AFS-14-175-E

Exemption No. 11021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of

 

TATONDUK OUTFITTERS, LTD., Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0107 

d/b/a EVERTS AIR CARGO

 

for an exemption from § 121.436

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated February 10, 2014 and received February 21, 2014, Mr. Zachary M. Adams, 

Director of Operations for Tatonduk Outfitters, Ltd., doing business as (d/b/a) Everts Air 

Cargo, 5525 Airport Industrial Road, Fairbanks, AK 99709, petitioned the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) on behalf of Tatonduk Outfitters, Ltd., d/b/a Everts Air Cargo for an 

exemption from § 121.436 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed 

exemption, if granted, would allow Everts Air Cargo second-in-command (SIC) pilots to 

operate without an aircraft type rating required by § 121.436(b). The FAA is also construing 

the petition for exemption as a request to be eligible to use its approved 14 CFR part 121 SIC 

training program for the issuance of a SIC pilot type rating under § 61.55(e).

The petitioners request relief from the following regulations:

Section 121.436(b) prescribes that no certificate holder may use nor may any pilot act as SIC

unless the pilot holds an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate and an appropriate aircraft 

type rating for the aircraft being flown. It also states that a SIC type rating obtained under 

§ 61.55 does not satisfy the requirements of this section. Paragraph (d) prescribes, in pertinent 

part, that compliance is required by August 1, 2013. However, for those pilots who are 

employed as SIC in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, compliance with the type rating 

requirement in paragraph (b) is not required until January 1, 2016.

Section 61.55(e) states that a person may receive a SIC pilot type rating for the type of aircraft 

after satisfactorily completing an approved SIC training program, proficiency check, or
2

competency check under subpart K of part 91, part 125, or part 135, as appropriate, in the 

respective aircraft type provided the training was completed within the 12 calendar months 

before the month of application for the SIC pilot type rating.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner is the holder of air carrier certificate FXGA030A and states it is an experienced 

operator of the DC-6 and C-46 airplanes. The on-airplane flight training it conducts for these 

aircraft types has provided a history of safe operations. The new requirements contained 

under § 121.436 require Everts Air Cargo to train its new SICs to the certification standards

previously reserved for the pilot in command (PIC). The petitioner states in its request for an 

exemption that “training and testing of airmen new to this airplane to meet the requirements 

of the [PIC] type rating, when they will first serve as [SIC] until they are sufficiently 

experienced to receive training and testing for the [PIC] type rating, will compromise safety.”

The petitioner also believes that a lower performance standard will be accepted industry-wide 

in order to certificate the required number of pilots whose experience and skill levels are not 

consistent with those traditionally associated with a PIC and aircraft type rating.

Everts Air Cargo states it has demonstrated after nearly two decades that the standard to 

which the SIC was previously trained has resulted in a safe operation. The operator adds it has

had no events which may be attributed to insufficient flight training and qualification of its 

pilots. 

The petitioner offers that the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air 

Carrier Operations final rule (78 FR 42324) 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 an aircraft type rating will be unsustainable for 

these carriers.

The petitioner seeks relief for the qualification of its SICs in its cargo only operations, which 

occur entirely within the State of Alaska. Specifically, Everts Air Cargo suggests the 

following to meet the enhanced level of safety intended by § 121.436: 

1. All SICs 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. All SICs will hold an SIC pilot type rating issued in accordance with § 61.55(e) instead of 

holding an aircraft type rating required by § 121.436(b).
3

5. All operations will only be conducted within the State of Alaska.

The petitioner indicates this exemption is in the public interest.Without it, Everts Air Cargo 

would not be able to sustain operations in the DC-6 and C-46, which uniquely serve Alaska. It 

would “deprive numerous outlying communities and villages access to affordable 

transportation of essential commodities including subsistence and medical supplies.”

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2014. The FAA 

received seventeen comments from Cannon Resources, LLC; Chalkyitsik Village Council;

Copper River Seafoods; David Doudna; Delta Powersports; Discovery Drilling; Gwitchyaa 

Zhee Corporation; Joe Freitag; Lakloey, Inc.; Nyac Mining Company; Olgoonik Corporation;

Pacific Alaska Freightways; Sampson Steel Company; Summit Consulting Services, Inc.;

Taiga Mining Company, Inc.; Taiga Ventures; and Venette/Arctic Village Housing 

Organization. All commenters are customers of Everts Air Cargo and provided a form letter 

that was supportive of granting the exemption. A few of the commenters added a few 

personalized statements to the form letter indicating their primary concern was the increased 

cost to their business.

The commenters state that the requirement for SICs to hold an aircraft type rating will not 

result in an increased level of safety. A lower standard of safety will develop as an aftereffect,

because the “more critical and technically demanding captain’s maneuvers” will now be 

required of the SIC. The commenters further state that there are no simulators for the DC-6 

and C-46; therefore, all training must be conducted in the airplane. Historically, training in 

aircraft rather than simulators has proven dangerous, particularly in training lesser 

experienced pilots in emergency and abnormal procedures and maneuvers. This element 

represents an increased risk.

The commenters describe that “when this rule was promulgated by Congress, there was an 

assumption made that all airline training was accomplished in a simulator.” They estimate the

cost of training a pilot in a flight simulator to be approximately $14,000. The commenters

assert that the cost of training the same pilot for the type rating course in the airplane is nearly 

ten times that, and represents a cost that Everts Air Cargo will have to pass along to its

customers.

The commenters are concerned that the increased cost to train Everts Air Cargo pilots will 

drive the operator to either withdraw from several markets, leaving non-certificated and/or 

fewer safe operators, or increase the cost to them, making arctic operations impractical. The 

commenters argue that Everts Air Cargo has proven to be the safest supply chain for business, 

industry, and residential needs in the outlying areas of Alaska, and training the pilots to the 

previous standard would represent continued service at the highest standard of safety. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:
4

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner’s supporting information and the comments to 

the petition posted to the docket. The FAA finds that the relief requested is not in the public 

interest and would adversely affect safety.

In August 2010, the FAA was directed by Public Law 111-216, § 216, to ensure flightcrew 

members in part 121 operations have the proper qualifications and experience. The public law 

was particularly focused on raising the minimum qualifications of part 121 SIC; specifically, 

it requires all pilots in part 121 to have an ATP certificate. It also required the Administrator 

to determine an appropriate amount of multiengine experience to serve in part 121 operations. 

To address the multiengine experience requirement of the statute, the FAA proposed in its 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to require a minimum of 50 hours of flight time in the 

airplane class sought as well as requiring all SICs in part 121 operations to hold an aircraft 

type rating for the airplane to be flown in revenue service. In addition to addressing the 

statute, both the time in class and the aircraft type rating requirement were recommendations 

of the First Officer Qualification Aviation Rulemaking Committee, which provided its 

recommendations to the FAA in September 2010. This rulemaking committee was focused on 

addressing the gap in knowledge and skill between a pilot that holds a commercial pilot 

certificate and a pilot that will serve in part 121 operations.

The FAA received more than 100 comments regarding the requirement for a SIC to hold an 

aircraft type rating for the airplane to be flown, a majority of which were favorable. One key 

reason for the support was, by requiring SICs who fly domestically in the U.S. to hold an 

aircraft type rating for the airplane flown, the United States will be harmonized with the 

International Civil Aviation Organization standard. In considering the comments received, the 

FAA determined that retaining the proposed aircraft type rating would enhance safety. The 

final rule preamble states:

The historic division of responsibilities between the PIC and SIC have changed. In 

today’s air carrier environment, both the PIC and SIC share the role of pilot flying 

and pilot monitoring. Therefore, the FAA has determined that requiring an SIC to 

train to the same level of aircraft handling proficiency as the PIC by obtaining an 

aircraft type rating is appropriate. The FAA assumes most pilots will obtain an 

aircraft type rating at the air carrier as part of initial training. The practical test for a

SIC to obtain an aircraft type rating will include the same tasks and maneuvers as 

those required for a PIC receiving a type rating. Because this practical test would be 

administered by an FAA inspector or designee, the test would serve as an additional 

level of oversight of the SICs aircraft handling skills and abilities.” (78 FR 42354)

The petitioner offers concerns regarding the differences between simulator and aircraft 

training. The FAA finds many benefits in utilizing simulation for training and promotes their

use. However, the prescribed maneuvers in part 121, appendix H, were designed to be 

accomplished in an airplane or a simulator. As the petitioner noted, not every aircraft, 

typically due to vintage, has a corresponding simulator. The FAA has determined that aircraft 
5

training with a qualified instructor and check airman cadre can be both effective and safely 

conducted.

The petitioner also notes that there are additional maneuvers required to be trained and 

checked beyond what was previously required for a SIC in order to issue an aircraft type 

rating. The FAA acknowledged this difference in the NPRM and the final rule estimating it to 

be an additional two hours of training. The additional items for checking would require 

minimal additional time and could be accomplished during the planned checking event that 

would occur following the training. Because the event would result in a new certificate or 

aircraft type rating, the event must be conducted by a FAA inspector or designee. The FAA 

determined raising the standard for the SIC will not only meet the requirements of the statute, 

but the additional training and checking will result in a higher degree of safety.

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 Tatonduk Outfitters, Ltd., d/b/a 

Everts Air Cargo for an exemption from 14 CFR 121.436(b) and 61.55(e) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 2, 2014. 

/S/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service