Exem ption No. 10430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

DYNAMIC AIRWAYS Regulatory Docket No. FAA -2011-1160

for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii)

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated October 18, 2011, Mr. R. Rand W a lters, Director of Operations, Dynamic Airways, 6331 Bryan Boulevard, Greensboro, North Carolina 27409, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Dynamic Airways for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Dynamic Airw ays to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and landing.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that, a pilot in command must perform the duties of a pilot in command under the superv ision of a check pilot and in addition, if a qualifying pilot in command is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424, be observed in the performance of prescribing duties by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg which includes a takeoff and landing. During the time that a qualifying pilot in command is acquiring the operating experience in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, a check pilot who is also serving as pilot in command must occupy a pilot station.

AFS-12-036-E2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states its operations are often short notice and international in nature. Scheduling of FAA personnel to observe a qualifying PIC on an international operation with short notice is difficult to impossible.

As a result of the issues identified, the petitioner states that many of its PIC candidates are serving in operation experience status in excess of the hours required for the completion of the qualification segment while waiting for FAA participation. Dynamic Airways states this impacts its crew scheduling ability and places unnecessary financial burden on the company.

The petitioner asserts that granting the exemption is in the public interest and would allow the FAA to focus on higher priority safety issues. Additionally, the petitioner states that Dynamic Airways’ check airman are more familiar with company operating policies and procedures and would provide a higher level of PIC candidate scrutiny.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication because the exemption, if granted, would not set a precedent.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered the petitioner’s request and supporting materials and finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulations.

The requirements in § 121.434(c)(1) for FAA observation of initial operating experience flights for PIC resulted from Amendment 121-55, published on January 3, 1970 (35 FR 84), and Amendment 121-91, published on May 27, 1972 (37 FR 10727). The purpose of these amendments was to update procedures for the approval and revision of training programs, to provide for more extensive use of airplane simulators in training, and to allow improvements in the operation of training programs and the quality of training. During the rulemaking process, the FAA considered it necessary to require the PIC to be observed by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg of initial operating experience, which includes a takeoff and landing, if the certificate holder uses a course of training in an airplane simulator as provided in § 121.409(c). That requirement was set forth in Amendment 121-91 and has continued in effect until the present.

The FAA inspector’s observation of a qualifying PIC gives the FAA an opportunity to evaluate an air carrier’s end training product under nonsimulated or normal operating conditions. In that observation, the FAA also evaluates the check airman’s performance with respect to preparing the qualifying PIC for assuming command duties during air carrier operations. These observations also provide an insight to the efficacy of the air carrier ’ s training program. The conduct of line oriented flight training, crew resource management, or any other improved training scenario does not negate the public safety function served by the FAA inspector’s observation of this training during actual flight operations.3

In regard to the petitioner’s assertion that an equivalent level of safety can be established based on the experience level of the check airman, the FAA notes in contrast to other cerfiticate holders who were issued an exemption, that the petitioner’s experience as a part 121 air carrier is limited as its certificate was originally issued on October 6, 2010. During the petitioner’s first year of operation, it operated three MD-88 aircraft primarily domestically. Subsequently, all MD-88 have been removed from service and replaced with one B-767. The petitioner’s experience with the B-767 aircraft is further limited as its authority to operate such aircraft was only recently authorized on October 17, 2011. The operational capabilities as well as the operating characteristics of the two aircraft are vastly

different. With the introduction of a new aircraft , the associated training program is issued an initial approval for a period of up to 1 year. During this period, the training program is closely monitored to assess the effectiveness of the program. The observation of a potential new captain acquiring operational experience is one element of the training program assessment and is necessary to ensure that each air carrier performs its services with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that a grant of exemption is not warranted because of the need to monitor and validate the training program for this newly added aircraft.

Furthermore, the scope of the petitioner’s operation is limited with one aircraft and less than ten pilots. While the FAA appreciates the potential economic impact of the petitioner’s ad hoc operational environment and nature of international operations, these types of operational hurdles have not been realized due to the limited scope of petitioner’s operation. The FAA does not believe a grant of exemption, based on the economic impact to the petitioner, is in the public interest.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exem ption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Dynamic Airways for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2012.

/s/ . Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service