Authority agrees to abide by certain policies, rules, standards, and regulations set 

out in the AAIA. Approval for these grant applications is conditioned on the Authority's 

agreement to abide by the policies, rules, standards, and regulations concerning airport 

operations (grant assurances) established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

a division of the Department of Transportation (DOT). Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.23, any 

"person directly and substantially affected by any alleged noncompliance" with the 

AAIA, including grant assurances, "may file a complaint with the [FAA] Administrator. A 

person doing business with an airport and paying fees or rentals to the airport shall be 

considered directly and substantially affected by alleged revenue diversion as defined in 

49 USC 47107(b)." 14 CFR § 16.23 (2008). This type of action is commonly known as 

a "Part 16 proceeding." 

"The terms imposed on those who use the airport and its services, including rates 

and charges, must be fair, reasonable, and applied without unjust discrimination[.]" 

Airport Compliance Requirements, FAA Order 5190.68 (Order 5190.68) § 4-13(b). "In 

respect to a contractual commitment, a sponsor may charge different rates to similar 

users of the airport if the differences can be justified as nondiscriminatory and such 

charges are substantially comparable. These conclusions must be based upon the 

facts and circumstances involved in every case." Order 5190.68 § 4-14d(1)(c). 49 USC 

§ 471 07(a)(1) requires that a sponsor make the airport available for public use on 

reasonable conditions without unjust discrimination and 49 USC§ 47107(a)(7) requires 

the sponsor to maintain the airport suitably, with consideration given to climatic and 

flood conditions. 

140220.Sdmb. hcdcatty .apauth . final 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21, 2014 

Page 3 

The remedies provided a plaintiff in a Part 16 proceeding relate to the removal of 

the discriminatory provisions in exchange for continued receipt of Grant funding for the 

airport. In Platinum Aviation and Platinum Jet Center BMI v. Bloomington-Normal 

Airport Authority, Illinois, Final Decision and Order of the FAA (Docket No. 16-06-09), 

2007 WL 4854321 (November 28, 2007), the FAA stated: "The [airport authority's] 

decision not to exercise the [lessee's] 'option provision' is a contract issue between [the 

airport authority] and [the lessee]; it must be resolved in state court, not through the Part 

16 process." /d. at 18. 

Simply stated, the FAA has sole jurisdiction with regard to safety issues relating 

to air safety and discrimination with respect to funded airports such as CRE. Additional 

remedies for retaliatory eviction, breach of contract, evidence of a contract and other 

state matters are also available in SC state courts. Our goal here is to resolve matters 

before each party begins the administrative and civil legal remedies. 

I am confident that, together, we can quickly resolve the legitimate concerns of 

FAA, the County, and SDMB with minimal effort, mutual cooperation, and better Airport 

communication, while we collectively improve the economic viability of Harry County 

and North Myrtle Beach. I will address the concerns raised in your correspondence with 

our perspective. Unfortunately, with misunderstandings, there are always multiple 

interpretations of events, contracts, rules, regulations, etc. Hopefully, we will all be on 

the same page and can improve our community following our interaction. This was the 

original intent of all parties in 2012, and SDMB remains committed to these ideals. 

As stated above, FAA is the sole arbiter of air safety. As such the multiple 

allegations relating to safety (October 20-21, 2013, October 27, 2013, November 13, 

2013, December 23, 2013, January 20, 2014, January 26, 2014, and Ongoing 

helicopter jumps) fall within FAA purview. As stated above, SDMB has a positive 

working relationship with the FAA in Jacksonville, FL, Atlanta, GA, Columbia, SC, Myrtle 

Beach, SC and through no help from the Airport, CRE. There have been no violations 

of applicable federal air regulations regulating parachute operations. As the final 

arbiter, determining whether a violation has occurred jurisdictionally belongs to FAA, 

NOT the Airport management. As stated above, most of the ACT complaints related to 

the Airport's failure to disclose the terms of its LOA relating to two-way communication 

and active runway areas. This has been corrected immediately upon receipt of the 

LOA. 

As such, the genuine issues between the County and SDMB raised in your 

correspondence relate to allegations of crowd control, parking, propane grills, vehicle 

access, and signs, electrical repairs, and other "unauthorized and unapproved 

modifications to the premises." Perhaps the county would promptly provide its written 

rules applicable to all tenants, guests, staff, etc. To date, Airport management has 

styled itself by being absent, unresponsive, and unpredictable. For example: one 

140220. Sdmb. hcdcatty.a pauth. final 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21, 2014 

Page4 

person had a dog running in the airport from a plane, another was a grill, cars go 

everywhere, gates are unsecured or non-functional, etc .. This capricious application of 

unpublished rules is precisely the reason for FOIA, sunshine statutes, published rules 

and regulations, discrimination suits, and the basis for the present situation. 

With regard to a criminal report, it is inaccurate to describe the fence modification 

as a request from SDMB. SDMB has and continues to request street acces similar to 

all other airport tenants. The Permit agreed to access for "reasonable purpose." 

Unauthorized entry by force during work week daylight hours without attempt to contact 

SDMB personnel for entry when other accessible electricity outlets are available is not 

reasonable and a question of fact for a jury should the need arise; it need not be 

discussed further. SDMB has paid its rent for the month of February, the Airport has 

deposited the check, a contract is evident and SDMB has rights. Either the Permit is in 

force or it is not. If it is, entry must be reasonable. If it is not, a contract for tenancy 

exists, and property rights attach, no entry is permitted. 

Background 

SDMB is a disabled veteran owner operated and Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprise per federal regulations. Parachuting , or sport skydiving , is a recognized 

aeronautical activity. As such unless FAA determines that compatibility issues prohibit 

operations at a federally funded airport such as CRE, access and use must be provided. 

See generally, 14 CFR §§ 105.1 et seq. ; FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 1 05.2E "Sport 

Parachuting" (12/4/13), FAA Order 5190.6, "Airport Compliance Manual." The United 

States government has exclusive sovereignty over US airspace and decisions relating 

to federally sponsored airports. Any airport operator receiving federal money is requred 

to make it available to all types of aeronautical activity on reasonable terms without 

discrimination. See Grant Assurance 22(a). Grant Assurance 22(h) provides that the 

sponsor "may 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." (Emphasis supplied). See 49 USC § 47107(a)(1-6) and the 

enabling regulation Grant Assurance 22(h) (prohibiting economic discrimination). Under 

14 CFR § 13.1 , any person may report any violation of aviation laws, regulations, rules, 

policies or orders as an "informal complaint" or under 14 CFR § 13.5 as a "formal 

complaint." 

Initially the County subbed out the management of CRE to Ramp 

66.Communications between SDMB and the airport were limited to Ramp 66 agents. 

Hanger 7 had not been used for 17 years prior to SDMB and was a repository for parts, 

trash and airport storage. SDMB spent a significant time clearing , cleaning , and 

upgrading this space. Multiple requests were submitted to Ramp 66 for repairs to the 

hanger doors, roof, electrical supply, lighting , animals, trash removal , and other matters. 

Ramp 66s response was always that it was a County responsibility, and it was being 

addressed, and Ramp 66 claimed their hands were tied until County resolution . In the 

140220. Sdmb. hcdcatty.apauth. fi nal 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21, 2014 

Page 5 

meantime, SDMB improved the Spartan conditions with the direct and tacit approval of 

Ramp 66. Importantly, no formal lease was executed but SDMB occupied Hanger 7, on 

Ramp 66's representation that a formal lease was forthcoming . Despite multiple email 

and personal requests for resolution of Hanger 7 issues, nothing transpired. 

Order finally appeared last summer when Messrs. Robert Wernersbach and Tim 

Jackson presented themselves to SDMB following Harry County Airport's resumption of 

CRE management. Large parts and aircraft, not associated with SDMB, were finally 

removed from Hanger 7, allowing SDMB exclusive use of the hanger. SDMB submitted 

request for electrical repair, roof repair, hanger door repair, pest management, direct 

street access, city fire safety code violations, lighting, and security concerns, inter alia. 

Mr. Wernersbach noted the concerns and indicated that these matters would be 

investigated, addressed, and deemed feasible. Additionally, Mr. Wernersbach initiated 

negotiations for a formal lease as discussed more fully hereinafter. 

Mr. Wernersbach also discussed some concerns from the county's perspective, 

notably overnight parking and several staff members' use of the hanger and FBO 

shower facilities after business hours. SDMB rectified these issues immediately and 

requested copies of airport rules. To date none have been received . 

During this period, a plate secured by four (4) screws was surreptitiously 

removed from SDMB Caravan aircraft by unknown entitie(s) the day of a spot FAA 

inspection. . Fortunately the removal was identified , and a new plate was fabricated 

and installed during the pre-flight inspection before FAA officials inspected the plane. 

Business Mail and Parcel Interference 

Since the County has taken over CRE, under the apparent direction of Mr. 

Jackson, mail delivery and parcel delivery have been interfered with and prevented by 

County staff under his direction in a manner that significantly interferes with the 

legitimate operation of SDMB. Sua sponte and without any notice to SDMB, Mr. 

Jackson directed all FBO staff to outright refuse delivery of any parcel, whether or not 

signature required, without explanation or any articulated authority. Despite this 

unauthorized, discriminatory practice, several parcels have been signed for by County 

staff, i.e., Mr. Jack Teal. Rather than notify SDMB that he signed for 4 large boxes of 

equipment, the boxes were placed in a locked storage locker without informing any FBO 

staff or SDMB. This effectively concealed the delivery. Of course, when SDMB 

investigated the delivery, the carriers identified Mr. Teal as the receiving party, and 

other cooperative FBO staff searched and presented the boxes. SDMB has attempted , 

unsuccessfully, to rectify this with Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson's explanation remains that 

the FBO will not be responsible for, or sign for, any package but will allow delivery 

provided no signature is required. This is not the case, carrier delivery records clearly 

identify FBO rejection with directions to return to sender. 

140220.Sdmb. hcdcatty.apauth . fin al 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21, 2014 

Page 6 

Space Use Permit 

Since opening doors for business at CRE in May 2012, despite multiple requests 

for a written lease, none has been presented by the Airport. Understandably, when the 

Harry County Department of Airports (County) resumed control of GSA, bumps in the 

road presented themselves and are likely the cause of the present situation. In 

September 2013, SDMB and the County met in Myrtle Beach (MYR) to discuss a lease. 

Representing the County were Messrs. Robert Wernersbach and Tim Jackson, inter 

alios, Mr. Aaron Holly, and myself for SDMB. At this meeting, the general procedures of 

Harry County Property Management were discussed. In particular part, the three-step 

County process for securing a property lease was presented: 1) the need for a Space 

Use Permit (Permit); 2) Three (3) Readings in County Council approving the Permit; 3) 

Translating the Permit terms into a formal lease for a period of years; essentially 

merging the Permit into a longer term lease, following County Council approval. 

Negotiations for a monthly fee were discussed, together with issues relating to 

the condition of the area in question (wild animal infestation, leaks, electrical hazards, 

lighting defects, security concerns, etc.). Following this negotiation , Mr. Wernersbach 

indicated he would send out contractors to inspect the hanger and present SDMB with a 

proposed Permit. SDMB received the Permit, executed the same on 13SEP13, and 

hand delivered, as well as electronically delivered, a copy of the same to Mr. 

Wernersbach. The essential terms were $1 ,200/month rent for the hanger pending 

County approval of the Permit. Mr. Wernersbach advised SDMB that he would need "a 

couple of weeks" to return a copy of the fully executed document. 

Despite Mr. Wernersbach's representations to the contrary, and numerous 

written and oral requests, no fully executed copy of the Space Use Permit has been 

received. Both Messrs. Wernersbach and Jackson indicated that the County Council 

had not read the Permit the required three (3) times and as such, was not available to 

SDMB. Consequently, SDMB has been relying in Good Faith on the oral 

representations of Airport Authority management without the benefit of any written 

county or airport procedural or regulatory guidance, assuming that SDMB's Space Use 

Permit would be forthcoming . 

Significant County Concerns (as identified February 12, 2014) 

October 2013 - the allegations of a poorly controlled large crowd event, food 

sales, and alcohol on County property (inside the hanger) appear to be at best, the 

misconstrued and exaggerated subjective observations of Messrs. Jackson and Tate. 

On site, the County Police were in attendance, made no arrests, and did not identify any 

crowd-related issues. The police, did however, require SDMB staff to leave the gate 

open for pedestrian traffic and prevented the use of the FBO. · 

140220.Sdmb.hcdcatty.apauth.final 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21, 2014 

Page 7 

Any food was brought by clients and not sold by SDMB or its affiliates. It is true 

that SDMB intended to have food for sale by a licensed distributor, the police indicated 

that was improper and the vendor left at considerable expense to SDMB. 

Overnight parking is prevalent and common at CRE and when the airport 

requested the removal of the motor home, it was removed without delay and will not 

happen again. 

According to FAA Regulations (FARs), "uncertified" night jumps do not exist. 

Certification is not required by FAA. 14 CFR Part 105 specifically permits night jumps 

provided visible lights for three (3) statute miles are on once under a functioning 

canopy. Night jumps take place between the end of evening nautical twilight (one hour 

following sunset) and the beginning of morning nautical twilight (one hour prior to 

sunrise). They are permissible and the night jumps neither violate the Letter of 

Agreement (LOA), FARs or other regulatory mandate. 

The current LOA provides for a 3 mile jump zone and a designated primary 

landing area. Although the primary LZ is the target, sometimes this is not possible. The 

FAA has acknowledged this and issued an Advisory Circular that, among other things, 

specifies the procedures for off-target landings. All landings have been safe, legal and 

within the bounds of reasonableness. No property or personnel damage has resulted 

from non-emergency parachute operations at Grand Strand Airport. Unfortunately, from 

time to time folks do sustain injuries. All jumpers execute a waiver, release of liability 

and assumption of risk and air operations were not disrupted during the removal of the 

injured jumper that broke his leg. 

I submit that a report of "uncertified" jumps was a failure to know the applicable 

regulations. SDMB operates within all applicable regulations, and any allegation of 

jumping through clouds is denied. Additionally, FAA requires the tower to report 

observed violations to FAA. As stated above,to SDMB's knowledge, this has not taken 

place nor has proof been presented to the contrary. Again, a misunderstanding of legal 

mandates with regard to Parachute Operations appears to be the root cause of these 

complaints which state no offense or violation. SDMB is hosting its semi-annual Safety 

Day and invites all interested parties to attend (March 8, 2014). It has also 

unsuccessfully attempted to educate Airport management. The Airport has not been 

receptive. 

Taxiway, Vehicle, Pedestrian Violations 

During operations, although advised not to, one jumper did cross the runway 

without ATC permission. The other "incursion" involved a golf cart in plain view of the 

ATC, removing a parachutist from the taxiway, rather than have him struggle collapsing 

his canopy. This is the procedure articulated in FAA's Advisory Circular (AC) 1 05-2E, 

"Sport Parachuting" (December 4, 2013). No title 14 regulation prohibits this response. 

140220.Sdmb. hcdcatty.apauth . fi nal 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21 , 2014 

Page 8 

However, a secret LOA between the County and ACT did regulate this activity and 

provide an unpublished procedure unknown to SDMB. As explained supra , this has 

been identified and corrected through the proactive steps taken by SDMB. 

Parking 

CRE has permitted Personally Owned Vehicles (POV) together with Rental 

Vehicles available to the public access to the gated tarmac areas, and continues to do 

so. Multiple non-tenant, city, county, state, and federal vehicles have been given 

access codes for the entire time SDMB has existed . Parking by multiple individuals, 

including but not limited to, County staff, private pilot staff, commercial enterprise rental 

vehicles, passengers, and SDMB staff is evident and common at CRE. Parking at the 

FBO lot and areas surrounding the airport is also common for members of the public, 

local businesses, and other enterprises, and no rules or regulations are published, 

accessible, provided, displayed, or equally enforced . Parking appeared to become an 

issue during the pre-coordinated event that SDMB pre-planned for with the City of North 

Myrtle Beach, airport, and County officials, including Messrs. Wernersbach and 

Jackson. 

For the first time, during the event itself, SDMB was informed by the County 

Police in attendance that FBO parking lot access was denied , FBO ingress/egress and 

the use of FBO facilities was limited to the southeast gate directly by Hanger 7. 

Naturally, SDMB complied with this expedient set of instructions, obeying the police and 

parking according to the plan provided by SDMB before the event. Following the event, 

staff parked in the lot as before. Multiple non SDMB staff POVs parked and continue to 

park inside the fence line, often overnight. The majority of vehicles parked were and 

continue to be non-SDMB staff or customer POVs, although on weekends some tenants 

of the County, who also skydive, park by or near Hanger 7. Noteworthy observations of 

private passengers parking often overnight is quite common in these areas. 

Propane grills 

Several grills are along the airport property and the terms of the Permit did not 

preclude them. One grill is by the ATC. If SDMB is in violation, this appears surprising 

discriminatory application of permitted grill usage. 

Unauthorized vehicle access 

In October 2013, during the pre-planned event in which the County was prebriefed and included county police attendance, SDMB was advised by the Police, that 

access through the FBO was unauthorized and prohibited . Any entry/egress required a 

code to the gate and the police informed SDMB that County instructions were to utilize 

that from then forward . All POVs parking within the fence belong to SDMB employees; 

customers are advised to park along the street or in the FBO parking lot. During my 

140220. Sdmb. hcdcatty.apauth. final 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21, 2014 

Page 9 

tenure, I have observed numerous vehicles parking across from SDMB hanger 

belonging to clients utilizing King Air and other large turbine and jet aircraft commuting 

betweeen North Myrtle Beach and Columbia or Clemson during collegiate sporting 

events. These airport customers/passengers have been observed with open alcohol 

and unrestrained animals on the active tarmac between the parking , terminal, and 

aircraft presenting hazards. 

The north gate is unsecure, open and publically accessible more often than not. 

have pictures evidencing this. Often the gate malfunctions in the open position. 

Multiple time, SDMB has informed the FBO of this. County police under the instructions 

of Messrs. Wernersbach and Jackson, required the gate to be open for access in 

October. Passengers have the codes, access, multiple tenants have access, the Airport 

routinely, as Mr. Jackson is aware (it is done under his supervision), rents vehicles and 

provides rental customers with an access code and entry inot the airport. At least 50 

vehicles are parked overnight on any given evening. Although parking may be a 

perceived problem, SDMB is not the cause. 

Letter of Agreement- Unauthorized Jumps/Off-field LZ 

The LOA purpose and jurisdiction is to promote safe operations for aircraft 

operations at CRE. The agreement, with regard to the County, limits jurisdiction to the 

County airport property. Applicable federal regulations address airspace, jump-space, 

and alternate off-field landing zones. Federal regulations cover off-airport landings and 

are outside of the jurisdiction of the County. All FARs have been followed with regard to 

any public and helicopter jumps and outside the scope of any LOA within the United 

States. 

Unauthorized modifications 

Despite many attempts, written and oral, SDMB has unsuccessfully requested 

the County to bring the Hanger into a serviceable condition with electric. Messrs. 

Wernersbach and Jackson have continuously indicated that the County Council must 

vote on any repairs and nothing has been done to date. The city of North Myrtle Beach 

(NMB) Fire Inspector cited SDMB for failure to follow code with regard to electrical 

outlets. To date, no action whatsoever has taken place to bring the hanger into 

compliance or have adequate electrical returns. as a result of NMB fire inspection 

SDMB replaced electrical outlets that presented themselves as a hazard and noncompliance issue when the country took no action. Police Report- Trespass 

As correctly stated, a police report was filed. With a $1.4 million aircraft and 

equipment required by federal law to be secure, any unauthorized entry must be 

reported. Breaking into a hanger to secure electricity, while an easily accessible 

alternate electrical outlet is less than 100 feet away, making no attempt to contact 

140220. Sdmb. hcdcatty.apauth. final 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21 , 2014 

Page 10 

business owners in charge of regulated aeronautical equipment (in which the public's 

life depend) is not reasonable, this is a question for a jury in any resulting trial. 

Notably, SDMB indicated that it only wanted to have notice/opportunity to permit 

entry in non-exigent circumstances before such conduct took place. Again, Airport 

failure to address, communicate or otherwise discuss this incident precipitated this 

action. It appears that the County can call at 0700 on a federal holiday (New Year's 

Day) to Mr. Holly's NC residence about a company vehicle but can't call during business 

hours for entry to his business, then enter by force causing damage to the already 

fragile hanger doors. Notably, SDMB did not request, desire or ask for charges to be 

filed , only requested the unreasonable access to cease. 

Resolution 

Clearly, SDMB and the County have been reactive as opposed to proactive. 

SDMBs objective is to safely operate a legitimate disabled veteran owned aeronautical 

activity at a federally funded airport in full compliance with all local, state, and federal 

laws. Precisely for these reasons, SDMB has requested airport rules, attempted to 

communicate its concerns, and remedy any outstanding issues. In fact, SDMB called 

for a meeting with the CRE ATC and the County and identified a recurring issue - that 

of taxi crossings. Although no FAR was violated, the LOA between the County and the 

ATC addressed this. Perhaps due to turnover, this LOA was not brought to the 

attention of SDMB until last week. The good news is: the problem was identified , all 

relative parties were present, and the problem has been solved . SDMB prides itself on 

compliance, safety, and community contributions. In fact we are conducting a Safety 

Day OSMAR 14 for all skydivers and staff, and invite your attendance. 

The County's failure to properly manage, operate, and inform airport tenants, 

treats all tenants identically with respect to alleged rules, amount to discrimination. 

Pointing fingers to unnamed entities relating to undocumented rules and subjective 

complaints, while at the same time preventing SDMBs ability to operate safely within the 

bounds of the law, (i.e., no FBO access, use the gate, then cite a gate violation), is 

patently outrageous and discriminatory. Please publish the rules and SDMB will follow 

them. The multiple unpublished and undocumented allegations of conduct that is 

outside County jurisdiction, no violation of published law or breach of public safety, 

unreasonable security breaches, and interference with the business interests of SDMB 

amount to no actionable claim or regulatory violation. 

In particular, County negligence in failing to disclose the terms of the LOA 

between CRE and Robinson Aviation , and ATC, have been a root cause of many issues 

identified in your letter. A simple act of communication prompted by SDMB cured this 

defect. Requesting paperwork, i.e, the Permit and the LOA, having all parties except 

the County cooperate, County inaction (despite assurances to the contrary) and then 

allegations of illegal, unauthorized or out of control behavior by SDMB are striking. 

140220.Sdmb. hcdcatty.apauth . final 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21 , 2014 

Page 11 

SDMB have worked , and continue to work, within the bounds of law and reason . 

The County's failure to act, despite assurances to the contrary, and the blame of 

unnamed County officials and County's counsel as the cause are interesting in light of 

the new and completely unreasonable "non-negotiable" terms set forth in your proposed 

Space Use Permit (with a 72 hour take it or leave it deadline). This action more closely 

resembles retaliatory conviction due to SDMBs legitimate exercise of federal , state, and 

local statutory, property and contract rights to conduct business without undue 

government interference (i.e. , actions conducted in secrecy, arbitrarily, and without 

published authority or reference to any document under County jurisdiction, including 

the LOA or Permit). SDMB will seek injunctive relief, explore civil litigation, and file a 

formal complaint against the County, its officials, the airport and any other entity that 

interferes with its right, if this situation is not amicably resolved . 

The Airport's failure to inform SDMB as it was required under the terms of its 

County/ATC LOA (effectively a breach) should not be held against SDMB. This has 

been resolved through the proactive efforts of SDMB. Any negligence, breach or failure 

was the County's, not SDMB's. Finally, the new terms together with an attempt at unfair 

dealing with a last minute proposal cloaked in "state authority" are unauthorized and 

unsubstantiated. 

In its current form, the proposed non-negotiable Permit appears to be 

constructive eviction, retaliatory and patently unreasonable. We cannot accept it in its 

current format but are willing to continue under the terms negotiated in September as 

we work forward . SDMB has paid rent, the County accepted rent. Let's let a court 

decide this matter or work it out amicably. SDMB will exercise its legitimate legal right 

to protect against unreasonable unauthorized access in order to meet its duty to protect 

the public. 

SDMB has reasonably relied on representations of County officials to negotiate a 

lease in "good faith", inform it of any articulated Rules and Regulations, occupied 

Hanger 7, since 2012, conduct business, complied with local fire rules, made repairs to 

a dilapidated hanger, paid its rent timely, and attempted to resolve any problems 

promptly. County officials have slandered SDMB to business owners in Myrtle Beach, 

North Myrtle Beach, MYR, and CRE, failed to inform SDMB of articulated rules and 

regulations, significantly interfered with it business by refusing and interfering with mail 

delivery, preventing or refusing to negotiate in good faith , harassed customers, ignored 

repeated requests for information and otherwise operated behind a cloak of secrecy 

with regard to any decision maker despite the good faith attempts at resolution so far. 

Under SC Law, the remedy to remove a tenant involves the Court not a threat to 

enter into a predatory contract, without negotiation, only hours before a weekend . As 

such , absent a Court Order, the County has no legitimate right to self-help and ANY 

ATTEMPT TO FURTHER INTERFERE WITH THE BUSINESS OF SDMB DURING 

THE COURSE OF BUSINESS UNDER COLOR OF AUTHORITY WILL BE DEALT 

140220. Sdmb. hcdcatty .apauth. final 
H. Randolph Haldi, Esquire 

February 21, 2014 

Page 12 

WITH TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW IN BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE 

VENUES. 

Our hope is that the County will reconsider its current Permit keeping in mind that 

SDMB is not a rogue operator. We as well hope to maintain an on-going relationship 

through mutual cooperation and communication and are appreciative of your 

reconsideration. 

Any further contact with Mr. Holly should be directed to this office. Nothing in this 

letter shall be deemed a waiver or limitation of any of Mr. Holly's claims, defenses, or 

remedies. We are hoping for an amicable solution and look forward to hearing from you 

after consultation with your client in the near future. 

PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions, 

please do not hesitate to contact me. 

Robert G. Eastman 

Encl. : None 

cc: Aaron Holly (via email) 

RGE/fub 

140220.Sdmb. hcdcatty.apauth. final