AFS

- 13

- 530

- E Exemption No.12096

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

EMBRY

- RIDDLE Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0778

AERONAUTICAL UNIVERSITY

for an exemption from part 141 Appendix C paragraph (4)(b)(5) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated August 29, 2013, Mr. Jared Testa, Chief Flight Instructor, Flight Department, Embry

- Riddle Aeronautical University ( ERAU )

, 3700 Willow Creek Rd

, Prescott, AZ 86301 petitioned the Federal Aviatio n Administration (FAA) on behalf of Embry

- Riddle for an exemption from Appendix C to part 141

, paragraph (4)(b)(5)

, of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would

allow ERAU to use the Paradigm Shift Solutions Model 172 Lite Advanced Aviation Training Device (AATD) to credit up to 40 percent of total training time requirements of an FAA approved instrument rating course.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation :

P art 141 Appendix C paragraph (4)(b)(5) prescribe s that c redit for training in an approved aviation training device cannot exceed 10 percent of the total flight training

hou r requirements of the course or of this section, whichever is less.

The petitioner supports its request with th e following information:

On May 11, 2012, the FAA provided a letter of authorization (LOA) for the Paradigm

Shift Solutions Model 172 Lite AATD . The LOA allowed the device to be used for up2

to 40 percent of the total flight training hours requirements of a n instrument rating course (airplane category) approved under part 141.

ERAU stated that it recently purchased a Paradigm Shift Solutions Model 172 Lite

AATD. ERAU requested the manufacturer modif y the device with an enclosed aircraft

shell and a contin uous wrap

- around visual system to enhanc e the training experience and quality

. On July 18, 2013, Paradigm Shift Solutions submitted a request for approval of the revised Qualification and Approval Guide (QAG) for the Model 172

Lite AATD with the addition of a wrap

- around visual system. This was request was

submitted to the FAA’s General Aviation and Commercial Division (AFS

- 800).

Based on the previous LOA ( dated May 11, 2012) and the revised QAG for the Model

172 Lite AATD (submitted on July 18, 2013) , th e FAA granted approval and a revised LOA dated August 22, 2013 . The revised LOA allowed for 10% credit of total training time requirements in an approved instrument course as provided under part 141 Appendix C.

After inquiries from E RAU and Paradigm Shif t Solutions concerning the change in allowances, the FAA later determined that the original allowances in the LOA could be provided for this training device. On September 11, 2013

, the FAA provided a revised LOA to Paradigm Shift Solutions that retained th e original allowances f or up to 40%

credit.

O n January 2, 2014 t he FAA provided a “ blanket exemption ” by notice in the Federal Register “Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA Approved Training Devices” (79 FR 20) to allow manufacturers, operators, a nd pilots using advanced aviation training devices, time to adjust to the reduction in creditable hours.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on November 12, 2013 (78 FR 67442 ) and the FAA received no comments.

The FAA’ s a nalysis is as follows:

T he “ Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA Approved Training Devices ” provided detailed information concerning the FAA’s reduction in credit hours that could be obtained in an AATD. The FAA explained that in 2009, the FAA issued a final rule that placed express limits on the amount of instrument training in an ATD

that could be credited toward the aeronautical experience requirements for an instrument rating. 74 FR 42500 (Aug. 21, 2009). Under § 61.65(i), no more than 10

hours of instrument time received in an ATD may be credited toward instrument time requirements of that section. Similarly

, A ppendix C to part 141 states that credit for

instrument training in an ATD cannot exceed 10% of the total flight training hour requirements of an approved course. The FAA determined that it may not use LOAs as3

a means to exceed express limits that have been placed in the regulations through notice

and comment rulemaking.

The policy notice also granted operators, who had been issued an LOA fo r their device prior to August 2013, an exemption from § 61.65(i) and Appendix C to part 141 until January 1, 2015

. T he blanket exemption allowed manufacturers, operators, and pilots

that had acted in reliance on FAA statements that were inconsistent with the regulations (e.g., through LOAs) time to adjust to the reduction in creditable hours

.

On December 3, 2014, the FAA published a direct final rule regarding use of aviation training devices (ATDs). The direct final rule would have increased the maximum time that may be credited in an ATD toward the instrument time requirements for an instrument rating under parts 61 and 141. The FAA withdr e w the direct final rule on January 15, 2015 due to the receipt of adverse comments. This was a requirement prescribe d under Part 11 that describes the direct final rulemaking conditions

.

Because of th e direct final rule withdrawal, and expiration of the exemption provided by the policy notice, no applicant for an instrument rating may credit more instrument

time in an ATD toward the minimum aeronautical experience requirements , or toward the required coursework, above what is permitted by the regulations. This includes those applicants that have logged experience in the Par a digm Model 172 Lite AATD.

The FAA finds that ERAU is not unique from other similar ly regulated entities affected by the FAA policy notice and rulemak ing publications described above

. The n ew ATD

credit limitations were published well in advance of the effective date to allow all flight schools an opp ortunity to adjust their training programs accordingly. Further, ERAU has not adequately explained how a grant of exemption would be in the public interest

.

While ERAU contends that the Paradigm Shift Solutions Model 172 Lite AATD was

built to exceed the requirements of an FSTD Level 5, the FAA has approved these

devices as A ATDs. Therefore, the FAA recognizes these devices as having the same regulatory limits as other A ATDs.

Finally, the FAA notes that § 141.55(d) and (e) contain provisions that enable a pilot school to request and receive approval for any training course under part 141 that does

not need to meet the minimum ground and flight training requirements ( provided certain provision s and conditions are met )

. These regulations would allow ERAU to apply for a course that, for example, contained a reduced amount of flight training time (for example

, 21 hours of training in an airplane)

, accompanied with the condition of

additional training in an AATD (at least 14 hours)

. These courses would however be

excluded from self

- examining authority. The final decision to approve or reject such a

submission remains with the jurisdictional Flight Standards District Office (FSDO).

Despite our denial of ERAU’s exemption request, t he FAA recognizes the conce rns of4

ERAU, other petitioners, and those that provided comments during the rulemaking process. The FAA is engaged rulemaking titled ” Aviation Training Devices; Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; Other Provisions (RRR) ” 80 FR 34338 (June 16, 2015)

. This rulemaking project is intended, in part, to “ relieve burdens on pilots seeking to obtain aeronautical experience for certification and recency by promoting increased use of aviation training devices which have proven an effective, safe, and

af

fordable means of obtaining pilot experience. ”

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. §§ 106(f), 40113

and 4 4701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Embry

- Riddle Aeronautical University for an exemption from 14 CFR part 141 Appendix C paragraph (4)(b)(5) to use the Paradigm Shift Solutions Model 172 Lite Advanced Aviation Training Device (AATD ) to credit up to 40 percent of total training time requirements of an FAA approved instrument rating course, is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D

. C

. , on July 20, 2015.

/s/

John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service