US

. Deportment of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration January 9 , 20 15 Exemption No. 11146 800 I nd e pendence Ave

. . S W Wa sh i n g ton

. DC

. 20 591

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 l etter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and exp l ains it s 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 Univer s ity, (ERAU) , for an exemption from 

### § 61.45(a)( I )(i) ofTit 1 e 14 , Code of Federal Regu lations ( 14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow E RAU to utilize a multiengine airp lane during the end-of-co urse test for a flight instructor certificate with an ai rplane category and a s in gle-e ngine class rating. The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register becau s e this is not a precedent-setting petition , and any delay in act in g on this petition wou ld be detrimental to ERAU. The FAA has issued denia ls 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) al s o cited increa s ing airc raft scarcity and operating costs for certain s in g le- e ngine comple x ai rcraft. 

### In the FAA ' s response to tho s e petitio n s , th e FAA found that the p e titioners were unable to show that their proposed operations met an equiva lent l evel of safety to that of the regulation , w hich requires the practical test to be conducted in the category a nd class of ai rc raft app licabl e to th e rating sought. ERAU ha s a lso fai l ed to s how how it is unique from the general class of regulated persons to justify an exemption of tllis kind. AFS-14- 2 62- EHaving review ed ERAU's reasons for requesting an exemption , the FAA finds that:
• They do not differ materially from those presented by the p e titioners in the enclosed Denials of Exe mption Nos. 9651 and l 0442 ; 2

• The reasons s tated by the FAA in the D enials of Exemption Nos. 9651 and 10442 al s o app ly to the si tuation 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 preflig ht inspection , takeo ff , landin g , and emergency procedures for si ngle engine aircraft. The FAA has found th at an app li cant for a fli g ht instructor certificate need s to be able to teach th ese elements in an aircraft that is of higher comp lexity

. The FAA ha s previous l y held that the only way to fulfill this requirement is through demonstration of skill in a complex singleengine aircraft. 

### ln the lega l int erpretation issued to Dean International Inc. (02-15 -2013) , the FAA found that if an airplane single

- engine ratin g is sought, the applicant must perform the en tire practical test in a single-engine airplane and that the aircraft must allow the applicant to demonstrate profici e ncy in operating a comp l ex aircraft (enc losed).
D es pite the denial of ERAU ' s request for exemption , the FAA reco g ni zes the issues s urrounding the re quire d u se of older complex s ingle-engine a ircraft for tra ining and testing. The FAA has initiated rulemaking that would propose to amend 1 4 CFR parts 6 1 and 141 ( DOT /FAA Notice RIN: 2 120-AK28 Public ation ID: Fall2013) to permit pilots to train in te clmologically advanced a irplanes in place of older complex single engine airp lanes. You ca n find the stat u s and track the progress on the proposed rulemaking on the DOT's semia nnual regulatory age nda website: http: //www.reuinio.gov/public / do /eA gendaMain ?o peration=OPERATION GET AGENCY R UL E LIST &curre ntPub=true&agencyCod e=&s howStage= activ e &age ncyCd=2 l OO&Image5 8.x = 25 &ln1age58. y= 14Our 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). S inc erely , 

### /s/ John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service Enclosures 3U.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. A lthough 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 mu st 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 Divi sion 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) EnclosureExemption No. 965 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINIS TRATIO N WASHINGTON , DC 20591

In the matter of the petit io n of 

### DELTA CONNECTION ACADEMY
for an exemption from § 61.45(b)( 1 )( i) ofT itl e 14 , Code of Federal Regulations 

### Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2007-27317

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION By letter dated February 7 , 2007, 

### Mr. Richard C. Morris, Di rector of F l igh t Standards, Prog ram D evelopment and Chief Pil ot , Delta Connection Academy (Delta Academy), 2700 Flightline A venue, Sanford, FL 32773 , pet it ioned the Federal Aviation Adm inis trat ion (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, wou ld allow students enro lled in Delta Academy 's FAA-approved pilot school curriculum for technically advanced a ircraft (T AA) , who hold a "si ng le and multien g in e commercial certificate with instrument privileges ," to take the FAA " flight instructor for a irplan e s in gle

- engine land" practical tests wi thout needing to furni s h a complex ai rc raft. 

### The petition er reque s t s relief from the following regulation: Sectio n 61.45(b )( 1 )(i) p re scribes , in pert in ent part , that the required equipmen t (other than controls) , except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, an aircraft u sed for a practical test must have the equipment for eac h area of operation required for the practic a l test.

E-2007

- 04652 

### The petitioner su pport s its request with the following information: Th e petitioner states it is traini ng its certificated fli gh t instructor (CF I) candidates in hi ghly sophi sticated , g lass - cockpi t C irru s SR

- 20 aircraft , w hi ch have fixed gear. Since the candidat es have a lrea dy had up to 50 hours of co mpl ex ex perien ce acquire d durin g tra ining for their co mm e rcial and multiengine ce rtifi cations , Delta Academy assert s th at th ey have sufficient expe ri e nce in com pl ex ai rcraft and do not need to demonstrate th eir p roficie nc y w ith suc h a ircraft aga in , hav in g alr eady done so at least tw ice. It i s expected that the candidates , up on completion of th eir flight instructor cer ti ficatio ns, will be trai n ing in simi l a r g lass - cockpit aircr aft. Currentl y, D elt a Academy do es not emp loy complex , retractable- gear a ircraft wi th g lass-cockpits , meeti ng th e requirem e nt s of th e practical test standards that wou ld require two different types of a ircraft to be flown for the CF I practical test (g l ass-cockp it , fixed gear, and conventional cockpit re tractable gear). 

### It is D elta Acad emy ' s position that to requi re a cand id ate to fly two a ircraft to co mpl ete th e initi al CF I prac ti cal test i s unnecessary and wo uld unduly burden the ca ndid ate in that t h ey wou ld have to train in two different ai r craft and then provide two different a irc raft for th e practical te st. Additionall y, D elta Acade my asserts that the gran tin g of its petition w ill a llow for research to b e conducted into how app li ca nt s for their fir st CFI certificate w ill interact with the e mergi ng glass-cockpit teclmology incorporated into the lates t gene rat ion of TAA.
T h e FAA has d e te rmin ed th at good cau se ex ist s for waivin g the require ment for Federal Register pub lication

. 

### The FAA 's analysis is a s follows: The FAA ha s considered full y th e petitioner's request and finds that a grant of exe mption wou ld n ot be in the pub li c interest and would not provid e a leve l of safety equivalent to the cur re nt regulation s. T he speci fic app li cation of the comp lex, retractable- gea r airplane in th e practical test i s primari ly for takeoff and landin g and emergency procedures. The FAA does not qu es ti o n the experience and ski ll acqui red by the D e lt a Aca demy CFI candidate during hi s o r he r earlier trainin g . The purp ose for the t es tin g d e monstration during the CFI practical te st is to determine the cand id ate's ability to teach the appropriate operations and techniqu es, not o nl y to execute th em. Unfortunate ly , although relatively rare, ai rcraft do continue to be landed gear-up due so le ly to th e failure of the pilot to properl y operate the gear sys tem. Properly teaching pilot s how to avoid suc h unfortunate in ciden t s is th e responsibility of the flight instruc t o r and s uch teachin g s kill s should be demonstrated as a co ndition for ac quirin g an initial fli g ht in st ructor ratin g. The same reaso nin g app li es to the demonstration by the CF I candidate of hi s or her ab ili ty to teac h prope r landing gea r emerge ncy procedures in flight as we ll as teaching proper preflig ht 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 eithe r by certification or by regulation. Upon receiving his or her instructor certification , the candidate will be qualifi ed 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 retractab le-gear equipped aircraft. If Delta Academy's request were to be granted, that instructor would then teach in an aircraft for wh ich he or s he had ne ver 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 wi ll also be providing instruction in conventional cockpit aircraft at some point. Whi le not a regulatory requirement that the instructor be trained in both types of cockpits, the FAA firmly be li eves that an in structor so trained w ill be more flexib le, 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 in struc tor experiences is laudable and well taken. However, the FAA does not believe that expanding the in struc tor '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 thi s wou ld 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 exempt ion 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 exemp tion from 14 CFR § 61.45(b)( 1 )(i) is hereby denied. Issued in Washington, DC, on March 7, 2008. John M. Alle n Acting Director, Flight Standards ServiceExemption No. I 0442 UN I TED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRAN S PORT AT I ON FEDERAL AV I ATION ADM I N ISTRAT I ON WASHINGTON , DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of
JOHN D

. ODEGARD SCHOOL FOR AEROSt> ACE SCIENCES for an exempt io n from 

### § 61.45(b )( I )(i) of T it le 14 , Code of Federal Regulations Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0368

D EN IAL OF EXEMPT IO N By l etter rece ived Apri l 12 , 20 I I , Mr. Dick Schultz , Director of Flight Operations , John D

. Odegard Schoo l f or Aerospace Sc i ences at the University of North Dakota (UNO), 2784 Airport Drive , Box 9051, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58203-905 1 , petitioned the Federal Av iation Admin istration (FAA) o n behalf of UNO for an exemption from § 61.45(b)( I)(i) of Title 1 4, Code of Federa l Regulation s ( 1 4 CFR). The proposed exem pti on , if grant ed , wou ld a ll ow UNO to conduct the " takeoff and l anding maneuvers, and appropriate e mergency procedures " in a noncompl ex s in g l e-eng in e airp lane w hil e performing the Fli g ht In structor Airp lane S in g l e-E ng in e Land e nd of cou rse stage c hec k in the sc hoo l 's app ro ved part 1 4 1 trainin g course out lin e. T he p etitio n er requests relief from th e followin g re g ul a ti on: Sect ion 61.45(b )( I)(i) prescribes , in pertinent part , that an aircraft u se d for a practical test must have th e equip ment for each ar ea of o peratio n req uired for the practical test.
T h e petit io n e r s upp o rts its request with th e following inf o rm atio n : The pet it ioner s ta tes that th e complex single-e ngi ne airp l ane has become a financ ial burd e n to m ost flight train ing o rgani zatio ns wi thout providing a gr eat benefit to fl ig ht training and safety. T he petitioner n otes that mo s t aircraft manufac turers are no longer offering co mpl ex single

-e ngin e airplanes. As a result , flight trainin g organizations bear
AFS-1 1- 274

- E2 

### the financial burden of maintainin g older , l ess r e li able airplan es in o rd er to meet FAA requirem e nt s, a burden that th e p etiti o ner asserts is passed down to the s tudent in the form of increa se d ni ght training fees. T h e petiti o ner argues that one way t o reduce flight train in g costs is to a ll ow th e u sc o f a lowe r cos ting , nonco mpl ex sing le- e ngine airp lan e in fl ig ht instructo r trainin g and ce r t ifi cati on. To do th is, th e petitione r wa nts to rep lace th e trai nin g r eq uired in a PA28R

-20 1 Pip er Arro w w ith a Cess na 172S. The pet itio n er s t ates th at this woul d r es u lt in lowe r fo ss il fuel co n s um ption, r e du ced fue l burn , and lowe r opera tin g costs pas se d o n to the student. Th e petiti o ner also states th a t the Piper Arrow in curs a 208 perce nt higher mainte nan ce labor hour to flight hour r at i o than th e Cessna , again tran s latin g into high er ope r ating cos t s that are passed o n to the s tud e nt. Additiona ll y, th e petitioner states that th e replace m ent cost for th ese comp lex s ingle

-eng in e aircraft is high er than that of the Cessna 172S. T he pe ti t io n er asserts that n ot pr ov id ing comp l ex airplane experience in the ni ght in st ru ctor ce rti fica t ion course is not a hazard to s afety. Th e petiti o ner s t ates th at the FAA cu rre ntl y a ll ows fli ght instru ctors to i ss u e a hi g h perf orm ance airp l a ne endorseme nt as lon g as they poss ess th e sa m e e ndorsement. T h e petiti o ner s tates that mo st of th ese fli ght instructors did not r ece iv e any high performan ce airpl a n e experienc e in th e ir fli ght instructor trainin g, yet th ey are prov iding th e in s truction and is s uin g th e endo rseme nt. S imil a rl y , the pet iti o ner states that a fli ght instructor who posses ses a tailwh ee l airplane e nd orseme nt may teach and e ndorse stu dents to ope rate th ese airpl anes w ith out further eva lu atio n . The petitioner argues that th e evaluatio n o f compl ex ai rpl ane operati ons co uld be hand l ed in the same manner. The petition er s ubmitted ad diti ona l inform a tion to s upp ort it s reque s t o n June 7 , 2011 , ("June P e titi on"). In the June Petiti o n , the petitioner refer e nc ed th e de nial of Exemption No. 965 1 i ss ued to D e lta Co nn ect ion Academy for th e s ame typ e of r equest. Th e pet iti o ner be li eves that in th e 4 yea rs s in ce th e denial of Exempt i o n No. 9651 was iss ue d , th e fli ght tr aining environment has c han ged to a point where th e F AA should recon s id er it s or iginal dec is io n. To supp ort it s posi ti on in the Jun e Pet it ion , the pet i tioner r e f

erence d th e 20 I 0 Na il Report produced by th e AOPA Air S af e t

y In st itu te. Th e Nail R epo rt , acco rdin g to th e petitioner, stated that in 2009, thirteen ge n eral av iation accident s o ut of a total of I ,418 were cau se d by errors in operatin g retractab le gear syste m s. T h e petitio ner sta te s that thi s figure represe nts 0 .9 perc e nt of th e t ota l ge n eral aviation accidents in 2009. The petitioner agrees that the flight in stru c t

or has num erous res pon s ibilitie s in ensuring their stude nts and to m orrow's pilot s are operat ing as safe ly a s possib le, h owever, the petitioner assert s that not a ll o f these respons ibilit ies are tested on initi al flight in stru ctor certification.3 

### Lastly , the petitioner references the fin al rul e issued in August 2009 that revised 14 CFR parts 61 , 91 , and 141 , "Pi lot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School Certification." The petitioner notes that revision no. 99 allows "the commercial pilot certification cours e for th e single engine airplan e rating to be approved with the use of either a compl ex s ingle e n gine airplane or a complex multi-engine airplane ." The petitioner asserts that as a result of this change , UNO along w ith many other fli ght training programs ha ve adopted a commercial pilot fli gh t tra inin g program without the use of a single-engine complex airplane. UNO concludes that it is no lon ger highly likel y that the certified flight in s tructor (C FI ) w ill soo n be asked to instruct in a single-engine r etra ctab l e-gear equipped aircraft , as stated in the FAA's analysis of the denial of Exemp tion No. 9651. The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication b ecau se this petition does not se t a precedent. The FAA's analysis is as follows: The FAA ha s considered fully th e petitioner 's request and finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public inter es t and would not provid e a l eve l of safety equivalent to the curre nt regulations. The petition doe s not contain any prop osa l for train ing or eval uation that would enable it s CFI applicants to meet an equivalent level of safety as tho se evaluated for complexaircraft competencies. For that reason, th e proposed relief , as outlined in the petition , does n ot me et a n equivalent level of safe t y to that of the rule. The petition er c ites the FAA ' s denial of Exemption No. 9651 and th e 2010 Nail Report , s tating that on ly thirteen ge neral av iation accidents out of a total of I ,4 18 we re caused by er r ors in operating retractable gear systems. However, page 42 of the appendix of the 20 I 0 Nail R eport cite s the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) definition of an aircraft accide nt , c la ssify ing an accident as an occurrence resulting in "s ubstantial damage " to the aircraft. For that reason , the Nail Report data may app ear mi s le adingly low , becau se acc idents strictl y re lated to operation of retractable gear syste ms rarely r es ult in substanti al da m age to th e airc raft

. The FAA finds that occurrences involving operati on of retractable gear sys t ems do not generally cause substantial airc raft damage or in juri es, and as suc h, the FAA is not persuaded by this portion of the petitioner 's argument. Cost benefit s f or petitioner ' s students and marginally reduced fuel burn do not meet our requirem e nt for s howin g that the r equ es ted relief is in the public inter est. The petitioner ha s also fai led t o show how it is unique from the general class of regulated perso ns t o ju stif y an exemption of thi s k ind

.4 

### The FAA note s that if it were to dete rmin e relief from the current ru le is acceptable, it would amend th e requi r ements so that all persons benefit , not ju s t 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 conside r atio n of th e fore go ing , I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the pub l ic interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to the c urrent regulations. Th erefore, pursuant to th e au thority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 

### 40113 and 4470 I , delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of John D. Odegard Schoo l f o r Aerospace Sciences at the Univers i ty ofNorth Dakota for an exemption from 14 CF R § 

### 61.45(b )( I )(i) is hereby denied. Iss ued in Washington , D.C. , on F ebruary 2 , 20 1 2. I

s / John M. A ll en Director, Flight Standards Service