AFS-13-143-E

Exemption No. 10833

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

FLIGHTSAFETY Regulatory Docket No. 2012-1348

INTERNATIONAL

 

for an exemption from § 60.17 (c)(ii) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

 By letter dated December 27, 2012, Mr. Steven W. Krull, Simulations Manger, 

FlightSafety International, Inc. (FlightSafety), 9720 E Central Avenue, Wichita, KS 67206 

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

exemption from § 60.17(c)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption, if granted, would allow FlightSafety to re-qualify an Embraer Regional 

Jet (ERJ) 145 Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD), formerly qualified by the FAA and 

assigned FAA ID No. 635. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation section:

Section 60.17(c)(ii) prescribes in pertinent part that if the FSTD qualification is lost 

under § 60.27 and not restored under § 60.27 for two (2) years or more, then the 

qualification basis (in terms of objective tests and subjective tests) for the requalification will be those standards in effect and current at the time of requalification application.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states FlightSafety International currently operates 10 ERJ-145 FSTD's. All of 

these devices are qualified under the requirements of Advisory Circular (AC) 120-40B using 

AC-120-40C as an alternate means of compliance and daily provide valuable training to 

regional jet pilots throughout the United States, making a significant contribution to aviation 

safety.
2

In addition, the petitioner states by granting an exemption, the public as a whole would 

benefit substantially per the following:

1. This FSTD was originally qualified under AC-120-40B using AC-120-40C as an 

alternate FAA ID No. 635. It was taken out service in October 2008. The FSTD has 

been in controlled storage for longer than the 2 year period allowed under § 60.17(c). 

The petition requests that they be allowed to re-qualify the FSTD under the 

qualification basis to which it was originally qualified. The approval of this exemption 

will not affect the performance of the FSTD or its suitability to deliver positive 

training to aircrews.

2. There are over 5,570 pilots that require training in ERJ-145 simulators at least once

per year; increasing the need for qualified FSTD's.

3. Without enough simulators to train pilots, airlines will not have enough pilots to fly 

the aircraft. The economic impact of this affects the city, local industry, and 

worldwide trade; as products and people can no longer move easily to places they are 

needed.

4. Additionally, less hiring means more unemployment. A family that has a pilot that 

missed a hiring opportunity and thus source of income because the airline had no way 

to train them will increase the number of people requiring government assistance to 

survive.

5. There are two new FAA factors that are driving training on all airline aircraft: the end 

of the age 65 rule effect on pilots required in the industry (increasing retirement 

related new hires by close to 3,000 additional new hires in 2013 over 2012), and new 

flight and duty time rules that will require airlines to hire an additional 5% to 15% 

more pilots in 2013.

6. Regional airlines are the resource in pilot hiring for major airlines. As pilots move to 

major airlines, additional training events are needed as pilots shift positions due to 

seniority. Because the ERJ-145 is a large part of the regional airline fleet, these new 

demands are already driving a huge amount of training on that aircraft.

7. Currently, there are only 13 operating ERJ-145 simulators in North America and they 

simply cannot handle the required volume of training. Granting FlightSafety an 

exemption will increase the training resources to avoid the consequences documented 

above. The petitioner asserts that this issue was not envisioned when part 60 was 

written. No one could have predicted the sudden drive in training demands to these 

new levels. Flight Safety believes their request would certainly have qualified as a 

reasonable action under the cost benefit study of the part 60 rule.
3

FlightSafety states that this exemption will provide a level of safety at least equal to the 

existing rule as their current fleet of ERJ-145 FSTD's are all qualified to the same standard, 

AC-120-40B using AC-120-40C as an alternate means of compliance.

In brief, FlightSafety asserts by granting this exemption it will enhance public safety by 

providing pilots the training necessary to operate their aircraft in a safe, effective manner. It 

would also allow the use of this FSTD in regional airlines' Safety Management 

Systems (SMS) and thereby further increase the level of safety for the public.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2013

(78 FR 21702). No comments were received.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The petitioner is requesting an exemption from § 60.17(c), with respect to an ERJ-145 FSTD, 

formerly qualified by the FAA and assigned FAA ID No. 635. The petitioner states that the 

subject FSTD was removed from service in October 2008. This is 2 years beyond the 

regulatory requirements which would have allowed the FAA to consider a requalification 

evaluation using the criteria that were in place at the time of original evaluation.

With the advent of the part 60 regulation, the FAA adopted, the practice of allowing 

simulation equipment to be returned to service after passing the same kind of requalification 

evaluation, but allowing the original qualification standards to be used when the equipment 

had been out of service for up to 2 years. 

The requirements for re-evaluation of out-of-service simulation equipment, for which the 

petitioner is requesting an exemption, are not significantly different from the requirements 

required for the current re-evaluation process. The current rule establishes the authorization to 

use “engineering simulator validation data” and clearly prescribes the kind of equipment 

necessary to evoke this particular authorization. 

The FAA is fully aware of the other existing FlightSafety simulators currently in service for 

the specific airplane, but the authorizations to use these simulators have no relevance to the 

regulatory requirements for re-evaluation of a device removed from service for a period of 

more than twice the time frame allowed in the regulations. Any removal from service of 

current qualified devices for a similar time frame would require a reevaluation for that device.
4

The petition has not demonstrated how it differs from other sponsors facing the same issue of 

lost FSTD qualification. Other than the potential of incurring some additional update of data 

and the associated testing requirements that may result, the FAA can see no relevant 

information in the petition that would warrant an exemption from the established reevaluation procedures contained in § 60.17(c).

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. §§ 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of FlightSafety International, 

Inc. for an exemption from 14 CFR § 60.17(c), is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2013 .

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Deputy Director, Flight

 Standards Service