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

Phone 503 472-0011 • Fax 503 434-3443 SITA HDQFOEZ 

### EVERGREEN INTERNATIONAL AI **R LINES, INC.** 

7 September 2006

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System

400 7 th Street SW

Room PL 401 Washington, DC 20591-0001

Dear Sir;

Evergreen International Airlines, Inc., respectfully petitions th e 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 In ternational Airlines, Inc. to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilo t-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 su bstitution would occur only at the discretion of the certificate holder and only when an FAA insp ector is not immediately available, subject to

certain conditions and limitations.

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

Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) pr escribes, 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 upg rade training specified in Section 121.424, the PIC must be observed in the performance of pr escribed duties by an FA A inspector during at least one flight leg that in cludes 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 197 0, was to validate the training a pilot received in a visual simulator. Since that rule was adopted, the airl ine industry has had 18 years of experience with visual simulators, followed by 23 years of experience with advanced simulation. Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. cont ends that US airlines have tr ained thousands of pilots using sophisticated advanced simulators. We believe that the combined expe rience of the airline industry and the FAA with advanced simula tion has made the present rule obsolete.Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. submits th at the FAA has the authority to and routinely does observe any pilot at any time. The FAA co nducts these routine obser vations on a schedule that the local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) sets without the burden of having to observe a particular pilot on sp ecific 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 cau ses Evergreen International Air lines, 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 cau se an even greater economic impact to the airline if the PIC has not completed his consolidation, as the PIC will th en 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 prio rity 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. Evergr een 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 th is exemption it would allow:

1. The FAA greater flexibility and better us e 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 ti me, dependable air service for the Public; and

4. Reduce the unnecessary cost of wages and lo st 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 woul d 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 in spector 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 airpla ne being flown. By allowing a company check airman who is highly qualified in the airplane to complete the observation, a greater le vel 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 authorizat ion or an electroni c authorization.

2. The requirement of Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) will be considered fulfilled if the observation is performed by an FAA aut horized check airman. The observation requirement will be documented in the qualifying pilot’s record.

3. The authorized check airman will be a ch eck airman other than the one who is conducting the OE flights of the qualifying pilot.

Evergreen International Airlines , Inc. in its’ petition for exem ption from 121.434(c)(1)(ii) will also initiate through the FSDO responsible for Certificate Ad ministration the issuance of Operations Specification A316 Initial Opera ting 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