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 restri ctions 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 FAA2

partially agreed with Air Transport Associa tion’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 sa fety 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 evolu tion 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 airpor ts 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 program4

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