AFS

- 1 3

- 242

- E September 30, 2014

Exemption No. 9770C Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 200 7

- 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 expl ains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions and

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated February 7, 201 3 , you petitione d 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

- com mand (SIC) during a flight that otherwise does not

r equire a SIC and to also allow the SIC to log that flight time. In your petition for amendment, you request that the FAA remove Condition s and Limitation s Nos. 1 and 3 from Exemption No. 9 7 70B, 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 tra nsport 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. 9 7 70B. 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 S IC to pilot

- in

- command2

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

p art 61

. In your petition, y ou 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

limitation s, 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 befo re the comment period closed on July 22, 2013 from air carriers, aviation associations, and individuals.

Of the total comments received during the comment period

, 1 7 commenters supported granting the exemption

. Commenters supporting the petition exp lained 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 time

building , such as this exemption, the increased hour requirements recently promulgated by

the FAA for Airline T ransport Pilot (ATP) applicants are going to provide difficult ies 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 flig ht 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 advise d that a clear interpretatio n 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 U nited S tates to fly a s 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, f our commenter s did not indicate whether

or not they were in favor o f the relief

.

Our Decision

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner ’ s exemption request

, as well as the information provided by comment er s , and has determined that the circumstances presented by the petitioner do not justify a grant of exemption. The FAA finds t hat 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 ( i ssued

October 3 , 2008 and enclosed )

. In that grant of exemption, the FAA stat ed that the agency had consistently denied petitions allowing airmen to log SIC time when a SIC wasn’t required by the regulations

. T he FAA also stated that, within the strict confines of the

p art 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 logg ed 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 historic al 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 co mmenters, the FAA has not increas ed the hour requirement for ATP applicants

. While the pilot certification require d 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 s econd 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 i n including Condition s and Limitation s No s . 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 us ing SIC pilots in operations whe n 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, 2 013 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 wo uld 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 dele gated to me , the petition of Ameriflight, LLC to amend the current Exemption No. 9770 is hereb y 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

E nclosure