AFS

- 14

- 063

- E Exemption No. 10999

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

MR. J OHN P. L EE Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 201 3

- 1 043

for an exemption from §§ 61. 58 (a)( 2 ) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated December 5, 2013, Mr. John P. Lee

, 1635 Auburn Court, Waukesh a, WI

53189 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an e xemption from § 61.58(a)( 2 ) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Mr. Lee to fly his British Aero S pace Jet s tream 41 00 (Je tstream 41 00 )

aircraft without having completed a pilot

- in

- command (PIC) proficiency check.

T he petitioner request s relief from the following regulation s :

Section 61.58 (a)( 2 ) prescribes, in pertinent part, that within the preceding 24 calendar months, a p erson must complete a PIC proficiency check in the particular type of aircraft in which that person will serve as PIC, that is type certificated for more than one required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet

- powered.

The petitioner support s his reque st with the following information:

The petitioner requests relief from the requirement for a proficiency check in the

Jetstream 4100 for a period of 24 months, which would allow time for a training provider to establish a training and testing program that meets his needs

.

The petitioner states that he uses his aircraft to ferry workers to company construction

sit e s. Without the relief, the company would complete construction projects at a slower

rate

.2

The petitioner states that SimCom

, a part 142 certi ficate holder located in Orlando, FL

, is the only t raining f acility that is suitable for the proficiency check in the

Jetstream 4100 . The SimCom facility is unable to provide training in the near future because of training center certification delays

.

T he petitioner states that safety would not be adversely affected because he is currently operating other turbojet aircraft (Lear and Cessna series jets)

, and he maintain s currency in those aircraft using p art 142 training centers. A ll company aircraft are operated in accordance with Safety Management System c ertificate #101832A. The petitioner cites other operational procedures that he believes ensures safety

, in lieu of the required proficiency check in the Jetstream 4100

.

The petitioner states the S imCom facility is the only previously approved source of training for the Jetstream 4100 , and that , ultimately, the facility might not be able to regain their certification. The petitioner’s currency for § 61.58 in the Jetstream 4100 expires in December 2 013.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2014 ( 79 FR 3454) and we received no comments.

The FAA’ s analysis is as follows:

The FAA find s a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest or meet an equivale nt level of safety. The following is a summary of our analysis of the petition from Mr. Lee

.

The FAA recognizes that there is a lower availability of individuals who are authorized to provide the pilot

- in

- command proficiency check

. T he petitioner state s that the only provider with whom he can accomplish the pilot

- in

- command proficiency check is SimCom Tra in ing

Centers in Orlando, FL because the FAA does not have personnel current or qualified in the

Jetstream 4100

. The FAA disagrees with this statement.

The FAA notes that appropriately authorized personnel are available, through the FAA ’s Flight Standards Inspector Resource Program (FSIRP) , to conduct the PIC proficiency check

in the Jetstream 4100 as sought by the petitioner. T he FSIRP office is able to provide an FAA Aviation Safety Inspector that is a uthoriz ed to administer a PIC proficiency check in the

Jetstream 4100 and approved simulator s

. Coordination between an airman seeking a proficiency check and the FSIRP office is typically accomplished t hrough co ordination with the airman’s local Flight Standards District Office. However, during the review of the petition for exemption, representatives from the FAA General Aviation and Commercial Division

contacted Mr. Lee via telephone and informed him of the process to directly contact the

FSIRP office to arrange for a PIC proficiency check. This conversation occurred on January 31, 2014 and a record of conversation was placed in the regulatory docket. Since the petitioner has an avenue for complet ion of the PIC proficiency check , the FAA finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.3

The FAA finds that aircraft such as the Jetstream 4100, which require two pilots per type certification, demand the pilot maintain skills and kn owledge specific to that aircraft type. Successful completion of a PIC proficiency check ensures that the pilot maintains the necessary level of knowledge and skill for to operate that particular aircraft. Therefore, the FAA finds that maintaining currenc y in other aircraft does not provide for an equivalent level of safety. Further, while the FAA finds the petitioner’s voluntary use of a safety management system laudable, this system will not ensure that pilot proficiency is maintained. The FAA
suggests the petitioner contact the local FISDO

.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not meet an equivalent level of safety or be in the public interest

. Therefore, pursuant to the authority

contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113

, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of John P. Lee f or an exemption from 14 CFR § 61. 58(a)(2) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 29, 2014.

/s/ John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Direc tor, Flight Standards Service