UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERALAVIATIONADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE Regula tory Docket No. FAA-2015-4420

CORPORATION

for an exemption from § 61.57(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter received July 27, 2015, Ms. Kimber ly Lascell, Director, Airworthiness and Certification, Gulfstream Aerospace Cor poration, P.O. Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402- 2206, petitioned the Federal Av iation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) for an ex emption from § 61.57(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). Th is exemption, if granted, would allow all operators of Gulfstream m odels G-IV, GIV-X, GV, GV- SP and GVI (G650 and G650ER) airplanes to meet the recent takeoff and landing experience requirements of § 61.57(a) and (b).

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section § 61.57(a) prescribes, in pertinent part, that no pe rson may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person ha s made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days, and—

(i) The person acted as the sole mani pulator of the flight controls; and

(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were pe rformed in an aircraft of the same category,2

class, and type (if a t ype rating is required).

Section § 61.57(b) prescribes, in pertinent part , that no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers during th e period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise, and—

(i) That person acted as sole manipul ator of the flight controls; and

(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were pe rformed in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a t ype rating is required).

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that its petition is inte nded to provide relief to all operators of

Gulfstream G-IV/GIV-X , GV/GV-SP and GVI airplanes that these airplanes have individual type ratings. The petitioner also states that th ese airplanes all are similar in size and have an excellent commonality of performance, systems and handling characteristics.

The petitioner also supports it s petition by citing previous issu ed exemptions to Gulfstream (Exemption Nos. 9887D and 9889C) and Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (Boeing) (Exemption No. 6843). The petitioner contends that while Gulfstream and other manufacturers, such as Boeing, have held that pilot proficiency is maintained by standardized operational requireme nts inherent to their organiza tions, it is further recognized that operators of multiple Gulfstream models also maintain similar training and experience standards for pilots who are rated among th e Gulfstream types within their fleets.

The petitioner states that compliance with § 61.57(a) and (b) to keep crews current in all fleet models could easily require some 100 or mo re flights per year for the average flight department. By allowing flight experience in any one of the Gulfstre am types listed in the petition, the number of flights required to maintain currency could be reduced to some 35 or so flights per year, which is a reduction of approximately two- thirds of the present burden. The petitioner maintains that this would resu lt in a reduction of ai r traffic congestion, a savings of resources such as fuel and relieve other operationa l impacts to the public and air transportation system.

The petitioner states that Gulfstream pilots undergo highly-standardi zed type training and are experienced in this make a nd category of airplane and oper ate all models of Gulfstream

aircraft within their fleet on a regular basis. The typical Gulfst ream pilot logs an average of 300 to 600 hours per year in a variety of Gulf stream airplanes and periodically attends FlightSafety International, rota ting among the Gulfstream aircraft courses that are applicable to their particular fleet and for which they are rated.

According to the petitioner, Gulfstream's ai rcraft are operated by businesses, government3

organizations, military services, and foreign countr ies. The petitioner argues that its’ aircraft transport corporate executives, military leaders, and heads of State who conduct business that directly supports the public. As such, an ex emption would allow Gulfstream pilots to be

more efficient and devote more time and effort to conducting flights to ex pedite aircraft into

service.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2015. No

comments were received.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The petitioner believes that the same logic that supported the grants of exemption Nos. 9887D and 9889C applies to this petition. The pe titioner also cites a similar exemption (No. 6843) issued to Boeing. However, the conditi ons and limitations of all three of those exemptions make it applicable only to production and engineering test pilots. Additionally, on August 5, 1998, and in supplemental informa tion dated October 5, 1998, the petitioner stated that its pilots log an average of 500 to 600 flight hours per year. In those exemptions, the FAA recognized the skills needed to be a production and engineeri ng test pilot and the continual experience Gulfstream pilot receive each year. This was a critical component in determining an equal level of safety. Gulfstream cannot ensure that a typical corporate pilot

of the listed Gulfstream models would have the skill, knowledge and proficiency of a production and engineering test p ilots. Gulfstream states that these pilots may have much less annual experience than their production and e ngineering test pilots.

The petitioner states that the Gulfstream G-IV/GIV-X, GV/GV-SP and GVI airplanes have individual type ratings. Howe ver, the GIV-X, GV, and GV-SP all hold the same pilot type rating (G-V). The Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report for the GIV-X, GV and GVSP airplanes, revision 9, paragraph 8.1 states “C urrency is considered to be common for the GIV-X, G-V and GV-SP. Separate tracking of currency for the GIV-X, G-V and GV-SP is not necessary or applicable. Currency will be maintained, or re-established, in accordance with 14 CFR section 61.57, 61.58, 135.247 and/or 135.351.” Consequently, an exemption to allow all operators of Gulfstream models GIV-X, GV, and GV-SP airplanes to meet the recent takeoff and landing experience requireme nts of § 61.57(a) and (b) is not required.

The Gulfstream G-IV holds se parate pilot type ratings (G-IV). The G-IV FSB report (revision 1 dated June 19, 2015) paragraph 2.2 states “In that this is a new pilot type rating, the FSB did not evaluate, and does not allow for any training credits, checking credits, currency credits, landing currency credits, or pr oving test credits (except that which is permitted by 14 CFR § 135.145) between the G-IV and any other similar type aircraft from Gulfstream.” Consequently, no data exists de monstrating the transfer of take-offs and landings proficiency between the G-IV a nd the other aircraft in the petition.

The Gulfstream GVI also holds a separate t ype rating (GVI). Due to many similar or identical systems to related GV-SP and the GIV- X, the FSB was asked to evaluate a “full” GVI (G650) initial training course which is desi gned for a pilot with no previous Gulfstream experience and a “shortened” GVI (G650) init ial training course. Although a shortened4

initial type rating course was approved for those pilots meeting certain experience requirements in a GIV-X and GV-SP, the shorte ned course still requ ired take-offs and landings in the GVI to be in the aircraft, or a level C or D simulator. Additionally, paragraph 8 of the FSB report states “The FSB has found no additional “Recent Experience” requirements for the GVI, other than those already specified in 14 CFR parts 61, 125 and

135.”

Equal Level of Safety:

In issuing the Gulfstream exemptions (N os. 9887D and 9889C) and the Boeing exemption (No. 6843), the FAA took into consideration not only the skills needed to be a production and engineering test pilot, but also the con tinual experience levels of these pilots. The petitioner requested an exempti on to allow all operators of Gu lfstream models G-IV, GIV-X, GV, GV-SP and GVI airplanes to meet the recent takeoff and landing experience requirements of § 61.57(a) and (b). Most pilots that would be covered by this exemption, if granted, are not production and e ngineering test pilots. Addi tionally, the petitioner cannot ensure that these pilots will be able to maintain the continual experience levels of Gulfstream or Boeing production and engineer ing test pilots. C onsequently, the petition has not shown how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to th at provided by the rule.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not provide an equivalent level of safety and is not in th e public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113, a nd 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator the petition of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporat ion for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.57(a) and (b) is denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 26, 2016. .

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service