Exemption No. 10280 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

RICHMOR AVIATION, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0001

 

for an exemption from § 135.225(f) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated December 21, 2010, Mr. Peter F. Schafer, Chief Pilot, Richmor Aviation, 

Inc. (Richmor), 1142 Route 9H, Hudson, New York 12534, petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Richmor for an exemption from § 135.225(f) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit 

Richmor to make instrument flight rules (IFR) takeoffs with less than 1 mile visibility and 

approaches and landings with less than 1⁄2 mile visibility at military and foreign airports. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 135.225 prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot making an IFR takeoff or 

approach and landing at a military or foreign airport shall comply with applicable instrument 

approach procedures and weather minimums prescribed by the authority having jurisdiction 

over that airport. In addition, no pilot may, at that airport— 

(1) Take off under IFR when the visibility is less than 1 mile; or 

(2) Make an instrument approach when the visibility is less than 1⁄2 mile. 

AFS-11-109-E 
2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that the current regulation results in significant numbers of flight delays 

that impact the public when conducting foreign airport operations. Operations currently 

limited to 1 mile visibility are significantly limited in contrast to 500 feet runway visual range 

(RVR). This is particularly critical in the European environment where departure 

reservations are the norm. The actual economic impact is difficult to calculate, but any delays 

created by this rule for charter flights conducted by Richmor could experience considerable 

loss of revenue from affected flights due to duty time and other limitations. 

The petitioner states it currently holds a part 135 air carrier certificate (BQVA582C). As 

such, it is currently authorized to conduct takeoffs in weather minimums below Category I 

takeoff minimums for part 135 airplane operations (Operations Specification C079, Table I) 

down to 500 feet RVR. In addition, Canadian officials have issued operations specifications

to Richmor allowing lower than standard takeoff and landing minimums of 600 feet RVR. 

The petitioner states that all crewmembers are trained and evaluated under the Richmor FAA 

approved part 135 training program. The lower than standard takeoff minimums (500 feet

RVR) training event is conducted in the initial new hire, upgrade, and recurrent curriculum 

segments. Additionally, the petitioner notes that its Global BD-700 aircraft is equipped with 

a heads-up display (HUD). Crewmembers assigned to that aircraft are trained to use this 

device during low visibility takeoffs to aid in situational awareness. 

The petitioner states that it is a sophisticated part 91/135 operator, utilizing multiple large 

turbine-powered aircraft in a worldwide arena. The petitioner states that safety audits are 

conducted on a regular basis by ARGUS, Wyvern, National Charter Safety Foundation, and 

Executive Jet Management. Additionally, the petitioner notes that it operates with an 

approved Safety Management System (SMS). The petitioner states that granting this 

exemption request will not decrease the level of safety and would recognize the advances in 

technology and the flight support systems that Richmor has in place. 

 Although the petitioner requested that action on its petition not be delayed for publication 

in the Federal Register, the FAA found that the petition, if granted, would set a precedent. 

Therefore, to allow an opportunity for the public to comment on the petition, a summary of 

this petition was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2011 (76 FR 22445). Four 

comments were received, all of which supported the petition. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered the petitioner’s request and supporting materials for exemption to 

§ 135.225(f) and finds that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest and maintain 

a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulation.
3

Under § 121.651, an operator’s takeoff and landing weather minimums are specified in that 

certificate holder’s operations specifications, or parts 91 and 97, without any supplemental 

restrictions at military or foreign airports. Section 121.651(f) states that unless otherwise 

authorized in the certificate holder’s operations specifications, each pilot making an IFR 

takeoff, approach, or landing at a foreign airport shall comply with the applicable instrument 

approach procedures and weather minimums prescribed by the authority having jurisdiction 

over the airport. Unlike the part 121 regulation, § 135.225 separates domestic operations 

from those at military and foreign airports. 

When operating internationally, Richmor may need to use aerodromes not serviced by 

commercial air carriers; however, in accordance with the requirements of Article 15 of the 

Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago 1944), the specifications of International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 14, Volume I (Aerodrome Design and 

Operations), “shall apply to all aerodromes open to public use.” Specifications in Annex 14 

are at least comparable, and in some cases exceed the specifications in 14 CFR part 139, 

Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13 (Airport Design), and other ACs in the 150/53 series 

regarding airport paving, signage, marking, etc. Furthermore, instrument approaches at most 

international airports outside the United States use criteria specified in the ICAO Document 

816S-0PS, Procedures for Air Navigation Services-Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS), 

volumes I and II, to which U.S. Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) criteria are 

equivalent. Therefore, no degradation of safety will occur while Richmor is executing 

procedures designed by a foreign nation. 

When operating domestically under the provisions of part 135, Richmor is currently 

authorized, through Operations Specification C079, to conduct takeoffs when the RVR is as 

low as 500 feet (150m). In fact, low visibility training events are conducted in the initial new 

hire, upgrade, and recurrent curriculum segments. Since Richmor already trains and operates 

to low weather minimums and currently practices these procedures worldwide under part 91 

and domestically under part 135, it would be logical to conclude an equivalent level of safety 

could be maintained when operating to foreign airports under part 135. 

Other operators have pointed out that they have incurred 5 to 10 delays (of 2 hours or greater) 

per month because of the restrictions imposed by § 135.225, which have resulted in loss of 

revenue and passenger inconvenience, in part because they have to comply with “1 mile” 

instead of “500 feet” RVR. These delays are exacerbated by certain foreign air traffic 

operations. In Europe, it is often necessary to make departure reservations well in advance of 

the anticipated departure time. If a takeoff is subsequently delayed because of weather, then a 

departure slot is lost and an additional request must be made which further stresses an 

overburdened air traffic system. The public interest would be well served if these avoidable 

delays could be lessened. 

Weather minimums for aircraft operating under part 135 are prescribed in §§ 91.175 and 

135.225. Section 91.175 is applicable to both U.S. and foreign airports, and while it 

prescribes specific minimums, it allows for operations at lower minimums when authorized 
4

by the Administrator through operations specifications. Section 135.225 restricts a pilot 

operating under part 135 from making a takeoff at any foreign airport when the visibility is 

less than 1 mile. Unlike § 91.175, § 135.225 does not have a provision for operating at lower 

minimums when authorized by the Administrator. Therefore, takeoffs with less than 1 mile 

visibility at these foreign airports cannot be authorized through operations specifications. 

The FAA notes that the petitioner’s request is not unique. On February 26, 1992, Atlantic 

Coast Airlines (ACA) d.b.a. United Express petitioned the FAA for relief from 

14 CFR § 135.225(e) (now § 135.225(f)) to allow it to use lower minimums in Canada 

(Regulatory Docket No. 26802). At the time, ACA was a relatively new air carrier with very 

little experience in low visibility operations. In its petition, ACA stated that its request for 

exemption was the same as those exemptions granted to Horizon Air, Precision Valley 

Aviation, Inc., and Northeast Express Regional Airlines. A summary of ACA’s petition was 

published in the Federal Register on April 29, 1992 (57 FR 18201), and no public comments 

were received. ACA was granted Exemption No. 5499 on August 3, 1992. Also, two 

exemptions (Nos. 5090 and 6661) have been granted to Bankair, Inc., to operate from any 

U.S. military base with less than 1 mile visibility. 

Richmor has extensive experience operating to lower minimums domestically under part 135. 

Crews receive training in low visibility operations as part of their FAA-approved part 135 

training program and routinely utilize the lower minimums when flying into domestic airports 

while operating under part 135. The FAA believes that an equivalent level of safety could be 

maintained while operating to military or foreign airports under part 135. Richmor is in the 

business of providing on-demand air transportation to anyone whose travel needs cannot be 

served by scheduled air service. In today’s environment, major part 121 carriers have 

reduced their schedules and markets, forcing certain consumers to rely on operators such as 

Richmor to accommodate their travel requirements. Granting this exemption will enable 

those travelers to meet their needs at a level of safety equivalent to that of a part 121 air 

carrier. It will also reduce potential delays to those customers, especially in international 

markets. 

The FAA’s Decision 

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to 

me by the Administrator, Richmor Aviation, Inc., is granted an exemption from 

14 CFR § 135.225(f) to the extent necessary to allow Richmor to make IFR takeoffs from 

foreign and military airports when the visibility is less than 1 mile or approaches and landings 

when the visibility is less than 1⁄2 mile, subject to the conditions and limitations listed below. 
5

Conditions and Limitations 

1. The operator must have and comply with Operations Specification C079. 

2. Airports at which the operator intends to utilize the provisions of this exemption 

must have approach procedures developed in accordance with U.S. TERPS or 

ICAO PANS-OPS criteria. 

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on June 7, 2011. 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 
6