TatonO 

C>UTFITTER 

Lltv\ITED 

d/b/a Everts Air Alaska, d/b/a/ Everts Air Cargo • P.O. Box 61680, Fairbanks, AK 99706-1680 • (907) 450-2345, fax: (907) 450-2320 • www.evertsair.com 

February 10, 2014 

Docket Management Facility 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Sir or Madam, (.tl 

Please find enclosed an original and three copies of a petition for a deviation from Everts Air Cargo relating to .· 

relief sought from the provisions of 14 CFR part 121.436, as implemented July 15, 2013. 

The petition concerns the impact of requirements which not only do not serve to improve the level of safety, but if 

implemented would adversely affect safety during the training process. In adc1ition, for the operation of certain 

aircraft under 14 CFR part 121 within the State of Alaska, the requirement for pilots flying as second in command 

to hold a pilot in command type rating represents a unique economic burden in that no simulators exist for aircraft 

types operated by the petitioner. This burden is also unique in that this requir~ment is placed only upon part 121 

air carriers while operators under parts 125 and 135 of the regulations may operate a variety of aircraft without 

similar burden of compliance. 

The practical test standards for the type rating require that the candidate for this rating demonstrate maneuvers 

previously reserved for the certification of pilots intended to serve in command. Prior to the development of 

simulators replicating the characteristics of complex multi-engine airliners, accidents in training were not 

uncommon1

. 

The petitioner asserts that this requirement will not only promulgate a training environment compromising safety, 

but may force the petitioner to curtail operations of aircraft uniquely suited for operations into remote communities 

and villages in Alaska. It is the petitioner's position that the elimination of the safe and high_ly regulated part 121 

air carrier will result in services provided by operators not held to the high standard of the14 CFR part 121, 

resulting in a lesser standard of safety. The statistics, particularly in the State of Alaska prove clearly that the part 

121 air c~rrier performs to the highest possible standard of safety. · · 

The petitioner respectfully requests that this exemption shall be granted in the most urgent manner as critical 

services may be curtailed and the petitioner is irreparably harmed by the inability to crew the DC-6 and C-46 · 

within the scope of rational economics. 
TatonOu 

C>UTFITTER 

Lltv11TED 

d/b/a Everts Air Alaska, d/b/a/ Everts Air Cargo • P.O. Box 61680, Fairbanks, AK 99706-1680 • (907) 450-2345, fax: (907) 450-2320 • www.evertsair.com 

February 10, 2014 

Docket Management Facility 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Re: Request for Exemption 14 CFR 121.436 

Petitioner: 

Tatonduk Outfitters, Ltd., d.b.a Everts Air Cargo 

by its Director of Operations, Mr. Zachary M. Adams 

Petitioner's Contact Information: 

Everts Air Cargo 

5525 Airport Industrial Road 

Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 

(907) 450-2345 

zadams@evertsair.com 

Background: 

Tatonduk Outfitters, Ltd, doing business as Everts Air Cargo, the petitioner, holds Air Carrier Certificate 

Number FXGA030A and has operations specifications authorizing it to conduct supplemental operations 

in common carriage pursuant to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 119.21(a)(3). Everts Air 

Cargo primarily provides intrastate transportation of cargo, mail and commodities essential to commerce 

and the sustainability of outlying communities and villages, as well as serving the Department of Defense 

within the State of Alaska. Everts Air Cargo fleet of group I aircraft is comprised of DC-6 series and 

Curtiss Wright C-46 Series Cargo Airplanes. These aircraft are currently operated conforming to 14 CFR 

part 121 Appendix Cas non-transport category all cargo aircraft. 

Relief Sought From Regulatorv Sections 

Relief is sought from 14 CFR 121.436 which Tatonduk Outfitters, Ltd, doing business as Everts Air Cargo, 

believes should not include these aircraft types in operations limited to the State of Alaska. This 

regulation which radically changes the certification requirements for second in command during 

operations under 14 CFR part 121 subjects the petitioner to unwarranted economic harm which does not 

serve to improve the level of safety, and presents unique hazards during the training process. 
Nature and Extent of the Requested Relief 

The petitioner Tatonduk Outfitters, Ltd, doing business as Everts Air Cargo comes before the Department 

of Transportation seeking exemption from 14 CFR part 121.463, inter alia, asserts that the best interest of 

the highest possible standard of safety is neither served or enhanced. 

The petitioner seeks relief from the newly instituted regulations, for cargo only operations entirely within 

the State of Alaska, allowing the second in command to hold a second in command type rating issued in 

accordance with §61.55(d). 

The petitioner, as an experienced operator of the DC-6 and C-46 airplanes, as a 14 CFR part 121 air 

carrier has demonstrated that the flight training conducted for these types, conducted on the airplanes, 

has provided a history of safe operations. The new requirements contained under §121.463 result in the 

operator training the newly selected second in command candidate to the certification standards 

previously reserved for the pilot in command. 

It is the-position of the petitioner that training and testing of airmen new to this airplane to meet the 

requirements of the pilot in command type rating, when they will first serve as second in command until 

they are sufficiently experienced to receive training and testing for the pilot in command type rating, will 

compromise safety. 

The petitioner has for nearly two decades demonstrated that the standard. to which the second in 

command is trained has resulted in a safe operation, having had no events which may be attributed to 

insufficient flight training and qualification of its airmen. The requirement of this regulation for pilots to hold 

command type ratings for those beginning in this position effective after July 31 5', 2013 and for all pilots in 

this position will become effective January 1

5

', 2016. 

The petitioner operates the aircraft of this type in common carriage operations, authorized under 14 CFR 

part 121, principally within the State of Alaska. The services provided by the petitioner are in many 

instances essential to the well.being of isolated communities providing necessities for sustenance and 

survival. The ability to provide these services with safety and reliability at a sustainable economic level 

establishes the basis for this petition. 

The deviation sought is characterized as follows: 

1. All flight crew members (second in command) shall be trained in accordance with the Everts Air 

Cargo approved Flight Operations Training Manual. 

2. All required training will be conducted by qualified instructors using the DC-6 or C-46 aircraft as 

appropriate to the qualification sought. (Appendix E to Part 121) 

3. All required qualification modules will be conducted by qualified check airmen using the DC-6 or 

C-46 airplane as appropriate to the qualification sought. (Appendix F to Part 121). 

4. An appropriate type rating with a second in command limitation will be requested in accordance 

with 14 CFR part 61(d). 

5. This deviation is sought for operations conducted within the State of Alaska. 

Analysis 

The petitioner has operated this type aircraft for nearly two decades, in the State of Alaska and has the 

experience required ensuring operation at the highest standard of safety. The petitioner does not agree 

that a higher standard of safety will be the outcome of type ratings for the second in command pilots. To 

the contrary, the petitioner believes industry wide that a lower performance standard will be accepted in 

order to certificate the required number of airmen whose experience and skill levels are not consistent 

with those traditionally associated with a pilot in command type rating. 
The petitioner also offers that the final rule making disregarded the industry segment for which flight 

simulator training is not available. In doing so, in order to meet the requirements of §121.436 safety will 

be compromised in training and the expense of training less experienced airmen to the level required for 

a command type rating will be unsustainable for these carriers. 

The petitioner seeks to continue operations wholly in the State of Alaska, without certain specific 

compliance with 14 CFR 121.436 in the manner previously authorized in compliance with §121.435 for 

only those aircraft typed to be operated entirely in Alaska intrastate operations, in aircraft types where 

flight simulator training and certification is not available. 

Equivalent Level of Safety 

It is imperative that all parties understand the Everts Air Cargo is not requesting any relief from any 

performance requirement of part 121, but rather is requesting the Administrator recognize that operation 

of this aircraft in the manner proven safe serves well to ensure that the enhanced level of safety intended 

by the implementation of 14 CFR 121.436 would be achieved. 

Benefit of Public Interest 

In promulgating a regulation that effectively precludes the sustained operation of airplane types proven to 

meet the unique requirements in Alaskan operations, the Administrator will deprive numerous outlying 

communities and villages access to affordable transportation of essential commodities including 

subsistence and medical supplies. The petitioner asserts that the statistics support that continued 

operation of the DC-6 and C-46 in the established manner is in the interest of meeting the highest 

standard of safety while meeting the needs of the inhabitants of these communities. 

Summary for Publication in the Federal Register 

Tatonduk Outfitters, Ltd, doing business as Everts Air Cargo, the petitioner, holds Air Carrier Certificate 

Number FXGA030A and has operations specifications authorizing it to conduct supplemental operations 

in common carriage pursuant to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 119.21(a)(3). Everts Air 

Cargo primarily provides intrastate transportation of cargo, mail and commodities essential to commerce 

and the sustainability of outlying communities and villages, as well as serving the Department of Defense 

within the state of Alaska. Everts Air Cargo fleet of group I aircraft includes the Douglas DC-6 ( and C-118 

variants) and the Curtiss-Wright C-46 Cargo Airplane, well and uniquely suited for operations into landing 

facilities which would not be safe for larger turbine aircraft. These aircraft is operated in the United States 

only during the conduct of intrastate commerce. 

14 CFR part 121, Appendix E, (training) and Appendix F (proficiency check requirements) mandate 

certain maneuvers for training of the pilot in command, in addition to those required for the second in 

command. These maneuvers, have until the inception of this part, been considered to require the higher 

skill levels associated with more experienced airmen, at the level consistent with certification for 

command type ratings. Execution of these maneuvers by less experienced airmen may escalate the risk 

to the trainee and trainer. In the current training environment, most airliners are represented by Level C or 

D full flight simulators. These devices accurately replicate the flight characteristics of airliners, while 

providing a safe training environment. There are not now, nor have there ever been, devices of this level 

for the DC-6 or C-46 (or other similar airliners). 
History shows that prior to the inception of modern simulation, certain maneuvers left little room for error 

and training evolutions ended tragically. 1 To demand that the initial trainee demonstrate proficiency in 

certain critical maneuvers is wanton disregard for safety in the training environment. When the candidate 

has reached an experience level to be upgraded to pilot in command, the risks inherent in training 

abnormal and emergency procedures while not eliminated totally, are mitigated to a level acceptable by 

regulatory bodies and industry. 

Everts Air Cargo seeks relief in order to continue to operate at the highest standard of safety, providing 

the necessary services to the outlying communities in the State of Alaska, while sparing these 

communities the costs associated with payload limits of smaller and the arguably lesser standard of 

safety associated with aircraft operated under the less stringent requirements of 14 CFR 135; under 

which the second in command need not be rated and in some types not even required. The absence of 

the relief sought in this petition from the requirements of 14 CFR 121.436, during operations in the State 

of Alaska will result in a disproportionate economic burden and heightened risks for the communities 

served while at the same time preventing the petitioner from operating the DC-6 and C-46 airplanes as 

presently required and to the highest standard of safety. 

submitted, 
1 Four engine propeller driven airplane training accidents with fatalities prior to simulation. This list is not 

all inclusive 

April 4, 1955 

A United Airlines DC-6 crashed at MacArthur Airport during a training flight due to pilot error, 

killing the three crew. 

29 May 1946 

A United Air Lines C-54A, registration NC30065, crashed near Chicago due to excessive descent 

while on a training flight; all four crew survived, but the aircraft was written off.ll1l 

19 March 1945 

US Army Air Force C-54A 42-72264 crashed 4 mi off Rock Harbor, Florida while on a training 

flight, killing the five crew; the wreckage was found the next day in 19 feet of water.l1Ql 

May 11, 1947: 

A TWA L-049 (NC86508, c/o 2029, Star of Athens) crashed near the Brandywine Shoal 

lighthouse, Cape May, New· Jersey at 8:45a.m. EST while conducting practice emergency 

landing procedures, killing Capt. Patrick McKeirnan and the three remaining crew on board.rru