Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. Hogan Lovells refers to the in ternational legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses with o ffices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Boulder Brussels Caracas Chicago Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankf urt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Phila delphia Prague Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Warsaw Washin gton DC Associated offices: Budapest Jeddah Riyadh Zagre b 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, In c. for an Extension of FAA Exemption No. 7353D, Regulatory Do cket No. FAA-2002-12009

Dear Sir or Madam:

Chautauqua Airlines, Inc. (“Chautauqua”) her eby 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. § 121.4 34(c)(1)(ii), thereby allowing Chautauqua to substitu te a qualified and authorized c heck airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pi lot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties duri ng at least one flight leg t hat includes a takeoff and a landing when completing init ial 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 her eby incorporates by reference all relevant information previously submitted in the instant docket and in FAA Regulatory Docket No. 29182. Chautauqua submit s 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 wit hout delay, and without publishing a summary in the Federal Regi ster 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 t he September 30, 2010 expiration date. In

the event that the FAA does not act on th is petition prior to that date, Chautauqua hereby invokes and relies upon the automatic ext ension 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 exemptio n pending the FAA’s final determi nation on this petition.

Chautauqua submits the following informa tion 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 vi sual 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. C hautauqua believes the advanced simulation experience of the airline industry comb ined with that of t he 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 substi tute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to satisfy t he observation requirem ents. Chautauqua submits that (a) the fact s presented by Chautauqua do no t differ materially from those presented previously by Chautauqua, or from those presented by other similarly situated petitioners; (b) the r easons stated by the FAA for previously granting the exemption to Chautauqua and to similarly sit uated 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 Chaut auqua; and (c) extensio n of the exemption to Chautauqua is in the public interest.

Chautauqua expects that it may need to ce rtify new PICs each year. Chautauqua states that granting this exemption would allow --

1. The FAA greater flexibility and better us e of its inspection force by focusing on higher priority safety functions;

2. Chautauqua to use a qualified pilo t immediately after completing OE;

3. Chautauqua to significantly increase t he use of qualified pilo ts and improve its ability to provide on-time, dependable air service to the public; and

4. Chautauqua to reduce the unnecessary co st 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 le vel of scrutiny and objectivity would be provided for the qualifying PIC, t hus 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 aircre w 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 fi rst right of refusal to the FAA in each case. Chautauqua, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA

office in each instance before substi tuting 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 candi date is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other fli ght phases, landing, taxi, and securing

checklist.U.S. Department of Transportation May 18, 2010 Page 4

2. Each Chautauqua check airman or ai rcrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector must—

a. Be approved by the Administ rator 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 studen t, 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 equiva lent level of safety and would be in the public interest. Chautauqua will continue to comply with the c onditions and limitations to the exemption, thereby ensuring an equivalent level of safety for the cont inuation 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 y ears, 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, I ndianapolis FSDO Alex OslegerATTACHMENT

FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

As stated in the foregoing petition, C hautauqua Airlines respectfully requests a waiver of the publication and comment requirements under 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. Nevertheless, in accordance wit h § 11.81(f), a summary of th is Petition for an Extension of Exemption 7353D, for publication in t he 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 substi tute 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 pre scribed 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.