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 Japan 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 the 
2

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 exemption 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 certification 
3

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 requires 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