AFS-12-264-E

Exemption No. 10946

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

LANDMARK FBO, LLC

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0137

for exemption from §§ 135.293(a)(2),

135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297,

135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

of Title 14 of the Code of Federal

Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated February 2, 2012, Mr. Marshall S. Filler, Counsel for Landmark FBO, LLC 

(Landmark), 117 North Henry Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of the wholly owned subsidiary of Landmark for an 

exemption from §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 

135.345(b) and 135.347 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption would allow Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, LLC to receive credit for 

certain pilot training, testing and checking received by pilots while they are employed by 

Landmark Aviation Waukegan, LLC (LAW).

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 135.293 requires, in pertinent part, that no certificate holder may use the services of a 

pilot unless, since the beginning of the twelfth calendar month before that service, that pilot 

has passed a competency check given by the FAA Administrator or an authorized check pilot.

Section 135.297 requires, in pertinent part, that no certificate holder may use the services of a 

pilot in command unless, since the beginning of the sixth calendar month before that service, 

that pilot has passed an instrument proficiency check given by the FAA Administrator or an 

authorized check pilot.
2

Section 135.329(b) requires that each certificate holder’s pilot training program must provide 

the initial and transition flight training specified in § 135.347, as applicable.

Section 135.345(b) requires that initial, transition, and upgrade ground training for pilots must 

include training in a number of type-specific and certificate holder-specific areas.

Section 135.347 requires, in pertinent part, that initial, transition, upgrade, and differences 

flight training for pilots must include flight and practice in each of the maneuvers and 

procedures listed and described in the certificate holder’s approved training program.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Landmark states it will transfer 21 aircraft and 60 pilots from the Landmark Aviation 

Waukegan, LLC (LAW) certificate (IEYA828T) to the Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, LLC 

(PHA) certificate (I5WA933J). The date of this transfer was not disclosed.

The petitioner states that the requested relief includes aircraft-specific initial new hire ground 

and flight training, written and oral tests, competency checks and pilot-in-command 

instrument proficiency checks. If granted, the exemption would allow Piedmont Hawthorne 

Aviation, LLC (PHA) pilots to receive credit for aircraft-specific training, testing and 

checking while they were employed by LAW.

The petitioner submits that the circumstances described in its petition are highly unusual. The

petitioner states it recognizes that operator-specific training programs may vary considerably.

Therefore, all newly-hired LAW pilots will satisfactorily complete those requirements in the 

normal manner before they would be eligible to fly for PHA. However, the petitioner believes 

the same is not true for aircraft-specific training under the circumstances presented here. The 

petitioner states that the two operators have contracted with the same approved training 

centers, have obtained or will obtain FAA approval for essentially the same program, and all 

of the required activities would be administered by the same check airmen. The petitioner 

submits that PHA pilots would be evaluated by the same approved check airmen even though 

they are already current and qualified under essentially the same aircraft-specific training

program that will be submitted for approval by PHA.

Although the petitioner requested that action on its petition not be delayed for publication in 

the Federal Register, the FAA found that the petition, if granted, would set a precedent. 

Therefore, to allow an opportunity for the public to comment on the petition, a summary of 

this petition was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2012 (77 FR 22380).

One comment was received, which was generally supportive of the petition and cited several 

sections of FAA Order 8900.1 regarding air carrier training programs. The FAA agrees with 

the commenter that Order 8900.1 states “abbreviated training can apply to merger or air 

carrier acquisition situations;” however, the reference is to an approved transition plan for an 

air carrier undergoing a merger or transition, which is discussed later in this document. 
3

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered Landmark’s petition for exemption, including supporting 

information, and finds a grant of exemption would not provide a level of safety at least equal 

to that provided by the rule(s) from which it seeks the exemption or be in the public interest. 

The petitioner is requesting exemption from regulatory requirements to allow it to use pilots 

trained by one air carrier under another air carrier’s certificate without additional training or 

checking. Although the petitioner asserts there would be minimal operational changes, 

part 135 requires each individual air carrier to have an approved training program tailored 

specifically for its operation, as well as, the make, model and variant of aircraft flown. 

The petitioner asserts, “The two operators have contracted with the same approved training 

centers, [and] have obtained or will obtain FAA approval for essentially the same program. 

The FAA stresses that training required for pilot at air carriers is necessarily different for the 

following reasons: 

1) The nature of the two different operations, such as PHA’s authorization to conduct air 

ambulance flights, which LAW does not have; 

2) Differences in operations specifications, including authorized instrument approaches 

and authorized areas of en route operation; and 

3) Differences in operating manuals. 

Additionally, two air carriers conducting operations under the same regulation may require 

operational control systems of differing degrees of sophistication. The training associated 

with an air carrier’s operational control system is unique to the carrier and a critical safety 

component of its operations. The pilot training specific to the air carrier is intertwined with 

the aircraft and it is not possible to conduct aircraft training without considering the air 

carrier’s policies and procedures. For example, an air carrier will have specific call-outs, 

procedures and aircraft configurations that ensure standardized operations during the 

execution of a maneuver or instrument approach. These factors are a critical part of the air 

carrier’s pilots training and checking and can impose significant challenges for pilots 

transitioning from one carrier to another.

In addition, the FAA disagrees with the petitioner’s assertion that its situation is unique. 

Because mergers and acquisitions are common, the FAA developed procedures that are 

available to air carriers undergoing a merger or acquisition (Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 

34, Section 1). During a transition of assets or merger, air carriers should develop a transition 

plan that includes a specialized training program and meets regulatory requirements. The 

operating rules in parts 121 and 135 allow air carriers to develop multiple versions of a 

particular qualification program. For example, an air carrier may request approval of one 

pilot-in-command qualification curriculum for individuals who have never flown a particular 

aircraft and another for individuals who have been qualified within the past 12 months as pilot 

in command or second in command of the same make, model and variant aircraft for a 

different air carrier. Furthermore, the individual’s recency of such qualification and

crewmember position, must also be considered. Such “reduced footprint” training programs 
4

should be based in all cases upon specific and detailed written entry prerequisites that are 

acceptable to the principal operations inspector. Reduced footprint training programs can be 

submitted as part of a transition plan and allow the air carrier to meet specific crewmember 

training and checking requirements.

The FAA is not persuaded by Landmark’s statement that “potential job creation” is in the 

public interest. The FAA is also not persuaded that the training would cause the petitioner to 

incur “significant additional costs,” especially given the option of a transition plan as outlined 

above. The FAA finds that this argument which highlights Landmark’s private interest does 

not meet the public safety requirement in the regulation. In this petition, the FAA does not 

find the petitioner offered a solution that provides or maintains a level of safety at least equal 

to that provided by the rule from which Landmark seeks the exemption.

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. §§ 106, (f), 40113 and 

44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Landmark FBO, LLC, for

exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 

135.345(b) and 135.347, is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on February 24, 2014 .

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service