SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.

Leslie C. Abbott Senior Attorney

919 18 th Street, N.W., Suite 60 0 Washington, D.C. 2000 6 (202) 263

- 6285 (202) 263

- 6291

- Fax

leslie.abbott @wnco.com

_______________________________________________ _____________________________

November 13, 2013

Filed Electronically V ia E

- Mail

U.S . Department of Transportation Mr. John Duncan

Docket Operations, M

- 30 Director, Flight Standards Service West Building ground floor, Federal Aviation Administration

Rm W12

- 140 AFS

- 1, Flight Standards Service, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. Rm 821 Washington, DC 20590 800 I ndependence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 John.duncan@faa.gov

Re: Petition for Renewal and Amendment of Exemption from 14 CFR § 121.434(c)(1)(ii); FAA

- 2002

- 11485

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulation 14 CFR §11.61(b), Southwest Airlines Co. (“Southwest”) hereby petitions the FAA for the seventh renewal of Exemption No.

7132

, which permits Southwest 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 completing the initial or upgrade training specified in FAR §121.424 (FAA

- 2002

- 11485, previously Docket No. 29836). 1

The FAA initially granted Exemption No. 7132 on February 28, 2000 and has

extended it for six consecutive two

- year periods. Unless this exemption is extended once again, it will terminate on February 28 , 20 14 . Southwest requests that the FAA renew Exemption No. 7132 for at least two additional years. This request is consistent with the exemption renewals that the FAA has already granted to Southwest , as well as

to other airlines . A copy of the original Exemption No. 7132, and the most recent Exemption Renewal No. 7132 G , a re attached as Exhibit s A and B

.

1 Southwest’s acquisition of AirTran Airways, Inc. (“AirTran”) on M ay 2, 2011 is not relevant to this exemption application because AirTran continues to employ a separate pilot training program from Southwest and AirTran’s Training Manual is a separate appendix to Southwest’s Training Manual. The separate training structure will remain in place until Southwest absorbs all AirTran pilots into its existing training program , which is expected to take place over the next several years

. Therefor e, there is no need to consider AirTran in this exemption application.Federal Aviation Administration

November 13, 2013 Page 2

I. FAA HAS CONSISTENTLY FOUND T HAT EXEMPTION 7132 I S IN THE

PUBLIC INTEREST AND PROVIDES A COMPA RABLE LEVEL OF SAFET Y.

Exemption No. 7132 grants Southwest relief from 14 CFR §121.434(c)(1)(ii) to the extent necessary to permit Southwest to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying PIC who is completing the initial or upgrade training specified in FAR §121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. Exemption No. 7132 at p. 2.

In granting Southwest’s exemption request and the subsequent renewals, FAA determined that such an exemption was in the public interest. Specifically, FAA found

that for Southwe st and other similarly situated commercial air carriers, “permitting a limited number of qualified and authorized check airmen to conduct certain PIC observations would benefit the public by reducing unnecessary costs that may influence the price of servic es to the public and by improving the airlines’ ability to provide on

time, dependable air service.” Exemption No. 7132 at p. 1. The FAA also found that the exemption “would not reduce the level of safety, provided the petitioner complies with

certain con ditions and limitations.” Id. These findings continue to hold true and

Southwest’s multi

- year, uninterrupted safe operation pursuant to the exemption strongly supports its renewal.

II. SOUTHWEST IS IN FULL COMPLIANC E WITH ALL OF THE EXEMPTION

CONDITIONS A ND LIMITATIONS

.

Southwest is in full compliance with all of the conditions and limitations specified in Exemption No. 7132 and its subsequent renewals. Southwest believes that its performance under the exemption has been satisfactory to the FAA, as no in dication to the contrary has been received.

III. RESTRICTIONS ON WHEN THE CHECK AIRMAN OBSERVATIONS TAKE PLACE ARE UNNECESSARY, IMPOSE ADDITIONAL COSTS AND SHOULD

BE ELIMINATED.

Exemption 7132 requires that the Southwest check airman or aircrew program designee s conduct observations when “[t]he qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised OE [operational experience] and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and landings ....(emphasis added).”

Based on its many years of ex perience operating pursuant to Exemption 7132, Southwest believes that requiring 10 hours of OE prior to the authorized PIC or aircrew program designee observation is unnecessary. Moreover, this limitation can complicate pilot scheduling, impose additiona l costs and even create occasional delays associated with the PIC candidate completing his or her operating experience. Therefore,

Southwest re spectfully requests that the 10

- hour limitation be removed, so that the FAAFederal Aviation Administration

November 13, 2013 Page 3

or check airman observation may be c onducted in the earlier stages of operating experience and without any limitations related to the number of landings accomplished by the PIC candidate.

a. The Justification that Originally Supported Requiring Observations After Ten Hours of Operating Experien ce is no Longer Applicable.

A careful examination of the historical basis for the FAA PIC observation s help place the timing requirement in context and show that the limitation is no longer

necessary.

Amendment 121

- 55, published in 35 F.R. 84, January 3, 1970 / Effective February 2, 1970, created the requirement for FAA to observe pilots during the operating experience when the certificate holder utilized a course of training in an airplane simulator as provided in 121.409(c). FAA created this requirem ent to determine if learning in a flight simulator directly transferred to

the aircraft.

Amendment 121

- 74, published in 36 F.R. 12284, June 30, 1971 / Effective July 30, 1971, recognized the expertise of the check pilots who supervised the operating experience, “The FAA recognizes the expertise of check pilots to determine the ability of pilot s to assume the responsibilities of the positions for which they are trained.”

Amendment 121

- 91, published in 37 F.R. 10727, May 27, 1972 / Effective May 26, 1972, provided air carriers with additional flexibility by allowed

additional maneuvers to be acc omplished in simulation (in lieu of the aircraft) and to limit the operating experience observation to PIC’s only.

Finally, Amendment 121

- 140, published in 43 F.R. 9598, March 9, 1978 / Effective March 9, 1978, recognized that the observation of transitioning PIC’s would no longer be necessary.

The FAA’s extensive experience observing transition operating experienc e flights has shown that flight simulator training produces a better

- trained pilot than a pilot trained only in an aircraft. This is reflected in the amendments listed above that have modified the observation requirements over time to reduce the observati on requirements and provide the industry with appropriate flexibility. In addition, FAA has long provided exemptions to air carriers from 121.434(c)(ii) by allowing check pilots to conduct the required observation in lieu of an FAA inspector. Specifically , the FAA has stated in 36 F.R. 12284, June 30, 1971 / Effective July 30, 1971 that it “recognizes the expertise of check pilots to determine the ability of pilots to assume the responsibilities of the positions for which they are trained.”Federal Aviation Administration

November 13, 2013 Page 4

This FAA’s ex tended experience with simulator training and the ample evidence of its effectiveness, combined with confidence in check pilot PIC observations supports removing the requirement to conduct the single

- leg FAA observation after 10 hours of operating experien ce. Allowing the PIC observation to take place at any time during the operational experience is fully justified and would have no degradation on safety.

Even using FAA ’s original rational for conducting the observation s ( i.e.

, validating that training in a flight simulator transfers lear ning directly to the aircraft), observation s conducted earlier in the operating experience would be more effective in evaluating the learning transfer. Waiting until the PIC candidate has accomplished 10 hours of
operat ional experience is an evaluation of the combination of both the flight simulator training and the experiences gained during line operations. In addition, t he supervising check airman has the opportunity and responsibility, over the entire duration of the operating experience, to assess the performance of the PIC candidate during several flights and conditions. The check airman is responsible for certifying the PIC candidate as authorized to conduct unsupervised operations as a PIC. This can be most

effec tively accomplished without unnecessary restrictions on the timing of the observations. All of these facts taken together support the elimination of the 10

- hour and landing/take

- off timing restriction on PIC observations.

b. Southwest’s Pilot Upgrade Trai ning Procedures Make the 10

- Hour Operational Training Requirement Unnecessary

Southwest operates only B737 aircraft . The only way an SIC pilot is able to

become a PIC is through the upgrade training program. Importantly, Southwest does

not create PIC’s through a transition or initial

- equipment training program. All of

Southwest ’s PIC candidates possess between seven and ten years of SIC experience in the B737 aircraft in the Southwest route system prior to becoming eligible for upgrade

to PIC.

An upgrading Southwest PIC would typically complete his or her operating experience after approximately thirteen hours of supervised flying. Therefore, the current requirement that observations take place after ten hours of OE forces Southwest

to schedule t he observation during the final three hours of the operating experience. The operating experienc e can occur anywhere within Southwest’s extended operational network, with the p articular flight sequence dictated by the existing flight schedule

, not the op erating experience hourly requirements. For example, the last three hours of a

PIC candidate’ s operating experience may occur during the latter portion of a four

- hour flight. From both an operational and staffing standpoint

, Southwest would prefer not to have to require the observing check airman to standby onboard the flight awaiting the

10 th hour to pass before observing the PIC candidate as it wastes limited resources and imposes unnecessary costs.Federal Aviation Administration

November 13, 2013 Page 5

Based on a totality of the factors described above, Southwest re spectfully requests that the 10

- hour limitation be removed, so that the FAA observation may be conducted in the earlier stages of operating experience and without any limitations

related to th e number of landings accomplished by the PIC candidate.

IV. CONCLUSION

All of the circumstances stated in Southwest’s original request for this exemption and the preceding requests for its renewal, remain the same

. There has not been any material change in the findings relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. As the FAA has noted, granting this exemption (and by extension the renewal of the exemption requested

here in ), would have no adverse ef fect on safety. Instead, it will allow Southwest to continue efficient and competent completion of observation flights through appropriate utilization of FAA resources and qualifying PIC’s. To minimize the administrative burden on all parties, Southwest s eeks a renewal for a minimum of
two years , with a longer extension preferred

.

We appreciate the FAA’s consideration of this request.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________ Leslie C. Abbott

CC: Joe Marott, Southwest Director Flight Training Center Jim Stieve, Southwest Senior Manager Operational Certification & Compliance Bob Kneisley, Southwest Associate General Counsel

Attachments

Attachment A

– Southwest Exemption No. 7132, February 28, 2000

Attachment B

– Southwest Exemption Renewal No. 7132G, February 8, 2010.

# Attachment A

(Exemption 7132)

# Attachment B

(Exemption 7132 G )AFS-12-179-E March 29, 2012

Exemption No. 7132G Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2002-11485

Ms. Leslie C. Abbott Senior Attorney Southwest Airlines Company
1901 L Street NW., Suite 640 Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Ms. Abbott:

This letter is to inform you that we are revising your petition to extend Exemption No. 7132,

as amended.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated January 13, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of Southwest Airlines Company (S outhwest) for an extension of Exemption No. 7132, as amended. That exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows Southwest 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.

Once you were granted your extension, it was noted the FAA inadvertently included the wrong conditions and limitations. This exemption includes the correct list of conditions and limitations. The FAA apologizes for any inconvenience this has caused.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.2

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Southwest.

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 7132, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions

and limitations.

Conditions and Limitations

1. A Southwest check airm an or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector when––

a. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation of a qualifying PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. Southwest, 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 Southwest 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 a check airman or aircrew program designee for Southwest 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. Southwest must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.3

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 7132, as amended, to February 28, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/ Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service