800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Jan 24 2011

Mr. David M. Shinn

6264 East Saddleback Street Mesa, AZ 85215

Dear Mr. Shinn:

In your November 1, 2007 letter, you peti tioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to amend Part 135.299 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR).

You have made some good points. However, when the FAA responds to petitions for rulemaking, it must follow the requirements of 14 CFR Part 11, particularly those guidelines for processing petitions for rule making found in § 11.73. As stated in that section, the FAA uses the following criteria wh en making a decision as to whether or not to amend current regulations based on a petition for rulemaking:

1) the immediacy of the safety or secu rity concerns the petition raises; 2) the priority of ot her FAA issues; and 3) the resources we have available to address these issues.

Therefore, the FAA took its time to revi ew your petition requesting our agency to examine rule making associated with 14 CFR part 135.299 Pilot in command: Line checks: Routes and Airports. After careful consideration, we do not believe permitting the requirements of 14 CFR Part 135.299 to be accomplished in a flight simulator are in the public interest.

The purpose of 135.299 line checks is much broade r than that proposed in your Petition. The intent of the rule is to expose crewme mbers to the actual flying environment that will, including encounters with and the compensation for actual meteorological conditions, including the correlation between forecast, both reported and encountered, and actual crew resource management and decision making based on meteorological conditions, air traffic control phraseology, procedures, and terminology; and airport signage and lighting. By observi ng factors in a real environm ent, pilots also hear, and derive situational awareness from, other pilot reports and res ponses, including those delivered by short, slang, and incorrect phr aseology that nonethele ss have a bearing on

situational awareness.2

Additionally, the visual capabil ity of many of our simulators is limited. These limitations both in visual acuity and by number of ava ilable airport models will not permit the simulator to substitute for the airport qualif ication requirements of the rule. The route qualification requirements of the rule woul d also jeopardized due to many of our simulator limitations as they relate to terrain, minimum reception altitudes, and

associated route hazards.

The requirements of part 135.299 may be conduct ed during revenue service and in that context does not generate additional flight or manpower requirements therefore the economic savings realized by the suggested Petition is minimal. If the cost of the additional simulator time, visual airpor t modeling requirements, and programming changes required to accurately simulating te rrain and obstacles the actual cost of the proposed rule change may increase the actual co st of compliance with the current rule.

For the reasons above, we are unable to c onsider and thereby deny your petition for rulemaking in accordance with 14 CFR § 11.73.

Accordingly, Docket No. FAA-2010-0472 is being closed.

Sincerely,

/s/

John W McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service