Robert Walsh v. Nantucket Memorial Airport Commission – No. 16-23-16

FAA Docket No:

16-23-16

Author:

Michael W. Helvey, Director, Office of Airport Compliance and Management Analysis

Complainant(s):

Respondent(s):

Airport(s):

Nantucket Memorial Airport (ACK/Airport)

Holding:

Abstract:

Complainant, Robert Walsh, was a pilot who operated an air charter service called Nantucket Express, LLC, from Nantucket Memorial Airport (ACK) between 2005 and 2019. (Director’s Determination, p. 2.) He had an agreement with Nantucket Memorial Airport Commission (NMAC), the sponsor of ACK, allowing him to use space on the South Ramp to support his charter activities. (Director’s Determination, p. 2.) The air carrier certificate for the charter company was revoked by the FAA and his Airport Operations Area (AOA) credentials were revoked by NMAC, as the Airport Manager issued a Notice of Restriction prohibiting Mr. Walsh’s use of the Airport. (Director’s Determination, p. 2.) Based on a Part 13 Complaint finding, Complainant was allowed to continue to fly into the Airport as a transient pilot until a second Notice of Restriction was issued.

Complainant filed a Part 16 action against NMAC, alleging that it violated Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, by unlawfully denying him access to the airport and preventing him from operating there. (Director’s Determination, p. 1.) He claimed it was a direct violation of Grant Assurance 22(a) for ACK to continue to stop him from operating at the Airport. (Director’s Determination, p. 1.)

Respondent, NMAC, denied that it had engaged in unjust discrimination and argued that its actions were justified, citing operational and safety concerns. (Director’s Determination, p. 1.) It stated that the steps taken to control Mr. Walsh’s access to and activities at the airport were based on conduct that, in the professional opinion of the Airport Manager and the Commission, was inconsistent with orderly and safe airport operations. (Director’s Determination, p. 2.) The Commission asserted that its actions did not violate Grant Assurance 22(a), which prohibits only unjust discrimination. (Director’s Determination, p. 2.)

The FAA concluded that NMAC did not violate Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination, as its actions were justified, reasonable, and not unjustly discriminatory given the circumstances.

Grant Assurance 22, Economic Nondiscrimination—Denial of Access to Airport

Complainant alleged that NMAC violated Grant Assurance 22(a) by illegally preventing him from operating at the airport, citing a Part 13 finding by the FAA’s New England Regional Office to support his claim of discrimination and improper denial of access. (Director’s Determination, p. 8.) He also referenced a 2022 incident in which he was met by airport operations staff, security, and law enforcement upon landing; claimed his state-issued badge allowed him unescorted access; and said he was nevertheless cited by an officer. (Director’s Determination, p. 8.) He further alleged that the Assistant Airport Manager and the Boston Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) colluded to make false statements about him to the FAA Regional Flight Surgeon. (Director’s Determination, p. 8.)

NMAC argued that it had the authority and responsibility to enforce rules ensuring safe and efficient airport operations, citing FAA evidence that Mr. Walsh posed a continuing safety risk. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.) NMAC stated that Complainant repeatedly violated local policies and federal regulations, ignored conditions placed on his access as a transient pilot, and presented a security concern. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.) It asserted that his complaint failed to show unjust discrimination under Grant Assurance 22(a) and referenced multiple FAA Part 16 decisions; FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport Compliance Manual; and supporting documentation—including airport rules, correspondence, and meeting minutes—to demonstrate Walsh’s pattern of misconduct. (Director’s Determination, p. 9.)

The Director found that NMAC had issued an initial Notice of Restriction to Complainant in July 2019 after multiple safety and security incidents, including a significant violation reported by the FAA FSDO. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) NMAC followed its published rules, which authorize immediate access restrictions in severe cases, and held public meetings where Complainant and his attorney were given opportunities to speak. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) The Commission later extended the restriction in October 2020 after FAA enforcement action against Complainant’s company, Nantucket Express, for numerous regulatory violations. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.)

Citing a January 2021 FAA Part 13 informal decision, the Director further found that that NMAC could not completely bar Complainant from the airport because he held a valid pilot’s certificate. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) The FAA directed NMAC to allow him transient pilot access, clearly defined access requirements, and ensured they were reasonable. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) NMAC complied, communicating the conditions in writing, which included advance notification of flights, radio contact with ramp staff, and adherence to standard transient pilot procedures. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.)

Despite these accommodations, Complainant repeatedly disregarded the requirements, including taxiing across an unsafe grass island, failing to contact airport staff, and avoiding ramp oversight. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) In August 2021, the Airport Manager warned him that continued violations could reinstate the full restriction. Following further noncompliance, the Commission voted to reissue the Notice of Restriction, banning Complainant from nonpublic areas and warning that unauthorized access would be treated as trespassing. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) Evidence showed that Complainant continued flying into the Airport in violation of the reinstated restriction, escalating tensions and prompting multiple law enforcement encounters. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.)

The Director disagreed with Complainant and noted that NMAC, as the airport operator, had authority over the operation of the ramp and was ultimately responsible for the safety and security of the airport. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) Complainant claimed his badge issued by the State provided him access to any public airport; however, the badge only provided access to general aviation airports, and as a commercial service, Part 139 certificated airport, Nantucket Memorial Airport had additional required levels of security. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) Further, NMAC was responsible for ensuring that the airport operated in a safe and secure manner and in accordance with its Airport Certification Manual in order to maintain its FAA Part 139 Certificate. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.)

The Director further noted that NMAC had the authority to issue and revoke AOA privileges for the airport, and it revoked Complainant’s AOA privileges and put requirements on his access as a transient pilot—requirements which were designed to assist the Airport in maintaining the required level of safety and security. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.)

In all, in the Director’s Determination (p. 12), the Director wrote that,

For the National Airspace System to function, various organizations and individuals play critical roles. The FAA Air Traffic Organization, the FAA Flight Standards, the Transportation Security Administration, airport operators, tenants, aeronautical users, and the flying public all must follow reasonable rules and regulations and interact in a manner that allows the system to function in a safe and secure manner. Just as an airport sponsor has the responsibility to operate its airport in a safe and efficient manner to meet its Federal obligations, a pilot has a responsibility to follow reasonable operational rules and regulations and to respect the authority of the airport and the FAA to administer those rules.

No violation occurred as NMAC’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious but methodical and deliberate, and they contained multiple opportunities for Complainant to comply. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.) (The Director also found that Complainant’s claims relating to his medical certificate and airport collusion with FAA staff fell outside the scope of a Part 16 proceeding. (Director’s Determination, p. 12.))

Index Terms: