02/07/2011 11:02 2022675375 OFFICE OF RULEMAKING PAGE 02 

^^^< ^ 

:^\T 

January 4, 2011 

John W. McGraw, Acting Director 

Flights Standards Service 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 ludepeiKicnce Ave. 

Washington, DC. 20591 

MENT OF 

::FORT^T!ON 

•-••iFER/VriONS 

'?: - 1 ^ It: 5 3 

RE: EXEMPTION NO.9902A 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-1128 

APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION 

OF Exemption 9902A July 29,2010 EXEMPTION LETTER 

Dear Acting Directoc McGraw, 

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

add an aii-craft (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 records and our exemption to have North American T2SB properly listed as N52424.1 am 

sorry for this mistake in our original and subsequent requests. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Executive Director 

972-380-8800 xl05 

djeane3@cavflight.org 

Cavanangh Flight Museum 

SOl(C) 3 Non-Profit Educational Oiganization - www.caviwauBhfli^tmuseum.com 

Addison Airport, 4572 Chire Chennault. Addison, Texas 75001 (972> 380-8800 
02/07/2011 11:02 2022675075 OFFICE OF RULEMAKING PAGE 03 

^vm. 

^T-V ^ 

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-J128 

APPUCATION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION 

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( T28B N52424), omitted by your department in the original exemptionExemption 9902A has additional requirements that seem to be added for no apparent reason. 

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

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

contemplation of 14 CFR 11.101 [a] CFM has signi6cant additional fects, [b] the FAA made 

several important factual eirors, together with the contention that [c] the FAA did not coirectly 

interpret and apply a law, regulation, or precedent. 

CFM's positions may be feirly summarized as follows: 

A. THE PROHTBITION OF AEROBATICS 

THE AGENCY»S ANALYSIS 

9902A Paragraph 22. "... [TJhe PIC is prohibited from performing aerobatic flights -while 

passengers are aboard the aircraft. " 

Cavanaugh Flight Maseum 

501(C) 3 Non-profit Educational Organizrtioti - www.cB.viinaughfligh,tmuKium.*:oin 

Addison Aijport, 4572 Claire Cbennault. Addison, Texas 75001 (972) 380-8800 
02/07/2011 11:02 2022675075 

OFFICE OF RULEMAKING PAGE 04 

"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" 

CFM RESPONSE 

In the meeting on December 15**" 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. Discussions of the Exemption letter process since 1996 were discussed. The 

intent of the FAA previous to the publication of 72 FRNo. 194 is irrelevant since that 

modified the policy. 

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

stakeholders at EAA headquarters previous to the publication of 72 PR No. 194. The 

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

program. Acrobatics was discussed in the meeting, with the only concern of the FAA 

being egress ftom fighter type aircraft tliat 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". 

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 91.303. 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 wcU aware of 

what conq)lying with 91.303 means and did not raise an issue that aerobatics were not the 

intent of the Exemption programHistorically, the FAA has never made the argument that aerobatics were not the 

intent of the prograiri. Therefore: 

[a] The FAA made fectual 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 

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

passengers onboard these aircraft. In fact the Operating Limitations specifically allow any 
02/07/2011 11:02 2022675075 OFFICE OF RULEMAKINGS PAGE 05 

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

Aircraft) 

[c] Nowhere in the F.R. Vol. 72 No. 194, the rules and guidelines for issuance of 

Exemption letters, does it stale that aircraft are prohibited from aerobatic flight. In feet it 

states in section 16. "Passengers mtist befidly irfcrmedofthe 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 FRNo.194 (4) states: ^'Passenger training programs must be at least as 

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

an individual for a 'familiarization "flight". Military femiliarization 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 pubhc" 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 docs 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-] 7 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 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 have not had these 

restrictions. 

CFM PROPOSED RISK MIDIGATION 

CFM request modification exemption 9902A Paragraph 22 as written: 

"The PIC is prohibited from performing aerobatic flight 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 aerobatics during their initial qualification/recurrent flight training are authorized to 

perform these maneuvers. 
02/07/2011 11:02 2022675075 OFFICE OF RULEMAKING PAGE 06 

B. THE PROHIBITION OF MANIPULATION OF FLIGHT CONTROLS 

THE AGENCY'S ANALYSIS 

9902A Paragraph 23. "No persons other than the assigned flight 

crewmembers may he permitted to manipulate the flight controls during flight operations ". 

CFM RESPONSE 

[a] Exemption holders are exempt from 91315 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 docs it prohibit these Limited or Experimental 

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

other passengers are carried. Manipulation of flight controls is a basic ability that all 

pilots flying under part 91 liave 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 (muUi 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 docs not occupy the pilot station 

a5 outlined in the limitations. This Hmitation should be modified since it does not 

correctly interpreted the law and follow precedent. 

[b] 12 VKl<io.\94 i4t) sfcsies\**^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 femiliarizaiion 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 carmot 

manipulate the controls. In fact since the flight are for Hving 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. 
02/07/2011 11:02 2022675075 OFFICE OF RULEMAKING PAGE 07 

[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 wiU 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. 

CFM request modification exemption 9902A Paragraph 23 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 pibt may 

allow a "hands on" demonstration of flight characteristics during cruise conditions at, or above 

1,000* AGL. 

For the above reasons, CFM respectfiilly 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 CFM an 

amended Exemption letter 9902A that adopts the proposed risk mitigation language. 

Thank you for your consideration and promptness. 

Dou&Jeanes 

:utLve Director 

380 8800x105 

djeanes@cavflight,org