Exemption No. 11058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

MN AIRLINES LLC

DBA SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0464

 

for an exemption from

§ 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated April 25, 2012, Mr. Mark Vogelgesang, Director of Pilot Training, MN 

Airlines LLC, dba Sun Country Airlines (Sun Country), 1300 Mendota Heights Road, 

Mendota Heights, MN, 55120, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Sun Country for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR). In the letter, Mr. Vogelgesang petitioned the FAA for an exemption

from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) to allow Sun Country to substitute a qualified and authorized check 

airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in 

command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.434 during at 

least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and landing in those circumstances when an FAA 

inspector is unavailable to to complete the observation. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that if a qualifying pilot in command is 

completing initial or upgrade training specified in §121.424, be observed in the performance 

of prescribed duties by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg which includes a 

takeoff and landing. During the time that a qualifying pilot in command is acquiring the 

operating experience (OE) in paragraphs (c)(l)(i) and (ii) of this section, a check pilot who is 

also serving as the pilot in command must occupy a pilot station. However, in the case of a 

transitioning PIC, the check pilot serving as pilot in command may occupy the observer's seat 

if the transitioning pilot has made at least two takeoffs and landings in the type airplane used 

and has satisfactorily demonstrated to the check pilot that he is qualified to perform the duties 

of a PIC of that type of airplane.
The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner stated the majority of Sun Country operations are scheduled domestic and 

international in nature. The petioner added that scheduling of FAA personnel to observe a 

qualifying PIC on an international operation with short notice is difficult to impossible. 

Because of the issues identified, the petitioner states that many of its PIC candidates are 

serving in OE status in excess of the hours required for the completion of the qualification 

segment while waiting for FAA observation. This affects crew scheduling ability and places 

unnecessary financial burden on the company. 

The petitioner asserts that granting the exemption is in the public interest and would allow the 

FAA to focus on higher priority safety issues. Additionally, the petitioner states that Sun 

Country check airmen are more familiar with company operating policies and procedures and 

would provide a higher level of PIC candidate scrutiny while eliminating delays in OE

completion. 

The petitioner contends that granting the exemption would have no significant impact on 

safety because the check airman would be highly trained, experienced, and qualified in the 

specific aircraft type. Further, the petition states that the check airman nominated to perform 

initial OE observation would be approved by the FAA through a letter of authorization and 

used only when a qualified FAA inspector is unavailable.

The petitioner asserts that the original intent of § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), issued in 1970, was to 

validate the training that a pilot received in a visual simulator. Since the adoption of the rule, 

the airline industry has gained more than 30 years of experience with basic and advanced 

simulation.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Sun Country.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered the petitioner’s request and supporting materials and finds that a 

grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. The requirements in § 121.434(c)(1) 

relating to FAA observation of initial OE flights for PIC resulted from Amendment 121-55, 

published on January 3, 1970 (35 FR 84), and Amendment 121-91, published on May 27, 

1972 (37 FR 10727). The purpose of these amendments was to update procedures for the 

approval and revision of training programs, to provide for more extensive use of airplane 

simulators in training, and to allow improvements in the operation of training programs and

the quality of training. The FAA considered it necessary to require PICs to be observed by an 

FAA inspector during at least one flight leg of initial OE, which includes a takeoff and 

landing, if the certificate holder uses a course of training in an airplane simulator as provided 

in § 121.409(c). That requirement was set forth in Amendment 121-91 and remains in effect.
The FAA inspector's observation of a qualifying PIC gives the FAA an opportunity to evaluate 

an air carrier's end training product under non-simulated or normal operating conditions. In 

that observation, the FAA also evaluates the check airman's performance with respect to 

preparing the qualifying PIC for assuming command duties during air carrier operations. 

These observations also provide an insight to the efficacy of the air carrier's training program. 

The conduct of line oriented flight training, crew resource management or any other improved 

training scenario does not negate the public safety function served by the FAA inspector's 

observation of this training during actual flight operations. 

The FAA finds that the purpose of the observation requirement is still valid: to provide the

FAA an opportunity to observe the PIC before he or she assumes unsupervised operations in 

an airplane; to validate the certificate holder's training program; and to provide the FAA with 

a mechanism for evaluating the certificate holder's check pilot program.

In summary, the observation accomplished in accordance with § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) allows the 

FAA to inspect several aspects of an air carrier operations simultaneously, and accordingly, 

the FAA considers it a high-priority surveillance item. 

When granting a petition for exemption, the FAA must find that a grant of exemption would 

be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by 

the current regulations. In this instance, on April 30, 2014, a representative of the FAA's 

Flight Standards Service District Office contacted the Certificate-Holding District Office

(CHDO) for Sun Country concerning its availability to conduct OE observations for Sun 

Country PICs. While the agency appreciates the potential challenges associated with 

scheduling FAA inspectors to observe a qualifying PIC on an international operation with

short notice, the Flight Standards Service confirmed that the CHDO currently has and expects 

to be able to maintain the capability to conduct any necessary Sun Country OE observations. 

The FAA concludes therefore, that FAA inspectors are able to perform the required 

observations on a timely basis and thus a grant of exemption is not in the public interest.

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 MN Airlines LLC dba Sun Country

Airlines for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 18, 2014. .

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service