WIPLINE FLOATS • SKIS • MODIFICATIONS • AIRCRAFT SALES 

AVIONICS • INTERIOR • MAINTENANCE • PAINT REFINISHING 

1700 Henry Ave – Fleming Field (KSGS), South St. Paul, MN 55075 

Ph: 651.451.1205 Fax: 651.457.7858 

www.wipaire.com 

August 9, 2013 Exemption No. 10786 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0156 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE. 

Washington, DC 20590 

On behalf of Wipaire, Inc. I hereby file this request for reconsideration of our petition for 

exemption pursuant to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Section (§)11.101. 

Our company name and mailing address is as follows: 

 Wipaire, Inc. 

 1700 Henry Ave. - Fleming Field 

 South St. Paul, MN 55075 

 Telephone: 651-451-1205 

 Contact: Mr. Richard S. Adler, Certification Engineer 

 E-mail: radler@wipaire.com

Wipaire is petitioning for exemption from §§ 23.3(a) and 135.113 of 14 CFR with respect to the 

limitation on seating configuration, less pilot seats, of nine or less. The exemption would permit 

an increase in the maximum number of passenger seats to ten, while maintaining the TC 

approved maximum seats, including crew, of eleven, for Wipaire modified Cessna Caravan and 

Grand Caravan aircraft. An additional exemption is requested to allow for supplemental type 

approval for operations in the 208B Grand Caravan with an eleven to thirteen passenger seating 

configuration (maximum fourteen seats, including crew). 

In a letter dated June 10, 2013, FAA denied Wipaire’s petition, citing previous denials of similar 

petitions and arguments made by Wipaire as being ‘not persuasive’. 

Pursuant to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Section (§)11.101, reconsideration 

of the petition requires that Wipaire show one or more of the following: 

(a) That you have a significant additional fact and why you did not present it in your original petition; 

(b) That we made an important factual error in our denial of your original petition; or 

(c) That we did not correctly interpret a law, regulation, or precedent. 
Page 2 

In accordance with (§)11.101(a), Wipaire intends to present significant additional facts not in the 

original petition. These facts were not presented in the original petition because Wipaire did not 

have knowledge at that time regarding the FAA concept of ‘risk exposure’, as opposed to the 

concept of ‘level of safety’ as outlined in (§)11.81(e). Wipaire also intends to argue that the 

FAA, in its denial, failed to correctly interpret the regulation by applying a non-existent 

threshold for what constitutes an acceptable level of public interest, namely that the regulation 

merely requires that the granting of the exemption be in the public interest, the contrary 

interpretation of which would be that the exemption not be detrimental to the public interest. 

Exemption in the Public Interest 

In its denial, the FAA cited three substantive and one non-substantive comment, noting that the 

substantive comments were all in favor of the petition, but also noting that the substantive 

comments lacked supporting data. The FAA did not acknowledge Appendix A of the petition, 

containing a letter from a Cessna Caravan operator commenting in favor of the petition. While 

Wipaire acknowledges that the exemption requested would impact a relatively small number of 

entities, most of the U.S. entities being geographically located in Alaska, and therefore not draw 

a large number of comments, it must also be noted that not a single unfavorable comment was 

received, for a statistical response of 100% in favor. In our review of the regulation it did not 

appear that the regulation contains a threshold defining what level of response would constitute a 

response ‘in the public interest’, so a certain level of interpretation must be assumed. However, 

whereas 60% for/40% against could be open to interpretation, 100% for/0% against seems to 

point only in one direction, and an interpretation to the contrary would appear to be contrary to 

the letter and intent of the regulation. 

Additionally, the FAA goes on to state in its denial that “Arguments attempting to justify the 

exemption based on the airplane being newer and therefore safer than airplanes that were 

grandfathered when the new rules came into effect, are not persuasive. Arguments attempting to 

justify the exemption because of public benefit of being able to carry more passengers and thus 

more convenient and ultimately cost effective to the public are not persuasive.”. 

Combine all of these arguments for public benefit with the additional arguments presented in the 

initial petition, combined with previous comments responding to Amendment 23-10, 

“Wings of Alaska comments that the most cost efficient floatplane used in

southeast Alaska is the single‐engine DHC–3 Otter. Because there is no cost‐

effective replacement aircraft available for float operations that offers the same

capacity as the Otter, replacing them is not an option. Wings states that it operates

the Otter about 6 months a year. Four communities that do not have runways

receive daily service. Wings purchased five 10‐seat Otters in ’92–93 to improve

service to a wilderness sports facility, substantially reducing noise by reducing the

number of flights by 50%. Wings estimates that the removal of one seat would have

cost them $85,000 in 1994. Wings asks that the Cessna Caravan and the Cessna

Grand Caravan also be allowed to operate with 10 seats. (emphasis added) AACA

comments that Ketchikan Air Service, Taquan Air Service, and Wings of Alaska

together operate 12 Otters in southeastern Alaska.”  
Page 3 

and the remaining question would be, how much substantive data in favor of the public interest is 

required before the FAA finds that the argument is, in fact, persuasive? At present, it would 

certainly appear that the FAA is working from a predetermined outcome and is unwilling to 

allow any amount of data to alter that outcome. 

Exemption Would Not Adversely Affect Safety 

In its letter of denial, the FAA states “ the FAA made a conscious decision to limit (by 

regulation) the risk exposure to no more than nine persons, excluding pilots, unless the airplane 

meets additional safety requirements”. There are numerous anomalies in this statement, starting 

with its regulatory relevance with respect to (§)11.81(e), which discusses granting of an 

exemption based on an equivalent level of safety, not an equivalent level of risk exposure. The 

two matrices are not interchangeable. Secondly, there are presently no additional safety 

requirements that can be met for a single-engine turboprop in the normal category that would 

allow for operations with more than nine passenger seats, which is the reason for the petitioners 

request for exemption in the first place. Thirdly, the FAA felt sufficiently comfortable with the 

risk exposure to allow for the DHC3 Otter to be grandfathered with more than nine passenger 

seats. Moreover, this aircraft could be placed into production at any time, and the new aircraft 

produced would be approved with more than nine passenger seats. Lastly, and certainly not 

least, the FAA statement regarding limitation of risk exposure is false, as existing interpretations 

allow for occupancy of a passenger seat by multiple occupants, generally children, as long as 

‘seat usage limitations are met’. This interpretation is not outdated, having been re-affirmed by 

the FAA as recently as May 18, 2012 (Docket No. FAA-2011-0628). 

If the FAA truly wishes to limit risk exposure, a grant of Wipaire’s petition for exemption for a 

14 seat configuration, as is already available from Cessna and approved for use in almost forty 

countries (including all EASA members per TCDS IM.A.226), along with a limitation of one 

passenger per seat, would not only limit risk, but provide for an increased level of safety as 

compared to nine passenger seats occupied by eighteen individuals, thus meeting or exceeding 

the requirements of (§)11.81(e). 

Summary 

The FAA has denied Wipaire’s petition for exemption, citing numerous reasons, including 

similarity to previous petitions. Wipaire finds the FAA’s reasoning for denial to be flawed, for 

the reasons stated above. In its original adoption of the limitation to nine or fewer passenger 

seats more than forty years ago, the FAA provides no statistical basis for the specific number of 

seats chosen; in fact the number appears to have been arbitrary, or at best based on considered 

technological limitations of the day. Wipaire considers reference to twenty-two year old 

previous denials to be, for lack a better term, outdated. In twenty-two years technology has 

advanced by orders of magnitude, the operating environment has evolved, and almost 40 
Page 4 

countries have approved the configuration for which Wipaire seeks U.S. approval, in a time 

when the FAA regularly seeks to harmonize with foreign certification authorities. 

As stated in the original petition, there is significant benefit to the United States and no detriment 

to safety by the granting of this petition in its original form, or that proposed by this request. 

Wipaire respectfully requests reconsideration of our petition for exemption. 

Sincerely,

Richard S. Adler 

Wipaire, Inc. 

Certification Engineer 

DER Flight Analyst/Acoustics