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 

 

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 18, 2010 

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. 7353D, 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 13, 2008, 

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. 7353D terminates on September 30, 2010. Chautauqua 

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

through September 30, 2012. 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. 
U.S. Department of Transportation 

May 18, 2010 

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. 7353D prior to the September 30, 2010 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 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). 
U.S. Department of Transportation 

May 18, 2010 

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 

7353D, 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. 
U.S. Department of Transportation 

May 18, 2010 

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, 2010 expiration date, the FAA extend Exemption No. 7353D, 

for a minimum period of two years, through September 30, 2012. 

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
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. 7353D 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.