Exemption 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 24, 2012 Mr. Ronald Corbi, President, Corbi Air, Inc. (Corbi Air), 

11800 Salem Warren Road, Salem, Ohio 44460, petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Corbi Air 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 passengers 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 may 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 ultralight vehicle in accordance with § 91.309 of 

this chapter; or (2) to conduct flight training.” 

AFS-12-494-E 
2

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 exemption 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 exemption would benefit the public as follows: 

1. The use of an S-LSA will increase the safety 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 capabilities. 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 characteristics 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 capabilities, 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 pipelines. At approximately 55 dB, they are 

significantly less noisy than our existing aircraft. 

4. The use of an S-LSA will benefit the public by creating less air pollution and reducing 

carbon footprint. It consumes significantly less fuel and engine oil and is capable of 

using unleaded fuel instead of the heavily 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 system is available for a Cessna 206. 

The petitioner also states that granting of this petition would not adversely 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 equipment 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. The petitioner states that such flights are 

much safer over populated areas and no low 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 inspection 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 including 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 instrument 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 petition 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 sport 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 questions 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 information and we find a grant of exemption would 

not provide an equivalent level of safety to that of the regulations and would not be in the 

public interest. 

As stated in the preamble to the Final Rule, Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the 

operation of Light Sport Aircraft, “The FAA believes that the operating characteristics of 

[Light Sport Aircraft] necessitate their certification. 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 modified to clarify the 

FAA’s intent that special light-sport aircraft should not generally be used for compensation 

or hire” (69 FR 44854). 

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

aircraft with a standard airworthiness certificate. 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 Cessna 206. Characteristics cited include lighter 

weight, slower landing speed, and more agility. However, there are many available aircraft 

with a standard airworthiness certificate 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-wing aircraft are significantly 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 footprint. The petitioner, however, has not provided any 

data to support its contentions and has not identified the specific 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 airworthiness 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 conducted 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 commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating. 

Accordingly, relief from the provisions of § 61.113(a) is not required. 

The FAA finds that the petitioner 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 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 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