AFS-16-9313-E Exemption No. 17086

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

DELTA AIR LINES, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2016-4676

for an exemption from §§ 121.438 and 121.652 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

GRANT OF EXEMPTION

On February 29, 2016, Stephen M. Dickson, Senior Vice President Flight Operations, Delta Air Lines, Inc., petitioned the Federal Aviati on Administration (FAA) on behalf of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta) for an exemption from Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) §§

121.438 and 121.652 1 . The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Delta second in command (SIC) pilots with less than 100 hours in the Boeing 757 (B- 757) or less than 100 hours in the Boeing 767 (B-767), to make takeoffs and landings in certain situations, in the B757 or B-767 respectively, conditioned on Delta re quiring that the SIC must have at least 100 hours of combined line operating flight time in the B-757 and B-767. Secondly, the proposed exemption, if granted, would allow Delta to pair pilots with less than 75 hours in the B-757 or 75 hours in the B-767, respectively, conditioned on Delta requiring that the pilot in command (PIC) or SIC must have at least 75 hours of combined line operating flight time in the B-757 and B-767. Lastly, the petitioner also requests to allow PIC flight time logged either in the B757 or B-767 to meet the 100 hours of PIC time re quired in order to avoid being subject to higher minimums in either aircraft type once the combined flight time exceeds 100 hours.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

1 In response to a request from the FAA, on Marc h 18, 2016, Charles M. Schramek, Director – Quality Assurance, Compliance and Business Support, clarified that Delta requests that the proposed exemption be allowed to be used concurrently with Exemption No. 5549, as amended. In response to a request from the FAA, on July 5, 2016 Mr. Schramek also clarified that Delta requests to use the proposed exemption for operations

outside the United States.2

Section 121.438(a) states that that if the SIC has fewer than 100 hours of flight time as SIC in operations under this part in th e type airplane being flown, and the PIC is not an appropriately qualified check pilot, the PIC must make all takeoffs and landings in the following situations:

(1) At special airports designat ed by the Administrator or at special airports designated by the certificate holder; and (2) In any of the following conditions:

i. The prevailing visibility value in the latest weather report for the airport is at or

below 3 ⁄

4 mile.

ii. The runway visual range for the runway to be used is at or below 4,000 feet.

iii. The runway to be used has water, snow , slush or similar conditions that may adversely affect airplane performance.

iv. The braking action on the runway to be used is reported to be less than “good”.

v. The crosswind component for the runway to be used is in excess of 15 knots.

vi. Windshear is reported in the vicinity of the airport.

vii. Any other condition in which the PIC dete rmines it to be prudent to exercise the PIC's prerogative.

Section 121.438(b) states that no person may co nduct operations under this part unless, for that type airplane, either the PIC or the SIC ha s at least 75 hours of lin e operating flight time,

either as PIC or SIC.

Section 121.652 states, in pertinent part that if the PIC of an ai rplane has not served 100 hours as PIC in operations under this part in the type of airplane he is operating, the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) or Decision Altitude /Decision Height (DA/DH) and visibility landing minimums in the certificate holder's opera tions specification for regular, provisional, or refueling airports are incr eased by 100 feet and one-half mile (or the runway visual range (RVR) equivalent). The MDA or DA/DH and vi sibility minimums need not be increased above those applicable to the airport when used as an alternate airport, but in no event may the landing minimums be less than 300 feet and 1 mile.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that it has been opera ting the B-757 and B-767 as a “common” pilot rating since 1984. When § 121.438 became effectiv e in August 1995, the petitioner allowed the time in type requirements of §§ 121.438 and 121.652, along with all other rules where time in type was a requirement, to be accomp lished in either the B-757 or the B-767. It

believes this was common throughout the industry.

The petitioner states that the implementation of the related aircraft requirements in the Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Di spatchers Final Rule (“N and O final rule”) (78 FR 67800) effectively separate d the B-757 and B-767 into two separate type ratings for the purpose of the time in type rules. However, the petitioner st ates that it did not become apparent that the past practice of allowing flight time to be combined for the purpose3

of §§ 121.438 and 121.652 was now prohibited until the FAA published Notice 8900.286, part 121 Training Program Review, effective March 9, 2015.

The petitioner states the N and O final rule allows for deviations associated with time in type for § 121.434 with respect to hours of operating experience and consolid ation and deviation from § 121.439 for the number of landings requ ired in 90 days. It is the petitioner’s contention that the same logic should be applied to the requirements of §§ 121.438 and 121.652, provided an equivalent level of safety has been established. The petitioner believes the basis should follow the applicable Flight Standardization Board (FSB) report, which contains minimum training and qualification requirements for the variant aircraft and any related aircraft, along with a safety analysis. It asserts the preceden t for applying the FSB report for training and qualifica tion of pilots is well established in Advisory Circular 120- 53B: Guidance for Conducting and Use of Flight Standardization Board Evaluations. The petitioner states that the minimum require ments of the FSB report may not meet the appropriate needs to ensure pilots have the appr opriate level of experience to be crew paired and operate to lower weather minimums. It indi cates this is why it has already established scheduling practices to ensure the pilots rece ive the appropriate fli ght time on the B-757 and

the B-767.

The petitioner states that as part of its Sa fety Management System (SMS), it conducted a review of Safety Assurance (SA) data to dete rmine if there was an unacceptable risk imposed with its scheduling practices of combining the flight time for the B-757 and the B-767. It

reviewed reactive data from the National Tran sportation Safety Board (NTSB) and FAA from 1984 to February 2016 which indicated no passenger fatalities or hull loss es for either the B757 or the B-767 fleets as the result of an accide nt or incident at Delta. For the events

classified as an accident or incide nt, it states none were attributed to one of the pilots with less

than 100 hours in the aircraft. The petitioner further states that based on overall safety performance, the B-757 and the B-767 have an ex cellent record with millions of flight hours.

To further study the effects of time with re spect to knowledge and skills, the petitioner conducted two specific proactive an alyses of non-conforming gr ades during the pilot’s first return to training after initi al qualification on the B-757 and B-767. It explains that nonconforming grades are not unsatisfactory perf ormance but are not a completely error free performance. This allowed the pe titioner to analyze three levels of performance of a task that was performed satisfactorily. The petitioner f ound that, for the 18-month period prior to the petition, the pass rate/overall satisfactory performance for th e B-757 and B-767 pilot’s first return to continuing qualifica tion training after initi al qualification traini ng is 99.76 percent.

The petitioner provided an appendix to the pe tition with proprietary information on its analyses. It argues the fleet comparison of erro r-free performance between the pilot’s initial qualification Line Operational Evaluation (LOE) and the pilot’s first continuing qualification LOE shows essentially even performance fo r the B-757 and B-767 with conforming grades above 90 percent for both initial and continui ng qualification. It contends that this is comparable to the other fleets.4

The petitioner states the comparison of pilot pe rformance during initial training to continuing qualification training with respect to the simulato r they trained in as well as the percent of

their total block hours flown in the B-757 clearly illustrates there is no direct correlation to time in either the B-757 or the B-767 with respec t to pilot performance. It states there is a consistent distribution of performance regardless of time in either th e B-757 or the B-767. The petitioner believes this is what should be exp ected considering it opera tes a standard classic flight deck configuration with only leve l B differences for the B-757 and the B-767. 2

The petitioner further contends it has a robust performance analysis system allowing performance to be monitored to the individual task level and breaking out segments of the pilot population, e.g., new to equipment type. It be lieves that with its long successful history of operating the B-757-200, B-757-300 and B-767-300 as a combined category, if the amount of time spent in either the B-757 or the B-767 aircraft was a contribu ting factor to pilot performance, it would have recognized it years ag o. It believes the data points to an effective training and checking program.

The petitioner proposes the following relief ba sed on its past scheduli ng practices that it contends are currently producing a safe ope ration. Delta asserts the proposed hours of experience for the B-757 and the B-767 exceed th e minimum hours that were allowed prior to the N and O final rule. For pilots engaged in fl ying the related aircraft consisting of the B757-200, B-757-300, and B-767-300 using a “classic” fl ight deck configuration, Delta is seeking to use a combined flight time for the B-757 and the B-767 for both §§ 121.438 and

121.652 as follows:

Under §121.438(a), an SIC would be considered as having 100 hours in either the B-757 or the B-767 provided that pilot meets the following combined hour requirements:

1. New Hire SIC or an SIC who did not pr eviously obtain at least 100 hours on

another Delta aircraft: Combined 100 hour s of B-767 and B-757 flight time with no less than 25 hours in the B-767 and 25 hours in the B-757;

2. Transitioning SIC previously qualified (at least 100 hours) on Delta wide body

aircraft 3 or both wide and narrow body: Combined 100 hours of B-767 and B-757 flight time with no less than 15 hours in the B-767 and no less than 15 hours in the B-757; or

2 Advisory Circular 120-53B describes differences levels as a range of five levels in order of increasing requirements, identified as A through E.

3 Delta states for the purposes of the petition, wide body aircraft are aircraft great er in size than the B-757 aircraft operated by Delta. The FAA ha s determined that the following aircraft currently operated by Delta meet this definition: Airbus A330, B-777, B-747-400, and B-767-400.5

3. Transitioning SIC previously qualified (at least 100 hours) on only Delta narrow body aircraft 4 : Combined 100 hours of B-767 and B-757 flight time with no less

than 25 hours in the B-767 and no less than 15 hours in the B-757.

Under §121.438(b), a pilot would be considered as having 75 hours in either the B-757 or B-767 provided that pilot meets the fo llowing combined hour requirements:

1. Initial PIC: Combined 75 hours of B-767 a nd B-757 flight time with no less than 25 hours in the B-757 and 25 hours in the B-767;

2. Transitioning PIC previously qualified on Delta wide body airc raft or both wide and narrow body: Combined 75 hours of B-767 and B-757 flight time with no less

than 15 hours in the B-767 and no less than 15 hours in the B-757;

3. Transitioning PIC previously qualifi ed on only Delta narrow body aircraft:

Combined 75 hours of B-767 and B-757 fli ght time with no less than 25 hours in

the B-767 and no less than 15 hours in the B-757;

4. New Hire SIC: Combined 75 hours of B-767 and B-757 flight time with no less than 25 hours in the B-767 and 25 hours in the B-757;

5. Transitioning SIC previously qualified (at least 100 hours) on only Delta narrow body aircraft: Combined 75 hours of B-767 a nd B-757 flight time with no less than 25 hours in the B-767 and no less than 15 hours in the B-757; or

6. Transitioning SIC previously qualified (at least 100 hours) on Delta wide body

aircraft or both wide and narrow bo dy: Combined 75 hours of B-767 and B-757 flight time with no less than 15 hours in the B-767 and no less than 15 hours in the

B-757.

Under §121.652(a), a PIC would be considered as having 100 hours as PIC in either the B-757 or B-767 provided the PIC meets the following combined hour requirements:

1. Initial or Upgrade PIC regardless of previ ous experience as a Delta SIC: Combined 100 hours of B-767 and B-757 PIC flight tim e with no less than 25 hours in the B757 and 25 hours in the B-767;

2. Transitioning PIC previously qualified on Delta wide body airc raft or both wide and narrow body: Combined 100 hours of B-767 and B-757 PIC flight time with no less than 15 hours in the B-767 and no less than 15 hours in the B-757; or

4 Delta states for the purposes of the petition, narrow b ody aircraft are B-757 aircra ft or smaller operated by Delta. The FAA has determined that the following aircraftcurrently operated by Delta meet this definition: B717, B-737, MD-88 or MD-90, and Airbus A320 series.6

3. Transitioning PIC previously qualifi ed on only Delta narrow body aircraft: Combined 100 hours of B-767 and B-757 PIC flight time with no less than 25

hours in the B-767 and no less than 15 hours in the B-757.

The petitioner requests to use the proposed re lief during operations outside of the United States because it conducts B-757 and B-767 operati ons to the continents of Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America. Th e petitioner asserts that if relief was not granted for use outside the United States, the pilo ts would not be able to acquire experience in the theaters/operating areas in which they will normally operate. The petitioner asserts this would be counter intuitive to the requirement for consolidation of knowledge and skills since the pilot would be prohibited from gaining ex perience where they will normally operate. The petitioner also states their internal analysis did not indicate any safety concern with applying the requested relief worldwide. The petitioner also conducted a review of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 1 and Annex 6 and states it appears the requirements around licensing and aircraft operator requireme nts are to be determined by the states.

The petitioner believes the public interest is best served by not imposing requirements that will drive up operating cost and impose additiona l constraints to flight schedules without a clear safety benefit. It assert s that without this exemption, wh ich mirrors its current practices, there would be an increase in operating cost due to additional staffing, additional training cost for the additional pilot staff, and increased divers ions since it will take longer for pilots to

obtain the hours for low minimu m weather requirements. The pe titioner asserts the following potential safety degradations would result from a denial of its petition for exemption: (1) with more pilots needed for the same amount of flight s, there will be more pilots not receiving the minimum three takeoffs and landings in 90 days in the actual aircraft; and, (2) there will be an increase in the risk exposure to the operation due to increased probability of diverting to an off-line airport with lesser appr oach capabilities because it will ta ke longer for the PIC to be legal to operate to lower weather minimums.

The petitioner further asserts that the public w ould be best served by allowing it to continue the practices that are resulting in a safe operati on. The petitioner states it has an active SMS designed to monitor proficiency i ssues and will continue to ac tively monitor pilot proficiency using a combination of training and checking data , Flight Operations Quality Assurance data, pilot self-reports, and Line Operational Safety Audits.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2016 (81 FR 23802). The FAA received one comment submissi on from the Airline Pilots Association International (ALPA). ALPA states that it submitted comments in opposition to similar petitions for exemption submitted by other part 121 air carriers. ALPA notes that Delta’s petition proposes constraints on the minimum time allowed in either the B-757 or B-767 and only seeks relief for pilots engaged in flying the related aircraft c onsisting of the B-757-200, B-757-300 and B-767-300 using a “classic” flight deck configuration. ALPA states the constraints Delta proposed appear to address the concerns ALPA raised in comments to similar petitions.7

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

In the N and O final rule, the FAA acknowledged that the use of modern technologies, both in manufacturing techniques and systems design a nd application, can produ ce aircraft types of differing models and aerodynamic airframes, with similar handling or flight characteristics and common flight deck and systems designs. As such, the FAA recognized that an analysis through a FSB Evaluation could identify commonali ty between different aircraft types which may allow credit for pilot tr aining and qualification requirements. The FAA documents the analysis and resulting recommendations in a FSB report for a specifi c aircraft type.

In the FSB report for the B-757 and the B-767, the FAA has documented the similarities between these two aircraft types. Between the B-757-200, B-757-300, and B-767-300 equipped with a classic flight deck configuration, the FSB report identifies level A or B differences for training and qualification. Base d on this report, the FAA has previously approved a related aircraft designation in acco rdance with § 121.418(b) for the petitioner with

the B-757 as the base aircraft and the B-767 as the related aircraft. This designation allowed the petitioner to seek approval of a modified training curriculum for the B-767 and deviations for the B-767 from the requirements of § 121.43 4 for operating experience and consolidation and from the requirements of § 121.439 for recen t experience. However, as explained in Notice 8900.286, the N and O final rule did not include deviation authority in §§ 121.438 or

121.652.

The consolidation requirement of § 121.434 genera lly requires a pilot to acquire 100 hours of line operating flight time on a specific aircraft type for the consolidation of knowledge and skills within 120 days after the proficiency check comp leted at the end of a training curriculum for that specific aircraft type. Commonly, a pilot acquiring consolidation hours is also concurrently acquiring the flight hours to m eet the time in aircraft type requirements of §§ 121.438 and 121.652 (PICs only). Therefore, the FAA agrees that with proper analysis, the

identified similarities between the B-757 and the B-767 may allow cred it for the flight hours required by §§ 121.438 and 121.652 in the same ma nner as used for consolidation.

The FAA has reviewed the data in the appendi x submitted by the petiti oner with the petition. The FAA agrees that the petitione r’s analysis of the data indica tes that pilots obtaining flight

time in the B-757 and the B-767 in accordance with the petitioner’s past scheduling practices results in no significant vari ation in the pilot performan ce during the first continuing qualification event. Therefore, the FAA agrees that an equivalent level of safety may be maintained by allowing the combined flight time in the B-757 and the B-767 to meet the time in type requirements of §§ 121.438 and 121.652 fo r the B-757 and the B-767 with certain

conditions and limitations.

The petitioner asserts that granting this exempti on is in the public intere st because without it, there would be an increase in operating cost due to additional staffing, additional training cost for the additional pilot staff, and increased divers ions since it will take longer for pilots to

obtain the hours for low minimu m weather requirements. The FAA finds this is primarily a private financial interest of De lta and not a public interest.8

The FAA does agree that consistent application of regulations is in th e public interest. Since the flight hours to meet the time in type requirements of §§ 121.434, 121.438, and 121.652 are generally occurring concurrently, it is in the public interest to use similar analysis to allow credit for the flight hours required by §§ 121.438 and 121.652 in the same manner as used for

consolidation in the B-757 and the B-767.

The petitioner requested to use th e proposed relief outside of the United States to allow pilots to gain experience in the theaters/operating areas in which they will normally operate. As previously stated, flight hours to meet th e time in type requirements of §§ 121.434 for consolidation, 121.438, and 121.652 are generally occu rring concurrently. As defined in § 121.431(b), consolidation is the process by wh ich a person through practice and practical experience increases proficiency in newly ac quired knowledge and skills. The FAA agrees

that consolidation should occur in the theaters /operating areas in which the pilot will normally

operate.

The petitioner requested that the proposed relief be allowed to be used concurrently with Exemption No. 5549 5 , as amended. That exemption from § 121.652(a) and (c) allows a new PIC who is subject to higher landing weather minimum requireme nts to operate to the normal, lower Category I and Category II minimums under certain conditions and limitations. However, the FAA highlights that one of th e conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 5549 is compliance with § 121.438. Since the petitioner requested an exemption from § 121.438, a conflict with Exemption No. 5549 w ould exist. Therefore, the FAA has incorporated the applicable conditions and limitations from Exemption No. 5549 into the conditions and limitations of this exemp tion applicable to specific aircraft.

The FAA’s Decision

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a gr ant of exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority c ontained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, Delta Air Lines, Inc. is granted an exemption from 14 CFR §§ 121.438 and 121.652 that (1) allows Delta SI C pilots with less than 100 hours in the B-757 or less than 100 hours in the B-767, to make takeoffs and landings in certain situations, in the B-757 or B-767, respectively, conditioned on Delta requiring that th e SIC must have at least 100 hours of combined line operating f light time in the B-757 and B-767; (2) allows Delta to pair pilots with less than 75 hours in the B-757 or 75 hours in the B-767, respectively, conditioned on Delta requiring that the PIC or SIC mu st have at least 75 hours of combined line operating flight time in the B- 757 and B-767; and, (3) to allow PIC flight time logged either in the B-757 or B-767 to meet the 100 hours of PIC time required in order to avoid being subject to higher minimums in either aircraft type once the combined flight time exceeds 100 hours, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

5 Airlines for America, Docket No. FAA-2000-84349

Conditions and Limitations

1. Delta must have an approved related aircra ft designation for the B-767 in accordance with § 121.418(b).

2. This exemption only applies to flight opera tions conducted by pilots who completed a

Delta B-757 qualification curriculum that included the B-767 related aircraft differences training.

3. This exemption only applies to flight opera tions in the B-757-200 Classic Flight Deck

(CFD), B-757-300CFD, a nd the B-767-300CFD.

4. An SIC pilot may make takeoffs and landings in the B-757 or B-767 in the situations

described in § 121.438(a)(1) and (2) if the SIC has at least 100 hours of flight time in operations under part 121 in a combination of the B-757 and B-767 and at least one of the following flight time requirements is met:

a. At least 25 hours in the B- 757 and at least 25 hours in the B-767 for pilots who completed initial qualification or who do not have at least 100 hours of flight time

on another aircraft at Delta Air Lines;

b. At least 15 hours in the B- 757 and at least 25 hours in the B-767 for pilots who completed transition qualifica tion and were previously qua lified at Delta with at least 100 hours on the B-717, B-737, MD-88 or MD-90, or Airbus A320 series; or

c. At least 15 hours in the B- 757 and at least 15 hours in the B-767 for pilots who completed transition qualifica tion and were previously qua lified at Delta with at

least 100 hours on the Airbus A330, B-777, B-747-400, or B-767-400.

5. An SIC who does not meet the requirement s in Condition and Limitation No. 4 may make takeoffs and landings in the B-757 or B-767 in the situations described in § 121.438(a)(1) and (2) if the PIC is an appropriately qualif ied check pilot.

6. Delta may conduct operations under part 121 in the B-757 or B-767, without meeting the requirements of § 121.438(b), if at le ast one of the following flight time requirements is met:

a. The PIC or SIC has 75 hours of line operating flight time in a combination of the B-757 and B-767, including at least 25 hours in the B-757 and at least 25 hours in the B-767 for pilots who completed initial qualification or who do not have at least 100 hours of flight time on a nother aircraft at Delta;

b. The PIC or SIC has 75 hours of line operating flight time in a combination of the B-757 and B-767, including at least 15 hours in the B-757 and at least 25 hours in the B-767 for pilots who completed transi tion qualification and were previously10

qualified at Delta with at least 100 hours on the B-717, B-737, MD-88 or MD-90, or Airbus A320 series; or

c. The PIC or SIC has 75 hours of line operating flight time in a combination of the B-757 and B-767, including at least 15 hours in the B-757 and at least 15 hours in the B-767 for pilots who completed transi tion qualification and were previously qualified at Delta with at least 100 hours on the Airbus A330, B-777, B-747-400,

or B-767-400.

7. A PIC is not required to incr ease the MDA or DA/DH and vi sibility landing minimums

in accordance with § 121.652(a) when conduc ting flight operations in the B-757 or B767, if the PIC has at least 100 hours of PIC f light time in operations under part 121 in a combination of the B-757 and B-767 and at least one of the following flight time requirements is met:

a. At least 25 hours of PIC flight time in the B-757 and at least 25 hours of PIC flight time in the B-767 for pilots who comple ted initial or upgr ade qualification;

b. At least 15 hours of PIC flight time in the B-757 and at least 25 hours of PIC flight time in the B-767 for pilots who comple ted transition qualification and were previously qualified at Delta with at least 100 hours on the B-717, B-737, MD-88 or MD-90, or Airbus A320 series; or

c. At least 15 hours of PIC flight time in the B-757 and at least 15 hours of PIC flight time in the B-767 for pilots who comple ted transition qualification and were previously qualified at Delta with atleast 100 hours on the Airbus A330, B-777, B747-400, or B-767-400.

8. For a PIC who does not meet the requirem ents of Condition and Limitation No. 7,

Category I or Category II instrument appr oach procedure weather minimums may be used when conducting flight operations in the B-757 or B-767 if the following requirements are met:

a. General. The Delta B-757 and B-767 pilot training and qualification must include suitable low visibility instrument appro ach, landing, and missed approach scenarios in flight training using th e applicable airborne system and appropriate flight simulation training devices for those scenarios.

b. Category I, specific. A PIC may be aut horized to use the lowest applicable Category I instrument approach minimums for a particular runway and instrument approach procedure if each of the following conditions is met—

i. The PIC and SIC are trained and qualified for Category II or Category III, or are trained to an equivalent level with respect to the airborne system use, ground facility use, associated proce dures, and any other relevant topics;11

ii. The aircraft and associated airborne sy stems are eligible for Category I or II for Delta when Delta’s approved B-7 57 and B-767 training incorporates the use of an approach coupler or a heads-up display (HUD) system that provides flight guidance info rmation to decision height;

iii. The approach coupler or HUD system is used for the approach to decision height or until initiati on of a missed approach;

iv. The flight crew must use appropriate instrument approach procedures for Category II or III, or eq uivalent instrument approach procedures acceptable to the Administrator; and

v. Category I instrument approach procedur es or landings will not be initiated

when the weather conditions are belo w 4,000 RVR (3/4 mile visibility) and the cross-wind component exceeds 15 knots combined with a braking action report of less than "good."

c. Category II, specific. A PI C may conduct Category II operations in accordance with Operations Specifications paragra ph C059 if each of the following conditions

is met —

i. The PIC has at least 300 hours as PIC or SIC in a turbojet airplane;

ii. The PIC and SIC are trained and qualifi ed in Category II or III instrument approach procedures, and use t hose procedures appropriately;

iii. The airplane and associated airborne systems are approved for Category III for Delta or for Category II for Delta using an approach coupler and an autoland system or HUD which provide s flight guidance information to decision height; and

iv. That approach coupler and autoland system or HUD is used for the instrument approach procedure and landing or until initiation of a missed approach.

9. Delta may operate outside the United Stat es under this exemption, unless otherwise

prohibited by a foreign country.

10. This exemption may not be used with any other exemption or deviation from

§§ 121.438 or 121.652.

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2018, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 30, 2016.

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service