AFS-16-1733-E March 17, 2016

Exemption No. 15465 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-5459

Mr. John Furneaux Vice President Flight Operations Eastern Air Lines Group, Inc. Miami International Airport 4200 Northwest 36th Street, Building 5A Miami, FL 33166

Dear Mr. Furneaux:

This letter is to inform you that we have denied your petition for exemption. It transmits our decision and explains its basis.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter posted to the docket on November 4, 2015, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Eastern Air Lines Group, Inc. (Eastern) for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Fe deral Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow Eastern to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman for an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in the Federal Register because this is not a precedent-setting petition, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Eastern.

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 10430 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulations. The FAA notes that, in contrast to other certificate holders who were issued an exemption, the petitioner’s experience2

as a part 121 air carrier is limited as its certificate was originally issued on May 13, 2015. With the issuance of a new air carrier operating certificate, the associated aircraft training program is issued an initial approval for a period of up to 2 years. During this period, the training program is closely monitored to assess the effectiveness of the program. The observation of a potential new PIC acquiring operating experience is one element of the training program assessment and is necessary to ensure that each air carrier performs its services with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest.

The FAA has investigated procedures for obtaini ng country clearances, and finds that country clearances should take no more than five days for any country, including Cuba. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that a grant of exemption is not warranted because of the need to monitor and validate the training program and because country clearances to any country should not take longer than five days.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for denying the enclosed Denial of Exemption No. 10430 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§106(f), 40113, and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, Eastern Airlines is denied an exemption from 14 CFR 121.434(c)(1)(ii).

Sincerely,

/s/ John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

EnclosureAFS

- 12

- 036

- E Exemption No. 10430

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

DY NAMIC AIRWAYS Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 1160

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

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated October 18, 2011 , Mr. R. Rand Walters, Director of Operations, Dynamic Airways, 6331 Bryan Boulevard

, Greensboro, N orth Carolina 27409

, petitioned the Federal

Aviation Ad ministration (FAA) on behalf of Dynamic Airways for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Dynamic Airways to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an FAA insp ector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.4 2 4 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and landing.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Se ction 121.434(c)(1)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part

, that, a pilot in command must perform the duties of a pilot in command under the supervision of a check pilot and in addition, if a qualifying pilot in command is completing initial or upgrade training specified in § 121.424, be observed in the performance of prescribing duties by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg which includes a takeoff and landing. During the time that a qualifying pilot in command is acquiring the operating experience in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, a check pilot who is also serving as pilot in command must occupy a pilot station.2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states its operations are often shor t notice and international in nature. Scheduling of FAA personnel to observe a qualifying PIC on an international operation with short notice is difficult to impossible.

As a result of the issues identified, the petitioner states that many of its PIC c andidates are serving in o peration e xperience status in excess of the hour s required for the completion of the qualification segment while waiting for FA A participation. Dynamic Airways states t his impacts its crew scheduling ability and places unnecessar y financial burden on the company.

The petitioner asserts that granting the exemption is in the public interest and would allow the FAA to focus on higher priority safety issues. Additionally, the petitioner states that Dynamic Airways ’ check airman ar e more familiar with company operating policies and procedures and would provide a higher level of PIC candidate scrutiny.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication because the exemption, i f granted, would not set a precedent.

The FAA ’ s analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered the petitioner ’s request and supporting materials and finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safet y equivalent to that provided by the current regulations

.

T he requirements in § 121.434(c)(1) for FAA observation of initial operating experience flights for PIC resulted from Amendment 121

- 55, published on January 3, 1970 (35 FR 84),

and Amendment 121

- 91

, published on May 27, 1972 (37 FR 10727). The purpose of these

amendments w as to update procedures for the approval and revision of training programs, to provide for more extensive use of airplane simulators in training, and to allow improvements

in the operation of training programs and the quality of training. During the rulemaking
process, t he FAA considered it necessary to require the PIC t o be observed by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg of initial operating experience, which includes a takeoff and landing, if the certificate holder uses a course of training in an airplane simulator as provided in § 121.409(c). T hat requirement was set forth in Amendment 121

- 91 and has continued in effect until the present.

The FAA inspector ’ s observ ation of a qualifying PIC gives the FAA an opportu nity to
evaluate an air carrier’ s end training product under non simulated or normal operating

conditions. In that observation, the FAA also evaluates the check airman’ s performance with respect to preparin g the qualifying PIC for assuming command duties during air carrier operations. These observations also provide an insight to the efficacy of the air carrier ’ s training program. The conduct of l ine oriented flight tr aining

, crew resource m anagement

, or

any other improved training scenario does not negate the public safety function served by the FAA inspector ’ s observation of this training during actual flight operations

.3

In regard to the petitioner ’ s assertion that an equivalent level of safety can be es tablished based on the exper ience level of the check airman, the FAA notes in contrast to other cerfiticate holders who were issued an exemption, that t he petitioner ’s experience as a
part 121 air carrier is limited as its certificate was originally issue d on October 6, 2010. During the petitioner ’ s first year of operation, it operated three MD

- 88 aircraft primarily domestically

. Subsequently, a ll MD

- 88 have been removed from service and replaced with

one B

- 767

. The petitioner ’s experience with the B

- 76 7 aircraft is further limited as its authority to operate such aircraft was only recently authorized on October 17, 2011

. The operational capabilities as well as the operating characteristics of the two aircraft are vastly

different. With the introductio n of a new aircraft

, the associated training program is issued an initial app roval for a period of up to 1 year

. D uring this period

, the training program is closely

monitored to ass ess the effectiveness of the program. The observation of a potential new captain acquiring operational experience is one element of the training program assessment
and is necessary to ensure that each air carrier performs its services with the highest possible degree of safety in the public interest. Accordingly, the FAA has de termined that a grant of exemption is not warranted because of the need to monitor and validate the training program for this newly added aircraft.

Furthermore, the scope of the petitioner ’ s operation is limited with one aircraft and less than

ten pilots

. While the FAA appreciates the potential economic impact of the petitioner’s ad hoc operational environment and nature of international operations, these types of operational

hurdles have not be en realized due to the limited scope of petitioner’s operati on

. The FAA does not believe a grant of exemption, based on the economic impact to the petitioner, is in the public interest.

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. §§ 40113

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Dynamic Airways for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.434(c)(1) (ii) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D

. C

. , on Jan uary 6, 2012.

/s/

. Raymond Towles Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service