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. JOHN P. LEE Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-1043

 

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, Waukesha, WI 

53189 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption 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 AeroSpace Jetstream 4100 (Jetstream 4100) 

aircraft without having completed a pilot-in-command (PIC) proficiency check.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 61.58(a)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that within the preceding 24 calendar 

months, a person 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 supports his request 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 

sites. Without the relief, the company would complete construction projects at a slower 

rate. 
2

The petitioner states that SimCom, a part 142 certificate holder located in Orlando, FL,

is the only training facility 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. 

The petitioner states that safety would not be adversely affected because he is currently 

operating other turbojet aircraft (Lear and Cessna series jets), and he maintains currency 

in those aircraft using part 142 training centers. All company aircraft are operated in 

accordance with Safety Management System certificate #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 SimCom 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 2013.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2014 

(79FR3454) and we received no comments.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA finds a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest or meet an equivalent 

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. The petitioner states that the only provider 

with whom he can accomplish the pilot-in-command proficiency check is SimCom Training 

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. The FSIRP office is able to provide an FAA 

Aviation Safety Inspector that is authorized to administer a PIC proficiency check in the 

Jetstream 4100 and approved simulators. Coordination between an airman seeking a 

proficiency check and the FSIRP office is typically accomplished through coordination 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 completion 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 knowledge 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 currency 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 for 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 Director, Flight Standards Service