### AFS-14-274-E May 28, 2014

Exemption No. 10994 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-29107

Ms. Tammie Irwin Cape Air, Director of Safety Hyannis Air Service, Inc. 660 Barnstable Road Hyannis, MA 02601

Dear Ms. Irwin:
This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision By letter dated February 11, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Hyannis Air Service, Inc. (Hyannis Air) for an extension of Exemption No. 10045A. That exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allowed Hyannis Air 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 § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. That exemption, however, expired on March 31, 2014. Therefore, we will treat your request as a new petition.
The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Hyannis Air.
The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 10045 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that subject to certain conditions and limitations, the requirement for an FAA inspector

### 2
to observe a qualifying PIC before they begin operations in an airplane unsupervised may be conducted by and satisfied by the certificate holder’s check airman or aircrew program designee. The FAA found that this could be accomplished without reducing the level of safety provided by the regulation.
Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 10045

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 10045 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, Hyannis Air Services, Inc. is granted an exemption from 14 CFR 121.434(c)(1)(ii), to the extent necessary to allow Hyannis Air to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying PIC who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations
1. A Hyannis Air check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector when–

a. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation for a qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. Hyannis Air, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA office, in each instance, before substituting that check airman or aircrew program designee;
b. The qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised operating experience (OE) and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each Hyannis Air check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector must—

a. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation;

### 3

b. Have served as a check airman or aircrew program designee for Hyannis Air for no less than 6 months; and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate being observed.

3. Hyannis Air must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.
This exemption terminates on June 30, 2016, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.
Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

EnclosureFebruary 11,2014

To Whom It May Concern: Exemption No. 10045 660 Barnstable Road Hyannis, NlA 02601 508-862-9761 Direct

508-862-9757 Fa;.;: Tammie.irwin@capeair.com

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-29107

On December 16,2011 a letter from the Director ofFlight Standards was issued to Hyannis Air Service, Inc. granting approval for Exemption No. 9533. This exemption

was renumbered in 2010 to Exemption No. 10045.

This allows Hyannis Air Service, Inc. to be exempt from FAR § 121.434(c)(l)(ii) to the extent necessary to allow Hyannis Air Service, Inc. to substitute a qualified and authorized line 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 § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoffand a landing.
Subsequent renewal in December 2011 extended the exemption and approval expires on March 31, 2014. We respectfully request the renewal ofthe Exemption based offofthe provided documentation.

J The original letter and the supporting Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-29107 is attached to this request letter.

We look forward to hearing from you. As always, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. 

# :lu,(

Tammie Irwin Cape Air Director ofSafety'US Department ofTronsportafton Federal Aviation Administration

December 16, 2011

Ms. Tammie Irwin Director ofSafety and Compliance Hyannis Air Service, Inc. 660 Barnstable Road Hyannis, MA 02601

Dear Ms. Irwin: ExemptionNo.10045A 800 Independence Ave

.. S.w Washington D.C. 20591

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-29107

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 10045. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and gives the conditions and limitations ofthe exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision By letter dated December 1,2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

on behalfofHyannis Air Service, Inc. (Hyannis Air), for an extension ofExemption No. 10045. That exemption from 

### § 121.434(c)(I)(ii) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) allows Hyannis Air 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 

### § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoffor a landing.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary ofthe petition in the Federal Register because the requested extension ofthe exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Hyannis Air.

AFS-12-106-EOur Decision
The FAA has determined that thejustification for the issuance ofExemption No.10045 remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the conditions and limitations listed below.

Conditions and Limitations
1. A Hyannis Air check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place ofan FAA inspector whena. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation for a qualifYing PIC candidate, thus reserving first right ofrefusal to the FAAin each case. Hyannis Air, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA office, in each instance, before substituting that check airman or aircrew program designee;
b. The qualifYing PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised operating experience (OE) and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and

c. The qualifYing PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each Hyannis Air check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place ofan FAA inspector musta. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation;
b. Have served as a check airman or aircrew program designee for Hyannis Air for no less than 6 months; and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifYing PIC candidate being observed.

3. Hyannis Air must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations ofthis exemption. 2The Effect ofOur Decision
Our decision extends the termination date ofExemption No. 10045 to March 31, 2014, unless

sooner superseded or rescinded.

All conditions and limitations ofExemption No. 10045 remain the same. This letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 10045.

Sincerely,

Raymo Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service 3

### Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591

Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10)

Dear Ladies/Gentlemen:
Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) 11.25, Hyannis Air Service, Inc., a Part 121 air carrier, petitions the Administrator for an exemption from FAR 121.434 to the extent necessary to permit an appropriately qualified and FAA authorized check airman to observe (and, when necessary, substitute for the observation by an FAA inspector) a qualifying pilot in command (“PIC”), who is completing initial training specified in FAR 121.424.

Affected Section of the FAR:
Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) (Operating Experience, Operating Cycles, and Consolidation of Knowledge and Skills) reads in pertinent part:
“In addition, 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 a landing.”

Requested Relief:
This petition requests relief from 121.434(c)(1)(ii) in those circumstances when an FAA inspector is unavailable to observe a qualifying pilot in command during anyof the scheduled operating experience flights. The requested exemption would be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

1. Hyannis Air Service, Inc. will submit to its POI an estimate of the number of PIC’s completing training and a plan as to how the initial operating experience (“IOE”) observations are to occur. This plan would be 660 Barnstable Rd Barnstable Municipal Airport Hyannis, MA 02601 508-790-3122 ext. 596 508-778-6233 FAX Email:doconnor@flycapeair.com

### approved by the POI prior to the initiation of IOE observations by qualified check airman. 2. Hyannis Air Service, Inc. will nominate qualified check airmen to perform this IOE observation. The FAA (“POI”) will approve the qualified check airmen to conduct this observation through a letter of observation. 3. Under the exemption the requirements of FAR 121.434(c)(1)(ii) will be fulfilled if the observation is performed by an FAA qualified check airman. The observation will be documented in the qualifying pilot’s record. 4. The qualified check airman will always be other than the one who is conducting the operating experience flights of the qualifying pilot.

Discussion:
The original intent of 121.434(c)(1)(ii), issued in 1970, was to validate the training a pilot received in a flight simulator. Since the rule was adopted, the airline industry has had a decade experience with visual simulators followed by nearly two decades experience with highly advanced simulation. United States airlines have successfully trained thousands of pilots using sophisticated advanced simulators. The combined experience of the airline industry and the FAA, using advanced simulation, has made the present rule partially obsolete.
The FAA has the authority to observe any pilot at any time it wishes; and indeed the FAA does so routinely. However, the FAA conducts these routine observations on a schedule the local office sets without the burden of having to observe a particular piloton specific flights necessitated by the airline’s training and service schedule. Relieving FAA inspectors from 121.434(c)(1)(ii) will allow the FAA to focus its efforts on higher priority safety concerns.
Costly delays in qualifying pilots in command for line operations results when the airline is forced to wait until the FAA can observe the qualifying PIC. In some instances, the FAA inspector may not be qualified on the airplane type being flown. By allowing a company check airman who is highly qualified in the airplane, and approved by the FA for that duty, to complete the observation, a greater level of scrutiny and objectiveness would be provided for the qualifying PIC.
Presently at Hyannis Air Service, Inc., all flights conducted under Part121 occur in Micronesia, in the Northern Pacific. Travel to Micronesia requires more than 24 hours from the continental U.S. The remote geographical location of this operation means that for a single FAA observation to occur, the FAA inspector will be out of his/her officefor the better part of a week. Due to the remoteness of our operation and the limited number of qualified FAA inspectors (currently three), the FAA has difficulty arranging for an inspector to conduct the required observation, even with two month’s lead time. This has resulted in otherwise qualified PIC’s not being able to perform their duties while waiting for the FAA to make its inspectors available. The cost to Hyannis Air Service, Inc. of

### these delays is great. While Hyannis Air Service, Inc. has sought inspectors from a

variety of FAA offices, the results have been inconsistent, and this is not a viable longterm solution to the issue.

Public Interest:
Granting this exemption would:

a. Be wholly consistent with previous exemptions granted in similar circumstances; b. Allow the FAA greater flexibility and better use of its inspector force by focusing on higher priority functions;

c. Allow the use of highly qualified pilots immediately after completing operating experience; d. Allow significantly increased use of qualified pilots and improve Hyannis Air Service, Inc.’s ability to provide dependable, on-time air service to the public;

e. Reduce the unnecessary cost of wages and lost productivity for those qualified pilots awaiting FAA observation; f. Reduce the unnecessary cost of wages and lost productivity for FAA inspectors; g. Allow the traveling public access to Hyannis Air Service, Inc.’s serviceat a pace consistent the qualification of its pilots.

Safety:
Safety will not be adversely affected, because:

a. The authorized check airman will be highly qualified with the particular aircraft type and will be approved by the FAA; b. The check airman will only be used to fulfill 121.434(c)(1)(ii) when a qualified FAA inspector is not available; and,

c. The FAA maintains the authority to observe any pilot any time during line observations.
In summary, the requested exemption focuses on the timely and competent completion of the observation flight and better utilization of qualifying pilots in command.

Request for Waiver of 120 Day Period Before the Effective Date and Publication in Federal Register:
For good cause shown, Hyannis Air Service, Inc. requests immediate action be taken to grant this exemption. Good cause exists for such action in that the grant of this exemption is consistent with prior exemptions and provides an equivalent level of safety.

### Hyannis Air Service, Inc. is operating two ATR 42’s on the far side of the world. The

limited number of flight crews operating this important subfleet means that a delay in qualifying even one pilot in command is disproportionately disruptive to the company’s business. The economic viability of the company requires that it must be able to qualify pilots in command as needed without the delay occasioned by the understandable unavailability of FAA personnel.
In addition, pursuant to FAR 11.27(j) Hyannis Air Service, Inc. requests the publication of this exemption request in the Federal Register to be waived because the grant of this exemption would not be precedent setting; the reason for are similar and the conditions proposed are identical to exemptions already granted; the delay would further disadvantage the carrier in its attempt to compete in a highly challengingmarket; and similar petitions have been published in the Federal Register with no comment received.
If publication is required, pursuant to FAR 11.25(d) a summary of this petition is attached.

SUMMARY
Hyannis Air Service, Inc. Petition for an Exemption to FAR 121.434(c)(1)(ii).
Hyannis Air Service, Inc. petitions for an exemption from Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) to permit Hyannis Air Service, Inc., at its discretion, when an FAA inspector is not immediately available, to provide observation of a qualifying pilotin command (PIC) when completing initial training as specified in FAR 121.434, and to substitute FAA approved check airman to observe the qualifying PIC in the performance of prescribed duties subject to certain condition and limitations.
If you have any questions or require further information, please call me at (508) 790-3122 x596.

Sincerely Yours,

David O'Connor Managing Director of Operations Hyannis Air Service, Inc.

Cc: Jonathan Goode, POIUS.Depariment ofTransportalion Federal AvlGtfon AdmlnlstroHon



### OCT 

# 24 2007

Mr. David O'Connor Managing Director ofOperations Hyannis Air Service, Inc. 600 Barnstable Road Hyannis, MA 02601

Dear Mr. O'Connor: Exemption No. 9533 800 Independence Ave

.. SW. Washinglon. D.C. 20591

Regulatory Docket No. F AA-2007-291 07

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. Ittransmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations ofthe exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis fOT OUT Decision On August 28, 2007, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalfof Hyannis Air Service, Inc. (Hyannis Air), for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(I)(ii) of Title 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) to the·extent necessary to allow Hyannis Air 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 § 121.424 duringat least one flightleg that includes a takeoffand a landing.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary ofthe petition in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Hyannis Air.

The FAA has issued a grant ofexemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant ofExemption No. 8054 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that subject to certain conditions and limitations, the requirement for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying PIC before he/she begins operations in an airplane unsupervised may be conducted by and satisfied by the certificate holder's check airman or aircrew program E-2007-0965designee. The FAA found that this could be accomplished without reducing the level of safety provided by the regulation.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that2

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant of exemption;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant ofexemption is inthe public interest.

Our Decision
Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Hyannis Air Service, Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.434(c)(I)(ii) to the extent necessary to allow Hyannis Air Service, Inc., to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying PIC who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoffand a landing, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations
1. A Hyannis Air check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place ofanFAA inspector whena. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation ofa qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving first right ofrefusal to the FAA in each case. Hyannis Air, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA office, in each instance, before substituting that check airman or aircrew program designee.
b. The qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised operating experience (OE) and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each Hyannis Air check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place ofan FAA inspector musta. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation,3

b. Have served as a check airman or aircrew program designee for Hyannis Air for

no less than 6 months, and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate being observed.

3. Hyannis Air must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations ofthis exemption.

This exemption terminates on October 31, 2009, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

# ~~~~ Dlrector, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure

# •

•

• Exemption No. 8054

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591


## * * * * * * * * * 

# ** 

## * * * 

## ** * * * * * 

## * ** * 

## * In the matter ofthe petition of

TRANS STATES AIRLINES, INC. d.b.a. AMERICAN CONNECTION and U.S. AIRWAYS EXPRESS

for an exemption from 

### § 121.434(c)(I)(ii) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations 

## * * 

## * * * * 

## * * * 

## ** * * 

## * * 

## * * * * * 

## * * * 

## * * * 

## * * * * * 

## * * 

## * Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12947

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated July 25, 2002, David J.A. Hayes III, Esq., ChiefLegal Officer, Trans States Airlines, Inc., doing business as American Connection and U.S. Airways Express (Trans States), 11495 Natural Bridge Road, Suite 340, Bridgeton, Missouri 63044, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalfofTrans States for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(I)(ii) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, ifgranted, would permit Trans States 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 § 12 I .424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoffand a landing.

The petitioner requests relieffrom the following regulation:

Section 121 .434(c)(I)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that ifa qualifying PIC is completing initial or upgrade training specified in 

### § 121.424, the PIC must be observed in the performance ofprescribed duties by an FAA inspector during at least

one tlight leg that includes a takeoffand a landing.

AFS-02--S46-E2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner indicates that Trans States recently announced its expansion plans, which include adding more Embraer EMB-145 regionaljet aircraft to its fleet. The petitioner
states that Trans States has experienced severe delays during expansions in the past. The petitioner asserts that costly delays resulted from having to wait until the FAA could observe a qualifYing PIC. The petitioner contends that because oflimited labor and resources at the St. Louis Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), Trans States' principal operations inspector (POI) has been unable to provide personnel to perform operating experience (OE) observations on a timely basis. The petitioner states that because Trans States finds this unacceptable, it has tried to use inspectors from other FSDOs. However, the petitioner notes that the results have been inconsistent.

The petitioner contends that the original intent of 

### § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), which the FAA promulgated in early 1970, was to validate the training a pilot received in a visual simulator. The petitioner also notes that since that regulation was adopted, the airline industry has had nearly three decades ofexperience with visual simulators and advanced simulation. The petitioner states that the airlines have successfully trained
tens ofthousands ofpilots using sophisticated advanced simulators. The petitioner
asserts thatthe advanced simulation experience ofthe airline industry combined with that ofthe FAA have made the present regulation obsolete.

The petitioner notes that the FAA has the authority to, and routinely does, observe any pilot at any time. The petitioner also notes, however, that the FAA conducts these routine observations without the burden ofhaving to observe a particular pilot on specific flights because ofan airline's training and service schedule.

The petitioner states that at Safety Summit I, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the FAA, the Training Issues Working Group recommended that the FAA allow a qualified company check airman to provide the FAA observation when an FAA inspector is not available. The petitioner adds that this would allow the FAA to target its personnel on those areas deserving higher priority and attention and to provide

more cost-effective use ofan FAA inspector's time. The petitioner states that all levels ofthe FAA have endorsed this Safety Summit I recommendation as an action that clearly would benefit the FAA and the airlines.

The petitioner states that Trans States' exemption request is identical to that of Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. (Chautauqua), which was issued a grant ofexemption on September 22, 2000. The petitioner also states that the basis for Trans States' request is almost identical to that ofChautauqua except that the net economic effect on Trans States is more severe. The petitioner asserts that Trans States' delays caused by the unavailability ofFAA inspectors have ranged from I to 54 days, with an average of

### 3

7.1 days, at a cost ofas much as $701 per day per pilot. The petitioner notes that the average cost to Trans States is $4,977 per pilot.

The petitioner states that the proposed exemption would be in the public interest. The petitioner asserts that a grant ofexemption would give the FAA greater flexibility and better use ofits inspectors by allowing them to focus on higher priority safety

concerns. The petitioner adds that under a grant ofexemption, Trans States would be able to use a qualifying PIC immediately after the PIC has completed OE. The petitioner states that a grant ofexemption also would allow Trans States to significantly increase the use ofits qualifying PICs and improve its ability to provide the public with on-time, dependable service. The petitioner also states that Trans States would reduce the unnecessary cost ofwages. and lost productivity for qualifying PICs waiting for an FAA observation. Last, the petitioner states that a grant ofexemption would allow Trans States to compete on an equal playing field with other regional airlines, such as Chautauqua, which currently holds a similar exemption.

The petitioner indicates that a grant ofexemption would maintain a level ofsafety equivalent to that provided under the regulation. The petitioner adds that in some instances the FAA inspector performing the observation may not be qualified in the airplane being piloted. The petitioner contends that by allowing a company check airman who is highly qualified in the airplane to complete the observation, the qualifying PIC would receive a greater level ofscrutiny and objectivity.

Finally, the petitioner proposes that a grant ofexemption be subject to the following conditions and limitations:

I. Trans States would submit to its POI an estimate ofthe number ofPICs completing training and a plan ofhow OE observations would be conducted. The plan would be approved by the POI before a qualified check airman began an OE observation.

2. Section 121.434(c)(1 )(ii) would be considered fulfilled ifan FAA-authorized check airman performs the observation. The observation requirement would be documented in the qualifying PIC's record.

3. Trans States would nominate qualified check airmen to perform the OE observation, and the FAA would approve the qualified check airmen to conduct the observation through a letter ofauthorization.

4. The authorized check airman would be a check airman other than the one who is conducting the OE flights ofthe qualifying PIC.,.

# •

• 4

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication because the exemption, ifgranted, would not set a precedent and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Trans States.

The FAA's analysis/summary is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner's supporting information and finds that a grant ofexemption would provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided under the regulation. The FAA also finds that a grant ofexemption would be in the public interest because it would allow Trans States to increase the use ofqualifying PICs and improve Trans States' ability to provide on-time, dependable service to the pUblic. The FAA adds that Trans States, in tum, would be able to reduce unnecessary costs that might influence the price ofits services to the public.

The FAA states that the original purpose ofthe observation requirement was to1. Provide the FAA with an opportunity to observe a qualifying PIC before he

or she begins operations in an airplane unsupervised,

2. Validate a certificate holder's training program, and

3. Provide the FAA with a mechanism for evaluating the quality control effectiveness ofthe certificate holder's check airmen and aircrew program designees (APD).

The original purpose ofthe observation requirement is still valid. In amendment No. 121-248, Pilot Operating and Experience Requirements; Final Rule (60 FR 20858, April 27, 1995), the FAA found that substituting a certificate holder's check airman for

an FAA inspector would not satisfy the observation requirement. The FAA points out that in the deliberations that resulted in amendment No. 121-248, the FAA recognized that the proposal would permit the total substitution ofa certificate holder's check airmen for FAA inspectors. The FAA found that this was unacceptable. However, after the rulemaking and in response to petitions for exemption to substitute check airmen and APD's for FAA inspectors, the FAA determined that under certain conditions and limitations, operators could substitute their own check airman and APD's for up to 50 percent ofthe observations during any 6-month period without reducing the level of safety provided under the regulation.

# •

•

• 5

The FAA finds that operations have been conducted safely under these exemptions for a number ofyears. Therefore, the FAA reevaluated its position on the 50-percent limit and finds it is no longer necessary. The FAA finds that ifTrans States follows the conditions and limitations set out in this exemption, an equivalent level ofsafety will be maintained while still allowing Trans States and the FAA the greatest business and regulatory flexibility.

In consideration ofthe foregoing, I find that a grant ofexemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701 delegated to me by the Administrator, Trans States Airlines, Inc., doing business as American Connectionand U.S. Airways Express, is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 12l.434(c)(l)(ii) to allow Trans States to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifYing PIC who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least

one flight leg that includes a takeoffand a landing. This exemption is subject to the following conditions and limitations:

1. A Trans States check ainna.n or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place ofan FAA inspector whena. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation ofa qualifYing PIC candidate, thus reserving first right ofrefusal to the FAA in each case;

b. The qualifYing PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised OE and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and

c. The qualifYing PIC candidate is perfonning PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each Trans States check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place ofan FAA inspector musta. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation,

b. Have served as a check airman or aircrew program designee for Trans States for no less than 6 months, and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate being observed

.

# •

•

• 6



### 3. Trans States must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations ofthis exemption.

Please note that in an effort to allow the public to participate in tracking the FAA's rulemaking activities, we have transitioned to the Department ofTransportation's online Docket Management System (OMS) at http://dms.dot.gov.This new docket system enables interested persons to submitrequests to, view requests on, and download requests from the OMS to comply with 14 CFR 

### § 11.63. Please submit future requests through the OMS.

This exemption terminates on May 31,2005, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 13,2003.



### lsi Steven

### W. Douglas Acting Director, Flight Standards Service