AFS-16-9249-E 

May 12, 2016 

 Exemption No. 16649 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2016-4554 

Mr. Carlos Gomez 

Vice President 

Conquest Air, Inc. 

5820 Miami Lakes Drive East 

Miami Lakes, FL 33014 

Dear Mr. Gomez: 

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 February 24, 2016, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Conquest Air, Inc. (Conquest Air) for an exemption from § 119.3 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Conquest Air to 

operate its Convair 340 aircraft in part 135 on-demand all cargo operations above 7,500 lbs. 

payload. 

Although you requested relief from § 119.3, that section has been redesignated to § 110.2. 

The redesignation was included in the “Operations Specifications” final rule published in the 

Federal Register on February 10, 2011 (76 FR 7482). 

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

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to Conquest Air. 

In your petition for exemption, you reference Ameriflight, Inc. Docket No. FAA-2005-20109 

(Exemption No. 8480), wherein such an exemption was granted. The FAA finds that the 

circumstances are not sufficiently similar. In the case of Exemption No. 8480, the relief 

sought by the petitioner pertained to an Embraer EMB-120, a turbo-propeller powered 
2 

aircraft, and was not comparable to your request. In that case, the petitioner sought and was 

granted, a payload increase only to allow the difference between basic operating weight plus 

the crew and the aircraft’s certificated maximum zero-fuel weight. For the petitioner’s EMB120 aircraft, this results in a maximum payload increase of approximately 633 pounds above 

the 7,500 limit. The relatively small increase over the 7,500 payload capacity allowed by 

Exemption No. 8480 is limited by the size and capacity of the EMB-120 aircraft. 

In comparison, Conquest is seeking a far greater increase over the regulatory limit of 7,500 

pounds than that granted in Exemption No. 8480. Specifically, Conquest requests to use this 

exemption for the Convair 340, a reciprocating powered airplane, which has a payload 

capacity far above the 7,500 limit. Therefore, the FAA finds that the rationale for denying 

previous requests for relief from the 7,500 pound payload limit is applicable to Conquest’s 

circumstances. 

In addition, Conquest references a recommendation by the parts 125 and 135 Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC), in support of permitting aircraft to operate under part 135 

with cargo payloads over the 7,500 pound limit. The FAA notes that the Convair 340 that 

Conquest operates is reciprocating powered, not turbo-propeller powered. The ARC 

Document No.: Applicability 32 referenced utilizing more modern turbo-prop powered 

aircraft when it considered allowing cargo operators to operate with cargo payloads greater 

than the current limit. Those part 25 certificated former regional airliner turbo-prop aircraft 

that the ARC considered in Document No.: Applicability 32 have improved safety and greater 

performance than the older reciprocating powered aircraft currently in use by the petitioner. 

The FAA has issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 7864 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that if the petitioner wanted to conduct all-cargo operations with an airplane that had a 

payload capacity greater than 7,500 pounds, it must do so as supplemental operations under 

part 121. The FAA highlighted that parts 121 and 135 each include a unique set of 

requirements that, when taken together, establish the minimum requirements that must be met 

to ensure safe operations under each part. The FAA found that allowing the petitioner to 

selectively comply with isolated sections of parts 121 and 135 rather than complying with all 

of the applicable requirements of each part would not provide an equivalent level of safety. 

Further, the FAA found that the petitioner had not articulated how a grant of relief would be 

appropriate in its particular circumstances as compared to other operators who might wish to 

operate airplanes with payload capacities greater than 7,500 pounds under part 135. 

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 No. 7864; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 7864 

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. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, the petition for Conquest Air, Inc. for an exemption from 

14 CFR § 110.2 is hereby denied. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service 

Enclosure