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 powered2

aircraft, and was not comparable to your request. In that case, the petitioner sought and was granted, a payload increase only to allow the di fference between basic operating weight plusthe 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 powere d, 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 woul d 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