Page **1** of **7 REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION**  This petition requests an Exemption to certain sections of 14 CFR Part 61 Subparts J and Subpart K, which defines the privileges and limits of a sport pilot certificate and flight instructors with a sport pilot rating. This exempti on would permit individuals possessing a sport pilot certificate and/or an instructor certificate with sport pilot rating to operate an I -TEC/Beyond Roads LLC Maverick SP roadable powered - parachute that has been certificated with a maximum take - off weight of not more than 1,430 pounds and has been issued an FAA airworthiness certificate under FAA Exemption Numbers 10299 or 10450. The requested Exemption would not alter any other provisions, privileges and requirements in 14 CFR Part 61 Subparts J or Subpart K. This Exemptio n would be granted to I -TEC , the designer of the Maverick SP roadable powered - parachute. The operator of a Maverick SP roadable powered - parachute, if operating under the provisions of this granted Exemption, wou ld be required to carry a copy of the approved Exemption on board the aircraft at all times . **BA CKGROUND**  On September 28 , 2010, the I -TEC received a special airworthiness certificate for the Ma verick SP roadable powered - parach ute as a n ASTM - compliant Special - Light Sport Aircraft. This milestone was the result of 6 years of development work to create a safe and practical solution to two distinct marketplace needs. The original design criterion was to create a multimoda l solution to serve the needs of the indigenous people’s missio n and humanitarian operations. A later- defined design purpose was as a simple, roadable aircraft that could meet the emerging interest and demand of recreational and utility marketplace. D ue to the extremely simple operation and maintenance of the Ma veri ck SP , d evelopment for the US recreational and utility marketplace was specifically inte nded to be operated by individuals meeting the requirements of the sport pilot regulations and light sport aircraft ( L SA) repairmen certificates. This intended design criterion, as a simple powered - parachute (PPC) , has been achieved. On June 27, 2011, I -TEC was granted an FAA Exemp tion #10299 permitting I -TEC to issue special airworthine ss certificates for Maverick SP Special - Light Sport Aircraft in excess of the 1,320 pound - defined weight limit for a light- sport powered - parachute under speci fic conditions. The additional weight allowance was determined to be recognition of the weight penalty of including a ground - drive transmission, road contact propulsion,Page **2** of **7**

heavier wh eels , etc, at the same weight increase permitted within the Regulations for fixed -wing LSAs "intended for use in water." On February 15, 2012 , FAA Exemption #10450 was issued granting similar authority for certificate issuance of Experimental Light Sport Aircraft. As note d above, the intended design criterion of the Maverick SP was to be operated and maintained by minimally-trained individuals in the world’s frontier areas as well as sport pilot and repairman certifica te - trained individuals in the Unite d States. Despite the granting of the airworthiness certificate exemptions mentioned above, the petitioner understands that pilots must still comply with 14 CFR Part 61 Subparts J and Subpart K, wh ich refers to LSA definitions in 14 CFR Part 1. This rest ricts the operation of a Ma verick SP issued an airworthiness certificate with the weight exemption, to holders of a private pilot certificate if a n S - LSA and/or E - LSA Maverick SP exceeds 1,320 pounds maximum take - off weight. It is this onerous pilot certi ficate requirement which is the subject of this petition and detailed below. The requirement that Maverick SP Powered Para chute LSA operators achieve private pilot powered p arachute status puts a grievous and unnecessary burden on both Ma verick SP operators and on I -TEC and Beyond Roads, LLC as the Maverick SP designer and manufacturer. There are several reasons this restriction is unnecessary, burdensome , beyond reason and inconsistent with existing regulations for similar aircraf t in this category. **S UMMA** **RY OF BURDEN** It is the opinion of the petitioner that individuals that hold a valid sport pilot certificate and/or a flight instructor certificate with a PPC rating are totally qualified to safely operate a Maverick SP that have been certificated unde r Exemptions #10299 and 10450. The petitioner asserts that not permitting operation by sport pilot- qualified individuals: 1. is inconsistent with the intent and the spirit of the original SP/ LSA regulations ,Page **3** of **7**

2. is excessive and does not take into consideratio n the inherent safety of powered parachute type aircraft and the unique design characteristics of the Maverick SP roadable powered - parachute , 3. is difficult and unduly expensive for operators of a recreational vehicle to fulfill, and, 4. substantially reduces the marketability of this innovative , multimodal aircraft. **EXPA NDED EXPL** **AN ATION**  The petitioner asserts that not permitting operation by sport pilot qualified - individuals is inconsistent with the intent and the spirit of the original SP/LSA regulations a nd the exemptions granted for the Maverick SP . It is the petitioner’s understanding that the original intent and the spirit of the SP/LSA regulations was , among other purposes, to provide for creation of a category of flying machines that would expand the opportunity of recreational flying though innovative design, affordable operation and assured appropriate safety by industry consensus standards. The Maverick SP has accomplished all of those regulatory intentions:
 innovative design - Awarded the 2009 BREAKTHROUGH Award by Popular Mechanics Magazine,
 affordable operation - fueled by automotive gas, maintained as a recreational vehicle and without the burden of airport use and storage costs, and,
 appropriate safety – assured by testing under ASTM standa rds. Numerous years and considerable resources have gone into the development of the Ma verick SP with the specific intended result of an innovative, yet simple and safe design and configuration. A restriction requiring a private pilot certificate to operate a Ma verick SP LSA aircraft (with the exempted weight) is clearly inconsistent with the nature of the SP/ LSA regulations . It is true that the Maverick SP is a unique, multi modal aircraft , designed for use on public roads as well as for flight as a PPC . However, itPage **4** of **7**

appears punitive to the innovation and creativity that has resulted in this safe aircraft to not be operated in the very strata of recreational flying machines that promoted the SP/LSA regulations in the first place. The petitioner asserts th at not permitting operation by these sport pilot qualified individuals is excessive and does not take into consideration the inherent safety of powered - parachute type aircraft and the unique design characteristics of the Maverick SP roadable powered - parach ute . Powered - parachutes fly slowly . Typical PPC speeds in all flight configurations are 30 miles per hour (MPH) or less . The Maverick SP , due to its wing design and total weigh t flies at about 40 MPH. Inherent in the creation of the SP/LSA regulations was the Agency’s intention to limit risk in the use of this segment of recreational vehicles. This was accomplished by limiting the passenger count to one, and mandating both a maximum stall speed and top cruise speed. PPCs, by their very design, cannot even approach the minimum speeds for other LSAs. The very slow speed of operating PPCs (and the Maverick SP ), further, justify the adequacy of sport pilot training for operation of the Maverick SP , including those exempted to the 1,430 pound weight limit. The Maverick SP structural design further contributes to the safety of operation by a sport pilot. W hile many PPC designs do not provide for much structural protection for the pilot and passenger , the Maverick SP design h as considerable structure ahead and totally surrounding the pilot and passenger. The Maverick SP is built for rugged, off- road use (in the drive - mode) and therefore has structural integrity far in excess of any PPC, and many aircraft in other LSA categories. Further, the Maverick SP , w hen properly rigged for flight, will effectively land itself without pilot input. Wh en the power is reduced to establish a decent rate, the inherent design and structural integrity provides for a n added margin of safety. Operationally, s tandard PPCs use steering arms or pedals for directional control in flight . These control inputs are easy to master and intuitive (push the right pedal to turn right) . To even further simplify this activity , the Maverick SP primary directional inputs are made with a stee ring wheel, which is intuitive to all automobile drivers and even natural to non - drivers (who have been regular passengers in autom obiles with steering wheels). Additionally, t he Maverick SP al so has “ back- up ” steering pedals, which would be natural to al l PPC - trained sport pilots.Page **5** of **7**

Probably the most significant justification for permitting sport pilots and flight instructors with PPC ratings to op erate the exempted weight (not more than 1,430 pound gross take - off weight) is tha t t he “ Maverick” can be cert ificated and operated legally and safely by a sport pilot , IF the original certificated maximum take - off weight is below the 14 CFR Part 1 - defined 1,320 pounds (e.g., the Maverick FT model ) . However, while this weight restriction was exempted in FAA Exemp tion Numbers 10299 and 10450 for the Maverick SP to allow “roadable requirements and features , ” it also restricts the Maverick SP from being operated by sport pilots . In fact, the exempted -weight Ma verick SP ’s operational regime and maintenance requiremen ts are identical to the lower-weight Maverick FT . There is no difference in aircraft preparation for flight, operation in flight and transition from ground -to -flight mode or flight-to - drive mode between these two models. Therefore, there is simply no safety or operational justification for limiting sport pilots (and flight instructo rs) from operating the exempted -weight Maverick SP . Additionally, the requirement for a pr ivate pilot certificate for the weight- exempted Ma verick SP appears inconsistent with the obvious complexity of LSAs intended for use on water, which have been granted an allowable weight of 1,430 pounds and therefore can be operated by a sport pilot. The requirement for a private pilot certificate to operate the Maverick SP at the higher weight appears in fact, to be discriminatory to this particular aircraft model. All LSAs intended for use on water are more complicated to operate than Mavericks intended for use on public roads. The added operational complexity for water- intend ed airpl anes is not related to their greater weight (which is permitted under FAR Part 1), but rather the additional structure and systems needed to operate safely on water. In fact, the operational transition from flight mode to “sailboat” mode requires transiti on to different skills, utilizing different contro l inputs. This is not the case with the Maverick, wh ich unitizes an integrated control system, requiring no such transition. Control input on the ground (in drive - mode) and in take - off and flight is with a steering wheel and footpedal accelerator , with no transition required. Even though (water- intended ) aircraft operators must develop additional skills and decision - making abilities/proficiencies necessary for water operations, rightfully, these operators are not burdened with a private pilot requirement. Finally, some - particularly those unfamiliar with the Maverick SP - might assume that a machine that can both fly and be driven, is not “simple.” The petitioner would assert that the definition of “ complex” as related to LSAs was clarified by the regulations, with such restrictions as: unpressurized, no retractable landing gear, no in -flight adjustable propellers, etc. In addition to these regulatory- based definitions, the Maverick SP wasPage **6** of **7**

desig ned i n every element, to be uncomplicated. It was designed to be maintained and operated by indigenous peoples that lack any formal flight education or mechanical training. As to the model - specific transition from a powered - parachute to the Maverick, the tran sition is a minimal ground session before the initial flight, following a complete Ma verick orientation. The petitioner has overseen this transition by individuals ranging from an expertise PPC instructor and an individual with no flight experience other than his training to a PPC certificate. Both individuals conducted safe, solo first flights and are continuing the aircraft’s Phase One flight test protocol. The petitioner asserts that not permitting operation by these sport pilot qualified individuals is difficult and unduly expensive for operators of a recreational vehicle to fulfill . T here are currently only two active and qualified FAA examiners in the United States who are authorize d to conduct Private Pilot Powered - Parachute flight exams . One of them resides in Illinois and the other in Texas and Nevada . The unjustified (from a safety standpoint) requirement for an individual to attain private pilot credentials more than doubles the cost of initial flight training, since there are more than twice the number of flight hours required, compared to sport pilot requirements. Additionally, an individual must travel to one of these examiners, adding even more to the substantial and unjustified expense before operating the weight- exempted Maverick SP . I f the examiner demands that an individual take their instruction from that individual, the costs rises even more with housing and meal s as well as lost-wages costs. There is simply no justification for imposing these additional personal financial burdens on these taxpayers. The petitioner asserts that not permitting operation by these sport pilot qualified individuals substantially reduces the marketability of this innovative, multimodal aircraft . Based on the aforeme ntioned financial burden and logistical difficulty in obtaining a PPC private pilot certificate, it is likely that a product line that has been determined by the FAA to require more restrictive pilot training than all other powered parachutes and aircraft in the LSA category will result in th e Maverick SP roadable powered p arachute becoming stigmatized in the marketplace. In fact, the manufacturer has already experienced the reversal of one Maverick order due to this added burden. This is of grave concern to a new manufacturer attempting to recover 8 years of development costs.Page **7** of **7**

**RELIEF A ND PETITION**  Based on the above, t he petitioner respectfully requests that the FAA grant an exemption to all appropriate provisions of 14 CFR Part 61 Subparts J and Subpart K thereby permitting holders of a va lid sport pilot certificate and/or an instructor certificate with sport pilot rating to operate an I -TEC/Beyond Roads LLC Maverick SP roadable powered - parachute that has been certificated with a maximum take - off weight of not more than 1,430 pounds and has been issued an FAA airworthiness certificate under FAA Exemption Numbers 10299 or 10450. The requested Exemption would not alter any other provisions, privileges and requirements in 14 CFR Part 61 Subparts J or Subpart K. This Exemption would be granted to I -TEC , the manufacturer of the Maverick SP roadable powered - parachute. The operator of a Maverick SP roadable powered parachute, if operating under the provisions of this granted Exemption, would be required to carry a copy of the approved Exemption o n board the aircraft at all times. I -TEC stand ready to provide any additional information, descriptions, briefings or any reasonable documentation necessary to support the granting of this petition. Respectfully submitted, S teph en F. Saint, CEO I -TEC 10575 SW 147th Circle Dunnellon, FL 34432

FINAL FILED FAR 61 Petition 2012 05 10 .doc - Filed online @ www.regulations.gov on May 10, 2012 @ 12:20PM ET