AFS-09-122-E 

 Exemption No. 10147 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

NETJETS INTERNATIONAL, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0047

 

for an exemption from § 135.225(a)(2) 

of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

 

GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated January 13, 2009, Mr. John J. Trolan, Vice President Aircraft 

Technologies, NetJets International, Inc. (NJI), 108 Traders Cross, Suite 200, Okatie, South 

Carolina 29909 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of NJI for an 

exemption from § 135.225(a)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The 

proposed exemption, if granted, would allow NJI aircraft properly equipped with an 

Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) to begin an instrument approach procedure to an 

airport even if the latest weather report for that airport indicates the visibility to be less than 

the visibility minimums prescribed for that procedure. 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 135.225(a)(2) in pertinent part states that no pilot may begin an instrument 

approach procedure to an airport unless the latest weather report issued by that 

weather reporting facility indicates that weather conditions are at or above the 

authorized IFR landing minimums for that airport. 
 

2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

NJI states that it has four years of EFVS operating experience. In addition, all of its 

crewmembers are trained and evaluated under NJI’s FAA approved part 121 training 

program. Gulfstream V/450/550 crewmembers are trained in Head Up Display 

(HUD) and EFVS use for situational awareness during low visibility takeoffs and taxi 

operations. Crewmembers are also trained in EFVS use to avoid runway incursions. 

NJI further states that its EFVS/HUD training and checking module was approved in 

October 2004 and is now integrated into all recurrent and initial pilot training courses.

 

NJI asserts that its EFVS system decreases the risks associated with instrument 

approach procedures and conditions of reduced visibility by allowing the runway 

environment to become “visible” sooner than possible with the naked eye. NJI also 

asserts that a grant of its exemption request would benefit the FAA Air Traffic Control 

System by allowing the initiation and completion of instrument approach procedures 

that previously would have resulted in either holding instructions or executing a 

missed approach and diversion to an alternate airport. 

The petitioner states that it is a fractional ownership program manager and part 135 

“on demand” service provider to the public. NJI notes that it fills a need that cannot 

currently be met by scheduled air service since most part 121 air carriers have reduced 

schedules and markets, resulting in more consumers relying on operators such as NJI 

to accommodate their travel requirements. NJI further states that granting this 

exemption would enable more travelers to be transported into destination airports on a 

more reliable and consistent basis. Doing so would support the business and 

economic needs and the well being of communities and regions throughout the U.S. at 

a level of safety equivalent or superior to that of a part 121 air carrier. It will also 

reduce potential delays to those customers, especially in international markets, thereby 

reliably meeting the needs and interests of the traveling public. 

NJI states that granting this exemption request will also enhance the level of safety for 

reduced visibility flight operations and recognize the advances in technology and 

systems that support its flight operations. Furthermore, NJI states that in certain 

reduced visibility situations EFVS imagery significantly improves the pilot’s ability to 

detect objects, such as approach lights and visual references of the runway 

environment, thereby enhancing safety, situational awareness, and reducing the risk of 

runway incursions. 

NJI states that the HUD displays precise flight guidance and navigation data in the 

pilot’s normal field of view. The conformal nature of the symbols allows symbol 

guidance to be mixed with visual cues to increase pilot performance by eliminating 

head down to head up transition time. NJI states that the FAA has separate 

operational approval criteria for lower than standard visibilities when a HUD is used 
 

3

without a real time sensor. NJI notes that EFVS is a HUD plus a real time sensor 

image which provides additional benefits to visual acquisition of the landing 

environment. It also notes that conducting an instrument approach procedure using 

EFVS is analogous to conducting an approach using natural vision. NJI asserts that 

both methods of performing an approach procedure constitute an approved means of 

operating visually in the visual segment of an instrument procedure. NJI contends that 

additional safety is provided when EFVS is used because the required visual 

references for conducting an approach procedure are more restrictive than those 

required for performing an approach using natural vision. 

The petitioner states that the EFVS installed on NJI’s aircraft is designed “to comply 

with the pilot vision requirements of § 91.175(l).” This regulation allows a pilot 

conducting a straight-in approach (other than a Category II or Category III approach ) 

to descend to the published DA/MDA (Decision Altitude/ Minimum Descent Altitude) 

and continue below that altitude based solely on the real time imagery of the external 

topography provided by the EFVS. The petitioner asserts that since part 91 does not 

prohibit initiating an instrument approach when reported weather is below prescribed 

landing minimums, the benefits of EFVS can currently be fully utilized in those 

operations. NJI contends that the same benefits should be available to air carriers who 

have higher regulatory standards and typically invest in more training and 

infrastructure support for flight crewmembers.

NJI also points out that § 135.225(a)(2) prohibits initiating an instrument approach 

procedure if the reported weather is below landing minimums. However, §135.225(c) 

allows a pilot who has begun the final approach segment of an instrument approach to 

an airport under paragraph (b) of that section, and receives a later weather report 

indicating that conditions have deteriorated below the minimum requirements, to 

continue the approach to DA/MDA and land if flight visibility is adequate. 

NJI notes that the current regulatory structure, which allows some latitude regarding 

the need for weather reporting and the visibility required for landing, provides a basis 

for safely granting this exemption request. Specifically the petitioner notes that: 

 Part 91 allows initiation of an instrument approach regardless of the presence 

of weather reporting or reported weather conditions, if reporting is available. 

 Part 91 allows for landing if the necessary flight visibility is available at 

DA/MDA. 

 Part 91 allows for the use of EFVS during an instrument approach down to 100 

feet above the runway as a substitute for “natural” flight visibility. 

 Section 135.225 allows the continuation of an instrument approach if weather 

conditions deteriorate after initiating the final approach segment. 
 

4

 Section 135.225(b) allows eligible-on-demand certificate holders to conduct 

instrument approach procedures (and landing if flight visibility is adequate) at 

airports without weather reporting. 

NJI states that it has imposed certain restrictions within its Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOP) which limits approaches using EFVS to those that have positive 

vertical guidance, provided by either ILS glide slope or FMS vertical path. NJI SOP 

further restricts their pilots’ use of straight-in approaches to within a 15 degree 

alignment with the landing runway, whereas the current rule has been interpreted to 

permit the use of EFVS when the inbound course is aligned within plus or minus 30 

degrees of the landing runway. 

The petitioner concludes that the use of EFVS for initiating and conducting an 

instrument approach procedure would provide for an increased level of safety for 

operations conducted in low visibility conditions under part 135. NJI asserts that 

current regulations already address situations where the FAA has determined that 

weather reporting is not necessary for the safe conduct of an instrument approach. 

The petitioner notes that the addition of EFVS only makes the operation safer and a 

marked improvement for the pilot in terms of operational safety and situational 

awareness. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2009 

(74 FR 9124). No comments were received. 

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 be in the public interest and would provide a level 

of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulation. 

The ability to operate an aircraft at an airport is dependent upon a number of factors. 

Among these, reduced visibility is a significant factor. As weather and visibility 

conditions deteriorate, it is increasingly difficult to conduct flight operations in the 

same manner and at the same rate as in visual metrological conditions. While today’s 

technology provides solutions to many of the problems caused by low visibility, the 

potential now exists to provide information well beyond what the pilot is able to see in 

good weather. Certain technology improvements have created a virtual visual 

environment that can aid the pilot in operating a flight by enhancing what he or she 

can see even in the best of visibility conditions. 

Currently, part 135 operators benefit very little from equipping their aircraft with 

EFVS because regulations restrict operators from beginning an approach procedure to 

an airport when the latest weather report issued by that weather reporting facility 

indicates that the reported visibility, based on natural vision, is less than the visibility 
 

5

minimums prescribed for that procedure. This restriction is generally known as the 

"approach ban.” The purpose of the approach ban is to significantly decrease the 

probability that a missed approach will be conducted at DA/Decision height (DH) or 

the MDA and increase the probability that the approach will be successfully 

completed. 

This restriction greatly reduces the opportunity for EFVS to be used for its intended 

function during certain approach operations under §§ 91.175(l) and 135.225(a)(2). 

While these regulations provide an added safety margin to approach operations 

conducted with natural vision, they do not make provision for technological 

advancements such as EFVS, where a real-time image of the external scene is 

provided by means of a sensor image. Enhanced Flight Vision Systems enable a pilot 

to see in much lower visibility conditions than he or she would be able to using natural 

vision alone. These systems provide a means of safely permitting a flight crew to 

arrive at a point where they can operate in the visual segment of an instrument 

approach procedure. The FAA believes that use of EFVS, subject to the conditions 

and limitations set forth in this exemption, will provide a level of safety equivalent to 

the provisions of § 135.225(a)(2). 

 

Section 91.175(l)(4) currently requires that: 

At 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation of the runway of intended 

landing and below that the flight visibility must be sufficient for the following 

to be distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot using natural vision and 

without reliance on the EFVS to continue to a landing: 

(i) The lights or markings of the threshold; or 

(ii) The lights or markings of the touchdown zone; 

These regulatory requirements ensure that sufficient visibility exists to make a safe 

approach and landing. In fact, the regulatory requirements applicable to the use of 

EFVS in § 91.175(l) are analogous to those in § 91.175(c) applicable to the conduct of 

an approach using only natural vision. However, the visual reference requirements for 

the use of EFVS are slightly more stringent. 

Section 91.175(l) permits EFVS to be used for straight-in approaches, which includes 

precision, approach procedure with vertical guidance, and certain non-precision 

approaches. A straight-in approach may be aligned with the landing runway or may 

be offset by up to plus or minus 30 degrees of the inbound course for the landing 

runway for non-precision approaches. 

The FAA has conducted an analysis of the types of approaches to be flown, approach 

geometry, and the capabilities/limitations of the EFVS equipment that NJI has 
 

6

installed on its fleet of aircraft. As that portion of the approach conducted at 100 feet 

above the touchdown zone elevation (TDZE) of the runway and below that altitude 

must be accomplished using natural vision only, the FAA believes that an RVR of at 

least 1000 feet (or visibility not less than 1⁄4 sm when runway visual range (RVR) is 

not available) is necessary to ensure that the required natural visibility will be 

sufficient to ensure that a successful, stabilized landing can be completed. A limitation 

to specifically address this issue and provide for the safety of ground operations in low 

visibility conditions has therefore been included in the conditions and limitations of 

this exemption. 

Approaches to lower minimums require more precise course alignment as a mitigation 

of the risk of operations in instrument meteorological conditions near to the ground. 

Historically, whenever the FAA has allowed approaches to lower minimums, the 

mitigation was to require redundancy in ground and/or airborne navigation 

components. Enhanced Vision working in conjunction with EFVS technology has the 

potential to both increase operational capability into airports during low visibility 

conditions and improve safety by enhancing pilot situational awareness during these 

operations. 

Application of EFVS technology is a gain to both operators and to the public. Further, 

airborne image sensor technology is already in its second generation and will only 

continue to improve over time. The FAA is aware of the specific limitations of 

current EFVS technology, but with mitigations such as a robust program to insure 

pilot training and checking are effective, and restrictions on airborne use, EFVS 

application will benefit the public while maintaining a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by § 135.225(a)(2). 

The FAA’s Decision 

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to 

me by the Administrator, NetJets International, Inc., is granted an exemption from 

14 CFR § 135.225(a)(2) to the extent necessary to allow NJI aircraft properly equipped with 

an Enhanced Flight Vision System (EFVS) to begin an instrument approach procedure to an 

airport when the latest weather report for that airport indicates that weather conditions are less 

than the authorized visibility minimums for that procedure, subject to the conditions and 

limitations listed below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. This exemption is applicable to NJI airplanes equipped with an FAA-certified EFVS. 
 

7

2. This exemption applies only to approaches (except CAT II and CAT III approaches) 

conducted using line selectable approaches from the aircraft’s flight management system 

database that provide vertical and lateral guidance. 

3 Prior to beginning an instrument approach procedure, the latest weather report for the 

airport must indicate that the RVR for the runway to which the approach will be 

conducted is at least 1,000 feet (or 1,600 feet if the tower at that airport is closed). If RVR 

information is not available, the visibility must be at least 1⁄4 sm. 

4. The inbound final approach course cannot differ by more than 10 degrees from the actual 

magnetic alignment of the runway of intended landing. 

5. The maximum crosswind component for the landing runway is less than the airplane flight 

manual’s crosswind limitation, or 15 knots, whichever is more restrictive. 

6. Prior to beginning an instrument approach procedure using the visibility minimums set 

forth in this exemption the pilot in command of the aircraft must: 

a. have a minimum of 10 hours of actual operational line experience using EFVS; 

and 

b. have logged four EFVS approaches in actual instrument meteorological 

conditions. 

After acquiring this initial qualification, the pilot in command must log at least three 

EFVS approaches in either a simulator or aircraft within the 6 months preceding the 

conduct of any approach under the provisions of this exemption. 

7. NJI must develop and maintain an approved EFVS training program. This training 

program must include comprehensive instruction, to aid pilots in determining visibilities 

using EFVS and natural vision at or near the landing (100 feet) “break out” phase of the 

approach. Specific emphasis must be placed on: EFVS theory, the effects of various 

weather phenomena on determining measured visibility, and the operational aspects and 

limitations of HUDs and imaging sensors. The training program must also include four 

hours of full flight simulator training to include specialized training in low altitude missed 

approaches, special departure procedures, and specifically tailored crew briefs on obstacle 

clearances inside the missed approach point and below DA/DH or MDA. Specific training 

must also be provided in determining required flight visibility (without EFVS) and 

enhanced visibility (with EFVS). Ground training may be provided by video, DVD, or 

equivalent instructional media. NJI must also have procedures in place to check that those 

pilots who have received this training are properly qualified to conduct operations under 

the provisions of this exemption. 

8. NJI must develop a special section in each aircraft’s approved flight manual that will 

include specific crew callouts while operating under the provisions of this exemption. 
 

8

These callouts should assist the second in command with situational awareness by 

mirroring what the pilot in command sees or does not see. All pilots conducting 

approaches under this exemption must receive training on the use of these callouts 

 

9. For operations conducted at foreign airports, both the conditions and limitations of this 

exemption and the requirements of the local civil aviation authority apply. 

10. NJI must develop an approved monitoring/feedback program that will permit NJI and the 

FAA to monitor the conduct of operations conducted under this exemption. At a 

minimum, the monitoring/feedback program must report the number of approaches flown 

using this exemption, the reported visibility, and the number of missed approaches 

executed due to the required visual references not being seen at 100 feet above touchdown 

zone elevation. The monitoring/feedback program will have the appropriate program 

tracking reporting subsystem codes so that data points can be developed and monitored. 

This exemption terminates on October 31, 2012, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on Sep 30 2010. 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

 

 .