AFS-13-530-E

Exemption No.12096 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

EMBRY-RIDDLE Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0778

AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY

 

for an exemption from part 141 

Appendix C paragraph (4)(b)(5) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

 By letter dated August 29, 2013, Mr. Jared Testa, Chief Flight Instructor, Flight 

Department, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), 3700 Willow Creek Rd, 

Prescott, AZ 86301 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of 

Embry-Riddle for an exemption from Appendix C to part 141, paragraph (4)(b)(5), of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would

allow ERAU to use the Paradigm Shift Solutions Model 172 Lite Advanced Aviation Training 

Device (AATD) to credit up to 40 percent of total training time requirements of an FAA 

approved instrument rating course.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Part 141 Appendix C paragraph (4)(b)(5) prescribes that credit for training in an 

approved aviation training device cannot exceed 10 percent of the total flight training 

hour requirements of the course or of this section, whichever is less.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

On May 11, 2012, the FAA provided a letter of authorization (LOA) for the Paradigm 

Shift Solutions Model 172 Lite AATD. The LOA allowed the device to be used for up 
2

to 40 percent of the total flight training hours requirements of an instrument rating 

course (airplane category) approved under part 141. 

ERAU stated that it recently purchased a Paradigm Shift Solutions Model 172 Lite 

AATD. ERAU requested the manufacturer modify the device with an enclosed aircraft 

shell and a continuous wrap-around visual system to enhance the training experience 

and quality. On July 18, 2013, Paradigm Shift Solutions submitted a request for 

approval of the revised Qualification and Approval Guide (QAG) for the Model 172 

Lite AATD with the addition of a wrap-around visual system. This was request was 

submitted to the FAA’s General Aviation and Commercial Division (AFS-800).

Based on the previous LOA (dated May 11, 2012) and the revised QAG for the Model 

172 Lite AATD (submitted on July 18, 2013), the FAA granted approval and a revised 

LOA dated August 22, 2013. The revised LOA allowed for 10% credit of total training 

time requirements in an approved instrument course as provided under part 141 

Appendix C. 

After inquiries from ERAU and Paradigm Shift Solutions concerning the change in 

allowances, the FAA later determined that the original allowances in the LOA could be 

provided for this training device. On September 11, 2013, the FAA provided a revised 

LOA to Paradigm Shift Solutions that retained the original allowances for up to 40% 

credit. 

On January 2, 2014 the FAA provided a “blanket exemption” by notice in the Federal 

Register “Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA Approved Training Devices” 

(79 FR 20) to allow manufacturers, operators, and pilots using advanced aviation 

training devices, time to adjust to the reduction in creditable hours.

 A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2013 

(78 FR 67442) and the FAA received no comments.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The “Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA Approved Training Devices”

provided detailed information concerning the FAA’s reduction in credit hours that 

could be obtained in an AATD. The FAA explained that in 2009, the FAA issued a 

final rule that placed express limits on the amount of instrument training in an ATD 

that could be credited toward the aeronautical experience requirements for an 

instrument rating. 74 FR 42500 (Aug. 21, 2009). Under § 61.65(i), no more than 10 

hours of instrument time received in an ATD may be credited toward instrument time 

requirements of that section. Similarly, Appendix C to part 141 states that credit for 

instrument training in an ATD cannot exceed 10% of the total flight training hour

requirements of an approved course. The FAA determined that it may not use LOAs as 
3

a means to exceed express limits that have been placed in the regulations through notice 

and comment rulemaking.

The policy notice also granted operators, who had been issued an LOA for their device 

prior to August 2013, an exemption from § 61.65(i) and Appendix C to part 141 until

January 1, 2015. The blanket exemption allowed manufacturers, operators, and pilots

that had acted in reliance on FAA statements that were inconsistent with the regulations

(e.g., through LOAs) time to adjust to the reduction in creditable hours.

On December 3, 2014, the FAA published a direct final rule regarding use of aviation 

training devices (ATDs). The direct final rule would have increased the maximum time 

that may be credited in an ATD toward the instrument time requirements for an 

instrument rating under parts 61 and 141. The FAA withdrew the direct final rule on 

January 15, 2015 due to the receipt of adverse comments. This was a requirement 

prescribed under Part 11 that describes the direct final rulemaking conditions.

Because of the direct final rule withdrawal, and expiration of the exemption provided 

by the policy notice, no applicant for an instrument rating may credit more instrument 

time in an ATD toward the minimum aeronautical experience requirements, or toward 

the required coursework, above what is permitted by the regulations. This includes 

those applicants that have logged experience in the Paradigm Model 172 Lite AATD.

The FAA finds that ERAU is not unique from other similarly regulated entities affected 

by the FAA policy notice and rulemaking publications described above. The new ATD 

credit limitations were published well in advance of the effective date to allow all flight 

schools an opportunity to adjust their training programs accordingly. Further, ERAU 

has not adequately explained how a grant of exemption would be in the public interest. 

While ERAU contends that the Paradigm Shift Solutions Model 172 Lite AATD was 

built to exceed the requirements of an FSTD Level 5, the FAA has approved these 

devices as AATDs. Therefore, the FAA recognizes these devices as having the same 

regulatory limits as other AATDs.

Finally, the FAA notes that §141.55(d) and (e) contain provisions that enable a pilot 

school to request and receive approval for any training course under part 141 that does 

not need to meet the minimum ground and flight training requirements (provided 

certain provisions and conditions are met). These regulations would allow ERAU to 

apply for a course that, for example, contained a reduced amount of flight training time

(for example, 21 hours of training in an airplane), accompanied with the condition of 

additional training in an AATD (at least 14 hours). These courses would however be 

excluded from self-examining authority. The final decision to approve or reject such a 

submission remains with the jurisdictional Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). 

Despite our denial of ERAU’s exemption request, the FAA recognizes the concerns of 
4

ERAU, other petitioners, and those that provided comments during the rulemaking 

process. The FAA is engaged rulemaking titled ”Aviation Training Devices; Pilot 

Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; Other Provisions (RRR)” 80 FR 34338 (June 

16, 2015). This rulemaking project is intended, in part, to “relieve burdens on pilots 

seeking to obtain aeronautical experience for certification and recency by promoting 

increased use of aviation training devices which have proven an effective, safe, and 

affordable means of obtaining pilot experience.” 

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 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 

University for an exemption from 14 CFR part 141 Appendix C paragraph (4)(b)(5) to use the 

Paradigm Shift Solutions Model 172 Lite Advanced Aviation Training Device (AATD) to 

credit up to 40 percent of total training time requirements of an FAA approved instrument 

rating course, is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on July 20, 2015.

/s/

John Barbagallo

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service