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 rec onsideration of our petition for exemption pursuant to Title 14, Code of Fede ral 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. Ad ler, 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 passenge r seats to ten, while maintaining the TC approved maximum seats, including crew, of el even, for Wipaire modified Cessna Caravan and Grand Caravan aircraft. An additional exempti on is requested to allow for supplemental type approval for operations in the 208B Grand Caravan w ith an eleven to thirteen passenger seating configuration (maximum fourt een seats, including crew).

In a letter dated June 10, 2013, FAA denied Wipaire’ s petition, citing previ ous denials of similar petitions and arguments made by Wipa ire as being ‘not persuasive’.

Pursuant to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulat ions (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 interp ret a law, regulati on, 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 in tends to argue that the FAA, in its denial, failed to correctly inte rpret the regulation by applying a non-existent threshold for what constitutes an acceptable leve l of public interest, name ly that the regulation merely requires that the granting of the exemp tion be in the public interest, the contrary interpretation of which would be that the exemption not be detr imental 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 di d not acknowledge Appendix A of the petition, containing a letter from a Cessn a 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 geographi cally 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 respons e of 100% in favor. In our revi ew of the regulation it did not appear that the regulation contai ns a threshold defining what leve l of response would constitute a response ‘in the public interest’, so a certain level of interpreta tion 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 ultimate ly cost effective to th e public are not persuasive. ”.

Combine all of these arguments for public benefit with the additional arguments presented in the initial petition, combined w ith previous comments res ponding 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 substa ntive 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 ni ne persons, excluding pilots, unless the airplane
meets additional safety requirements ”. There are numerous anomalies in this statement, starting
with its regulatory re levance 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. Secondl y, there are presently no additional safety
requirements that can be met for a single-engi ne turboprop in the norma l category that would
allow for operations with more than nine passenger seats, which is the r eason for the petitioners
request for exemption in the first place. Thir dly, 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 multi ple occupants, generally children, as long as
‘seat usage limitations are met’. This interpretati on 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 alr eady available from Cessna and a pproved 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 pr ovide for an increased level of safety as
compared to nine passenger seats occupied by ei ghteen individuals, thus meeting or exceeding
the requirements of (§)11.81(e).

Summary

The FAA has denied Wipaire’s petition for ex emption, citing numerous reasons, including similarity to previous petitions . Wipaire finds the FAA’s reasoni ng for denial to be flawed, for

the reasons stated above. In its original adoption of the limita tion to nine or fewer passenger seats more than forty years ago, the FAA provides no statistical basis for th e 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 opera ting environment has evolved, and almost 40Page 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 petiti on, 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 reconsid eration of our petition for exemption.

Sincerely,

Richard S. Adler
Wipaire, Inc.
Certification Engineer
DER Flight Analyst/Acoustics