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

LANDMA RK FBO, LLC

R egulatory 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 1 4 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, th at pilot has passed a competency check given by the FAA Administra tor 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 servi ce, th at pilot has passed a n instrument proficiency check given by the FAA Administra tor or an authorized check pilot

.2

Section 135.329(b) requires that each certificate holder’s pilot training progra m must provide the initial and transition flight training specified in § 135.347, as applicable.

Section 135.345(b) requires that i nitial, transition, and upgrade ground training for pilots must include training in a number of type

- specific and certificat e holder

- specific areas.

Section 135.347 requires , in pertinent part, that initial, transition, upgrade, and differences flight traini n g for pilots must include flight and practice in each of the maneuvers and procedures listed and described in the certif icate holder’s approved tra i ning program

.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Landmark states it will trans fer 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 t he 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 peti tioner submits that the circumstances described in its petition are highly unusual. The petition er states it recognize s 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 i ts petition not be delayed for publication in

the Federal Register , the FAA found that the petition, if g ranted, would set a precedent. Therefore, to allow an opportunity for the public to comment on the petition, a summary of this petition was published i n 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 tha t Order 8900.1 state s “ 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 documen t

.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 seek s 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

checkin g. A lthough the petitioner asserts there would be minimal operational changes

, p art 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, “ T he 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 t raining required for pilot at air carrie rs is necessarily different for the following reasons:

1) T he nature of the two different operations, such as PHA’s authorization to conduct air ambulance flights, which LAW does not have;

2) D ifferences in operations specifications, including authorized instr ument approaches and authorized areas of en route operation; and

3) D ifferences in operating manuals.

Additionally, t wo air carriers conduct ing operations under the same regulation may require operational control systems of differing degrees of sophisticat ion. The training associated

with a n 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 possibl e 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 ma neuver 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 , t he FAA disagrees with the petiti oner’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 ). D uring a trans ition of assets or merger

, air carrier s 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 carrier s to develop multiple versions of a particula r qualification program. For example, a n 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 mon ths as pilot in command or second in command of the same make, model and variant aircraft for a

different air carrier. Furthermore , t he individual’s recency of such qualification and crewmember position

, must also be considered. Such “reduced footprint” tr aining programs4

should be based in all cases upon specific and detailed written entry prerequisites that are acceptable to the principal operations inspector. Reduced footprint training program s can be submitted as part of a transition plan and allow the a ir 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 petitione r to incur “significant additional costs,” especially given the option of a transition plan as outlined

above. T he FAA finds that this argument which highlights Landmark’s private interest does

not meet the public safety requirement in the regulation

. I n 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 seek s the exemption.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoin g, 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 1 4 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