Horry County evicts skydiving business from North Myrtle Beach airport

Horry County officials evicted a North Myrtle Beach skydiving business 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.

Officials documented more than 100 safety-related incidents involving Skydive Myrtle Beach, including parachuters landing near taxiing planes, on S.C. 31 and in one instance close to the whirling blades of a military helicopter that was preparing to take off.

The company’s owner, however, insists the safety complaints are unfounded and part of a government effort to sabotage his business.

“This is like a ‘Twilight [Zone]’ movie,” said Aaron Holly, who has operated Skydive at the general aviation airport since 2012. “I just got shut down because somebody’s pissed off at me at the department of airports. ... This is a completely safe operation run by all military and combat vets. No injury. We take 80-year-old people all day long. It’s a huge tourist draw. This is the craziest thing that’s ever happened to the Grand Strand in 30 years.”

Skydive was forced to vacate its headquarters at Hangar 7 by 5 p.m. Friday.

The eviction marked the latest chapter in a nearly two-year legal battle between the county and the company, which has challenged the county in civil court and in complaints to the FAA.

Skydive leaders contend that county officials have harassed their business, forcing the company to comply with policies that are too restrictive. In FAA filings, the company calls the county’s actions “spurious enforcement mechanisms that greatly exceed FAA regulations and guidance.”

“They just kind of came in and wrecked me,” Holly said.

Federal officials, however, sided with the county. In a 73-page report released Oct. 7, the FAA concluded that the county must address safety problems posed by the business or risk losing federal grant money.

“Unless immediate steps are taken, up to and including closure of the [drop zone], the County will be considered to be in violation,” wrote Randall Fiertz, the FAA’s director of airport compliance and management analysis.

The report also instructed the county to submit a corrective action plan to the FAA that includes revised procedures for skydiving. The report detailed 112 “safety incidents” involving 211 skydivers from March 29, 2013, through Sept. 27 of this year. The incidents included skydivers landing on the beach, in neighborhoods, on a golf course, along S.C. 31 and on the airport runway.

“Airport safety will continue to be compromised if SDMB is allowed to continue the aeronautical activity uncorrected,” Fiertz wrote. “The background and data in this case puts the responsibility for the occurrences on the operator. Of particular concern to the Director is the fact that SDMB has denied that there are any safety deficiencies in this case and challenges any FAA intervention or recommendations.”

The fight between the county and Skydive dates back to 2013, when the county began managing the airport.

Skydive first negotiated a lease for the hangar in April 2012 with Ramp 66, the company that ran the airport for the county at that time. The lease was supposed to run through 2020, but county officials terminated all lease agreements when they took over.

County officials told airport tenants they could sign temporary use agreements while longer leases were negotiated, according to FAA records. On Sept. 13, 2013, Skydive signed a short-term contract with the county. That agreement ended on Jan. 31, 2014.

A few weeks after the permit expired, the county offered Skydive a new one. The county also attached a letter describing 10 instances of unsafe jumping and other safety problems with the business. The county contended that those incidents violated the former agreement.

The 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.

Skydive was given 72 hours to sign the agreement or leave.

The company objected to the terms, and since then the dispute has led to Skydive filing FAA complaints and civil litigation. 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.

The sparring grew even more heated after county officials created new standards for public airports in May 2014, including policies for skydiving.

Holly said he didn’t know about the county’s vote until long after the regulations were approved.

“The rules, once you read them, are narrowly construed to put us out of business,” he said. “These rules were passed and nobody ever told us they were passed.”

In a complaint to the FAA, the company accused the county of discriminating against skydiving and trying to disrupt the firm’s business. Skydive claimed it couldn’t receive mail during normal business hours; that county staff broke into the secured hangar; and that county officials blocked three parking spaces by dumping peat moss in the lot the company uses.

The FAA, however, either rejected the claims outright or found there wasn’t enough evidence to substantiate them, according to the agency’s Oct. 7 report.

When asked about the FAA’s findings, Holly said federal officials relied too heavily on the county’s version of Skydive’s safety record, particularly the 112 incidents in the report. He noted that the list doesn’t include hospital records or detailed documentation of injuries.

“It’s the government,” he said. “In any standard, they always take the government’s side. They hold it to be true. So what the FAA saw when the county gave them that, they thought that that stuff was investigated and those were actually tickets.”

But the FAA did contact Skydive for the company’s side of the dispute, according to the report. The federal agency said the company’s position was that its original operating permit allows parachuters to land anywhere within 5 miles of the airport.

The FAA rejected that idea.

“Landing ‘anywhere at the airport,’ as SDMB implies, is dangerous, and is not acceptable,” Fiertz wrote.

Holly contends that the incidents described in the FAA report are not formal safety violations.

“None of those things that you see in there is a safety violation,” he said. “None of them.”

The owner also said he didn’t know the county was documenting those incidents. He maintains that record was a part of a plan to close his business.

“Because if they didn’t shut us down, they were going to be found in discrimination,” he said of the county.

Although the company was forced out last week, the county began the eviction process in 2014, according to court records.

After a bench trial, a magistrate sided with the county on July 23, 2014, and ordered the company to leave the airport’s hangar.

Skydive appealed the decision and the court allowed the company to stay at the airport during the appeals process.

The eviction remained tied up in court until Oct. 13, when Circuit Court Judge Larry Hyman denied SkyDive’s motion for an emergency injunction to stop the county from forcing them out.

“Horry County has demonstrated that it suffers substantial risk by virtue of SDMB’s continuing operations from Horry County property,” Hyman wrote.

The county told Skydive to vacate the hangar by 5 p.m. Friday.

“We were determined to enforce that deadline because that wasn’t the first time that we had established a deadline for their vacancy,” said Arrigo Carotti, the county’s attorney. “They have manipulated the process in order to stay in those facilities. So they have known for a long, long time that they were wrongfully occupying those facilities.”

Holly, obviously, disagrees. He’s planning to meet with a government watchdog group Friday to discuss bringing in additional legal help.

“The problem with dealing with the federal government,” he said, “is whatever you put before those guys up there, that’s what they see.”

The owner is still pursuing an unfair trade practices lawsuit in civil court.

This story was originally published October 22, 2015 at 4:25 PM with the headline "Horry County evicts skydiving business from North Myrtle Beach airport."