AFS-12-407-E

Exemption No. 10649

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

ROSS McCURDY Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0582

 

for an exemption from § 61.113(a) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

 By letter dated May 21, 2012, Mr. Ross McCurdy, 10 Meadow View Drive, Smithfield, RI

02917 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from 

§ 61.113(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if 

granted, would allow the petitioner and other pilots to receive compensation for expenses for 

promotional and educational flights in a Cessna CE-182.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 61.113(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person who holds a private pilot 

certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or 

property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as 

pilot in command of an aircraft.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

In his petition, Mr. McCurdy describes a plan to fly a modified CE-182 aircraft on a flight 

from Rhode Island to California for the purposes of demonstrating use of alternative 

powerplants and fuels. Mr. McCurdy has named the flight “Coast to Coast Biofuel Airplane 

Project.” The aircraft will be flown by Mr. McCurdy and unnamed other pilots. 

Mr. McCurdy seeks an exemption from the requirements of part 61 so that the pilots may 

receive compensation in the form of payment for expenses incurred by flying the aircraft to 

California. 
2

The petitioner is a holder of an FAA private pilot certificate. He states he is a high school 

science teacher and works on innovative renewable energy projects that provide educational 

opportunities and promote renewable energy. In his petition, Mr. McCurdy describes his 

involvement in projects unrelated to aviation that promote of renewable energy, such as a 

rock-and-roll music band and driving a zero-emissions Model T automobile. 

The aircraft the petitioner proposes to use for his flight is a CE-182 aircraft (N4468N) 

modified with a SMA SR305-230 diesel engine. The aircraft uses special fuel described as a 

50/50 blend of renewable jet fuel mixed with petroleum Jet-A fuel. The purpose of the flight 

is to demonstrate use of the modified powerplant and renewable aviation fuels. 

Mr. McCurdy states that expenses related to the proposed flight will be paid by sponsors and 

unnamed other sources. Pilots flying the aircraft on the proposed flight will not receive any 

compensation other than payment of expenses for the flight and related logistics. In addition, 

he lists two organizations that are involved with the flight, the Paramus Flying Club and Aero 

Energy Association, both Rhode Island-based nonprofit organizations.

The project, according to the petitioner, will benefit the public because it will demonstrate 

emerging powerplant technologies and renewable aviation fuels. The petitioner emphasizes 

the importance of media coverage for the flight, which he claims will cause excitement and 

interest in science and sharing of aviation job opportunities. 

The petition includes lists of the purported benefits of using renewable aviation fuels, 

including improved efficiency, elimination of lead additives, domestic fuel production, and 

greater reliability and safety over traditional aviation powerplants. The petitioner also 

described public benefits associated with the project, such as educational outreach on aviation 

safety issues and use of renewable fuels. 

The petitioner states that the proposal will not adversely affect safety, citing his extensive 

research and planning for the flight. The petitioner indicates he consulted several aviationrelated organizations on flight logistics and that several pilots (including Mr. McCurdy) will 

fly the aircraft in the safest manner possible. 

The FAA requested additional information from the petitioner about the airworthiness of the 

aircraft. The petitioner provided general description of the aircraft, its modifications, and the 

fuel used. The petitioner also sent a copy of FAA Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin 

(SAIB) NE-11-56 Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuel, issued on September 14, 2011. Both documents 

were added to the federal docket. 

 A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2012 

(77 FR 42802). No comments were received.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:
3

The FAA reviewed the petition from Mr. McCurdy and we find a grant of exemption would 

not provide an equivalent level of safety to that of the regulations. The following is a 

summary of our analysis.

Installing alternative powerplants on general aviation aircraft is not uncommon. We find that 

simply flying an aircraft with a FAA-approved (albeit nontraditional) powerplant that uses an 

unusual fuel does not justify granting relief to the petitioner from the limitations of his private 

pilot certificate. 

Petitions for exemption from private pilot limitations are not unique. The FAA has responded 

on numerous occasions to individuals seeking an exemption to receive compensation for 

flying without holding a commercial pilot certificate. Most proposals, including this one, do 

not rise to the level of necessity that would justify a deviation from the standards of part 61. 

In this denial, the FAA does not intend to discourage the petitioner from his objective of 

promoting the issues that interest him. In this case, the petitioner is able to pursue his flying 

activities in the CE-182 aircraft within the bounds of the regulations, with no impact on the 

public benefit outcomes the petitioner has predicted.

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 an exemption from 14 CFR 

§ 61.113(a) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on October, 19, 2012 .

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards

 Service