AFS–10–162–E Exemption No. 10142

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

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated February 3, 2010, Mr. Michael D. Schiffer, Partner, Al’s Aerial Spraying, LLC (Al’s Aerial Spraying), 3473 North Shepardsville Road, Ovid, Michigan 48866–9667, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Al’s Aerial Spraying for 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 takeoff and 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 a turnaround over a congested area.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that Al’s Aerial Spraying is a small disciplined agricultural operation that has been in business for 32 years. The petitioner adds that Al’s Aerial Spraying’s pilots have thousands of hours of agricultural application experience. The petitioner notes that Al’s Aerial Spraying only operates turbopropeller-powered Air Tractor aircraft, which are purpose-built for agricultural operations.2

The petitioner states 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 a single-engine turbopropeller-powered Air Tractor aircraft for takeoff or to make turns over congested areas than operating a multiengine piston-powered aircraft for the same task.

The petitioner asserts that a grant of exemption would be in the public’s interest and would benefit the public as a whole, as it is safer to operate a single-engine turbopropeller-powered Air Tractor aircraft than it is to operate a multiengine piston-powered aircraft currently allowed under § 137.51(b)(5).

The petitioner states Al’s Aerial Spraying has contracts to treat trees for Federal, State, and local governments. The petitioner adds that under § 137.51(b)(2) and (3) Al’s Aerial Spraying submits a congested area plan that includes a public relations news media release informing the public that agricultural aircraft will be applying material to prevent pests from destroying the trees. The petitioner further states that the use of multiengine aircraft causes concern and complaints because when the average person sees a multiengine piston-powered aircraft flying low overhead, he or

she assumes the aircraft is in trouble and a crash is imminent.

The petitioner explains that Air Tractors have a distinctive look and the turbopropeller-powered engines are built to be quieter. The petitioner notes that when an average person sees bright yellow Air Tractors from Al’s Aerial Spraying in operation, that person is able to make the connection to the press release, resulting in significantly fewer 911 emergency calls.

The petitioner states that Al’s Aerial Spra ying operates Air Tractor aircraft powered by Pratt and Whitney PT–6 turbopropeller engines, which are significantly more reliable and quieter than multiengine piston-powered aircraft. The petitioner further adds that these engines reduce and/or eliminate noise complaints resulting from the use of multiengine piston-powered aircraft.

The petitioner notes that the United States Forest Service has extensively researched

the effective swath width of the Air Tract or and other aircraft and has found the average swath or spray pattern of a multiengi ne piston-powered aircraft is 100 feet or less. The petitioner states that the swath of an Air Tractor aircraft is 150 feet; therefore, it is more efficient and effective and will require fewer passes and fewer turns overhead during aerial applications. The petitioner further adds that fewer passes and fewer turns overhead will provide less annoyance to property owners and will

be safer.3

The petitioner notes that multiengine aircraft are purpose-built to operate at higher speeds than aircraft purpose-built for agricultural operations. The petitioner explains that multiengine aircraft must be flown at higher speeds, which allows the pilot to retain control of the aircraft if an engine fails. However, because of these higher speeds there is less saturation and penetration of the agricultural material applied to the designated area. In comparison, the petitioner explains the Air Tractor’s high lift wing design allows the pilots to operate safely at lower speeds, and the wake vortices created by the wing ensure excellent coverage and penetration for the agricultural material. The petitioner states the customer, who is frequently the taxpayer, benefits by receiving the best results for the price paid for aerial application services.

The petitioner states that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety and would provide a higher level of safety than the existing regulations provided in § 137.51.

The petitioner states that part 137 was promulgated in 1967, at a time when aircraft used for agricultural application were built for other purposes and modified to become restricted-category aerial applicators. The petitioner notes that Civil Aeronautics Manual (CAM) 8, the regulation in place at that time, lists aircraft such as Aeronca 7AC, Boeing 75 (Stearman), and the Piper J3 Cub as aircraft that could become restricted-category aerial applicators. The petitioner adds that in practice, many of these aircraft were “worn out, used up” trainers that gave the aerial application business a poor reputation.

The petitioner states that since 1967, the technology of aerial application has advanced, but the law has remained the same. The petitioner notes that millions of dollars have been spent on research and computer modeling of the spray droplets exiting aircraft and the measurement of spray-drop spectrums produced by aircraft. The petitioner further adds that millions of dollars are spent each year to trap, survey, and delineate the exact areas that will be targeted by an application to control a specific pest.

The petitioner explains that the use of differentially corrected global positioning systems provides the accuracy to target hundreds of smaller application blocks scattered within a city instead of blanket spraying the entire population. The petitioner adds that many products used to control pests are specific to one pest at only one growth stage, and the window for effective application may be less than 3 days. The petitioner further states the end result would provide (1) better control with less pesticide used, (2) infinitely less environmental damage, and (3) fewer aircraft turns.

The petitioner adds that there are now aircraft specifically built for agricultural application, and premier among these is the turbopropeller-powered Air Tractor aircraft. The petitioner states more operators choose the Air Tractor because it is the most productive, highest quality, and most cost effective aircraft available. He adds that the Air Tractor provides pilots with superb visibility, light control forces, speed, and maneuverability.4

Modified versus Purpose-built

The petitioner states the Air Tractor aircraft operated by Al’s Aerial Spraying are built for aerial application, and the wing design is focused on the ability to turn safely at very low altitudes. The petitioner explains, on the other hand, multiengine aircraft are built to be stable, allowing them to fly safely in instrument meteorological conditions and making them comfortable to fly on long trips. In addition, the petitioner states that multiengine aircraft resist being turned or made to climb as part of their inherent stability and have a built-in 2-second lag time from pilot control inputs to turn or climb. The petitioner explains that this 2-second lag time can be extremely crucial for a pilot when trying to avoid a collision with another aircraft or obstacle (see Advisory Circular (AC) 90–48, Pilots’ Role in Collision Avoidance, appendix 1).

The petitioner explains the Air Tractor aircraft was deliberately built without this inherent control lag. The Air Tractor reacts immediately to pilot control input, thereby enhancing the pilot’s ability to avoid collision with another aircraft or the many obstacles encountered flying at 50 feet above tree top level.

Regarding visibility, the petitioner states the principle of “see and avoid” is fundamental to all flight in visual mete orological conditions. The petitioner explains that the higher speeds multiengine aircraft must fly to retain control in the event of an engine failure diminishes the pilots’ time to “see and avoid.”

In addition, the petitioner further explains that because multiengine aircraft are designed to fly high and fast, they may be pr essurized and/or their windshields may be heated. The petitioner adds that as a result, window posts of a multiengine aircraft must be designed to be wide to accommodate systems wiring and structural loads, thereby creating blind spots for the pilots. (See FAA P–8740–51, How to Avoid a Midair Collision.)

The petitioner states that in comparison, the Air Tractor provides superb visibility for the pilot, having larger and more windows and narrow window posts. The petitioner further adds that this outstanding visibility gives the Air Tractor pilot the edge in seeing and avoiding collision with other aircraft and the numerous obstacles encountered flying at 50 feet above tree top level.5

Reciprocating versus Turbopropeller–powered Engines

The petitioner states that the piston (reciprocating) engine used when part 137 was promulgated in 1967 for aircraft modified into restricted-category agricultural aircraft has not changed in multiengine aircraft operations that can be legally used today for agricultural applications.

The petitioner states, however, that restricted-category agricultural aircraft eventually were retrofit with turbopropeller-powered engines and manufacturers of purpose-built agricultural aircraft made the turbopropeller-powered engine standard equipment, as is the case with Al’s Aerial Spraying Air Tractors. The petitioner notes from the FAA’s Aircraft Flying Handbook (FAA–H–8083–3A) that the turbopropeller-powered engine offers several advantages over other types of engines, such as—

 Light weight;

 Mechanical reliability because of relatively few moving parts;

 Simplicity of operation;

 Minimum vibration; and

 High power per unit of weight.

The petitioner states that the mechanical reliability and simplicity of operation equate to safety and that statistics provided in the petition show that turbopropeller-powered engines are substantially less likely to fail than reciprocating engines.

The petitioner adds that Al’s Aerial Spraying Air Tractors are powered by Pratt and Whitney PT–6 turbopropeller engines because these engines are built for high reliability. In addition, the petitioner states Al’s Aerial Spraying complies with manufacturers’ recommended overhaul periods or FAA-approved intervals and adds that its Pratt and Whitney PT–6 engines are operated on an inspection program to increase reliability, durability, and safety. Therefore, the petitioner states that Al’s Aerial Spraying Air Tractors are less likely to experience an engine failure than the multiengine piston-powered aircraft allowed under part 137.

Single-Engine versus Multiengine

The petitioner notes that the purpose of having two engines instead of one is that, in the event of an engine failure, the multiengine aircraft should be able to fly to an airport where it can land safely. The petitioner adds that this may or may not be achievable, depending on the situation.6

The petitioner quotes the following from FAA publication FAA–P–8740–19, Flying Light Twins Safely:

The major difference between flying a twin engine and a single engine airplane is knowing how to manage the flight if one engine loses power for any reason. Safe flight with one engine-out requires an understanding of the basic aerodynamics involved as well as proficiency in engine-out procedures.

Loss of power from one engine affects both climb performance and controllability of any light twin (emphasis added).

The petitioner states that multiengine aircraft modified for aerial application have the additional burden of drag produced by spray booms and other agricultural appliances mounted on the exterior of the aircraft. He asserts that performance data provided by the multiengine aircraft manufacturer might show the aircraft can climb with an engine failure under ideal conditions, without pilot error, and no additional externally mounted equipment.

The petitioner states the FAA clearly recognizes the danger an engine failure poses to the controllability of a multiengine aircraft operated at an altitude lower than 3,000 feet above ground level (AGL). He notes that aerial application requires these same aircraft be operated at 50 feet above tree top level. The petitioner references the FAA Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS) FAA–S–8081–12B, Multiengine Aircraft Emergency Operations. The petitioner explains that for multiengine aircraft emergency operations, the PTS states that FAA examiners must ensure single-engine demonstrations are conducted at an altitude no lower than 3,000 feet AGL. The petitioner states that aerial applications require the same aircraft to be operated at 50 feet above tree top level. According to the petitioner, the PTS delineates that the pilot of a multiengine aircraft that experiences an engine failure while involved in aerial application 50 feet above tree top level must accomplish the following:

 Recognize an engine failure promptly, maintain control, and use appropriate emergency procedures;

 Reduce drag by raising the landing gear or flaps as appropriate;

 Identify and verify the inoperative engine;

 Feather the propeller on the inoperative engine;

 Establish V YSE (best rate of climb with one engine inoperative); if obstructions are present, establish V XSE (best angle of climb with one engine inoperative) or

V MC (minimum control speed with critical engine inoperative) +5 knots, whichever is greater, until obstructions are cleared; then transition to V YSE ;7

 Bank toward the operating engine as required for best performance;

 Monitor the operating engine and make adjustments, as necessary;

 Recognize the aircraft’s performance capabilities. If a climb is not possible at

V YSE , maintain V YSE and return to the departure airport for landing, or initiate an approach to the most suitable landing area available;

 Secure the inoperative engine; and

 Complete an emergency checklist.

The petitioner explains that these tasks must be accomplished without colliding with the ground, other aircraft, or obstacles enc ountered at 50 feet above tree top level, while the pilot attempts to continue to look inside the cockpit for an extended period.

In comparison, the petitioner states in accordance with FAA H–8083–3, Airplane Flying Handbook, the pilot of a single- engine aircraft that experiences an engine failure while involved in aerial application at 50 feet AGL must—

 Establish and maintain the recommended best glide airspeed, ± 10 knots;

 Select a suitable landing area; and

 Follow the appropriate checklist.

The petitioner concludes the single-engine aircraft engine failure scenario is most likely to have a better outcome. The petitioner adds that Al’s Aerial Spraying’s Air Tractor will be operating at greater than best glide speed and the pilot will be able to climb, trading that speed for altitude and time.

In addition, the petitioner states that Al’s Aerial Spraying’s congested area plans provide emergency landing areas to its pilots and these areas are reviewed before every day of operation so its pilots know where they are in relation to these emergency landing areas at all times.

The petitioner states that despite a multiengine piston-powered aircraft having the second engine available, it is still more likely than the single-engine Air Tractor to crash in the event of an engine failure. The petitioner further adds that in the event of an engine failure using the Air Tractor, Al’s Aerial Spraying’s pilot will be able to use the stored energy of the airspeed to climb and fly according to manufacturer’s data (Air Tractor), in excess of 1.5 miles to a predetermined landing area and land.

Current Multiengine Requirement

The petitioner states that the FAA’s requirement under § 137.51(b)(5)(ii) for a climb with a critical engine inoperative is expressed as “a rate of climb of at least 50 feet per minute.” The petitioner adds that in accordance with 14 CFR part 23, small multiengine aircraft of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight have no FAA8

certification requirement for a single-engine positive rate of climb, and the aircraft performance to comply with FAA certification standards is based on climb gradient. Therefore, the petitioner states this makes the agricultural operator and/or the FAA aviation safety inspector’s ability to determine whether a multiengine aircraft can comply with § 137.51(b)(5) improbable.

In addition, the petitioner notes that § 137.51(b)(5) does not require multiengine aircraft used in agricultural operations flying 50 feet above tree top level to maintain engines within the manufacturer’s overhaul times. The petitioner further notes that there is no requirement for multiengine aircraft to have a low fuel warning system or systems that provide pilots with information while the pilot continues to look outside the aircraft. There also is no requirement that the pilots have additional training regarding engine failures low to the ground at low speeds in steeply banked turns.

The petitioner again refers to the FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA H–8083–3) and further notes that a major aspect of flying an agricultural application in a congested area is the need for multiple turns to be made in a very small radius, necessitating the multiengine aircraft required by this regulation to be flown at a low speed and turned at higher than standard bank angles. The petitioner states that recovery is unlikely when a multiengine aircraft in a slow steeply banked turn suffers an engine failure on the inside of that turn at 50 feet above tree top level.

The petitioner comments that in 1967 the authors of part 137 believed that two engines are better than one, without knowledge of the physics involved, benefit of FAA training publications, or the next 43 years of development and operating statistics.

Statistics

The petitioner provides statistical information on single-engine turbopropeller powerplant aircraft reliability summarized from the contents of a report prepared by Robert E. Breiling Associates, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, based on information available from National Transportation Safe ty Board (NTSB) and FAA sources. The petitioner asserts the statistics further prove Al’s Aerial Spraying’s use of a turbopropeller-powered Air Tractor over a conge sted area is safer taking off or turning than using multiengine piston-powered aircraft for the same tasks.

The petitioner presents powerplant reliability comparative data that shows multiengine reciprocating-powered aircraft account ed for 5.68 percent of accidents per 100,000 hours by major aircraft type based on a 5-year average, from 1992 through 1996, as compared to 1.46 percent for single-engine turbopropeller-powered aircraft during the same period. The petitioner also presents data to show that multiengine reciprocating-powered aircraft accounted for 27.6 percent of general aviation fixed-wing aircraft accidents attributed to power loss, all causes, based on a 5-year average, from 1992 through 1996, as compared to 0 percent for single-engine turbopropeller-powered aircraft during the same period.9

The petitioner states that based on the review and analysis of accident data involving single- and multiengine reciprocating- and turbopropeller-powered malfunctions, failures, and accidents, and an analysis of the available powerplant reliability data, Robert E. Breiling Associates., Inc. concluded that a single-engine turbopropeller-powered aircraft, with adequate backup systems provided in its design, will be more reliable, involved in fewer powerplant malfunction/failure-related accidents than single- or multiengine recipro cating-powered fixed-wing aircraft, and is comparable to the reliability of a multiengine turbopropeller-powered aircraft.

Precedent

The petitioner argues that at one time the FAA prohibited 14 CFR part 135 single-engine operations under instrument fli ght rules (IFR) and night operations using reciprocating-powered engine and turbopropelle r-powered aircraft. He added that the FAA revised part 135 in 1998 to allow si ngle-engine operations provided certain maintenance, equipment requirements, and flight crewmember training and experience levels are met. The petitioner adds that Al’s Aerial Spraying Air Tractor aircraft are equipped with the same Pratt and Whitney PT–6 turbopropeller-powered engine as the Cessna C208 Caravan, which has an extremely reliable safety record. According to the petitioner, Cessna C208 Caravan fatal accidents in the United States between 1985 and 1996 (2.6 million total flight hours) were 0.56 per 100,000 hours; fatal accidents caused by mechanical failures of the engine were zero.

Al’s Aerial Spraying Maintenance, Equipment, and Flightcrew Experience Levels

The petitioner notes that Al’s Aerial Spraying holds a part 135 certificate. The petitioner states that compared to the 100 hours of flight experience as pilot in command required under § 137.53(b)(2) to dispense agricultural materials or chemicals over congested areas, Al’s Aerial Spraying pilots have a minimum 2,500 hours of agricultural application flight time, minimum of 6,500 hours total flight time, and an average of 14,500 hours of total flight time. The petitioner adds that these pilots are career aerial application pilots who have worked with Al’s Aerial Spraying for several years and have conducted aerial application operations on thousands of acres over congested areas.

The petitioner further states that Al’s Aerial Spraying fleet consists of only Air Tractor aircraft, as these aircraft are designed to provide the necessary visibility, maneuverability, reliability, and excellent glide distance that have made Al’s Aerial Spraying’s impeccable safety record possible.

The petitioner states that Air Tractor, Inc., the aircraft manufacturer, provides proactive and superior product support, and Al’s Aerial Spraying complies with all FAA airworthiness directives and inspections, including the manufacturer’s recommended overhaul periods or FAA-approved intervals. In addition, the petitioner states that Al’s Aerial Spraying Air Tract ors have a supplemental type certificate for10

single point refueling, and a SATLOC di fferentially corrected global positioning system that provides the pilot with the location of the closest noncongested area at

all times.

Finally, the petitioner states that Al’s Aerial Spraying conducts daily post-flight briefings as an important part of the company’s safety culture and for learning

purposes.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2010 (75 FR 29602). The FAA received 12 comments from individuals, consisting of airline transport pilots, general aviation pilots, aviation maintenance technicians, and an engineer. In general, all 12 commenters support the granting of an exemption to Al’s Aerial Spraying based on the following three issues:

(1) Outdated FAA regulations for agricultural aircraft operations.

The majority of persons submitting comments on the petition for exemption have stated that part 137 is outdated and needs to be updated to account for the significant evolution of purpose-built agricultural application aircraft and agricultural and aviation technology. Six commenters specifically want the regulations to be updated.

(2) Support the petition for exemption based on referenced FAA publications.

Eight commenters support the petition for exemption based on the FAA publications, ACs, and statistical information that, in their opinions, prove a single-engine turbopropeller-powered aircraft is safer than a multiengine aircraft at the low altitudes necessary for aerial applications.

(3) Higher level of safety.

Eleven commenters state that granting the exemption to permit Al’s Aerial Spraying to operate single- engine turbopropeller-powered Air Tractor aircraft to takeoff and make turnarounds over congested areas in a loaded configuration will not adversely affect safety of flight and will provide a higher level of safety.11

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s supporting information, as well as the information provided by comments submitted to the docket supporting the Al’s Aerial Spraying petition for exemption, and determined that the circumstances presented by the petitioner do not justify a grant of exemption. The FAA finds the petitioner has not sufficiently shown that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest or that a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulations would be maintained for the following reasons: (1) Al’s Aerial Spraying operation is not unique or special in comparison to other agricultural aircraft operators who conduct aerial application operations over congested areas using single-engine aircraft so as to justify relief by way of an exemption; (2) The FAA does not agree with the petitioner that operating a single-engine turbine-powered aircraft for takeoff or to make turns over congested areas is safer than operating a multiengine piston powered aircraft for the same task. Furthermore, the petitioner’s arguments regarding the fact that the regulations are outdated indicate that this request is more appropriate for a petition for rulemaking.

Title 14 CFR § 137.51 addresses three types of aircraft used in agricultural aircraft operations: helicopters, multiengine aircraft, and single-engine aircraft. Currently, takeoff or turnaround operations over congested areas are permitted for single-engine helicopters per § 137.51(b)(4)(i) or for a multiengine aircraft per § 137.51(b)(5)(ii). Part 137 does not preclude the petitioner from conducting aerial application operations over congested areas with a single-engine aircraft. At issue are takeoff and turnaround single-engine aerial application operations while over congested areas. The safety concern is with respect to engine loss below the safe altitudes prescribed in part 91. Before an operator conducts any aerial application operations in any aircraft over congested areas, the FAA must approve a congested area plan in accordance with § 137.51(b)(3). Before approving any operator’s plan of operation using a single-engine aircraft over congested areas, the FAA requires the operator to coordinate safety measures with local officials. These measures may include blocking off streets and other areas that could be used as an emergency landing or similar precautionary measures required in the interest of public safety. The FAA then determines whether the aircraft to be used complies with the emergency landing requirements contained in § 137.51(b)(4)(iii) during the actual dispensing operation.

The FAA, as a part of the approval of a congested area plan, requires an operator of a multiengine aircraft who intends to takeoff over a congested area to show in the plan that the aircraft can meet the accelerate-stop requirement s of § 137.51(b)(5)(i). If the aircraft cannot meet these requirements, the operator must state in the written plan of operation that no takeoff will be made over a congested area during dispensing operations. In addition, the operator must show in the congested area plan that the aircraft can meet the climb requirements for a critical engine inoperative as specified in § 137.51(b)(5)(ii). Otherwise the FAA does not approve the plan for multiengine aircraft aerial application operations over congested areas.12

The FAA recognizes the unique flight characteristics of helicopters and performance characteristics of multiengine aircraft. By requesting to takeoff or make a turnaround in a loaded, single-engine aircraft, over a congested area, the petitioner must demonstrate that a singleengine aircraft has an equivalent level of safety comparable with the recognized maneuverability of helicopters and/or the climb capability required by this regulation in a multiengine aircraft with one-engine inoperative.

The petitioner asserts, with supporting statistical data, that turbopropeller-powered engines are more reliable than piston-powered engines. Although the turbine-powered engine may bemore reliable, it is the sole source of power for the aircraft. A powerplant failure of singleengine aircraft (regardless of engine type) while over congested areas, below the minimumaltitudes prescribed in part 91, make the aircraft a potentially greater hazard than a singleengine helicopter or multiengine aircraft. Ov er congested areas, a helicopter has greater ability, at low altitudes, to maneuver to a safe landing area and to ensure the safety of persons or property on the surface. In addition, § 137.51(b)(5)(ii) requires “positive” climb performance capabilities of multiengine aircraft with one engine inoperative. The FAA

reviewed Fiscal Year 02 – FY 09 NTSB data which showed 496 airplanes involved in part 137 operator accidents. Of these accidents, none involved multiengine aircraft. A review of 17 recent fatal agricultural accidents in single-engine turbines indicate that the 2 most recent involve catastrophic engine failures. In considering the data, the FAA assessed the petition on more than accident rates. Other issues were considered including potential long-term risk to the public due to unintended consequences from a significant change to the agricultural spraying market over congested areas. This preliminary accident analysis indicates that this petitioner’s request requires further study and consideration and is not appropriate for exemption relief.

The petitioner claims that the FAA clearly recognizes the danger an engine failure poses to the controllability of a multiengine aircraft because the PTS requires single-engine demonstrations for emergency operations in multiengine aircraft be conducted at an altitude no lower than 3,000 feet AGL. The FAA reminds the petitioner that the PTS areas of operation are designed in this case for a pilot to demonstrate competency during emergency operations to obtain a commercial pilot certificate with a multiengine rating. The designation of 3,000 feet AGL is a safety precaution used during emergency operations testing and does not mean the FAA has determined that an engine failure in a multiengine aircraft cannot be successfully addressed at a lower altitude or that a certificated pilot’s competency during actual emergency operations in a multiengine aircraft would diminish at an altitude below 3,000 feet AGL. Finally, the FAA recognizes that single-engine demonstrations for emergency operations in multiengine aircraft may take place at altitudes below 3,000 feet AGL and specifies that at altitudes lower th an 3,000 feet AGL engine failure must be simulated by reducing throttle to idle and then establishing zero thrust.13

In addition, the petitioner argues that the part 135 rule change in 1998 is similar to what has been proposed in this request. The FAA does not agree that a comparison can be made between single-engine aircraft passenger-carrying operations under IFR and the hazards

associated with low altitude aerial works. Part 135 was revised to allow single-engine aircraft passenger-carrying operations under IFR after almost 20 years of study and a notice and comment rulemaking period. The FAA’s decision included a review of operational data from Canada, accident data, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee recommendations, and an NTSB study. In order to consider the petitioner’s request, a thorough review and analysis would need to be completed. Moreover, six commenters specifically stated the need for part 137 to be updated. These comments indicate that the petitioner’s request is not unique or special in comparison to other agricultural aircraft operators. Therefore, rather than a petition for exemption, this request is more appropriate for a petition for rulemaking. Although this request has merit as a petition for rulemaking, due to resource and time constraints as a result of the mandatory rulemaking projects in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub lic Law 111-216) signed on August 1, 2010, we cannot address a possible change to part 137 at this time.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be 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 petition of Al’s Aerial Spraying, LLC for an exemption from 14 CFR § 137.51(b)(4)(i) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on Sep 20 2010.

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service14

Project No.: AFS–10–162–E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM-107:LBrunache:09/09/10:Doc# 30298

ARM-1/100/107: AFS-800

Statistics: Final Draft Als Aerial Spraying LLC.DOC, 4,800 words Original, 10 Sep 2010 17:15 Style Index 66 Average for a Legal Document Average Sentence Length 28 Poor

Passive Index 26 Excellent

MR MICHAEL D SCHIFFER

ALS AERIALSPRAYING LLC

3473 NORTH SHEPARDSVILLE RD

OVID MICHIGAN 48866