AFS-13-242-E

September 30, 2014

 Exemption No. 9770C

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-0383

Mr. Andrew D. Lotter

Ameriflight, LLC

4700 Empire Avenue, Hangar 1

Burbank, CA 91505

Dear Mr. Lotter:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition to amend Exemption No. 9770. 

It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and 

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 7, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Ameriflight, LLC (Ameriflight) for an amendment of Exemption No. 9770.

That exemption from § 61.51(f)(2) of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows

Ameriflight to assign a second-in-command (SIC) during a flight that otherwise does not 

require a SIC and to also allow the SIC to log that flight time. In your petition for 

amendment, you request that the FAA remove Conditions and Limitations Nos. 1 and 3 from 

Exemption No. 9770B, issued on October 31, 2012. Those conditions and limitations read as 

follows: 

1. Any flight time logged as SIC flight time under this exemption may not be used to 

otherwise gain an additional rating or certificate as prescribed in part 61, to include an 

airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate. 

3. SIC flight time gained under this exemption may only be used for the purposes of 

upgrading from an SIC to PIC in part 135 operations.

In your petition, you state that the relief granted is not viable under the conditions and 

limitations of Exemption No. 9770B. In support of this position, you indicate that the FAA, 

in its conditions and limitations, prohibits logging of the flight time acquired by people acting 

as second-in-command for purposes other than upgrading from SIC to pilot-in-command 
2

(PIC). One such prohibited purpose is to gain additional FAA ratings or certificates under 

part 61. In your petition, you also cite factors contributing to an equivalent level of safety 

and the public interest. You include in your petition a proposed revised list of conditions and 

limitations, and you list factors related to a shortage of qualified pilots. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2013 

(78 FR 39824). The FAA received 26 comments before the comment period closed on

July 22, 2013 from air carriers, aviation associations, and individuals.

Of the total comments received during the comment period, 17 commenters supported 

granting the exemption. Commenters supporting the petition explained that allowing SICs to 

log time under this exemption is a better way for new pilots to build hours versus the 

traditional methods such as flight instruction, banner towing, pipeline patrol, etc. They assert 

granting the petition would also provide a method to combat a worsening shortage of 

experienced pilots for Part 121 and 135 operations as well as address the new requirements of 

Public Law 111-216. Most commenters cited the advantages of building flight time in a 

professional airline environment, and cited the safety advantage of having two pilots in the 

cockpit rather than one. A few commenters explained that without an avenue for timebuilding, such as this exemption, the increased hour requirements recently promulgated by 

the FAA for Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) applicants are going to provide difficulties for 

low-time pilots to meet the ATP requirements. The Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association 

added that the restrictions of the existing exemption and the negative branding of the SIC 

flight time under the current regulations create an impression that the experience gained is 

substandard. 

A few commenters explained that granting this petition would set the stage for other 

operators to petition for similar exemptions. The commenters also noted that, in time, minor 

changes to the current rules should be made to eliminate the need for such an exemption. 

Several commenters stated that they struggle with the interpretation of when SICs can log 

flight time and advised that a clear interpretation is needed. 

Five individuals submitted comments urging the FAA to deny the petition. Nearly all said 

the implied purpose was to increase revenue for the petitioner. Some said the SICs are 

generally foreign pilots who come to the United States to fly as SIC to build flight time.

Several argued that the relief would circumvent the new ATP qualification requirements and 

may result in the exploitation of SIC pilots. Lastly, four commenters did not indicate whether 

or not they were in favor of the relief.

Our Decision

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s exemption request, as well as the information 

provided by commenters, and has determined that the circumstances presented by the 

petitioner do not justify a grant of exemption. The FAA finds that the petitioner has not 

shown that a grant of exemption would be in the public interest.
3

The FAA granted the original relief requested by Ameriflight in Exemption No. 9770 (issued 

October 3, 2008 and enclosed). In that grant of exemption, the FAA stated that the agency 

had consistently denied petitions allowing airmen to log SIC time when a SIC wasn’t 

required by the regulations. The FAA also stated that, within the strict confines of the 

part 135 operation described in Ameriflight’s original petition, the experience gained in those 

operations would be valuable. We also acknowledged that there was an enhanced level of 

safety, as asserted by the petitioner. In that grant of exemption, we expanded the relief by 

allowing the experience acquired (in logged flight time) to be used by an airman for the 

purposes of upgrading to a PIC position within 135 operations. We found that allowing this 

use of the accumulated experience was reasonable, and we found that the relief did not 

compromise the FAA’s historical intent with regard to the utility of flight time logged as SIC

when none was required by the regulations.

The FAA considered the input of the commenters to Ameriflight’s proposal. It is important to 

note that, contrary to the input provided by a few commenters, the FAA has not increased the 

hour requirement for ATP applicants. While the pilot certification required to act as SIC 

under part 121 was changed from a commercial pilot certificate to an airline transport pilot 

certificate, the hour requirement for an unrestricted ATP was not modified. In addition, the 

FAA agrees with the commenters’ most frequent theme, that having two pilots aboard during 

the flight operations can improve safety. However, Ameriflight does not require an 

exemption to place a second pilot aboard for safety purposes. Further, neither the 

commenters favoring the relief nor Ameriflight, in its petition, described how Ameriflight is 

unique to the general class of regulated entities and are therefore eligible for regulatory relief.

For those reasons, and in including Conditions and Limitations Nos. 1 and 3 to Exemption 

No. 9770, the FAA purposefully limited the utility of that logged flight time. These 

limitations were consistent with the FAA’s previous findings with regard to using SIC pilots 

in operations when none was required by the regulation. Having reviewed the determination 

we had made in our original 2008 grant of exemption to Ameriflight, and in consideration of 

the positions asserted by Ameriflight in its February 7, 2013 petition to amend 

Exemption No. 9770, as amended, we find that the expanded relief proposed by Ameriflight 

is inconsistent with FAA policy and not in the public interest.
4

In consideration of the foregoing, I find the 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, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, the petition of 

Ameriflight, LLC to amend the current Exemption No. 9770 is hereby denied. Amerflight 

must continue operations under the Exemption No. 9770B.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision does not affect the termination date of Exemption No. 9770, which is valid until 

October 31, 2014 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure