Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. Hogan Lovells refers to the in ternational legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses with o ffices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Boulder Br ussels Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamb urg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Sin gapore To kyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Wa shington DC Associated offices: Budapest Jeddah Riyadh Za greb Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Direct phone +1 202 637 8898

Direct fax +1 866 728 1992 www.hoganlovells.com

October 6, 2010

By Electronic Submission

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition of Shuttle America Corporation for Extension of FAA Exemption No. 8819A, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26589

Dear Sir or Madam:

Shuttle America Corporation (“Shuttle”) hereby petitions the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), pursuant to 14 C.F. R. Part 11, for an extension of FAA Exemption No. 8819A, last issued to Shuttle on October 20, 20 08, exempting Shuttle fr om the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), thereby allowing Shu ttle to substitute a qua lified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspecto r to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at least one fli ght leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade trai ning as specified in § 121.424. 1

Exemption No. 8819A terminates on January 31, 2011. Shuttle respec tfully requests that this exemption be extended for at least two addi tional years, through January 31, 2013. Shuttle hereby incorporates by reference all relevant inform ation previously submitted in the instant docket.
Shuttle submits that further extens ion of this exemption is in the public interest and will provide an equivalent level of safety -- findings that the FAA made in granting t he initial exemption to Shuttle on January 10, 2007, and in the subsequent extensio n of the exemption. 2

1 Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that if a qualifying PIC is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424, the PIC mu st be observed in the performance of prescribed duties by an FAA inspector during at least one fli ght leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

2 The FAA has made similar findings and has grant ed (and extended) exemptions to similarly situated applicants. See , e.g. , Docket FAA-2002-12009 (Chautauqua Airlines, Inc.); Docket FAA-2007- 28086 (Republic Airline Inc.); Docket FAA-2002-12947 (Trans States Airlines); Docket FAA-2005-21877 (Freedom Airlines); Docket FAA-2006-24900 (Air Mi dwest); Docket 2006-24996 (Alaska Airlines).U.S. Department of Transportation October 6, 2010 Page 2

Good cause exists for the FAA to act on this petition without delay, and without publishing a summary in the Federal Register or awaiting co mments, pursuant to 14 C. F.R. § 11.87. No new precedent will be established by ex tending the existing exemption pr eviously granted to Shuttle.

Shuttle urges the FAA to grant this non-contro versial request for an ex tension of Exemption No. 8819A prior to the January 31, 2011 expiration dat e. In the event that the FAA does not act on this petition prior to that dat e, Shuttle hereby invokes and re lies upon the automatic extension provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 558(c), to the extent that such relief is consistent with the FAA’s rules, policies and procedures, in order to continue the effectiveness of Shuttle’s current exemption pending the FAA’ s final determination on this petition.

Shuttle submits the following informatio n in further support of this request:

The original intent of § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), issued in early 1970, was to validate the training a pilot
received in a visual simulator. Since that ru le was adopted, the airline industry has had 40 years of experience with visual simu lators and advanced simulation. The airlines have successfully trained tens of thousands of pilo ts using sophisticated advanced si mulators. Shuttle believes the advanced simulation experience of the airline industry combined wi th that of the FAA has made the present rule virtually obsolete.

The FAA has for many years routinely granted simi lar requests for exempti ons, subject to certain conditions and limitations, fi nding that there is an equivalent level of safety in allowing airlines to substitute a qualified and authoriz ed check airman in place of an FAA inspector to satisfy the observation requirements. Shuttl e submits that (a) the facts pr esented by Shuttle do not differ materially from those previous ly presented previously by Shuttle and by similarly situated petitioners; (b) the reasons stated by the FAA fo r previously granting t he exemption to Shuttle and to similarly situated petitioners also apply to the situation presented herein by Shuttle; and (c) extension of the exem ption to Shuttle is in the public interest.

Shuttle currently expects that it may need to cert ify new PICs each year. Shuttle states that granting this exemption would allow --

1. The FAA greater flexibility and better use of its inspection force by focusing on higher priority safety functions;

2. Shuttle to use a qualified pilot immediately after completing OE;

3. Shuttle to significantly in crease the use of qualified pilots and improve its ability to provide on-time, dependable air service to the public; and

4. Shuttle to reduce the unnecessa ry cost of wages and lost productivity for those qualified pilots waiting for the FAA observation.

By allowing a company check airman who is highl y qualified in the airplane to complete the observation, a greater level of scrutiny and obje ctivity would be provided for the qualifying PIC, thus enhancing the level of safety.U.S. Department of Transportation October 6, 2010 Page 3

Finally, consistent with the conditions and limitations set fo rth in Exemption 8819A, Shuttle proposes that the extended ex emption be subject to the same conditions and limitations, as

follows:

1. A Shuttle check airman or aircrew progra m designee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector when—

a. The Administrator pre-approves that s ubstitution for each obser vation of a qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving fi rst right of refusal to the FAA in each case. Shuttle, therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA office in each instance before substituting that check airman or aircrew program designee.

b. The qualifying PIC candi date has completed no less t han 10 hours of supervised OE and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings; and

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg, including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each Shuttle check airman or aircrew program designee c onducting a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector must—

a. Be approved by the Administ rator to conduct the observation;

b. Have served as check airman or ai rcrew designee for Shuttle for no less than 6 months; and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the init ial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate being observed.

3. Shuttle must maintain student, check airm an, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.

The FAA has previously determined that complianc e with these conditions and limitations would ensure an equivalent level of safety and would be in the public interest. Shuttle will continue to comply with the conditions and limitations to t he exemption, thereby ensuring an equivalent level of safety for its operations.U.S. Department of Transportation October 6, 2010 Page 4

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Shuttl e respectfully requests that FAA issue an exemption, as requested herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheryl R. Israel

Counsel for SHUTTLE AMERICA CORPORATION

sheryl.israel@hoganlovells.com

Attachment

cc: Ellen Tatro, Indianapolis FSDO

Don OsmundsonATTACHMENT

FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

As stated in the foregoing petit ion for exemption, Shuttle Am erica Corporation respectfully requests a waiver of the publication and comment requirements unde r 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. Nevertheless, in accordance with § 11.81(f), a summary of this Petition for an Extension of Exemption No. 8819A, for publication in t he Federal Register is as follows:

Docket No.: FAA-2006-16589

Petitioner: Shuttle America Corporation

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii)

Description of Relief Sought: To extend Exemption No. 8819A to permit Shuttle America Corporation to substitute a qualif ied and authorized check ai rman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilo t in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade traini ng as specified in 14 C.F.R. § 121.424.