AFS-15-2225-E

Exemption No. 17216

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of 

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM SCOTT Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-2192

for an exemption from §§ 61.153(e) and 

61.165(f)(1) and (2) of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated May 26, 2015, Mr. Willliam Scott Robertson, 527 Red Hill Road, Edgefield, 

SC 29824, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from 

§§ 61.153(e) and 61.165(f)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Mr. Robertson to apply for a multiengine add-on 

rating to his airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate in the airplane category with a singleengine class rating without completing the training requirements of § 61.156 and without 

completing the multiengine airplane ATP knowledge test.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 61.153(e) states, in pertinent part, that after July 31, 2014, a pilot seeking an 

ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating must receive a 

graduation certificate from an authorized training provider certifying completion of the 

airline transport pilot certification training program specified in § 61.156 before 

applying for the knowledge test required by paragraph (g).

Section 61.153(g) states to be eligible for an ATP certificate a person must pass a 

knowledge test on the aeronautical knowledge areas of § 61.155(c) of this part that 

apply to the aircraft category and class rating sought.
2

Section 61.156 states, in pertinent part, that the applicant for the knowledge test must 

receive at least 30 hours of classroom instruction that includes at least 8 hours on 

aerodynamics, at least 2 hours on meteorology, at least 14 hours on air carrier 

operations, and at least 6 hours on leadership, professional development, crew resource 

management, and safety culture. The training must also include at least 10 hours of 

training in a flight simulation training device (FSTD) qualified under 14 CFR part 60 

that represents a multiengine turbine airplane. The FSTD training must include at least 

6 hours of training in a Level C or higher full flight simulator qualified under part 60 

that represents a multiengine turbine airplane with a maximum takeoff weight of 

40,000 pounds or greater. This training must include the areas of low energy 

states/stalls, upset recovery techniques, and adverse weather conditions. The remaining 

FSTD training may be completed in a Level 4 or higher FSTD and must include 

training in navigation and automation.

Section 61.165(f)(1) and (2) states, in pertinent part, that a pilot seeking to add a 

multiengine class rating or airplane type rating to an ATP certificate with an airplane 

category single engine class rating must meet the eligibility requirements of § 61.153 

and, after July 31, 2014, pass a required knowledge test on the aeronautical knowledge 

areas of § 61.155(c), as applicable to multiengine airplanes.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Mr. Robertson states only holders of ATP certificates are required to retake a 

knowledge test and attend a specified course in order to add a multiengine rating to a 

certificate already held and this requirement of retesting only applies to ATP certificate 

holders who held an ATP certificate with a single engine rating prior to 2014 and 

attempted to add a multiengine rating on and after August 1, 2014. The petitioner 

asserts that the public policy which underlies these very substantial rule changes, was 

policy aimed at insuring that pilots eligible to transport passengers via multiengine 

aircraft, are insured to have substantial and specific aeronautical knowledge of those 

areas specified in § 61.156(a), substantial and specific training in those areas, and by 

the manner specified in § 61.156(b), and substantial “real world” or time in cockpit 

experience, as the threshold of flight hours required to qualify for such a rating for ATP 

certificate holders was raised from 500 hours to 1,500 hours. 

The petitioner outlines his education and experience as follows: a bachelor’s degree 

obtained in 2006 from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Aviation Business 

Administration with a Flight Operations concentration; 2 years of experience as a pilot 

in part 135 operations flying a King Air F90 and King Air 200; part 142 training at 

CAE associated with the part 135 position; and “training and testing by FAA personnel 

on air carrier operations, operational control, ground operations, and other of the topics 

and academic areas specified in [§ 61.156].” Mr. Robertson also supplies 

documentation of several part 135 checks. The petitioner states he has an ATP 

certificate with a single-engine class rating and over 3,350 hours of flight time. He 
3

states that he passed his single-engine ATP check ride in August 2010, which was less 

than twenty-four months following completion of his ATP knowledge exam. He asserts 

that his ATP knowledge exam included testing as to knowledge related to multi-engine 

airplanes and their operation.

Mr. Robertson believes his educational background has satisfied any public policy 

considerations which support the regulation from which he seeks an exemption. The 

basis of Mr. Robertson’s argument for a grant of exemption from § 61.153(e) is he 

received equivalent instruction with coursework completed at Embry-Riddle and the 

classroom work at CAE. He states that his classroom time from Embry-Riddle is 

nearly ten times the 30 hours of academic training required by § 61.156(a). In addition 

to this classroom instruction, Mr. Robertson states that he completed an additional 24 

hours of classroom instruction at CAE. Mr. Robertson lists the courses he believes can 

be substituted for the 30 hours of academic training required by § 61.156(a). He also 

provided a transcript, copy of degree, course descriptions from the university catalog, 

and Certificates of Completion from his CAE courses.

Mr. Robertson states he has met the requirements of § 61.156, “with the exception of 

the 6 hours of simulator training in an aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of 

40,000 lbs. or greater...” Mr. Robertson notes that paragraph (c) allows for a deviation 

from the 40,000 lb. weight requirement and that his 16 hours of Level C simulator 

training at CAE Simuflite, exceeds what is required.

The petitioner also states duplicating classroom work would be an extreme hardship. It 

would require him to take a week away from work without pay and would require him 

to incur in excess of six thousand dollars in tuition and related expenses, including 

room and board. 

Mr. Robertson asserts if he is not granted an exemption from § 61.165(f)(2) he would 

essentially be required to retake a knowledge test that he has previously successfully 

completed. He states that prior to the rule change, regulations would have allowed him, 

at any time thereafter, to add a multiengine rating to his ATP certificate, solely by 

completing a multiengine practical exam. He says the applicable regulations were 

changed effective August 1, 2014, incorporating changes which served to effectively 

invalidate the previous ATP knowledge test that he successfully completed, at least as it 

applied to his efforts to add a multiengine class rating to his existing ATP certificate. 

Mr. Robertson asserts it is unprecedented and very unusual that the FAA would create a 

regulation such as this to retroactively invalidate previously satisfied testing 

requirements for any level of pilot certificate. Mr. Robertson proposes that the 

regulations set out in § 61.165(f)(2) be clarified to allow those, who prior to August 1, 

2014 successfully completed the previous knowledge test requirements applicable to 

ATP certificates, to complete the ATP multi-engine add-on rating within 24 months of 

the rule change without having to retake the knowledge test.
4

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2015, 

(80 FR 42601). The FAA received 14 individual comments; all in support of the petition. 

Five individuals stated that they know Mr. Robertson on a professional level, and attested to 

Mr. Robertson’s qualifications, knowledge, character, reputation, and piloting skill. Two 

additional commenters reviewed Mr. Robertson’s petition and found him well-qualified.

Six individuals noted that Mr. Robertson already holds an ATP Single Engine Land (SEL) 

certificate. Two of these individuals stated that Mr. Robertson should be able to add the 

multi-engine class rating to his ATP certificate by successfully completing the practical test. 

One individual asserted that Mr. Robertson should be required only to take the multi-engine 

portion of the ATP knowledge test and the practical exam. Another commenter urged the 

FAA not to treat Mr. Robertson’s situation as applying for new ATP certificate. 

A few individuals commented on Mr. Robertson’s education and experience. Two individuals 

stated that Mr. Robertson has already met the requirements for a multiengine ATP certificate. 

One individual asserted that the regulations do not adequately account for Mr. Robertson’s 

training and experience. Another individual stated that requiring Mr. Robertson to comply 

with the recently changed regulations would be equivalent to requiring Mr. Robertson to 

duplicate educational training that he has already received as part of his undergraduate 

education at Embry-Riddle. This commenter further stated Mr. Robertson should not be 

required to spend time and resources duplicating such training. Another individual noted that 

pilots in Mr. Robertson’s situation should be grandfathered for their good faith completion of 

substantially identical education and experience requirements. Another commenter, 

referencing the Colgan Air Flight 3407 crash from February 12, 2009, stated that the “problem 

is with the training that was being applied to these pilots and not to their knowledge or 

experience.”

Lastly, two individuals commented on the mistreatment of Mr. Robertson by the interpretation 

of the current regulation. 

The FAA finds that the relief requested is not in the public interest and would adversely affect 

safety. 

On July 15, 2013, the FAA issued the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for 

Air Carrier Operations Final Rule (78 FR 42324) to ensure that a pilot has the proper 

qualifications, training, and experience before entering an air carrier environment as a pilot 

flightcrew member. The final rule also codified requirements of Public Law (P.L.) 111-216, 

Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010. The FAA notes 

that this final rule did not increase the aeronautical experience requirements (total time as a 

pilot) of § 61.159(a) for an ATP certificate with airplane category rating as stated by Mr. 

Robertson. 
5

In Section 217 of P.L. 111-216, Congress directed the FAA ‘‘to modify requirements for the 

issuance of an airline transport pilot certificate’’ to ensure pilots can function effectively in an 

air carrier/multipilot environment, in adverse weather conditions, during high altitude and 

icing operations while adhering to the highest professional standards. To address this, the 

FAA implemented § 61.156 which requires academic and flight simulation training device 

(FSTD) training for the ATP certificate in the airplane category with a multiengine class rating 

and the ATP certificate when obtained concurrently with an airplane type rating. This training 

is known as the ATP certification training program (CTP) and is required at the ATP 

certification level to address the gap in knowledge between a commercial pilot certificate and 

the knowledge a pilot should have prior to entering an air carrier environment. 

In the preamble to the final rule, the FAA responded to commenters who suggested that the 

university coursework in aviation degree programs may already satisfy the academic training 

requirements of the ATP CTP, which is also a significant portion of Mr. Robertson’s basis for 

a grant of exemption. In response to the commenters, the FAA stated it did not agree. The 

FAA acknowledged the value of structured university aviation degree programs in other parts 

of the final rule; however, the design of the ATP CTP ensures the knowledge gained in the 

academic portion of the course is directly applicable to air carrier operations and operating 

sophisticated, high performance, large, turbine aircraft. The FAA is still not persuaded that 

university coursework can be substituted for the academic portion of the ATP CTP. Further, 

the training in the FSTD portion of the course consolidates the academic concepts with 

scenario-based training, practical applications, demonstrations, and multiengine experience. 

The FAA stated in the final rule preamble that the academic training requirements cannot be 

separated from the FSTD training. Mr. Robertson’s petition is seeking an exemption from the 

ATP CTP on the basis of completing university coursework and separate multiengine 

turboprop training at a part 142 training center. The FAA continues to maintain the position 

that the academic and FSTD training cannot be separated.

The ATP CTP is designed to teach high-level concepts that are applicable to operating all 

large transport aircraft. It increases knowledge through academic introduction to concepts that 

are generally true across all large aircraft types and then consolidate those same concepts 

through demonstration and experience in FSTDs. Many of the training elements in the full 

flight simulator (FFS) are not necessarily covered in type-specific training and typically are 

not part of a part 135 proficiency check. In addition, the FAA determined a FFS representing 

an aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of at least 40,000 pounds is necessary to meet the 

objectives of the ATP CTP. The weight of the aircraft the simulator represents is an important 

factor in ensuring handling characteristics of a typical transport aircraft. The 40,000 lb. 

minimum weight requirement ensures the FFS can replicate the lower performance margins 

and handling qualities inherent in transport category aircraft when being operated near their 

maximum operating weight at altitudes near their service ceiling. Critical concepts such as 

high speed slowdowns and approach to stall recoveries, which can take thousands of feet to 

recover at high altitudes, cannot be achieved in lighter aircraft types with higher thrust-toweight ratios. While § 61.156(c) allows a part 121, 135, 141, or 142 certificate holder to 
6

obtain deviation authority for their FAA-approved training program to use an FSTD weighing 

less than 40,000 pounds, the deviation authority cannot be granted to individual pilots and to 

date, no deviations have been granted. Additionally, § 61.156(c) states the deviation authority 

can be granted “upon a determination that the objectives of the training can be met in an 

alternative device.” Mr. Robertson’s training in the King Air F-90 and 200, turboprop 

airplanes weighing significantly less than 40,000 pounds, would not meet the learning 

objectives of the ATP CTP as described above. 

In August 2014, the FAA introduced a new knowledge test for applicants seeking an ATP 

certificate in the airplane category with a multiengine class rating; this test is now separate 

from the test for applicants seeking an ATP certificate in the airplane category with a 

single-engine class rating. The new multiengine airplane ATP knowledge test validates the 

academic knowledge gained in the ATP CTP in addition to the other academic knowledge 

areas identified in § 61.155. Therefore, Mr. Robertson would not be taking the same 

knowledge test as he contends. 

In his petition, Mr. Robertson discussed the previous requirements. The FAA did consider the 

circumstances for how this might affect pilots such as Mr. Robertson and with the final rule 

delayed the compliance date for the new training requirements and the new ATP knowledge 

test by slightly more than a year to August 1, 2014. In addition, it also allowed pilots who had 

previously passed the old ATP knowledge test to retake it up to July 31, 2014, which would 

reset the 24 calendar month validity period for the results and could have allowed a pilot to 

use those ATP knowledge test results up to July 31, 2016, without completing the ATP CTP. 

As of August 1, 2016, however, the FAA no longer accepts the previous ATP knowledge test 

results for the addition of a multiengine class rating since they have all expired. Exempting 

pilots from training requirements implemented to improve safety is not in the public interest.

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 

44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of William Scott Robertson for an 

exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.153(e) and 61.165(f)(1) and (2) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 21, 2017. 

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service