Exem ption No. 10733

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

CORBI AIR, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0832

for an exemption from §§ 61.113(a) and 91.327(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated July 2 4, 2012 Mr. Ronald Corbi, President, Corbi Air, Inc. (Corbi Air),

11800 Salem W arren Road, Salem, Ohio 44460, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Corbi Ai r for an exemption from §§ 61.113(a) and 91.327(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption would permit the use of special light-sport aircraft to be used to detect incursions and leaks in natural gas pipelines for compensation or hire.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 61.113(a) prescribes, that except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying pa ssengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an

aircraft.

Section 91.327(a) prescribes, that no person ma y operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for compensation or hire except- (1) to tow a glider or an unpowered ultr alight vehicle in accordance with § 91.309 of this chapter; or (2) to conduct flight training.”

AFS-12-494-E2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states it currently uses a Cessna 206 fitted with gas leak detection and highresolution video camera equipment to fly over specific pipelines in the United States. The petitioner states that an ex emption will increase public safety and reduce pollution by allowing replacement of its Cessna 206 fleet with S-LSA (Special Light-Sport Aircraft) fixedwing aircraft. The petitioner states that an ex emption would benefit th e public as follows:

1. The use of an S-LSA will increase the safe ty of people and structures on the ground because they are smaller, lighter, slower, and more agile. S-LSA’s are much less likely to cause injury or damage on the ground in the event of engine failure because of their short landing capabil ities. Their slow speeds enable the pilot to land safely in areas that are unavailable to a Cessna pilot.

2. Pipelines have many sharp turns that must be checked for leaks and incursions. The slow speed capability and nimble flight char acteristics of an S-LSA allows the pilot to follow the pipelines' sharp bends more accurately than is possible with larger, heavier, and faster aircraft. Because of these cap abilities, the S-LSAs will increase public safety by improved and more accurate gas leak detection and pipeline integrity.

3. The use of an S-LSA will benefit the public by reducing noise pollution in the residential areas that frequently abut pipe lines. At approximately 55 dB, they are significantly less noisy than our existing aircraft.

4. The use of an S-LSA will be nefit the public by creating le ss air pollution and reducing carbon footprint. It consumes significantly le ss fuel and engine oil and is capable of using unleaded fuel instead of the heav ily leaded fuel required by the Cessna.

5. If it is felt that it should be required, its S-LSA can be equipped with a ballistic recovery parachute. No such sy stem is available for a Cessna 206.

The petitioner also states that granting of this petition would not advers ely affect safety or would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule it seeks exemption

from as follows:

1. The petitioner’s camera and leak detection e quipment is light-weight and of a size that would easily fit into an S-LSA.

2. The camera and leak detection equipment is designed to allow the flights to be completed at 1000 feet above ground level. Th e petitioner states th at such flights are much safer over populated areas and no lo w altitude waivers would be required.

3. Any changes to the petitioner’s aircraft such as view ports, electrical connections and equipment mounts will be tested and approved by the aircraft manufacturer.

4. The petitioner’s S-LSA will not be changed in any way that affects its flight characteristics or weight and balance envelope.3

5. The petitioner’s S-LSA will be maintained by an Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic (A&P) and an A&P with an inspectio n authorization will conduct the 100 hour and condition/annual inspections.

6. The petitioner’s S-LSA will use certified engines and propellers

7. The petitioner’s S-LSA will be equipped with dual alternators.

8. The petitioner’s flights will be conducted only during daylight hours but the aircraft will be equipped with a full night lighting package includ ing instrument, navigation, strobe, and landing lights.

9. The petitioner’s flights will be conducted only in visual flight rules conditions but the

aircraft will be instrume nt flight rules equipped.

10. The petitioner’s pilots will have a minimum of a commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating.

11. The petitioner’s pilots will complete an extensive training program

A summary of the petitio n was published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 50760). One comment was received in opposition. The commenter notes the restrictions specified in § 91.327, emphasizes that special light s port aircraft do not meet the airworthiness standards set forth in part 23 for aircraft that can be used for compensation or hire, and poses questions and raises questi ons regarding the installation of equipment necessary for the conduct of the proposed operation.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has reviewed the petitioner’s informa tion and we find a grant of exemption would not provide an equivalent level of safety to that of the regu lations and would not be in the public interest.

As stated in the preamble to the Final Rule, Certification of Aircraft and Airm en for the operation of Light Sport Aircraft

, “The FAA believes that the operating characteristics of [Light Sport Aircraft] necessitate their certi fication. However, their characteristics and the operations that they will be used to conduct do not warrant the more extensive certification standards applied to primary or standard category aircraft. The FAA believes that the use of consensus standards provides a level of safety appropriate for the operation of the aircraft.” (69 FR 44776, July 27, 2004). It further states, “Section 91.327(a) is m odified to clarify the FAA’s intent that special light-s port aircraft should not generally be used for compensation or hire” (69 FR 44854).

S-LSA are not subject to the same rigorous te sting standards and documentation required of

aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificat e. The regulations applicable to S-LSA were intended to increase the level of safety in these aircraft when used for sport or recreation only.

.4

The petitioner cites some characteristics of S-LSA that could increase the level of safety in pipeline patrol operations over the use of its Ce ssna 206. Characteristics cited include lighter weight, slower landing speed, and more agility. However, there are many available aircraft

with a standard airworthiness ce rtificate that exhibit similar characteristics. Moreover, there are characteristics of many S-LSA that could be detrimental to the petitioner’s operations. These might include less available engine power and climb capability, more susceptibility to adverse wind and weather, or poor stall characteristics.

The petitioner claims that light sport fixed-wi ng aircraft are significan tly less noisy than its existing Cessna 206, and that fixed-wing S-LSA will benefit the public by creating less air pollution and reducing its carbon f ootprint. The petitioner, ho wever, has not provided any data to support its contentions and has not identified the specif ic S-LSA which it would use to conduct its proposed operations. Moreover, the petitioner has not provided evidence that it

has evaluated aircraft with standard airworth iness certificates other than a Cessna 206 that may be quieter and would produce fewer emissions.

The petitioner asserts that a ballistic recovery parachute may be installed in S-LSA but no such system is available for a Cessna 206. Ballistic recovery parachutes, however, are available for other aircraft having standard airworthiness certificates. Again, the petitioner has not provided evidence that its operations could not be con ducted in an aircraft with a

standard airworthiness certificate.

Although the petitioner has requested relief from the provisions of § 61.113(a), it states that it will utilize pilots holding at least a commercia l pilot certificate with an instrument rating. Accordingly, relief from the prov isions of § 61.113(a) is not required.

The FAA finds that the petiti oner has not demonstrated that an exemption to § 91.327(a) would not adversely affect safety or provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by § 91.327(a).

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of th e 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 m e by the Administrator, the petition of Corbi Air, Inc., for an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.113(a) and 91.327(a) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 25, 2013

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service