AFS-09-391-E 

September 28, 2010 

 Exemption No. 10145 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0826 

Mr. Stephen Hull 

Director of Operations 

Segrave Aviation, Inc. 

2730 Rouse Road Extension 

Kinston, NC 28504 

Dear Mr. Hull: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 13, 2009, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Segrave Aviation, Inc. (Segrave), for an exemption from § 43.3(g) of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow the holder of pilot certificate 

to perform daily landing gear tire pressure checks on the Learjet 60 aircraft while being 

operated under 14 CFR part 135. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Segrave. 

The FAA recently issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material 

respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10137 (copy 

enclosed), the FAA found a grant of exemption would not provide a level of safety equivalent 

to that under the regulation. 

In Exemption No. 10137, the FAA found the petition affects more than § 43.3(g). If granted, 

an exemption would allow a pilot certificated under part 61 to perform preventive 

maintenance which is governed by part 43 and, except as provided in 14 CFR § 43.3(g), must 
2 

be performed by a mechanic certificated under part 65. Under 14 CFR § 43.3(g), a pilot 

certificated under part 61 may perform preventative maintenance of an aircraft, which is not 

operated under part 135. According to § 135.435, all preventative maintenance performed on 

or for a part 135 aircraft type certificated for 10 passengers must be done by a certificated 

airframe and powerplant mechanic licensed under part 65. The Learjet 60 is type certificated 

for 8-10 passengers and is, therefore, governed by § 135.435. Segrave did not request relief 

from this regulation, nor describe how it would provide for a level of safety equivalent to that 

provided by § 135.435. 

Further, the Office of the Chief Counsel’s February 26, 2009 legal opinion stated the FAA’s 

position on this issue as follows: 

The FAA may agree the pilot of a small general aviation airplane may change and 

repair its landing gear tire, but the agency would not consider the changing and repair 

of a landing gear tire on a large transport category airplane to be preventive 

maintenance that a pilot could permissibly do. 

Your [the requester’s] letter stated that Learjet Model 60’s engineering and pilot 

specialists believe ample precedent exists for “qualified pilots to safely perform tasks 

that require mechanical, physical interaction with the airframe under the umbrella of 

pre-flight checks.” You [the requestor] followed with a long list of examples of 

pre-flight actions performed daily by professional pilots, including many actions that 

require use of a calibrated device. Our response to your request takes no position on 

the propriety of any of the cited examples as pre-flight tasks. 

We discussed this issue with officials in the FAA’s Flight Standards Service Aircraft 

Maintenance Division (AFS-300) and concur with their determination that checking 

tire pressure on a Learjet Model 60 aircraft is preventive maintenance and not a simple 

pre-flight inspection task. We believe their determination is a reasonable one based 

on the relevant facts and circumstances. These include the high tire air pressure (up to 

219 psig), the need for a proper and calibrated gauge, and the possibility of an 

incorrect reading if the check is not performed properly. Accordingly, a pilot 

operating that aircraft under the operating rules of 14 C.F.R. part 91 may, in 

accordance with the provisions of 14 C.F.R. § 43.3(g), perform daily landing gear tire 

pressure checks. Under the same regulation, however, a pilot of that aircraft operating 

under 14 C.F.R. parts 135 may not perform that task. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed denial 

of exemption; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 
3 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Segrave Aviation, Inc., for an exemption from 

14 CFR § 43.3(g). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service 

 

Enclosure