AFS-11-181-E 

March 8, 2012 

 Exemption No.10469 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0133 

Mr. Charles Yeagle 

Watermakers Air, Inc. 

2545 NW 55th Court, Hangar 26 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 

Dear Mr. Yeagle: 

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our 

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated January 31, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Watermakers Air, Inc. (Watermakers) for an exemption from § 135.183 of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to delineate 

compliance with § 135.183 (41 nautical miles, or 15 minutes at cruise for the Cessna C-208B 

equipped with cargo pod) where air traffic control (ATC) in high-density environments places 

aircraft at fixes and altitudes from which single-engine aircraft cannot reach land in the event 

of engine failure. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to Watermakers. 

The FAA recently issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material 

respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10451 (copy 

enclosed), the FAA found that, in accordance with § 91.3, the pilot in command is “directly 

responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.” The 

Aeronautical Information Manual, paragraph 4-4-1 also notes this and states that it is the 

pilot’s responsibility to request a route that the aircraft is capable of flying in compliance with 

the applicable regulations. Lastly, an ATC clearance “is not authorization for a pilot to 
2 

deviate from any rule, regulation, or minimum altitude nor to conduct unsafe operation of the 

aircraft.” Id. Simply put, the pilot in command must comply with ATC clearance or ask for an 

amended clearance to comply with all the applicable regulations. Positive radar control, 

coverage that the petitioner enjoys, is offered when complying with the ATC clearance at 

other altitudes. 

The FAA concurred with the petitioner’s assertion that 41 miles is outside of normal gliding 

distance to land when operating at 4,000 feet MSL. Although there is no formal definition of 

the takeoff and landing phase mentioned in §135.183(b), in this circumstance being in excess 

of 41 miles from land and at 4,000 feet is not in a position for landing. See Legal 

Interpretation to Mr. Brian Kilcullen, from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Regulations (Feb. 7, 2012) (enclosed). Therefore, § 135.183(b) does not apply in this 

case. 

The FAA disagreed with the assertion that § 135.183 was written primarily for piston 

powered aircraft. In the preamble to the codification of part 135 in 1978, the FAA states, 

“since 1969 when part 135 was last upgraded, there has been substantial increase in the 

number of certificate holders conducting operations in small airplanes carrying 10 or more 

passengers and in multiengine turbine-powered airplanes. For example, in the 12-month 

period ending June 30, 1977, the number of turbine-powered aircraft operated by commuter 

air carriers grew 61.7 percent from 225 to 364. (43 FR 46743, Oct 10, 1978). Therefore, the 

petitioner failed to offer an equivalent level of safety in their petition. 

In another section of the preamble, the FAA further states “these amendments respond to the 

demand for commuter and air taxi operators to operate larger and more complex aircraft.” (43 

FR 46742, Oct 10, 1978). Clearly, the FAA was improving safety for the entire fleet of ondemand operators including those operating turbine powered aircraft. 

The petitioner made an argument for the economic value of using the single-engine Cessna 

208 aircraft, but failed to offer a valid position as to how granting their request would be in 

the public interest and benefit the public as a whole. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial 

of Exemption No. 10451; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10451 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 
3 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby deny the petition of Watermakers Air, Inc. for an exemption 

from 14 CFR § 135.183. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure