Exem ption No. 10343

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

AERO SPORTS CONNECTION Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0635

for an exemption from § 91.9(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated August 25, 2010, Mr. Jam es Stephenson, CEO/President, Aero Sports Connection (ASC), 231 SW. Bonanza Glen, Lake City, Florida 32025, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of ASC for an exemption from § 91.319(a)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit ASC pilots to use experimental light-sport aircraft (E-LSA) for intentional parachute jumping.

Although the petitioner requests relief from § 91.319(a)(1), the petitioner requires relief from § 91.9(a):

Section 91.9(a) prescribes that except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, 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:

The petitioner states that parachute jumping from a powered parachute (PPC) is one of the few ways jumpers can safely simulate the zero velocity jumps of base jumping and that PPC jumping avoids the major issues of base jumping at low altitude and proximity to a structure or cliffs. The petitioner also states PPC jumping has been safely demonstrated many times

AFS-10-308-E2

and E-LSA make good jump platforms because of their slow speed, excellent access, and

abundant hand holds.

The petitioner also notes that special light–sport aircraft (S-LSA) certificated under § 21.190 are not precluded from being used for parac hute jumping, yet because S-LSA PPCs are so rare, there are not sufficient numbers available to support the need for intentional parachute jumping from PPCs.

The petitioner states this exemption would be in the public interest because PPC jumps are the easiest and safest way to achieve near zero velocity jumps. The petitioner asserts without a grant of exemption there will be more untrained PPC jumps and base jumps. This will result in increased risks and result in expensive rescue efforts which will divert resources from public service.

Additionally, the petitioner states a grant of exemption would not adversely affect safety for the following reasons –

1. ASC ground training to fly jump missions is documented in the organization’s practical test standard which drew on the experience of several very experienced PPC jumpers, including Dana Savorelli;

2. A check list and ground training guidance for jumpers is recorded in its practical test standard;

3. A 100-hour condition inspection on the aircraft is conducted based on the provisions of part 43, Appendix D;

4. A copy of the ASC training guidelines is in its practical test standard;

5. Standard jump protocols of airspace and permissions are followed as reviewed in the practical test standard;

6. Pilots must carry a copy of their ASC credentials which require a minimum of 50 PPC flight experiences, a sport pilot license, recorded condition inspections, a written test, an instructor recommendation, an examiner check flight, and an application; and

7. ASC peer review requirements maintain a means of correcting pilots who do not follow procedures.

The petitioner contends that PPCs are the safest motorized vehicles known and notes that since 1982 less than 39 fatalities have occurred in PPC operations. The petitioner notes that PPCs are safer than many other forms of transportation and provide a stable and easy to fly aircraft that makes a safe jump platform. PPCs are easy to exit, have many hand holds, and provide relatively few ways to catch or snag a jumper. Additionally, the propeller of a PPC is shrouded, and the path from the PPC carriage is open.3

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

A PPC certificated as an E-LSA under the provisions of § 21.191(i) is issued an experimental certificate for the broad purpos e of operating a light-sport aircraft that meets the conditions specified in that regulation. Although that regulation does not specifically preclude intentional parachute jumping from these aircraft, this activity is typically prohibited through the issuance of an operating limitation. This limitation is part of the aircraft’s airworthiness certif icate and is issued in accordance with the provisions of § 91.319(i), which states that “t he Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the Administrator considers necessary.” The Administrator has established the agency’s policy for issuing such limitations in FAA Order 8130.2,

Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products, which directs FAA inspectors to issue an operating limitation prohibiting such activity in an E-LSA.

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner’s request and supporting information and finds the petitioner would require an exemption to § 91.9(a) rather than § 91.319(a)(1). Section 91.9(a) specifies 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.” Although E-LSA may not have approved flight manuals, they clearly have been certificated with operating limitations issued by the FAA, which prescribe certain requirements. As the conduct of intentional parachute jumping would be contrary to an operating limitation issued by the FAA, an exemption from § 91.9(a) (or an amendment of the operating limitation) would be necessary to conduct such activity. Previous correspondence from the agency indicating that a grant of exemption from § 91.319 would be necessary prior to amending the operating

limitation is inaccurate.

Although the FAA recognizes the limited number of PPCs that are available, the activity the petitioner describes can be conducted using aircraft with standard or other

airworthiness certificates. E-LSAs are neither certificated in accordance with airworthiness standards specified in subchapter C of Chapter I of 14 CFR nor are they certificated in accordance with consensus standards accepted by the Administrator for S-LSA. Additionally, E-LSAs are not required to be maintained under the requirements of part 43 that are applicable to aircraft that have been issued standard

airworthiness certificates or have been certif icated as S-LSA. Accordingly, the FAA is not able to make a conclusive determination as to whether intentional parachute jumping may be safely conducted from each individual PPC that would be subject to the provisions of this exemption. The petitioner has, therefore, not sufficiently shown that grant of exemption would be in the public interest or that an equivalent level of safety would be provided by the use of aircraft that do not meet more comprehensive airworthiness and maintenance requirements.

Although the petitioner has indicated that the intentional parachute jumping would not be conducted for compensation, the FAA has consistently interpreted compensation4

very broadly. Any form of compensation, to include the logging of flight time, would be considered to be “for compensation.” PPCs certificated as E-LSAs may not be used to carry persons or property for compensation or hire unless under a deviation issued for the limited purposes specified in § 91.319(h). Additionally, persons exercising theprivileges of a sport pilot certificate may neither act as pilot in command of a lightsport aircraft carrying a passenger or property for compensation nor act as pilot of a light-sport aircraft for compensation or hire. If compensation in any form is provided, the carriage of parachutists for sport parachuting must be conducted by a person exercising at least the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exem ption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Aero Sports Connection for an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.9(a) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 29, 2011.

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service .