Exemption No. 11058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

MN AI RLINES LLC

DBA SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 201 2

- 0464

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

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated Apr il 25, 2012, Mr. Mark Vogel ge sang, Director of Pilot Traini ng , MN

Airlines LLC , dba Sun Country Airlines (Sun Country), 1300 Mendota Heights R oad, Mendota Heights, MN, 55120, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administratio n (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. Vogel ge sang 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 a n FAA

i nspector 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 upg rade 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 t he 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 pe titioner supports its request with the following information:

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

international in nature

. The petioner added that s cheduling 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 hour s required for the completion of the qualif ication segment while waiting for FA A 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 focu s on higher priority safety issues

. Additionally, the petitioner states that Sun Country check airm e n 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 o n safety because the check airm a n 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), is sued 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 c ause 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

. T he 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 w as 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 PIC s t o be observed by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg of initial O E , 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 qu alifying 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 im proved training scenario does not negate the public safety function served by the FAA inspector's

observation of this training during actual flight operations

.

T he 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 ho lder's training program; and to provide the FAA with a mechanism for evaluating the certificate h older's check pilot progr am

.

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

- priori ty surveillance item

.

When gr anting 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 t his instance, on April 30, 2014

, a representat ive 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 chal lenges associated with scheduling FAA inspectors to observe a qualifying PIC o n an international operation wi t h short notice, the Flight Standards Service confirmed that the CHDO currently has and expects to be able to maintain the capability to conduct an y necessary Sun Country OE observations. The FAA concludes therefore, that FAA i nspectors 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

Airl ines 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