Exemption No. 10342 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

AERO SPORTS CONNECTION FAA Docket FAA-2009-0340

 

for an exemption from § 91.319(a) 

of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated January 25, 2011, Mr. Jim Stephenson, CEO/President, Aero Sports 

Connection (ASC), 231 SW. Bonanza Glen, Lake City, Florida 32025, petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) to take action on ASC’s March 27, 2009, petition for an 

exemption from § 91.319(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption, if granted, would permit flight training for compensation or hire in 

experimental aircraft. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 91.319(a) prescribes that no person may operate an aircraft that has an 

experimental certificate – 

(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or 

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following:

In the petitioner’s March 27, 2009, letter, it requests an exemption “to allow training for hire 

in experimental and experimental light sport-aircraft.” The petitioner notes that such activity 

is also prohibited by operating limitations issued for the aircraft which restrict the carriage of 

persons or property for compensation or hire. 

The petitioner asserts that granting its petition would be in the public interest and specifically 

notes that training is critical and that training in similar aircraft models is important for 

AFS-11-154-E 
2

improving safety. The petitioner contends that even though special light-sport aircraft 

(S-LSA) have been certificated with the intent of permitting training to be conducted in them, 

this effort has not been entirely successful. The petitioner notes that of 93 models of S-LSA 

certificated, only 5 are powered parachutes (PPC), 9 are weight-shift-control (WSC) aircraft, 

72 are “fast clean enclosed ships,” and 2 are seaplanes. The petitioner further states that only 

one model is “open frame”; however, it does not replicate all of the unique characteristics of 

aircraft such as the Quicksilver for which an S-LSA version is not available. The petitioner 

also notes that since gyroplanes cannot be certificated as S-LSA, there is not an aircraft 

available for training that possesses characteristics similar to gyroplanes certificated as 

experimental aircraft. The petitioner emphasizes that by not granting its petition for 

exemption many aircraft that could be used as effective training aircraft will not be able to be 

used for this purpose. 

The petitioner notes that experimental aircraft owned by students may be used by instructors 

to provide training but states that this option is often impractical. The petitioner asserts that 

permitting training to be conducted for compensation in experimental aircraft will provide a 

level of safety greater than that which can be achieved in a regulatory structure which does 

not permit training in aircraft that match the characteristics of experimental aircraft. The 

petitioner notes that the relief it requests is similar to the relief provided in Exemption 6080, 

which demonstrated that safe training could be achieved in ultralight-type aircraft. 

The petitioner specifically recognizes that a deviation under the provisions of § 91.319(h) 

could be obtained to conduct the training; however, it notes that each request for a deviation 

must be individually processed, thereby taking up valuable agency resources. The petitioner 

notes that by granting its request ASC will be able to ensure a uniform application of the 

provisions of the exemption while saving the Government valuable resources. 

ASC proposes to maintain a list of those aircraft in which training would be permitted to be 

conducted; such as, gyroplanes, Quicksilvers, light-float planes, PPCs, WSCs, Challengers, 

CGS Hawks, and Pterodactyls. ASC also states that it would maintain a list of instructors 

conducting training under the exemption and require a yearly renewal. 

 

On September 30, 2010, Mr. Raymond Towles, the Acting Director of the Flight Standards 

Service, responded to ASC’s petition noting that “§ 91.319(h) permits for-hire flight training 

in experimental aircraft in accordance with a Letter of Deviation Authority (LODA). The 

LODA guidance was published on September 15, 2010.” Mr. Towles stated that the agency, 

therefore, “will take no further action” on the petitioner’s request. 

By letter dated January 25, 2011, the petitioner objected to the FAA’s determination that no 

further action will be taken on its request. ASC asserts that many aircraft which are not 

subject to regulations applicable to LSA will be flown by unsupported and untrained 

individuals. ASC asserts that very light trainers must be available for ab initio training and 

that the LODA process prevents this training. The petitioner asserts that training to operate 
3

very light aircraft must now be conducted in heavier and faster aircraft and that this training 

establishes detrimental and hazardous habits in students converting to very light aircraft. 

ASC also asserts that the LODA process established under § 91.319(h) significantly restricts 

training in existing very light aircraft. It asserts that there are currently far fewer instructors 

available to provide training and that many examiners did not become sport pilot examiners. 

The petitioner notes that previously there were over 4,000 instructors who could provide 

training, but now there are less than 1,000 and less than 200 have aircraft available that are 

certificated as S-LSA. The petitioner also notes that few examiners for PPCs exist and that in 

Michigan, for example, there is only one PPC examiner. 

The petitioner notes that there are few S-LSA that can be classified as very light aircraft and 

due to current economic conditions, new very light training aircraft are not being 

manufactured or sold. The petitioner asserts only one “Quicksilver–like” aircraft has been 

certificated as an S-LSA. The petitioner notes that half of the six PPC manufacturers “are 

basically defunct” and two others are in financial difficulty. Because of the lack of available 

instructors and training aircraft, the petitioner asserts that persons are often training 

themselves and, sometimes, in aircraft that do not meet regulatory requirements. The 

petitioner believes that these practices will cause fatalities. 

The petitioner, therefore, states that the public needs to use existing experimental aircraft for 

training for compensation and suggests that the FAA could limit the relief provided by the 

exemption to aircraft with a maximum speed of 87 knots in level flight with maximum 

continuous power. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner’s request and recognizes the value of specialized 

flight training that may only be available in aircraft holding experimental certificates. The 

agency also agrees that proper training in high-drag, low-mass aircraft is essential for their 

continued safe operation. 

Although the agency published its initial guidance for the issuance of LODAs under 

§ 91.319(h) on September 15, 2010, the agency recognized that the original guidance did not 

provide pilots with sufficient means to obtain the training necessary to operate those aircraft 

discussed by the petitioner in its request. Accordingly, after reviewing the information 

provided by the petitioner and the concerns of other interested parties, the FAA on May 24, 

2011, revised the guidance contained in Volume 3, Chapter 11, of FAA Order 8900.1, Flight 

Standards Information Management System, to address the use of aircraft issued experimental 

certificates in flight training for compensation or hire. 

The process for obtaining a LODA set forth in that guidance may be used to permit certain 

types of flight training to be conducted in experimental aircraft for compensation or hire and 

can be used to provide flight training for the operation of a specific make and model of 
4

experimental aircraft. Although LODAs are generally not issued to permit flight training in 

experimental aircraft leading to the issuance of a pilot certificate, rating, or operating 

privilege, the recent revisions to the agency’s process for issuing a LODA now permit 

LODAs to be issued for the conduct of flight training in gyroplanes with experimental 

certificates for persons seeking a rotorcraft gyroplane rating at any certificate level. Training 

may also be provided in experimental aircraft under a LODA for the operation of ultralight 

vehicles; however, the training must be conducted in high-drag, low-mass aircraft with an 

empty weight less than 500 pounds and a maximum speed in level flight with maximum 

continuous power (Vh) less than 87 knots calibrated airspeed. 

Additionally, training for the issuance of a sport pilot certificate or operating privilege can be 

permitted to be conducted in aircraft issued an experimental certificate under § 21.191(i)(1), 

subject to certain restrictions. A LODA will not be issued, for example, if an aircraft with 

other than an experimental certificate issued under § 21.191(i)(1) is available for the conduct 

of this training in the geographic area of the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) issuing 

the LODA. The aircraft in which training is intended to be provided must also have been 

owned by the person providing the training prior to January 31, 2010 and that person must 

have been appropriately certificated or otherwise authorized to provide the training prior to 

that date. 

The petitioner has not demonstrated that a grant of exemption permitting flight training in 

experimental aircraft for compensation or hire outside of the LODA process would provide an 

equivalent level of safety to that provided by the regulation or that it would be in the public 

interest. The FAA agrees with the petitioner that certain training in experimental aircraft for 

compensation or hire should be permitted and has established a process to permit such 

training to be conducted under a system that establishes an appropriate level of safety for 

those operations which includes effective local FSDO review and oversight. 

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 of Aero Sports Connection for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 91.319(a) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 29, 2011. 

/s/ . 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service