AFS-13-402-E

Exemption No. 10351A

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

SHUTTLE AMERICA

CORPORATION

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0896

for exemption from § 121.434(c) of

Title 14 of the Code of Federal

Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated June 3, 2013, Mr. Patrick Rizzi and Ms. Sheryl Israel of Hogan Lovells US 

LLP, 555 13th Street NW, Washington, DC 20004, counsel for Shuttle America Corporation 

(Shuttle), petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Shuttle for an 

extension of FAA Exemption No. 10351. If granted, the extension would allow Shuttle to 

continue to receive credit for operating experience and required FAA observations conducted 

under the provisions of another air carrier’s approved qualification program.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 121.434(c) prescribes, in pertinent part, that each pilot of a Group II (i.e., turbojet 

powered) airplane must complete 25 hours of operating experience during which he or she 

performs the duties of the crewmember position to which assigned by the operating carrier

under the supervision of a qualified check pilot. This operating experience must include at 

least four operating cycles, with the qualifying pilot serving as pilot flying for at least two 

cycles.

Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) further prescribes, in pertinent part, that, if a qualifying pilot in 

command is completing initial or upgrade training, he or she must be observed by an FAA 

inspector while performing duties prescribed by the operating carrier during at least one flight 

leg which includes a takeoff and landing.
2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Shuttle requests an extension of Exemption No. 10351 allowing it and its pilots to receive 

credit for operating experience acquired or accomplished on EMB-170 aircraft as pilots under 

another air carrier certificate, and additionally, for pilots in command, that they should receive 

credit for the FAA observation requirements set forth in § 121.434(c)(1)(ii).

Shuttle cites as precedent for its request Exemption No. 7539 (last issued to Atlantic Coast 

Airlines on June 29, 2001, which expired on May 31, 2003); Exemption No. 8586 (issued to 

Shuttle America Corporation on July 15, 2005, which expired on July 31, 2007); and 

Exemption No. 8687 (issued to Republic Airline, Inc. on February 8, 2006, which expired on 

February 28, 2008). Shuttle asserts that the circumstances of these petitioners were “very 

similar” to Shuttle’s, and the relief granted in these exemptions was “virtually identical” to 

that which Shuttle now requests.

Shuttle further states that an extension should be granted because requiring Shuttle to comply 

with the requirements of § 121.434(c) “imposes a significant burden on Shuttle, on the FAA, 

and on the traveling public.” The significant burden on the air carrier is presumably created 

by the need to qualify, maintain and schedule adequate numbers of check pilots. Shuttle also 

claims that “FAA has limited resources...and Shuttle believes that it would be difficult and 

time-consuming for FAA to be able to schedule and conduct observation flights quickly.”

Shuttle further states that pilots qualified under another carrier’s qualification program that 

are now transferred to Shuttle’s operation will have had experience using “virtually” the same 

procedures as are in place at Shuttle and would operate within a “similar” route structure and 

operating environment.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

Shuttle proposes that it should be permitted to take credit for operating experience and FAA 

line observations of pilots in command when those activities took place under the training and 

qualification program approved for Republic Airlines, which it refers to as a “sister carrier.” 

The relationship between Shuttle and this “sister carrier” is not specified in the petition, as 

Shuttle does not define the term “sister carrier,” nor describe specifically the differences 

between the carriers’ aircraft, operating procedures or route structures (though it does 

acknowledge that differences exist through use of such phrases as “virtually the same”

procedures.) However, the petitioner requests continued relief from § 121.434 requirements in 

order to allow it to use pilots qualified by one air carrier under another air carrier certificate 

without conducting either the operating experience or the FAA observations of pilots in 

command.

Shuttle does not specify the burdens it, the FAA or the traveling public would endure as a 

result of it having to comply with the aforementioned requirements. In any case, Shuttle holds 

current exemption authority from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) (Exemption No. 8819C) that “allows 

Shuttle to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for 
3

an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or 

upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff 

and a landing.”

The FAA understands the petitioner would prefer not to repeat operating experience and FAA 

observations conducted by another air carrier. However, as the FAA has recently made clear 

in Notice 8900.197 (copy attached), “Regulations do not permit a certificate holder to take 

credit for training and evaluations conducted in accordance with another certificate holder’s 

approved training program.” It also points out “the practice of one air carrier simply accepting 

the crewmember training provided by another air carrier as meeting its specific crewmember 

training requirements discounts potential risks and is contrary to the intent as well as the 

technical provisions of air carrier operating rules.” While the petitioner has asserted that the

differences are minimal, part 121 nevertheless requires each individual air carrier to have an 

approved training program tailored specifically for its operation and the make, model and 

variant of aircraft flown. Training required by air carriers is purposefully different, and the 

FAA believes that the requirements of 25 hours of operating experience plus an FAA 

observation for pilots in command are prudent and effective ways to ensure that pilots are 

fully prepared to carry out their assigned responsibilities.

Shuttle cites Exemption Nos. 7539, 8586 and 8687 as precedent for the requested extension. 

The FAA notes all of these exemptions have expired and neither of the exemptions have been 

renewed. Moreover, the FAA finds that the conditions in Exemption No. 7539 differed 

materially from those now presented by Shuttle. It involved the permanent transfer of assets 

from a certificate that was intended for termination to one in which flight operations would be 

continued. Once that transfer was complete, the transferring carrier’s certificate was 

terminated.

Exemption Nos. 8586, 8687, and 10351 were all issued either to Shuttle or Republic Airlines. 

The purpose of each exemption was to meet limited or short term requirements of the 

carriers.. In addition, these exemptions were not intended to provide the carriers the ability to 

shift pilots back and forth at will. While Exemption No. 10351 was issued for good and 

sufficient reason to meet Shuttle’s short term need, that relief was never intended to be 

operative indefinitely. 

One option for an air carrier that requests credit for training or evaluation performed by a 

different carrier is for the requesting carrier to develop a specialized training program that 

meets regulatory requirements. The operating rules in part 121 provide for the development 

by an air carrier of multiple versions of a particular qualification program. For example, a 

carrier may request approval of one pilot in command qualification curriculum for individuals 

who have never flown a particular aircraft and another for individuals who have been 

qualified within the past 12 months as pilot in command or second in command of the same 

make, model and variant aircraft for a different air carrier. 

“Reduced footprint” training programs should outline specific and detailed entry prerequisites 

that are acceptable to the principal operations inspector. They can be submitted as part of a 
4

transition plan or as part of a regular training program pursuant to the provisions of 

§§ 121.405(d), 121.406, 121.409, and/or 121.415(a)(1) to allow the carrier to meet specific 

crewmember training and checking requirements.

However, reductions in operating experience required by § 121.434(a) and waiver of the 

observation of pilots in command required by § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) are specifically not 

permitted except as authorized in § 121.434(f). The FAA believes the construction of 

§ 121.434 demonstrates the importance of operating experience and observations of pilot in 

command performance. Finally, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has 

recognized the performance of carrier specific operating experience to be critical in a number 

of aviation safety recommendations, including recommendations A-88-138; A-94-004; A-94-

107; A-94-197; A-95-116; A-95-117; A-95-118; and A-10-057.

In this petition, the petitioner has failed to show how its proposal would provide an level of 

safety at least equal to that provided by the rule or is in the public interest.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that an extension of the relief granted in Exemption 

No. 10351 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 Shuttle America Corporation for extension of Exemption No. 10351 is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on September 27, 2013.

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service