AFS

- 14

- 070

- E August 7, 2015

Exemption No. 12450 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 3

- 1042

Dr. Philip M. Tartalone, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

, Aviation Flight Technology Eastern Michigan University School of Technology Studies

122 Sill Hall Ypsilanti, Michigan 48197

Dea r D r. Tartalone :

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 dated November 20 , 201 3

, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administrat ion (FAA) on behalf of Eastern Michigan University ( EMU ) for an exemption from

§ § 61.160(b )( 3 ) (i) and 61.160( b )(3)(i i ) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to enable graduates of EMU’s Aviation Flight Technology program, who completed their

tr aining under part 61 from August 2008 through December 2013, to qualify for the 1,000 hours restricted airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate

. 1

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

EMU’s Aviation Flight Technology stude nts complete the required ground and flight training under an agreement with the Eagle Flight Centre (EFC), a subsidiary of Suburban Aviation, Ottawa Lake, Michigan.

1 The FAA notes that , although EMU has not requested relief for the EMU students receiving ground and flight training under Eagle Flight Centre’s part 141 certificate , these students also would not qualify for the 1000 hours restricted ATP certificate without an exemption from § 61.160(b)(3)(i) because EMU does not hol d a part 141 ground school certificate.2

Between August 2008 and December 2013, the EFC had a cadre of students who graduated from , and who will graduate from

, i ts part 61 program.

In June 2010, the EFC received its part 141 pilot school certificate. Since June 2010, EMU, in concert with the EFC, has continued to administer both the part 141 and part 61 training, concurrently

.

On N ovember 20, 2013, EFC was offering ground training under part 141 and flight training under part 61 and part 141.

O n January 1, 2014, E MU began requiring its students to co mplete part 141 ground and flight training for the instrument rating and commercia l pilot certificate at EFC

.

EMU assert ed that EFC’s part 61 training program is as structured and demanding as EFC’s FAA approved part 141 training program . Additionally, the part 61 students were taught by the same instructors and administered by the sam e supervisors as the part 141 students. EMU therefore asserted that t he quality of flight and ground training in EMU/EFC’s program is the same under part 61 and part 141. 2

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s supporting information and has determ ined the relief requested is not in the public interest and would adversely affect safety.

The FAA notes that Public Law 111

- 216 requires all pilots in part 121 to have an ATP certificate. It also states that minimum flight time to obtain an ATP certifica te is 1,500 hours. The statute did allow for a credit towards the 1,500 hours, only if the FAA determined that allowing a pilot to take “specific academic training courses will enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight ti me requirement.”

As described in the preamble to the final rule, the FAA promulgated § 61. 1 60 [78 FR 42324, July 15, 2013] to account for the specific program criteria necessary to meet the intent of

Public Law 111

- 216. The FAA considered not only how to determine if an institution of higher education and its program would qualify, but how to evaluate specific academic courses, and then how to oversee such a program.

One of the key components of the degree program is having the ground and flight training for the instrument rating and commercial pilot certificate integrated with a student’s broader aviation academic curriculum. The FAA concluded the established training standards and quality provided by an institution of higher education that holds a part 141 pilot school

2 EMU submitted attachments A and C, which contained EFC’s part 61 syllabus for instrument and commercial training, and attachments B and D, which contained the counterparts in EFC’s part 141 training program.

Howeve r, EMU failed to show the FAA the primary differences between the part 61 and part 141 training

programs. Notwithstanding EMU’s assertion s , EMU students receiving ground and flight training under EFC’s part 141 certificate are not eligible for the 1000 hou rs restricted ATP certificate without an exemption from § 61.160(b)(3)(i) because EMU does not hold a part 141 ground school certificate.3

certificate are necessary to ensure this integration of the pilot ground training and broader academic curriculum is performed to a suitable standard. Accordingly,

“[u]nder § 61.160, a graduate must have completed all ground training for the commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating at the institution of higher education... [and] the academic institution must, at a minimum, hold a part 141 pilot school certificate for ground training. This requirement will ensure that the ground

tr

aining for certification is integrated into the institution’s broader academic curriculum. (78 FR 42348). [In addition], the FAA has oversight of the training conducted through part 141 program approval. Those pilot schools must renew their certificates ev ery 24 months and demonstrate the quality of the training through an established training standard.” (78 FR 41352).

Based on the FAA’s records, EMU does not hold a part 141 ground school certificate. The FAA reviewed the description that EMU provided of i ts arrangement with EFC for the g round and flight training of students enrolled in its Aviation Flight Technology program. The arrangement does not meet the intent of having the ground training integrated with the broader

academic curriculum. EMU does not have control over the curriculum provided by EFC and the FAA would have no oversight responsibilities with EMU because it does not hold a part 141 pilot school certificate. Therefore, t he FAA has determined that EMU’s aviation degree program does not meet the minimum level of integrating its pilot ground training with its broader academic curriculum of an aviation degree program.

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 pe tition would be detrimental to EM U.

T he FAA recently issued a denial of exemption to Baylor University in circumstances similar to those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exempt ion No. 11135 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that the requirement for the institution of higher education to hold a 141 certificate was a necessary component of the institution’s degree program. This ensures proper integration of the instrument rating and commercial pilot certificate ground training with the institution’s broader academic curriculum. Further, requiring the institution of higher education to hold a 141 certificate enables the FAA to oversee the program and ensure continued compliance with th e letter of authorization. The FAA concluded this integration and oversight is critical for assuring that the standards set forth by Congress for a reduction in flight time continues to be met.

The FAA has determined that EMU’s aviation degree program doe s not meet the minimum level of integration of its pilot ground training with its broader academic curriculum of an aviation degree program by virtue of not holding an air agency certificate issued in accordance with part 141. Therefore, the FAA finds that an approval of EMU’s petition for a grant of exemption from §§ 61.160(b)(3)(i) and 61.160(b)(3)(ii) is not in the public interest.4

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegat ed to me, I hereby deny the petition of Eastern Michigan University for an exemption from 14 CFR § § 61.160(b)(3)(i) and 61.160( b )(3)( i i).

Sincerely,

//s// John Barbag al lo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure