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 begi n 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 awarene ss 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 tr aining 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 f light 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 used3

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 struct ure, 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 g lide 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 improveme nts 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 visibility5

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 verti cal 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 has6

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 be gin 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 th e 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 appr oved EFVS training program. This training program must include comprehensive instruction, to aid pilots in determining visibilities using EFVS and natural vision at or near th e 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 incl ude 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 tr aining 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

.