AFS-10-182-E

Exemption No. 10090

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

CARL E. WISCHMEYER Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0179

for an exemption from § 61.23(a)(3)(i) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter posted to the docket on March 3, 2010, M r. Carl Edward Wischmeyer petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA ) for an exemption from § 61.23(a)(3)(i) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit Mr. Wischmeyer to fly an AirCam experi mental aircraft without a medical certificate, instead using only a valid driver’s li cense.

The petitioner requests relief from the following r egulation:

Section 61.23(a)(3)(i) prescribes, in pertinent par t, that a person must hold at least a third-class medical certificate when exercising the privileges of a private pilot.

The petitioner supports his request with the follow ing information:

The petitioner states that his request is in the pu blic interest because it extends the intent of Sport Pilot privileges to the petitioner when flying an AirCam experimental aircraft. The kit manufacturer’s specifications fo r the AirCam aircraft indicate that, among other characteristics, it has a gross weight of 1,680 pounds and two engines with fixed-pitch props.

The petitioner states he is experienced in AirCam e xperimental aircraft and holds certificated flight instructor/multi-engine, airlin e transport pilot/airplane multi-engine land, and a current medical certificate. Petitione r seeks to fly the AirCam without an2

FAA medical certificate but with a driver’s license , analogous to a sport pilot flying without an FAA medical certificate. The petitioner states that his level of experience presents a level of safety equivalent to flying air craft flown by sport pilots.

The petitioner further requests that this exemption be valid outside the United States as there may be occasions to fly AirCams to Canada, Me xico, or the Bahamas.

A summary of the petition was published in the Fed eral Register on (75 FR 19459).

No comments were received.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner’s suppo rting information and finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public inter est.

The requirement to hold a medical certificate under 14 CFR § 61.23 is dependent on the type of operation rather than on the certificate he ld. For example, if the operation requires only a sport pilot certificate, then a pil ot may hold either a medical certificate or a U.S. driver’s license provided the pilot knows of no reason why he or she would not qualify for a third-class medical certificate. How ever, if the operation requires a private pilot certificate, then the pilot must hold at leas t a third-class medical certificate.

In developing the light sport rules, the FAA carefu lly considered those factors that would define the privileges and limitations of spor t pilots and those engineering factors that define light sport aircraft. It was determine d that an aircraft with (among other factors) a gross weight not greater than 1,320 poun ds (1,430 pounds for aircraft intended for operation on water), and with not more than a s ingle engine, would be defined as a light sport aircraft. These criteria for light spo rt aircraft are listed in 14 CFR part 1. Light sport aircraft can be operated with a sport p ilot certificate under § 61.303 and also a U.S. driver’s license under § 61.23(c).

However, the AirCam aircraft that the petitioner wi shes to fly does not meet two 14 CFR part 1 requirements. It has more than one engine a nd weighs more than 1,320 pounds. Therefore, the AirCam is not a light sport aircraft and its operation requires at least a private pilot certificate.

The petitioner specifically requests that he be exe mpted from the requirement to hold a valid medical certificate when exercising the privi leges of a private pilot certificate. The petitioner’s rationale is that such an exemption wo uld extend the intent of the sport pilot privileges to at least this particular experimental aircraft. However, granting this exemption would be redefining what constitutes a li ght sport aircraft rather than merely extending the intent of sport pilot privileges. Th e FAA has determined it is contrary to the public interest to change the firmly establishe d definition of light sport aircraft in the context of this petition. The petitioner also fail s to demonstrate how this exemption3

would maintain a level of safety equivalent to that provided by current regulations because his level of aeronautical experience is imm aterial to whether he meets the medical standards for the operation. Meeting those medical standards required for safe operation is evidenced by at least a third-class me dical certificate.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a g rant of exemption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the author ity contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, th e petition of Mr. Carl Edward Wischmeyer for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.23(a)( 3)(i) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on Jun 30 2010.

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service