Exemption No. 10588

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0406 ASSOCIATION (EAA)

WARBIRDS OF AMERICA (WOA)

for an exemption from § 91.531(a)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated April 10, 2012, Mr. Bill Fischer, Executive Director, Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), Warbirds of America (WOA), P.O. Box 3086, Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54903- 3086 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 91.531, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow the operation of large airplanes that possess experimental certificates for the purpose of exhibition which have been designed with only one pilot station, to be operated without a pilot who is designated as second in command (SIC) of that airplane.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 91.531(a)(1) prescribes, in pertinent part, that except as provided in paragraph (b) and (d) of this section, no person may operate the following airplanes without a pilot who is designated as second in command of that airplane :

(1) A large airplane, except that a person may operate an airplane certificated under SFAR 41 without a pilot who is designated as second in command if that airplane is certificated for operation with one pilot.

AFS-12-318-E2

Section 91.531(b) specifies states that the Administrator may issue a letter of authorization for the operation of an airplane without compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section if that airplane is designed for and type certificated with only one pilot station. The authorization contains any conditi ons that the Administrator finds necessary for safe operation.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

EAA WOA seeks an exemption to permit large aircraft possessing experimental certificates for the purpose of exhibition that have been designed with one pilot station, to operate without a pilot who is designated as SIC of that airplane. The petitioner notes that these aircraft were designed to be flown with only one pilot, at one pilot station. The petitioner notes that while some aircraft were designed to accommodate additional non-pilot crewmembers, several aircraft designs are singl e seat aircraft and have no provision for any additional crewmembers. The petitioner contends that because these aircraft are not designed for, operated with, or equipped with provisions for an additional pilot, the requirements of § 91.531 cannot be met.

The petitioner states that granting this exemption will allow continued operation of these rare and unique national treasures that are typically operated under the provisions of an experimental certificate for the purpose of exhibition. The petitioner notes that operation of these aircraft does not require that the pilot possess a traditional aircraft type rating as would be required if these aircraft were certificated in the standard category. The petitioner also notes that operation of these aircraft promotes aviation and military history while providing the public with an opportunity to see aircraft associated with some of our nation’s historic moments. The petitioner asserts that the operation of these aircraft educates the public and

serves to honor the sacrifices of our nation.

The petitioner is particularly concerned about the impact of the regulation on its members and provides examples of affected aircraft which include the Douglas AD-1 Skyraider, the Grumman OV-1 Mohawk, the MiG-15/17, and the North American F-86. The petitioner states that the immediate approval of this petition for exemption will permit the continued operation, preservation, and presentation of these rare and unique aircraft which are all

historic aircraft and national treasures.

The petitioner notes that the safety of its pilots, members, and the general public is a fundamental concern of EAA and its pilot members as they prepare for flight operations. The petitioner recognizes that the FAA, EAA members, and the general public must be confident that a level of safety equivalent to that which would be expected in an aircraft certified in the standard category is applied to the operation of large experimental aircraft certified for the purpose of exhibition. These aircraft are maintained and inspected in accordance with operating limitations issued by the FAA and operated in accordance with their respective aircraft manufacturer’s operator’s manuals, operating limitations, and sound safety practices.3

The petitioner states that its request would benefit the public as a whole because the continued operation of these aircraft promotes aviation and military history. They provide the general public an opportunity to see aircraft associated with some of our nation’s historic moments. The petitioner reiterates that the operation of these aircraft educates the public, and serves to honor the sacrifices of so many of our nation’s finest.

The petitioner notes that the FAA has continually permitted and actively encouraged the operation of these aircraft for the purpose of de monstrating their unique flight and historic characteristics to the public. The petitioner further contends that the provisions of § 91.531 prevents these rare aircraft from being flown and presented to the public. Therefore, the public is not afforded the opportunity to witness and learn about our rich aviation heritage. The petitioner also notes that the public loses an opportunity to learn of the sacrifices of so many of this nation’s military aviators.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication because any delay in acting on this petition would adversely affect the ability of the petitioner’s members to conduct operations in the affected aircraft.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s request and supporting information. The FAA finds that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest and would provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulations.

Section 91.531 was originally promulgated as § 91.213 (37 FR 14758; July 25, 1972). In 1989 part 91 was reorganized and § 91.213 was recodified as § 91.531. In the preamble to the final rule establishing § 91.213, the FAA stated that "to accommodate those airplanes having only one pilot station, such as former military airplanes certificated for special operations, § 91.213 as adopted permits an airplane having only one pilot station to be operated under an authorization from the Administrator" (37 FR 14762). Despite the actual provisions of the rule, the FAA notes that the preamble to the final rule did not distinguish between type certificated and nontype certificated airplanes as set forth in the rule. The FAA, however, does not believe that the rule’s original intent was to preclude the Administrator from permitting those operations specified by the petitioner to be conducted without a second in command.

The FAA finds that a grant of exemption is appropriate as these airplanes have been operated in military service without a pilot designated as second in command in a manner that has not adversely affected safety. Additionally, these airplanes are maintained, operated, and inspected in accordance with operating limitations issued by the FAA which set forth specific conditions for their safe operation. They have also been both designed and approved by various armed forces to be flown by a single pilot without an additional required flight crewmember. Pilots of these aircraft are also required to demonstrate proficiency through practical testing that includes oral and flight testing specific to the particular airplane operated.4

The FAA finds that relief from the provisions of § 91.531(a)(1) is necessary to provide the relief requested by the petitioner. The FAA notes, howev er, that the provisions of § 91.531(b) provide a regulatory means for operators of airplanes designed for and type certificated with only one pilot station to obtain limited relief from the provisions of § 91.531(a). As relief from § 91.531(a)(1) provides the necessary relief required by the petitioner, relief from the provisions of § 91.531(b) is not required.

Although the petitioner noted in its submission that a revision to the language of § 91.531(b) could potentially provide its members with appropriate relief, such relief cannot be provided under the provisions of an exemption. Such relief is more appropriately requested in a petition for rulemaking. Additionally, even though the petitioner requested relief to permit the operation of large aircraft, the provisions of § 91.531(a) and (b) only apply to the operation of large airplanes.

The FAA notes that the petitioner only requested relief to permit the operation of large airplanes designed with only one pilot station without a second in command. The FAA notes that many trainer versions of large aircraft that have two pilot stations were designed to be safely operated with only one pilot and that other aircraft normally designed for operations with a pilot and a second non-pilot flight crewmember were also designed and approved for single pilot operation by the armed force which operated the aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA is also providing similar relief for operators of aircraft that were designed with more than one pilot station (or a single pilot station and a required flight crewmember st ation) but were authorized by an armed force that operated the aircraft to be operated with only one pilot and no additional flight crewmember.

The FAA concurs with the petitioner that the continued operation of these airplanes promotes aviation and military history. These airplanes provide the general public with a unique opportunity to see airplanes associated with significant events in our nation’s history and serve to educate the public about these events and honor the sacrifices of those who served. The FAA has continually permitted and has actively encouraged the operation of these airplanes for the purpose of demonstrating their historic signifi cance and unique flight characteristics to the public. The FAA agrees that it is in the public interest to grant an exemption from the provisions of § 91.531(a)(1) in order to permit these aircraft to be flown and exhibited in a manner commensurate with their historical significance and provide the public an opportunity gain a greater appreciation of our aviation heritage.

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, the Experimental Aircraft Association Warbirds of America is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.531(a)(1) to the extent necessary to allow its members to operate large airplanes, that possess experimental certificates for the purpose of exhibition, without a pilot who is designated as second in command provided those aircraft: (1) were originally designed with only one pilot station; or (2) were originally designed with more than one pilot station (or a single pilot station and a required f light crewmember station) and were authorized5

by an armed force that operated the aircraft to be operated with only one pilot and no additional flight crewmember. This exemption is subject to the following conditions and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. EAA W OA must maintain a current list of owners and operators conducting operations under the provisions of this exemption. The list must include the owner/operator’s name and address and the manufacturer, model, serial number, and registration number of the airplane being operated. This list must be made available to the FAA upon request.

2. When exercising the privileges of this exemption, the pilot of the airplane must have in his or her personal possession documentation indicating that he or she is currently a member of EAA WOA. This documentation must be presented when requested by a representative of

the Administrator.

3. A copy of this exemption must be carried aboard any airplane operated under the provisions of this exemption when such operations are conducted.

4. The operating limitations for the airplane must not require a second flight crewmember.

5. The pilot in command must have demonstrated proficiency to operate the aircraft as a single pilot.

6. The airplane must not be in a configurati on for which a second flight crewmember was required by an armed force that operated the aircraft.

7. Any operational limitations specified by the airplane’s manufacturer or imposed by an armed force to permit the operation of these airplanes with a single flight crewmember (e.g. military technical order) must be complied with.

8. This exemption does not provide relief from compliance with the provisions of any operating limitation issued pursuant to the provisions of 14 CFR § 91.319.

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 20, 2012.

/s/ Raymond Towles, Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service