AFS

- 1 5

- 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

TH UNDERBIRD AVIATION, INC

. Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 084 3

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 , M innesota 55347 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on b ehalf 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 simula tor 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 regulation s :

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 certificat e 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 specific ally 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 be ing 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 appr oval 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:

Th underbird 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, fr om a safety standpoint, using

an aircraft simulator that closely replicates its fleet allows train ing in a risk

- free environment, while enhancing the ability to duplicat e 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 b y 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 B E

- 200 have commo nality as required by t he pr o vision in § 135.293(b) allow ing the check to be completed in either3

aircraft to satisfy the requirement of th at rule. Thunderbird believe s that since the FAA has already determined this practice to be acceptable and in the public interest for checkin g 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 safet y 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 ex plains 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 pet itioner adds that two C90 Level D simulators are at Flight Safety,

Inc. One of the simulator s 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 t he 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 use d by Thunderbird

. Thunderbird contends that, e con omically, th is 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

l arge 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 simu lator

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

airc raft have different type certificates. The petitioner asserts that , under §§ 121.400 and 121.418, the FAA allows for training in “ related ” air craft that have different aircraft data type

certificates. Thunderbird points to the Boeing 757/767 series of ai rcraft as an example. As explained by the petitioner, these aircraft have different type certificates ; however, u nder part 121, pilot flight training programs in the 757 are transferable to the 767 and vice versa. The petitioner states that c ompletion 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 gui dance . The petitioner emphasizes that its curriculum specifically addresses the King Air BE

- 200 and King Air C 90 Series airplanes and contains a ppropriate differences training

. The training requires a ll pilots completing simulator training in the King

Ai r 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

ai rcraft 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 trainin g 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 tha t, 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 d etermined 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 chara cteristics 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 c urrently 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 opera te.

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 wh ich 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 ava ilability or are cost prohibitive to operate. Thunderbird is obligated by § 135.323 to ensure that flight crewmembers are properly5

trained for the duties they are assigned. The cost incurred to achieve such compliance is considered an operational expense a ssociated 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 petit ioner’s resource considerations and do not sufficiently demonstrate how a grant of exemption would benefit the public as a whole.

The FAA finds that a ir carrier training conducted and developed in accordance with part 121 represent the highest standar ds 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

contract ed with "training ce nters" 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 pro vide 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 fro m 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