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

FLIGH TSAFETY 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 le tter 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 exempti on from § 60.17(c)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Flight Safety 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 F S T D qualification is lost

under 

### § 60.27 and n ot restored under § 60.27 for two (2) years or more, then the qualification basis (in terms of objective tests and subjective tests) for the re

qualification will be those standards in effect and current at the time of re

qualification application

.

The petitioner supports its request with the followi ng information:

The petitioner states FlightSafety International currently operates 10 ERJ

- 1 45 FSTD's. All of
these devices are qualified under the requirements of Advisory Circular ( AC ) 120

- 40 B using
AC

- 120

- 40C as an alternate means of compliance and dail y 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 substantial ly per the fo llowing :

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)

. T he 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 qualif i ed FSTD's

.

3. Without enough simulators to train pilots

, airlines will not have enough pilots to fly
the aircraft. Th e economic impact of this affect s 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. T here are two new FAA factors that are driving training on all airline aircraft: the end
of t he a ge 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
f light and d uty t ime rules that will require airlines to hire an additional 5% to 15%

more pilots in 2013.

6. R egional airline s 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 t he ERJ

- 145 is a large part of the regional airline fleet

, these new demands are already driving a huge amount of tra i ning on that aircraft

.

7. Currently

, there are only 13 operating ERJ

- 145 simulators in North America and they

s i mply c annot handle the required volume of training

. Grant ing FlightSafe ty an exemption will increase the training resources to avoid the consequences documented
above

. The petitioner asserts that this issue was not envisioned when p art 60 was
written

. No one could have predicted the sudden drive in training demand s to these

n ew 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 t his exemption will provide a level of safety at least equal to the existing r ule as their current fleet of E RJ

- 145 FSTD ' s are all qualified to the same standard

, AC

- 120

- 40 B using AC

- 120

- 40C as an alternate means of compliance.

In brief

, FlightSafety asserts by granting this exemption i t will enhance public safety by providing pilo ts 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 t he 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 us ing the criteria that were in place at the time o f original evaluation.

With the advent of the p art 60 regulation, the FAA adopted, the practice of allowing simulation equipment to be returned to service after passing the same kind of requalification
eval uation, 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 exemp tion

, 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 allow ed 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 ca n see no relevant
information in th e petition that would warrant an exemption from the established re

evaluation 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.

Iss ued in Washington, DC, on July 30, 2013

.

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich Deputy Director, Flight

Standards Service