Exemption No. 9990

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0680

for an exemption from § 61.55(a)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated July 15, 2009, Mr. Greg McGowan, Vice President of Operations, FlightSafety International (FlightSafety), 8972 Trinity Boulevard, Hurst, Texas, 76052 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of FlightSafety for an exemption from § 61.55(a)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Ja pan Airlines student pilots, who do not hold an instrument rating, to train in a G150.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 61.55(a)(2) states, in pertinent part, that a person may serve as a second in command of an aircraft type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or in operations requiring a second in command pilot flight crewmember only if that person holds an instrument rating or privilege that applies to the aircraft being flown if the flight is under instrument flight rules (IFR).

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

AFS-09-338-E FlightSafety states it wants to offer a multicrew pilot license (MPL) course to its contracted customer Japan Airlines (JAL). The syllabus for the MPL course would consist of zero time students starting training at FlightSafety’s Vero Beach Academy. FlightSafety states the training would consist of approximately 138 hours of ground school, 54.8 hours of dual flight instruction in a single engine, 14.5 hours solo single engine, 48.6 hours dual multi-engine flight instruction, 50.5 hours of Frasca dual instruction, and 98.1 hours of flight briefings. The petitioner states this portion of the2

training would result in a multicrew private license. The student pilot would not hold an instrument rating at the conclusion of this training.

The student pilot training would continue with a Jet Orientation course curriculum which has 40 hours of academics, 20 hours of level D simulator training, and 8 hours of flight briefings.

Upon completion of the training, the students would transfer to FlightSafety’s DallasFort Worth facility and would be introduced to a Gulfstream 150 (G150) and begin a second in command (SIC) course. Each pilot would receive 12 hours of hands-on flying time in the simulator and 30 hours in the aircraft. FlightSafety states that since the G150 incorporates a glass cockpit much of the training would involve instrument

familiarization.

FlightSafety states the purpose of an exemption would allow the student pilots who will not hold an instrument rating to train in the G150 with a qualified instructor and another student pilot in the jump seat acting both as an observer/safety pilot and monitoring the lessons for educational benefit. Although the JAL pilots would not have an instrument rating, he or she would still receive a great deal of exposure to instrument flying in the simulator. The petitioner believes this would prove invaluable in the actual aircraft setting. In addition, although not instrument rated, these student pilots will provide a second set of eyes in the visual flight rule environment to scan for

traffic.

The petitioner believes that each instructor involved in the flight training would gain valuable experience actually flying in the United States airspace system rather than a simulated environment. FlightSafety believes this experience would improve its credibility with clients, increase its aircraft systems and performance knowledge, and improve their instructional skills.

FlightSafety states that a grant of exempti on would not adversely affect aviation safety. The petitioner contends that an exemption would help the pilots become more proficient in their language skills, instrument approach procedures, air traffic control environment, and jet experience.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s request and supporting information. The FAA finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulation. Section 91.531(a)(2) requires a qualified SIC in order to operate a turbojet-powered multiengine airplane for which two pilots are required under the type certification3

requirements for that airplane. The type certification for the G150 requires a two-pilot flightcrew. The qualifications for an SIC are prescribed in § 61.55.

Section 61.55(a)(1), requires an SIC for operations requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember, like those in the G150, to hold at least a current private pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating for the aircraft.

Section 61.55(a)(2) requires an SIC to hold an instrument rating or privileges ( e.g. , instrument privileges, in the case of a holder of an ATP certificate) that is appropriate to the aircraft being flown if the operation is under instrument flight rules (IFR).

Additionally, § 61.89(b) prohibits a student pilot from acting as a required pilot flight crewmember on any aircraft for which more than one pilot is required by the type certificate of the aircraft or regulations under which the flight is conducted. Because the type certification for the G150 require s a two-pilot flightcrew, the SIC is a required flight crewmember.

In the circumstances presented by the petitioner, its students would be enrolled in a MPL training course, and they would not hold a private or commercial pilot certificate with an instrument rating or instrument privileges. Because the U.S. is an ICAO Contracting State, an MPL is a recognized pilot license. However, the FAA has not established an MPL within its airman certification scheme, which means that holding a MPL does not meet the pilot certification requirements for operations in U.S. registered aircraft. Additionally, an MPL is not the equivalent of a private pilot certificate or any pilot certificate prescribed in 14 C.F.R. part 61. For these reasons, the individuals described in the petition who are enrolled in the MPL and SIC training courses effectively are student pilots for the purpose of FAA regulations.

In developing the type certification for the G150, the FAA determined that safe operation requires two pilot flight crewmembers. For operations on aircraft that require more than one flight crewmember, the FAA has prescribed detailed qualification requirements for individuals operating those aircraft and has determined that a student pilot cannot serve as a required flight crewmember on those aircraft. These regulations ensure the minimal level of safety for those operations. The individuals described in the petition would not be able to meet any of the qualifications described above, which means the instructor would be the only qualified flight crewmember on an aircraft required to have two qualified flight crewmembers. Additionally, the petitioner has not established that the student pilots’ training is an equivalent for those qualifications. Although the FAA recognizes the public interest in encouraging training of foreign pilots, that interest does not outweigh the FAA’s primary interest in safety. Accordingly, the FAA finds such a situation would not provide an equivalent level of safety as that afforded by the rules (i.e., § 61.55(a)(1) and (2); § 61.89(b); and § 91.531(a)(2)).4

The FAA has determined that FlightSafety should provide the required training for its students to earn a private pilot certificate and instrument rating before serving as a required flight crewmember in the G150.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of FlightSafety International for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.55(a)(2) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 8, 2010.

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service