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 Federal 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 experience 
2 

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 obtaining 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 

Enclosure
AFS-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 

 

DYNAMIC 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, North Carolina 27409, petitioned the Federal 

Aviation Administration (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 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 landing. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 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 short 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 candidates are 

serving in operation experience status in excess of the hours required for the completion of the 

qualification segment while waiting for FAA participation. Dynamic Airways states this 

impacts its crew scheduling ability and places unnecessary 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 are 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, if 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 safety 

equivalent to that provided by the current regulations.

The 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 was 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, the FAA considered it necessary to require the PIC to 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). That requirement was set forth in Amendment 121-91 and has

continued in effect until the present.

The FAA inspector’s observation of a qualifying PIC gives the FAA an opportunity to 

evaluate an air carrier’s end training product under nonsimulated or normal operating

conditions. In that observation, the FAA also evaluates the check airman’s performance with 

respect to preparing 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 line oriented flight training, crew resource management, 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 established 

based on the experience level of the check airman, the FAA notes in contrast to other 

cerfiticate holders who were issued an exemption, that the petitioner’s experience as a 

part 121 air carrier is limited as its certificate was originally issued on October 6, 2010. 

During the petitioner’s first year of operation, it operated three MD-88 aircraft primarily 

domestically. Subsequently, all MD-88 have been removed from service and replaced with 

one B-767. The petitioner’s experience with the B-767 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 introduction of a new aircraft, the associated training program is issued an

initial approval for a period of up to 1 year. During this period, the training program is closely 

monitored to assess 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 determined 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 been realized due to the limited scope of petitioner’s operation. 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 January 6, 2012.

/s/ .

Raymond Towles

Acting Director, Flight Standards

 Service