4530 Flightline Drive Kingman, AZ 86401

Tel: 928-757-1002 Fax: 928-757-2951

Denial Appeal for Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0889 Aero-Fiite, Inc. for exemption from FAA FAR Part 60.7(a)(1) and 60.7 (b)(1) Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration Washington, DC 20591 Attn: John Barbagallo Acting Director, Flight Standards Service

Dear Mr. Barbagallo: We have read your denial and find thatthe Department ofTransportation has not considered all evidence provided by Aero-Fiite, Inc. in its request for exemption; therefore, we are appealing your decision ofdenial of exemption to Docket No. FAA-2013-0889. ::.::

### .:~**~** '·

... :

### ~.~

Our appeal includes, both evidence previously presented as well as new information. In our attemptto remain organized in our communications with you we have selected specific elements ofyour response followed by our response.

From your letter dated May 28th 2014- received Aero-Fiite, Inc. June sth 2014. The FAA's analysis is as follows: "The FAA carefully considered all ofthe information presented by the petitioner and finds that granting the petition for exemption would not be in the public's interest and would not provide the level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule which exemption is requested." The above statement is not clearly understood by us. Aero-Fiite, Inc.'s safe performance under Federal contract as an aerial fire-fighting company is undeniably in the public's interest. It is widely recognized that 14 CFR Part 137, Agricultural Aircraft Operations does not include requirements as complete as Part 135/121, etc. Because Aero-Fiite, Inc. is operating 'Next Generation' 4 engine jet aircraft in its firefighting fleet it is imperative thatwe exceed Part 137 requirements and strive to meet more arduous4530 Flightline Drive Kingman, AZ 86401

Tel: 928-757-1002 Fax: 928-757-2951

standards. Aero-Fiite, Inc. has implemented a comprehensive Flight Training Program, Safety Management System, and many other programs currently not required of Part 137 operators. Our Flight Training Program includes use ofa Simulator which is consistent with industry standards. It is our beliefthat, through partnership with the FAA, Aero-Fiite, Inc. will achieve its safety goals. "Aero-Fiite states that the simulator waspreviously certified by the FAA butafter United States-based airlines discontinued using theAvro RJ-85 aircraft in 2007, there was no need to maintain the certification. The FAA notes that newregulations governing the qualification requirementsforflight simulation training devices {FSTDs) have taken effectsince the simulator'sprevious certification. On October30, 2006, the FAA published afinal rule entitled "FlightSimulation Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use" {71 FR 63392}. The rule became effective May 30, 2008. This rule established Part 60 and, consolidatedand updatedFSTD requirements thatexisted in differentparts ofthe FAA's regulations and in advisory circulars. Part 60 strengthened FSTD qualification requirements with the intention ofensuring that users receive training in devices that closely match theperformance and handling characteristics ofthe aircraft being simulated. The FAAfinds that the device's previous certification does not impact its ability to meetcurrent_ augmented requirements." Aero-Fiite, Inc. has obtained the services of aworld-renowned FSTD certification consultant. He has worked with Swiss Aviation Training (SAT- Swiss Air) to ensure thattheir simulator meets the standards found in both 14CFR Part 60 and the FAA NSP. The MQTG (Master QualificatiopTest Guide) is complete and meets the NSP requirements with the exception of one element. That last element can and will be completed once sponsorship has been determined. "The FAA provided the opportunity for public comment when it published a Notice of Proposal Rulemaking for the rule establishing Part 60. In the preamble to the final rule, the FAA addressed comments suggesting that Part 137 operators be considered "certificate holders" under 60.7 and, therefore, eligible for FSTD sponsorship. In response to these comments, the FAA stated, "Only those persons required to have an FAA approved flight training program are eligible to sponsor an FSTD

... There is no requirement, however, for a Part 137 operatorto have an FAA approved flight training program. Therefore, it is not appropriate for those operators to sponsor an FSTD" (71 FR 63407)." We understand the conundrum as it exists. As a Part 137 certificate holderwe are not eligible to obtain an FAA approved training manual; however, we cannot be a sponsor without a training manual. AeroFiite, Inc. was not aware ofthe impact that the proposed rule would have on its future operations atthe time itwas purposed. As stated above, Aero-Fiite, Inc. seeks to exceed Part 137 requirements through the implementation ofaflight training program that is identical to both Swiss Aviation and Lufthansa's flight training programs for Avro RJ-85 aircraft. While the regulation, as it exists, prohibits the enhancement ofsafety through a partnership between the FAA and a Part 137 operator, we have taken these steps to obtain the exemption. As a condition to the issuance ofthe exemption requested, Aero-

-2-4530 Flightline Drive Kingman, AZ 86401

Tel: 928-757-1002 Fax: 928-757-2951

through more efficiency, effective, and safer flight crews. The FAA points out that sponsoring the simulator and bringing the device up to current requirements will require resources on the part ofAeroFiite. The FAA charges an FSTD sponsor for cost (Fee for Services) associated with evaluating, certifying, and overseeing the device. Considering the available alternative of partnering with an existing 142 training center to certify the FSTD, the FAA concludes that the assumed cost savings would not outweigh the safety purpose of limiting sponsor eligibility to those entities with an FAA-approved flight training program. Aero-Fiite, Inc. has a different perspective regarding the cost ofsafe operations. We believe thatthe financial cost of not investing in our people will ultimately exceed the initial investment in this program. Millions ofdollars have been invested to date and we are willing to provide sufficient resources to meet the costs ofthis program. We are aware that the FAA will charge Aero-Fiite, Inc. for reimbursement of its costs (Fee for Services) to certifythe simulator and we are prepared to pay those costs. In summation, Aero-Fiite, Inc. has an industry reputation ofgoing the extra mile to achieve customer satisfaction through superb aviation safety. Our record with the FAA and land management agencies attests to this fact. We are prepared to meet with you at your earliest convenience to further discuss our situation and work with you to accomplish our common interests. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.



### Sincerely,

Michael Lynn Safety Manager

Attachments: Denial letter May 

### 28th 2014 Petition for-Exemption Oct 

### 10th 2013

-4-

### ExemptionNo. 10997
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter ofthe petition of 

## RECEIVED 

## JUN 

# a 5

## 201'1

Aero Flite, Inc. Accounting Department



### AERO-FLITE, INC Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0889 for an exemption from§§ 60.7(a)(l) and 60.7(b)(l) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations



### DENIAL OF EXEMPTION By letter dated October 10, 2013, Mr. Michael W. Lynn, Safety Manager, Aero-Flite, Inc. (Aero-Flite), 4530 Flightline Drive, Kingman, AZ 86401 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) onbehalfofAero-Flite for an exemption from§§ 60.7(a)(l) and 60.7(b)(l) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Aero-Flite to sponsor the Swiss Aviation Training Simulator 6022 to use for crewtraining, certification checkrides, and annual currency check rides. 

### The petitioner requests relieffrom the following regulations: Section 60.7(a)(l) prescribes, in pertinentpart, that a person is eligible to apply to be a sponsor ofan FSTD ifthe person holds, or is an applicant for, a certificate under part 119, 141, or 142 ofthis chapter; orholds, or is an applicant for, an approved flight engineer course in accordance with part 63 ofthis chapter. Section 60.7(b)(l) prescribes, in pertinentpart, that a person is a sponsor ifthe person is a certificate holder under part 119, 141, or 142 ofthis chapter orhas an approved flight engineer course in accordance withpart 63 ofthis chapter. 

### The petitioner supports its request with the following information: Aero-Flite requests reliefto obtain access to an Avro RJ-85 specific Level D simulatorthat is only available in Zurich, Switzerland and currently operatedby Swiss Aviation Training. The petitioner states it would like to sponsor this simulator and have it recertified withthe FAA, as AFS-14-029-E

### 2 it had been previously. The simulator would be used for crewtraining, certification check rides, and annual currency checkrides per 14 CFR § 61.58. Aero-Flite describes itselfas a FAA part 137 operator, engaged in wild land fire suppression. It

### is upgrading its fleet ofaircraft to include BAE Avro RJ-85jets. However, there is no Avro RJ-85 Level D simulator located inthe United States. In addition, Aero-Flite is restricted from being a sponsor ofa simulator under 14 CFR §§ 60.7(a)(l) and 

### 60.7(b)(l).
Aero-Flite asserts thatthe author ofpart 60 confirms that at the time part 60 was being developed, there were no part 137 operaters utilizing large ortransport categoryturboject aircraft and it was an oversight not to include part 137 operators whenthe rule was drafted.
Aero-Flite contends that its top priority is a safe and effective operation and that granting Aero-Flite this exemption would enhance safety and enable it to provide a superior product to the U.S. government and the tax paying public.
Aero-Flite asserts that it is aware ofthe duties andresponsibilities that comewith certifYing and maintaining certification ofthis simulator andhas a working relationship withtheFAA and Swiss Aviation Training. Further, Aero-Flite states that it has expertise in aerial wildland firefighting, has an SafetyManagement System (SMS) and QualityManagement System (QMS), and is well suited to be a sponsor ofthe simulator.
A summary ofthe petitionwas published inthe Federal Register onFebruary 14, 2013 (79 FR 10601). The publicationreceived one comment in support ofthe petition from Mr. Edward Cook. Mr. Cook statedthattheprovisions ofthe currentrule §§60.7(a)(1) and (b)(1) were originally formulated to ensure that those persons or organizations sponsoring a flight simulationtraining device for FAA evaluation and qualification would have a practical knowledge ofwhat such a device is and for what purposes it can and should be used. He also stated that atthe time ofthe rule development there were no part 137 certificate holders who operated large, transport category airplanes, except for those airplane types that had been regularly used inpassenger and/or cargo transportation service by other certificated operators. In addition, Mr. Cook commented thatbecause ofthe newly developed part 60 rule preventing a part 137 certificate holder from sponsoring an airplane flight simulation device, Aero-Flite is not allowed to sponsorthis specific simulation device. InMr. Cook's opinion, ifpart 60 was being constructedtoday instead ofseveral years ago, withtoday's part 137 operators operating the kinds ofairplanes they are currently operating, the limiting section ofthe presentpart 60 would include operators certificated under part 137. 

### The FAA's analysis is as follows: The FAA carefully considered all ofthe informationpresented bythe petitioner and finds that granting the petition for exemption would not be in the public interest and would notprovide

### 3 the level ofsafety at least equal to thatprovided bythe rule from which exemption is requested.
Aero-Flite states thatthe simulator was previously certified bythe FAAbut after United States-based airlines discontinued using the Avro RJ-85 aircraft in 2007, there was no needto maintainthe certification. The FAA notes that newregulations governing the qualification requirements for flight simulationtraining devices (FSTDs) have taken effect since the simulator's previous certification. On October 30, 2006, the FAApublished a final rule entitled "Flight SimulationTraining Device Initial and Continuing Qualification andUse" (71 FR 63392). Therule became effective May 30, 2008. This rule establishedpart 60 and, consolidated and updated FSTD requirements that existed in differentparts ofthe FAA's regulations and in advisory circulars. Part 60 strengthened FSTD qualificationrequirements withthe intention ofensuring thatusers receive training in devices that closely matchthe performance and handling characteristics ofthe aircraft being simulated. The FAAfinds that the device's previous certification does not impact its ability to meet current, augmented requirements. Additionally, the petitionerreports that the author ofpart 60 confirmedthat atthe time the regulation was drafted, part 137 was not includedbecause there were no part 137 operators using large ortransport category turbojet aircraft and that it was an oversight notto include part 137 operators as a possible FSTD sponsor. The FAA finds this informationto be inaccurate. The FAAprovidedthe opportunity for public comment when it published a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking for the rule establishingpart 60. Inthepreamble to the final rule, the FAA addressed comments suggesting thatpart 137 operators be considered "certificate holders" under§ 60.7 and, therefore, eligible for FSTD sponsorship. Inresponse to these comments, the FAA stated, "Onlythose persons required to have anFAA approved flight training program are eligible to sponsor an FSTD

... There is no requirement, however, for a part 137 operatorto have an FAA approved flight training program. Therefore, itis not appropriate for those operators to sponsor anFSTD" (71 FR 63407). Whenthe final rule was published, the FAA eliminated minimum FSTD usage requirements for sponsor qualificationunderthe premisethat the requirements for an FAA-approved training program are sufficientlyrobust to ensure safety (71 FR 63400). As a part 137 operator, Aero-Flite does nothave an FAA-approvedtraining program as required for FSTD sponsorship bypart 60. Although the petitioner states that it maintains a SMS and QMS, the FAAfinds that Aero-Flite has not demonstrated how, inthe absence ofanFAA-approved trainingprogram, it would ensure a level ofsafety at least equal to thatprovided bythe rule. Therefore, the FAA finds that granting this exemption would set a precedentthatwould undermine the safetypurpose behind inclusion ofthe FAA -approvedtrainingrequirement in the rule. Aero-Flite states there is no Avro RJ-85 specific Level D simulator located inthe United States andthatthe one they want to use is located in Zurich, Switzerland. Further, the petitioner states that itis expanding its fleet ofaircraft to include BAEAvro RJ-85jets,

### 4 

### modified to dispense fire retardant and that it needs access to a simulatorto provide the appropriate level oftraining to its flight crews. Aero-Flite states it needs to act as the sponsor because ithas additional training requirements beyond standard airline operations. It

### is the FAA's determination that a reasonable option exists for Aero-Flite under currentregulations. The FAA contends thatAero-Flite could work with an already establishedpart 142 training center and have the simulator designated as a satellite simulator ofthe part 142 training center. This wouldpreclude having to use the actual aircraft intraining, an alternative with more cost and risk.
Inregard to public interest, Aero-Flite states that it contracts with Departments ofthe Interior and Agriculture and state governments and, therefore, asserts that the costbenefits ofbeing able to sponsor and use the simulator would be passed onto its customers within the government and the taxpayer through more efficiency, effective, and safer flight crews. The FAA points out that sponsoring the simulator and bringing the device up to current requirements will require resources onthe part ofAero-Flite. The FAA charges anFSTD sponsor for costs (Fee for Service) associated with evaluating, certifYing, and overseeing the device. Consideringthe available alternative ofpartnering with an existing 142 training center to certifY the FSTD, the FAA concludes that the assumed cost savings would not outweighthe safety purpose oflimiting sponsor eligibility to those entities with anFAAapproved flight training program. 

### The FAA's Decision: In consideration ofthe foregoing, I find that a grant ofexemption would not be inthe public interest. Therefore, pursuantto the authority contained in49 U.S.C. §§ 106(±), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition ofAero-Flite, Inc. for an exemption from 14 CPR§§ 60.7(a)(1) and (b)(l) is hereby denied. Issued in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2014

John Barbagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards ServiceU.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 

## RECE.\VEO 

## JUN 057.0\4
Aerof\ite,\nc. 

### "ooountingDepartment**'·~,**

MR MICHAEL W LYNN SAFETYMANAGER AERO FLITE INC 4530 FLIGHTLINE DRIVE KINGMAN AZ 86401



### ESlHl3B i3£i91 •lJpl11Hihlfl1lii!lljiljll'

### pI'!fill 

### IIll!III!jlljlljjll

### iJlllllOctober lOth, 2013

U.S. Department ofTransportation DocketOperations, WestBuilding Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 NewJerseyAvenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

To Whom ItMayConcern: 4530 Flightline Drive Kingman, AZ 86401

Tel: 928-757-1002

Aero-Flite Inc. is anFAAPart 137 operatorwith a long history in wildland fire suppression. Currently we contractwith the U.S. Department ofthe Interior and Agriculture along with State Governments. Aero-Flite Inc. is currentlyupgrading its fleet ofaircraft to include BAE Avro RJ-85jetsmodified to dispense fire retardant. Along with the upgrade into higher performance and more complex aircraft, Aero-Flite Inc. recognizes the need to provide a level oftraining to its flight crews onparwithFAA Part 121 and 125 operators. To achieve this level oftraining we need access to an Avro RJ-85 specific Level D simulator. Unfortunately there are none located in the United States. Swiss Aviation Training currently operates an Avro RJ-85 Level D simulator inZurich Switzerland. This particular simulator was at one time certified bythe FAA (FAA #0622). Butwhen U.S. based airlines discontinued usingAvro RJ-85 aircraft in 2007 there was no need to maintain FAAcertification ofthat simulator. Our desire is to sponsor this simulator and get it re-certified with the FAA so thatwe may use it for crewtraining, certification checkrides and annual currency check rides (FAR 61.58). Unfortunately, FAR 60.7 prevents Aero-Flite Inc. from being a sponsor ofthe simulator. We have interviewedthe author of FARPart 60, and he admits thatthe exclusion ofFAR 137 operators was an oversight and not intentional. Atthe time ofauthorship there were no FAR 137 operators utilizing large turbojet aircraft. Ourrequest is toreceive exemption from FAR 60.7 (a) and (b) and allow us to sponsorthe Swiss Aviation Training simulator. Aero-Flite's top priority is a safe and effective operation. A large part ofthat safe and effective operation is providing our flight crews with the propertraining. Aero-Flite recognizes the value ofsimulatorbased pilot flight training as the airlines have proven. The costbenefit ofbeing able to be a sponsor anduse the simulator as intended not only helps Aero-Flite Inc., butthose benefits are passed onto our customers withinthe government and to the public taxpayer inmore efficient, effective and safer flight crews. It must be clear, that in this petition for exemption, Aero-Fiite is not requesting that we be exempt from all of FAA Part 60, but only from 14 CFR FAA Part 60.7(a)(1) and 60.7(b)(1), thus allowing Aero-Fiite to sponsor this simulator. Aero-Fiite is currently in contact with the FAA National Simulator Program Manager (NSPM) and has started the process of certification. But until we can produce a sponsor, the certification is at a standstill. This request for exemption is not only in the Public's Interest but gives competency and professional training to our pilots and enhances the quality and the quantity4530 Flightline Drive Kingman, AZ 86401

Tel: 928-757-1002

ofthat training. Aero-Fiite Inc. is currently the only U.S. based user ofthe Swiss Aviation Training Avro simulator. Over the past year we have developed an excellent working relationship with Swiss Aviation Training. Due to some ofthe unique aspects ofour type of operation, we have additional training requirements beyond standard airline operations. With these points in mind we feel the need to act as the sponsor for this simulator is imperative. We also bring our quality Safety Management System (SMS) and our Quality Management System (QMS, FAR Part 60.5) into the sponsorship ofthis simulator.
This request for exemption would have no negative effects on any small business, organization or any other entity. The impact of being granted exemption would be on Aero-Fiite Inc. and Swiss Aviation Training in regards to record keeping, operations and QMS. All recordkeeping would fall on Aero-Fiite Inc. along with any other administrative duties associated with sponsorship ofthe simulator. Aero-Fiite works daily with the U.S. Dept. ofthe Interior and Agriculture and the paperwork associated with those agencies is common to our business. We also have a working relationship with our FAA Regional and local FSDO inspectors and are a custom to all duties and paperwork functions. An additional positive effect would 

### be, enabling other FAR 137 operators the ability to use this simulator, raising the overall safety standards of our entire industry.

Sincerely,

Michael W. Lynn Safety Manager, Aero-Fiite Inc.