US. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

January 9, 2015 

Exemption No. 11146 

800 Independence Ave .. S W 

Washington. DC. 20591 

Regulatory Docket No. F AA-20 14-0277 

Mr. Jared Testa 

Chief Instructor 

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 

3 700 Willow Creek Road 

Prescott, AZ 86301 

Dear Mr. Testa: 

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

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated April 23, 2014, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, (ERAU), for an exemption from 

§ 61.45(a)( I )(i) ofTit1e 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR) to the extent necessary to 

allow ERAU to utilize a multiengine airplane during the end-of-course test for a flight 

instructor certificate with an airplane category and a single-engine class rating. 

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

in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting 

on this petition would be detrimental to ERAU. 

The FAA has issued denials of exemption to petitioners that offered similar circumstances to 

those presented in ERAU's petition. The petitioners in Denial of Exemption Nos. 9651 and 

10442 (copies enclosed) also cited increasing aircraft scarcity and operating costs for certain 

single-engine complex aircraft. In the FAA's response to those petitions, the FAA found that 

the petitioners were unable to show that their proposed operations met an equivalent level of 

safety to that of the regulation, which requires the practical test to be conducted in the 

category and class of aircraft applicable to the rating sought. ERAU has also failed to show 

how it is unique from the general class of regulated persons to justify an exemption of tllis 

kind. 

AFS-14-262-E 
Having reviewed ERAU's reasons for requesting an exemption, the FAA finds that: 

• They do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioners in the enclosed 

Denials of Exemption Nos. 9651 and l 0442; 

2 

• The reasons stated by the FAA in the Denials of Exemption Nos. 9651 and 10442 also 

apply to the situation presented by ERAU; and 

• A grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. 

Furthermore, the FAA has found that applicants for a flight instructor certificate with an 

airplane single-engine rating need to demonstrate that they have the skills to execute and teach 

preflight inspection, takeoff, landing, and emergency procedures for single engine aircraft. 

The FAA has found that an applicant for a flight instructor certificate needs to be able to teach 

these elements in an aircraft that is of higher complexity. The FAA has previously held that 

the only way to fulfill this requirement is through demonstration of skill in a complex singleengine aircraft. ln the legal interpretation issued to Dean International Inc. (02-15-2013), the 

FAA found that if an airplane single-engine rating is sought, the applicant must perform the 

entire practical test in a single-engine airplane and that the aircraft must allow the applicant to 

demonstrate proficiency in operating a complex aircraft (enclosed). 

Despite the denial of ERAU's request for exemption, the FAA recognizes the issues 

surrounding the required use of older complex single-engine aircraft for training and testing. 

The FAA has initiated rulemaking that would propose to amend 14 CFR parts 61 and 141 

(DOT/FAA Notice RIN: 2 120-AK28 Publication ID: Fall2013) to permit pilots to train in 

teclmologically advanced airplanes in place of older complex single engine airplanes. You 

can find the status and track the progress on the proposed rulemaking on the DOT's semiannual regulatory agenda website: 

http://www.reuinio.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain?operation=OPERA TION GET AGENCY 

RULE LIST ¤tPub=true&agencyCode=&showStage=active&agencyCd=2 l OO&Image5 

8.x=25&ln1age58.y= 14 
Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. § 106(t), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby deny Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 

University's petition for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.45(a)(l)(i). 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John S. Duncan 

Director, Flight Standards Service 

Enclosures 

3 
U.S. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

.FEB 15 2013 

Ian Robert Dean 

Dean International Inc. 

14150 SW 129th Street 

Miami, FL 3 3186 

Dear Mr. Dean: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

This letter responds to your request for a legal interpretation emailed on October 21, 2012. 

Although your email appears to state-a conclusion rather than a question, we believe you 

requested clarification of whether a multi-engine airplane may be used to demonstrate 

proficiency in a complex airplane during a practical test for a commercial airplane singleengine rating. We also believe you requested clarification of whether a multiengine airplane 

may be used to log the required 10 hours in a complex airplane for an airplane single-engine 

rating under 14 C.F.R. § 61.129(a)(3Xii). 

Section 61.45 prescribes the required aircraft and equipment for practical tests. Section 

61.45(a) states, in relevant part, that "an applicant for a certificate or rating" must furnish an 

aircraft for the practical test that "is of the category, class, and type, if applicable, for which 

the applicant is applying for a certificate or rating." Furthermore,§ 61.45(b)(1) states, in 

relevant part, that an aircraft used for a practical test must have the equipment for each area 

of operation required for the practical test. In other words, if an airplane single-engine rating 

is sought, the applicant must perform the entire practical test in a single-engine airplane, and 

that airplane must be equipped to demonstrate proficiency in operating a complex aircraft. 

This interpretation of§ 61.45 was recently reaffirmed by the FAA. See Legal Interpretation 

to Allen J. Fitch (Nov. 14, 2012) (enclosed). 

To answer the second question, § 61.129(a) prescribes the required flight time for a 

commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine rating. Among the requirements, 

an applicant must log "10 hours oftraining in an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, 

flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, or is turbine-powered.'' § 61.129(a)(3)(ii). That 

paragraph does not specify the training be conducted in a particular aircraft category and 

class unlike other paragraphs in§ 61.129. See, e.g.,§ 61.129(a)(3)(iii)-(iv) (requiring single 

engine airplane), § 61.129(a)(4) (requiring single engine airplane), § 61.129(b)(3)(ii) 

(requiring multiengine airplane). Accordingly, the 10 hours of training required under§ 
61.129.(a)(3)(ii) may be conducted in either a single- or multi-engine airplane that has a 

retractable landing gear, flaps, and a controllable pitch propeller, or is turbine-powered. 

2 

Finally, we note that current Flight Standards policy does not allow for simultaneous 

practical tests (e.g., airplane single-engine and airplane multi-engine) to be conducted unless 

the applicant meets the eligibility criteria for all applicable practical tests. 

This response was prepared by Robert Hawks, an Attorney in the International Law, 

Legislation, and Regulations Division ofthe Office of Chief Counsel, and coordinated with 

the General Aviation and Commercial Division ofFlight Standards Service. We hope this 

response has been helpful to you. If you have additional questions regarding this matter, 

please contact us at your convenience at (202) 267-3073. 

Acting Assistant Chief Co sel for 

International Law, Legislation and Regulations (AGC-200) 

Enclosure 
Exemption No. 965 1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

DELTA CONNECTION 

ACADEMY 

for an exemption from 

§ 61.45(b )( 1 )(i) 

ofTitle 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-27317 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated February 7, 2007, Mr. Richard C. Morris, Director of Flight Standards, 

Program Development and Chief Pilot, Delta Connection Academy (Delta Academy), 2700 

Flightline A venue, Sanford, FL 32773, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Delta Academy for an exemption from§ 61.45(b)(1)(i) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow students 

enrolled in Delta Academy's FAA-approved pilot school curriculum for technically advanced 

aircraft (T AA), who hold a "single and multiengine commercial certificate with instrument 

privileges," to take the FAA " flight instructor for airplane single-engine land" practical tests 

without needing to furnish a complex aircraft. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation: 

Section 61.45(b )( 1 )(i) prescribes, in pertinent part, that the required equipment (other 

than controls), except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an aircraft used 

for a practical test must have the equipment for each area of operation required for the 

practical test. 

E-2007-0465 
2 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner states it is training its certificated flight instructor (CFI) candidates in 

highly sophisticated, glass-cockpit Cirrus SR-20 aircraft, which have fixed gear. Since 

the candidates have already had up to 50 hours of complex experience acquired during 

training for their commercial and multiengine certifications, Delta Academy asserts that 

they have sufficient experience in complex aircraft and do not need to demonstrate their 

proficiency with such aircraft again, having already done so at least twice. It is 

expected that the candidates, upon completion of their flight instructor certifications, 

will be training in similar glass-cockpit aircraft. Currently, Delta Academy does not 

employ complex, retractable-gear aircraft with glass-cockpits, meeting the requirements 

of the practical test standards that would require two different types of aircraft to be 

flown for the CFI practical test (glass-cockpit, fixed gear, and conventional cockpit 

retractable gear). It is Delta Academy's position that to require a candidate to fly two 

aircraft to complete the initial CFI practical test is unnecessary and would unduly 

burden the candidate in that they would have to train in two different aircraft and then 

provide two different aircraft for the practical test. 

Additionally, Delta Academy asserts that the granting of its petition will allow for 

research to be conducted into how applicants for their first CFI certificate will interact 

with the emerging glass-cockpit teclmology incorporated into the latest generation of 

TAA. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner's request and finds that a grant of 

exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety 

equivalent to the current regulations. 

The specific application of the complex, retractable-gear airplane in the practical test is 

primarily for takeoff and landing and emergency procedures. The FAA does not 

question the experience and skill acquired by the Delta Academy CFI candidate during 

his or her earlier training. The purpose for the testing demonstration during the CFI 

practical test is to determine the candidate's ability to teach the appropriate operations 

and techniques, not only to execute them. Unfortunately, although relatively rare, 

aircraft do continue to be landed gear-up due solely to the failure of the pilot to properly 

operate the gear system. Properly teaching pilots how to avoid such unfortunate 

incidents is the responsibility of the flight instructor and such teaching skills should be 

demonstrated as a condition for acquiring an initial flight instructor rating. The same 

reasoning applies to the demonstration by the CFI candidate of his or her ability to 

teach proper landing gear emergency procedures in flight as well as teaching proper 

preflight of the gear system to help avoid in-flight failures. 
3 

Once the CFI is issued a flight instructor certification, he or she is not limited to fixedgear aircraft either by certification or by regulation. Upon receiving his or her 

instructor certification, the candidate will be qualified to instruct multiple ratings, 

including the commercial rating which requires use of a retractable-gear airplane; it is 

highly likely that the CFI will soon be asked to instruct in a retractable-gear equipped 

aircraft. If Delta Academy's request were to be granted, that instructor would then 

teach in an aircraft for which he or she had never demonstrated teaching skill. 

Furthermore, the instructor candidate will be permitted to train pilots in conventional 

cockpit aircraft as well as glass-cockpit aircraft. Since glass-cockpit aircraft currently 

represent a small minority of today's training fleet, it is highly likely that the candidate 

will also be providing instruction in conventional cockpit aircraft at some point. While 

not a regulatory requirement that the instructor be trained in both types of cockpits, the 

FAA firmly believes that an instructor so trained will be more flexible, effective, and, 

presumably, safer and thus better equipped to train other pilots. 

Delta Academy's assertion that it would be able to provide a rich database of glasscockpit trained instructor experiences is laudable and well taken. However, the FAA 

does not believe that expanding the instructor's skills to include conventional cockpit 

aircraft, or to demonstrate the operation of complex aircraft during the practical test, 

detracts from the development of that database. 

For the reasons above, the FAA believes that granting Delta Academy's petition would 

result in an instructor not being adequately tested in teaching skills in certain critical 

areas of operation. The FAA further believes that this would result in potentially 

unsafe conditions and, therefore, is not in the public interest. 

The FAA's Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the 

public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 

and 44701 , delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Delta Connection Academy 

for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.45(b )( 1 )(i) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2008. 

John M. Allen 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

Service 
Exemption No. I 0442 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

JOHN D. ODEGARD SCHOOL 

FOR AEROSt> ACE SCIENCES 

for an exemption from § 61.45(b )(I )(i) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0368 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

By letter received April 12, 20 I I, Mr. Dick Schultz, Director of Flight Operations, John D. 

Odegard School for Aerospace Sciences at the University of North Dakota (UNO), 

2784 Airport Drive, Box 9051, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58203-905 1, petitioned the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of UNO for an exemption from 

§ 61.45(b )( I )(i) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR). The proposed exemption, 

if granted, would allow UNO to conduct the "takeoff and landing maneuvers, and appropriate 

emergency procedures" in a noncomplex single-engine airplane while performing the Flight 

Instructor Airplane Single-Engine Land end of course stage check in the school's approved 

part 14 1 training course outline. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation: 

Section 61.45(b )(I )(i) prescribes, in pertinent part, that an aircraft used for a practical 

test must have the equipment for each area of operation required for the practical test. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

The petitioner states that the complex single-engine airplane has become a financial 

burden to most flight training organizations without providing a great benefit to fl ight 

training and safety. The petitioner notes that most aircraft manufacturers are no longer 

offering complex single-engine airplanes. As a result, flight training organizations bear 

AFS-1 1-274-E 
2 

the financial burden of maintaining older, less reliable airplanes in order to meet FAA 

requirements, a burden that the petitioner asserts is passed down to the student in the 

form of increased night training fees. The petitioner argues that one way to reduce 

flight training costs is to allow the usc of a lower costing, noncomplex single-engine 

airplane in fl ight instructor training and certification. 

To do this, the petitioner wants to replace the training required in a PA28R-201 Piper 

Arrow with a Cessna 172S. The petitioner states that this would result in lower fossil 

fuel consumption, reduced fuel burn, and lower operating costs passed on to the 

student. The petitioner also states that the Piper Arrow incurs a 208 percent higher 

maintenance labor hour to flight hour ratio than the Cessna, again translating into 

higher operating costs that are passed on to the student. Additionally, the petitioner 

states that the replacement cost for these complex single-engine aircraft is higher than 

that of the Cessna 172S. 

The petitioner asserts that not providing complex airplane experience in the night 

instructor certification course is not a hazard to safety. The petitioner states that the 

FAA currently allows flight instructors to issue a high performance airplane 

endorsement as long as they possess the same endorsement. The petitioner states that 

most of these flight instructors did not receive any high performance airplane 

experience in their flight instructor training, yet they are providing the instruction and 

issuing the endorsement. Similarly, the petitioner states that a flight instructor who 

possesses a tailwheel airplane endorsement may teach and endorse students to operate 

these airplanes without further evaluation. The petitioner argues that the evaluation of 

complex airplane operations could be handled in the same manner. 

The petitioner submitted additional information to support its request on June 7, 2011 , 

("June Petition"). In the June Petition, the petitioner referenced the denial of 

Exemption No. 965 1 issued to Delta Connection Academy for the same type of request. 

The petitioner believes that in the 4 years since the denial of Exemption No. 9651 was 

issued, the flight training environment has changed to a point where the FAA should 

reconsider its original decision. 

To support its position in the June Petition, the petitioner referenced the 20 I 0 Nail 

Report produced by the AOPA Air Safety Institute. The Nail Report, according to the 

petitioner, stated that in 2009, thirteen general aviation accidents out of a total of I ,418 

were caused by errors in operating retractable gear systems. The petitioner states that 

this figure represents 0.9 percent of the total general aviation accidents in 2009. The 

petitioner agrees that the flight instructor has numerous responsibilities in ensuring 

their students and tomorrow's pilots are operating as safely as possible, however, the 

petitioner asserts that not all of these responsibilities are tested on initial flight 

instructor certification. 
3 

Lastly, the petitioner references the final rule issued in August 2009 that revised 

14 CFR parts 61 , 91 , and 141 , "Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School Certification." 

The petitioner notes that revision no. 99 allows "the commercial pilot certification 

course for the single engine airplane rating to be approved with the use of either a 

complex single engine airplane or a complex multi-engine airplane." The petitioner 

asserts that as a result of this change, UNO along with many other flight training 

programs have adopted a commercial pilot flight training program without the use of a 

single-engine complex airplane. UNO concludes that it is no longer highly likely that 

the certified flight instructor (CFI) will soon be asked to instruct in a single-engine 

retractable-gear equipped aircraft, as stated in the FAA's analysis of the denial of 

Exemption No. 9651. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal 

Register publication because this petition does not set a precedent. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner's request and finds that a grant of 

exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety 

equivalent to the current regulations. 

The petition does not contain any proposal for training or evaluation that would enable 

its CFI applicants to meet an equivalent level of safety as those evaluated for complexaircraft competencies. For that reason, the proposed relief, as outlined in the petition, 

does not meet an equivalent level of safety to that of the rule. 

The petitioner cites the FAA's denial of Exemption No. 9651 and the 2010 Nail 

Report, stating that only thirteen general aviation accidents out of a total of I ,418 were 

caused by errors in operating retractable gear systems. However, page 42 of the 

appendix of the 20 I 0 Nail Report cites the National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) definition of an aircraft accident, classifying an accident as an occurrence 

resulting in "substantial damage" to the aircraft. For that reason, the Nail Report data 

may appear misleadingly low, because accidents strictly related to operation of 

retractable gear systems rarely result in substantial damage to the aircraft. The FAA 

finds that occurrences involving operation of retractable gear systems do not generally 

cause substantial aircraft damage or injuries, and as such, the FAA is not persuaded by 

this portion of the petitioner's argument. 

Cost benefits for petitioner's students and marginally reduced fuel burn do not meet 

our requirement for showing that the requested relief is in the public interest. The 

petitioner has also fai led to show how it is unique from the general class of regulated 

persons to justify an exemption of this kind. 
4 

The FAA notes that if it were to determine relief from the current rule is acceptable, it 

would amend the requirements so that all persons benefit, not just the petitioner. The 

petitioner's comments and arguments for an exemption to§ 61.45(b)( I )(i) are being 

considered as part of a possible future amendment to part 61. 

The FAA's Decision: 

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the 

public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to the current 

regulations. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 

and 4470 I, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of John D. Odegard 

School for Aerospace Sciences at the University ofNorth Dakota for an exemption 

from 14 CFR § 61.45(b )(I )(i) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on February 2, 20 12. 

Is/ 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service