January 4.2011
John W. McGraw , Acting Director Flights Standards Service Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave. Wa shington . DC. 20591 RE: EXEMPTION No.9902A Regulatory Docket No. F AA-2008

- 1128

A I 'PLICATlON FOR PA RTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF Exe mptio n 99 02A J uly 29,20 10 EXEMPTION LETTER
Dear Acting Director McGraw, By lctter you authored on Jul y 29.2010 the FAA amended the museum' s Exe mption to add an aircraft (T2 8B N52424 ). omitted by your department in the original exemption. In our original application, North American T28B N5242 was erroneously listed as N52524 due to a typo error. It was again listed as N52524 on our request to add it to the aircraft li st. Plea se update your reco r d s and our exemption to have No rth American T2 8B properly listed as N52424. I am sorry for this mistake in our original and subsequent reque sts. Thank you for yo ur consideration. 

# ;;1 ",e 

# '5 k', ('"J-

# &~~**U~ Jeancs**  Executive Director 972 -380-880 0 xl05 djeanes @ cavflight.org

Cavanaug h Flight Museum 501(C) 3 Non -Profit Educational Organ ization

- www.cavanaughflightmuscum.com Addison Airport, 4572 C laire Chennault, Addison, Texas 75001 (972) 380-8800January 4.2011
John W. McGraw. Acting Director Flights Standards Service Federal Avi ation Adm ini stratio n 800 Independence Ave. Washington. DC. 20591 RE: EXEMPTION No.9902A Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008

- 11 28

APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL RECONS LDERATION OF Exe mption 9902A July 29,2010 EXEMPTION LETTER
Dear Ac ting Director McG raw. By letter you authored on Jul y 29 ,2 010 the FAA amended the museum 's Exemption to add an a ircraft( T288 N52 424), omitted by yo ur d epartment in the origina l exemption. Exemption 9902A has additio nal requirements that seem to 

### be added for n o apparent reason. Cavanaugh Flight Museum (CFM) respectfully requests that you reconsider those add iti onal requirement s and also requests an expedited consideration on a procedural basis in contemplation of 14 CF R 11.1 01 

### fa] CFM has sign ifi cant additional fac ts . [b] the FAA made several important factual errors, together with the co ntention that [c] the FAA did not correctly interpret and app l y a law. reg ul ation
. or precedent. CFM" s positi ons may 

### be fairly summ arized as follows:
A. THE PROHIBI TION OF AEROBATICS THE AGENCY'S ANALYS IS



### 9902A Paragraph 22.
.. ... [TJhe PI C is prohibited/romperforming aerobatic:jlighJs while I}(ls.wngers a re aboard the aircraft
. ..

Cava naugh Flight Museum 501 (C) 3 Non- P rofit Educational Organization
. www.cavanaughflightmuscum.com Addison Airpon , 4572 Claire Chennault. Addison, Texas 75001 (972) 380-8800"Passengers wishing 10 experience aerobatics can obtain rides in aircrc!fttype cert[{icated/or aerobatics. The living hislOricalJ1ight experiences (LHFE) are designed to provide/or experiences not otherwise available to the public. Therefore, the conditions and limitations regarding aerobaticJ1ight 

### will remain in effect. These limitations 

### will be added to all LflFE exemptions;n order 10 clarify the intent o/rhe exemprions"
CFM RESPONSE In the meeting on December 15 111 2010 chaired by Mel Ci ntron it was stated by the FAA that the intent of the Exempt ion program all along has been not to include aerobatics and that it never has been allowed
. There is no FAA policy that supports this statement. Discuss i ons of the Exemption letter proces s since 1996 were discussed. The intent of the FAA previous to the publication of 72 FR No. 194 is irrele vant since that modified the policy. As a matter of reference CFM was an attendee of an FAA gathering of stakeholders al EAA headquarters previou s to the publication of72 FR No. 194. The meeting was chaired by John All en to get feedback on the future of the Exemption program. Aer obatics was discussed in the meeting , with the only concern of the FAA being egress from fighter type aircraft that did not originall y have a second scat and the need for ejection seats to comply with 91.303. It was ne ver discussed that acrobatics was against FAA " intent ". During the Dec. 15.2010 meeting, discussions of several meeting s chaired by John Allen. and Mel Cintron. with The Collins Foundat i on, for the issue ofejection seats TCF stated that not only is that a safety issue but additionally TCF would not 

### be able to comply with 91 J03.And discussions of egress and ingres s routes included an area boxed out as our maneuvering area in order to comply wi th 91.303. The FAA was well aware of what complying with 91.303 means and did not raise an is sue thal aerobatics were not the intent of the Exemption program.
Historically. the FAA ha s never made the argument that aerobatics were not the intent ofthe program. Therefore: [a] The FAA made factua l errors and d i d not correctly interpret current FAA objectives. ' rhe limitation prohibiting acrobatics by the FAA was arbitrary and contrary to its Policy in 72 FR No. 194 and Precedent. [b] There is no FAR's including 91.303 (Acrobatics), 91.315 (Limi ted Category Aircraft) or 91.319 (Experimenta l Category Aircraft) that prohibit aerobatics with passengers onboard these aircraft. In fact the Operating Limitations specifically allow anyacrobatic maneuver that had been demonstrated in Phase I (test phase of Experimental Aircrall) [c] Nowhere in the F.R. Vol. 72 No. 194. the rules and guidelines for issuance of Exe mption letters, does it state that aircraft are prohibited from aerobatic fljght. In fact it s tates in section 16. "Passengers must be fully informed of the risks associated with the proposed rides, and that occupying a seal in these aircraft may subject the rider 10 a high le l'el ofrisk". This passage spec ifically addresses the risks ofan aerobatic flight. [d] 72 FR No.194 (4) states: "Passenger training programs mllst be aileasl as thorough as what is provided by the manufacture or military service liser when preparing an individual for a Iamiliari:ation "jlight ". Military familiarization flights do entail aerobatics. Therefore it was the intent of the FAA to allow this activ ity. [e] Significant Additional Fact: There are NO "experiences otherwise available to the public" in Standard category aircraft that are simi lar to LHFE flight s. Just because you could fly aerobatics in a Citabria, T-6 or even an Extra does not make it the same as a P

-51. A-4 or F-4. The FAA's statement completely goes against the intent of the Exemption program. It would be like saying that anyone that wishes to fly in a B-1 7 can ny in a DC

- 3 instead since it is standard category! 

### [1] Significant Additional Fact: The vast majority of riders in a fighter type aircraft want to do some form ofacrobatics. Iflhis option is taken away then they will not fl y as that is the experience that the participants want. Thi s wi ll eause an unfair eco n omic burden to CFM
. [h] Precedent: No other FAA issued Exemption Letter has had this provision in the past and even Exemptio n letters issued after The Collings Foundation, Co mmemorative Air Force, and Cavanaugh Flight Museum havc not had these re strictions.



### CFM I'ROPOSED RISK MIDIGATION
CFM request modification exemption 9902A Paragraph 22 as written:
'"The PIC is prohibitedfrom performing aerobalicjlighl while passengers are onboard the aircraft "
. 

### C HANGE TO READ: 22. Aerobatic maneuvers other must be completed at. or above 3.000' AGL. Only pilots wh o are evaluated on acrobatics during their initial qualification/recurrent flight training are authorized to perform these maneuvers.II. THE PROHIilITION OF MANIPULATION OF FliGHT CONTROLS THE AGENCY'S ANALYSIS
9902A Paragraph 23. "No persons orher than fhe assignedflight ,.,.ewmembers may be permitted 

### 10 manipulate the

### jlighl controls dllringjlighf operations ". CFM RESPO NSE La] Exempt i on holders arc exempt from 91.315 and 91.319 (a) (2) to allow Limited or Experimental category a i rc r aft from carrying passengers or cargo for compensat i on or hire. Nowhere in Part 9 1 docs 

### it prohibit these Limited or Experimental aircraft from allowi n g a passenger 10 m anipu l ate the controls , not flight training, unless other passengers arc carri ed
. Manipulation of flight controls is a basic ability that all pilots flying under part 91 have extended to passengers to share the joys of flight and does not constitute flight training. The Exempt i on holders do not advocate nor are asking for the abi lity to give "stick time" on a B-24 or B-17 (multi pax aircraft) during an exemption night. A passenger should not 

### be able to manipul ate the controls unless he/she is the only passenger on board (two person aircraft) and does not occupy the pilot station as outlined in the lim itations. This limitation should 

# oc modified since it does not co rrectl y interpreted the law and follow precedent. [b] 72 FR No.194 (4) states: "Passenger training programs mllst be at/easl as thorough as what is provided by the manufacture or military service use r when preparing an individual for a jClIl1iliarization "flight "
. Mi litary famil iari zat i on night s do entail the manipulation of the co ntrol s when it is a dua l control aircraft. Therefore it was the intent of the FAA to allow th is activity. [c] Incorrect interpretation oflaw : 72 F.R. 57197 , the rule s and guidelines for issuance of Exemption letters. docs not state in any section that a passenger cannot manipulate the controls. In fact sincc the night arc for living history, nOl s i ghtsee ing as outlined therein. The use of the controls. provided it is not at the p ilot station, wou l d 

### be an essential part of the experience. ld] Precedent: No other FAA issued Exemption Lettcr until now has had this provIsion.fe] This limitation is not in line with any current FAR since it is not defined as flight training, but manipulating the controls. Nowhere in the F.R. does it prohibillhis from taking place. Applicati on of this as an FAA policy would have a devastating impact on many great programs. Also , there is long standing precedent that this provision has not ever been part ofany exemption letter for organizat ions that operate dual control aircraft that do not require an SIC. If this precedent for allowing manipulation of the flight controls is overturned it will cause great harm too many major organizations that currently fly experience nights in several types of dua l control aircraft under their exemption letters that allow this.



### CF'M request modification exemption 9902A Paragraph 23 as written: "No persons olher than the assignedj/ighl crewmembers may be permilled 10 manipulate the flight controls duringflighr opera/ions ",

CHANGE TO READ: In aircraft that only require one pilot and are equipped with two sets of controls
. the pilot may allow a " hand s on" demonstration of flight characteristics during cruise conditions at, or above 

### 1,000' AGL For the above reasons, CFM respectfully asserts that it meets all of the criteria in the Policy for an Exempt i on withoutlhe prohibition ofaerobatic flight and the manipulation of the flight controls, The conclusion is compelled that you reconsider your denial and grant CFM an amended Exemption letter 9902A that adopts the proposed risk mitigation language. Thank you for your consideration and promptness.

Doug)eanes**E~eCutive** Director 

### 972 380 8800 x 

### 105 djeanes @ eavnight,org