# EASTMAN 

# & ASSOCIATES, 

# LLC
Haslachstmsse 39 79868 Feldberg-Falkau GERMANY ROBERTG. EASTMAN ADMITTED IN DE, FL, GA, MD, NJ, PA, & SC 

### ATTORNEYSATLAW PosTOFFICE 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 ofAirports (HCDA). 3
. On or about May 15, 2012, SDMB negotiated a Letter ofAgreement (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 , MYRATC (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 MYRATC could not attend but were provided minutes from the meeting

1 40222
.sdmb
.hcda
. faa.complaint

### FAA Office ofthe 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 CREATC 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. CREATC 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. CREATC (Glenn Ray) accepted its invitation and said CREATC 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 MYRATC discussed the terms of the proposed LOA, interalia, 

### 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 ofthe 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 , 20 14, Letter from SDMB cc: Aaron Holly (via email) Pat Apone, Director Horry County Department ofAirports RGE/fub

140222.sdmb
.hcda
.faa
.complaintFAA Office ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofAirports 11 00 Jetport Road Myrtle Beach, SC 29577

# EASTMAN 

# & ASSOCIATES, 

# LLC

Haslachstrasse 39 79868 Feldberg-Falkau GERMANY ROBERTG. EASTMAN ADM ITrED IN DE, FL, GA, MD, NJ, PA, & SC

VIA HAND DELIVERY 

### ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFI CE 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
. finalH
. 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 jurisd ictional 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
. finalH. 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
.apauth
.finalH. 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) 105
.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 nalH
. 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 alH. 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 myselffor 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 ofthe 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
.finalH
. 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) 105-2E , "Sport Parachuting" (December 4, 2013). No title 14 regulation prohibits this response .

140220
.Sdmb
.hcdcatty.apauth
. fi nalH. 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

1 40220
.Sdmb
.hcdcatty.apauth
. finalH
. 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 even ing . 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
.Sd mb
.hcdcatty.apauth
.finalH. 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 th is 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 th is. 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
.Sd mb
.hcdcatty.apauth
. finalH. 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. Th is 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
.finalH. 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