AFS-14-018-E

Exemption No. 11249

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

DILLON AERO, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0885 

for an exemption from §§ 91.319(a)(2) 

and 91.9(a) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated October 3, 2013, Mr. Alan T. Christmas, Aviation Department 

Manager, for Dillon Aero, Inc. (Dillon) 8009 East Dillon’s Way, Scottsdale, AZ 85260-1809

petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Dillon for an exemption 

from §§ 91.319(a)(2) and 91.9(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption, if granted, would permit Dillon to operate its UH-1H (N205DP) and

OH-58 (N480FT) experimental exhibition aircraft to carry persons or property for 

compensation or hire in order to demonstrate operation of Dillon’s weapon systems.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 91.319(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate an 

aircraft that has an experimental certificate carrying persons or property for 

compensation or hire. 

Section 91.9(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft 

without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or 

Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the 

certificating authority of the country of registry. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:
2

The petitioner states it manufactures the Dillon Aero Ml34D Mini Gun Systems 

accessories for the gun system, and various mounts and systems for other weapons. 

The petitioner supports the United States (U.S.) Military Organizations (especially the 

Special Forces, the Army 160th Aviation Regiment & the Navy Seal Teams), Law 

Enforcement Agencies and other U.S. Government Agencies by providing these 

weapons, weapons systems and training on these weapon systems.

These U.S. Military, U.S. Government Agencies and U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies 

are requesting specialized, weapon systems training utilizing the petitioner’s aircraft; 

UH-1H and OH-58. As the petitioner states, these aircraft are U.S. military surplus 

aircraft that are certificated Experimental - Exhibition. Furthermore, it states that there 

are several government contracts pending until the petitioner can gain the approval for 

this exemption. 

The petitioner states that per other U.S. Government Agencies regulations, the 

government agencies that are requesting this specialized training are required to "pay" 

(provide compensation) to the facility (Dillon Aero) providing such training. Also, per 

those regulations, Dillon Aero cannot accept compensation due to the specialized 

training that these government agencies are requesting, which require using UH-1H and 

OH-58 helicopters (certificated by the FAA as Experimental- Exhibition).

The petitioner states that the pending contracts will have a positive economic influence 

on the community and will create more employment opportunities.

Additionally, the training provided by the petitioner will better prepare the U.S. military 

personnel with the skills needed on the field of combat and prepare the law 

enforcement agencies with the skills needed for "Homeland Security".

The petitioner then states that this training is incidental to its primary business and that 

its current customers are requesting this training. The petitioner will not offer this 

training to the general public or others that are not U.S. Government Agencies or 

approved by the U.S. Government. The petitioner also states that it has already 

invested a considerable amount of time and money in researching the possibilities of 

providing this training and have demonstrated the feasibility of this training to several 

U.S. Government Agencies.

The petitioner plans to operate its aircraft in accordance with the operation limitations 

issued to the applicable aircraft and in accordance with the manufactures flight manual. 

Aircraft maintenance will be performed in accordance with the manufacture’s 

maintenance program. The petitioner believes that these practices will insure that a 

high level of safety is maintained.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on January 29, 2014,

(79 FR 4801) and no comments were received.
3

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA finds that the petitioner has not sufficiently described how operating in accordance 

with its civilian (FAA-issued) operating limitations can provide for an equal level of safety 

when weapons systems are involved. The FAA airworthiness certification standards 

concerning experimental exhibition aircraft, contained in FAA Order 8130.2, expressly state 

that FAA should not consider an application for airworthiness certification unless 

demilitarization has been completed. As a result, when armed, both N205DP and N480FT 

would be operating outside of the scope of the operating limitations. In addition, there is no 

valid airworthiness baseline for an exemption from experimental exhibition limitations, nor 

can compliance with such limitations be accepted as an equivalent level of safety (ELoS)

finding. 

The petitioner states that it seeks to maintain “a high level of safety.” However, this “high 

level of safety” is not defined by the petitioner, nor is it classified under any of the applicable 

design, airworthiness, maintenance, or operational guidance. Additionally, the petitioner did 

not submit any substantial evidence or examples of how a high level of safety would be 

maintained during the proposed operations. An ELoS finding means a finding that alternative 

action taken provides a level of safety equal to that provided by the standard for which 

equivalency is being sought. The petitioner has not provided data or analysis to establish an 

ELoS when compared to a similar operation utilizing demilitarized aircraft that would not 

need an exemption. 

The FAA’s Decision:

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

an equivalent level of safety, nor 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 Dillon Aero, Inc. for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 91.319(a)(2) and 91.9 (a) is 

hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 31, 2015.

/s/

John S. Duncan