# 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 ofTransportation 1200 JerseyAvenue, SE West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Siror Madam, (.tl

Please find enclosed an original and three copies ofa petition for a deviation from Everts Air Cargo relating to .· relief soughtfrom the provisions of 14 CFR part 121.436, as implemented July 15, 2013.

The petition concernsthe impactof requirements which notonly do notserve to improve the level ofsafety, but if implemented would adversely affectsafety during the training process. In adc1ition, forthe operation ofcertain aircraft under 14 CFR part 121 within the State ofAlaska, the requirement forpilots flying as second in command to hold a pilot in command type rating represents a unique economic burden in that no simulators existfor aircraft types operated by the petitioner. This burden is also unique in thatthis**requir~ment** is placed only upon part 121 aircarriers while operators under parts 125 and 135 ofthe regulations may operate a variety ofaircraftwithout similar burden ofcompliance.

The practical test standards for the type rating require that the candidate forthis rating demonstrate maneuvers previously reserved forthe certification ofpilots intended to serve in command. Priorto the development of simulators replicating the characteristics ofcomplex multi-engine airliners, accidents in training were not
uncommon 1

. The petitioner asserts thatthis requirementwill not only promulgate a training environment compromising safety, but may force the petitionerto curtail operations ofaircraft uniquely suited foroperations into remote communities and villages in Alaska. It is the petitioner's position thatthe elimination ofthe safe and high_ly regulated part 121 air carrierwill result in services provided by operators not held to the high standard ofthe14 CFR part 121, resulting in a lesserstandard ofsafety. The statistics, particularly in the State ofAlaska prove clearly thatthe part 121 air

### c~rrier performs to the highest possible standard ofsafety. · ·
The petitioner respectfully requests thatthis exemption shall be granted in the most urgent manneras critical services may be curtailed and the petitioner is irreparably harmed by the inability to crewthe DC-6 and C-46 · within the scope of rational economics.

# TatonOu

C>UTFITTER Lltv11TED

d/b/a Everts AirAlaska, 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 ofTransportation 1200 JerseyAvenue, 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 EvertsAir Cargo by its DirectorofOperations, 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, holdsAir Carrier Certificate Number FXGA030Aand has operations specifications authorizing itto conduct supplemental operations in common carriage pursuantto Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 119.21(a)(3). Everts Air Cargo primarily provides intrastate transportation ofcargo, mail and commodities essential to commerce and the sustainability ofoutlying communities and villages, as well as serving the Department of Defense within the State ofAlaska. EvertsAir Cargo fleet ofgroup I aircraft is comprised of DC-6 series and CurtissWright 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 soughtfrom 14 CFR 121.436 which Tatonduk Outfitters, Ltd, doing business as Everts Air Cargo, believes should not include these aircrafttypes in operations limited to the State ofAlaska. This regulation which radically changes the certification requirements for second in command during operations under 14 CFR part 121 subjects the petitionerto unwarranted economic harm which does not serve to improve the level ofsafety, and presents unique hazards during the training process.Nature and Extent ofthe Requested Relief The petitionerTatonduk Outfitters, Ltd, doing business as EvertsAirCargo comes before the Department ofTransportation seeking exemption from 14 CFR part 121.463, interalia, asserts thatthe best interest of the highest possible standard ofsafety is neitherserved orenhanced.

The petitioner seeks relieffrom the newly instituted regulations, for cargo only operations entirely within the State ofAlaska, 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 ofthe DC-6 and C-46 airplanes, as a 14 CFR part 121 air carrier has demonstrated thatthe flight training conducted forthese types, conducted on the airplanes, has provided a history ofsafe operations. The new requirements contained under §121.463 result in the operatortraining the newly selected second in command candidate to the certification standards previously reserved for the pilot in command.

It is the-position ofthe petitionerthat training and testing ofairmen newto this airplane to meetthe requirements ofthe pilot in command type rating, when they will first serve as second in command until they are sufficiently experienced to receive training and testing forthe pilot in command type rating, will compromise safety.

The petitioner has for nearly two decades demonstrated thatthe standard.to which the second in command is trained has resulted in a safe operation, having had no eventswhich may be attributed to insufficientflight training and qualification of its airmen. The requirement ofthis regulation for pilots to hold command type ratings forthose beginning in this position effective afterJuly 31 5', 2013 and for all pilots in this position will become effective January 1 5', 2016.

The petitioner operates the aircraft ofthis type in common carriage operations, authorized under 14 CFR part 121, principally within the State ofAlaska. The services provided by the petitioner are in many instances essential to the well.being of isolated communities providing necessitiesfor sustenance and survival. The ability to provide these services with safety and reliability ata sustainable economic level establishes the basis forthis 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 moduleswill be conducted by qualified check airmen using the DC-6 or C-46 airplane as appropriate to the qualification sought. (Appendix Fto 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 soughtfor operations conducted within the State ofAlaska.

Analysis The petitioner has operated this type aircraftfor nearly two decades, in the State ofAlaska and has the experience required ensuring operation atthe higheststandard ofsafety. The petitioner does not agree that a higherstandard ofsafetywill be the outcome oftype ratings forthe second in command pilots. To the contrary, the petitioner believes industry wide that a lower performance standard will be accepted in orderto certificate the required numberofairmen whose experience and skill levels are notconsistent with those traditionally associated with a pilot in command type rating.The petitioner also offers that the final rulemaking disregarded the industry segmentforwhich flight simulatortraining is not available. In doing so, in orderto meetthe requirements of§121.436 safety will be compromised in training and the expense oftraining less experienced airmen to the level required for
a command type rating will be unsustainable forthese carriers.

The petitioner seeks to continue operations wholly in the State ofAlaska, without certain specific compliance with 14 CFR 121.436 in the manner previously authorized in compliance with §121.435 for only those aircrafttyped to be operated entirely in Alaska intrastate operations, in aircrafttypes where flight simulatortraining and certification is not available.

Equivalent Level ofSafety It is imperative that all parties understand the Everts AirCargo is not requesting any relieffrom any performance requirement of part 121, but rather is requesting the Administrator recognize that operation ofthis aircraft in the manner proven safe serves well to ensure that the enhanced level ofsafety intended by the implementation of 14 CFR 121.436would be achieved.

Benefit of Public Interest In promulgating a regulation that effectively precludes the sustained operation of airplane types proven to meetthe unique requirements in Alaskan operations, the Administratorwill deprive numerous outlying communities and villages access to affordable transportation ofessential commodities including subsistence and medical supplies. The petitioner asserts that the statistics supportthat continued operation ofthe DC-6 and C-46 in the established manner is in the interest of meeting the highest standard ofsafetywhile meeting the needs ofthe inhabitants ofthese communities.

Summaryfor 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 itto conduct supplemental operations in common carriage pursuantto Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 119.21(a)(3). Everts Air Cargo primarily provides intrastate transportation ofcargo, mail and commodities essential to commerce and the sustainability ofoutlying communities and villages, as well as serving the Department of Defense within the state ofAlaska. EvertsAir Cargo fleet ofgroup 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 largerturbine 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 ofthe pilot in command, in addition to those required for the second in command. These maneuvers, have until the inception ofthis part, been considered to require the higher skill levels associated with more experienced airmen, atthe level consistent with certification for command type ratings. Execution ofthese maneuvers by less experienced airmen may escalate the risk to the trainee and trainer. In the currenttraining environment, mostairliners are represented by Level C or D full flight simulators. These devices accurately replicate the flight characteristics ofairliners, while providing a safe training environment. There are not now, nor have there ever been, devices ofthis level for the DC-6 or C-46 (or other similar airliners).History shows that priorto the inception of modern simulation, certain maneuvers left little room for error and training evolutions ended tragically. 1 To demand thatthe 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 noteliminated totally, are mitigated to a level acceptable by regulatory bodies and industry.

Everts Air Cargo seeks relief in orderto continue to operate atthe highest standard ofsafety, providing the necessary services to the outlying communities in the State ofAlaska, while sparing these communities the costs associated with payload limits ofsmaller and the arguably lesserstandard of safety associated with aircraft operated underthe 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 ofAlaska will result in a disproportionate economic burden and heightened risks forthe communities served while atthe same time preventing the petitionerfrom operating the DC-6 and C-46 airplanes as presently required and to the highest standard ofsafety.

submitted,1Four engine propeller driven airplane training accidentswith fatalities priorto simulation. This list is not all inclusive April 4, 1955

A United Airlines DC-6 crashed at MacArthurAirport during a training flight due to pilot error, killing the three crew.
29 May 1946

A United Air Lines C-54A, registration NC30065, crashed nearChicago dueto excessive descent while on a training flight; all four crew survived, butthe aircraftwas written off.ll1l

19 March 1945
US ArmyAir Force C-54A 42-72264 crashed 4 mi off Rock Harbor, Florida while on a training flight, killing the five crew; the wreckage wasfound the nextday in 19 feet ofwater.l1Ql May 11, 1947:

A TWA L-049 (NC86508, c/o 2029, StarofAthens) crashed nearthe Brandywine Shoal lighthouse, Cape May, New·Jersey at 8:45a.m. ESTwhile conducting practice emergency landing procedures, killing Capt. Patrick McKeirnan and the three remaining crew on board.rru