Exemption No. 9988

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

GEOVANTAGE, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2008-1266

for an exemption from § 91.327(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated November 18, 2008, Mr. James R. Summerville, Aviation Operations Director, GeoVantage, Inc. (GeoVantage) , 3 Centennial Drive, Suite 350, Peabody, Massachusetts 01960, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of GeoVantage for an exemption from § 91.327(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit GeoVantage to operate an aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category while conducting aerial surveying for commercial purposes.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 91.327(a) prescribes that no person may operate an aircraft that has a special airworthiness certificate in the light-sport category for compensation or hire except to tow a glider or an unpowered ultralight vehicle in accordance with § 91.309 of this chapter; or to conduct flight training.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that aerial surveying and the general collection of geo-registered imagery has extensive uses in land use management. Examples provided by the petitioner include: agriculture, forestry, and environmental monitoring where an expert observer can make decisions regarding the appropriate land activities without a physical presence

. The petitioner believes that GeoVantage has a low cost approach of providing critical information for land use management that would benefit the public

AFS-09-071-E2

and the environment immensely by decreasing environmental hazards such as those resulting from nitrogen and pesticides.

The petitioner states that while the costs of aerial surveying are increasing, the ability to install newer digital imaging technology systems of reduced size and weight in smaller single-engine aircraft such as GeoVantage’s Remos GX, a special light-sport aircraft (S-LSA), could serve to dramatically reduce these costs. The petitioner states that an exemption to permit the use of its S-LSA for aerial surveys would benefit the public by decreasing the costs of obtaining survey-precise imagery data for various public and commercial uses and permit that information to be provided to users in a more timely manner. Additionally, the petitioner believes that its public interest justification is similar to that set forth in Exemption No. 6701 and believes that the agency’s grant of that exemption has also set a favorable precedent for the grant of its

request.

The petitioner specifically proposes to exercise the privileges of the exemption outside the United States and believes that it is important to consider land use management by aerial surveying in developing countries. The petitioner intends to operate an aerial surveying business internationally for agriculture and forestry monitoring and disaster management. The petitioner states that the Remos GX S-LSA could be readily shipped two-to-a-container to any location in the world and operated in lieu of more expensive aircraft. Furthermore, the petitioner states that GeoVantage camera equipment has been operated by in-country partners in South Africa, Australia, Indonesia, Argentina, Canada, and Mexico. The petitioner has plans to operate under Advisory Circular 00-60 within Canada and Mexico, exercising the privileges set forth under the North American Free Trade Agreement. As such, the petitioner finds that the use of its S-LSA is critical to GeoVantage’s business. The petitioner also believes that permitting the use of its S-LSA to conduct these operations will foster the export of aerial survey services, therefore providing a significant benefit to the overall U.S. economy.

The petitioner states that granting the exemption would not adversely affect safety because the relief permitted by the exemption would only be exercised in accordance with the following provisions:

1. All aerial survey operations would occur under visual flight rules (VFR) conditions;

2. All aircraft ferrying from a staging airport would occur under VFR conditions;

3. Aircraft would be trailored from one location to another thereby avoiding lengthy ferry flights;

4. All pilots operating the equipment would have commercial licenses and over 500 hours of pilot-in-command time;

5. Carriage of passengers would be prohibited;3

6. Operations would generally be conducted over sparsely populated areas; and

7. Pilots would be trained in accordance with a specified training syllabus.

The petitioner believes that currently permitted operations are more dangerous than the operations it proposes to conduct and that the execution of its assigned mission, under the conditions specified, would provide a level of safety in excess of that set forth in § 91.327(a).

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2009 (74 FR 3128). Two comments were received in favor of the petitioner’s request.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA has reviewed the petitioner’s supporting information and finds the relief requested by the by the petitioner would not provide an equivalent level of safety and would not be in the public interest.

The FAA created the light-sport category of aircraft with the implementation of the Final Rule, “Certification of Aircraft a nd Airmen for the Operation of Light–Sport Aircraft (69 FR 44772; July 27, 2004). Th ese aircraft are not manufactured under airworthiness standards specifically set forth in 14 CFR but rather in accordance with consensus standards accepted by the FAA. Compliance with these consensus standards results in an aircraft that the agency considers safe for those operations currently permitted to be conducted under the regulations.

As S-LSA do not meet airworthiness standards applicable to other aircraft, such as those issued a standard airworthiness certificate, the FAA requires these aircraft to comply with specific limitations that it considers appropriate for the operation of the aircraft. These operating limitations are based upon factors such as the design standards used to certificate the aircraft and the minimum qualifications of those persons authorized to operate the aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA in 14 CFR § 91.327(a)(1) and (2) prohibits the use of these aircraft for compensation or hire except for the limited purposes of towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle or to conduct flight training.

Although the petitioner believes that aerial survey operations should be permitted to be conducted in these aircraft and cites Exemption No. 6701, as precedential, the FAA does not believe that exemption sets a precedent for granting the petitioner’s request. Although that exemption granted relief from 14 CFR § 91.313(c) to permit the petitioner to carry passengers in Bell 47G helicopters certificated in the restricted category while performing site survey flights, the FAA considers the differences in the airworthiness standards applied to those airc raft and to aircraft certificated as S-LSA to be sufficiently different to distinguish the two petitions and not constitute a precedent for GeoVantage’s request. Additionally, S-LSA are not subject to the more restrictive operating limitations imposed on restricted category aircraft, such as those4

generally preventing operation over densely populated areas, in a congested airway, or near airports where transport operations are conducted.

Although the petitioner has proposed specific conditions under which its aerial survey operations would be conducted, it has not provided substantive evidence that these conditions will, in fact, provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulation from which the petitioner seeks relief. The petitioner has not demonstrated that using an aircraft that meets the design standards applicable to an aircraft certificated in the light-sport category provides a level of safety equivalent to that of an aircraft certificated under design standards applicable to aircraft that are currently permitted to be used for these kinds of operations.

The petitioner also states that the operations currently permitted to be conducted under § 91.327 are no more dangerous than those operations it proposes to conduct; however, the petitioner has not provided evidence to support this contention. The FAA is continuing to assess the status of th e light-sport aircraft industry; however, at this time sufficient data are not available to conclusively make a determination that the proposed operations provide a level of safety equivalent to those permitted by the current regulation.

Although the petitioner also states that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest by extending the use of aerial survey imagery applications, the FAA notes that the applications and benefits cited by the petitioner may be obtained from aircraft that are currently available and permitted to be used to conduct aerial survey operations.

The petitioner also requests to conduct operation outside the United States under the provisions of the exemption. The FAA, however, cannot provide this relief. The operation of an aircraft having a special airworthiness certificate, in the light-sport category, outside the United States may only be conducted with the approval of the civil aviation authority of the country in which the proposed operation would be

conducted.

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. §§ 401135

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of GeoVantage, Inc., for an exemption from 14 CFR § 91.327(a) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on December 24, 2009.

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service