AFS

- 1 4

- 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

DIL LON AERO, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 08 85

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 n o person may opera te an aircraft that has an experimental certificate c arrying persons or property for compensation or hire.

S ection 91.9(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specifi ed 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 stat es it manufacture s the Dillon Aero Ml34D Mini Gun Systems

accessories for th e 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 16 0th 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 Enforce ment Agencies are requesting specialized , weapon systems train ing utilizing t he petitioner ’s aircraft ; UH

- 1H and OH

- 58

. As t he petitioner states, t hese aircraft are U.S. military surplus aircraft that are certificated Experimental

- Exhibition. Furthermo re, it state s that t here are several government cont racts pending until t he petitioner can gain the approval for this exemption.

The petitioner states that p er other U.S. Government Agencies regulation s
, the government agencies that are requesting this s pecialized training are required to " p ay" (provide compensation) to the facility (Dillon Aero) providing such training. Also, per

those regulation s
, Dillon Aero cannot accept compensation due to the specialized training that these government agencies ar e requesting, which require using UH

- 1 H 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 op portunities.

Additiona l l y , 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 sever al 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 acco rdance with the ma nufacture’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 n o 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) operati ng limitations can provide for an equal level of safety when weap ons 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

demilita rization has been completed. As a result, when armed, both N205DP and N480FT would be operating outside of the scope of t he operating limitations. In addition, there is no valid airworthiness baseline for an exemption from experimental exhibition limitat ions

, nor can compliance with such limitations be accepted as an equivalent level of safety ( ELoS ) finding.

The p etitioner 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 pro posed 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) a nd 91.9 (a) is hereby denie d.

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

/s/

John S. Duncan