Exemption No. 10363 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

CAVANAUGH FLIGHT 

MUSEUM Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0962

 

for an exemption from §§ 91.315, 

91.319, 119.5(g), and 119.21(a) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated August 17, 2011, Mr. Doug Jeanes, Executive Director, Cavanaugh Flight 

Museum (CFM), 4572 Claire Chennault, Addison, Texas 75001, petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of CFM for an exemption from §§ 91.315, 91.319, 

119.5(g), and 119.21(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed 

exemption, if granted, would allow the petitioner, CFM, to conduct living history flight 

experience (LHFE) operations in its DeHavilland DHC-4A (C-7 Caribou), N149HF. 

The petitioner requires relief from the following regulations:

Section 91.319(a): Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations: 

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate— 

(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or 

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. 

Section 119.5(g): Certifications, authorizations and prohibitions: No person may 

operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator without, or in violation of, an 

appropriate certificate and appropriate operations specifications. No person may 

AFS-11-442-E 
2

operate as a direct air carrier or as a commercial operator in violation of any deviation 

or exemption authority, if issued to that person or that person’s representative. 

Section 119.21(a): Commercial operators engaged in intrastate common carriage and 

direct air carriers: Each person who conducts airplane operations as a commercial 

operator engaged in intrastate common carriage of persons or property for 

compensation or hire in air commerce, or as a direct air carrier, shall comply with the 

certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of this part.... 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states it is a qualified nonprofit 501(c)(3) educational organization 

devoted to promoting aviation studies and to preserving America’s aviation heritage. 

The petitioner fulfills its mission by restoring, operating, maintaining, and displaying 

historically significant, vintage military aircraft, and by collecting materials related to 

the history of aviation. 

The petitioner states that an exemption is in the best interest of the public because an 

exemption would allow the petitioner to use its historic military aircraft to provide the 

public with an educational experience. Specifically, the petitioner plans to provide an 

opportunity for members of a veterans group, the C-7A Caribou Association, to relive 

certain aspects of their Vietnam experiences. Specifically, the petitioner wishes to 

provide flight experiences to members of this association and their families on local 

educational flights. The petitioner contends that a grant of exemption will allow it to 

use its historic military aircraft to provide an educational experience to the public. 

The petitioner also states that a grant of exemption is in the public interest as it will 

have no negative impact on air carriers that operate aircraft with standard 

airworthiness certificates. The flights the petitioner intends to provide on its DHC-4A 

would depart and return to the same airport, with a landing and takeoff at a separate 

location. Further, the petitioner states that it is not holding itself out for the carriage or 

transportation of persons or property and thus will not present any type of competition 

to air carriers. 

The petitioner also argues that operations conducted in accordance with the sought 

exemption would be conducted at an equivalent level of safety. In support of this 

argument, the petitioner states that all maintenance personnel are FAA-certificated 

airframe and powerplant mechanics, and these staff members perform all maintenance 

required by the Federal Aviation Regulations. According to the petitioner, all aircraft 

are maintained in accordance with 14 CFR part 91 and inspections meet the 

requirements of § 91.409. The petitioner states that all inspections are based on 

appropriate military technical orders and aircraft manuals. Additionally, the petitioner 

notes that the aircraft is maintained in accordance with an FAA-approved 

Airworthiness Inspection Program (AAIP). 
3

In further support of its safety argument, the petitioner states that all pilots who 

operate the DHC-4A will hold a minimum of a commercial pilot certificate and 

second class medical certificate and hold a DHC-4 type rating. The petitioner notes 

that it has extensive training programs and that specific qualifications and FAA checkout procedures are enforced. Further, the petitioner’s executive director would 

approve all pilots for the operation of the DHC-4A. 

 The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication because this action does not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on 

this petition would be detrimental to CFM. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

Although the petitioner requested relief from § 91.315, N149HF holds an 

experimental airworthiness certificate. Section 91.315 applies only to aircraft 

certificated in the limited category. Consequently, an exemption from § 91.315 would 

not be necessary to conduct the operations described in this request for exemption. 

Currently, there is a moratorium on new LHFE exemptions, including the addition of 

new aircraft to current exemptions. Notice of this policy was published in the Federal 

Register (76 FR 16239) on March 23, 2011. While the original scope of the policy 

limited exemptions to operations conducted in World War II or earlier vintage 

airplanes, the policy has expanded to include newer and more complex aircraft. The 

agency attempted to mitigate additional safety concerns presented by this expansion of 

the LHFE policy by including numerous conditions and limitations in LHFE 

exemptions. However, under certain circumstances, operators have misinterpreted 

these conditions and limitations as permitting operations that the FAA did not intend. 

The moratorium was put into place so that the agency can assess public safety and 

public policy concerns that have arisen over time as the LHFE policy expanded 

beyond its original scope. 

Notwithstanding the moratorium, the FAA has policy and safety concerns related to 

this petition for exemption, which will be discussed below. Regarding the airplane’s 

airworthiness certification, the petitioner states that its DHC-4A was previously 

licensed in the standard category; however, the aircraft was decertified. The aircraft is 

now licensed in the experimental category, and the petition provided no explanation of 

why CFM is unable to maintain the DHC-4A in the standard category. The LHFE was 

created to permit the public to experience flight in historic aircraft for which there is 

no comparable certificated aircraft, not as a means to permit the carriage of passengers 

for hire in aircraft that may no longer be maintained to their original, standard 

certification level. 
4

The FAA has approved an airworthiness inspection program for this aircraft, but CFM 

does not hold an operating certificate; therefore, surveillance and validation are 

limited. However, on August 15, 2011, the FAA conducted an inspection of the DHC4A. Although the aircraft was manufactured in 1962, no military records were 

available. The first aircraft logbook entry was dated September 22, 1995. The 

original Department of Transport, Canada Conformity Certificate-Military Aircraft, 

certifies that this aircraft met FAA Type Certificate 1A19 on Dec 27, 1962, but had 16 

deviations. Aircraft logbooks do not contain any information on satisfying these 

deviations. Additionally, while the approved inspection program contains a 

replacement or overhaul schedule, the FAA cannot verify that these are in compliance 

with the manufacturer’s requirements since the petitioner does not have these 

manuals. Without further information, the FAA does not have sufficient data to 

determine whether an appropriate level of safety can be provided for the paying 

passengers the petitioner wishes to carry on its DHC-4A. 

Additionally, the petitioner states that its pilots are approved by its executive director, 

Mr. Doug Jeanes, and that “specific qualifications and FAA check-out procedures are 

enforced....” Mr. Jeanes may provide valuable program oversight for CFM 

operations; however, he does not hold a designated pilot examiner authorization or a 

flight instructor certificate. Consequently, Mr. Jeanes’ technical expertise to evaluate 

his pilots’ qualifications cannot be ascertained from this petition. 

Finally, the petitioner’s proposed operations constitute air transportation. The 

petitioner states that the operations would include a landing at an auxiliary field. The 

LHFE exemptions have always been limited to non-stop flights. Landings at airports 

other than the original point of departure would constitute air transportation and are, 

therefore, beyond the scope of LHFE operations. 

 

The FAA’s Decision: 

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the 

public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 
5

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Cavanaugh Flight Museum 

for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.315, 91.319, 119.5(g), and 119.21(a) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on September 23, 2011. 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service .