January 4.2011 

John W. McGraw, Acting Director 

Flights Standards Service 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. 

Washington. DC. 20591 

RE: EXEMPTION No.9902A 

Regulatory Docket No. F AA-2008-1128 

AI'PLICA TlON FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION 

OF Exemption 9902A J uly 29,2010 EXEMPTION LETTER 

Dear Acting Director McGraw, 

By lctter you authored on July 29.2010 the FAA amended the museum's Exemption to 

add an aircraft (T28B 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 list. Please update 

your reco rds and our exemption to have North American T28B properly listed as N52424. I am 

sorry for this mistake in our original and subsequent requests. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

;;1 ",e '5 k', ('" J-

&~~ U~ Jeancs Executive Director 

972-380-8800 xl05 

djeanes@cavflight.org 

Cavanaugh Flight Museum 

501(C) 3 Non-Profit Educational Organization - www.cavanaughflightmuscum.com 

Addison Airport, 4572 Claire Chennault, Addison, Texas 75001 (972) 380-8800 
January 4.2011 

John W. McGraw. Acting Director 

Flights Standards Service 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. 

Washington. DC. 20591 

RE: EXEMPTION No.9902A 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-11 28 

APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL RECONSLDERATION 

OF Exemption 9902A July 29,2010 EXEMPTION LETTER 

Dear Acting Director McGraw. 

By letter you authored on July 29,2010 the FAA amended the museum's Exemption to 

add an aircraft( T288 N52424), omitted by your department in the original exemption. 

Exemption 9902A has additional requirements that seem to be added for no apparent reason. 

Cavanaugh Flight Museum (CFM) respectfully requests that you reconsider those 

additional requirements and also requests an expedited consideration on a procedural basis in 

contemplation of 14 CFR 11.1 01 fa] CFM has significant additional fac ts. [b] the FAA made 

several important factual errors, together with the contention that [c] the FAA did not correctly 

interpret and apply a law. regulation. or precedent. 

CFM" s positions may be fairly summarized as follows: 

A. THE PROHIBITION OF AEROBATICS 

THE AGENCY'S ANALYSIS 

9902A Paragraph 22. .. ... [TJhe PIC is prohibited/rom performing aerobatic:jlighJs while 

I}(ls.wngers are aboard the aircraft . .. 

Cavanaugh Flight Museum 

501 (C) 3 Non-Profit 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 15111 2010 chaired by Mel Cintron 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. Discussions of the Exemption letter process since 1996 were discussed. The 

intent of the FAA previous to the publication of 72 FR No. 194 is irrelevant since that 

modified the policy. 

As a matter of reference CFM was an attendee of an FAA gathering of 

stakeholders al EAA headquarters previous to the publication of72 FR No. 194. The 

meeting was chaired by John Allen to get feedback on the future of the Exemption 

program. Aerobatics 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 never discussed that acrobatics was 

against FAA " intent". 

During the Dec. 15.2010 meeting, discussions of several meetings chaired by 

John Allen. and Mel Cintron. with The Collins Foundation, for the issue of ejection 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 ingress routes included an area boxed 

out as our maneuvering area in order to comply with 91.303. The FAA was well aware of 

what complying with 91.303 means and did not raise an issue thal aerobatics were not the 

intent of the Exemption program. 

Historically. the FAA has never made the argument that aerobatics were not the 

intent of the program. Therefore: 

[a] The FAA made factual errors and did 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 (Limited Category 

Aircraft) or 91.319 (Experimental Category Aircraft) that prohibit aerobatics with 

passengers onboard these aircraft. In fact the Operating Limitations specifically allow any 
acrobatic 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 

Exemption letters, does it state that aircraft are prohibited from aerobatic fljght. In fact it 

states 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 specifically addresses the risks of an 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 activity. 

[e] Significant Additional Fact: There are NO "experiences otherwise available to 

the public" in Standard category aircraft that are similar to LHFE flights. 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 of acrobatics. Iflhis option is taken away then they will not 

fl y as that is the experience that the participants want. This will eause an unfair economic 

burden to CFM. 

[h] Precedent: No other FAA issued Exemption Letter has had this provision in 

the past and even Exemption letters issued after The Collings Foundation, 

Commemorative Air Force, and Cavanaugh Flight Museum havc not had these 

restrictions. 

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 ". 

CHANGE TO READ: 

22. Aerobatic maneuvers other must be completed at. or above 3.000' AGL. Only pilots who 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 RESPONSE 

La] Exemption holders arc exempt from 91.315 and 91.319 (a) (2) to allow 

Limited or Experimental category a ircraft from carrying passengers or cargo for 

compensat ion or hire. Nowhere in Part 91 docs it prohibit these Limited or Experimental 

aircraft from allowing a passenger 10 manipulate the controls, not flight training, unless 

other passengers arc carried. 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 Exemption holders do not advocate nor are asking 

for the ability 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 manipulate 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 limitations. This limitation should oc modified since it does not 

correctly 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 user when preparing 

an individual for a jClIl1iliarization "flight ". Military famil iarization nights do entail the 

manipulation of the controls when it is a dua l control aircraft. Therefore it was the intent 

of the FAA to allow this activity. 

[c] Incorrect interpretation oflaw: 72 F.R. 57197, the rules 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 sightseeing as 

outlined therein. The use of the controls. provided it is not at the pilot station, would 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. Application 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 of any exemption letter for organizations 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 "hands 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 Exemption 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