AFS-15-074-E

Exemption No. 12643

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

THUNDERBIRD AVIATION, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0843

 

for an exemption from §§ 135.327 

and 135.335 of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

 By letter dated October 9, 2014, Mr. Christopher M. Cape, Chief Pilot, Thunderbird 

Aviation, Inc. (Thunderbird), 14091 Pioneer Trail, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55347 petitioned 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Thunderbird Aviation for an 

exemption from §§ 135.327 and 135.335 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Thunderbird to conduct flight training in a 

King Air 200 (BE-200) Level C simulator while operating a King Air C90 aircraft. Part 135, 

Subpart H does not permit a certificate holder to take credit for training conducted in different

make and model aircraft. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 135.327, Training program: Curriculum, states, in pertinent part: 

(a) Each certificate holder must prepare and keep current a written training program 

curriculum for each type of aircraft for each crewmember required for that type 

aircraft. The curriculum must include ground and flight training required by this 

subpart.

Section 135.335, Approval of aircraft simulators and other training devices, states:

(a) Training courses using aircraft simulators and other training devices may be included 

in the certificate holder's training program if approved by the Administrator. 
2

(b) Each aircraft simulator and other training device that is used in a training course or in 

checks required under this subpart must meet the following requirements: 

(1) It must be specifically approved for—

(i) The certificate holder; and 

(ii) The particular maneuver, procedure, or crewmember function involved. 

(2) It must maintain the performance, functional, and other characteristics that are required 

for approval. 

(3) Additionally, for aircraft simulators, it must be—

(i) Approved for the type aircraft and, if applicable, the particular variation within type for 

which the training or check is being conducted; and 

(ii) Modified to conform with any modification to the aircraft being simulated that 

changes the performance, functional, or other characteristics required for approval. 

(c) A particular aircraft simulator or other training device may be used by more than one 

certificate holder. 

(d) In granting initial and final approval of training programs or revisions to them, the 

Administrator considers the training devices, methods and procedures listed in the 

certificate holder's curriculum under § 135.327. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Thunderbird states that the utilization of the BE-200 full motion, Level C or D, simulator for 

King Air C90 aircraft training, along with appropriate differences training, would enhance 

safety and serves the public interest. Thunderbird states that, from a safety standpoint, using 

an aircraft simulator that closely replicates its fleet allows training in a risk-free environment,

while enhancing the ability to duplicate emergencies that could not be legally or safely 

completed in an aircraft. 

Furthermore, the petitioner points to the following provision in § 135.293(b) that defines 

flight check competency requirements. Section 135.293(b) states: “For the purposes of this 

paragraph, type, as to an airplane, means any one of a group of airplanes determined by the 

Administrator to have a similar means of propulsion, the same manufacturer, and no 

significantly different handling or flight characteristics.”

Thunderbird states that the FAA has determined that the C90 and BE-200 have commonality 

as required by the provision in § 135.293(b) allowing the check to be completed in either 
3

aircraft to satisfy the requirement of that rule. Thunderbird believes that since the FAA has 

already determined this practice to be acceptable and in the public interest for checking in 

accordance with § 135.293(b), adding the ability to train in what has been determined to be a 

common group of aircraft would actually enhance the safety of its air carrier operations 

conducted with appropriate supplemental training to address aircraft differences. 

In regard to public interest, the petitioner cites the limited number of Beechcraft King Air 90 

simulators. As stated by Thunderbird, there are only three Level C or D Beechcraft King Air 

90 simulators in the United States. Thunderbird explains that a Level C simulator at Simcom, 

Inc. is leased to a Chinese airline on a full time basis. Since the simulator is unavailable to 

outside customers, Simcom has not pursued having its C90 simulator approved for part 135 

training programs. The petitioner adds that two C90 Level D simulators are at Flight Safety, 

Inc. One of the simulators at Flight Safety is based on a King Air C90 Gti airplane, which is 

equipped differently than Thunderbird’s fleet of airplanes. 

The petitioner states that the remaining simulator at Simcom is a King Air C90B, which is 

outfitted similarly to the aircraft Thunderbird operates and the King Air BE-200 simulator 

sponsored by Flyright Inc. Training Center currently used by Thunderbird. Thunderbird 

contends that, economically, this C90B simulator at Flight Safety is twice as expensive as 

other providers and difficult to schedule for training conducted by small operators, such as 

Thunderbird. Thunderbird states that Flight Safety’s programs are primarily designed for 

large corporate flight departments and charter operators, who receive priority scheduling and 

volume discounts for which Thunderbird does not qualify. Thunderbird states that having 

only one usable simulator in the United States, with one provider, places Thunderbird and 

other operators at an economic disadvantage.

Thunderbird states there is a strong justification for continuing to allow simulator-based flight 

training in a group of aircraft that the FAA has already defined as common, even though the 

aircraft have different type certificates. The petitioner asserts that, under §§ 121.400 and 

121.418, the FAA allows for training in “related” aircraft that have different aircraft data type 

certificates. Thunderbird points to the Boeing 757/767 series of aircraft as an example. As 

explained by the petitioner, these aircraft have different type certificates; however, under part

121, pilot flight training programs in the 757 are transferable to the 767 and vice versa. The 

petitioner states that completion of an FAA-approved training program in either the 757 

simulator or a 767 simulator provides the applicant an FAA type rating in both aircraft. 

Thunderbird states that it has developed a curriculum based on §§ 121.400 and 121.418 and 

the associated FAA guidance. The petitioner emphasizes that its curriculum specifically

addresses the King Air BE-200 and King Air C90 Series airplanes and contains appropriate 

differences training. The training requires all pilots completing simulator training in the King 

Air 200 simulator to complete associated King Air 90 differences training.
4

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2014 (79 FR 

65294). No comments were received.

 

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA believes the exemption requested by Thunderbird was limited in intent to the 

provisions of § 135.335(b)(3)(i)-(ii). Section 135.327 details the requirements of a training 

program curriculum for each type of aircraft. Thunderbird does not intend to eliminate an 

aircraft training program curriculum. Its request is specific to the utilization of a flight 

simulation training device (FSTD) of a different type than the aircraft it currently operates. 

The FAA has long recognized the advantages of FSTDs when training air carrier pilots. The 

integrated functionality of the FSTD allows training and evaluation of the pilot in a realistic 

manner without the restrictive procedures sometimes necessary to ensure safe training in 

actual aircraft operations. The FAA notes that, from a safety perspective, it is important that 

users of FSTDs receive training in devices that closely match the performance and handling 

characteristics of the aircraft being simulated. 

Based on a historical review of § 135.293(b), the FAA has determined that the intent of the 

provision for an operator to accept a competency check for any aircraft that the administrator 

determined to have a similar means of propulsion, the same manufacturer, and no significantly 

different handling or flight characteristics was to provide economic relief to the industry and 

afford operators flying aircraft determined to be in a common “group” of aircraft a reduced 

checking burden. FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 19, Section 1, Table 3-33 defines the

B65-A90, 90, 99, 100, and 200 as the Beechcraft Turbopropeller group of aircraft for the 

purpose of meeting § 135.293(b) requirements. No similar provision is included for checking 

events required by § 135.297, ensuring the more complex instrument operations maintain an 

appropriate level of safety. 

Under in § 135.297, a pilot is allowed to alternate between two aircraft over a 12-month 

period, maintaining a high level of proficiency and affording some economic relief to the 

industry. However, Thunderbird does not currently operate the BE-200 aircraft. Therefore, 

the provision found in § 135.297 that allows a pilot to alternate checks between two aircraft 

would not apply. This requires the pilot to be checked exclusively in a C90 or other aircraft he 

or she may operate. 

The FAA does not agree that it would be prudent to allow Thunderbird to use the BE-200 

FSTD for training or checking because it does not operate the BE-200 aircraft. The FAA 

finds that allowing the petitioner’s pilots to operate in an aircraft in which their competency or 

proficiency has never been checked would present an unwarranted risk. 

The petitioner expresses that there are only two C90 FSTDs in the country representative of 

the aircraft it operates and that these FSTDs have limited availability or are cost prohibitive to 

operate. Thunderbird is obligated by § 135.323 to ensure that flight crewmembers are properly 
5

trained for the duties they are assigned. The cost incurred to achieve such compliance is 

considered an operational expense associated with the authority to hold a certificate. At 

present, Thunderbird maintains the option to incur the cost of a representative FSTD or to 

conduct training in the aircraft without the exemption. The FAA finds that these arguments 

relate to the petitioner’s resource considerations and do not sufficiently demonstrate how a 

grant of exemption would benefit the public as a whole. 

The FAA finds that air carrier training conducted and developed in accordance with part 121 

represent the highest standards of safety in civil aviation. The FAA appreciates Thunderbird’s 

effort to ensure a high level safety by considering the development of training with concepts 

reflecting selected part 121 regulations. However, a part 121 air carrier would not be allowed 

to train or check in an aircraft type that was not part of its operational certificate in order to 

meet training and checking requirements. 

In order to cope with growth within the industry, air carriers such as Thunderbird have 

contracted with "training centers" to take advantage of benefits provided by the use of full 

flight simulators and the more sophisticated training techniques available to train and check 

pilots. The FAA does not agree that the use of FSTDs by Thunderbird that are of a different 

type than the aircraft operated by Thunderbird would be appropriate for training or checking 

or provide a level of safety equivalent to the regulation. 

The FAA’s Decision

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not provide an 

equivalent level of safety or 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 Thunderbird Aviation, Inc., for an exemption from 14 CFR § 135.327 and 

135.335 is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 27, 2015.

/s/

John Barbagallo

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service