AFS-12-419-E

Exemption No. 10981

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012- 0604

 

for an exemption from § 91.409(a) and (b) 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

 By letters dated May 30, 2012 and July 9, 2012, Mr. Gerald P. Snook, Manager, 

Maintenance Engineering, Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna), One Citation Lane, Wichita, 

Kansas 67209, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Cessna for 

an exemption from § 91.409(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow operators to select a manufacturer 

recommended program that is task based and integrated into the 208/208B published aircraft 

maintenance manual, revision 24 or later.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 91.409(a), prescribes in pertinent part that, except as provided in paragraph (c)

of the section

1

no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the preceding 12

calendar months, it has had an annual inspection in accordance with part 43 and has

been approved for return to service. Section 91.409(b), prescribes, in pertinent part, that

 

1

Section 91 .409(c) provides tor exceptions to this requirement, including when an aircraft is inspected under 

another type of inspection program. Relevant to this petition for exemption is an inspection program described 

in § 91 .409(t)(3)- a current inspection program recommended by the airplane's manufacturer. Under 

§ 91.409(e), however, that program is available to "large airplanes (to which part 125 is not applicable), turbojet 

multiengine airplanes, turbopropeller-powered multiengine airplanes, and turbine-powered rotorcraft." Cessna 

Model CE208 airplanes do not fit that description.
2

no person may operate an aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) for hire,

and no person may give flight instruction for hire in an aircraft which that person

provides, unless within the preceding 100 hours of time in service the aircraft has

received an annual or 100-hour inspection and been approved for return to service in

accordance with part 43.

Cessna petitioned for this exemption so operators of its Model CE208 aircraft could use a

task-based inspection program it developed in lieu of the annual and 100-hour inspections

required by § 91.409(a) and (b). Cessna's program would qualify as a current inspection

program recommended by the manufacturer under the provisions of§ 91.409(f)(3), but the

Model CE208 aircraft do not meet the criteria of the large airplanes authorized by

§ 91.409(e) to use that program.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Cessna seeks relief that would enable use of a current inspection program recommended by

Cessna the manufacturer, in lieu of the annual inspection requirements of 

§ 91.409(a)(b) for the company’s model CE-208 aircraft. Cessna developed a task-based 

manufacturer-recommended inspection program for the CE-208 and 208B aircraft. This 

program is published in the CE-208 aircraft maintenance manual, revision 24 or later.

The petitioner states the 208/208B inspection document task-based inspection program was 

developed from the 208/208B phasecard inspection program that was accepted by the FAA as 

“a manufacturer’s approved inspection program” on October 24, 1990. This exemption would 

allow operators to select a manufacturer-recommended program that is task based and 

integrated into the 208/208B published instructions for continued airworthiness.

The petitioner states field data was used to identify the interval that an item needed to be 

inspected so there would be minimum wear and tear to the airframe. The minimum wear and 

tear and risk of inducing damage occurs when the best inspection intervals are used. By using 

the task-based inspection document program, a manufacturer-recommended program with 

each inspection task interval based on field input, customers are assured their airplanes are

being inspected at the optimum time by all maintenance providers. The CE-208 operators, 

passengers, and cargo will benefit because this program would expand qualified maintenance 

repair and overhaul support of the CE-208, enabling maintenance providers to inspect the 

airplane as efficiently as possible while maintaining the highest level of safety. The public 

would benefit from this exemption because the airplane’s availability would be increased, and 

the aircraft will be inspected to a higher level of safety.

Although requesting relief from both§ 91.409(a) (annual inspections) and§ 91.409(b) (100-

hour inspections), the petitioner addresses only annual inspections in its supporting 

information. The petitioner states that the regulation requires an annual inspection developed 

by an inspection authorization (IA) holder that follows 14 CFR part 43, Appendix D. Each IA 

holder controls the level of detail at which the airplane is inspected. Conversely, use of the 
3

inspection document program to maintain the airplane would benefit the public by providing a 

standard set of inspection task instructions for all technicians to follow that were developed 

with the latest FAA guidance. When the technicians follow the inspection document program, 

variations would be at a minimum. This would provide the customers with a consistent level 

of safety for all units.

The petitioner states the Model 208/208B airplane is delivered worldwide, and the 208 

airplane maintenance manual is used worldwide. Therefore, the petitioner requests to exercise 

the privileges of this exemption outside the United States to provide operators with the 

benefits on increased safety and operational availability.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 9, 2012 (77 FR 

61469). No comments were received.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA finds that Cessna's task-based inspection program is not compatible with the 

agency's requirements for annual and 100-hour inspections currently applicable to the Model 

CE208/208B airplanes. Use of the task-based program in lieu of the inspections required by 

§ 91.409(a) and (b) would result in some items not being inspected at the currently required 

intervals of annually or 100 hours. While the task-based inspections may be suitable for some 

airplanes under their specific operating conditions, they may not be suitable for others. 

Cessna Model CE208/208B airplanes are small, single engine turbopropeller-powered 

airplanes weighing less than 12,500 pounds. These airplanes can be equipped to operate in 

remote environments in several different configurations, including water operations with 

amphibious floats. The FAA believes that these airplanes when operated under these or other 

extreme conditions should be inspected within the periods specified in§ 91.409(a) (annually 

for all operations) and§ 91.409 (b) (100 hours when operated for hire).

The FAA finds that a general exemption that would permit all operators of Model 

CE208/208B airplanes to use the proposed task-based inspection program in lieu of the 

currently required annual and 100-hour inspections would not provide a level of safety at least 

equal to that provided by the rule from which the petitioner seeks exemption. As explained 

above, this is because of the variable conditions under which these airplanes operate. The 

scope of the operating conditions for these airplanes is unknown and potentially unlimited. It 

is not the FAA's practice to grant this type of broad exemption that would apply to an 

undefined and open- ended number of aircraft.
4

Because an equivalent level of safety cannot be assured with the requested exemption, a grant 

would not be in the public interest.

The FAA would entertain requests from individual operators who could provide the specific 

circumstances applicable to their operations and demonstrate how an equivalent level of safety 

would be assured.

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. §§ 106(f), 40113 

and 44701 delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Cessna Aircraft Company for 

an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.409 is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C, on April 15, 2014.

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service