AFS-11-051-E 

Jan 13 2011 

 Exemption No. 10196 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-1165 

Mr. Gary P. McVaney 

Manager of Policy, Process and Compliance 

Compass Airlines 

7500 Airline Drive, Suite 130 

Minneapolis, MN 55450 

Dear Mr. McVaney: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated November 11, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Compass Airlines, LLC (Compass) for an exemption from § 121.652(a) 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Compass 

to substitute crosswind component and braking action restriction, along with a requirement to 

utilize automatic landing and approach coupler (ALAC) equipment, at the destination and 

alternate airports in place of the existing restrictions to decision height (DH) and visibility 

minimums of Category I precision approaches for pilots in command (PIC) who have not yet 

accumulated 100 hours (50, if reducible) in their current aircraft type. 

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

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Compass. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 5549G (copy enclosed), the FAA 
2 

partially agreed with Air Transport Association’s (ATA) contention that certain heads up 

display (HUD) or autoland credit, following completion of advanced training, was 

appropriate. When properly implemented with appropriate constraints, such credit can 

provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than the method previously described in 

§ 121.652. The present method depends exclusively on accumulating “flight-hours in type” 

and often does not directly relate to actual low visibility operating experience, even though its 

sole effect is adjustment of landing minimums. Further, the present § 121.652 does not 

appropriately recognize and credit the positive contribution that modern airborne systems, 

procedures, ground facilities, and training can make. In addition, a grant of the ATA petition 

was likely to have other benefits as well, including the following: 

(1) Encouraging operators to purchase or retrofit aircraft with modern airborne systems 

that may have safety benefits for many landings, not just adverse weather landings; 

(2) Encouraging operators to equip aircraft with modern airborne systems that may have 

safety benefits during other phases of flight; 

(3) Encouraging operators to implement improved training and crew qualifications 

programs and use better training devices and simulators; 

(4) Encouraging faster and more economic evolution of airborne safety-related systems; 

(5) Further reducing exposure to minimum fuel situations; 

(6) Reducing the risk of exposure to operations not using high quality flight guidance, 

decreasing the number of nonprecision approaches flown, and decreasing the need to 

use “less well-equipped airports” and “lower capability” ground facilities during 

adverse conditions; and 

(7) Increasing the regularity of airline operations for the benefit of both the general public 

and the operator. 

Furthermore, the FAA argued that to ensure equivalent or greater safety than intended by 

§ 121.652, only certain HUD and autoland systems, used with appropriate instrument flight 

and crew procedures and at appropriate airports and runways, should qualify for the credit. 

Use of these systems must be considered as a comprehensive package, considering factors 

such as the category of landing minimums sought, characteristics of the airborne system, 

appropriate operating limits and procedures, appropriate crew experience pairing, and suitable 

ground facilities. The credit allowed also must be fully consistent with the training the crews 

received and any initial operating experience (IOE) completed and include use of appropriate 

training devices or simulators approved for the pertinent low visibility scenarios that are 

applicable. 
3 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant 

of exemption; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the 

situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Compass Airlines, LLC an exemption from 

14 CFR § 121.652(a) to the extent necessary to substitute crosswind component and braking 

action restriction, along with a requirement to utilize ALAC equipment, at the destination and 

alternate airports in place of the existing restrictions to DH and visibility minimums of 

Category I precision approaches for PICs who have not yet accumulated 100 hours (50, if 

reducible) in their current aircraft type, subject to the conditions and limitations described 

below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. General. To use Category I instrument approach procedure weather minimums 

under any provisions of this exemption, a certificate holder must ensure that its 

flightcrew training and qualification program meets the following general 

requirements: 

a. Suitable low visibility instrument approach, landing, and missed approach 

scenarios are included in flight training using the applicable airborne system 

and appropriate training devices or simulators for those scenarios; and 

b. Specific approval by the certificate holder’s principal operations inspector to 

use this exemption is obtained for each aircraft type. 

2. Category I, specific. A PIC with fewer than 100 hours as PIC in the airplane being 

operated may be authorized to use the lowest applicable Category I instrument 

approach minimums for a particular runway and instrument approach procedure if 

each of the following conditions is met: 

a. The PIC and other required flight crewmembers are trained and qualified for 

Category II or are trained to an equivalent level with respect to the airborne 

system use, ground facility use, associated procedures, and any other relevant 

topics; 

b. The aircraft and associated airborne systems are eligible for Category I or II 

for that operator when the certificate holder’s approved training program 
4 

incorporates the use of an approach coupler or a HUD system that provides 

flight guidance information to DH; 

c. The approach coupler or HUD system is used for the approach to DH or until 

initiation of a missed approach; 

d. The flightcrew must use appropriate instrument approach procedures for 

Category II or equivalent instrument approach procedures acceptable to the 

Administrator; and 

e. Category I instrument approach procedures or landings will not be initiated 

when the weather conditions are below 4,000 runway vision range (3/4 mile 

visibility) and the crosswind component exceeds 15 knots combined with a 

braking action report of less than “good.” 

This exemption terminates on January 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Raymond Towles 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure