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 Ram sey, 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-E2

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 for3

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 exem ption 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 .