08/23/2010 12:46 8163294106 SAD PAGE 02/06 

O 

U.S. Department -J.O^^^^PORtAJinhi Small Aiqjlane Directorate 

of Transportation OOCKET OPPRIT^M -^ ^^^ ^"^'^ ^^^"'^° . 

f ''^1 VrttiAi lOl';^ Kansas City, Missouri 64106 

Federal Aviation 201!} kur: o-i r-. ^ 

Administration ^^'"^ ?3 P 2: ] 2 

AUG 2 0 2010 

Mr. Leland Snow 

President 

Air Tractor, Inc. 

P.O. Box 485 

Olney, TX 76374 

Dear Mr. Snow: 

We are enclosing a "corrected" copy to our previous denial of exemption letter to Air Tractor 

Inc., dated August 2, 2010. During the closeout of this project in our exemption computer 

system, the system inadvertently removed the exemption number and reallocated it to another 

petition for exemption. 

This "corrected" copy replaces the previous Exemption No. 10110 with Exemption No. 10116. 

Please refer to Exemption No. 1 Oil 6 in any future correspondence related to this exemption 

petition. 

We apologize for any inconvenience this causes. Please contact Mr. Peter L. Rouse, (816) 329-

4135, if you have any exemption specific questions, and Mr. Todd Tompkins, (816) 329-4199, if 

you have any questions concerning this correction. 

Sincerely, 

r:)/ 

John R. Colomy 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

Enclosure 
08/23/2010 12:46 8163294106 SAD PAGE 03/06 

Exemption No. 10116 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64106 

In the matter of the petition of 

AIR TRACTOR, INC 

for exemption from § 23.1001(b), (c)(2) 

and (c)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0468 

CORRECTED COPY 

The FAA is reissuing Denial of Exemption No. 10110 under Exemption No, 10116 to 

correct a number duplication error. The exemption number at the top of the page reflects 

the correct number. 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated April 23, 2010, Mr. Leland Snow, President, Air Tractor, Inc. (Air 

Tractor), P.O. Box 485, Olney, TX 76374 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Air Tractor for an exemption from § 23.1001, paragraphs (b), (c)(2) 

and (c)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, 

if granted, would permit type certification of the Air Tractor model AT-802/802A with a 

fuel jettisoning system that does not discharge clear of the aircraft. The aircraft will be 

used for the special purposes of Aerial Surveying and Patrolling. 

The petitioner requires relief from the follovying regulations: 

Section 23.1001(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, the fuel jettisoning system be 

demonstrated at maximum gross weight with tihe flaps up. Section 23.1001, 

paragraphs(c)(2) and (c)(3) prescribes, in pertinent part, the fuel jettisoning system 

discharges fuel clear of the aircraft and that no fumes or fuel enter the aircraft. 
08/23/2010 12:46 8163294106 SAD PAGE 04/06 

The petitioner states the following in their petition for exemption: 

"The FARs that we are petitiotving to modify for the above aircraft are 

23.1001 (b) where it says "must be demonstrated at maximum weight. 

Air Tractor petitions to demonstrate fiiel jettison at a gross weight of 13,000 

lbs or more since the absence of hoppers removes space to add the 3,000 

pounds of ballast required to bring the AT-802 test aircraft up to its 

certificated weight of 16,000 pounds. 

The FARs that we are petitioning to delete are 23.1001(c)(2) and 

23.1001(c)(3).'' 

The petitioner is requesting to perform the fiiel jettisoning testing at a weight other 

than specified in 23,1001(b), and also delete 23.1001(c)(2) and 23.1001(c)(3) from the 

certification basis. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

"Reasons for the deletion of these 2 FARs: 

The wing angle of incidence and the highly cambered airfoil cause the AT802/802A to fly in a tail-high position, which provides good visibility for 

the pilot. But tail-high flight results in a low pressure area under the 

fuselage. The enclosed photo of an AT-802 releasing fire retardant shows 

that while most of the retardant drops clear of the aircraft, there are some 

wisps that impinge on the aft part of the belly. 

It is possible that small droplets of fuel would enter the fuselage through 

the small openings for rudder control cables or the opening around the 

fuselage structure for corrosion prevention. 

The cockpits in the AT-802/802A aircraft are sealed off from the rest of 

the fuselage but it is possible for the crew to detect the smell of fuel in 

case small amoimts of fuel enter the fuselage. 

For environmental reasons as well as conservation of our resources, Air 

Tractor petitions to use water with a red dye instead of Jet fuel. The test 

aircraft is painted gray, so that the red dye will be visible to trace the path 

of the water during jettisoning. 

Reasons why Air Tractor's petition should be granted: 

1. The AT-802 is a 2-seat restricted category aircraft with no passenger 

carrying authority. If is for the special purposes listed in FAR 21.25 to 
08/23/2010 12:46 8163294106 SAD PAGE 05/06 

include 21.25(b)(3) and 21.25(b)(4). For these purposes the aircraft must 

have long loiter time for border patrol or other surveillance activities. Its 

basic configuration cannot be altered to meet FARs for which we are 

seeking relief. 

2. The fire risk firom fuel impingement on the fuselage is negligible due to 

there being more than ten feet of distance between the exhaust stacks and 

the discharge port of the fuel jettison system. 

3. The FAA approved airplane flight manual lists several instructions to 

dump the hopper contents in the Emergency Procedures section. It also 

lists dumping the ferry fuel in the hopper in the ditching procedures. 

These AFM pages are enclosed. 

4. The hopper jettison feature provides more safety for flight over 

mountainous terrain where suitable landing sites are not available. A 

lowered landing speed resulting from jettisoning the hopper ftael lowers 

the airplane stall speed, improving the odds of surviving a crash. 

5. We believe that the fuel jettisoning requirement were aimed at large 

transport airplanes with an emergency landing requirement and not for 

smaller restricted category airplanes not carrying passengers for hire. 

6. The trans Atlantic delivery flight to overseas customers is made more 

safe because in case of engine failure over water, the fiiselage fuel can be 

jettisoned and the jettison valve closed so that the tank can be used to 

create more buoyancy and help prevent the aircraft fi-om sinking," 

A summary of this petition was published in the Federal Register for public comment 

on June 9,2010, (75 FR 32837). No comments were received. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA finds that in accordance with 14 CFR § 11.81(d), the petitioner must show 

that granting the request would be in the public interest, that is, benefit the public as a 

whole. Also the petitioner must show in accordance with § 11.81(e), the reasons why 

granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety, or how the exemption would 

provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek 

the exemption. 

The FAA has carefully reviewed the information contained in the petitioner's request 

for exemption. 
08/23/2010 12:46 8163294105 SAD PAGE 86/06 

The FAA disagrees with the petitioner's argument. 

• The exemption would allow the use of a jettisoning system that sprayed 

fliel over the outside of the airplane, which is contrary to the safety 

objective of the rules and contrary to the stated purpose of improving the 

odds of survival in a crash. In addition, the behavior of this fuel 

jettisoning system does not provide a level of safety equal to the rules from 

which Air Tractor Inc. requests exemption. 

• The FAA understands the rationale for fuel jettisoning in an emergency 

landing as provided by Air Tractor Inc. However, it is not in the public 

interest to allow fuel to discbarge on the aircraft and to allow fiimes or fuel 

to enter the aircraft 

• The applicant has not provided information on how testing at a reduced 

weight would be in the public interest, how it would not adversely affect 

safety, or how the exemption provides a level of safety equal to that 

provided by the rule. 

The FAA's Decision: 

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

public interest or maintain the level of safety required by the rule from which the 

exemption is sought. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 

§§ 40113 and 44701. as amended, delegated to me by the Administrator (14 CFR 

§ 11.91), the petition of Air Tractor, inc. for an exemption from 14 CFR, part 23, 

§ § 23.1001, paragraphs (b), (c)(2) and (c)(3) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on August 20, 2010, 

John R. Colomy 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service