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 petitioned 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 rulemaking found in § 11.73. As stated in that 

section, the FAA uses the following criteria when 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 security concerns the petition raises; 

2) the priority of other FAA issues; and 

3) the resources we have available to address these issues. 

Therefore, the FAA took its time to review 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 broader than that proposed in your Petition. 

The intent of the rule is to expose crewmembers 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 observing factors in a real environment, pilots also hear, and 

derive situational awareness from, other pilot reports and responses, including those 

delivered by short, slang, and incorrect phraseology that nonetheless have a bearing on 

situational awareness. 
2

Additionally, the visual capability of many of our simulators is limited. These limitations 

both in visual acuity and by number of available airport models will not permit the 

simulator to substitute for the airport qualification requirements of the rule. The route 

qualification requirements of the rule would 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 conducted 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 airport modeling requirements, and programming 

changes required to accurately simulating terrain and obstacles the actual cost of the 

proposed rule change may increase the actual cost of compliance with the current rule. 

For the reasons above, we are unable to consider 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