Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. Hogan Lovells refers to the international legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells 

US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses with offices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam 

Baltimore Beijing Berlin Boulder Brussels Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg 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 Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Associated offices: Budapest Jeddah Riyadh Zagreb 

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, 2008, exempting Shuttle from the requirements of 

14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), thereby allowing Shuttle to substitute a qualified and authorized check 

airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot 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 training as specified in § 121.424.1

 

Exemption No. 8819A terminates on January 31, 2011. Shuttle respectfully requests that 

this exemption be extended for at least two additional years, through January 31, 2013. Shuttle 

hereby incorporates by reference all relevant information previously submitted in the instant docket. 

Shuttle submits that further extension of this exemption is in the public interest and will provide an 

equivalent level of safety -- findings that the FAA made in granting the initial exemption to Shuttle on 

January 10, 2007, and in the subsequent extension 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 must be observed in the performance of prescribed 

duties by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. 

2

 The FAA has made similar findings and has granted (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 Midwest); 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 comments, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. No new 

precedent will be established by extending the existing exemption previously granted to Shuttle. 

Shuttle urges the FAA to grant this non-controversial request for an extension of Exemption 

No. 8819A prior to the January 31, 2011 expiration date. In the event that the FAA does not act on 

this petition prior to that date, Shuttle hereby invokes and relies 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 information 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 rule was adopted, the airline industry has had 40 years 

of experience with visual simulators and advanced simulation. The airlines have successfully 

trained tens of thousands of pilots using sophisticated advanced simulators. Shuttle believes the 

advanced simulation experience of the airline industry combined with that of the FAA has made 

the present rule virtually obsolete. 

The FAA has for many years routinely granted similar requests for exemptions, subject to certain 

conditions and limitations, finding that there is an equivalent level of safety in allowing airlines to 

substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to satisfy the 

observation requirements. Shuttle submits that (a) the facts presented by Shuttle do not differ 

materially from those previously presented previously by Shuttle and by similarly situated 

petitioners; (b) the reasons stated by the FAA for previously granting the exemption to Shuttle 

and to similarly situated petitioners also apply to the situation presented herein by Shuttle; and 

(c) extension of the exemption to Shuttle is in the public interest. 

Shuttle currently expects that it may need to certify 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 increase 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 unnecessary cost of wages and lost productivity for those qualified 

pilots waiting for the FAA observation. 

By allowing a company check airman who is highly qualified in the airplane to complete the 

observation, a greater level of scrutiny and objectivity 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 forth in Exemption 8819A, Shuttle 

proposes that the extended exemption be subject to the same conditions and limitations, as 

follows: 

1. A Shuttle check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in 

place of an FAA inspector when— 

a. The Administrator pre-approves that substitution for each observation of a qualifying 

PIC candidate, thus reserving first 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 candidate has completed no less than 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 conducting a PIC observation in 

place of an FAA inspector must— 

a. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation; 

b. Have served as check airman or aircrew designee for Shuttle for no less than 

6 months; and 

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate 

being observed. 

3. Shuttle must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that 

demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption. 

The FAA has previously determined that compliance 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 the 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, Shuttle 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 Osmundson 
 

ATTACHMENT 

FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

As stated in the foregoing petition for exemption, Shuttle America Corporation respectfully 

requests a waiver of the publication and comment requirements under 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 the 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 qualified and authorized check airman in place of an 

FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot 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 training as specified in 14 C.F.R. § 121.424.