Exemption 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. James 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-E 
2

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 parachute 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 purpose 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 certificate and is issued in accordance with the 

provisions of § 91.319(i), which states that “the 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 certificated 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 compensation 
4

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 the 

privileges 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 exemption 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 .