\\DC - 040601/000002 - 3413115 v1

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004 T

+1 202 637 5600 F +1 202

637 5910

www.hoganlovells.com

May 24, 2012

US Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC, 20590

Re: Petition of Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. for an Extension of FAA Exemption

No. 7353E, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-12009

Dear Sir or Madam:

Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. (“Chautauqua”) hereby petitions the Administrator of

the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, for an

extension of Exemption No. 7353D, last issued to Chautauqua on June 10, 2010,

exempting Chautauqua from the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), thereby

allowing Chautauqua to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of

an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is

performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a

landing when completing initial or upgrade training as specified in § 121.424.1

Exemption No. 7353E terminates on September 30, 2012. Chautauqua

respectfully requests that this exemption be extended for at least two additional years,

through September 30, 2014. Chautauqua hereby incorporates by reference all

relevant information previously submitted in the instant docket and in FAA Regulatory

Docket No. 29182. Chautauqua submits that further extension of this exemption is in

1 Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that if a qualifying PIC is

completing initial or upgrade training specified in §121.424, the PIC must be observed in

the performance of prescribed duties by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg

that includes a takeoff and a landing.

Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. Hogan Lovells refers to the international legal practice comprising Hogan

Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses with offices in: Abu Dhabi

Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Boulder Brussels Caracas Chicago Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh

City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rome San Francisco

Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Warsaw Washington DC Associated offices: Budapest Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb
\\DC - 040601/000002 - 3413115 v1

U.S. Department of Transportation

May 24, 2012

Page 2

the public interest and will provide an equivalent level of safety – findings that the FAA

made in granting the initial exemption to Chautauqua on September 22, 2000, and in

the subsequent extensions of the exemption.2

Good cause exists for the FAA to act on this petition without delay, and without

publishing a summary in the Federal Register or awaiting comments, pursuant to

14 C.F.R. § 11.87. No new precedent will be established by extending the existing

exemption previously granted to Chautauqua.

Chautauqua urges the FAA to grant this non-controversial request for an

extension of Exemption No. 7353E prior to the September 30, 2012 expiration date. In

the event that the FAA does not act on this petition prior to that date, Chautauqua

hereby invokes and relies upon the automatic extension provisions of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 558(c), to the extent that such relief is consistent with the

FAA’s rules, policies and procedures, in order to continue the effectiveness of

Chautauqua’s current exemption pending the FAA’s final determination on this petition.

Chautauqua submits the following information in further support of this request:

The original intent of § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), issued in early 1970, was to validate the

training a pilot received in a visual simulator. Since that rule was adopted, the airline

industry has had over 40 years of experience with visual simulators and advanced

simulation. The airlines have successfully trained tens of thousands of pilots using

sophisticated advanced simulators. Chautauqua believes the advanced simulation

experience of the airline industry combined with that of the FAA has made the

present rule virtually obsolete.

The FAA has for many years routinely granted similar requests for exemptions,

subject to certain conditions and limitations, finding that there is an equivalent level of

safety in allowing airlines to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in

place of an FAA inspector to satisfy the observation requirements. Chautauqua

submits that (a) the facts presented by Chautauqua do not differ materially from those

presented previously by Chautauqua, or from those presented by other similarly

situated petitioners; (b) the reasons stated by the FAA for previously granting the

exemption to Chautauqua and to similarly situated petitioners also apply

2 The FAA has made similar findings and has granted (and extended) exemptions to

similarly situated applicants. See, e.g., Docket FAA-2007-28086 (Republic Airline Inc.);

Docket FAA-2006-36589 (Shuttle America); Docket FAA-2002-12947 (Trans States

Airlines); Docket FAA-2005-21877 (Freedom Airlines); Docket FAA-2006-24900

(Air Midwest); Docket 2006-24996 (Alaska Airlines).
\\DC - 040601/000002 - 3413115 v1

U.S. Department of Transportation

May 24, 2012

Page 3

to the situation presented herein by Chautauqua; and (c) extension of the exemption

to Chautauqua is in the public interest.

Chautauqua expects that it may need to certify new PICs each year. Chautauqua

states that granting this exemption would allow --

1. The FAA greater flexibility and better use of its inspection force by focusing on

higher priority safety functions;

2. Chautauqua to use a qualified pilot immediately after completing OE;

3. Chautauqua to significantly increase the use of qualified pilots and improve its

ability to provide on-time, dependable air service to the public; and

4. Chautauqua to reduce the unnecessary cost of wages and lost productivity for

those qualified pilots waiting for the FAA observation.

By allowing a company check airman who is highly qualified in the

airplane to complete the observation, a greater level of scrutiny and

objectivity would be provided for the qualifying PIC, thus enhancing the

level of safety.

Finally, consistent with the conditions and limitations set forth in Exemption

7353E, Chautauqua proposes that the extended exemption be subject to the same

conditions and limitations, as follows:

1. A Chautauqua check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC

observation in place of an FAA inspector when—

a. The Administrator pre-approves that substitution for each observation of a

qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in

each case. Chautauqua, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA

office in each instance before substituting that check airman or aircrew

program designee.

b. The qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of

supervised OE and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and

landings; and

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete

flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines

checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing

checklist.
\\DC - 040601/000002 - 3413115 v1

U.S. Department of Transportation

May 24, 2012

Page 4

2. Each Chautauqua check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a

PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector must—

a. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation;

b. Have served as check airman or aircrew designee for Chautauqua for no

less than 6 months; and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC

candidate being observed.

3. Chautauqua must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program

designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and

limitations of this exemption.

The FAA previously determined that compliance with these conditions and

limitations would ensure an equivalent level of safety and would be in the public interest.

Chautauqua will continue to comply with the conditions and limitations to the exemption,

thereby ensuring an equivalent level of safety for the continuation of these operations.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Chautauqua respectfully requests that

prior to the September 30, 2012 expiration date, the FAA extend Exemption No. 7353E,

for a minimum period of two years, through September 30, 2014.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheryl Israel

Counsel for Chautauqua Airlines, Inc.

sheryl.israel@hoganlovells.com

Direct Dial: +1 202 637 8898

Direct Fax: +1 866 728 1992

Attachment

cc: Linda Baker, Indianapolis FSDO

Alex Osleger
\\DC - 040601/000002 - 3413115 v1

ATTACHMENT

FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

As stated in the foregoing petition, Chautauqua Airlines respectfully requests a

waiver of the publication and comment requirements under 14 C.F.R. § 11.87.

Nevertheless, in accordance with § 11.81(f), a summary of this Petition for an Extension

of Exemption 7353D, for publication in the Federal Register is as follows:

Docket No.: FAA-2002-12009

Petitioner: Chautauqua Airlines, Inc.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii)

Description of Relief Sought: To extend Exemption No. 7353E to permit

Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. to substitute a qualified and authorized check

airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command

(PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at least one flight

leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade

training as specified in 14 C.F.R. § 121.424.