Submitted by Suanne Z. Thamm
Reporter — News Analyst
September 18, 2014 2:32 p.m.
A significant portion of the Fernandina Beach City Commission’s (FBCC) Regular Meeting agenda for September 16, 2014 dealt with aviation or airport-related matters: a potential tandem skydiving operation, the city airport Master Plan and Layout Plan, and whether to continue requiring completed operations insurance from airport businesses.
Pieces of 8 Skydiving
Commissioners devoted the first half hour of their meeting to a presentation from Rick Hornsby, who pitched his company—Pieces of 8 Skydiving—as a potential addition to the city’s recreation draws. Hornsby, who runs successful skydiving operations in Clewiston, FL, Houston, TX, and Aruba explained how the tandem skydiving operation works. He said that by expanding his company’s operations to Fernandina Beach, his marketing campaign would draw more tourists to the city. Hornsby told commissioners that he has more than 20 years of experience in public service, military service in the Marine Corps and as a pilot. He has made more than 11,000 skydives himself. His company is one of three in the state of Florida to offer tandem skydiving.
Hornsby proposes to load his skydivers onto a plane at the Fernandina Beach Airport and drop them over the beach behind Sliders Restaurant in a landing zone that would be monitored by 3-4 members of a safety crew who would select the landing site based upon consideration for people, beach furniture, turtle nests, etc. There would be no more than 2 parachutes on the beach at any time. His airplane pilots would be in constant radio contact with other aircraft in the area.
Hornsby said that he would operate between 8 a.m. to noon and would probably fly 3-4 loads per day with a maximum of 10-15 jumps. He would maintain a walk-in storefront office from which he would transport skydivers to the airport. The plane would not be based at Fernandina Beach Municipal Airport, but would take off and fuel there. He said that jumps would be made from an altitude of 10,000 feet, and that the total time would take 6-8 minutes. He stressed that he would offer only tandem jumps.
Commissioners raised questions about safety of beachgoers and the landing zone. Hornsby explained that the maneuverability of today’s parachutes allows last minute adjustments in landing areas. He also indicated that each potential skydiver would be required to watch a 10-minute video and sign a waiver before being allowed to jump. In response to a question from Commissioner Johnny Miller, Hornsby replied that he has never had an accident. Commissioner Pat Gass allowed that while the proposal sounded interesting, she remained skeptical. “If push comes to shove,” she said, “I will side with the people.”
In response to a question from Mayor Ed Boner on what happens next, City Manager Joe Gerrity said that Hornsby should schedule a presentation to the city’s Airport Advisory Commission at their October 9, 2014 meeting. Following that meeting the matter will come back to the FBCC for a decision.
For more information on the company, consult www.skydivearuba.com or florida.skydivespaceland.com.
Airport Master Plan
Commissioners approved unanimously with no discussion Resolutions 2014-126 and 2014-127. These resolutions approved Passero Associates, LLC’s work order to update the Fernandina Beach Municipal Airport Master Plan and Layout Plan, funded by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and their work order to develop strategic planning elements to supplement the Master Plan update. Passero Associates, LLC has a long-term consulting relationship with the city on airport matters.
Completed Operations & Completed Products Insurance
The FBCC listened to a 45-minute discussion and heard from members of the public, in addition to the city attorney, on the benefits and drawbacks to the city of requiring Completed Operations and Completed Products Insurance from aeronautical operators at the Fernandina Beach Municipal Airport. While City Attorney Tammi Bach, in consultation with the city’s insurance consultant and an attorney specializing in aviation law, recommended continuing to require such insurance, the city’s Airport Advisory Commission (AAC) took the opposite stand. Bach’s memo to City Manager Joe Gerrity on the matter included the information that Jacksonville International Airport does not impose such a requirement on their aeronautical operators.
According to the online resource Investopedia, completed operations/product insurance is an insurance product that covers the liability incurred by a contractor for property damage or injuries that may happen to a third party once contracted operations have ceased or been abandoned. Even though the operations are deemed to be “completed” by the contractor, the loss or injury is deemed to be as a result of those operations.
AAC Chair Richard Gray told commissioners that such insurance requirement was mandated sometime after 2006, based on an interpretation of FAA Minimum Standards. Gray and the AAC maintain that the FAA does not require airports to adopt the minimum standards, although they recommend adoption. He said that it is the responsibility of the sponsor—in this case, the city of Fernandina Beach—to adopt such standards.
Gray said that currently the city is in danger of losing its flying club, which is not eligible to purchase the insurance in question, although it is currently mandated. The insurance cost can run from $10-12,000 per year. “The cost is excessive,” he said, “and it drives business away from our airport.” Gray said that based upon his research, other similar sized airports do not require this insurance, leaving insurance decisions up to the individual operators. He concluded his presentation with the statement that “the requirement is onerous and does not reflect what our airport is about.”
Commissioner Charlie Corbett reaffirmed that the city will not take on more risk with or without the requirement. He said, “Let the individual operators decide whether to carry it or not.”
Vice Mayor Sarah Pelican asked why such insurance would be a minimum standard for flying clubs if they were not eligible for such insurance. Gray replied that it was “an ill-advised portion of the minimum standards.”
Tom Piscatello, an airport user who lives in Yulee, responded to Commissioner Johnny Miller’s question about how many businesses had been driven away by the insurance requirement. He informed commissioners that a helicopter sightseeing business had left the airport as well as an airplane cleaning service. He added that he himself had been forced to end a relationship with an airplane company as a sales representative because of the cost of the completed products insurance.
Local flyer Andy Curtin said that he felt that by requiring the insurance, the city places itself more in the liability chain than by not requiring it.
Sean McGill, operator of the only fixed base operation currently at the city airport, was asked to comment. He said that his firm pays $50,000 in insurance which covers people he contracts with. He added that he believes that the overall requirement for individuals and specialized operators is excessive. He urged the FBCC to drop the requirement.
City Manager Joe Gerrity, also acting airport manager, did not weigh in on the issue. But hearing a consensus to drop the requirement, agreed to bring back a Resolution for FBCC action to drop the requirement consistent with the AAC recommendation.
Editor’s Note: Suanne Z. Thamm is a native of Chautauqua County, NY, who moved to Fernandina Beach from Alexandria,VA, in 1994. As a long time city resident and city watcher, she provides interesting insight into the many issues that impact our city. We are grateful for Suanne’s many contributions to the Fernandina Observer.
The question in my mind is how do other airports , in similar size to our airport, handle this type of insurance. And has the airport manager contacted any other airport managers to find out this information?
Lou – The AAC members and airport tennants contacted many airports and reviewed other published “Minimum Standards” to ascertain their insurance requirements. Many do not stipulate any insurance requirements at all although their individual lease agreements may so stipulate, some require Commercial General Liability without stipulating Completed Operations or Completed Products (or Hanger Keepers either for that matter). Several airport managers had no information at all about the Completed Operations insurance. When discussing this with an insurance broker with a well known aviation insurance company, it was stated that most small airports do not require the insurance and most “independent operators” do not carry such insurance because of the expense. For what it is worth, the Jacksonville Aviation Authority which manages JAX as well as Cecil, Herlong and Craig airports in the Jacksonville area does not require the Completed Operations or Completed Products insurance.
I don’t know, I am beginning to think it’s me.—-It has to be me. I just read and responded to an article where the main issue at the beach is horse crap. The City seemed worried that horses are going to step on sunbathers, suggested to put into law that riders would have to notify the police prior to rides yada yada yada. Than the next day I read someone wants to have people jump out of a plane and land in back of Sliders. Please correct me if I am wrong but isn’t this an area where we have moving traffic and a large population of sunbathers and a large restaurant. I am sure this makes perfect sense to the company pursuing this— but not to me, hopefully not to the citizens and defiantly not to the Commission. Are the pilots going to notify the police four hours before a jump? Is there a regulation that jumpers must steer clear of cars trucks and sunbathers? I wonder what the homeowners are going to say. You know the ones who are complaining about a horse? Will they enjoy the sound of aircraft on the beach in the morning? I doubt that anyone has ever heard a horse walking in the sand at 8 am, but for some reason, and again I am sure it’s me, most would hear a plane going over their home at 8 am and those aren’t just the people at the beach, it is everyone in the flight path to and from the beach. I find it hard to wrap what brain I have left around the hypocrisy of this issue.
While I understand the skills of the employee parachutist we all know that unplanned events happen. What are tthe survival chances if they get blown in the water wearing jump suit that will quickly fill with water?
Isn’t there already a sky diving operation at the airport?
Karen – Yes, there is a skydiving operation at the airport now, tandem jumps only and they descend over and land at the airport. The newly proposed operation would only use the airport for picking up jumpers, taking off and then landing. The jumpers would land somewhere on the beach in either a clear area or a hastily cleared by ground crew area. The proposed operation would prefer to land near Seaside Park or behind Sliders but suggested they are open to anywhere on the beach. They proposed to have an office/storefront behind Pipeline Surf Shop, ground transportation would take jumpers to the airport after they have reviewed safety protocol where the waiting plane would load, takeoff and ascend to 10,000 ft. The jumpers would “float” for 5-6 minutes and land on the beach in the selected area. The master jumper would be in radio contact with the ground crew at all times during the operation.
What is not mentioned here or at the commission meeting is that the beach in front of Sliders is directly on the flight path of one of only 2 instrument approaches the the Fernandina Beach Airport. Many aircraft operators are required to fly an instrument approach if it is available, even in clear weather. Although the burden to see and avoid aircraft traffic remains while flying an instrument approach, try to comprehend the difficulty to spot a falling human body falling 2 miles a minute from a machine traveling 3 miles a minute while also trying to spot aircraft traffic near the airport. This alone is not safe. Never mind that the beach access in question is the only access within city limits where beach driving is allowed and this would be the first vendor in recent history allowed to use a city beach for private gain. The city currently doesn’t even allow a hotdog to be sold or beach umbrella rental vendor to operate on city beaches but now a private skydive operation could drop 10+ skydivers per morning??
Dave Good point, What happens if they go into the roundabout at sliders. Gotta love the City. They are worried about horses stepping on bathers but not to concerned about people falling onto a crowed beach with cars trucks and many bathers and being close to a main restaurant and a traffic circle. Dave, just thinking about the hypocrisy in this is making me thank God for Corona
Tony – The City Commission did not approve this operation. They respectively listened, asked questions and commented. The presentation was for information only. They asked that the proposal be reviewed by the Airport Advisory Commission for its recommendation prior to any further step by the city. It will be on the AAC agenda for the October 9th meeting at City Hall; please come and hear all about it and hear and participate in the discussion.
Richard , I know the city hasn’t voted on this. Did I ever mention that in any of my reply’s that they did? I guess you may have missed that I said I had read about these issues and I was asking questions concerning these issues. What could the airport advisory committee with all due respect add to this issue of jumpers landing on a crowed beach near a main traffic circle? They control the airport not the beaches or the safety of beach goers. To be perfectly honest I am not interested in what the airport committee has to say. They don’t have the finale vote on this issue. I am concerned with respect to the way way the commission will vote. Lets say the committee tells the commission—no problem as far as the operation of the airport is concerned. Will that make it safe, will that stop the 8 am noise created by these flights, will that make it all ok? I don’t think so
Tony – You said “the city are worried about horses stepping on bathers but not to concerned about people falling onto a crowded beach…” That could not be farther from the truth. Each of the commissioners expressed concerns about the safety of the operation, the safety of the jumpers and the safety of the beach goers and are seeking additional information. The AAC has responsibility to make recommendations about all aviation related activity in and around the airport, not just at the airport.
Richard, Your right. I did say the City is worried about horses and sunbathers –that’s a fact. That is what they said and stated at the meeting. You are also right, and I miss stated it when I said the Commission is not worried about the safety issues. You are also right that the AAC has the responsibility to recommend on all aviation activity in and around the airport. I guess it is just the hypocrisy of the whole thing that has me baffled. Why would they entertain the thought of people landing on a crowed beach, near a busy intersection? When they publicly stated their concern about horses while completely avoiding the real issue of horses and the obvious solution. The Commission has to authority to just say no. Why did they even pass it along to the ACC?. The city has a history of kicking the old can down the road and this appears as if it is the start of just that. I do stand corrected on the statements. I have read with great interest the reporting you have done on this topic and I appreciate it, and I am sure everyone does. I do have one question. I have stated I am against it. Where do you stand on this topic for or against?
Tony – The gentleman who accompanied the operator of SkyDiveAruba at the City Commission presented a brief, walk on, overview of the proposal to the AAC at our August meeting (I think). I believe that he is the brother of the operation owner. Our concerns at that time were for the safety of the beach goers, the apparent inconvenience of the established beach goers and that the proposal was for landing behind Sliders where the City actually invites beach goers with its Seaside Park. We also discussed the interference with other air traffic which may or may not be in contact with JAX Approach or JAX Center. We specifically asked if a commercial operation would be established at our airport (FHB) and he said that they would not initially hanger nor store any of their aircraft at FHB. The only initial benefit to the airport would be in increased fuel sales. To me, this then means that he would not be obliged to carry the liability insurance as required of all commercial operations at FHB. He made it clear that he carries liability insurance suitable for parachuting operations. That said, operations at FHB must show the City of Fernandina Beach as named insured. I do not know if he would/could be required to Commercial General Liability insurance with CoFB as named if he only has a storefront on Sadler. That is a question for the City Staff to answer. The presenter Tuesday night tried to address some of issues that the AAC brought up, but he fell far short in my opinion. Personally, I do not believe skydivers landing on our crowded beach “fits” within our community.
BTW, the City Commission Tuesday night was not asked nor were they required to make any decision. The presentation was for information only. They didn’t kick the can down the road. Also, I think that the “Horse Poop” issue was on the agenda as the first reading of a proposed revision to an ordinance. The citizens spoke and they listened and are now seeking further information before making a final decision about a topic which can effect all our quality of life. I applaud them for taking the issue up, seeking to understand, doing investigative legwork and ultimately making the right decision for all of us.
Richard, Glade to hear your on the side of common sense with the skydivers. The horse poop issue should never have gotten to the point it is at. It is driven by few homeowners. Not a substantial percentage of the people. Not even a small percentage of the people. What was the right decision ? to turn it over to yet another workshop? Sorry, that in my opinion is just kicking the can down the road. This horse issue is about one thing and one thing only—horse poop. Sorry to sound so blunt, but everything else is just smoke and mirrors, the coggins test, the sunbathers–all that is just skirting the real issue–poop. There is only one simple answer to this whole issue and it is a $100 drop bag. Too much time and energy has been wasted on something that should have been handled at a lower level such as the City Manager meeting with all the concerned parties and trying to work out a solution that was fair to everyone. I mean seriously—the city comes up with some issue about 4 hours notification to the police before a horse owner can ride? Sorry that’s not doing the leg work and governing. In fact statements like that scare me. The horse owners didn’t even know about the issue when it was first brought up from what I read. Why can a few, and I mean a few upset homeowners get a resolvable issue brought up to the commission to the extent they have to have a workshop on it. Truth be told they were elected to make decisions. An example is the waterfront project. This has been kicked down the road for over 20 years, they just recently wanted to put it to a straw pole? One commission had it all in place, it was de funded and 3 years later we are still talking about it and know asking the public to vote on it. This City has a history of kicking the can down the road that is an undeniable fact. Sorry but there are times the Commission has to just make some decisions on their own.
One more question – The skydiving company will have an office in Fernandina Beach, they want to use our airport for both fueling and takeoffs and landings with jumpers and they want an area for their jumpers to land on our beach BUT their airplanes will not be based at our airport. Why do you think that is?
My concern is for the powered parasails that fly up and down the beach without any type of communications and they will have not have any way of knowing when the jumpers are around.
Lou, that is a very good point, not only will the jumpers have to look out for bathers trucks, cars, landing in someone’s soup at sliders, landing on a turtle nest, and that pesty little traffic circle, they will have to look out for para-sails. I wonder if kids will be allowed to fly kites there. Richard also pointed out there is currently a skydiving operation in effect here. The funny part is that this company is saying this will bring more tourists to the Island—-folks we currently have a skydiving operation on the island for years. I just called the airport to confirm this. With all this being said, and the insertion of of common sense, why is this going before any committee to be reviewed? Could the best and most cost and time effective answer be, no thank you?
Richard, Lou and Tony,
All great points. I understand the desire for the skydiving company to land on a popular place on the beach for the marketing value; the same reason the parasail companies like to run back and forth along crowded beach areas in other locations.
This business will have minimal revenue impact to the City. As noted, the planes won’t be based at our airport so the City will get the small commision of the fuel sales and the business permit fee.
Just doesn’t seem to be a prudent thing to do from a safety perspective due to all the issues identified: IFR flight path conflict, kite flying, paragliding conflict, danger to people below. How often have we seen the videos of experienced military skydivers and commercial parachutists being blown off at the last few seconds and snagging on power or flag poles at stadiums or landing on cars in parking lots instead of on the field. Yes, it only happens rarely, but this location has such a narrow threshold of safety with dire consequences for a failure.
I know that Skydiving can be a lot of fun, but let’s face it; it is dangerous, and there is no question about that fact, even if it is “Tandem .” I can understand that our town may allow a company to operate a “Skydiving” enterprise based at our airport, if the town makes a reasonable amount of money in rental fees at the airport, and in refueling and maintenance fees. I believe that the company should be well insured, to the point that our town is certainly off the hook in the event that something goes wrong, and the town has no liability whatsoever. It is just plain crazy for a company to suggest to our town that we allow them to make trips up and down the beach, disturbing the serenity of our natural environment with visual and noise pollution. Why would we kill our goose that lays golden eggs for us, just so some out of town company can make some money? To suggest dropping divers off near sliders goes beyond “crazy.” I feel that to make such a suggestion, in and of it’self, shows very poor judgement. I sincerely hope that our Commissioners will not allow any more businesses of any sort, to operate in our town; that would increase the air traffic up and down the shore line.Skydiving and jet skying along our beaches, is counter-productive to the serene beaches that attract tourist to our Island. Whoever made the decision to have the existing skydiving company drop it’s divers off at the airport, was a wise person. One skydiving company for our tiny island certainly should be enough. I would understand if another company wished to keep their plane here, and fly divers over to Yulee or Hilliard for a drop. However, I feel our town should still limit how many flights a day they could make. We do not need additional noise pollution ruining our peaceful island.