Texas Airports Development Office (ASW-650) 23 Nov 2015 Mr. Ed Agnew Millwood Parkway Fort Worth, Texas 76177

Similar documents
FAA COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT, PART 16 AND RECENT LITIGATION

Ordinance No Amendments to Airport Ordinance 87-8

AIRPORT MINIMUM STANDARDS

Problem Tenants. At Airports. Federal Aviation Administration. Presented to: California Airports Association By: Kathleen Brockman September 15, 2010

AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT AND RELATED PRODUCTS. 1. PURPOSE. This change is issued to incorporate revised operating limitations.

CHAPTER 55. LICENSING OF AERONAUTICAL ACTIVITIES. Chapter Authority: N.J.S.A. 6:1-29, 6:1-43, 6:1-44, 27:1A-5, and 27:1A-6. Chapter Expiration Date:

Aviation Legal Update: Policy on the Non-Aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars

SPONSOR OBLIGATIONS PART 1: NAVIGATING COMPLIANCE ISSUES

Top 10 Mistakes We See Non-Georgia Airport Sponsors Making

Strategies for Sharing a Business Aircraft

Appendix A - Definitions

GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT AGREEMENTS

FAA Requirements for Engine-out Procedures and Obstacle Clearance

Why are the underground fuel tanks being removed and replaced with above ground tanks?

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS PART 10 COMMERCIAL AIR TRANSPORT BY FOREIGN AIR OPERATORS WITHIN FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

What is a Through the Fence Operation?

SAFETY, SECURITY, AND TORT LIABILITY (AND OTHER THINGS THAT GO BUMP IN THE NIGHT)

FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT (F70) Sky Canyon Dr. Murrieta, CA. Phone: Riverside FAA FSDO Complaint Line: (951)

Alabama Northwest Florida Flight Standards District Office

MANUAL OF POLICY. V-50 PAGE 1 of 6. Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Unmanned Aircraft and Model Aircraft) Operation

Memorandum City of Lawrence Public Works

UNITED STATES PARACHUTE ASSOCIATION 5401 Southpoint Centre Blvd., Frederickaburg, VA Phone: Fax:

Re: Drug & Alcohol Rule Request for Extension of Compliance Date

Part 105. Parachuting - Operating Rules. CAA Consolidation. 15 December Published by the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand

AIRPORT COMPLIANCE th Texas Aviation Conference. 3/29/2018 Date. Footer Text

FAA Part 16 Cases. Principles & Processes. Federal Aviation Administration. Dave Cushing, AWA Airport Compliance Specialist

COVER SHEET. Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Information Sheet Part 91 RVSM Letter of Authorization

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF AVIATION ENFORCEMENT AND PROCEEDINGS WASHINGTON, DC. March 4, 2015

Grant Assurance Compliance

The Law of Noise Regulation Daniel S. Reimer

STOCKTON POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM SUBJECT. DATE: November 14, 2017 NO: V-6

Submitted electronically via

Settlement Policy for Commercial Pilots In Drug and Alcohol Testing Cases

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION...

COVER SHEET. Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Information Sheet Part 91 RVSM Letter of Authorization

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL EN ROUTE AND OCEANIC AREA OPERATIONS FORT WORTH ARTC CENTER, MAJORS ATCT, AND SKYDIVE TANDEM GREENVILLE, LLC

It's time. After years of work

NEW JERSEY COUNTIES EXCESS JOINT INSURANCE FUND 9 Campus Drive, Suite 216 Parsippany, NJ Telephone (201) BULLETIN NJCE 19-04

Operating Limitations At John F. Kennedy International Airport. SUMMARY: This action amends the Order Limiting Operations at John F.

Limited English Proficiency Plan

Chapter 10 FAA Compliance Review

RULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AERONAUTICS DIVISION CHAPTER LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF AIRPORTS TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY Policy and Procedure Manual

THE LAW OF AIRPORT NOISE

Kenyon College. Policy Statement

FEDEX - OVERNIGHT MAIL, CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL JAN

OPERATING LIMITATIONS AT NEW YORK LAGUARDIA AIRPORT. SUMMARY: This action extends the Order Limiting Operations at New York LaGuardia

EXPERIMENTAL OPERATING LIMITATIONS EXHIBITION GROUP I1

Please my comments on parachuting policy (attached), and please see that this document is added to the online public record.

MD HELICOPTERS, INC.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC GRANT OF EXEMPTION

SAFETY & AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY ADVOCACY NETWORKING & COMMERCE EDUCATION & CAREER DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS MANAGEMENT RESOURCES

GENERAL AVIATION AIRPORT RULES AND REGULATIONS

FAC Webinar June 29, 2016

FAC Webinar June 29, 2016

SANTA MONICA AIRPORT COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2014 MEETING AIRPORT TENANT REQUIREMENT EVALUATION

Major Repairs & Major Alterations MAJOR REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS TO PROVIDE AVIATION TECHNICIANS A FRANK DISCUSSION ON MAJOR ALTERATIONS

Subtitle B Unmanned Aircraft Systems

[Docket No. FAA ; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-2] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Fort Polk, LA

GACE Flying Club Ground Review Test, 2019 NAME: DATE: SCORE: CORRECTED BY: CFI# DATE:

Office of the Chief Counsel. Re: Clarification of voluntary distance learning during a rest period under 14 C.F.R

THE ANN ARBOR MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RULES AND REGULATION. Adopted July 17, 2013

I am writing in respect of your recent request of 22 October 2015, for the release of information held by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C.

COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS

Applicant: EUROWINGS LUFTVERKEHRS AG (Eurowings) Date Filed: July 16, 2014

City of Venice Venice Municipal Airport

SUMMARY REPORT ON THE SAFETY OVERSIGHT AUDIT FOLLOW-UP OF THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION OF KUWAIT

Federal Aviation Regulations. Ric Peri VP Government & Industry Affairs Aircraft Electronics Association

Initiated By: AFS-400

ACRP 01-32, Update Report 16: Guidebook for Managing Small Airports Industry Survey

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION National Policy

Presented by Long Beach City Attorney s Office Michael Mais, Assistant City Attorney February 17, 2015

Operations Specifications

It s The Law. Fly America - More Than Just A Name by Mike Cannon. Federal Assistance Law Division INTRODUCTION

Overview ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices for Aerodrome Safeguarding

Alternatives. Introduction. Range of Alternatives

SECTION 2 - GENERAL REGULATIONS

AIRPORT NOISE AND CAPACITY ACT OF 1990

AERONAUTICAL SURVEYS & INSTRUMENT FLIGHT PROCEDURES

[Docket No. FAA ; Directorate Identifier 2006-SW-11-AD; Amendment ; AD ]

of 24 November 1994 (Status as of 1 January 2019)

Contents. Subpart A General 91.1 Purpose... 7

FAA Draft Order CHG Designee Policy. Comments on the Draft Order published online for public comment

Issued by the Department of Transportation on the 12 th day of February, 2016 FINAL ORDER ISSUING INTERSTATE CERTIFICATE

AVIATION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Oakland International Airport 530 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607

FAA Proposals for Safety Management Systems

Lake Tahoe Airport Master Plan Public Meeting March 16, 2015

INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION FIRST MEETING OF DIRECTORS OF CIVIL AVIATION OF THE CARIBBEAN REGION (CAR/DCA/1)

Appendix 6.1: Hazard Worksheet

Advisory Circular. Application Guidelines for Helicopter FAA to TCCA Licence Conversion Agreement. Z U Issue No.: 01

Etihad Airways P.J.S.C.

Operations Specifications

Proposed Establishment of and Modification to Restricted Areas; Fort Sill, OK

Wayne Modelers Safety Rules.

** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **

[Docket No. FAA ; Directorate Identifier 2004-CE-44-AD; Amendment ; AD ]

Albuquerque Aerostat Ascension Association

Operations Specifications

Transcription:

Texas Airports Development Office (ASW-650) 23 Nov 2015 Mr. Ed Agnew 10101 Millwood Parkway Fort Worth, Texas 76177 Texas Department of Transportation Aviation Division Mr. William Gunn 125 E. llth St. Austin, Tx 78701 City of Greenville City Attorney Daniel Ray PO Box 1353 Greenville, Tx 75403 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND E-MAIL Dear Mr. Agnew and Gunn, Nine months ago I filed a CFR 14 Part 13 complaint with the Texas ADO and TxDOT against the City of Greenville for Grant Assurance violations. In that period the only FAA accomplishment was a safety study concluded in June 2015 that found skydiving could be conducted safely at Majors Field. Since the safety study was concluded the City of Greenville has continued to deny airport access to individual skydivers and potential skydiving business entities on the airport. In September Mr. Portman and I requested the ADO begin a long overdue investigation as required by 5190.6B and FAA Compliance Guidance Letter 2014-01 Procedures for Accepting and Investigating 14 CFR Part 13 Informal Complaints Alleging Violations of Grant Assurance Obligations and Surplus Property Deed Restrictions. Mr. Agnew denied our request to even begin an investigation. Investigating the complaint is a basic job function of the ADO and should have started immediately after receiving the complaint 9 months ago. As such we have reason to believe Mr. Agnew is under political pressure to refuse to perform his job. Before filing a formal complaint under CFR 14 Part 16 the North Texas skydiving community and I am requesting Mr. Agnew state for the record why he is refusing to conduct an investigation and issue a notice of Potential Noncompliance, or in the alternative begin the investigation immediately. As far as TxDOT is concerned, Texas is a block grant state and Mr. Gunn is responsible for issuing both state and federal funds to airports. He has the authority to withhold state funds and recommend the FAA terminate federal assistance. I have repeatedly requested he cut off state funds to the airport until the City comes into Grant Assurance compliance and all such requests have been denied. At this time I ask Mr. Gunn to explain on the record why he is not enforcing

Grant Assurances by using his authority to terminate state funding, or in the alternative cut off funds immediately. Skydiving activities around or onto airports come in three main categories: 1) Individual skydivers that have no connections to business entities or organized clubs exit from some kind of airlift device, be it a helicopter, balloon, or airplane and fly parachutes over and onto an airport. Note the airlift device may depart from a different airport. As individuals we have the same airspace access and landing rights on a federally funded airport as airplane, helicopter, or airship pilots. Airport Minimum Standards that govern on-airport tenants do not apply to these individuals, however non-discriminatory simple operating procedures as described in FAA Advisory Circular 105-2E(6)(c) are appropriate. The Greenville airport management has refused to discuss or implement the procedures I have suggested. 2) Transient commuter aircraft that depart the airport and take passengers for skydives outside the airport property have no restrictions or fees. Imposing restrictions or fees would require the same for numerous transient commuter flights that depart the airport with passengers and take them to other airports. 3) Skydiving business entities are normally tenants on the airport property with leased landing areas and facilities typically including a hangar and customer training building. These entities fall under Airport Minimum Standards requirements, but those requirements cannot be unreasonable or discriminatory without violating sponsor Grant Assurances. On 10 Aug 2015 the City held a meeting with their hired consultants at the Greenville Airport conference room. The skydiving community was excluded from this meeting. Together, the consultants, City of Greenville, L-3 Communications, and Airport Advisory Board produced what must be the most unreasonable and discriminatory Airport Minimum Standards document in skydiving history. The City Council approved the standards on 27 Oct 2015. I registered my strong objection with Mr. Gunn and Agnew on 29 Oct, indicating I would offer a detailed appropriate response at a later date. Part of that response is the creation of a public website to document everything that has transpired with our complaint, and educate the skydiving community concerning the games non-compliant airport sponsors play in delaying or denying airport access. It also describes the legal process required to get a complaint through the system, the actions / inactions of government officials during the fight, and the monopoly L-3 Communications enjoys at the airport. I encourage everyone interested in the progress of this complaint to follow updates at MajorsFieldSpyPlanes.Com. So on to specific objections to the new Greenville Airport Minimum Standards. The document is available at the Greenville airport website or at the MajorsFieldSpyPlanes.Com website under the Skydiver Access tab. I have also attached a copy to this E-mail / certified letter. The first paragraph states the airport is subject to FAA AIP Grant Assurance 22 but the

APPENDIX C. SKYDIVING OPERATIONS section is in extreme violation of those requirements, specifically: Header: Only addresses companies or clubs, not individual sky divers. We don't object to this section as it simply verifies the Airport Minimum Standards only apply to "Any company or club wishing to land parachutes on Majors Field". The City is in violation of Grant Assurance 22 for its refusal to allow individual skydivers to land in the FAA approved areas. Provision3: Requires waivers from "operators" prior to skydiving. Airplane, helicopter, and airship "operators" are not required to do the same. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 4: Requires individual jumpers to sign a waiver and deliver to the airport manager. Airplane, helicopter, and airship pilots are not required to do the same. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 6: Requires "parachute operators" to carry $1,000,000 liability insurance which has been found by the FAA to be unobtainable for skydiving operations. Skydiving businesses and individuals are exempt from unobtainable insurance requirements per the FAA Director's Determination in Skydive Sacramento V. City of Lincoln, California, Docket No. 16-09-09. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 7: Requires jumpers land in the "Designated Landing Zones" or face fines of $250, $500, or permanent barring from jumping on the airport. This is in direct defiance of FAA regulation AC 105-2E that states: "Airports may designate suitable parachute landing areas. While skydivers attempt to land in such areas, at times there may be inadvertent landings in other grass or hard-surfaced areas. This could include landings on runways, taxiways, and other hard-surfaced 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 practical/1 If an inadvertent landing occurred on L-3 leased property, it would be that company's option to initiate a civil suit for damages against the individual skydiver, club, or business entity. The City of Greenville has no authority to issue fines for inadvertent landings. Airplane, helicopter, and airship pilots are not threatened with any fines for not landing in a designated area on the runway, ramp, or grass. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 8: Restricts all skydiving operations to the hours of 10:00 AM - 3:00 PM, only on weekdays, and only when L-3 employees choose to open the tower and open Class D airspace. This is an attempt by the City / L-3 to make commercial skydiving operations impossible since nearly all tandem skydive students jump on the weekends. It is unbelievably discriminatory because airplanes, helicopters, and airships are allowed to use the airfield 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, whether or not the L-3 control tower is active. It also makes it impossible for skydivers

in training to ever obtain a Master "D" level license because two night jumps are required to meet license requirements. See USPA Sky divers Information Manual page 13 in our website References tab. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 9: Requires a Letter of Agreement (LOA) between the Skydiving Company/Club, Majors Field Tower, and Fort Worth ARTCC when the tower is open. This does not address individual skydivers that are not part of any business or club. There is no FAA regulation requiring an LOA for skydiving operations. The Majors Tower L-3 Communications employees are required to provide airspace control in accordance with FAA Operations Order JO 7110.65V, Chapter 9, Section 7 Parachute Operations. Majors Tower L-3 employees are required under 9-7-3 CLASS D AIRSPACE to: Handle requests to conduct jump operations in or into Class D airspace in which there is a functioning control tower as follows: a. Authorize parachute jumping with respect to known or observed traffic. b. Issue advisory information to the jump aircraft and to nonparticipating aircraft as necessary for the safe conduct of the jump operation. There was never an LOA during the numerous times L-3 Communications tower employees supported skydiving operations on and off the field in the last 15 years. While Sky dive Tandem Greenville, LLC uses an LOA for business activity on the eastern perimeter of the field, individual skydivers and other businesses jumping in a 2.0 nautical mile radius around the airport do not. No other individual airplane, helicopter, or airship pilot is required to have an LOA to operate at Majors Field, and neither is any other airplane, helicopter, or airship related business. L-3 / City of Greenville have apparently used their influence with the FAA at Fort Worth ARTCC. Mr. Tommy Graham, Jr. is the airspace manager for the Majors Field area and recently refused to negotiate an LOA in good faith. His office stonewalled efforts made by Skydive Tandem Greenville, LLC for 6 months and finally lied about being able to support traffic advisories on the west side of the field (they support such operations for First Flight Tandems, Inc. all the time). A complaint against Mr. Graham has been filed with the FAA in Washington D.C but has not been answered yet. The City of Greenville / L-3 Communications has made an LOA a requirement knowing fiill well Fort Worth ARTCC will not negotiate in good faith to create one. An LOA is unobtainable through Fort Worth ARTCC, therefore the requirement is unreasonable. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 10: Requires only one skydiving aircraft in the pattern at a time. This makes no sense and is highly discriminatory. We assume this is to discourage any formation flights with multiple jump aircraft supporting skydiver group formations. No other aeronautical activity is restricted to one aircraft in the pattern at a time. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances.

Provision 11: Requires skydiving clubs or companies to pay a $100 per day landing fee. This does not address individual skydivers that are not part of any business or club. A fee may be applicable to tenant companies or clubs on an airport that have facilities and land leases, but none exist at Majors Field. Individuals and transient businesses that only wish to use the existing grass areas identified in the FAA safety study should not be subject to any landing fees unless the City imposes the same fees on other transient users. Individual airplane, helicopter, and airship pilots are not required to pay any fees for landing on the airport or assisting in making liability insurance payments (if any exist at all). The City has not provided evidence it has any liability insurance payments, and shouldn't because it is exempt from liability due to sovereign immunity. See City of Greenville v. Reeves, No. 05-04-00740-CV. There is no additional maintenance of the airport - the grass is already there and does not require any more care than was already being provided. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 12: Requires only jumpers with a "D" license land in the area the City has designated as the "A" area. This is one of three areas the FAA safety study approved, however the City has shrunk the original area of 111,650 feet down to a 75 foot square (5625 square feet, 20 times less than the original size). Additionally, the City placed a large concrete block in the center of the landing area for skydivers to avoid. The 15 June 2015 onsite Risk Assessment included a photo of two proposed tandem, B, C, and D license landing areas on the east and south sides of the FBO and ramp area. These areas were proposed to the Airport Advisory Board on 21 Jan 2015 to support parachute landings when the prevailing winds are from the north-south or east-west respectively. The FAA safety study found: "These proposed areas are sufficiently located to support parachute activities as outlined in the presentation with reference to Class A through D ratings, while having minimal impact on airport operations and ease of access of parachute support vehicles/' The FAA found the original area immediately south of the FBO to be safe for jumpers in the B, C, D, or tandem class. The City has ignored the findings of the FAA and unfairly restricted B, C, and tandem class jumpers from jumping in the approved area. By shrinking the area to 75 square feet the City violates the findings of the FAA and apparently believes it can reduce the "designated" landing area to the size of a postage stamp it if chooses to. Additionally, the City has excluded the FAA approved area east of the FBO completely. This area was requested as the primary landing area when winds are from the north or south, as they typically are at Majors Field. That is why the runway is oriented north and south. This particular landing area has been used numerous times in the past by the L-3 Communications, Raytheon, and E-Systems skydiving clubs. The landing area rejection and shrinkage is deliberately selected so that jumpers will land outside the "City "designated" landing area and have to pay the City required fines. The FAA is the final arbiter of aviation safety and it has spoken. See FAA Director's Determination in Frank Hinshaw, Skydiving School, Inc., dba Skydive Hawaii and Island Skydiving, LLC V. The State of Hawaii FAA Docket No. 16-12-04 (located on our website under the legal references tab). The City's plan is in blatant disregard for

decisions already made by the FAA, unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 13: As in Provision 12, the City has intentionally shrunk the student / A license landing area the FAA already approved, and designated it as the only area where B, C, and tandem jumpers may land. The original area was 750,000 feet and the City has decreased it to a 687' x 496' rectangle (340,752 square feet, less than half the original size). This is a deliberate attempt to force tandem jumpers and their families to walk several thousand feet away from the public parking lot and in an area that is a marsh several months out of the year. The landing area rejection and shrinkage is deliberately selected so that jumpers will land outside the City "designated" landing area and have to pay the City required fines. The City's plan is in blatant disregard for decisions already made by the FAA, unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 15: Restricts jumpers from over-flying L-3 leased property north of the FBO. Jumpers are currently over-flying this area on a regular basis day and night in compliance with CFR 14 Part 105.23(c) and the FAA Office of Chief Counsel's Kates decision (21 Aug 2009). The City of Greenville and L-3 Communications do not control airspace - the FAA does. Additionally, there is no restriction on aircraft, helicopter or airship flight over L-3 leased property. The City's intent here is to make it impossible for skydivers to compensate for northerly winds, making landings in the designated areas impossible. The City's restriction is in blatant disregard for decisions already made by the FAA, unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 16: Restricts minors from skydiving. There is no restriction on minors flying in airplanes, helicopters, or airships, and there is no FAA regulation against minors skydiving. To the contrary, the airport regularly sponsors the Boy Scouts to camp out on the airport and fly in dangerous airplanes during their stay with no age restrictions. The City has no authority to restrict minors from skydiving and this provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 17: Restricts skydivers from "social gatherings" before or after jumps. The City does not define a "social gathering" and there are no restrictions on "social gatherings" for airplane, helicopter, or airship pilots. I also vaguely recall something about a 1st amendment constitutional right of freedom of assembly during my studies at Lakewood Elementary School. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 18: States taking photographs or videos of aircraft, etc located on L-3 leased property is against federal law. Humorous. We have that first amendment issue again that also covers freedom of speech and press. This provision has no effect on skydivers since it is totally untrue, however should be stricken as it intimidates visitors to a federally funded public airport. See MajorsFieldSpyPlanes.Com/frequencies.html "MSTF BILLION WATT TRANSMITTERS" for highly detailed photographs of aircraft and facilities at Majors Field taken by L-3 Communications and posted on their company website. Note we also post photographs taken on and off the federally ftinded public access airport in several locations on our website to prove skydivers have the right to photograph anything they want above or on the field. L-3

Communications would like their international customers to believe the facility is a secure military base. In reality Majors Field is wide open for photography to any foreign national that wants to drive to the back gate, fly directly overhead, or cruise down the runway or taxiway. Putting any classified sight-sensitive object or aircraft on the field would be a major security violation. Until L-3 can convince the president to define the Greenville public airport as a "vital military" facility we will continue to display their wares on the internet until the City comes into Grant Assurance compliance. Provision 19: States "Any events or special jump activities must obtain a permit from the City/Airport not less than 60 days prior to the event". An "event or special jump activities" is not defined, and no other aeronautical activity is required to meet this requirement. Event insurance is required but not defined, and is not required for any other aeronautical activity. The provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Pro vision 21: Requires a skydiving company/club to maintain logs of jumps and submit to the airport manager every month. No other aeronautical activity is required to do this, and privacy rights of skydivers would be violated. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 22: Assumes there is a "jump operator" that should be responsible for damages caused by jump activity. There is no jump operator when individual skydivers land on the field. Any damage caused by a skydiver is the skydiver's sole responsibility, the same as it is for an individual airplane, helicopter, or airship pilot. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 27: Restricts vehicles for skydiving operations from the Airport Operating Area. Everyone that rents a hanger on the field is given vehicle access. Any skydiving tenant business on the airport should be given the same right to vehicle access that other tenants have. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 29: Requires jumpers to read the Minimum Standards appendix and sign something. No other aeronautical activity participant is required to read and sign any document for public airport access. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances. Provision 32: Requires pilots to provide the airport manager a copy of their license and medical certificate. No other aeronautical activity is required to do this. For the skydiving operations that depart from other airports and never land at Majors Field, this provision is impossible to obtain unless the City forces the pilot to land at Majors first to have his credentials inspected. 14 CFR 61.3(1) states the authorities pilots must present their license or medical certificate to when requested. Airport managers are not included. Airplane, helicopter, and airship pilots are not required to present any licenses or medical certificates to the airport management. This provision is unreasonable, highly discriminatory, and in violation of Grant Assurances.

Provision 34: States the "designated landing zone" may be relocated and/or eliminated for the purpose of airport expansion. Once established a parachute landing area must still be provided even if expansion occurs. This provision is in violation of Grant Assurances. This request for immediate action from the ADO and TxDOT to enforce Grant Assurances is posted on our website at www.majorsfieldspyplanes.coni in the legal references section. I eagerly await Mr. Agnew's and Mr. Gunn's reply and action. Henry Schraeder, Managing Member Skydive Tandem Greenville, LLC 2241 County Road 3303 Greenville, Texas 75402 903-303-9828 8