FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 

SKYDIVE MYRTLE BEACH, INC., 

Complainant, 

v. 

HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

AIRPORTS, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

--------------------------~) 

FAADocketNo.16-14-05 

~IE~. ~\Yl!E~ 

I AUG 2 5 Z014 I 

PART 16 DOCKETS 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.26(b )(i) and (ii), Respondent Horry County Department of Airports 

("HCDA") hereby respectfully requests that the Federal Aviation Administration (the "FAA'') 

dismiss Complainant Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc.'s ("SDMB") Part 16 Formal Complaint (the 

"Complaint") with prejudice. 

In its Complaint SDMB presents a disjointed array of allegations, primarily on issues that 

are governed exclusively by South Carolina law. These allegations, which predominantly relate to 

SDMB's occupancy of a hangar at Grand Strand Airport (CRE/GSA) and its use of other CRE/GSA 

facilities, are already being litigated in South Carolina state courts and, more importantly, are 

beyond the FAA's Part 16 jurisdiction. Additionally, these state law allegations do not make out a 

claim for violation of HCDA' s federal grant obligations. SDMB has not identified any similarly 

situated tenants at CRE/GSA who are being treated differently by HCDA. Indeed, the record 

presented by SDMB makes clear that HCDA has offered the same form of space use permit to all 

other tenants at CRE/GSA, and SDMB is the only tenant to refuse the terms in the proffered permit. 

HCDA's federal grant obligations do not give SDMB a right to insist on more favorable terms than 

4845-1384-7069.1 
other, comparable tenants. Finally, in compliance with its grant obligations, HCDA has continued 

to permit SDMB access to CRE/GSA's aeronautical facilities, including the runway, taxiways, and 

parachute landing zone. 

The remainder of the allegations in SDMB's Complaint center on SDMB's objection to its 

obligation, as one of many aeronautical users at CRE/GSA, to contact the air traffic control tower 

before crossing active runways or taxiways, and its objection to the standard written records HCDA 

uses to document safety incidents at CRE/GSA. These allegations should also be dismissed with 

prejudice because they do not state a claim that warrants an investigation or further action by the 

FAA. SDMB does not identify any federal law or regulation that HCDA has allegedly violated by 

implementing the communications and documentation protocols referenced above. Read most 

liberally, the Complaint appears to be an inartful attempt to assert that HCDA has violated Grant 

Assurance 22, which prohibits airport sponsors from unjustly discriminating amongst aeronautical 

operators at their airports. Nothing could be further from the truth. HCDA has properly balanced 

its obligations under Grant Assurance 22 with its obligation under Grant Assurance 19 to maintain 

CRE/GSA's movement areas in a "safe and serviceable condition." Moreover, HCDA has followed 

approved FAA protocols for safety risk management, and is properly tracking safety incidents in 

order to develop means to mitigate the hazards they present. 

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in this Motion and the accompanying Memorandum 

of Points and Authorities, HCDA respectfully requests the FAA to dismiss SDMB's Complaint, in 

its entirety, with prejudice. 

2 

4845-1384-7069.1 
3 

4845-1384-7069.1 

Respectfully submitted, 

HORR Y COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF AIRPORTS, 

David . ard, Es . 

Jeffrey R. Blease, Esq. 

Jaclyn V. Piltch, Esq. 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

111 Huntington Avenue 

Boston, MA 02199 

Tel: (617) 342-4000 

Fax: (617) 342-4001 

dbannard@foley.com 

jblease@foley.com 

jpiltch@foley.com 
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL 

SKYDIVE MYRTLE BEACH, INC., 

Complainant, 

v. 

HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

AIRPORTS, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FAA Docket No. 16-14-05 

_____________________________ ) 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 

IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Respectful! y submitted, 

HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF AIRPORTS, 

David Y. Bannard, Esq. 

Jeffrey R. Blease, Esq. 

Jaclyn V. Piltch, Esq. 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

111 Huntington A venue 

Boston, MA 02199 

Tel: (617) 342-4000 

Fax: (617) 342-4001 

dbannard@foley.com 

jblease@foley.com 

jpiltch@foley.com 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. ! 

LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................................................... 4 

SDMB'S COMPLAINT ....................................................................................................................... 6 

Allegations Relating to Matters Outside the FAA's Jurisdiction ............................................. 6 

The Remaining Allegations in the Complaint .......................................................................... 7 

ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 15 

I. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed With Prejudice For Failure To State A Claim 

For Any Conduct Falling Within The FAA's Jurisdiction ..................................................... 15 

II. The State Law Claims In SDMB's Complaint Should Be Dismissed ................................... 15 

A. The State Law Claims Alleged In The Complaint Are Outside The FAA's 

Jurisdiction ................................................................................................................. 16 

B. The State Law Allegations In The Complaint Do Not Make Out A Claim For 

Violation OfHCDA's Federal Obligations ................................................................ l7 

C. SDMB's "Harassment" Claim Is A State Law Claim That Must Be 

Dismissed ................................................................................................................... 18 

III. SDMB's Remaining Allegations Do Not State A Claim That Warrants An 

Investigation Or Further Action By The FAA ....................................................................... 20 

A. SDMB's Proposed Interpretation Of 14 CFR Part 105 And 14 CFR § 139.329 

Is Both Incorrect And Dangerous ............................................................................... 20 

B. Neither The Documentation Protocol Nor The Purported Landing Zone 

Restrictions Violate HCDA's Federal Grant Obligations .......................................... 23 

CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 26 

4840-8467.7148.4 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................ 15, 18 

Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, FAA Docket No. 16-00-01 (Apr. 17, 200 I) (Final Decision 

and Order) .............................................................................................................................. 16 

Bregman v. Perles, 747 F.3d 873 (D.C. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 8 

Chambers v. United States DO!, 568 F.3d 998 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ....................................................... 15 

Citizens to Save Spencer County v. United States EPA, 600 F.2d 844 (D.C. Cir. 1979) ................... 22 

Desert Wings Jet Center, LLC v. City of Redmond, Oregon, FAA Docket No. 16-09-07 

(Nov. 10, 2010) (Director's Determination) .......................................................................... 23 

Drake Aerial Enters., LLC v. City of Cleveland, FAA Docket No. 16-09-02 (Feb. 22, 2010) 

(Director's Determination) ..................................................................................................... 23 

Hill Air Co. v. Broward County Comm 'rs, FAA Docket No. 13-93-07 (Jan. 31, 2006) 

(Record of Decision) .............................................................................................................. 19 

In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ....................................................................................... 8 

Long Island Jet Center East, Inc. v. County of Suffolk, New York, FAA Docket No. 

16-04-05, 2005 FAA LEXIS 66 (Jan. 21, 2005) (Director's Determination) ........................ 16 

Nat '1 Airlift Support Corp. v. Fremont Cty. Ed. of Comm 'rs, FAA Docket No. 16-98-18 

(May 3, 1999) (Director's Determination), aff'd, (Sept. 20, 1999) (Final Decision 

and Order) .............................................................................................................................. 18 

Penobscot Air Serv. v. Knox Cty., FAA Docket No. 16-97-04 (Sept. 25, 1997) (Director's 

Determination), aff'd, Penobscot Air Serv. v. FAA, 164 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 1999) ................ 16 

Roadhouse Aviation v. City of Tulsa & the Tulsa Airports Improvements Trust, FAA 

Docket No. 16-05-08 (Dec. 14, 2006) (Director's Determination) ........................................ l9 

Roadhouse Aviation, LLC v. City of Tulsa & the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, FAA 

Docket No. 16-05-08 (June 26, 2007) (Final Decision and Order) .................................. l6, 23 

Skydive Monroe, Inc. v. City of Monroe, Georgia, FAA Docket No. 16-06-02, 2007 FAA 

LEXIS 117 (Mar. 30, 2007) ............................................................................................. 17-18 

Springfield Flight A cad. v. City of Springfield, FAA Docket No. 16-10-03 (Aug. 25, 2011) 

(Director's Determination) ............................................................................................... 16, 18 

11 

4840·8467-7148.4 
Statutes, Rules, and Regulations 

49 U.S.C. § 4710l(a) (2012) ............................................................................................................... .4 

49 U.S.C. § 47107(a) (2012) ................................................................................................................ 4 

14 CPR§ 16.1 .................................................................................................................................... 15 

14 CPR§ 16.26(b)(i) ...................................................................................................................... l, 15 

14 CPR§ 16.26(b)(ii) ..................................................................................................................... l, 15 

14 CPR Part 105 .......................................................................................................................... passim 

14 CPR§ 105.5 .................................................................................................................................. 22 

14 CPR Part 139 .......................................................................................................................... passim 

14 CPR§ 139.329 .............................................................................................................. 2, 12, 20-21 

Other Authorities 

Airport Cooperative Research Program, General Aviation Safety and Security Practices: A 

Synthesis of Airport Practice (2007) ...................................................................................... 20 

FAA Advisory Circular (AC) No. 105-2E, Sport Parachuting (Dec. 4, 2013) .................................. 22 

FAA Advisory Circular (A C) 150/5200-37, Introduction to Safety Management Systems 

(SMS) for Airport Operators (Feb. 28, 2007) ........................................................................ 25 

FAA Airport Compliance Manual, FAA Order 5190.6B (Sept. 30, 2009) ........................... 4-6, 24-25 

FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances (Mar. 2014) ......................................................................... 4-5,23 

FAA Fact Sheet- Runway Safety (July 19, 2013) .............................................................................. 5 

FAA Final Report DOT IF AA/ AR-11130, Development of Criteria for Parachute Landing 

Areas on Airports (May 2012) ......................................................................................... 23-25 

FAA Form 5010 "Airport Master Record" for Grand Strand Airport at North Myrtle Beach 

(July 24, 2014) ......................................................................................................................... .4 

FAA Grant Assurance 19 .......................................................................................... : ................. passim 

FAA Grant Assurance 22 ............................................................................................................ passim 

FAA Guide to Ground Vehicle Operations: A Comprehensive Guide to Safe Driving on the 

Airport Surface ....................................................................................................................... 21 

FAA National Plan ofintegrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), 2013-2017 ........................................... .4 

lil 

4840-8467-7148.4 
Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.26(b )(i) and (ii), Respondent Harry County Department of Airports 

("HCDA") hereby respectfully requests that the Federal Aviation Administration (the "FAA") 

dismiss Complainant Sky dive Myrtle Beach, Inc.'s ("SDMB") Part 16 Formal Complaint (the 

"Complaint") with prejudice. 

INTRODUCTION 

Rather than simply comply with standard requests from HCDA to conduct its operations at 

Grand Strand Airport in a safe and commercially reasonable manner, and to undertake lawful 

occupancy of premises on airport property, SDMB has launched a full legal assault on Harry 

County in state court and in this proceeding. However, as this Motion will demonstrate, claims of 

"unjust discrimination" are exaggerated and, in some instances, concocted, to draw attention away 

from SDMB's refusal to abide by a few simple rules grounded in safety and efficiency, and the 

airport's proprietary power, and applicable to all aeronautical users at the airport. 

BACKGROUND 

This Complaint arises out of SDMB 's refusal to abide by the same rules and regulations as 

all other aeronautical users at Grand Strand Airport in North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 

("CRE/GSA"). 1 SDMB currently uses CRE/GSA as a base of operations for its skydiving business, 

and has a designated landing zone on airport property. SDMB lawfully occupied a hangar at 

CRE/GSA through a Space Use Permit until that permit expired on January 31, 2014. SDMB 

continues to occupy the hangar unlawfully following expiration of that permit. Harry County has 

filed an ejectment action in South Carolina state court against SDMB and the magistrate judge has 

ordered eviction. SDMB has appealed this order. 

1 As noted infra at 7 n.8, CRE is the three-letter abbreviation code for Grand Strand Airport, but SDMB refers to the 

airport in its Complaint as GSA. 

1 

4840-8467-7148.4 
SDMB presents a disjointed array of allegations in its Complaint that mostly relate to the 

hangar and its use ofCRE/GSA facilities, all of which are beyond the FAA's jurisdiction and.are 

being litigated in South Carolina state courts. The remainder of the allegations in the Complaint 

center on SDMB's objection to its obligation, as one of many aeronautical users at Grand Strand, to 

contact the air traffic control tower before crossing active runways or taxiways, and its objection to 

the standard written records HCDA and the tower use to document safety incidents. Though not 

once identifying any federal law or regulation that HCDA has allegedly violated, the Complaint 

appears to be an inartful attempt to assert that HCDA has violated Grant Assurance 22, which 

prohibits airport sponsors from unjustly discriminating amongst aeronautical operators at their 

airports. Nothing could be further from the truth. HCDA has properly balanced its obligations 

under Grant Assurance 22 with its obligation under Grant Assurance 19 to maintain CRE/GSA's 

movement areas in a "safe and serviceable condition." 

In February 2014, when SDMB allegedly first learned of the Letter of Agreement ("LOA") 

between HCDA and the tower that contains the obligation to contact the tower before crossing 

active runways or taxiways, SDMB inquired as to the basis for the obligation. The tower promptly 

sent SDMB a copy of 14 CFR § 139.329, which the FAA had provided to it. Upon review of the 

LOA and this regulation, SDMB stated that it thought this provision was reasonable and agreed to 

abide by it. SDMB even inserted language into a new, draft LOA for which it sought FAA 

approval, requiring SDMB to contact the tower before it or any of its skydivers cross active 

runways or taxiways. However, in the following months, SDMB's skydivers and personnel 

continued to cross active runways and taxiways, either on foot or in golf carts, without first asking 

the tower's permission. This uncontrolled movement creates a significant safety risk to other 

aeronautical users at CRE/GSA. 

2 

4840-8467-7148.4 
In an attempt to mitigate the safety hazard created each time one of these vehicle or 

pedestrian incursions occurred, HCDA developed a standard report form to track such deviations, 

along with all other safety hazards at CRE/GSA. The tower and HCDA staff report safety incidents 

involving any aeronautical user to HCDA, which fills out a written report for its records to track 

these safety hazards. SDMB apparently objects to this documentation protocol, and also now 

claims for the first time that the universal obligation to seek permission from the tower before 

crossing an active runway or taxiway does not apply to SDMB or its skydivers. 

SDMB's specific argument appears to be that its skydivers should not be considered 

"pedestrians" under 14 CFR Part 139, and should not therefore be subject to the requirement to 

contact the tower before crossing an active runway or taxiway. 2 According to SDMB, skydivers do 

not become pedestrians when they land, and instead remain "parachutists" under 14 CFR Part 1 05. 

Under this self-serving and dangerous interpretation of these two regulations, SDMB's skydivers 

would be allowed to walk across the taxiways and runways with impunity, whenever they chose, 

even if an aircraft were about to take off or land. Contrary to SDMB' s fantasy, Part 105 -which 

does not prescribe any safety obligations for skydivers after they land- can and should be read 

together with Part 139 to create the safest possible environment at CRE/GSA. To do otherwise 

would create unnecessarily dangerous conditions in the movement areas of the airport. 

SDMB also objects to the ground communications and documentation protocols as 

unwarranted restrictions on its designated landing zone at CRE/GSA. SDMB's argument here 

appears to be that, because Part 105 states that in an emergency parachutists may land anywhere at 

the airport, its landing zone in all instances comprises the entire airport. Such is not the case, and is 

belied by the documents that SDMB attaches to its Complaint, which clearly state the exact location 

2 CRE/GSA is not a Part 139 certificated airport, however, like many general aviation airports, it looks to Part 139 for 

guidance in complying with its federal grant obligations. See infra at 20. 

3 

4840·8467 ·7148.4 
of SDMB' s proper landing zone. Moreover, the high number of "inadvertent" landings outside the 

landing zone by SDMB skydivers have created an additional safety concern that HCDA, following 

approved FAA protocols for safety risk management, is properly tracking in order to develop means 

to mitigate the hazard they present. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

CRE/GSA is a public-use airport owned and operated by the County of Harry, South 

Carolina, which is classified as a "Regional" general aviation airport with 32 based aircraft and 

46,670 armual operations.3 See FAA Form 50 l 0 "Airport Master Record" for Grand Strand Airport 

at North Myrtle Beach (July 24, 2014); FAA National Plan oflntegrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), 

20!3-2017, Appendix A at A-92. 

As the owner and operator of CRE/GSA, which has been financed, in part, with funds 

provided by the FAA under the Airport Improvement Program, Harry County is contractually 

obligated to comply with certain Grant Assurances promulgated by the FAA. See 49 U.S.C. 

§ 47107(a) (2012); FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances (Mar. 2014) 4 

"It is the policy of the United States ... that the safe operation of the airport and airway 

system is the highest aviation priority." 49 U.S.C. § 4710l(a) (2012). Accordingly, and "consistent 

with the FAA mission, the most important objective in FAA's oversight of [its] compliance 

program is to ensure and preserve safety at all federally obligated airports." FAA Airport 

Compliance Manual, FAA Order 5190.6B, § 2.6 at 2-5 (Sept. 30, 2009).5 "Ensuring safe airport 

operations includes maintaining runways, taxiways, and other operational areas in a safe and usable 

3 Annual operations were calculated for the 12-month period ending September 17, 2013. See FAA Form 5010 "Airport 

Master Record" for Grand Strand Airport at North Myrtle Beach (July 24, 2014). 

4 Available at www.faa.gov/airports/aip/grant_assurances/media!airport-sponsor-assurances-aip.pdf. 

5 The Order "establishes the policies and procedures for FAA personnel to follow in carrying out the FAA's 

responsibilities for ensuring airport compliance" with federal obligations. I d. § 1.1 at 1-1, available at 

www .faa.gov I documentlibrary /media/Order/5190 _ 6b. pdf. 

4 

4840-8467-7148.4 
condition." !d. "A runway incursion is any unauthorized presence on a runway, regardless of 

whether or not an aircraft, vehicle or pedestrian presents a potential conflict to an aircraft authorized 

to land, take off, or taxi on a runway." FAA Fact Sheet- Runway Safety, at 2 (July 19, 2013)6 

(citing International Civil Aviation Organization). "The reduction in the number and severity of 

runway incursions is one of the FAA's top priorities." Id., at 1. 

Certain of the grant assurances with which Horry County must comply specifically address 

safety. For example, Grant Assurance 19 ("Operation and Maintenance") provides; 

a. The airport and all facilities which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users 

of the airport ... shall be operated at all times in a safe and serviceable condition 

and in accordance with the minimum standards as may be required or prescribed 

by applicable Federal, state and local agencies for maintenance and operation. 

FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances, at 9-10. To comply with Grant Assurance 19, an airport sponsor 

"should adopt and enforce adequate rules, regulations, or ordinances as necessary to ensure safety 

and efficiency of aircraft operations and to protect the public using the airport." FAA Order 

5190.6B, § 7.8(c) at 7-7. In fact, "[o]ne of the most important functions oflocal regulations is to 

control the use of the airport in a manner that will eliminate hazards to aircraft and people and 

structures on the ground." !d.,§ 7.9 at 7-7. These regulations are sometimes needed "to reduce the 

likelihood of a runway incursion." !d. 

Grant Assurance 22 ("Economic Nondiscrimination") sets forth the following obligation for 

an airport sponsor; 

a. It will make the airport available as an airport for public use on reasonable terms 

and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical 

activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the 

public at the airport. 

FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances, at I 0. This obligation is then elaborated upon by two safetyspecific provisions; 

6 Available at www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?news!d~I4895. 

5 

4840-8467-7148.4 
h. 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. 

1. The sponsor may prohibit or limit any given type, kind or class of aeronautical 

use of the airport if such action is necessary for the safe operation of the airport 

or necessary to serve the civil aviation needs of the public. 

!d., at 11. "An airport proprietor may adopt reasonable minimum standards for aeronautical 

businesses and adopt routine regulations for use and maintenance of airport property by aeronautical 

users and the public," because this falls within the provenance of Grant Assurance 22(h). See FAA 

Order 5190.6B, § 14.4 at 14-2. "These kinds of rules typically do not restrict aeronautical 

operations." !d. Additionally, "[a] prohibition or limit [pursuant to Grant Assurance 22(i)] may be 

based on safety or on a conflict between classes or types of operations." !d., § 14.3 at 14-2. "This 

generally occurs as a conflict between fixed-wing operations and another class of operator that 

results in a loss of airport capacity for fixed-wing aircraft." !d. "A prohibition or limit on 

aeronautical operations justified by the sponsor on the basis of safety ... will be evaluated based on 

the stated purpose, justification, and support offered by the sponsor." !d., § 14.4( d) at 14-3. 

SDMB'S COMPLAINT7 

The allegations in SDMB's Complaint fall into two distinct categories: those relating to state 

law matters not within the FAA's jurisdiction, which should be summarily dismissed, and those 

relating to matters that arguably fall within the FAA's jurisdiction but still fail to state a claim 

against HCDA. 

Allegations Relating to Matters Outside the FAA's Jurisdiction 

SDMB' s Complaint asserts claims against both HCDA and the privately-owned air traffic 

control tower operator at HCDA's Grand Strand Airport, Robinson Aviation, Inc. (the "CRE 

7 SDMB has not numbered the paragraphs in its Complaint. For the FAA's convenience, HCDA has attached as 

Exhibit A a copy of the Complaint that assigns numbers to the paragraphs in SDMB's Statement of Facts. These 

paragraphs are referred to in this Motion as "FP (No.]." 

6 

4840-8467-7148.4 
Tower"). 8 Factual allegations regarding the CRE Tower appear in FP 2, 6, 11-12, 14-18, 20-21, 35, 

38, 41, 49, 50, and 53. As noted in the FAA's July 29,2014 Notice of Docketing, the CRE Tower 

was not properly named as a respondent in this Part 16 action. The FAA therefore docketed the 

Complaint naming HCDA as the only Respondent. The allegations regarding the CRE Tower are 

not transferable to HCDA, and they should be dismissed from this action in the first instance. 

SDMB's Complaint also includes many allegations related to matters governed by South 

Carolina law, which appear in FP 3-5, 8-10, 16, 19-20, 23, 26, 31, 33-34, 36-37, 40, 42, and 46. For 

the most part, these allegations relate to lease and Space Use Permit negotiations and other issues 

related to SDMB 's occupancy of a hangar at CRE/GSA. See Compl. at 1 (under "Summary"). 

SDMB and HCDA have both filed state law actions addressing these issues. Compl. at 3 n.4 and FP 

26, 46; see also Ex. 4 and 5 (state court pleadings). As discussed infra § II, these allegations relate 

to claims wholly outside the FAA's jurisdiction and should be dismissed. 

The Remaining Allegations in the Complaint 

SDMB bookends the Complaint with references to its over-arching theme: that a new 

documentation protocol implemented due to stated safety concerns, and purported restrictions on its 

landing zone, are somehow discriminatory. Specifically, SDMB begins the Complaint by referring 

to an "HCDA/CRE [Tower] partnership that initiated policing 'unusual' airport activity and 

refereeing the boundaries of SDMBs [sic] primary LZ" and claiming that "HCDA and CRE 

[Tower] are working together to report and enforce subjective 'unusual incidents."' Compl. at 3. 

Then, in its Conclusion, SDMB alleges that the "current arbitrary attempts to restrict the landing 

8 CRE is the three-letter abbreviation code for Grand Strand Airport, and is not typically used to refer to Robinson 

Aviation, Inc. In its Complaint, however, SDMB refers to Robinson Aviation, Inc. as CRE and to Grand Strand Airport 

as GSA. The exhibits attached to the Complaint and at least one factual allegation referencing those exhibits (see 

FP 37) use the term CRE properly, in reference to Grand Strand Airport. It also appears that in some of its allegations 

SDMB intends the term CRE to refer to Grand Strand Airport (see, e.g., FP 1, 42). In this Motion, in an attempt to 

bring clarity to SDMB's allegations, HCDA will refer to Robinson Aviation, Inc. as the "CRE Tower" and to Grand 

Strand Airport as "CRE/GSA." 

7 

4840-8467-7148.4 
area and the continued practice of reporting authorized parachute operations (landings) as violations 

pursuant to Part 13 9, under the sheepskin of 'safety concerns' is [sic] unreasonably restrictive and 

discriminatory as applied to an FAA recognized aeronautical activity." Id. at 10. 

The following allegations and record citations relevant to these themes have been taken from 

SDMB's own Complaint and the exhibits SDMB has provided: 9 

In April2012, SDMB negotiated the lease of Hangar 7 at CRE/GSA with Ramp 66, LLC 

("Ramp 66"), the airport operator for CRE/GSA at that time. FP l. 

On May 11,2012, SDMB entered into a Letter of Agreement (LOA) with HCDA, the 

Myrtle Beach (MYR) Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), and the Grand Strand (CRE) ATCT. FP 

2; Ex. 2 at 19-21. Among other things, the May 11, 2012 LOA defined the location of SDMB's 

Landing Zone, and provided that SDMB "parachutist[ s J are authorized to land in the defined 

'Landing Zone' only and are not authorized to land on any runway, taxiway or ramp area." Ex. 2 at 

20, 'lf'lf 4(C) and 5(A)(5). 

On August 1, 2013, HCDA resumed control ofCRE/GSA from Ramp 66. FP 3. That same 

day, Horry County and SDMB entered into an Operating Permit permitting SDMB to perform 

"Skydiving and Non-Emergency Parachute Operations" at CRE/GSA. Ex. 2 at 4-8. In the 

Operating Permit, SDMB agreed to "observe and comply with ... all directives of [HCDA], which 

now exist or which may be hereinafter be [sic] enacted or adopted." !d., at 5 § 5. 

On September 3, 2013, SDMB acknowledged that one of its employees was not "properly 

trained ... resulting in [an J off field landing." Ex. 1 at 12. 

9 "On a motion to dismiss, the facts alleged in the complaint are taken as true and all reasonable inferences therefrom 

are drawn in the plaintiffs favor." Bregman v. Perles, 747 F.3d 873, 874 (D.C. Cir. 2014). "In determining whether to 

dismiss, courts treat documents attached to a complaint as if they are part of the complaint." In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 

723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 

8 

4840·8467·7148.4 
On September 13, 2013, HCDA and SDMB entered into a temporary Space Use Permit 

allowing SDMB to occupy Hangar 7 through January 31,2014. See Ex. 3 at 54. 

On October 15, 2013, the CRE Tower manager, Glenn Ray, notified SDMB that "some of 

[its] jumpers after landing down here by the tower walked across taxiway Bravo, and then into the 

ramp." FP 6; Ex. I at 86. 

On October 27,2013, a skydiver landed on a taxiway and needed to be medevaced to a 

hospital. FP 7. 

On January 21,2014, Mr. Ray again emailed SDMB, stating: "We are often having jumpers 

land outside of the landing zone." FP II; Ex. I at Ill. Mr. Ray continued, "I feel that when the 

'season' starts with banner tow and helicopter rides, its [sic J going to be unsafe to conduct both 

operations at the same time .... For now and in planning for the spring/summer, we will have to 

accomplish the parachuting activity by holding the aircraft while it takes place." Ex. I at Ill. 

On January 23,2014, SDMB responded to Mr. Ray, claiming that, pursuant to its Operating 

Permit, it was "permitted to land anywhere within 5 (five) miles of the airport, ifnecessary." 10 

Ex. I at 112. SDMB requested a meeting with the CRE Tower, MYR ATCT, HCDA, and legal 

counsel, to discuss its concerns that the safety violations identified by the CRE Tower might cause 

harm to SDMB's business. Jd; FP 12. 

Mr. Ray wrote back that same day, stating: "I am aware of only the one Letter Of 

Agreement (LOA) that CRE MYR and Skydive MB all signed and it doesn't speak oflanding any 

where other than the designated landing zone." Ex. I at 114. He further stated that "our tower is 

here and is task[ed] with the safety of all it's [sic] users. Therefore the tower will make every effort 

to provide a safe environment using the tools provided." I d. Mr. Ray agreed to meet with SDMB 

10 SDMB's Operating Permit does not contain any such provision. See Ex. 2 at 4-8. 

9 

4840-8467-7148.4 
and its legal counsel, and asked for "sufficient time" to get HCDA "and as many airport users as we 

can to participate." !d.; FP 12. 

On January 26,2014, Mr. Ray emailed SDMB: "This afternoon we had a couple of issues 

with people walking on the taxiways and driving golf carts on the taxiways without getting 

permission from the tower first." Ex. I at 117. Mr. Ray continued, "I'm sure your [sic] aware 

that's against the rules as we have spoken about this before. In an effort to keep the operation safe 

and by the rules can you rebrief your folks not to enter a taxiway or runway without contacting the 

tower first." !d. 

In its response to Mr. Ray's email, SDMB admitted that a golf cart went out to retrieve a 

jumper without contacting the CRE Tower, "to quickly clear the runway." Ex. 1 at 117. SDMB 

further stated that another jumper obtained "permission" for crossing, but that this was somehow 

done "without response from the tower." !d. In response to this, Mr. Ray clearly stated: "The rules 

for entering the taxiway don't have exceptions." Ex. 1 at 123. SDMB had also copied Richard 

Allen, area manager for Robinson Aviation, Inc., on its response. Ex. 1 at 117. Mr. Allen also 

wrote back, saying "I think we may talk with the runway incursion folks again ref. the golf carts and 

etc today." FP 13; Ex. 1 at 119. 

On February 3, 2014, SDMB emailed Mr. Ray stating that a meeting "at 1400 (our location) 

would be great." Ex. 1 at 129. Mr. Ray tried to attend this meeting on February 3; it appears the 

meeting was actually held on February 7. See Ex. 1 at 134-37, 153; FP 15-16. 

Also on February 3, 2014, HCDA notified SDMB that it had been advised by an on-site 

F AAI ASO (Atlanta) Certification Inspector that on the preceding Saturday, FAA had received 

"another Vehicle/Pedestrian incursion report (VPD) for CRE." Ex. I at 138; FP 14. 

On February 4, 2014, the FAA emailed HCDA to request information regarding the January 

26, 2014 vehicle deviation by SDMB, where a golf cart entered two separate taxiways without 

10 

4840-8467-7148.4 
permission to retrieve a jumper. Ex. 1 at 155-56. The next day, HCDA emailed SDMB asking for 

details of this vehicle deviation. !d. at 154. SDMB reiterated its earlier admission that it had not 

contacted the CRE Tower before the golf cart crossed the taxiways. !d. at 158. Incredibly, that 

same email claims the CRE Tower knew "the jumper was going to land on the taxiway" because 

"[i]t was clear to all," implying that SDMB was somehow relieved of its obligation to communicate 

with the CRE Tower and wait for permission before crossing the taxiway. !d. Nevertheless, SDMB 

promised it "would request permission prior to entry on taxiway in future." !d. 

At the February 7, 2014 meeting, the CRE Tower advised SDMB about the LOA between 

HCDA and the CRE Tower "whereby procedures for vehicular and pedestrian entry into 'active 

areas' required CRE ground communication protocols." FP 16. "SDMB agreed to comply with 

these provisions ... and implemented internal procedures to meet the terms of the HCDA-CRE 

LOA." !d. 

On February 10,2014, SDMB sentadraftLOA totheCRE Tower. FP 17;Ex.l at 185. 

Like its predecessor, the draft LOA provided, inter alia, that "Skydive Myrtle Beach parachutists 

are authorized to land in the defined 'Landing Zone' only and are not authorized to land on any 

runway, taxiway, or ramp area." Ex. 1 at 165, § 5(A)(6). 11 The draft LOA also "included the [CRE 

Tower's] ground communications" protocol, providing that "Skydive Myrtle Beach shall notify 

CRE prior to crossing any identified active taxiway or runway during operational hours of CRE 

ATCT." 12 FP 17; Ex. 1 at 165, § 5(A)(8). 

11 The draft LOA included in the record at Ex. I at 164-66, appears to be the LOA sent from SDMB to the CRE Tower 

in February 2014, as it bears the following footer "140209.loa.sdmb.myr.cre.hcda," which follows the naming 

convention of other documents SDMB has sent to HCDA over the last several months, and matches the name of the 

document attached to the email at Ex. I at 185. SDMB also cites this LOA to support the statement that it "agreed to 

comply" with the CRE Tower's ground communication protocol and "implemented internal procedures to meet the 

terms of the HCDA-CRE LOA." FP 16. What appears to be a later version of the draft LOA also bears this footer, but 

clearly incorporates feedback from other involved parties. See Ex. I at 147-51. 

12 In this LOA, "CRE" was defined to mean Grand Sttand ATCT, which is referred to in this Motion as the CRE Tower. 

See id. at 164, § I. 

11 

4840-8467-7148.4 
On February 14, 2014, Mr. Ray sent SDMB a copy of 14 CFR § 139.329, stating "This is 

what the FAA sent me. This appears to go along with the LOA with the airport." 13 Ex. I at 192. 

SDMB responded, "Appreciate the heads up and in conjunction with the LOA this makes complete 

sense. Now that we have a copy, we have implemented SOPs here where this should no longer 

present itself as an issue henceforth." !d. at 191. 

It appears from these statements that SDMB received a copy of the January I, 2012 LOA 

between HCDA and the CRE Tower on or before February 14, 2014. 14 Therefore, by that time, 

SDMB was aware that HCDA and the CRE Tower had an LOA whose scope was "To limit to the 

maximum extent practical a situation on the Movement Area involving aircraft, vehicle, pedestrian, 

or object on the ground that would create a collision hazard and/or loss of separation with an 

aircraft taking off, landing, or taxiing." Ex. 2 at I (emphasis in original). SDMB was further aware 

that, pursuant to the LOA, the CRE Tower controlled "all aircraft, vehicular, and pedestrian traffic 

in the defined movement area at Grand Strand Airport during operational hours." !d.,§ 4(a)(l). 

Finally, SDMB was aware of the CRE Tower's obligation, pursuant to the LOA, to "Notify the 

Airport Operations or North Myrtle Beach Public Safety of observed Movement Area incursions 

committed by vehicle operators or pedestrians." !d., § 4(a)(2). 

On February 19,2014, the Deputy County Attorney for Horry County sent SDMB a letter 

stating that SDMB 's prior Space Use Permit had expired on January 31, 2014, and attaching a new 

Space Use Permit for SDMB's review and acceptance. See Ex. 3 at 54-57; FP 20. The letter 

included a list of multiple instances of unsafe jumping practices, as well as vehicle and pedestrian 

incursions onto runways and taxiways, some of which necessitated FAA reporting and 

13 SDMB alleges that§ 139.329 was provided "as the authority for [the CRE Tower's] complaints to the FAA and 

HCDA." FP 16. However, SDMB has not alleged in its Complaint that the documentation protocol involves 

submitting the written reports to the FAA. 

14 SDMB also notes that it received the LOA in a February 21, 2014letter to HCDA. See, e.g., Ex. 3 at 69. 

12 

4840-8467-7148.4 
investigation. Ex. 3.at 54-55. These incidents constituted a violation ofSDMB's existing (albeit 

expired) Space Use Permit and its Operating. Permit. !d.; Ex. 2 at 5 § 5. Also on February 19,2014, 

SDMB sent its proposed LOA to Ricky Washington, the Air Traffic Manager for MYR ATCT. FP 

21; Ex. I at 214. 

On April 12,2014, SDMB threatened to file an FAA Complaint against the CRE Tower 

because its skydive aircraft was held for a banner tow. Ex. 1 at 239; FP 35. In light of this threat, 

Mr. Ray indicated that he would begin to forward his complaints to the Flight Standards District 

Office and HCDA. Ex. 1 at 242; FP 35. 

On May 10, 2014, Mr. Ray informed SDMB that he had to "file paperwork on the guys 

crossing the taxiway without coordination." Ex. 1 at 243; FP 38. On May 19, 2014, HCDA's 

Manager of Operations and Safety requested information from SDMB in order to respond to an 

FAA Letter ofinvestigation regarding the unauthorized crossing. Ex. 1 at 245; FP 39. He stated 

that the County was "reaching the end of what we can do to curtail this issue," and that he had "to 

show tangible evidence that we're working towards a solution." Ex. 1 at 245. In its incensed 

response to this email, SDMB claimed that it "always utilize[ d] radio communications with the 

tower." 15 !d. HCDA responded to SDMB, stating "As we discussed; FAA reached out to us and 

we're required to respond with a plan, hopefully together, to avoid what they see as a serious safety 

concern." 16 Ex. 1 at 251. 

On May 22, 2014, some of SDMB 's skydivers landed on or near the beach, instead of in the 

designated landing zone are CRE/GSA. Ex. 1 at 244. Mr. Ray asked SDMB to inform the CRE 

15 SDMB also claimed that it had not yet received the LOA under which HCDA and the Tower operated. !d. This is 

incorrect, as SDMB clearly received a copy of the LOA on or before February 14, 2014, and referenced it in 

correspondence with HCDA. See supra at 12 and n.14. 

16 SDMB's treatment of safety concerns is best illustrated by its owner Aaron Holly's comment when he forwarded 

HCDA's request for information to another SDMB employee: "More of the shit I have been dealing with all day 

instead of being in a boat." Ex. 1 at 247. 

13 

4840-8467-7148.4 
Tower in advance if its skydivers were going to land somewhere other than the designated landing 

zone, so he would be able to advise the banner tows and helicopters to look out for them. Id. 

On May 24,2014, Mr. Ray wrote to SDMB noting that a jumper had crossed a runway 

without coordinating with the CRE Tower. Ex. I at 257; FP 41. Less than an hour later, Mr. Ray 

again wrote to SDMB because another jumper had walked across the runway. Ex. I at 268. 

On June 10, 2014, Mr. Washington from MYR ATCT sent a revised draft ofSDMB's LOA 

out for review. Ex. I at 271; FP 47. SDMB objected to some of the provisions in the revised LOA, 

including the following provision regarding the documentation of safety hazards: "Within 24 hours 

of any parachute jumper landing outside of the Landing Zone or other deviations by the para jump 

operation, CRE [Tower] shall notify HCDA, in writing, of each incident. The incident reporting 

form shall be furnished by HCDA." Ex. I at 149, § 3(c)(l). 

On June 25, 2014, the parties met to discuss the draft LOA. 17 FP 49. Despite receiving 

multiple emails from Mr. Ray prior to this date indicating that he needed to submit reports to 

HCDA for pedestrian and vehicle incursions onto active runways and taxiways, SDMB alleges that 

it first learned of these reports at the June 25 meeting. See id. 

On June 27, 2014, SDMB asked Mr. Ray for additional regulatory authority requiring the 

CRE Tower to report parachutists to FAA for crossing the taxiway without first seeking permission 

from the tower. FP 50; Ex. 1 at 322. Mr. Ray referred SDMB to the FAA. Id. 

Also on June 27, 2014, Jason Terreri, the new HCDA Assistant Director of Airports, 

emailed SDMB, noting that "incidents involving skydivers that missed the landing zone at CRE ... 

can pose a serious safety threat to the users of CRE," and expressing his desire to "work together to 

improve the safety at Grand Strand Airport." Ex. 2 at 10; FP 53. He also stated that HCDA's goal 

17 SDMB alleges that this meeting occurred on June 24, but it appears from the record that the meeting was actually 

held on June 25, 2014. See, e.g., Ex. I at 295, 309. 

14 

4840·8467 ·7148.4 
"is to provide a safe, operationally efficient airport that supports the growth of aeronautical activity 

and provides positive economic impact to the community." Ex. 2 at I 0. Therefore, he explained 

that "[a]s a first step to improving safety and efficiency at CRE, I have implemented an incident 

reporting system for all events that create an unsafe operating condition at the airport." Id. Mr. 

Terreri attached two sample reports, which detailed the two May 24, 2014 pedestrian runway 

incursions. Id. at 12-13. 

On July 1, 2014, SDMB responded to Mr. Terreri's email by filing this Complaint. 

ARGUMENT 

I. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed With Prejudice For Failure To State A Claim For 

Any Conduct Falling Within The FAA's Jurisdiction. 

As a threshold matter, SDMB's Complaint does not identifY any specific federal law, 

regulation, or obligation that HCDA has violated. Therefore, at the most basic level, SDMB's 

Complaint is subject to dismissal because it "appears on its face to be outside the jurisdiction of the 

[FAA]." See 14 CFR § 16.26(b)(i); 14 CFR § 16.1 (listing areas ofFAAjurisdiction). For the same 

reason, SDMB's Complaint should be dismissed because "[o]n its face it does not state a claim that 

warrants an investigation or further action by the FAA." See 14 CFR § 16.26(b )(ii). See also 

Chambers v. United States DO!, 568 FJd 998, 1006 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (affirming dismissal of 

complaint that failed to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face") (quoting Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). 

II. The State Law Claims In SDMB's Complaint Should Be Dismissed. 

In addition to the grounds stated in§ I, the myriad state law claims presented in SDMB's 

Complaint should be dismissed because they are outside the FAA'sjurisdiction and do not support a 

claim against HCDA for violation of any of its federal obligations. See 14 CFR § 16.26(b )(i). 

15 4840-8467-7148.4 
A. The State Law Claims Alleged In The Complaint Are Ontside The FAA's 

Jurisdiction. 

"The purpose of the grant assurances is to protect the public interest in the operation of 

Federally obligated airports. The purpose is not to provide alternative or supplemental rights to 

those normally available to commercial tenants in disputes with their landlords, i.e. negotiation or 

commercial litigation under applicable state and local laws." Penobscot Air Serv. v. Knox Cty., 

FAA Docket No. 16-97-04, 24 (Sept. 25, 1997) (Director's Determination), aff'd, Penobscot Air 

Serv. v. FAA, 164 F.3d 713 (1st Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the grant assurances "do not ... prevent 

the airport from exercising proprietary powers, such as determining how to structure the leasing of 

property on the airport." Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, FAA Docket No. 16-00-01, 24 (Apr. 17, 

2001) (Final Decision and Order). Following these principles, the FAA typically does not consider 

interpretation of lease terms to be within its Part 16 jurisdiction. See, e.g., Roadhouse Aviation, 

LLC v. City of Tulsa & the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust, FAA Docket No. 16-05-08, 20 (June 

26, 2007) (Final Decision and Order); Long Island Jet Center East, Inc. v. County of Suffolk, New 

York, FAA Docket No. 16-04-05,2005 FAA LEXIS 66, *60 (Jan. 21, 2005) (Director's 

Determination). Similarly, "the issue of whether an eviction action is wrongful, is a matter to be 

resolved under State Law." Long Island Jet Center East, Inc., 2005 FAA LEXIS 66, at *60. See 

also Springfield Flight Acad v. City of Springfield, FAA Docket No. 16-10-03, 29 (Aug. 25, 2011) 

(Director's Determination) ("the Director does not feel it appropriate to opine on matters related to 

an eviction proceeding as such action is outside the scope of 14 CPR Part 16"). 

Accordingly, the allegations in SDMB's Complaint relating to its state law claims are 

outside the FAA's Part 16 jurisdiction and should be dismissed with prejudice. 18 In fact, identical 

18 In apparent recognition that its state law claims do not fall within the FAA's jurisdiction, SDMB alleges that its first 

Part 16 Complaint, which was dismissed without prejudice, was "discrete" from the state court complaint it filed against 

HCDA. FP 26, 30. SDMB also takes umbrage with HCDA's attempt to address both the state law claims and the FAA 

claims in the same mediation. See, e.g., CompL at 3 (claiming that HCDA "demand[ed] an expanded scope to include 

16 4840·8467. 7148.4 
allegations are already being litigated in South Carolina state court, as evidenced by the pleadings 

attached to the Complaint. See, e.g., Ex. 4 (ejectment action) and Ex. 5, at 5 'j/ 16 and 7 ~'j/ 38-39 

(citation for electrical violations), 5 ~ 20 (request for repairs), 6 ~ 22 (Feb. 19, 2014 letter and new 

Space Use Permit), 6 ~ 23 (72 hour eviction notice), 6 'j/~ 24-26 (alleged delay in providing aviation 

fuel), 8 ~ 78 (alleged refusal by HCDA to accept SDMB's mail or parcels). 

B. The State Law Allegations In The Complaint Do Not Make Out A Claim For 

Violation Of HCDA's Federal Obligations. 

While claims of state law violations can sometimes serve as the basis for a finding that an 

airport sponsor has violated its federal grant obligations, such is not the case here. "Reasonable 

access" under Grant Assurance 22 "means for the use of aeronautical facilities on the airport, not 

necessarily the ability to lease particular space on the airport." Skydive Monroe, Inc. v. City of 

Monroe, Georgia, FAA Docket No. 16-06-02, 2007 FAA LEXIS 117, *20 (Mar. 30, 2007) 

(Director's Determination). Where an airport "continues to permit access by [the skydiving 

operator] to its aeronautical facilities, including the runway, taxiways, and drop zone, [it] has not 

created an effective prohibition of skydiving operations" that would constitute a violation of this 

Grant Assurance. !d., at *25. SDMB refused to enter into the proffered Space Use Permit for 

Hangar 7, which caused SDMB to violate its Operating Permit. Ex. 3 at 19. Therefore, on April28, 

2014, HCDA sent SDMB a notice of termination ofSDMB's Operating Permit. !d. In the notice, 

HCDA clearly stated that "SDMB may continue to use the aeronautical facilities at CRE, including 

the landing zone as a transient operator." FP 37; Ex. 3 at 19. HCDA's termination of the Operating 

Permit, served 30 days later, repeats this statement. Ex. 3 at 15. Because HCDA has continued to 

matters of state law before it [would] discuss issues relating to this Part 16 Complaint"); Ex. 3 at 4 ("As you know, 

matters of state law are outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration.") and 69 ("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."). 

17 4840-8467-7148.4 
permit SDMB to access the aeronautical facilities at CRE/GSA, including the runways, taxiways, 

and landing zone, it has complied with Grant Assurance 22. 

SDMB's conclusory allegation that it has "otherwise [been] treated differently from other 

commercial tenants" is also insufficient to state a claim of unjust discrimination under Grant 

Assurance 22. See Compl. at I; see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ("Threadbare recitals of the 

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to state a 

claim). SDMB has not met its burden of showing that "it requested similar terms and conditions as 

other similarly situated airport users and was denied for unjust reasons." Springfield Flight Acad., 

FAA Docket No. 16-10-03, at 18. For instance, SDMB has not identified any other similarly 

situated tenants at the airport, i.e., tenants who "are making the same or similar uses of the airport 

facilities." See Skydive Monroe, 2007 FAA LEXIS 117, at *35. Nor has SDMB alleged that any 

other tenants have been offered different lease terms or rates than SDMB. In fact, the only 

reference in the record to other tenants can be found in correspondence from HCDA, which states 

that SDMB "is the only tenant at [CRE/GSA] operating without either a space use permit or a 

lease," and that HCDA offered SDMB "the same terms as have been offered to, and accepted by, 

other commercial aeronautical service providers at [CRE/GSA ], and SDMB has chosen to reject 

HCDA's offer." Ex. 3 at 14. Unfortunately for SDMB, an airport's "refusal to execute a lease ... 

on more favorable terms than those employed by comparable tenants does not qualify as a denial of 

access on reasonable terms without unjust discrimination." Nat'! Airlift Support Corp. v. Fremont 

Cty. Bd. ofComm'rs,FAADocketNo.l6-98-18, 15 (May3, 1999)(Director'sDetermination), 

aff'd, (Sept. 20, 1999) (Final Decision and Order). 

C. SDMB's "Harassment" Claim Is A State Law Claim That Must Be Dismissed. 

SDMB alleges that it has "been continually harassed in its FAA-recognized aeronautical 

activity of non-emergency parachuting or skydiving." Com pl. at I. SDMB also alleges that it has 

18 4840-8467-7148.4 
"been subjected to other intimidation attempts," which have "materially interfered with its 

business." ld. at 3 and n.3. Setting aside the conclusory nature of these allegations, claims of 

"harassment" are state law claims that fall outside the FAA's jurisdiction and should be dismissed. 

See Hill Air Co. v. Broward County Comm 'rs, FAA Docket No. 13-93-07, 21 n.23 (Jan. 31, 2006) 

(Record of Decision). In Hill Air Co., the complainant alleged harassment to its business by, inter 

alia, the airport's notice to vacate its leasehold, its engagement of a photographer to take pictures of 

the leasehold, and failure to control a severe dust problem caused by a contractor. !d. The FAA 

declined to investigate these claims because they were "not related to the Airport Sponsor's 

contractual obligations to the Federal Government," and noted that the complainant had "local 

avenues of seeking redress of these issues." !d. 

SDMB does not identify specific facts that constitute the alleged "harassment," but the facts 

alleged in its Complaint are similar to those in Hill Air, and include notice to terminate its 

occupancy of a hangar (FP 37), photos and other observation being undertaken by an HCDA airport 

employee (FP 51, 56), and a pile of peat moss being left on three parking spaces used by SDMB 

(FP 33). These allegations are not related to HCDA's contractual obligations to the FAA, and 

should be dismissed to be redressed in state court, should SDMB be able to demonstrate any 

actionable harassment. 

When claims of "harassment" are paired with claims of "discrimination" under Grant 

Assurance 22, they may be considered together. See, e.g., Roadhouse Aviation v. City of Tulsa & 

the Tulsa Airports Improvements Trust, FAA Docket No. 16-05-08, 32-33 (Dec. 14, 2006) 

(Director's Determination) (considering claims that audit by airport operator constituted 

"harassment" and "discrimination" together under the rubric of Grant Assurance 22, and finding no 

violation of the Grant Assurance). However, even when SDMB's "harassment" claim is considered 

together with its discrimination claim, it is subject to dismissal, for the reasons stated below. 

19 4840-8467·7148.4 
III. SDMB's Remaining Allegations Do Not State A Claim That Warrants An Investigation 

Or Further Action By The FAA. 

SDMB's only formally stated "issue" pertains to whether the provisions of Part 139 with 

regard to "pedestrians" are applicable to Part I 05 "parachutists" after they land. SDMB links this 

"issue" to the overarching themes of its Complaint, namely, its objection to the reporting protocol 

HCDA and the CRE Tower have implemented to document safety hazards, including vehicle and 

pedestrian incursions on active runways and taxiways, and its further objection to purported 

restrictions on its landing zone. Given these themes, it becomes clear that SDMB's stated "issue" is 

actually an inartful attempt to allege that HCDA has violated Grant Assurance 22, which prohibits 

unjust discrimination among similarly situated aeronautical users at the airport. Because HCDA's 

alleged conduct falls well within the bounds of permissible regulation under Grant Assurance 22, 

and also shows HCDA's efforts to comply with Grant Assurance 19, SDMB's claims fail as a 

matter of law, and no investigation or further action into these allegations is necessary. 

A. SDMB's Proposed Interpretation Of 14 CFR Part 105 And 14 CFR § 139.329 Is 

Both Incorrect And Dangerous. 

As a general aviation airport, CRE/GSA is not subject to the requirements of 14 CPR Part 

139; however, "many general aviation airports voluntarily incorporate appropriate elements of Part 

13 9 and their supporting Advisory Circulars to enhance the safety of their facilities." Airport 

Cooperative Research Program, General Aviation Sqfety and Security Practices: A Synthesis of 

Airport Practice, at 6 (2007). Pursuant to Part 139, an airport operator must: 

Establish and implement procedures for the safe and orderly access to, and operation 

in, movement areas and safety areas by pedestrians and ground vehicles, including 

provisions identifYing the consequences of noncompliance with the procedures by an 

employee tenant, or contractor[.] 

14 CPR § 139 .329(b ). Where, as at CRE/GSA, "an air traffic control tower is in operation," the 

airport operator must also "ensure that each pedestrian and ground vehicle in movement areas or 

20 4840·8467. 7148.4 
safety areas is controlled by ... (1) Two-way radio communications between each pedestrian or 

vehicle and the tower." 14 CPR§ 139.329(c). In addition, the airport operator must maintain a 

"description and date of any accidents or incidents in the movement areas and safety areas involving 

air carrier aircraft, a ground vehicle, or a pedestrian." 14 CPR§ 139.329(£)(2). 

SDMB admits that 14 CPR§ 139.329 "requires towered operators to implement policies for 

vehicles and pedestrians from entering into designated areas by such measures as two-way radio 

communication with the Air Traffic Control Tower," and that HCDA and the CRE Tower "have a 

Letter of Agreement (LOA) that requires all pedestrians and vehicles to have two-way radios and 

receive [CRE Tower] authorization prior to entering active areas defined as taxiways and runways 

at [CRE/GSA]."19 Compl. at 2; see also Ex. 2 at 1-3 (the LOA). SDMB further acknowledges that 

it "agreed to comply with these provisions ... and implemented internal procedures to meet the 

terms of the ... LOA." FP 16. The record supports this allegation, showing that on February 14, 

2014, in response to the CRE Tower's provision of a copy of 14 CPR§ 139.329, SDMB stated: 

"Appreciate the heads up and in conjunction with the LOA this makes complete sense. Now that 

we have a copy, we have implemented SOPs here where this should no longer present itself as an 

issue henceforth." Ex. 1 at 194. SDMB also alleges that, together with the CRE Tower, SDMB 

"included the ground communications" in a draft ofSDMB's new LOA. FP 17. 

SDMB now argues, however, that the safety provisions of 14 CPR § 139.329 do not apply to 

it because sport parachuting safety is governed by 14 CPR Part I 05. More specifically, SDMB 

appears to argue that when a skydiver inadvertently lands on a runway, taxiway, or other area 

19 

have 

These 

authorization 

provisions accord with FAA guidance with respect to ground vehicles: "As an operator of a vehicle you must 

from [air traffic control] before you enter any part of the airport movement area. When the tower is 

control." 

in operation, 

FAA 

you 

Guide 

must utilize a two-way radio for communicating with and receiving instructions from air traffic 

19, available at http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway 

to Ground Vehicle Operations: A Comprehensive Guide to Sqfe Driving on the Airport Surface, at 

_safety/media/ground_ vehicle_guide_proof_ 

emergency vehicles must abide 

fmal.pdf. Indeed, even 

police, are required to receive 

by these provisions: "All vehicles operating at a towered airport, including ARFF and 

encountered: 

explicit runway crossing instructions from ATC. This applies to all runways 

active, inactive and closed, regardless of the type of emergency!" I d., at 29. 

21 4840-8467-7148.4 
outside the designated landing zone, the parachuting safety protocol to "vacate" the area "as soon as 

practicable" allows it to ignore its obligation to contact the CRE Tower for permission before 

SDMB or its skydivers cross active taxiways and runways. 20 See Compl. at 2 (quoting FAA 

Advisory Circular (AC) No. 105-2E, Sport Parachuting (Dec. 4, 2013)). 

As a matter of statutory interpretation, the safety provisions of Part 105 and Part 139 must 

be read together to give both meaning. "[T]he maximum possible effect should be afforded to all 

statutory provisions, and, whenever possible, none of those provisions rendered null or void." 

Citizens to Save Spencer County v. United States EPA, 600 F.2d 844, 870 (D.C. Cir. 1979). If two 

provisions "point generally in a common direction ... it is the task of an agency with the requisite 

authority to pursue a middle course that vitiates neither provision but implements to the fullest 

extent possible the directives of each." !d. at 871. 

Part 105 provides, "No person may conduct a parachute operation ... if that operation 

creates a hazard to air traffic or to persons or property on the surface." 14 CFR § I 05.5. However, 

Part I 05 does not include specific provisions addressing what happens to a parachutist after landing. 

It does not contradict Part 139's provisions to prevent runway incursions. Because both Part 105 

and Part 139 "point generally in [the] common direction" of ensuring the safety of all persons, 

vehicles, and aircraft at airports which host skydiving operations, the FAA can "pursue a middle 

course" that allows Part I 05 to address safety in the air and Part 139 to address safety on the 

ground. Part I 05 should not be read to supersede Part 139, as SDMB suggests, because it would 

have the unacceptable effect of rendering Part 139 null and void as it applies to one particular type 

ofpedestrian.21 This result is nonsensical and dangerous, and should be rejected. 

20 To clarify, HCDA agrees that, if a skydiver inadvertently lands on an active runway or taxiway and is physically 

capable of vacating the movement area on her own, then she should do so. Once out of the movement area, the skydiver 

should await assistance and/or contact the CRE Tower before crossing any other runways or taxiways. 

21 

one 

Not 

would 

to mention that Part 105 cannot be read to supersede the federal regulations governing vehicle runway incursions; 

be hard pressed to think of a situation where a golf cart could qualify as a "parachutist." 

22 4840-8467-7148.4 
B. Neither The Documentation Protocol Nor The Purported Landing Zone 

Restrictions Violate HCDA's Federal Grant Obligations. 

SDMB's allegations regarding ground communications and documentation protocols for 

vehicle and pedestrian incursions on active taxiways and runways do not support a claim that 

HCDA has violated its federal grant obligations. To the contrary, Grant Assurance 22 "does not 

guarantee any particular individual aeronautical user access to the airport on whatever terms that 

user may desire." Drake Aerial Enters., LLC v. City of Cleveland, FAA Docket No. 16-09-02, 11 

(Feb. 22, 2010) (Director's Determination). 

HCDA is obligated under Grant Assurance 19 to maintain "[t]he airport and all facilities 

which are necessary to serve the aeronautical users of the airport ... in a safe and serviceable 

condition."22 FAA Airport Sponsor Assurances, at 9-10. This obligation extends to active runways 

and taxiways. See, e.g., Roadhouse Aviation, LLC, FAA Docket No. 16-05-08, at 15 (finding 

sponsor of general aviation airport that accepted AlP grant funds is obligated "to ensure that aircraft 

movements on public taxiways and taxilanes are conducted in a safe marmer"). 

HCDA is also expressly authorized under Grant Assurance 22(h) to establish "reasonable 

... conditions to be met by all users of the airport as may be necessary for the safe and efficient 

operation of the airport." This is exactly the type of"condition" that is contained within the 

I-! CD A-CRE Tower LOA, which requires pedestrians and vehicles to contact the CRE Tower before 

crossing an active runway or taxiway and potentially causing an accident with aircraft using that 

runway or taxiway. See Ex. 2 at 1-4. Moreover, the terms in the proposed LOA to which SDMB 

objects accord with the FAA's recommendation that airports "develop an LOA with the skydiving 

operator that describes specific operating requirements and boundaries of [parachute landing 

22 

safe 

Although 

and serviceable 

Grant Assurance 

condition, 

I 9 requires that an airport sponsor maintain the airfield, including ali movement areas, in a 

See Desert Wings Jet Center, 

this assurance does not require a sponsor to maintain hangars and other similar facilities. 

(Director's Determination) 

LLCv. City of Redmond, Oregon, FAA Docket No. 16-09-07, 21 (Nov. 10, 2010) 

does not extend to 

("The obligation under Grant Assurance I 9 applies to aircraft movement areas. Generally, it 

leasehold areas.") The aiiegations in FP 8 thus do not constitute a violation of Grant Assurance 19. 

23 4840-8467-7148.4 
areas]." FAA Final Report DOT IF AA/AR-11130, Development of Criteria for Parachute Landing 

Areas on Airports, at 26, § 8.2.2 (May 2012) ("Final Report"). An LOA of this type can "include 

movements required by the skydiver operator on the airfield as well as instructions and/or 

restrictions for crossing runways, operating vehicles on the airfield, radio communications, and 

emergency procedures." !d. "The LOA should also address the procedures if a parachutist lands 

outside the designated PLA or in a protected area of the runway." !d. 

Even if the ground communications and documentation protocols- which are applicable to 

all aeronautical operators at CRE/GSA- were considered restrictions specific to SDMB, the 

Complaint contains no allegations that the basis for these protocols is anything other than HCDA's 

stated safety concems.23 In fact, both the Complaint and the record make clear that HCDA and the 

CRE Tower have repeatedly presented their safety concerns to SDMB. See, e.g., FP II; Ex. 1 at 

Ill, 114, 117, 251; Ex. 2 at I 0. The ground communications and documentation protocols should 

be evaluated in light of this purpose. See FAA Order 5190.6B § 14.4(d) at 14-3 ("A prohibition or 

limit on aeronautical operations justified by the sponsor on the basis of safety ... will be evaluated 

based on the stated purpose, justification, and support offered by the sponsor."). 

The ground communications and documentation protocols described in the Complaint are 

well within the bounds of an airport's permissible regulation of skydivers.24 For instance, at 

Sebastian Municipal Airport in Florida, which hosts 20,000 to 40,000 jumps per year, the airport 

23 At most, SDMB asserts that BCDA and the CRE Tower are "confused." Compl. at 2. 

24 

types 

Examples 

of operation 

ofF AA-approved 

pursuant 

airport rules that prohibit, limit, or regulate aeronautical operations by whole classes or 

to Grant Assurance 22(i) include: 

(a) Limiting skydiving, soaring, and banner towing operations to certain times of the day and week 

to avoid the times of highest operation by fixed-wing aircraft, 

(b) 

at 

Banning skydiving, soaring, ultralights, or banner towing when the volmne of fixed-wing traffic 

the airport would not allow those activities without significant delays in fixed-wing operations, 

and 

(c) Limiting skydiving, soaring, and ultralight operations to certain areas of the airfield and certain 

traffic patterns to avoid conflict with fixed-wing patterns. 

FAA Order 5190.6B, § 14.4(d)(l) at 14-3. 

24 4840-8467-7148.4 
"does not allow parachutists to walk on areas of the airport outside the established PLA." Final 

Report at 14-I 5, § 7.1.2. Meanwhile, at Herlong Municipal Airport in Florida, which approximates 

2,000 to 3,000 jumps per year, of mostly tandem parachutists, the airport and the skydiving operator 

"have an agreement stating that if a parachutist needs to cross a runway, the parachutist is to remain 

at his or her location and wait for an airport escort." !d. at 18, § 7.1.5. Similarly, when the CRE 

Tower stated in April 20 I 4 that it would begin reporting safety complaints to the Flight Standards 

District Office and HCDA, it was following recommended FAA procedure. See Ex. 1 at 242; FAA 

Order 5190.6B, § 14.4(a) at 14-2 ("If a sponsor believes that there is a safety issue with the flight 

operations of an individual aeronautical operator ... the sponsor should report the issue to the 

Flights Standards Service as well as bringing it to the attention of the operator's management."). 

The "partnership" between HCDA and the CRE Tower described in the Complaint is exactly 

the type of collaborative approach to safety that helps an airport sponsor achieve the FAA's goal of 

safe operations. HCDA seeks to gather data regarding incidents and accidents consistent with the 

guidance in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) No. 15015200-37, Introduction to Sqfety Management 

Systems (SMS)for Airport Operators (Feb. 28, 2007). The essence of this work is to identify 

hazards, rank risks of hazards by severity and likelihood, mitigate unacceptable risks, and review 

the mitigated hazards to determine whether the risk has been reduced to an acceptable level. The 

frequent runway and taxiway incursions by SDMB's skydivers are clearly hazards to other 

aeronautical operations at CRE/GSA, as is SDMB's refusal to contact the CRE Tower before 

moving across active runways and taxiways. By gathering data regarding the types of missed 

landings, along with related data such as wind and weather, HCDA may be able to determine 

whether the hazards of these errant landings may be mitigated. 

25 4840-8467-7148.4 
CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, Respondent Horry County Department of Airports respectfully requests 

that the FAA dismiss Complainant Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc.'s Formal Part 16 Complaint with 

prejudice. 

26 4840-8467-7148.4 

Respectfully submitted, 

HORRY COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF AIRPORTS, 

David Y. B ard, . 'fq. 

Jeffrey R. Blease, Esq. 

J acl yn V. Piltch, Esq. 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

Ill Huntington A venue 

Boston, MA 02199 

Tel: (617) 342-4000 

Fax: (617) 342-4001 

dbannard@foley.com 

jblease@foley.com 

jpiltch@foley.com 
EXHIBIT A 
EASTMAN & ASSOCIATES, LLC 

HasladH>II ~sse JY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

79SMi F.:ldber!'-~fnlkau POST OFFICE BoX 180 

GfR~IANY CI-I.-\HLF.STO:\', SOUTH C\ROU:\'A 29402 

l'SA 

ROBEIH G. E.-1ST.\ IAN 

Ao~tlTfEO ~~DE. FL, G1\, MD. N.l. PA, & SC 

Office of the ChiefCounsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

July 1, 2014 

Re: Part 16 Formal Complaint 

PliO:\£: (843) 329-9657 

FAX: (843} 723-00n5 

io be rtl!easttna w'ij; msn. cum 

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

and Robinson Aviation, Inc. d/b/a CRE Aircraft Control Tower 

Dear Sir or Madame: 

Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. (SDMB) 1 (f/k/a Skydive Myrtle Beach, LLC), 

respectfully requests the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to initiate a Formal 

Complaint pursuant to Part 16 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for the 

hereinafter stated reasons. 

SUMMARY 

Since Horry County Department of Airports (HCDA) resumed control of Grand 

Strand Airport (GSA), SDMB has: been unable to renegotiate a written long-term lease 

with Horry County; been unable to receive mail and parcels at its business address 

during normal business hours; been continually harassed in its FAA-recognized 

aeronautical activity of non-emergency parachuting or skydiving; had its secure hangar 

broken into by HCDA personnel; received an unreasonable offer to continue occupation 

of its business in exchange for 10-24% of its gross proceeds; been cited by the Deputy 

County Attorney for making repairs to meet fire code compliance; and otherwise treated 

differently from other commercial tenants within HCDAjurisdiction. 

Additionally, under the direction of HCDA, GSA Air Traffic Control (CRE) has 

initialed a reporting process whereby conduct in compliance with Part 105 of Title 14, 

Carolina 

Skydive Myrtle Beach, LLC, (SMB) was reformed into Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. a Nortll 

corporation in January 2014. Member Aaron Holly owned 100% interest of SMB and retains 

100% or all shares of SDMB, 

14 06 27 .Sdmb, hcda, fa a. complain l 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

July 1, 2014 

Page 2 

CFR is styled as "unsafe" and in violation of Part 139 resulting in the unnecessary 

expenditure of resources of all concerned parties. This conduct by HCDA and its 

private Air Traffic Control has resulted in the expenditure of tens ofthousands. of dollars 

in legal fees, significant interference with its normal business operations, and loss of 

business revenue by SDMB. 

ISSUE 

It appears that CRE and HCDA are confused about the proper application of 

Parts 1.05 (Parachute Operations) and 139 (Airports) of Title 14, CFR and the difference 

between "pedestrians" and "parachutists" in Parts 139 and 105 respectively. 

Sport parachuting safety and its interaction with related FAA recognized 

aeronautical activities is more fully explained in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 1 05-4E 

"Sport Parachuting'' (December 4, 2013). FAA states that: 

[w]hile skydivers attempt to land in (designated landing 

zones (LZ or LZs)], at times there may be inadvertant 

landings in other grass or hard-surfaced areas. This could 

include landings on runways, taxiways, and other hardsurfaced areas. Areas such as runways, taxiways, 

clearways, and Obstacle Free Zones (OFZ) are not 

prohibited areas but should not be designated as a primary 

landing area and should be vacated as soon as 

practicable. 

AC 1 05-4E, TI 6(c)(2) (emphasis supplied). 

FAA also requires towered operators to implement policies for vehicles and pedestrians 

from entering into designated areas by such measures as two-way radio communication 

with the Air Traffic Control Tower (ATC). See 14 CFR § 139.329(c). 

HCDA and CRE have a Letter of Agreement (LOA) that requires all pedestrians 

and vehicles to have two-way radios and receive CRE authorization prior to entering 

active areas defined as taxiways and runways at GSA See Exhibit 2, at 1-3. It appears 

that CRE and HCDA "feel" that Part 139 supersedes Part 105 and FAAs interpretation 

of the regulatory interrelation of sport parachuting operations and airport safety found in 

FAA AC 1 05-4E. This apparent regulatory misinterpretation is the genesis of the 

current issues identified below. 

PART 16 CERTIFICATION 

Pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.21(c), SDMB certifies that it has made substantial and 

reasonable good faith efforts to resolve the issues relating to FAA recognized 

140627 _sdmb.hcda.faa.complamt 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

July 1, 2014 

Page 3 

aeronautical activity, han-emergency parachuting/skydiving, sinc;e HCDA resumed 

operations at GSA in August 2013. 

From May 2012 to August 2013 or more than fifteen (15) months and over 2,500 

parachute jumps, SDMB received no complaints from FAA, CRE or HCDA 2 From 

August 2013, to date (the period since HCDA has resumed control of GSA), SDMB has 

received repeated complaints and been subjected to other intimidation attempts3 

SDMB has requested multiple meetings concerning GSA active areas with both 

HCDA and CRE officials since HCDA took over GSA management. When SDMB 

requested .mediation with HCDA, however, it was unaware of the HCDNCRE 

partnership that initiated policing "unusual" airport activity and refereeing the boundaries 

of SDMBs primary LZ. Additionally, HCDA continues its refusal to mediate within the 

bounds of South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (SCRPC) by demanding an 

expanded scope to include matters of state law before it will discuss issues relating to 

this Part 16 Complaint4 See Exhibit 3, at 1-14. 

Since HCDA and CRE are working together to report and enforce subjective 

"unusual incidents"5 and CRE will no longer discuss applicable regulations with SDMB, 

there is no other option than for SDMB to refile its complaint for resolution by FAA. 

Without FAA inteNention for the reasons enumerated below, there is no reasonable 

prospect for practical, equitable, and timely resolution of the dispute. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

1. In April 2012, SDMB negotiated a lease with Ramp 66, LLC for Hangar 7 at the 

GSA In North Myrtle Beach, SC and was granted exclusive rights to conduct parachute 

operations at CRE for a period of eight (8) years. 

2.. On May 11, 2012, a Letter of Agreement {LOA) was signed by SDMB, HCDA, 

Myrtle Beach Air Traffic Control Tower (MYR) and CRE for conducting non-emergency 

parachute operations. See Exhibit 2 at 19-21. 

2 A SDMB tandem instructor did receive a warning letter for jumping too close to clouds 

while conducting non-emergency parachute operations in the summer of 2012. This included a two-year 

probationary period for the instructor from FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) Colombia, SC. 

3 SDMB has alleged that the conduct of CRE and HCDA has materially interfered with its 

business. See gen. Exhibit 5. 

' On June 5. 2014, HCDA utilized an alternative legal forum to attempt to have SDMB 

evicted and removed from Hangar 7 in Myrtle Beach Magistrate's Court. See Exhibit 4. 

See Exhibit 2, at 10-13 for an explanation and examples of filed reports. 

140627.sdmb hcdaJaa.compl;:unt 
FAA Office ofthe Chief Counsel 

July 1, 2014 

Page 4 

3. On or about July 15, 2013, Ramp 66, LLC represented to SDMB that HCDA 

would require SDMB to enter into a Lease with HCDA with the same or similar term and 

rental cost provisions. 

Jf. On August 1, 2013, Ramp 66, LLC .sold its leasehold interest to HCDA and 

HCDA resumed control of GSA 

5. In August 2013, HCDA informed SDMB that it would have to double its liability of 

"slip and fall" policy coverage to $2,000,000 and pay $1,200 per month for Hangar 7 or 

HCDA would not permit SDMB to operate its business on GSA property. See Exhibit 1 

at 14-16. HCDA represented to SDMB that these terms would be presented to Horry 

County Council during the six (6) month temporary period for a long-term lease. 

. On October 15, 2013, CRE notified SDMB of a situation whereby a skydiver 

crossed a taxiway rather than staying on the grass as requireci by FAA regulations. See 

Exhibit 1 at 86. 

7-. On October 27, 2013, a skydiver inadvertently landed on the taxiway adjacent to 

the landing area and was medivacked to the hospital. Information requested from 

HCDA relating to this incident was not released to avoid a potential Health Information 

Privacy Protection Act (HIPPA) and Privacy Act violation. See Exhibit 1, at 99. 

In October 2013, Sgt. Ortiz, a North Myrtle Beach, SC fire inspector,. informed 

SDMB that it needed to replace a blank panel in the electrical box, remove extension 

cords, and install electrical receptacles for its office equipment to avoid a fine or 

violation. SDMB requested HCDA, through its manager Tim Jackson, to correct the 

electrical deficiencies. In November, having heard notlling from HDCA relating to the 

electrical issues, SDMB repaired the defective receptacles and conduit with a licensed 

electrical engineer. Due to HCDAs failure to correct the electrical deficiencies, SDMB 

was issued a fine for the violations by the North Myrtle Beach Fire Department and paid 

a $205 dollar fine to the city. See Exhibit 2, at 22-24. 

'1. On November 27, 2013,. via certified mail, return receipt requested, HCDA 

alleged that SDMB had an unrestrained dog roaming the "active areas'' of the airpo1i 

and had overnight guests in the Hangar in violation of unpublished HCDA policies that 

would result in tl1e revocation of SDMBs operating permit and space use permit, if 

repeated. See Exhibit 2, at 27-28. 

I 0. On or about January 6, 2014, SDMB addressed HCDAs concerns and notified 

HCDA that the failure to respond to its letter was due to the fact that it's Manager, Tim 

Jackson had issued instructions to the FBO employees to refuse to accept any and all 

mail and parcels requiring signatures. See Exhibit 1, at 109-110. 

l4D6 27 .sdmb. hcoa. fa a ,complaint 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

July 1, 2014 

Page 5 

II. On January 21, 2014, CRE notified SDMB that it manager "feels" parachuting on 

GSA was unsafe and steps should be taken to improve safety due to the HCDA 

mandated change of parachute Landing Zone (LZ}, banner tow, and helicopter guide 

operations for the upcoming season. See Exhibit 1, at 111. 

On January 23, 2014, SDMB requested a meeting with CRE to address its safety 

concerns and discuss operations for the upcoming season. See Exhibit at 113. In its 

answer, CRE indicated that HCDA should also be a party to the discussion. See Exhibit 

1,at114. 

1:3. Three days later, on Sunday, January 26, 2014, responding to an inquiry f!'llating 

to holds, Robinson Aviation, Inc., Manager of Aviation Area II, Richard Allen indicated 

the need to possibly contact the FAA "runway incursion folks again ref: the golf carts 

and etc. todayc" See Exhibit 1, at 11g. 

On February 3, 2014, SDMB again attempted to schedule a meeting with MYR, 

CRE and other interested parties. See Exhibit 1, at 130. Later that same day, SDMB 

was contacted by HCDA about another vehicle/pedestrian complaint by CRE to FAAfor 

an active area incursion. See Exhibit 1, at 138. 

IS: On February 5, 2014, SDMB set a meeting for Friday, February 7, 2014, to 

discuss CREs recent complaints to the FAA. See Exhibit 1, at 153. Additionally, SDMB 

responded to HCDAs request for information related to. the golf cart and skydiver 

taxiway "incursion". See Exhibit 1, at 158. 

l<o. In the February 7, 2014, meeting, CRE advised SDMB about a LOA between 

HCDA and CRE wl1ereby procedures tor vehicular and pedestrian entry into "active 

areas" required CRE ground communication protocols. SDMB agreed to comply with 

these provisions, requested a copy of the LOA and implemented internal procedures to 

meet the terms of the HCDA-CRE LOA. See Exhibit 1, at 164-166. SDMB also 

requested repairs to the hangar for electrical, lighting and a street side door access to 

mitigate the deleterious effects of HCDAs refusal to accept parcel deliveries. See 

Exhibit 1, at 167c168. Mr. Jackson objected to the minutes in that "the FBO would not 

sign for deliveries however we will except [sic] any delivery that does not require a 

signature". See Exhibit 1, at 167. Following the meeting, CRE provided SDMB 14 CFR 

§ 139.329 as the authority for its complaints to the FAA and HCDA. See Exhibit 1, at 

192. 

/'f. On February 10, 2014, CRE and SDMB included the ground communications in 

part of the draft between SDMB, ZJX, MYR, CRE, and HCDA proposed LOA. See 

Exhibit 1, at 194. 

140627 sdmb t1cc:a faa.ccmplam! 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

July 1, 2014 

Page 6 

{'/. On or about February 14, 2014, CRE indicated that it would attend the Safety 

Meeting March 8, 2014, adding "I plan to do all I can to make this work for all of us." 

See Exhibit i, at 197. 

. On February 17, 2014, SDMB attempted to address its maintenance, mail and 

parcel delivery issues with HCDA. See Exhibit 1, at210. 

:2,(). On February 19, 2014, HCDA was provided a letter from the Deputy County 

Attorney, Director of Airports, and Airport Manager, at the FAA-sponsored Safety Day, 

The letter identified more than ten (10) "serious" alleged FAA regulatory violations 

relating to skydiving as reported to HCDA by CRE. See Exhibit 3 at pages 54"57. Due 

to these allegations, the Deputy County Attorney indicated that a lease was not 

forthcoming but a new temporary space use could be used as an alternative provided 

SDMB paid the higher of $1,200 per month or 24% of its gross sales. See Exhibit 3, at 

60, 1]4.B. The new terms were non-negotiable and SDMB had seventy-two (72) hours 

to execute or vacate the hangar. See Exhibit 3, at 57. 

On February 19, 2014, a copy of the proposed LOA with the terms between 

SDMB and CRE as agreed was sent to MYR for review and comment. See Exhibit 1, at 

214. On February 24, 2014, skydiving operations at Grand Strand appeared smooth, 

without incident, and a working relationship with ZJX, MYR, CRE and SDMB had been 

developed with a workable LOA involving all parties. See Exhibit 1, at216c224. (HCDA 

did not participate in the draft LOA discussions although it was invited to do so). 

On February 21, 2012, SDMB addressed each of the allegations in the HCDA 

letter, denied violating any Title 14 regulation, asked for a copy of the HCDA operating 

regulations or authority and requested to work out the issues between HCDA either 

informally or in a court. See Exhibit 3, at 67-78. 

:25. On February 23, 2014, the day after Horry County's seventy-two (7Z) hour take· 

it-or-leave-it deadline, without notice, HCDA FBO staff under the direction of manager 

Tim Jackson, delayed fuel service to SDMB .at Grand Strand by initially denying 

altogether, and later reconsidering on the phone. See Exhibit 5, at 35 (Affidavit of Ben 

Auker). 

:lt. On February 24, 2014, SDMB filed a Formal Complaint with FAA. See Exhibit 3, 

at 50. 

;2.5. On February 26, 2014, HCDA attorneys informed SDMB that it did not engage in 

"good faith" negotiations prior to filing its Part 16 formal complaint and requested SDMB 

to withdraw its formal complaint. See Exhibit 3, at 48. 

. By Jetter dated February 28, 2014, SDMB related its Part 16 Complaint was 

discrete from its state court complaint and attached a copy of its state complaint as a 

140627 _-;;.dmb.hcdaJaa .complaint 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

July 1, 2014 

Page 7 

courtesy. See Exhibit 3, at 46. SDMB also indicated its willingness to resolve the 

matters but refused to withdraw its Part 16 complaint. /d. 

:'J.7--. On March 4, 2014, HCDA moved to dismiss tl1e Part 16 Complaint without 

prejudice. See Exhibit 3, at 44. 

;2f. On March 6, 2014, SDMB attempted to amend its Part 16 Complaint. See 

Exhibit 3, at 39. 

Z9. On March 7, 2014, HCDA raised SDMBs failure tb attach supporting documents 

and moved to dismiss. See Exhibit 3, at 38. 

30. On March 18, 2014, FAA dismissed SDMBs Part 16 Complaint for 

incompleteness. See Exhibit 3, at 35. 

£31. On March 20, 2014, HCDA issued a policy letter for tenant mail and parcel 

delivery for tenants at GSA and instituted Driver Training. See Exhibit 3; at 34. 

32. On March 25, 2014, and again on March 27, 2014, SDMB staff attempted to 

attend the required driver training but no HCDA representative showed up. HCDA 

Manager Tim Jackson and Lineman Jack Teal personally came to Hangar 7 to 

apologize for the course failure. The driving course was rescheduled on March 28, 

2014. See Exhibit 1. at 228. The class was again cancelled and has not been 

rescheduled to date. 

:3.5. On April3, 2014, HCDA dumped approximately six (6) yards of peat moss on the 

SDMB staff parking lot preventing access to three (3) staff parking spaces. See Exhibit 

1, at 235. 

34. On April 7, 2014, through its attorneys, HCDA offered its version of "good faith" 

negotiations- reducing the monthly lease percentage of gross from 24% to 10%. HCDA 

also indicated that eviction proceedings would be initiated if this was not accepted by 

SDMB. See Exhibit 3, at 23. 

85. On April 12, 2014, a heated email exchange between CRE and SDMB ended 

with a threat to file another FAA complaint and a promise to forward all future CRE 

complaints to the FSDO and HCDA See Exhibit 1, at 241. 

On April 18, 2014, SDMB again attempted to negotiate terms for leasing Hangar 

7, and again requested a meeting to finalize the LOA for non-emergency parachute 

operations at GSA. See Exhibit 3, at 21-22. 

o':f. On April 28, 2014, HCDA issued a Notice of Termination unless the terms in its 

April7, 2014, correspondence were agreed to. See Exhibit 3, at 19. The letter further 

140627 sdmb,hcda.faa compieint 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

July 1, 2014 

Page 8 

stated, "SDMB may not base its aircraft or its skydiving operations at CRE. However, 

as long as SDMB operates in accordance with all applicable laws, including the letter of 

agreement, the [FAA], the CRE tower and HCDA, SDMB may continue to use the 

aeronautical facilities at CRE, including the landing zone as a transient operator. 

However, without a valid Space Use Permit, SDMB must vacate Hangar No.7 and may 

not base its aircraft at CRE." /d. 

On May 10, 2014, CRE notified SDMB it was forwarding a complaint for a 

taxiway incursion. See Exhibit 1, at 243. 

On May 19, 2014, HCOA requested information relating to an FAA "Letter of 

Investigation triggered by skydivers operating on an active taxiway .on May 10." See 

Exhibit 1, at 245-256. 

;fo. On May 22, 2014, SDMB gave a counter offer to HCDAs Notice of Termination 

relating to Hangar No .. 7 and again requested a meeting to finalize the LOA. See 

Exhibit 3, at 16-18. 

On May 24, 2014, CRE reported a skydiver crossing the runway. See Exhibit 1, 

at 257. 

. On May 28, 2014, HCDA rejected SDMBs counter offer and demanded SDMB to 

vacate Hangar No.7 and remove its aircraft from CRE. See Exhibit 3, at 14-15. 

4?J. On May 29, 2014, SDMB offered to mediate with HCDA in an attempt to resolve 

the issues. See Exhibit 3, at 19. 

J.f'f. On May 30, 2014, HCDA conditionally accepted SDMBs offer to mediate. See 

Exhibit 3, at 10. 

Jf-5. On June 2, 2014, SDMB countered HCDAs conditional offer to mediate in order 

to meet ethical requirements relating to South Carolina state law. See Exhibit 3, at 8-9. 

J./{o. On June 5, 2014, HCDA conditionally accepted SDMBs offer to mediate with 

several modifications and filed an Application for Eviction in Myrtle Beach Magistrate's 

Court. See Exhibit 3, at 5-6; Exhibit 2. 

'f'1. On June 10, 2014, MYR invited all interested parties to discuss the LOA. See 

Exhibit 1, at 272. Although the proposed LOA included penalty and reporting provisions 

that were objectionable to SDMB, a meeting was set for June 24, 2014. See Exhibit 1, 

at 273-298. 

On June 18, 2014, SDMB offered to mediate but conditioned its acceptance on 

compliance with SCRPC Rule 4.2 necessitating the attendance or written consent of all 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

July 1, 2014 

Page 9 

represented parties in order to discuss matters relating to SC state /awe. See Exhibit 3, 

at 4. 

4'1. On June 24, 2014, HCDA, ZJX (via phone), MYR, CRE and SDMB met at MYR 

to discuss the LOA. The meeting did not finalize the LOA, and it was agreed that 

operations would continue under the terms of the existing LOA until matter could be 

finalized. HCDA could not provide a return date. Incident reporting was discussed, and 

for the first time HCDA revealed that CRE was reporting all skydiver taxiway crossings 

to HCDA at their direction. 

On June 27, 2014, SDMB requested regulatory authority requiring CRE to report 

skydivers on active areas to FAA and requested a discussion about Title 14, Part 105. 

SDMB was referred to FAA. See Exhibit 1, at 322. 

On or about June 27, 2014, an unidentified photographer6 was observed taking 

pictures of Hangar 7 from the Grand Strand Airport Parking lot. See Exhibit 2, at 15. 

On June 27, 2014, at 1546 on a Friday, counsel for HCDA rejected SDMBs offer 

to mediate by its failure to offer assurances that counsel for all parties would attend .or 

provide written consent to discuss matters of state law. See Exhibit 2, at 14; Exhibit 3, 

at 1. 

53. On June 27, 2014, HCDA emailed SDMB relating its safety concerns from CRE 

and FAA with reports that were attached. See Exhibit 2, at 11. The FAA reports were 

styled "Horry County Department of Airports Unusual Activity Report" and filed by CRE 

to HCDA employees Stan Cox and Edward Dingley. See Exhibit 2, at 10-13. 

5f. On Sunday, June 29, 2014, HCDA employee Ed Dingley repeatedly drove to the 

LZ in a golf cart to observe each parachute drop conducted during the day. See Exhibit 

2,at17-18. 

CONCLUSION 

Since it appears that HCDA and CRE are either unable or unwilling to 

differentiate between Part 139 "pedestrian" activity and Part 105 "parachutist" activity in 

Title 14 as it applies to legitimate aeronautical practices delineated in Parts105, AC 105-

4E and set forth above, SDMB has no alternative other than to see relief through FAAs 

Part 16 formal complaint process. 

The photographer has been identified by SDMB staff as HCDA Operations Supervisor 

Edward Dingley. On Friday when questioned by SDMB staff after being observed taking pictures from a 

concealed location in the parking lot, Mr Dingley stated that he was a taking pictures as was his hobby 

when on vacation or words to that effect 

140627 sdmb hcd<>.faa complaint 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

July 1, 2014 

Page 10 

The current arbitrary attempts to restrict the landing area and the continued 

practice of reporting authorized parachute operations (landings) as violations pursuant 

to Part 139, under the sheepskin of "safety concerns" is unreasonably restrictive and 

discriminatory as applied to an FAA recognized aeronautical activity. Safety concerns 

have been continually improved and updated with national input by experts from the 

parachute industry and FAA and are addressed in AC 1 05-4E. The purpose of this AC 

is to "improve sport parachuting safety and disseminat[ion of] information to assist all 

parties associated with sport parachuting." See AC 1 05-4E, ~ 1. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in 

the near future. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

EncL: Exhibi11 Emails (323 pa{les) 

Exhibit 2 Documents (28 pages) 

Very truly yours, 

/) ' -'1 

I / y;l 1/f I/ I /~ ,, } /' / f!}'~t-<._.f; (c;rlY7C'LRobert G. Eastman 

Exhibil3 Part 16 Correspondence (88 pages) 

Exhibit 4 SC Magistrate Court Ple<:~dings (15 pages) 

RGE/fub 

Exhibit 5 SC Court of Common Pleas Pleadings {36 pages) 

Aaron Holly (via email) 

Robert Varnado, Esq. (via email) 

Samuel F. Arthur. II!, Esq. (via email) 

David Bannard, Esq (via email) 

Mike Battle, Esq. (by t1and) 

1406 27 .sd m b.t\cda. fa a. complaint 
FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

July 1, 2014 

Page 11 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

following persons at the following addresses and em ails by first class US Postal Service 

and electronically. 

9-AWA-AGC-Parl16@faa.gov 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket 

Clerk AGCc600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

8001ndependenceAvenue,SVV 

VVashington, DC 20591 

Richard.allen@rvainc.com 

Robinson Aviation, Inc. 

1601 NVV Expressway 

Oklahoma City, OK 73118-1435 

Dated this 1'1 day ofJuly, 2014. 

/7 i1 /} '/ ~~.s/! 

k it~r~.,vf fen --ftt-cc_ __ 

Robert G. Eastman, Esq. 

For Skydive Myrtle Beach, Inc. 

140627 sdmb,hco'a.faa.complaint 

Aponep@HorryCounty.org 

PatApone, Director 

Harry County Dep't of Airports (HCDA) 

1100 Jetport Road 

Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 

dbannard@foley.com 

David Banner, Esquire 

Jeffrey Blease, Esquire 

Jaclyn Piltch 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

111 Huntington Avenue 

Boston MA 02199 

Counsel for HGDA 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and 

accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities on the following persons at the following 

addresses, both by certified mail and by electronic mail in accordance with 14 CPR§ 16.13(h): 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

ATTN: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk 

AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

9-A WA-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

Dated: August 22, 2014 

4816-2862-4925.1 

Robert G. Eastman, Esq. 

Eastman & Associates, LLC 

P.O. Box 180 

Charleston, SC 29402 

robertgeastman@msn.com 

Counselfor Skydive Myrtle Beach. Inc.