1

Tel: 978.562.9182 ● Fax: 978.568.8231 ● info@collingsfoundation.org ● www.collingsfoundation.org

T H E C O L L I N G S F O U N D A T I O N

P . O. Box 24 8, 1 37 Ba r t on Roa d , St ow, M A 01 7 7 5

`

 December 22, 2010

RE: EXEMPTION No. 6540L

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-11089

John W. McGraw, Acting Director

Flights Standards Service

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave.

Washington, DC. 20591

APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION

OF OCTOBER 26 2010 EXEMPTION LETTER

Dear Acting Director McGraw,

By letter you authored on October 26, 2010 the FAA denied in part a petition of The 

Collings Foundation (“TCF”) regarding its request to remove limitations imposed on 6540K. 

TCF respectfully requests that you reconsider that denial on a substantive basis and also 

requests an expedited reconsideration on a procedural basis in contemplation of 14 CFR 11.101 

[a] TCF has significant additional facts, [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.

TCF’s positions may be fairly summarized as follows:

A. THE PROHIBITION OF AEROBATICS

THE AGENCY’S ANALYSIS
2

Tel: 978.562.9182 ● Fax: 978.568.8231 ● info@collingsfoundation.org ● www.collingsfoundation.org

6540 Paragraph 35. “... [T]he PIC is prohibited from performing aerobatic flights while 

passengers are aboard the aircraft.”

“Passengers wishing to experience aerobatics can obtain rides in aircraft type 

certificated for aerobatics. The living historical flight experiences (LHFE) are 

designed to provide for experiences not otherwise available to the public. 

Therefore, the conditions and limitations regarding aerobatic flight will remain in 

effect. These limitations will be added to all LHFE exemptions in order to clarify 

the intent of the exemptions”

TCF RESPONSE

In the meeting on December 15th 2010 chaired by Mel Cintron it was stated by the

FAA that the intent of the Exemption 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. TCF has been involved with the Exemption letter process since 1996 when we 

received the first Exemption letter. 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 Collings Foundation was an attendee of an FAA 

gathering of stakeholders at EAA headquarters previous to the publication of 72 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 originally have a second seat 

and the need for ejection seats to comply with 91.303. It was never discussed that 

aerobatics was against FAA “intent”.

11/17/09: In a meeting chaired by John Allen with TCF the issue of ejection seats

was a primary issue. When it was suggested by the FAA that the seats be made “cold” 

TCF stated that not only is that a safety issue but additionally TCF would not be able to 

comply with 91.303. If the intent of the FAA was not to allow aerobatics it would have 

been brought up at that time.

12/10/09: In a meeting chaired by Mel Cintron TCF presented our egress and 

ingress route out of Ellington Field. This route 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 that aerobatics were not the 

intent of the Exemption program.

5/13/10: In a meeting chaired by Mel Cintron TCF discussed the prohibition of 

aerobatics in Exemption 6540J. It was stated by Dennis Pratte that the provision was 

added to comply with 91.146 which does not have any bearing on Exemption activities. It 

was never stated that it was the intent of the FAA not to allow aerobatics. 

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

intent of the program. Therefore:
3

Tel: 978.562.9182 ● Fax: 978.568.8231 ● info@collingsfoundation.org ● www.collingsfoundation.org

[a] The FAA made factual errors and did not correctly interpret current FAA

objectives. The limitation prohibiting aerobatics 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 (Aerobatics), 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 

aerobatic maneuver that had been demonstrated in Phase I (test phase of Experimental 

Aircraft)

[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 flight. In fact it 

states in section 16. “Passengers must be fully informed of the risks associated with the 

proposed rides, and that occupying a seat in these aircraft may subject the rider to a high 

level of risk”. This passage specifically addresses the risks of an aerobatic flight.

[d] 72 FR No.194 (4) states: “Passenger training programs must be at least as 

thorough as what is provided by the manufacture or military service user when preparing 

an individual for a “familiarization” flight”. 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-17 can 

fly in a DC-3 instead since it is standard category!

[f] Significant Additional Fact: The vast majority of riders in a fighter type 

aircraft want to do some form of aerobatics. If this option is taken away then they will not 

fly as that is the experience that the participants want. This will cause an unfair economic 

burden to TCF.

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

the past and even Exemption letters issued after TCF, Commemorative Air Force, and 

Cavanaugh Flight Museum have not had these restrictions.

TCF PROPOSED RISK MIDIGATION
4

Tel: 978.562.9182 ● Fax: 978.568.8231 ● info@collingsfoundation.org ● www.collingsfoundation.org

TCF request modification exemption 6540L Paragraph 37 as written:

“The PIC is prohibited from performing aerobatic flight while passengers are onboard the 

aircraft”.

CHANGE TO READ:

37. Aerobatic maneuvers other must be completed at, or above 3,000’ AGL. Only pilots who are 

evaluated on aerobatics during their initial qualification/recurrent flight training are authorized to 

perform these maneuvers.

B. THE PROHIBITION OF MANIPULATION OF FLIGHT CONTROLS

THE AGENCY’S ANALYSIS

6540 Paragraph 40. “No persons other than the assigned flight crewmembers may be permitted 

to manipulate the flight controls during flight operations”.

TCF RESPONSE

[a] Exemption holders are exempt from 91.315 and 91.319 (a) (2) to allow 

Limited or Experimental category aircraft from carrying passengers or cargo for 

compensation or hire. Nowhere in Part 91 does it prohibit these Limited or Experimental 

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

other passengers are 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 flight. 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 be modified since it does not 

correctly interpreted the law and follow precedent. 

[b] 72 FR No.194 (4) states: “Passenger training programs must be at least as 

thorough as what is provided by the manufacture or military service user when preparing 

an individual for a “familiarization” flight”. Military familiarization flights do entail the 

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

of the FAA to allow this activity.

[c] Incorrect interpretation of law: 72 F.R. 57197, the rules and guidelines for 

issuance of Exemption letters, does not state in any section that a passenger cannot 
5

Tel: 978.562.9182 ● Fax: 978.568.8231 ● info@collingsfoundation.org ● www.collingsfoundation.org

manipulate the controls. In fact since the flight are for living history, not 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.

[d] Precedent: No other FAA issued Exemption Letter until now has had this 

provision.

[e] 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 prohibit this 

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 flights in several types of dual control aircraft under their 

exemption letters that allow this. 

TCF PROPOSED RISK MIDIGATION

TCF request modification exemption 6540L Paragraph 40 as written:

“No persons other than the assigned flight crewmembers may be permitted to manipulate the 

flight controls during flight operations”.

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, TCF respectfully asserts that it meets all of the criteria in the Policy for an 

Exemption without the prohibition of aerobatic flight and the manipulation of the flight controls. 

The conclusion is compelled that you reconsider your denial and grant TCF an amended

Exemption letter 6540 that adopts the proposed risk mitigation language.

Very truly yours,

/s/ 

Robert Collings

Executive Director

The Collings Foundation