Exemption No. 5209A
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
WASHINGTON, DC 20591
In the matter of the petition of
POPULAR ROTORCRAFT ASSOCIATION
Regulatory Docket No. 25748
for an exemption from Section 91.319 (a)
(1) and (2) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations
GRANT OF EXEMPTION
By letter dated December 1, 1988, Mr. I. D. Farrington, Farrington Aircraft Corporation, 4460 Shemwell Road, Paducah, Kentucky 42003, petitioned on behalf of Popular Rotorcraft Association (PRA), for an exemption from Section 91.42 (a) (2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Since a grant of exemption from Section 91.42 (a) (2) will not suffice without also receiving relief from paragraph (1), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has included Section 91.42 (a) (1) in this petition. A grant of exemption would permit PRA and its member flight instructors to conduct pilot and flight instructor training in an experimental gyroplane for compensation or hire.On July 20, 1990, a grant of exemption was issued to PRA, which permitted PRA and its member flight instructors to conduct pilot and flight instructor training in an experimental gyroplane for compensation or hire. On February 7 and 8, 1991, Mr. I. D. Farrington, Farrington Aircraft Corporation and Inspector Zeleski, Louisville FSDO telephoned to report that PRA has been unable to implement its grant of exemption, because of Condition I e. Inspector Zeleski stated that neither Flight Standards District Offices (FSDO) nor Manufacturing Inspection District Offices (MIDO) approve, accept, or examine flight manuals for aircraft with experimental airworthiness certificates. Therefore, Condition No. le of Exemption No. 5209 is being amended.
Petitioner required relief from the following regulations:Section 91.42 (a) (1) prescribes that no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental airworthiness certificate for other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued.AFS-91-168-ESection 91.42 (a) (2) prescribes that no person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate for carrying persons for compensation or hire.
2
The petitioner has submitted the following information in support of its petition:PRA states that it believes the gyroplane's accident record is deplorable and the cause is attributable to the lack of adequate training. The petitioner states there are no gyroplanes with a semi-rigid, tilt-spindle type rotor system that are certificated under Part 27 with a Standard Airworthiness Certificate. The petitioner states that there exists only 2 types of gyroplanes (the Air and Space 18A and McCullouch J-2) that hold a Standard Airworthiness Certificate. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that the flight characteristics of these Part 27 gyroplanes are significantly different from the teeter rotor system gyroplanes which are manufactured by Bensen, Brock, Air Command, Van Kraft, and Kennedy. The petitioner contends that teeter rotor system gyroplanes are primarily utilized in sport aviation and probably will never meet the Federal Aviation Administration's type certification requirements for a Standard Airworthiness Certificate.PRA believes that approval of its petition is in the public interest. PRA states that approval of its petition will provide a legal method for conducting flight instruction in experimental gyroplanes with semi-rigid, tilt-spindle rotor systems. The petitioner states that experimental gyroplanes with semi-rigid, tilt-spindle rotor systems make up 99 percent of the over 4000 homebuilt gyroplanes.
PRA listed the following conditions it believes are necessary for conducting pilot and
flight instructor training in experimental gyroplanes:
1 . Each gyroplane will be required to have a flight manual which contains center of
gravity and weight limitations, airspeed limitations, height-velocity curve
limitations, and other appropriate limitations determined by Popular Rotorcraft
Association's Technical Training Committee;
2. Each gyroplane will be required to have a maintenance schedule, and a
maintenance logbook will be established to record all performed maintenance;
3 . Each gyroplane will be required to have a valid experimental airworthiness
certificate; and
4. Each instructor who instructs in an experimental gyroplane under this exemption
shall be required to:
a. Hold a valid flight instructor certificate with a gyroplane rating;
b. Utilize an established curriculum of training;
c. Inform any student pilot who receives training under this exemption that the
training is being conducted in an experimental gyroplane; and
d. Have at least 250 hours of total flight experience of which 100 hours must
3 have been in gyroplanes and *25 hours in the same make and model of gyroplane. *(PRA subsequently modified its petition by requesting that the 25 hour figure be lowered to 10 hours. The FAA has agreed with this request, and has established this requirement in Condition No. 2b.)Pursuant to a request from the FAA, PRA furnished additional information on specific accidents involving experimental-certificated gyroplanes. These cases were selected specifically because the cause of these accidents may have been attributed to lack of instruction and/or inexperience in gyroplanes. This additional information included the following:
Case No. 1: In an accident that occurred in Oklahoma, a high-time airplane flight instructor was involved in a fatal accident involving an experimental certificated gyroplane. The primary cause of this accident was reported to be the pilot's inducing the gyroplane into a negative G situation, resulting in reverse conning/flapping of the main rotor system that caused deformation of the hub bar to the extent that it contacted the torque tube which separated from the airframe.
Case No. 2: A student pilot with only 10 hours of total flight experience was fatally injured as a result of improper operation of the flight controls. Case No. 3: A student pilot with only 22 hours of total flight experience was fatally injured when the pre-rotator shaft uncoupled resulting in the main rotor blade contacting the rudder.
PRA cited 1967 accident figures that showed there were 6,115 general aviation accidents that year. Sixty-three of those accidents involved homebuilt aircraft and 26 of those homebuilt gyroplanes. Twenty of the 63 were fatal accidents and 11 of those 20 fatal accidents involved gyroplanes. In addition, 9 of those 11 fatal accidents involving gyroplanes were a result of pilot error. Eight of Those 9 fatal accidents involved pilots with less than 12 hours of flight experience in gyroplanes. In addition, PRA cited 1977 accident figures which showed there were 4,286 general aviation accidents. One hundred six of those accidents involved homebuilt aircraft and 6 of those were in homebuilt gyroplanes. There were 21 fatal accidents involving homebuilt aircraft and 4 of those involved homebuilt gyroplanes. PRA stated that it cited these accident records because it believes that a grant of its petition will improve the accident rates involved experimental-certificated gyroplanes.
4
A summary of the original petition was published in the Federal Register on January 26, 1989 (54 FR 3894). There were 2 comments received on the original petition, and both favored PRA's petition. In addition, Congressmen Bob McEwen and Tony P. Hall of Ohio sent letters of inquiry to the FAA on behalf of one of the commenters. One commenter cited the accident and death rates involving pilots of homebuilt gyroplanes as the reason for approving the PRA's petition. The commenter claimed that there are no certificated gyroplanes in production at the present, and that all Part 27 certificated gyroplanes ceased production in the mid-1960's. The commenter claimed that there are only 30 to 40 appropriately certificated gyroplanes in existence and only 3 are being used as trainers. As of August 30, 1989, a review of the records from the FAA's Aircraft Registry Division, AVN-400, showed only 83 Part 27 certificated gyroplanes which could be utilized for commercial purposes such as flight instruction for compensation or hire. Records are not available as to the operational status of those gyroplanes. The other commenter cited a reduction in the cost of pilot training as its reason for wanting PRA's petition to be approved. The commenter did not present any information about specific costs. The FAA's analysis/summary is as follows:
Historically, the FAA's position on this issue has been that an aircraft with an experimental certificate, amateur-built, may be used for crew training or flight instruction where no charges or remuneration for the use of the aircraft are involved. A pilot or owner may use the services of an instructor to take dual instruction in an experimental aircraft, however, a commercial operator may not provide such an aircraft for the purpose of giving flight instruction for hire. A person who is the owner or operator of an experimental-certificated aircraft may receive flight instruction in that aircraft and pay for the serviced of a flight instructor. However, the person must be the owner or operator of the aircraft in order for a flight instructor to receive compensation. The FAA also permits a person to take a check ride in an experimental certificated aircraft. However, the FAA has determined that a grant of this petition would be in the public interest. The FAA can locate only three standard category gyroplanes in the United States that are being used for flight training and acknowledges that it is extremely difficult for students to obtain training without undue hardship and expense.
At present, many students are self-taught, resulting in a high accident rate during the early hours of training. Increasing numbers of two-place experimental gyroplanes are being manufactured. This grant will provide a means for pilots desiring to fly gyroplanes to pay for and receive the criteria set forth in the conditions and limitations of this exemption. These criteria are far more stringent than those normally placed on experimental-category aircraft.
5
As of result of the telephone conversations with Mr. I. D. Farrington and Inspector Zeleski, the FAA has determined the need to amend Exemption No. 5209. This amendment results from the problems with Condition 1e in the original grant of exemption. Inspector Zeleski stated that neither FSDO's nor MIDO's approve, accept, or examine flight manuals for aircraft with experimental airworthiness certificates. Therefore, Condition No. 1e of Exemption No. 5209 is being amended. All other conditions and limitations from the original grant of exemption remain unchanged. In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest and will not adversely affect safety. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 313 (a) and 601 C) of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, delegated to me by the Administrator (14 CFE 11.53), Popular Rotorcraft Association, Inc., and its member flight instructors are granted an exemption from Section 91.42 (a) (1) and (2) of the Federal Aviation Regulations to the extent necessary to permit training to be conducted in an experimental gyroplane for compensation or hire, subject to compliance with the following conditions and limitations:
PRA and its member flight instructors are permitted, under the terms of this grant of exemption, to operate an experimental category gyroplane for the purpose of conducting Right instruction for compensation and hire, provided--
1 . The gyroplane--
A. Is powered by a single, naturally aspirated engine with a certificated takeoff rating of 200 shaft horsepower or less under sea level standard day conditions;
B. Has a maximum certificated gross weight of not more than 2,500 pounds and not less than 254 pounds;
C. Has an occupant capacity of at least 2 seats, which includes the pilot's station;
D. Has an unpressurized cabin;
E. Has a flight manual which has been developed in accordance with Popular Rotorcraft Association's advisory guide. The flight manual must contain at least the following operating limitations:
(1) Explanation of limitations, when appropriate, (i.e., such as causes of negative roll with yaw, effects of unloading the rotor in flight, recovery from pilot induced oscillation, etc.);
(2) Center of gravity range limitation and minimum and maximum weight
limitations;
6
(3) Normal and emergency operating procedures;
(4) V sub ne airspeed limitation;
(5) Powerplant limitations to include as a minimum the
(1) RPM limits;
(11) Cylinder head temperature limits;
(111) If appropriate, oil temperature and pressure limits; and
(IV) Recommended fuel grades and mixtures.
(6) Height velocity limitations;
(7) Information for marking the V sub ne airspeed limit;
(8) Information for determining fuel quantity from the pilot's station'
(9) Altitude service ceiling limitation (that altitude where the gyroplane's rate-of-climb is less
than 100 feet/minute;
(10) Performance capabilities;
(11) Kinds of operation limitations that explain the kinds of flight conditions the gyroplane is authorized to operate in (i.e., VFR-day, VFR-night, etc.);
F. The operating limitations of subparagraph e must have been determined while the gyroplane was operating at its maximum declared gross takeoff weight limitation.
G. The operating limitations of subparagraph e must be validated by both the owner of the gyroplane and the pilot who performed the actual flight test, and the validation shall be part of the flight manual.
7
H. The owner of the gyroplane shall be responsible for affixing the date and manual version number to each page of the flight manual and to make, when needed, revisions to the flight manual.
2. The flight instructor who conducts the flight training, must--
A. Hold an FAA flight instructor certificate with a rotorcraft-gyroplane rating; and
B. Have a total of 250 hours of flight experience, of which 100 hours were in gyroplanes and 1O hours were in the specific make and model of gyroplane in which he or she is giving instruction.
3. The training authorized to be conducted under the terms and conditions of this exemption is limited to that training required for the -
A. Issuance of Recreational Pilot or Private Pilot Certificate with a gyroplane rating;
B. Satisfactory completion of a biennial flight review in a gyroplane; or
C. Maintaining or improving of pilot skills and proficiency in gyroplanes.
8
4. The person who receives pilot training under the terms of this exemption may do so only for the purpose of -
A. Obtaining a Recreational Pilot or Private Pilot Certificate with a gyroplane rating;
B. Completion of a biennial flight review in a gyroplane; or
C. Maintaining or improving pilot skills and proficiency in gyroplanes.
5. On the expiration date and prior to renewal of this exemption, PRA will provide the Director of Flight Standards Service, AFS-1, with--
A. The name, address, and telephone number of each person who receives training under the terms and conditions of this exemption.
B. The name, address, telephone number, qualifications, and flight experience of the flight instructor who conducted the training for the person in Condition No. 5a;
C. A listing of the date, name of the applicant, kind of certification checkride, the name of the FAA designated examiner or FAA inspector who conducted the check, and the results of the checkride; and
D. A listing of any incident, accident, or mechanical malfunction of the airframe, drive train, or engine involving training under the terms and conditions of this exemption. That listing will include the gyroplane's make/model and N number; aircraft owner, address, phone number; date of the incident/accident/malfunction; any information on the possible cause factors; and extent of injuries sustained by pilot, instructor, or persons on the ground.
6. PRA and its member flight instructors will provide each person who receives their training under the terms and conditions of this exemption a copy of this exemption.