Exemption No. 10711 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

JESTREAM AVIATION, L.L.C Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0579

 

for an exemption from § 119.23(b) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated May 24, 2012, Mr. Mark Ramsey, Director of Operations, Jet Stream 

Aviation, LLC dba Jetstream Aviation, (Jetstream), 1676 International Drive, McLean, VA 

22102, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Jetstream for an 

exemption from § 125.1 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed 

exemption, if granted, would permit Jetstream to list the Bombardier Inc. CL-600-2B16 

aircraft, serial number 5864, N605BB (Challenger) on the operations specifications 

(OpSpecs) of Jetstream’s existing operating certificate number 7JAB821M, dated March 9, 

2011. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 125.1 which prescribes, in pertinent part, the rules governing operations of 

U.S.-registered civil airplanes which have a seating configuration of 20 or more 

passengers or a maximum payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more when common 

carriage is not involved. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that a grant of this request will permit Jetstream to operate the 

Challenger under part 125’s higher level of safety rather than under part 91, which would 

apply if this request were not granted. 

AFS-12-405-E 
2

The petitioner believes that operating a fleet of several aircraft under a single standard is 

inherently safer than operating part of its fleet under one standard and part under another 

standard. If the petition is denied, Jetstream states that some flights would be under the 

operational control of the Director of Operations and some would be under the operational 

control of the Pilot in Command. One safety standard, Jetstream argues, is consistent with 

Safety Management System (SMS) and Safety Risk Management (SRM). 

Jetstream states that granting the request requires no deviation from part 125 noting that 

part 125, nor any other rule in the CFR, prohibits operating an aircraft under the size specified 

in § 125.1 in accordance with the more stringent safety standards of part 125. 

Jetstream says that the Challenger would supplement the fleet of larger aircraft in those cases 

when the smaller aircraft would be more efficient. Additionally, Jetstream states that the 

aircraft on their operating certificate will be used for private carriage and no holding out to 

the public would be contemplated. 

 A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2012 

(77 FR 71864). No comments were received. 

On January 25, 2013, Jetstream supplemented the record with a letter re-emphasizing what it 

was asking for in its petition for exemption. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

We have considered the petitioner’s request for relief from § 125.1 and find that the petitioner 

has not asked for relief from the correct regulation and the petitioner’s request would not be 

in the public interest nor provide an equivalent level of safety, even if the exemption was 

granted from the appropriate regulation. 

The petitioner’s current operating certificate authorizes flight operations of large aircraft 

pursuant to § 119.23(a) and the petitioner has two large aircraft, a Boeing 737 with 33 seats 

and a Boeing 767 with 44 seats. In its petition, Jetstream states that the purpose for the 

request to add a Bombardier Inc. CL-600-2B16 aircraft (Challenger) (N605BB) to its part 125 

operations is “to supplement the fleet of larger aircraft in those cases in which the normal 

private carriage operations would be more efficiently carried out in a smaller aircraft” and 

that by allowing Jetstream to put the Challenger on its part 125 certificate would allow them 

to “voluntarily comply with a higher standard of safety” than part 91. However, private 

carriage operations with small aircraft do not fall under either part 125 or 91. 

Section 119.23 provides for two types of private carriage operations based upon aircraft size. 

Section 119.23(a) requires an operating certificate and operations specifications (OpSpecs) 

under part 125 for operations with aircraft having 20 or more seats or payload capacity of 

greater than 6,000 lbs. Section 119.23(b), requires compliance with the certification and 

OpSpecs requirements of subpart C of part 119 for operations with aircraft having less than 

20 seats or less than 6,000 lbs. payload. In other words, an operator using a small aircraft for 
3

private carriage operations must hold an operating certificate and OpSpecs under part 135 

(which are a higher standard of safety than part 125). In addition, there are existing private 

carriage operations conducted under part 135, including operations using a Challenger. The 

petitioner has not shown how it is unique or why granting an exemption would be in the 

public interest when compared to other operators currently complying with part 135. Lastly, 

the letter submitted to the docket on January 25, 2013 did not offer any new information or 

facts for consideration. 

The FAA’s Decision: 

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

public interest nor provide an equivalent level of safety. Therefore, pursuant to the authority 

contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701 delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition 

of Jetstream Aviation, LLC for an exemption from 14 CFR § 119.23(b) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 21, 2013. 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Deputy Director, Flight 

 Standards Service .