Bodin v. City of Santa Clara, Cal. -- No. 16-11-06 -- No. FAA-2011-0699

Director's Determination (12/19/2011) [Determination No.233].

View Document

FAA Docket No:

16-11-06

Author:

Fiertz, Randall S., Director

Author Title:

Director

Complainant(s):

Bodin, Jeff|Garlic City Skydiving

Respondent(s):

Santa Clara (Cal.)

Airport(s):

South County Airport of Santa Clara County (E16)

Holding:

Finding violation.

Abstract:

Complainants, Jeff Bodin and Garlic City Skydiving, proposed to establish a commercial skydiving business at the South County Airport, a general aviation non-towered airport, owned and operated by Respondent, the County of Santa Clara. Citing safety concerns, Respondent refused to allow the establishment of an on-Airport drop zone on which skydivers could land. After protracted negotiations that included advice and directives from the San Francisco Airports District Office and the San Jose Flight Standards District Office (FAA Offices), Respondent filed a formal Complaint alleging violations of Grant Assurances 5, 22, and 23.|Jurisdiction:|“The FAA’s Office of Airport Compliance (ACO) does not mediate or arbitrate negotiation disputes between airport sponsors and potential business proponents concerning issues outside the scope of the Part 16 process and a sponsor’s federal Grant Assurances.” (p. 20).|“Consistent with the goals of the FAA’s Compliance Program, any Orders issued by the Director are written to ensure the airport sponsor becomes compliant with its assurances. This may not necessarily provide the relief requested by the complainant.” (p. 20).|Aeronautical Activities:|“FAA Order 5190.6B clearly defines parachute activities as an aeronautical activity.” (p. 21-22).|Denial of Access:|Respondent unreasonably denied access to the Airport when it prohibited the Complainants from establishing a drop zone at the Airport. Although Respondent argued that skydiving operations needed to be conducted in the safest possible manner, the Director found that the Respondent’s safety determination was pre-empted by earlier findings by FAA Offices that Complainant’s proposal for skydiving could reasonably be carried out at the Airport. (p. 29). Although an airport sponsor may prohibit or limit aeronautical activity at an airport if necessary for safety and efficiency, “[i]n all cases, the FAA is the final arbiter regarding aviation safety and will make the determination regarding the reasonableness of the sponsor’s proposed measures that restrict, limit or deny access to the airport.” (p. 24). The Director also held that the Respondent’s federal obligations do not require skydiving be conducted in the “safest manner possible” in order for it to be conducted “safely.” (p. 30).|Grant Assurance 22:|Respondent unjustly discriminated against Complainants in violation of Grant Assurance 22 when it prohibited the Complainants from establishing an on-airport drop zone because it would have exposed the Respondent to additional liability. Respondent may not use the “potential of increased liability exposure under state law as a means to justify excluding an aeronautical user from a federally-obligated airport . . . [Grant Assurance 22] applies to ‘all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical activities . . .’ not simply the ones the Respondent prefers based on its perceived level of risk and potential liability.” (p. 32-33).|Grant Assurance 24:|In accordance with Grant Assurance 24, airport sponsors can pass the costs associated with insuring skydiving on an airport on to the entities offering skydiving activities. (p. 33).|Grant Assurance 29:|Establishing a drop zone at the Airport does not require the airport sponsor to amend its master plan or seek FAA approval of a new master plan, but Grant Assurance 29 would require the sponsor to update its Airport Layout Plan.|Grant Assurance 5:|The Respondent violated Grant Assurance 5 when it failed to consider the FAA’s safety expertise and authority prior to voting to reject the Respondent’s proposal to conduct a skydiving operation with a drop zone on the Airport. (p. 38).|Grant Assurance 23:|The Director found that it was unnecessary to consider the constructive exclusive right allegation because the remedies were the same as the remedies for Grant Assurance 22 violations. (p. 38).

Index Terms: