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 of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: John Barbagallo 

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service 

Dear Mr. Barbagallo: 

We have read your denial and find that the Department of Transportation has not considered all 

evidence provided by Aero-Fiite, Inc. in its request for exemption; therefore, we are appealing your 

decision of denial of exemption to Docket No. FAA-2013-0889. 

::.:: .:~ ~ '· ... : ~.~ 

Our appeal includes, both evidence previously presented as well as new information. In our attempt to 

remain organized in our communications with you we have selected specific elements of your 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 of the 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 that we exceed Part 137 requirements and strive to meet more arduous 
4530 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 of a Simulator which is consistent with industry standards. It is our 

belief that, through partnership with the FAA, Aero-Fiite, Inc. will achieve its safety goals. 

"Aero-Fiite states that the simulator was previously certified by the FAA but after United States-based 

airlines discontinued using the Avro RJ-85 aircraft in 2007, there was no need to maintain the 

certification. The FAA notes that new regulations governing the qualification requirements for flight 

simulation training devices {FSTDs) have taken effect since the simulator's previous certification. On 

October 30, 2006, the FAA published a final rule entitled "Flight Simulation Device Initial and Continuing 

Qualification and Use" {71 FR 63392}. The rule became effective May 30, 2008. This rule established Part 

60 and, consolidated and updated FSTD requirements that existed in different parts of the FAA's 

regulations and in advisory circulars. Part 60 strengthened FSTD qualification requirements with the 

intention of ensuring that users receive training in devices that closely match the performance and 

handling characteristics of the aircraft being simulated. The FAA finds that the device's previous 

certification does not impact its ability to meet current_ augmented requirements." 

Aero-Fiite, Inc. has obtained the services of a world-renowned FSTD certification consultant. He has 

worked with Swiss Aviation Training (SAT- Swiss Air) to ensure that their simulator meets the standards 

found in both 14CFR Part 60 and the FAA NSP. The MQTG (Master Qualificatiop Test 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 operator to 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 holder we 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 of the impact that the proposed rule would have on its future operations at the 

time it was purposed. As stated above, Aero-Fiite, Inc. seeks to exceed Part 137 requirements through 

the implementation of a flight 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 of safety 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 of the 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 of AeroFiite. 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 of safe operations. We believe that the 

financial cost of not investing in our people will ultimately exceed the initial investment in this program. 

Millions of dollars have been invested to date and we are willing to provide sufficient resources to meet 

the costs of this program. We are aware that the FAA will charge Aero-Fiite, Inc. for reimbursement of 

its costs (Fee for Services) to certify the simulator and we are prepared to pay those costs. 

In summation, Aero-Fiite, Inc. has an industry reputation of going 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-
Exemption No. 10997 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the 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) 

of Title 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) on behalf of Aero-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 crew training, certification check rides, and annual currency check rides. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations: 

Section 60.7(a)(l) prescribes, in pertinent part, that a person is eligible to apply to be a 

sponsor of an FSTD if the person holds, or is an applicant for, a certificate under part 119, 

141, or 142 of this chapter; or holds, or is an applicant for, an approved flight engineer course 

in accordance with part 63 of this chapter. 

Section 60.7(b)(l) prescribes, in pertinent part, that a person is a sponsor if the person is a 

certificate holder under part 119, 141, or 142 of this chapter or has an approved flight engineer 

course in accordance with part 63 of this chapter. 

The petitioner supports its request with the following information: 

Aero-Flite requests relief to obtain access to an Avro RJ-85 specific Level D simulator that is 

only available in Zurich, Switzerland and currently operated by Swiss Aviation Training. The 

petitioner states it would like to sponsor this simulator and have it recertified with the FAA, as 

AFS-14-029-E 
2 

it had been previously. The simulator would be used for crew training, certification check 

rides, and annual currency check rides per 14 CFR § 61.58. 

Aero-Flite describes itself as a FAA part 137 operator, engaged in wild land fire 

suppression. It is upgrading its fleet of aircraft to include BAE A vro RJ-85 jets. However, 

there is no Avro RJ-85 Level D simulator located in the United States. In addition, Aero-Flite 

is restricted from being a sponsor of a simulator under 14 CFR §§ 60.7(a)(l) and 60.7(b)(l). 

Aero-Flite asserts that the author of part 60 confirms that at the time part 60 was being 

developed, there were no part 137 operaters utilizing large or transport category turboject 

aircraft and it was an oversight not to include part 137 operators when the 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 of the duties and responsibilities that come with 

certifYing and maintaining certification of this simulator and has a working 

relationship with the FAA and Swiss Aviation Training. Further, Aero-Flite states that 

it has expertise in aerial wildland firefighting, has an Safety Management System (SMS) 

and Quality Management System (QMS), and is well suited to be a sponsor of the 

simulator. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2013 (79 FR 

10601). The publication received one comment in support of the petition from Mr. Edward 

Cook. Mr. Cook stated that the provisions of the current rule §§60.7(a)(1) and (b)(1) were 

originally formulated to ensure that those persons or organizations sponsoring a flight 

simulation training device for FAA evaluation and qualification would have a practical 

knowledge of what such a device is and for what purposes it can and should be used. He also 

stated that at the time of the 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 in passenger and/or cargo transportation service by other certificated operators. 

In addition, Mr. Cook commented that because of the newly developed part 60 rule preventing 

a part 137 certificate holder from sponsoring an airplane flight simulation device, Aero-Flite is 

not allowed to sponsor this specific simulation device. In Mr. Cook's opinion, if part 60 was 

being constructed today instead of several years ago, with today's part 137 operators operating 

the kinds of airplanes they are currently operating, the limiting section of the present part 60 

would include operators certificated under part 137. 

The FAA's analysis is as follows: 

The FAA carefully considered all of the information presented by the petitioner and finds that 

granting the petition for exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide 
3 

the level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which exemption is 

requested. 

Aero-Flite states that the simulator was previously certified by the FAA but after United 

States-based airlines discontinued using the Avro RJ-85 aircraft in 2007, there was no need to 

maintain the certification. The FAA notes that new regulations governing the qualification 

requirements for flight simulation training devices (FSTDs) have taken effect since the 

simulator's previous certification. On October 30, 2006, the FAA published a final rule 

entitled "Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use" 

(71 FR 63392). The rule became effective May 30, 2008. This rule established part 60 and, 

consolidated and updated FSTD requirements that existed in different parts of the FAA's 

regulations and in advisory circulars. Part 60 strengthened FSTD qualification requirements 

with the intention of ensuring that users receive training in devices that closely match the 

performance and handling characteristics of the aircraft being simulated. The FAA finds that 

the device's previous certification does not impact its ability to meet current, augmented 

requirements. 

Additionally, the petitioner reports that the author of part 60 confirmed that at the time the 

regulation was drafted, part 137 was not included because there were no part 137 operators 

using large or transport category turbojet aircraft and that it was an oversight not to include 

part 13 7 operators as a possible FSTD sponsor. The FAA finds this information to be 

inaccurate. The FAA provided the opportunity for public comment when it published a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the rule establishing part 60. In the preamble to the final 

rule, the FAA addressed comments suggesting that part 13 7 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 13 7 operator to have an FAA approved flight training program. Therefore, it is not 

appropriate for those operators to sponsor an FSTD" (71 FR 63407). 

When the final rule was published, the FAA eliminated minimum FSTD usage requirements 

for sponsor qualification under the premise that the requirements for an FAA-approved 

training program are sufficiently robust to ensure safety (71 FR 63400). As a part 137 

operator, Aero-Flite does not have an FAA -approved training program as required for FSTD 

sponsorship by part 60. Although the petitioner states that it maintains a SMS and QMS, the 

FAA finds that Aero-Flite has not demonstrated how, in the absence of an FAA-approved 

training program, it would ensure a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule. 

Therefore, the FAA finds that granting this exemption would set a precedent that would 

undermine the safety purpose behind inclusion of the FAA -approved training requirement in 

the rule. 

Aero-Flite states there is no Avro RJ-85 specific Level D simulator located in the United 

States and that the one they want to use is located in Zurich, Switzerland. Further, the 

petitioner states that it is expanding its fleet of aircraft to include BAE Avro RJ-85 jets, 
4 

modified to dispense fire retardant and that it needs access to a simulator to provide the 

appropriate level of training to its flight crews. Aero-Flite states it needs to act as the sponsor 

because it has additional training requirements beyond standard airline operations. It is the 

FAA's determination that a reasonable option exists for Aero-Flite under current regulations. 

The FAA contends that Aero-Flite could work with an already established part 142 training 

center and have the simulator designated as a satellite simulator of the part 142 training center. 

This would preclude having to use the actual aircraft in training, an alternative with more cost 

and risk. 

In regard to public interest, Aero-Flite states that it contracts with Departments of the Interior 

and Agriculture and state governments and, therefore, asserts that the cost benefits of being 

able to sponsor and use the simulator would be passed on to 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 on the part of Aero-Flite. The FAA charges an FSTD 

sponsor for costs (Fee for Service) associated with evaluating, certifYing, and overseeing the 

device. Considering the available alternative ofpartnering 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 FAAapproved flight training program. 

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. §§ 106(±), 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Aero-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 Service 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

RECE.\VEO 

JUN 0 5 7.0\4 

Aero f\ite, \nc. 

"ooounting Department 

'·~, 

MR MICHAEL W LYNN 

SAFETY MANAGER 

AERO FLITE INC 

4530 FLIGHTLINE DRIVE 

KINGMAN AZ 86401 

ESlHl3B i3£i91 •lJpl11Hihlfl1 lii!lljilj ll' pI'! fill I Ill! I II! jlljlljjll i Jlllll 
October lOth, 2013 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor 

Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

To Whom It May Concern: 

4530 Flightline Drive 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

Tel: 928-757-1002 

Aero-Flite Inc. is an FAA Part 13 7 operator with a long history in wildland fire suppression. 

Currently we contract with the U.S. Department of the Interior and Agriculture along with 

State Governments. Aero-Flite Inc. is currently upgrading its fleet of aircraft to include 

BAE Avro RJ-85 jets modified 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 of training to its flight crews on par with FAA Part 121 and 125 operators. 

To achieve this level of training 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 in Zurich 

Switzerland. This particular simulator was at one time certified by the FAA (FAA #0622). 

But when U.S. based airlines discontinued using Avro RJ-85 aircraft in 2007 there was no 

need to maintain FAA certification of that simulator. Our desire is to sponsor this simulator 

and get it re-certified with the FAA so that we may use it for crew training, certification 

checkrides and annual currency check rides (FAR 61.58). Unfortunately, FAR 60.7 prevents 

Aero-Flite Inc. from being a sponsor of the simulator. We have interviewed the author of 

FAR Part 60, and he admits that the exclusion ofFAR 137 operators was an oversight and 

not intentional. At the time of authorship there were no FAR 13 7 operators utilizing large 

turbojet aircraft. Our request is to receive exemption from FAR 60.7 (a) and (b) and allow 

us to sponsor the Swiss Aviation Training simulator. 

Aero-Flite's top priority is a safe and effective operation. A large part of that safe and 

effective operation is providing our flight crews with the proper training. Aero-Flite 

recognizes the value of simulator based pilot flight training as the airlines have proven. 

The cost benefit of being able to be a sponsor and use the simulator as intended not only 

helps Aero-Flite Inc., but those benefits are passed on to our customers within the 

government and to the public taxpayer in more 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 quantity 
4530 Flightline Drive 

Kingman, AZ 86401 

Tel: 928-757-1002 

of that training. Aero-Fiite Inc. is currently the only U.S. based user of the Swiss Aviation 

Training Avro simulator. Over the past year we have developed an excellent working 

relationship with Swiss Aviation Training. Due to some of the unique aspects of our 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 of this 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 of the simulator. Aero-Fiite works daily with the U.S. Dept. of the 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.