Wilmington International Airport responds to company making FAA complaint
WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — Wilmington International Airport has released a statement over a complaint to the federal government about the airport’s role in actions that have spurred a lawsuit.
Cape Fear Coastal Aviation is a flight school based at Wilmington International Airport. They are suing Modern Aviation, the company that leases office space and hangars to the flight school. CFCA claims Modern Aviation issued a termination notice back in December to make room for another flight school, despite more than a year remaining on its lease.
CFCA attorney Cory Reiss also claims Wilmington International Airport failed to protect CFCA from Modern’s actions, so CFCA filed a complaint with the Federal Aviation Administration against the airport late last month.
Below is the full statement released by ILM about the complaint, including a statement from Airport Executive Director Jeff Bourk:
CFCA Access to Airport Facilities
Since ILM’s prior press release, ILM has reconfirmed that (1) CFCA has Wi-Fi access at the Modern Aviation (“Modern”) facility, (2) CFCA has access to the ramp common areas needed to run its business, and (3) Modern continues to provide access to overnight ramp parking, hangar space, fueling, GPU, lavatory services, towing, and other standard FBO services provided by Modern on the same basis as other transient users. Over the past several months, ILM has also offered CFCA alternative arrangements for storing its aircraft, including the possibility of constructing temporary structures to protect aircraft from weather.
Pilot Program
Epic Flight Academy (“Epic”) notified ILM that it was interested in establishing a flight school at the airport. ILM treated this request as it treats all requests for access. Specifically, ILM promptly responded with ILM’s Minimum Standards for General Aviation, applicable to all general aviation users, as well as contact information for Modern and Aero Center Wilmington so that Epic could discuss leasing space at the airport for its services. It also provided a copy to a Board member of the Board of Trustees of Cape Fear Community College to discuss options.
ARQ Development
On January 24, 2025, CFCA’s partner, ARQ, presented site plans for its planned FBO facility at ILM. Following ILM’s technical review of the site plan and input from ILM’s engineering consultant, ILM responded with comments on February 14, 2025. ILM understands that ARQ took issue with only one of the comments, related to hangar doors. Since February, the parties have been in further discussions about this comment. In short, ARQ’s position is at odds with FAA recommendations on airport design for airport safety. ILM takes its compliance obligations, including those related to the safety of the airport, very seriously. The FAA has prescribed specific recommendations and guidelines for airport design in the form of Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13B. These guidelines reflect the FAA’s recommendations for “establishing an acceptable level of safety, efficiency, and capacity” for commercial airports. These guidelines are mandatory for projects funded with certain types of federal assistance, and for other projects, they provide the basis for the airport to comply with its obligations as a FAA-certificated commercial airport. ILM, like other airports, views these guidelines as essential tools to ensure compliance with FAA-requirements.
CFCA’s proposed site plan included hangar doors that would have blocked taxilanes and impeded access to other hangars when opened. When open, these doors would encroach on the Taxilane
Object Free Area (“TLOFA”), which is defined by the FAA as an area clear of objects not fixed-byfunction (e.g. doors) to provide vertical and horizontal wingtip clearance.
CFCA’s proposed hangar door locations was in direct conflict with several FAA safety recommendations, including that:
• The TLOFA be clear from the taxilane centerline to the face of the T-hangar of all above-ground objects, which would include overhanging hangar doors;
• Hangars should be located in a manner that does not adversely affect the use of adjacent taxilanes and aprons; and
• Airports should consider the position of a hangar door when in the open position to avoid the door becoming a potential wingtip hazard for adjacent taxilanes.
In other words, CFCA’s objection to ILM’s concerns is contrary to basic safety and efficiency recommendations from the FAA applicable to all commercial airports in the United States. ILM has
provided ARQ with the basis of its objections and will continue to encourage ARQ to evaluate alternative designs that conform with recommended FAA design standards. To be clear: ILM will not approve a site plan by ARQ or any other tenant at the airport that does not comply with these standards.
Executive Director Jeff Bourk offered the following:
“While ILM is not able to comment on CFCA’s pending FAA complaint, I remain confident in the legality of ILM’s actions and its commitment to supporting the general aviation community at the airport. We expect our general aviation tenants to comply with the law and to treat each other with professionalism and respect. We will not hesitate to take appropriate action to ensure compliance.”
