Exem ption No. 10410

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

PRESIDENTIAL AIRWAYS Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-1270

for an exemption from § 91.313(b)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

PARTIAL GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated Novem ber 9, 2011, Mr. Walter C. Garner, Director of Operations, Presidential Airways (Presidential), 1383 General Aviation Drive, Melbourne, Florida 32935, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Presidential for an exemption from § 91.313 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit Presidential to conduct part 135 flight crewmember training in a restricted category aircraft over congested areas.

The petitioner requires relief from the following regulations:

Section 91.313(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no person may operate a restricted category civil aircraft for other than the special purpose for which it is certificated; or in an operation other than one necessary to accomplish the work activity directly associated with that special purpose.

Section 91.313(b) prescribes, in pertinent part, that operating a restricted category civil aircraft to provide flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated is considered to be an operation for that special purpose.

Section 91.313(e) prescribes that, except when operating in accordance with the terms and conditions of a certificate of waiver or special operating limitation issued by the Administrator, no person may operate a restricted category civil aircraft within the

AFS-12-082-E2

United States over a densely populated area, in a congested airway, or near a busy airport where passenger transport operations are conducted.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner requests an exemption from § 91.313(e) to conduct training required by part 135 in congested areas in a restricted category Sikorsky S-61. The petitioner’s current S61 fleet is being used to support military operations in Afghanistan. Presidential asserts that availability of standard category S-61s in the United States is very limited. The use of this rotorcraft is vital to provide flight crewmember initial, recurrent, upgrade, and transition training, as well as practical examinations l eading to flight crewmember certification, for crewmembers who will be supporting operations in Afghanistan.

The petitioner maintains that no exemption is necessary to conduct this training in the restricted category aircraft if the FAA finds the restricted category aircraft “has no significantly different handling or flight char acteristics” than the standard category S-61 under § 135.293. The petitioner bases this assertion on its interpretation that training (including training required under part 135) is al ways included as part of the special purpose of the aircraft under § 91.313(b). To this effect, the petitioner maintains that this restricted category S-61 is virtually identically configured to its standard category counterpart. The only differences pertain to passenger comfort, such as seating and observation windows. The restricted category S-61 has equipment for full and constant radio communications and is fully capable of instrument landing approaches. If the FAA determines, however, that an exemption is warranted to permit training required under part 135 to be conducted in this restricted category S-61, because of the identical nature of the rotorcraft to its standard category rotorcraft equivalent, the use of this ro torcraft for training would not have an adverse impact on safety.

The petitioner states that this exemption to permit training over congested areas is necessary since FAA facilities and equipment, i.e., airports, are normally located near or in densely populated areas with congested airways.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Presidential.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has reviewed the information submitted by Presidential. Although the petitioner maintains that exemption from § 91.313(b) is not necessary based on the provisions of § 135.293, the FAA has determined that an exemption from this requirement is necessary to permit training required under part 135 to be conducted in the restricted category S-61. The FAA has also determined that a grant of exemption or waiver from the restriction from operating in congested areas under § 91.313(e) is not appropriate. Thus, as outlined below,3

the FAA has determined that a partial grant of exemption would be in the public interest and not have an adverse impact on safety.

The FAA does not agree with the petitioner’s interpretation of § 91.313(b) and § 135.293. The permission to conduct training in § 91.313(b) provides that “operating a restricted category civil aircraft to provide flight crewmember training in a special purpose operation for which the aircraft is certificated is considered to be an operation for that special purpose.” This permission to conduct training is limited to training related to the special purpose for which the aircraft is certificated under part 21. The training the petitioner desires to conduct is outside the scope of the limited special purpose for which this rotorcraft was certificated. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that the petitioner requires an exemption from § 91.313(b) to conduct training required under part 135 in this restricted category rotorcraft.

Airworthiness standards for restricted category aircraft are not designed to provide the same level of safety that is required for aircraft certificated in the standard category under parts 23 and 25 that are required for use in part 121 and 135 operations. The operating limitations set forth in § 91.313 are designed to compensate for this and to provide the necessary level of safety for special purpose operations. See Amdt 91-12, 30 FR 2531, 2532 (Feb. 25, 1965); see also 33 FR 12825 (Sept. 11, 1968) (adding allowance to conduct training related to the special purpose for which the aircraft was certificated). The training operations the petitioner proposes to conduct should be conducted in accordance with the higher safety standards set forth in part 135. The FAA finds, however, in light of the public interest to support the operations in Afghanistan that a grant of exemption for a limited period of time is warranted to ensure flight crewmembers are properly trained and qualified prior to operating in Afghanistan. The FAA expects that as Presidential’s S-61 fleet becomes available that it will conduct this training in its standard category S-61 rotorcraft.

The FAA has reviewed the petitioner’s assertions that “the restricted category S-61 is virtually identically configured to its sta ndard category counterpart.” The FAA recognizes that the S-61 is equipped to ensure full and constant radio communications. It is also capable of instrument landing approaches. The FAA has determined, based on the equipment installed and capabilities of this rotorcraft, in conjunction with the conditions and limitations set forth below, that an equivalent level of safety to that set forth by the regulation may be

established.

The FAA recognizes that the petitioner has requested an exemption from the restrictions against operating over congested and densely populated areas set forth in § 91.313(e)(1), (2), and (3). This type of relief is not appropria te for an exemption. The FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) is responsible for determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether a waiver from this restriction is appropriate. See §§ 91.313(e) and 91.905 (listing the regulations for which waiver is appropriate). Each waiver is based on the particular purpose of the flight or flights, equipment, and capability of the operator to ensure that all safety considerations are addressed. Thus, Presidential should contact the FSDO in the geographic region in which the training will be conducted to request this relief. Regardless of whether a4

waiver from this restriction is granted by the FSDO, Presidential will be required to have all routes and training locations authorized by the certificate holding district office (CHDO) under the conditions and limitations of this exemption.

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, Presidential Airways is granted an exemption from § 91.313(b) to the extent necessary to allow Presidential to conduct training required under part 135 in a restricted category rotorcraft S-61, subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. This exem ption is only valid until a standard category S-61 aircraft becomes available for use by Presidential. This exemption will terminate upon the return of any standard category S-61 rotorcraft operated, leased, or owned by Presidential to the United States. Presidential will provide a monthly report to the CHDO of its efforts to obtain a standard category S-61 to conduct training required under part 135.

2. This exemption is limited to Sikorsky S-61A, N561SC, serial number 61272.

3. No operations for compensation or hire shall be conducted during operations under this exemption.

4. Only FAA aviation safety inspectors (ASI) are authorized to conduct checks or testing granted by this exemption unless Presidential is granted authority to conduct specific checks in writing by the CHDO. Presidential must notify the appropriate CHDO at least 7 days in advance of the proposed date of the flight check or testing.

5. All routes and training locations must be suitable to the FAA inspector conducting the check or as authorized by the CHDO if a check airman is permitted to conduct the

check.

6. Presidential may only use this aircraft for the special purposes identified on the restricted category airworthiness certificate for the rotorcraft and the following training required under part 135:

a. Sections 135.293, 135.297, 135.299. To complete checks and evaluations required by §135.297, the aircraft must be certificated for flight into instrument meteorological conditions;

b. Section 135.347 for initial, upgrade, transition, differences; and

c. Section 135.351 for recurrent training.5

7. An aircraft configuration analysis including but not limited to flight deck, flight manual, operating limitations, and procedures must be completed and provided to the CHDO reflecting the capability of the aircraft to perform all required procedures and maneuvers to meet part 135 training and checking requirements. In addition, differences training must be developed, and approved by the principal operations inspector (POI). Differences training must address all areas identified in the configuration analysis.

8. No person may operate this S-61A, N561SC, serial number 61272, helicopter at a weight greater than the weight that, with the critical engine inoperative, would permit a rate of climb of at least 50 feet per minute at an altitude of at least 1,000 feet above the elevation of the highest ground or obstruction within the area to be operated or at an altitude of 5,000 feet, whichever is higher.

9. The aircraft must be maintained in accordance with the Sikorsky equalized inspection and maintenance program SA 4047-13. The operator must provide a written report validating compliance before beginning training or checking and quarterly thereafter. The report will also include validation that life-limits have not been exceeded.

10. A copy of this exemption must be provided to the POI and must be carried aboard the

aircraft at all times.

11. Failure to meet any of the conditions of this exemption immediately cancels the authority authorized by this exemption.

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 19, 2011.

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service .