Exemption No. 10142A 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

AL’S AERIAL SPRAYING, LLC Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0134

 

for an exemption from § 137.51(b)(4)(i) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated November 14, 2010, Mr. Michael D. Schiffer, Partner, Al’s Aerial 

Spraying, LLC (Al’s Aerial Spraying), 3473 North Shepardsville Road, Ovid, Michigan 

48866, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Al’s Aerial 

Spraying for partial reconsideration of an exemption from § 137.51(b)(4)(i) of Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit Al’s 

Aerial Spraying to use a single-engine turbopropeller-powered Air Tractor aircraft to make 

turnarounds over congested areas in a loaded configuration. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 137.51(b)(4)(i) prescribes, in pertinent part, that for single-engine aircraft, 

except helicopters, no person may takeoff a loaded aircraft, or make turnarounds over a 

congested area. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that in February 2010, Al’s Aerial Spraying requested relief 

from § 137.51(b)(4)(i) to allow use of single-engine turbopropeller-powered Air 

Tractor aircraft, purpose-built for agricultural operations, to takeoff and make 

turnarounds over congested areas in a loaded configuration. The petitioner notes that 

the FAA denied that request on September 20, 2010. The petitioner states that Al’s 

Aerial Spraying requests reconsideration of the requested relief to the extent necessary 

AFS-11-086-E 
2

to allow turnarounds over congested areas, while withdrawing the request to takeoff 

over congested areas. 

The petitioner states that the FAA made factual errors in denial of the original petition 

and did not consider vital related regulations and guidance. The petitioner restates that 

the reason for seeking the exemption is that as owners, engineers, and highly 

experienced pilots Al’s Aerial Spraying personnel have determined that flight 

operations will be safer operating single-engine turbopropeller-powered Air Tractor 

aircraft when conducting turnarounds over congested areas than operating a 

multiengine piston-powered aircraft for the same task. 

The petitioner states that contrary to what the FAA stated in the denial, Al’s Aerial 

Spraying is unique because it exceeds manufacturers’ recommended time before 

overhaul periods or FAA-approved intervals. The petitioner adds that it holds a 

part 135 certificate and maintain its Air Tractor aircraft to high standards. The 

petitioner further adds that early correction of engine problems leads to increased 

reliability, durability, and safety. 

Furthermore, the petitioner states that Al’s Aerial Spraying pilots have a minimum of 

2,500 hours of agricultural flight time, a minimum of 6,500 hours of total flight time, 

and an average of 14,500 hours of total flight time. The petitioner adds that the FAA 

compared Al’s Aerial Spraying to part 137 operators who only are required to comply 

with annual aircraft inspections and whose pilots can legally operate with less 

than 100 hours as pilot in command (PIC) in aerial application. 

The petitioner states that the FAA data cited in the denial neglects to show a total 

number of hours flown by part 137 operators in single-engine and multiengine aircraft. 

The petitioner asserts that based on FAA data reviewed by Al’s Aerial Spraying, 

multiengine airplanes accomplished less than 2.7 percent of all aerial application hours 

in 2008. The petitioner adds that while Al’s Aerial Spraying could equip multiengine 

airplanes to spray congested areas, it has requested an exemption for utilizing singleengine turbopropeller-powered aircraft because it believes such operations would be 

safer. 

The petitioner notes that the FAA’s statement in the denial related to the ability of 

helicopters to maneuver after an engine failure was unsupported by data. The 

petitioner cites accident statistics related to emergency medical services (EMS) and 

goes on to state that a single-engine helicopter flying at low altitude in aerial 

application would have no time to maneuver away from a congested area. Finally, the 

petitioner contrasts these statements with the ability of Al’s Aerial Spraying Air 

Tractor airplanes. The petitioner states that an Air Tractor flying at its normal 

application speed of 140 knots at 100 feet would be able to climb to altitudes in excess 

of 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL), make a 90-degree turn, and glide 1.55 miles. 

The petitioner asserts that this would allow the airplane to land in a pre-determined, 
3

non-congested area, thereby increasing the level of safety compared to the operation of 

a single-engine helicopter. 

The petitioner addresses the FAA’s statement in the denial referencing “potential longterm risk to the public due to unintended consequences from a significant change to the 

agricultural spraying market over congested areas.” The petitioner adds that the FAA’s 

statement could be interpreted several ways. The petitioner states that the FAA may 

assume that it is less expensive to operate a single-engine versus a multiengine airplane 

in agricultural spraying over congested areas. The petitioner asserts that such an 

assumption would be incorrect and presents examples of the higher cost of a new 

single-engine turbopropeller-powered Air Tractor versus a modified multiengine 

aircraft. 

In closing, the petitioner addresses the FAA’s statements in the denial related to the 

appropriateness of the exemption request versus a petition for rulemaking. The 

petitioner states that granting this exemption would be an opportunity for the FAA to 

collect operational data that then could be used for future rulemaking related to 

part 137. 

 A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2011 

(76 FR 10429). The FAA received 15 comments before the summary was published in the 

Federal Register and 17 comments after publication in the Federal Register. The comments 

received were mostly from individuals, consisting of airline transport pilots, commercial 

pilots, flight instructors, military pilots, mechanics, and flight engineers. Additionally, one of 

the comments received was from a representative of a county sheriff’s office, and another was 

from a former United States Forest Service Aviation Safety Manager. In general, all 32 

commenters support granting an exemption to Al’s Aerial Spraying based on the following: 

 

1. Higher level of safety for the operator and the public. 

Sixteen commenters support the petition for reconsideration based on statements 

that it would provide a higher level of safety for the operator as well as the public. 

2. Outdated FAA regulations for agricultural aircraft operations. 

Two commenters state that part 137 needs to be updated. 

3. General support of the exemption. 

Fifteen commenters support the petition for reconsideration with no specific 

reasoning stated. 

 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered the petitioner’s statements in the request for reconsideration, as well 

as the additional information collected after the submission and provided by comments 
4

submitted to the docket, and determined that the circumstances presented by the petitioner 

justify a grant of exemption. 

The FAA will reconsider a petition for exemption if the petitioner has provided significant 

additional facts that it did not present in its original petition for exemption. Based on the 

flight evaluation data submitted, the FAA finds the petitioner has provided additional 

justification to show that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest and would not 

adversely affect safety, given specific conditions and limitations. Additionally, the petitioner 

asserts that the FAA made important factual errors and did not consider relevant regulations 

and guidance in denial of the original petition. The FAA does not agree that factual errors 

were made in response to the original petition. The FAA determined in the denial of the 

original exemption that the information submitted was not sufficient to justify a grant of 

exemption, because it did not meet the public interest or provide a level of safety equivalent 

to that provided by the regulation. 

The FAA notes that in the request for reconsideration, the petitioner does not request 

reconsideration of the entire original petition. The petitioner only requests relief to the extent 

that it would allow turnarounds over congested areas with a single-engine turbopropellerpowered Air Tractor aircraft. The original petition request to also conduct takeoffs was 

withdrawn. The FAA finds this request appropriate for an exemption because of the detailed 

flight evaluation data submitted by the petitioner, and because the operations the petitioner 

intends to conduct under the exemption are very limited. The FAA recognizes that these two 

factors make the petitioner unique. 

In December 2010, the FAA contacted the petitioner for clarification regarding the 

information submitted for reconsideration. On December 23, 2010, the petitioner submitted 

additional information to the FAA by e-mail in the form of a report titled “Flight Evaluation 

Power-Off Glide Performance” issued on May 12, 2004 by Snow Engineering Company of 

Wichita Falls, Texas. Additionally, the FAA contacted the petitioner by phone on 

January 6, 2011 to discuss the petitioner’s request. A record of conversation from that phone 

call was posted to the docket on January 13, 2011. Finally, the petitioner submitted another 

letter to the FAA dated January 6, 2011. A copy of the letter was posted to the docket on 

February 14, 2011. 

The FAA reviewed the information submitted by the petitioner regarding the performance of 

an Air Tractor after an engine failure. The petitioner states that an Al’s Aerial Spraying Air 

Tractor flying at its normal application speed of 140 knots at 100 feet is going to be able to 

climb in excess of 3,000 feet AGL, make a 90-degree turn, and glide 1.55 miles. During the 

phone conversation with the petitioner on January 6, 2011, the petitioner stated that this 

information was not accurate, due to a typographical error. The petitioner stated that the 

information submitted to the FAA via e-mail on December 23, 2010 was, in fact, the correct 

information. The FAA also reviewed this information, titled: “Flight Evaluation Power-Off 

Glide Performance.” The petitioner states that while the FAA’s Office of Aircraft 

Certification did not evaluate this information, it was based on testing conducted by Snow 
5

Engineering Company. According to the petitioner, Mr. Leland Snow owned both Air 

Tractor, Inc., and Snow Engineering Company at the time the testing was conducted. 

The petitioner’s submission includes a flight evaluation of the Air Tractor AT-502B to 

determine an estimated distance covered along the ground following a simulated loss of 

power. It states that Snow Engineering Company conducted four trial flights to determine an 

estimated power-off glide distance per 200 feet of altitude loss following a simulated engine 

failure. It goes on to say that for all trials, the aircraft started at an indicated airspeed of 

140 miles per hour (mph) and a pressure altitude of 4,500 feet above mean sea level. It states 

that the temperature during evaluation was 67 degrees Fahrenheit, the aircraft was loaded 

with full fuel tanks and 400 gallons of water in the hopper, and the pilot weighed 230 pounds. 

For each trial, the pilot simulated an engine failure, immediately initialized the global 

positioning system position, placed the propeller into the full feather position, and initiated a 

pitch-up maneuver along with a simultaneous jettison of the entire hopper load. The 

summary of results states that during the four trial runs the “average distance covered” after 

simulated engine failure was 1.66 nautical miles, and the “average altitude gain following 

pitch-up” after simulated engine failure was 335 feet. 

While the FAA notes that the petitioner’s request for reconsideration and the subsequently 

submitted supporting information differ, there is sufficient justification to support a finding 

that safety would not be adversely affected. Under the controlled circumstances shown in the 

petitioner’s submitted flight evaluation, the FAA recognizes that a single-engine 

turbopropeller-powered aircraft experiencing an engine failure over a congested area could 

glide to an emergency landing area that is not congested. Because the data do not account for 

varying atmospheric conditions, the FAA will only allow a conservative application of this 

data. 

Finally, the FAA reviewed additional petitioner statements regarding public interest. The 

petitioner states in the original exemption request that an exemption would be in the public 

interest because the proposed operations are safer than conducting congested area operations 

using multiengine piston-powered airplanes. The FAA disagreed with this rationale in the 

denial of that request. However, the FAA agrees that an exemption, with certain conditions, 

is in the public interest for those flights where Al’s Aerial Spraying is conducting agricultural 

aircraft operations in support of Federal, State, or local governments for the purposes of 

public health or forestry protection. In discussions with the FAA, the petitioner notes that the 

majority of Al’s Aerial Spraying work supports public health and forestry missions and that 

approximately 30 percent of those operations are required to be over congested areas. 

Additionally, the petitioner asserts that Al’s Aerial Spraying will restrict the use of this 

exemption to the application of benign substances only, such as pheromones or Bacillus 

thuringiensis (Bt). The FAA recognizes that this request is in the public interest because it 

would allow more efficient flight operations, thereby reducing the cost to the public when in 

support of public health or forestry protection. 
6

The FAA’s Decision 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to 

me by the Administrator, Al’s Aerial Spraying, LLC is granted an exemption from 

14 CFR § 137.51(b)(4)(i) to the extent necessary to allow Al’s Aerial Spraying to use a 

single-engine turbopropeller-powered Air Tractor aircraft to make turnarounds over 

congested areas in a loaded configuration, subject to the conditions and limitations listed 

below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. This exemption is valid only for operations conducted by Al’s Aerial Spraying, 

LLC (operator) under part 137 certificate number MROG545G and only 

authorizes turnarounds over congested areas. 

2. This exemption is valid only for operations in support of Federal, State, or local 

governments for the purposes of public health or forestry protection, where the 

aircraft is dispensing benign substances such as pheromones or Bacillus 

thuringiensis (Bt). 

3. Operations are limited to Air Tractor AT-502B airplanes. Each airplane must 

comply with all manufacturers service bulletins. Each airplane engine must meet 

or exceed the manufacturer recommended time between overhaul interval. 

4. All operations must be conducted with an FAA-approved congested area plan 

(CAP) in compliance with all remaining provisions of § 137.51. 

5. The approved CAP must identify applicable emergency landing areas in 

compliance with § 137.51(b)(4)(iii). The identified emergency landing areas 

must be located away from congested areas, no more than 1 nautical mile away 

from the point at which turnaround over a congested area will begin. In each 

CAP, the operator must show that at any time during a turnaround over a 

congested area, the airplane could reach an emergency landing area that is not 

congested in the event of an engine failure. 

6. Each pilot must hold a commercial pilot certificate and be employed directly by 

the operator. In addition to the requirements of § 137.53, each pilot must have at 

least 50 hours of PIC time in Air Tractor AT-502B airplanes, 100 hours of PIC 

time in single-engine turbopropeller-powered airplanes, and 500 hours of PIC 

time dispensing agricultural materials or chemicals. 

7. The PIC is the only person authorized to be on board during operations conducted 

under this exemption. 
7

8. The load carried in the aircraft hopper may not exceed 3,300 pounds prior to 

conducting turnarounds over a congested area. The PIC is responsible for 

ensuring that the aircraft remains within the AT-502B Airplane Flight Manual 

limitations at all times. 

9. Each turnaround over a congested area must begin at an indicated airspeed of 

140 mph, at a minimum altitude of 200 feet AGL. 

10. The operator must train all pilots conducting operations under this exemption on 

procedures for engine failure over a congested area. The principal operations 

inspector (POI) for the operator must review and accept the training plan prior to 

any operations conducted under this exemption. 

11. The operator must collect and submit the following data to the POI on a quarterly 

basis and provide a summary of the data in any requests for extension of this 

exemption. Data must be collected for each flight where the operator made at 

least one turnaround over a congested area: 

a. Number of approved CAPs; 

b. Number of flight-hours; 

c. Number of flights conducted (i.e. cycles); 

d. Number and description of any engine malfunctions experienced in flight; 

e. Description of any incidents or accidents; 

f. Description of the product dispensed; and 

g. Any additional information the operator determines may be relevant. 

12. The operator must report any accident, incident, or engine failure while using this 

exemption to the POI within 1 business day following such an event. Operations 

under this exemption must be immediately suspended until the Flight Standards 

District Office with jurisdiction completes an investigation of the event. The POI 

must submit a summary of the investigation findings and a recommendation for 

continued operations or termination of the exemption to the General Aviation and 

Commercial Division (AFS-800) before any operations using this exemption may 

resume. 

13. The operator must carry a copy of this exemption on board the aircraft when in 

use. 
8

14. This exemption is not valid for operations outside the United States. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 2, 2011. . 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service