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 Avia tion 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 relie f from the following regulations :

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

of the secti o n 1 no person may operate an aircraft unless, within the prece d ing 12

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

been approved for return to service. Section 9 1 .409 ( b ), prescribes, in pertinent part, t h at

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

anoth er 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 avail able 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

provide s

, unless within the preceding 1 00 hours of time in service the aircraft h as

received an annual or 1 00

- hour inspec t i on 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

tas k

- based inspection program it developed in lieu o f the annual and 1 0 0

- hour inspections

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

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

Model CE208 aircraft do not meet the cri teria of t h e 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 r ecommended by

Cessna the manufacture r

, in lieu of the annual inspection requirement s 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

- 2 08 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 appro ved 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 f

ield 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

th e task

- based inspection document program, a manufacturer

- recommended program with

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

being inspected at the optimum time by all maintenance providers. The CE

- 208 op erators,

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 l evel 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 the3

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 1 00

- hour inspections currently applicable to the Model

CE208/208B airplanes. Use of the task

- based program in lieu of the inspections re quired by

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

inter vals 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 config urations, including water opera tions 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§ 91.4 09 (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 inspect ions 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 operati ng 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 b e 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 le vel 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 t o me by the Administrato r, 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