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 Adm inistration (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 w ould 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), must2

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 fo r 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