UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. RECEIVED
HTX HELICOPTERS, LLC, JUL 28 2021 D/B/A HELIBLOCK, Complainant, PART 16 DOCKETS
V. FAA Docket No. 16-21-10
RIIHIODE ISLAND AIRPORT CORPORATION,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT RHODE ISLAND AIRPORT CORPORATION'S ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT
Designation of persons to receive service for Rhode Island Airport Corporation:
W. Eric Pilsk [email protected] Adam Gerchick agerchickkaplankirsch.com KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP 1634 I (Eye) Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 955-5600
David Y. Bannard [email protected] KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP 101 Federal Street, Suite 1900 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 329-4687
1 ANSWER
Respondent Rhode Island Airport Corporation ("RIAC" or "Respondent"), by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(h), hereby responds to the allegations ofthe Complaint filed by HTX Helicopters, LLC, d/b/a HeliBlock ("HeliBlock" or
"Complainant") as set forth in the numbered paragraphs below. RIAC denies all allegations contained in the Complaint except to the extent that such allegations are specifically admitted in this Answer.
In further support of its Answer, and pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(i), RIAC submits a
Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Its Answer To The Complaint, filed with this Answer and
herein incorporated by reference, with a concise statement ofthe facts upon which RIAC relies
and a discussion of the legal principles demonstrating that the Complaint should be dismissed in
its entirety and RIAC found to be in compliance with its federal grant assurances.
Each numbered paragraph below corresponds with the paragraph ofthe Complaint that is
numbered identically, and the admission, denial, or other statement within each numbered
paragraph below pertains to the allegation(s) ofthe corresponding paragraph in the Complaint.
1. RIAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny these allegations, but
RIAC does not contest HeliBlock's statement of who it is.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. RIAC admits only that HeliBlock operates an aerial sightseeing business out of
Block Island State Airport ("BID") and that it operates an aerial sightseeing business from an
FBO located adjacent to Westerly State Airport ("WST") and otherwise denies the allegations of
Paragraph 4.
2 5. RIAC admits oniy that HeliBlock operates a charter service between BID and an
FBO located adjacent to WST and otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 5.
6. RIAC admits only that it is charged with the management of all Rhode Island state airport facilities, including both WST and BID. RIAC does not own any Rhode Island state airport facilities, and thus that allegation is denied.
7. Admitted.
8. Admitted.
9. Admitted.
10. Admitted.
11. Admitted.
12. RIAC admits only that the leases between RIAC and HeliBlock gave HeliBlock exclusive use of office space at the BID passenger terminal. RIAC denies all other allegations in this paragraph, including but not limited to the allegation that HeliBlock's ramp access under the
lease was "illusory."
13. Denied. RIAC has long had a policy requiring based commercial aeronautic
operators to have a lease to operate at RIAC operated airports. In October 2020, that policy was
memorialized in a written Leasing Policy. Effective July 1, 2021, that policy is incorporated into
Minimum Standards for RIAC-operated airports.
14. Denied. RIAC has consistently required commercial aircraft operators to enter
into a lease or other written agreement as a condition of basing their operations out ofthe Rhode
Island state airports operated and managed by RIAC. RIAC does not require transient operators
to secure a lease merely to fly into or out of such Rhode Island state airports. 15. Admitted only to the extent that RIAC has not required HeliBlock to enter into a lease or written agreement with respect to HeliBlock's commercial operations adjacent to WST because HeliBlock operates from an FBO that is not located on WST. Otherwise, the allegations are denied.
16. RTAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny these allegations.
17. RIAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny these allegations.
18. RIAC admits only that its own prescribed noise-mitigation measures include those listed in Paragraph 18 ofthe Complaint. RIAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny whether HeliBlock has, in fact, complied with such noise-mitigation measures.
19. Denied. HeliBlock has failed to honor its indemnity obligations under its lease with RIAC and has failed to pay RIAC' s costs of litigation for the matter described in Paragraphs
21 and 22 of the Complaint pursuant to the indemnity provision ofthe lease.
20. Admitted.
21. Admitted.
22. RIAC admits these allegations, but states that HeliBlock moved to dismiss the
Block Island plaintiffs' ("Plaintiffs") initial complaint in part on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had failed to include RIAC as a necessary party, and that HeliBlock suggested that the Plaintiffs assert a claim of inverse condemnation against RIAC. By its actions, HeliBlock exposed RIAC to unnecessary litigation and financial risk.
23. Admitted.
24. RIAC admits only that HeliBlock objected to RIAC's tender and claim for
indemnification and that it asserted the arguments provided in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint as
El its basis for such objections. Otherwise, RIAC denies all allegations in Paragraph 24, including but not limited to the validity of RIAC's legal arguments.
25. RIAC admits only that RIAC claimed that HeliBlock's refusal to accept its tender and fully indemnify and defend RIAC was a breach ofthe lease. RIAC denies that HeliBlock's legal conclusion that it owed no duty of indemnification under state law was either correct or made in good faith.
26. RIAC admits oniy that RIAC claimed that HeliBlock (further) breached its lease by failing to promptly notify it ofthe litigation with the Plaintiffs. RIAC denies that there
existed clear evidence contrary to RIAC's claim.
27. Admitted.
28. Admitted.
29. Denied. RIAC's decision was based on HeliBlock's failure to indemnify RIAC in
compliance with HeliBlock's lease obligations, not HeliBlock's decision to contest or challenge
the indemnity provision. Furthermore, RIAC specifically denies that its position was "dubious."
30. RIAC admits only that it conditioned the possibility of future leases upon
HeliBlock agreeing to honor its indemnity obligations under the lease and denies the other
allegations of Paragraph 30.
31. RIAC admits only that it is free to require a lease for the use of office space
within the terminal building. Otherwise, Paragraph 31 ofthe Complaint sets forth allegations of
law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response to such allegations of law is
necessary, RIAC denies all such allegations within Paragraph 31 that are inconsistent with
applicable law and FAA regulation and guidance. 32. RIAC admits oniy that it has received federal funding for the construction or improvement ofthe physical plant at BID. Otherwise, Paragraph 32 ofthe Complaint sets forth allegations of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response to such allegations of law is necessary, RIAC denies all such allegations within Paragraph 32 that are inconsistent with applicable law and FAA regulation and guidance.
33. RIAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny these allegations. RIAC states that HeliBlock has operated at BID since May 3, 2021, without a lease or permission from
RIAC over RIAC's objections.
34. Admitted.
35. Denied.
36. Denied, as explained in detail in RIAC's Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Its
Answer To The Complaint filed with this Answer.
37. Denied. In particular, RIAC denies that any "similarly situated" commercial
operators use BID without a lease or other agreement. RTAC also observes that fleliBlock has
offered no facts, evidence, or citations to support its allegation that "numerous similarly situated
commercial operators use BID without the benefit of a written lease or other agreement," despite
the requirement of 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(b)(3) that complaints filed under Part 16 "[p]rovide a
concise but complete statement of the facts relied upon to substantiate each allegation." This
failure to comply with § 16.23(b)(3) pervades the Complaint and makes it significantly more
challenging for RIAC to research or respond to HeliBlock's allegations.
38. RTAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny these allegations.
39. Admitted.
40. RIAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny these allegations. 41. RIAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny these allegations.
42. RIAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny these allegations.
43. Denied. RIAC has chosen not to "evict" HeliBlock from, or otherwise terminate or curtail, its lease at BID. To the contrary, RIAC permitted HeliBlock to continue operating at
BID for the full duration of its lease, which expired last year. RIAC has merely elected not to offer HeliBlock a new lease based on HeliBlock's failure to honor its indemnity obligations and the substantial litigation and financial risk to which HeliBlock's actions have, and continue to, expose RIAC.
44. Denied. The July 9, 2020 letter to which Paragraph 44 ofthe Complaint refers only reflected RIAC's intent to prohibit fleliBlock from basing its commercial aeronautical operations at BID, not to prohibit HeliBlock from using BID in general, such as for genuinely transient use. The context of the letter makes this distinction clear, including with respect to the letter's request that HeliBlock "remove any of its belongings" from the airport, which indicates that the letter concerns HeliBlock's ongoing attempt to use BID as a base of operations, not merely as an occasional facility for refueling and other transient use. See Compl., Ex. M.
45. Denied. RIAC has not attempted to "ban HeliBlock from the use of any part of
{BID]." As RIAC has made clear to HeliBlock repeatedly, RIAC is prepared to extend a new
lease to HeliBlock if HeliBlock respects and fulfills its indemnity obligations under its most recent BID lease. Furthermore, as explained above in Paragraph 44 ofthis Answer, RIAC has
not sought to exclude HeliBlock from BID entirely, as Paragraph 45 ofthe Complaint asserts.
Rather, as explained in Paragraph 44 of this Answer, RIAC has sought only to prevent HeliBlock
from using BID as a base of commercial operations, and then only unless and until HeliBlock
respects and fulfills its indemnity obligations to RIAC, at which point RIAC is prepared to offer
7 HeliBlock a new lease of space at BID. Otherwise, Paragraph 45 ofthe Complaint sets forth
allegations of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response to such
allegations of law is necessary, RIAC denies all such allegations within Paragraph 45 that are
inconsistent with applicable law and FAA regulation and guidance.
46. RIAC denies these allegations for the reasons set forth in Paragraphs 43-45 of this Answer.
47. RIAC admits that HeliBlock has discussed informal settlement, including initially
offering to mediate, of RIAC's lease-breach cross-claim against HeliBlock in the Rhode Island
state-court matter. However, RTAC observes that RTAC, not fleliBlock, initially proposed such
mediation, and that such efforts were unsuccessful.
48. Denied. As HeliBlock's own Exhibit N reflects, RIAC encouraged mediation of
at least some claims between the parties in the Rhode Island state-court lawsuit, and RIAC
sought HeliBlock's commitment to mediate before RIAC would agree to a meeting between
HeliBlock's and RIAC's principals. See Compl., Ex. N. However, RIAC never actually reached
an agreement with, or made a commitment to, HeliBlock to mediate any such claims. See id.
49. Denied. As explained above in Paragraph 48 of this Answer, RIAC never made
any agreement to mediate; there was no agreement on which to renege.
50. RIAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny these allegations.
51. RIAC admits that it believes it has certain authority to restrict HeliBlock's
operations in conformity with its grant assurances, but RIAC denies that it has insisted it has
unfettered discretion to restrict HeliBlock under such assurances. RTAC recognizes that the grant
assurances require RIAC to, inter alia, provide access to its airports to aeronautical operators without unjust discrimination. RIAC' s actions against HeliBlock do not violate RIAC' s grant assurances.
52. RTAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny whether HeliBlock "has always been ready, willing, and able to pay rent for the continued use of its original operational zone on [BID]," as RIAC lacks information necessary to speak to HeliBlock's state ofmind in that respect. RIAC denies that it has "attempted to sever any type ofbusiness dealings with
HeliBlock regarding" BID. As RIAC has made clear repeatedly in this Answer, RIAC is prepared to renew HeliBlock's lease at BID if HeliBlock agrees to honor and fulfill its indemnification obligations under its most recent lease. See, e.g., ¶ 45 supra.
53. RIAC denies that RIAC "has attempted to ban [HeliBlock] from any use of
[BID]." See ¶ 45 supra. RIAC is without sufficient information to admit or deny the other allegations of Paragraph 53.
54. RIAC denies that it has attempted to "ban [HeliBlock] from any use of [BID]."
See ¶ 45 supra. RIAC further denies that HeliBlock's business "necessarily requires the use of
[BID] for take-offs and landings." The Complaint provides no reason to conclude that an
operator of aerial sightseeing tours of coastal Rhode Island and Block Island cannot takeoff or
land from another location, including one on the Rhode Island mainland, which is approximately
nine miles from Block Island. RIAC is without sufficient information to either confirm or deny
the nature of HeliBlock's business, but it does not dispute HeliBlock's characterization thereof.
55. Denied.
56. Denied. RIAC takes particular exception to this apparently perfunctory
allegation, which fleliBlock asserts without any evidence whatsoever, in violation of 14 C.F.R.
§16.23(b)(3). RIAC operates BID and all airports it operates in a safe and serviceable condition. Furthermore, to the extent Paragraph 56 of the Complaint sets forth allegations of law, no response is necessary. To the extent that a response to such allegations of law is necessary,
RIAC denies all such allegations within Paragraph 56 that are inconsistent with applicable law and FAA regulation and guidance.
57. Paragraph 57 ofthe Complaint sets forth allegations of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response to such allegations of law is necessary, RIAC denies all such allegations within Paragraph 57 that are inconsistent with applicable law and FAA regulation and guidance.
58. Paragraph 58 of the Complaint sets forth allegations of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response to such allegations of law is necessary, RIAC denies all such allegations within Paragraph 58 that are inconsistent with applicable law and FAA regulation and guidance.
59. Denied. As explained above, RIAC denies that it has attempted to "ban
[HeliBlock] from any use of [BID]." See ¶ 45 supra. RIAC is without sufficient information to
admit or deny whether HeliBlock is a safe Part 135 operator. RIAC notes that the letter
HeliBlock offers in support of its allegations in Paragraph 59 ofthe Complaint was written four
years ago, prior to the commencement ofthe Plaintiffs' litigation against HeliBlock, and does not
state RIAC's current position with respect to HeliBlock.
60. Paragraph 60 ofthe Complaint sets forth allegations of law to which no response
is necessary. To the extent that a response to such allegations of law is necessary, RIAC denies
all such allegations within Paragraph 60 that are inconsistent with applicable law and FAA
regulation and guidance. RIAC further denies that HeliBlock has been directly and substantially
affected by any such alleged violations of law or regulation.
10 61. Denied. RIAC requests that the FAA find RIAC to be in compliance with its grant assurances.
For the foregoing reasons, and as more fully set forth in RIAC's Memorandum of Law in
Support of Its Answer to the Complaint filed herewith and incorporated herein by reference,
RIAC respectfully requests that the FAA dismiss the Complaint and find that RIAC is not in violation of its federal obligations.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of July 2021.
W. Eric Pilsk [email protected] Adam Gerchick agerchickkaplankirsch.corn KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP 1634 I (Eye) Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 955-5600
David Y. Bannard [email protected] KAPLAN KJRSCH & ROCKWELL LLP 101 Federal Street, Suite 1900 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 329-4687
Counselfor Respondent Rhode Island Airport Corporation
11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have on this 27th day of July 2021, served by email the foregoing
"Respondent's Answer to the Complaint" on the following persons:
Office ofthe Chief Counsel Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20591 9-AWA-AGC-Part- 1 [email protected]
Jeffrey R. Lindequist, Esq. Law Office of Michael D. Parker One Monarch Place, Suite 2220 Springfield, MA 01144 jlindequistmdparkerlaw.com
W. Eric Pilsk