airdvr 197 #1 October 23, 2015 QuoteHorry County officials evicted Skydive Myrtle Beach from the Grand Strand Airport this month after county staff and the Federal Aviation Administration raised numerous safety concerns about parachuters landing outside the airport’s designated drop zone. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/business/article40973511.htmlPlease don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #2 October 23, 2015 airdvrQuoteHorry County officials evicted Skydive Myrtle Beach from the Grand Strand Airport this month after county staff and the Federal Aviation Administration raised numerous safety concerns about parachuters landing outside the airport’s designated drop zone. http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/business/article40973511.html Well... I guess the good will from 1992's Dive Rite World Record event over Myrtle Beach has evaporated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #3 October 23, 2015 Also seems perhaps a bit of landing zone enforcement could have gone a long way. Just sayin'.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 14 #4 October 23, 2015 I've only got a weekend of jumps out at the airport - it was a tighter landing area than a few DZ's but off airport there were no real outs that you would want to go for unless you were a more experienced jumper. The spot was usually about halfway between the ocean and the airport so you flying over the city until you made it to the landing area. The airport had a ton of land to land on but the winds were pretty strong as you would expect them to be with the shore breezes. I thought the DZ was pretty well put together in terms of safety. The only thing I was not a huge fan of was the flights out over the ocean (like 1-2 miles off shore). If DZ's have off DZ landings count as a safety violation to the FAA then a lot of places are going to need to look out since we seem to have reports weekly of off DZ landings.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 620 #5 October 23, 2015 SOME people have been known to even do it for fun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 8 #6 October 23, 2015 QuoteIf DZ's have off DZ landings count as a safety violation to the FAA then a lot of places are going to need to look out since we seem to have reports weekly of off DZ landings. +1, well said. The first question I would ask to this forum is whether or not the FAA has conducted a formal safety study in regard to skydiving at the airport? I know there are still pending deeming regulations, but that should not keep them from conducting a study. That should be as simple as requesting one in writing? Is the airport federally funded?=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 370 #7 October 23, 2015 Unstable***Is the airport federally funded? According to the news story, the airport's grant money (federal funding) was potentially in jeopardy because of the (perceived) safety issues related to skydiving activities. Personally. if I was still a DZO and the locals didn't want us on the field I would just find a new home. Even if you win the legal battle the problems would never end.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baronn 111 #8 October 24, 2015 Another sad situation where they were tolerated and never welcome. I was there a few years ago and it was a bit tense with management then. These guys had struggled to make this work thru quite a few ups and downs. The demographics were there but, the airport never wanted them there and just waited for the right excuse to throw them out. I never witnessed any safety issues when I was there, Of course, perception can always be relative..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
propblast 0 #9 October 24, 2015 I wonder if that federal funding is now in danger since they area allowing a aviation activity.....Propblast Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kuai43 7 #10 October 25, 2015 IagoQuoteThe county then offered a temporary use permit with the stipulation that if the company violated the terms of the agreement the county would require Skydive to leave after a 24-hour notice. The county’s proposal also included a requirement that the company pay $1,200 per month or 24 percent of gross revenues, depending on which amount was greater. You can add extortion to the list as well. How in the world would they expect a business to survive when they're being ass-reamed for a quarter of the GROSS receipts. Trying to kick you off would be big of a pain, so we'll just bankrupt you instead. Read for content much? "The county offered to lower the rent payment to 10 percent of gross revenues — which officials say is in line with other tenant agreements — but Skydive turned down that proposal, too."Every fight is a food fight if you're a cannibal Goodness is something to be chosen. When a man cannot choose, he ceases to be a man. - Anthony Burgess Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #11 October 25, 2015 QuoteThe first question I would ask to this forum is whether or not the FAA has conducted a formal safety study in regard to skydiving at the airport? I know there are still pending deeming regulations, but that should not keep them from conducting a study. That should be as simple as requesting one in writing? We were discussing this issue today at my home DZ. Since this is an airport with a control tower, then any off landing, landing in the wrong area or too close to aircraft on taxiway, engines running etc etc is probably going to find its way into the tower logs. One guy very familiar with SDMB says this is a DZ that is well run with a high standard of safety. If a formal study has not been conducted, it would be interesting to know the basis for the FAA siding with the county, with or without tower logs. The other question I have is whether the county made it so unreasonable for SDMB to be there on the possibility that another business on the airport with "ins" to some elected county officials want to expand their business. If so, permit applications might already be on file and should be accessible to the public. All in all, this case has a stink to it that might be understood better when the money is followed rather than the public posturing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fencebuster 7 #12 October 28, 2015 What Frank said. Operating at an airport with a tower means that you are constantly under examination by the FAA or contractors working for the FAA. Things that would be considered de minimis at a non-tower, non-FAA employee heavy airport are more likely to be considered "problems" with constant "supervision" or examination. At my DZ, we might have one jumper land off once a month. If you have an FAA guy there, he's likely to report it as a "regular" event -- happens "monthly" or "frequently". I thought about trying to operate at a towered airport and I think the downsides greatly outweigh the positives.Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208 AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #13 October 29, 2015 It's really hard to tell from the story exactly what all the factors were. You would really have to go to the underlying documentation to get into the meat of it. There are also important questions about the difference between being allowed to rent a hanger and being allowed to use the airport for skydiving (without a hanger) which are really not addressed. I just have one question, for people who know better than I do. Is it common practice to have rent be a portion of revenues? I have pretty limited knowledge, but I'm pretty sure all the DZ's I know have had a flat rate lease."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumpwally 0 #14 October 29, 2015 I agree,,,as the future unfolds with the NIMBY's,,,it doesn't make sense to be any less than an hour or so from any metro area,,, smile, be nice, enjoy life FB # - 1083 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hillson 0 #15 October 29, 2015 Southern_ManIt's really hard to tell from the story exactly what all the factors were. You would really have to go to the underlying documentation to get into the meat of it. There are also important questions about the difference between being allowed to rent a hanger and being allowed to use the airport for skydiving (without a hanger) which are really not addressed. If you look at regulations.gov and type in "horry" a bunch of the background data is available...hundreds of pages. There is a lot of poor behavior by all sides. The Letter of Agreement is pretty restrictive...the DZ appears to have pushed the letter and spirit of the agreement several times. The bit above about operating on a towered airport seems spot on...what a pain in the ass. Granted, the airport was probably being a bit unduly restrictive when it comes to "approved" landing areas...but the DZ appeared to be rather inattentive to some of the Part 139 rules when it comes to gaining permission crossing active runways / taxiways...having golf carts and vehicles not getting permission etc. it seems that there was a system setup that may have been ignored in some instances. Given the relatively small size of the operation there did seem to be a fair number of documented "way off" landings...though why the airport mgr was pitching a fit about ppl landing out on a golf course is a bit silly. I'm *somewhat* sympathetic to the airport's annoyance about not knowing about beach jumps and possible traffic concerns about traffic conflicts with banner towing planes...if anyone has been to MB you know that there are a ton of those ops, beach-side. Among other complaints: - Cloud busts - Disallowed crowds, vehicles on the ramp, loose dogs running around etc etc - arguing with ATC over open frequencies - Part 105 problems with parachutists crossing runways etc below minimums and causing documented acft traffic problems etc I think that a lot of the "lease / security" stuff was simply a way for the county to ride the ass of the DZ because they didn't want them there. A shame. It also looks like the DZ was a little sloppy...the landing areas were a bit strictly enforced but there does seem to be a higher than average number of folks landing on actual runways or taxiways...then again, maybe it is a function of it being documented by an aggrieved party... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #16 October 29, 2015 hillson***It's really hard to tell from the story exactly what all the factors were. You would really have to go to the underlying documentation to get into the meat of it. There are also important questions about the difference between being allowed to rent a hanger and being allowed to use the airport for skydiving (without a hanger) which are really not addressed. If you look at regulations.gov and type in "horry" a bunch of the background data is available...hundreds of pages. There is a lot of poor behavior by all sides. The Letter of Agreement is pretty restrictive...the DZ appears to have pushed the letter and spirit of the agreement several times. The bit above about operating on a towered airport seems spot on...what a pain in the ass. Granted, the airport was probably being a bit unduly restrictive when it comes to "approved" landing areas...but the DZ appeared to be rather inattentive to some of the Part 139 rules when it comes to gaining permission crossing active runways / taxiways...having golf carts and vehicles not getting permission etc. it seems that there was a system setup that may have been ignored in some instances. Given the relatively small size of the operation there did seem to be a fair number of documented "way off" landings...though why the airport mgr was pitching a fit about ppl landing out on a golf course is a bit silly. I'm *somewhat* sympathetic to the airport's annoyance about not knowing about beach jumps and possible traffic concerns about traffic conflicts with banner towing planes...if anyone has been to MB you know that there are a ton of those ops, beach-side. Among other complaints: - Cloud busts - Disallowed crowds, vehicles on the ramp, loose dogs running around etc etc - arguing with ATC over open frequencies - Part 105 problems with parachutists crossing runways etc below minimums and causing documented acft traffic problems etc I think that a lot of the "lease / security" stuff was simply a way for the county to ride the ass of the DZ because they didn't want them there. A shame. It also looks like the DZ was a little sloppy...the landing areas were a bit strictly enforced but there does seem to be a higher than average number of folks landing on actual runways or taxiways...then again, maybe it is a function of it being documented by an aggrieved party... Thanks for the summary. I knew it was all there, just didn't have time to read all the underlying stuff. Sounds like you have a good handle on the issues."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #17 October 29, 2015 Iago***It's really hard to tell from the story exactly what all the factors were. You would really have to go to the underlying documentation to get into the meat of it. There are also important questions about the difference between being allowed to rent a hanger and being allowed to use the airport for skydiving (without a hanger) which are really not addressed. I just have one question, for people who know better than I do. Is it common practice to have rent be a portion of revenues? I have pretty limited knowledge, but I'm pretty sure all the DZ's I know have had a flat rate lease. There can be 'percentage leasing' in commercial real estate. Usually it would be for large stores like Sears in malls. The big issue with the airport and their lease is probably consistency. When you operate multi-tenant commercial property you have to be consistent. Legally speaking, you can't rent to one tenant for for X and another for 3X. A lot of time you'll see signs on commercial buildings advertising $X per square foot and that's how they structure the leasing. If one space is 100 ft^2 you pay 100X and if the other is 120 ft^2 you pay 120X. Yeah, I know it is common in some industries (restaurants are another one), but I haven't really heard about that in skydiving. Although I'm not connected on the business end of it much."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fencebuster 7 #18 October 29, 2015 Here is the Report. It is dense and a long read. But now that I have had a chance to read it, I reiterate my prior comments about operating at a towered airport. Tower personnel documented numerous runway and taxiway incursions by skydivers as well as the DZ vehicle. On a controlled airport, you must call the tower before moving a vehicle on the surface; it appears from the ATTC inputs that the DZ repeatedly failed to comply with this requirement. In addition, the ATTC reported that the DZ dropped jumpers at the beach without obtaining prior permission from ATC, the DZ taking the position that they were not required to do so, notwithstanding that the beach was approximately 5 miles away from the identified on-airport DZ. I don't know whether USPA was involved in this case, but I think we should have been at least consulting with the DZO to help him avoid antagonizing the FAA via the local ATTC, which appears to me to be the straw that broke the camel's back. The DZ had a problem with new airport management. While that problem alone may have been one that could be overcome, once the FAA says you have a safety problem, it is really going to be an uphill slog to survive. The DZ problems with Horry County and how the County attempted to restrict operations at the airport are an issue we as an organization need to be aware of and prepared to address. These problems are encountered by numerous DZs. In my view, a good start is always opening a dialogue and educating the "other side" about how the DZ can safely operate in the vicinity of landing and taxiing aircraft. What seems to have complicated the issue in this case is when skydivers land on the ramp, taxiways and actually cause taxiing aircraft to have to shut down out of fear of having a prop-skydiver incident. Operating a DZ at an airport requires willingness to compromise and communicate with airport management, even if you believe the airport management doesn't want the DZ there for unreasonable reasons. This report is instructive. I am somewhat concerned that nowhere in the report does it indicate that USPA was in any way involved. That was a missed opportunity, in my opinion.Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208 AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fencebuster 7 #19 October 29, 2015 I thought I attached the report. Here goes again . . . .Charlie Gittins, 540-327-2208 AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fencebuster 7 #20 October 29, 2015 Apparently, the file is too big to upload. But here is the link to it, if you'd like to read it for yourself. http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/wmbf/pdf/Part%2016%20decision.sm.pdf And here is the link to the SC Circuit Court decision denying SDMB Motion for Injunction to enjoin its expulsion from its hangar/operating facility on the airport. http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/wmbf/pdf/Judge%20Hyman's%20Order%20-%20SDMB.pdfCharlie Gittins, 540-327-2208 AFF-I, Sigma TI, IAD-I MEI, CFI-I, Senior Rigger Former DZO, Blue Ridge Skydiving Adventures Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #21 October 29, 2015 http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/wmbf/pdf/Part%2016%20decision.sm.pdf http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/wmbf/pdf/Judge%20Hyman's%20Order%20-%20SDMB.pdf Gotta use the URL brackets so I FIFY. Now the documents can be downloaded. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justme12001 0 #22 October 30, 2015 I worked at SDMB for awhile, I left for personal reasons. When I did work there, I will say that when the airport was owned by ramp 66 there were very few if any problems. When the county took over, that is when suddenly there started all of these safety issues. When the airport I formed the DZ that they couldn't cross the taxiway without contacting the tower. The DZ got a radio and started Co tactics g the tower for every vehicle or person that crossed it. When a new person came to jump, they were I formed to not step foot on asphalt. They have a truck with a trailer that has benches that they fairy people with. It basically comes down to, the county doesn't want the DZ there, so they are going to make them leave one way or the other! On the other hand the DZO is a bit..... abrasive, and I don't think he has done anything to help himself. If he wasn't so obnoxious and could talk to people like a civilized person he might not be having these issues. They have also alienated themselves by talking crap (publicly) about all the other DZ's in the area. So they aren't getting much if any help from local jumpers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
78RATS 0 #23 October 30, 2015 I didn't see one complaint about naked beacon rides so they obviously don't know how to party at that DZ Rat for Life - Fly till I die When them stupid ass bitches ask why Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #24 October 30, 2015 All that said, I hope both parties can wade through all of the crap and come to some acceptable terms to get the DZ back there. The way I read the FAA report in the context to some of the steps or missteps of Horry County as detailed in other reports, there's a butt load of blame to go around for everyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #25 November 30, 2015 New article that might be of interest to all here. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=165ff28a-903c-4236-850e-a425e9093395 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
