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 

Enclosure 
February 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 of Flight 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 takeoff and a 

landing. 

Subsequent renewal in December 2011 extended the exemption and approval expires on 

March 31, 2014. We respectfully request the renewal of the Exemption based off of the 

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 of Safety' 
US Department 

of Tronsportafton 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

December 16, 2011 

Ms. Tammie Irwin 

Director of Safety and Compliance 

Hyannis Air Service, Inc. 

660 Barnstable Road 

Hyannis, MA 02601 

Dear Ms. Irwin: 

Exemption No.1 0045A 

800 Independence Ave .. S.w 

Washington D.C. 20591 

Regulatory Docket No. F AA-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 behalf of Hyannis Air Service, Inc. (Hyannis Air), for an extension of Exemption 

No. 10045. That exemption from § 121.434(c)(I)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal 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 takeoff or 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 of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Hyannis Air. 

AFS-12-106-E 
Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No.1 0045 

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 of an FAA inspector whena. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation for a 

qualifYing PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal 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 of an 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 of this 

exemption. 

2 
The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 10045 to March 31, 2014, unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption 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 any of 

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 pilot on 

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 Part 121 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 office for 

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 service at 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 challenging market; 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 pilot in 

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, POI 
US.Depariment 

of Transportalion 

Federal AvlGtfon 

AdmlnlstroHon 

OCT 24 2007 

Mr. David O'Connor 

Managing Director of Operations 

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. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis fOT OUT Decision 

On August 28, 2007, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Hyannis Air Service, Inc. (Hyannis Air), for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(I)(ii) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal 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 during at least one flightleg that includes a takeoff and a 

landing. 

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. 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-2007-0965 
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 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 of exemption is in the 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 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 whena. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation of 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 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 of this 

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 of the 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) 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

Regulatory Docket No. F AA-2002-12947 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated July 25, 2002, David J.A. Hayes III, Esq., Chief Legal 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 behalf of Trans States for an 

exemption from § 121.434(c)(I)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption, if granted, 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 takeoff and a landing. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation: 

Section 121 .434( c)(I )(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that if a qualifying PIC is 

completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424, the PIC must be 

observed in the performance of prescribed duties by an FAA inspector during at least 

one tlight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. 

AFS-02--S46-E 
2 

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 regional jet 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 of limited 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 of experience with visual simulators and 

advanced simulation. The petitioner states that the airlines have successfully trained 

tens of thousands of pilots using sophisticated advanced simulators. The petitioner 

asserts that the advanced simulation experience of the airline industry combined with 

that of the 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 of having to observe a particular pilot on 

specific flights because of an 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 of an FAA inspector's time. The petitioner states that all levels 

of the 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 of exemption on 

September 22, 2000. The petitioner also states that the basis for Trans States' request is 

almost identical to that of Chautauqua except that the net economic effect on 

Trans States is more severe. The petitioner asserts that Trans States' delays caused by 

the unavailability of FAA inspectors have ranged from I to 54 days, with an average of 
3 

7.1 days, at a cost of as 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 of exemption would give the FAA greater flexibility 

and better use of its inspectors by allowing them to focus on higher priority safety 

concerns. The petitioner adds that under a grant of exemption, Trans States would 

be able to use a qualifying PIC immediately after the PIC has completed OE. 

The petitioner states that a grant of exemption also would allow Trans States to 

significantly increase the use of its 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 of wages. and lost productivity for qualifying PICs 

waiting for an FAA observation. Last, the petitioner states that a grant of exemption 

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 of exemption would maintain a level of safety 

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 of scrutiny and objectivity. 

Finally, the petitioner proposes that a grant of exemption be subject to the following 

conditions and limitations: 

I. Trans States would submit to its POI an estimate of the number ofPICs 

completing training and a plan of how 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 if an 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 of authorization. 

4. The authorized check airman would be a check airman other than the one 

who is conducting the OE flights of the qualifying PIC. 
,. 

• 

• 

4 

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 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 of exemption would provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided under the 

regulation. The FAA also finds that a grant of exemption would be in the public 

interest because it would allow Trans States to increase the use of qualifying 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 of its services to the public. 

The FAA states that the original purpose of the 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 of the certificate holder's check airmen and aircrew program 

designees (APD). 

The original purpose of the 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 of a 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 of the 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 of years. Therefore, the FAA reevaluated its position on the 50-percent limit 

and finds it is no longer necessary. The FAA finds that if Trans States follows the 

conditions and limitations set out in this exemption, an equivalent level of safety will be 

maintained while still allowing Trans States and the FAA the greatest business and 

regulatory flexibility. 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption 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 takeoff and 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 of an FAA inspector whena. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation of a 

qualifYing PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal 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 of an 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 of this 

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 of Transportation's online 

Docket Management System (OMS) at http://dms.dot.gov.This new docket system enables 

interested persons to submit requests 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