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 exem ption 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, 201 5 , Mr. Willliam Scott Robertson, 527 Red Hill Road, Edgefield,

SC 29824 , petitioned the Federal Aviation A dministration (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 single

engine 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 re gulation s :

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 c ompletion 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 t est 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 classroo m instruction that includes at least 8 hours o n aerodynamics, at least 2 hours o n meteorology, at least 14 hours o n air carrier operations, and at least 6 hours o n leadership, professional development, crew resource management, and safety culture. The trai ning 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 hi gher 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 in clude the areas of low energy states/stalls, upset recovery techniques, and ad verse 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 cl ass rating or airplane type rating to an ATP certificate with an airplane
category single engine class rating must meet the eli gi bility 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 afte r 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 spe cific 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 i n 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 tes ting 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 ha s an ATP certificate with a single

- engine class rating and over 3,350 hours of flight time. He3

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 f rom Embry

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

to this c lassroom instruction, Mr. Roberts on states that he completed an additional 24

hours of classroom instruction at CAE. Mr. Rober t son lists th e 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 CA E courses

.

M r. Rober t son 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

fro m 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 awa y 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 requir ed 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 mu ltiengine 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 certificat es, 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 comment s; all in support of the petition.

Five individuals stated that they know Mr. Robertson on a professional level, and attest ed to
Mr. Robert son’s qualifications, knowledge, character, reputation, and piloting skill. Two

additional commenters reviewed Mr. Robe r tson’ s petition and found him well

- qualified.

Six individuals not ed that Mr. Robertson already holds an ATP Single Engine Land (SEL)

c ertificate. Two of these in di viduals stated that Mr. Robertson should be able to add the

mult i

- engine class rating to his ATP certificate by successfully completing the pra ct ical 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. Robert s on’s situation as a pplying for new ATP certificate.

A few indiv iduals commented on Mr. Robertson’s education and exper ience . Two ind i viduals stated that Mr. Robertson has already m et the requirements for a multi engine ATP certificate.

One ind i vidual asserted that the regulations do not adequately account for Mr. Robertson’s training and experience. Another individual stat ed 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 comme nter 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 ident ical 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 experienc e.”

Lastly, t wo indiv i duals 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 fligh tcrew 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 certi ficate’’ 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 implemente d § 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 des ign 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 co ursework 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 experienc e. 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 separat e 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 require ment 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

- to

weight ratios. While § 61.156(c) allows a part 121, 135, 141, or 142 certifi cate holder to6

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; thi s 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, witho ut 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, an d 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