3850 Three Mile Lane • McMinnville, OR 97128-9496 • USA 

Phone 503 472-0011 • Fax 503 434-3443 

SITA HDQFOEZ 

EVERGREEN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, INC. 

7 September 2006 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

400 7th Street SW 

Room PL 401 

Washington, DC 20591-0001 

Dear Sir; 

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc., respectfully petitions the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) for an exemption from Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit Evergreen International Airlines, 

Inc. to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to 

observe a qualifying pilot-in-command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties 

during at least one flight that includes a takeoff and landing when completing initial or upgrade 

training as specified in Section 121.424. This substitution would occur only at the discretion of 

the certificate holder and only when an FAA inspector is not immediately available, subject to 

certain conditions and limitations. 

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. requests relief from the following regulation: 

Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that if the certificate holder’s approved 

training program includes a course of training in an airplane simulator under Section 121.409(c) 

and a qualifying PIC is completing initial or upgrade training specified in Section 121.424, the 

PIC must be observed in the performance of prescribed duties by an FAA inspector during at 

least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing. 

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. hereby submits that the original intent of Section 

121.434(c)(1)(ii), issued in early 1970, was to validate the training a pilot received in a visual 

simulator. Since that rule was adopted, the airline industry has had 18 years of experience with 

visual simulators, followed by 23 years of experience with advanced simulation. Evergreen 

International Airlines, Inc. contends that US airlines have trained thousands of pilots using 

sophisticated advanced simulators. We believe that the combined experience of the airline 

industry and the FAA with advanced simulation has made the present rule obsolete. 
Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. submits that the FAA has the authority to and routinely 

does observe any pilot at any time. The FAA conducts these routine observations on a schedule 

that the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) sets without the burden of having to 

observe a particular pilot on specific flights necessitated by our training and service schedule. 

The FSDO does not have the personnel to adequately handle all of Evergreen’s requests for 

observations, requiring some pilots to travel to other bases of operation for operating experience 

(OE) observations. This delay causes Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. an economic impact 

by delaying the qualification of a PIC and reduces the number of days in which that PIC has to 

complete his consolidation of 100 hours within the 120 days specified in 121.434 (h)(4). This 

reduction alone has the potential cause an even greater economic impact to the airline if the PIC 

has not completed his consolidation, as the PIC will then have to return to the training facility for 

additional advanced simulator training. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. contends that 

relieving the FAA inspectors of their obligation to observe pilots would allow the FAA to focus 

its efforts on higher priority safety concerns. 

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. notes that in Safety Summit I sponsored by the Department 

of Transportation and FAA, a recommendation was set forth from the Training Issues Working 

Group, to allow for the substitution of a qualified check airman to provide the FAA observation 

when an FAA inspector is not available. Evergreen contends that this would allow the FAA to 

target its personnel on those areas deserving higher priority and attention, thus providing a more 

cost effective use of an inspector’s time. We also content that the recommendations from the 

Safety Summit I have been endorsed at all levels of the FAA as an action that would clearly 

benefit the FAA and the airlines. 

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. contends that the proposed exemption would be in the 

public interest. By granting this exemption it would allow: 

1. The FAA greater flexibility and better use of its inspection force by focusing on 

higher priority safety functions; 

2. Evergreen to use a qualified pilot immediately after completing OE; 

3. Evergreen can significantly increase the use of qualified pilots and 

Improve its ability to provide on time, dependable air service for the 

Public; and 

4. Reduce the unnecessary cost of wages and lost productivity for those qualified pilots 

waiting for the FAA observation. These costs directly influence the price of airline 

services to the public. 

By granting the proposed exemption, there would be no adverse effect on safety for the 

following reasons: 

1. The authorized check airman would be highly trained and experienced with the 

particular airplane type and would be approved by the FAA; 
2. The check airman would be used to fulfill the requirements of Section 

121.434(c)(1)(ii) only when a FAA inspector is not available; and 

3. The FAA has the authority to observe any pilot at any time during line operations. 

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. also notes that in some instances, the FAA inspector 

performing the observation may not be qualified in the particular airplane being flown. By 

allowing a company check airman who is highly qualified in the airplane to complete the 

observation, a greater level of scrutiny and objectivity will be provided for the qualifying PIC. 

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. proposes that the requested exemption be subject to the 

following conditions and limitations: 

1. Evergreen will nominate qualified check airmen to perform the initial OE 

observation, and the FAA will approve the qualified check airmen to conduct the 

observation through a letter of authorization or an electronic authorization. 

2. The requirement of Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) will be considered fulfilled if the 

observation is performed by an FAA authorized check airman. The observation 

requirement will be documented in the qualifying pilot’s record. 

3. The authorized check airman will be a check airman other than the one who is 

conducting the OE flights of the qualifying pilot. 

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. in its’ petition for exemption from 121.434(c)(1)(ii) will 

also initiate through the FSDO responsible for Certificate Administration the issuance of 

Operations Specification A316 Initial Operating Experience (IOE) Observation by Check 

Airman In Lieu of an FAA Inspector. Evergreen looks for expediency in its request for this 

exemption so that undue economic burden is relieved form both the carrier and FAA. 

Respectfully, 

Capt. Phillip L. Spessard 

System Chief Pilot 

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. 

3850 Three Mile Lane 

McMinnville, OR 97128 

(503) 472-0011 ext 4984 

(971) 237-9714 cell