Exemption No. 10696 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

JOSEPH A. JENNINGS Regulatory Docket No. 

AFS-11-348-E 

FAA-2011-0626

for an exemption from § 21.197(a)(1) 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated June 6, 2011, Mr. Joseph A. Jennings, 15211 Coronado St., Westminster, 

California 92683, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption 

from § 21.197(a)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed 

exemption, if granted, would allow Mr. Jennings to issue special flight permits (SFP) to 

conduct customer demonstration flights on used aircraft and return to the original departure 

point. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 21.197(a)(1) prescribes that a special flight permit may be issued for an aircraft 

that may not currently meet applicable airworthiness requirements but is capable of 

safe flight, for the following purposes: Flying the aircraft to a base where repairs, 

alterations, or maintenance are to be performed, or to a point of storage. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states an exemption would be beneficial to exercise his authority as a 

Designated Airworthiness Representative (DAR) (Certificate No. DART100251WP). 

Mr. Jennings requested this exemption be in effect for at least three years and include 

operations outside the United States. 
2

The petitioner states the purpose of this request is to conduct customer demonstration 

flights on used aircraft and return to the original departure point. 

The petitioner uses a customer demonstration flight to explain his need for an 

exemption. He states that during a customer demonstration flight, an exemption would 

allow him to issue a SFP allowing this flight to take-off and land at the same airport. 

He further states he has issued SFPs for transport category airplanes released out of 

heavy maintenance. He contends these airplanes meet all airworthiness requirements 

except they are required to fly on a SFP since they are not operated in accordance with 

14 CFR parts 121 or 135. He states the SFP acts as a deviation to part 125. 

The petitioner states this type of flight happens several times a day in the transport 

category industry. With no provisions in the regulations to conduct customer 

demonstration flights on used airplanes, the flight takes place under the authority of 

14 CFR § 21.197(a)(1) or (a)(2). The petitioner states the flight crew returns to the 

origination point without being questioned. The petitioner states that several requests 

have been made to modify the rule to accommodate this type of flight and no changes 

were ever granted. 

The petitioner states that operators and lease companies are seeking cheaper repair 

facilities to conduct heavy maintenance outside the United States. As a result, they are 

applying for SFP’s during the transition phase of selling or re-positioning an airplane 

with another operator in a different country. 

The petitioner states safety would not be affected since the issuance of the SFP to a 

maintenance base would be under the same guidelines of the SFP that allows the 

airplane to return to the original departure point. 

The petitioner states an exemption, if granted, would serve the public since a more 

efficient method of conducting customer demonstration flights on used aircraft would 

be available to industry. The petitioner states there are no provisions in the regulations 

to conduct customer demonstrations flights on used airplanes. 

 A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2011 

(76 FR 48940). Four comments were received. One comment was against granting the 

petition and two were in favor of granting the petition, and another comment was from the 

petitioner. 

One commenter stated a representative of the FAA should not have DAR privileges 

that are not available to an FAA inspector. The commenter believes safety would be 

compromised if the aircraft does not meet type design in some manner and 

recommends that a designee of the FAA is not able to issue a SFP for functional check 

flights. 
3

Two commenter’s agree with granting an exemption stating there is nothing unsafe 

about flying an aircraft when released from a maintenance visit and is in compliance 

with its type design and in a condition for safe operation. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

This request will only provide a cost benefit to Mr. Jennings and the brokers that 

employ Mr. Jennings. It would allow Mr. Jennings to market a process no one else can 

provide and the brokers to operate aircraft for sales purposes without the expense of 

having to meet the operational safety requirements of 14 CFR. An exemption would 

not be in the public interest as it would allow the operations of aircraft that do not meet 

safety or operational requirements with passengers on board. 

The purpose of 14 CFR § 21.197(a)(1) is to provide for the safe operations of an 

aircraft that does not meet the airworthiness standards, but is determined to be in a safe 

condition to be moved to a location where the maintenance can be performed to return 

it to an airworthy condition. One of the assurances of providing safety of the public 

during these operations is that only essential crew members are allowed on board the 

aircraft for these flights. 

When an aircraft is removed from an inspection program the aircraft no longer meets 

the requirements of 14 CFR parts 21, 43, and 91 and therefore the airworthiness 

certificate is void or no longer valid. This renders the aircraft un-airworthy and the 

carriage of passengers is not authorized. Without an inspection program there is no 

basis for determining the aircraft is airworthy or to allow for the carriage of passengers. 

The petitioner wishes to use a SFP to enable a customer demonstration flight. There is 

no need for a special flight permit for customer demonstration. An aircraft that is 

properly maintained and operated in accordance with the regulations may carry 

passengers, enabling customer demonstration. The petitioner also states that the SFP 

acts as a deviation to 14 CFR part 125. That statement is not correct, a deviation may 

only be granted under § 125.3. 

The petitioner also mentions the use of a SFP to allow an operational check after 

maintenance or alteration as required by 14 CFR § 91.407. A special flight permit is 

not required for flights after maintenance is performed. After an aircraft is properly 

returned to service by an authorized person, flights to verify that the flight 

characteristics have not been substantially affected and to make operational checks of 

the maintenance performed are allowed by § 91.407(b). 

Finally, neither the FAA nor its designees have the authority to issue any flight 

authorization to operate outside U.S. airspace. This is a matter of international law and 

sovereignty rights of other countries. The FAA authority over airspace ends at the U.S. 

boarder or 12 miles from the U.S. coastline. 
4

The FAA’s Decision: 

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the 

public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition for Mr. Joseph A. Jennings for 

an exemption from 14 CFR § 21.197(a)(1) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 08, 2013. 

/s/ 

Michael J. Zenkovich 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

 .