Exemption No. 10967

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

UWE GOEHL Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 12

- 12 12 for an exemption from § 61. 109 (j)(4) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By email letter received November 15, 2012

, Mr. Uwe Goehl

, PO Box 50839 Hidd, Kingdom of Bahrain

, e

- mail: uwecavok@yahoo.com

, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from the solo flight time requirements in Weight

- Shift

- Control Aircraft, as specified in 14 CFR § 61.109 (j)(4), for the issuance of a Private Pilot Weight

Shift

- Control aircraft rating privileges

. The proposed exemption would allow Mr. Goehl to substitute solo requirements for private pilot weight

- shift

- control aircraft certificate with time acquired with an authorized instructor on board.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation :
Section 61. 109 (j)(4) prescribes ten hours of solo flight time in weight

- shift

- control aircraft, consisting of at least :

(i) Five hours of solo cross

- countr y time; and

(ii) One solo cross

- country flight over 100 nautical miles total distance, with landings at a minimum of three points, and one segment of the flight being a straight line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between takeoff and landing locations

.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: The petitioner states that he has been unable to locate a US

- based flight school that is willing or able to rent to him a weight

- shift

- control aircraft to accomplish the solo flight requ irements primarily because of insurance requirements.2

He states that since he is not a US citizen and not a US resident he is ineligible to own any US

- registered aircraft. US citizens typically purchase weight

- shift

- control aircraft to m e et the solo requi rement s

. The petitioner states that if a c ommercial weight

- shift

- control aircraft certificate existed, the rules for flight experience for this type of certificate

, such as airplane single engine land, multi

- engine, helicopter, gyroplane, powered lift, or glider ratings would allow solo experience or time performing the duties of pilot in command to qualify.

The petitioner proposes the following substitution for the solo requirements:

1) Ten hours of solo flight time in a weight

- shift

- control aircraft regis tered in a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, with the flights having been conducted outside the United States

, and

2) Five hours of cross

- country time and one cross

- country flight over 100 nautical miles total dist ance with landings at a minimum of three points, and one segment of the flight being a straight line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between takeoff and landing locations

, to be completed on a weight

- shift

- control aircraft performing the duties of p ilot in command in a weight

- shift

- control aircraft with an authorized instructor on board; or

3) Five hours of cross

- country time and one cross

- country flight over 100 nautical miles total distance with landings at a minimum of three points, and one segment of the flight being a straight line distance of at least 50 nautical miles between takeoff and landing locations to be completed on a weight

- shift

- control aircraft registered in a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation

, with the flights having been conducted outside the United States.

The petitioner s t ates that grant ing this request would be in the public interest because he would travel to and spend vacation time in the United States to meet the remaining

a eronautica l e xperience requirements to apply for Private Pilot Weight

- Shift

- Control privileges.

Furthermore, he would plan to train for the Weight

- Shift

- Control Sea privileges after having earned Private Pilot grade privileges on this category. The public benefact ors would include but not be limited to the flight schools, flight instructors, hotels, car rental agencies, airlines, and restaurants that would benefit from the economic stimulus (i.e., the petitioner’s activities for the duration of his travel to and st ay in the United States )

. He also states that it would foster the health of the aviation industry by preventing unnecessary barriers to the process of learning or continuing to fly.3
Additionally

, he states that p roviding this exemption will not adversely affect safety because of the significant amount of a eronautical e xperience he has in a irplanes, g liders

, and w eight

s hift

- c ontrol aircraft, including hundreds of hours of solo flying and flying in cross

- country operations.

Furthermore, in proposing to co mply with the cross

- country flight experience requirement by performing the duties of pilot in command in a w eight

- s hift

- c ontrol a ircraft with an authorized instructor on board, he would be complying with a regulatory standard that is at the Commercial Pil ot level for other aircraft categories.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on January 1 4 , 2013

, ( 7 8 FR 3 068 ). The FAA received five comments all were in favor of the petition. Th e commenters cited the benefits of the reques ted relief, including improvements in the sport aircraft market, completed weight

- shift

- control certifications, and more activity for FAA designated pilot examiners. Three of the commenters cited the lack of insurance for weight

shift

- control operations f or solo flight training.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s supporting information and the comments submitted to the docket and determined that the circumstances presented by the petitioner do not justify a gr ant of exemption. The FAA finds that the petitioner has not shown that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest or that a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulation would be maintained.

The petitioner seeks to have an instr uctor on board observing his performance of pilot in command duties as an alternative to meeting the solo flight time requirements in a weight

shift

- control aircraft. The FAA adopted the solo requirements so that the applicant would be required to gain ae ronautical flight experience and develop piloting skills in that aircraft. The FAA finds that allowing an applicant to have an instructor on board in place of solo flight time would not allow an applicant to develop an equivalent level of piloting skills. The FAA has determined that because the applicant is seeking a private pilot weight

- shift

- control aircraft certificate, the required training should address the solo flight time requirements. The experience and practical test requirements ensure the com petency of the applicant for pilot certification. It also demonstrates the applicant’s ability to control the aircraft and conduct safe traffic patterns without assistance on board.

The petitioner and commenters c ite benefits that would be gained from an exemption, to include improvements in the sport aircraft market, completed weight

- shift

- control certifications, and more activity for FAA designated pilot examiners. However, the established solo requirements designed to ensure the pilot develops PIC resp onsibilities for the certificate or privilege , far outweigh the nominal benefit to the economy.

Finally, the petitioner sites his experience as an Airline Transport Pilot with numerous ratings and privileges and over 9,000 hours of flight time. The exp erience gained in these areas is not4
comparable to the solo flight time requirements in a weight

- shift control aircraft. The FAA has determined that the petitioner’s experiences gained in other aircraft would not provide for a level of safety commensurate with the requirements of § 61.109 for solo requirements of a private pilot weight

- shift

- control certificate.

The FAA’s Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, I find that the relief proposed by Uwe Goehl would not an equivalent level of safety or be in the public interest. The relief requested would be inappropriately addressed using the exemption process . Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Uwe Goehl fo r an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 61.109 (j)(4) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 28, 2014.

//s// John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service