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 Aviation 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 121.6521

. 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 requiring 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 required 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 March 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 the 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 designated 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 determines it to be prudent to exercise 

the PIC's prerogative. 

Section 121.438(b) states that no person may conduct operations under this part unless, for 

that type airplane, either the PIC or the SIC has at least 75 hours of line operating flight time, 

either as PIC or SIC. 

Section 121.652 states, in pertinent part that if the PIC of an airplane 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 operations specification for regular, provisional, 

or refueling airports are increased by 100 feet and one-half mile (or the runway visual range 

(RVR) equivalent). The MDA or DA/DH and visibility 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 operating the B-757 and B-767 as a “common” pilot 

rating since 1984. When § 121.438 became effective 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 accomplished 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 Dispatchers Final Rule (“N and 

O final rule”) (78 FR 67800) effectively separated the B-757 and B-767 into two separate type 

ratings for the purpose of the time in type rules. However, the petitioner states that it did not 

become apparent that the past practice of allowing flight time to be combined for the purpose 
3

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 consolidation and deviation 

from § 121.439 for the number of landings required 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 precedent for applying the FSB 

report for training and qualification 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 requirements of the FSB report may not meet the 

appropriate needs to ensure pilots have the appropriate level of experience to be crew paired 

and operate to lower weather minimums. It indicates this is why it has already established 

scheduling practices to ensure the pilots receive the appropriate flight time on the B-757 and 

the B-767. 

The petitioner states that as part of its Safety Management System (SMS), it conducted a 

review of Safety Assurance (SA) data to determine 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 Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and FAA from 

1984 to February 2016 which indicated no passenger fatalities or hull losses for either the B757 or the B-767 fleets as the result of an accident or incident at Delta. For the events 

classified as an accident or incident, 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 excellent record with millions of flight hours. 

To further study the effects of time with respect to knowledge and skills, the petitioner 

conducted two specific proactive analyses of non-conforming grades during the pilot’s first 

return to training after initial qualification on the B-757 and B-767. It explains that nonconforming grades are not unsatisfactory performance but are not a completely error free 

performance. This allowed the petitioner to analyze three levels of performance of a task that 

was performed satisfactorily. The petitioner found that, for the 18-month period prior to the 

petition, the pass rate/overall satisfactory performance for the B-757 and B-767 pilot’s first 

return to continuing qualification training after initial qualification training is 99.76 percent. 

 

The petitioner provided an appendix to the petition with proprietary information on its 

analyses. It argues the fleet comparison of error-free performance between the pilot’s initial 

qualification Line Operational Evaluation (LOE) and the pilot’s first continuing qualification 

LOE shows essentially even performance for the B-757 and B-767 with conforming grades 

above 90 percent for both initial and continuing qualification. It contends that this is 

comparable to the other fleets. 
4

The petitioner states the comparison of pilot performance during initial training to continuing 

qualification training with respect to the simulator 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 respect to pilot performance. It states there is a 

consistent distribution of performance regardless of time in either the B-757 or the B-767. The 

petitioner believes this is what should be expected considering it operates a standard classic 

flight deck configuration with only level 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 believes 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 contributing factor to pilot 

performance, it would have recognized it years ago. It believes the data points to an effective 

training and checking program. 

The petitioner proposes the following relief based on its past scheduling practices that it 

contends are currently producing a safe operation. Delta asserts the proposed hours of 

experience for the B-757 and the B-767 exceed the minimum hours that were allowed prior to 

the N and O final rule. For pilots engaged in flying the related aircraft consisting of the B757-200, B-757-300, and B-767-300 using a “classic” flight 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 previously obtain at least 100 hours on 

another Delta aircraft: Combined 100 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; 

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

aircraft3

 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 greater in size than the B-757 

aircraft operated by Delta. The FAA has 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 aircraft4: 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 following combined hour requirements: 

1. Initial PIC: Combined 75 hours of B-767 and 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 aircraft 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 qualified on only Delta narrow body aircraft: 

Combined 75 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; 

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 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; or 

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

aircraft 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. 

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 previous experience as a Delta SIC: Combined 

100 hours of B-767 and B-757 PIC flight time 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 aircraft 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 body aircraft are B-757 aircraft or smaller operated by 

Delta. The FAA has determined that the following aircraft currently operated by Delta meet this definition: B717, B-737, MD-88 or MD-90, and Airbus A320 series. 
6

3. Transitioning PIC previously qualified 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 relief during operations outside of the United 

States because it conducts B-757 and B-767 operations to the continents of Africa, Asia, 

Europe, North America and South America. The petitioner asserts that if relief was not 

granted for use outside the United States, the pilots 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 experience 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 requirements 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 additional constraints to flight schedules without a 

clear safety benefit. It asserts that without this exemption, which 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 diversions since it will take longer for pilots to 

obtain the hours for low minimum weather requirements. The petitioner 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 flights, 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 approach capabilities because it will take longer for the PIC to be 

legal to operate to lower weather minimums. 

The petitioner further asserts that the public would be best served by allowing it to continue 

the practices that are resulting in a safe operation. The petitioner states it has an active SMS 

designed to monitor proficiency issues and will continue to actively 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 submission 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 consisting 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 and application, can produce 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 commonality between different aircraft types which 

may allow credit for pilot training and qualification requirements. The FAA documents the 

analysis and resulting recommendations in a FSB report for a specific 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. Based on this report, the FAA has previously 

approved a related aircraft designation in accordance 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 § 121.434 for operating experience and consolidation 

and from the requirements of § 121.439 for recent 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 generally 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 completed 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 meet 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 credit for the flight hours 

required by §§ 121.438 and 121.652 in the same manner as used for consolidation. 

The FAA has reviewed the data in the appendix submitted by the petitioner with the petition. 

The FAA agrees that the petitioner’s analysis of the data indicates 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 variation in the pilot performance 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 for the B-757 and the B-767 with certain 

conditions and limitations. 

The petitioner asserts that granting this exemption is in the public interest 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 diversions since it will take longer for pilots to 

obtain the hours for low minimum weather requirements. The FAA finds this is primarily a 

private financial interest of Delta and not a public interest. 
8

The FAA does agree that consistent application of regulations is in the 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 the 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 the time in type requirements of §§ 121.434 for 

consolidation, 121.438, and 121.652 are generally occurring concurrently. As defined in § 

121.431(b), consolidation is the process by which a person through practice and practical 

experience increases proficiency in newly acquired 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. 55495

, as amended. That exemption from § 121.652(a) and (c) allows a new 

PIC who is subject to higher landing weather minimum requirements to operate to the normal, 

lower Category I and Category II minimums under certain conditions and limitations. 

However, the FAA highlights that one of the 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 would exist. Therefore, the FAA has 

incorporated the applicable conditions and limitations from Exemption No. 5549 into the 

conditions and limitations of this exemption applicable to specific aircraft. 

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. §§ 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 SIC 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 the SIC must have at 

least 100 hours of combined line operating flight 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 must 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-2000-8434 
9

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Delta must have an approved related aircraft designation for the B-767 in accordance 

with § 121.418(b). 

2.This exemption only applies to flight operations 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 operations in the B-757-200 Classic Flight Deck 

(CFD), B-757-300CFD, and 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 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 in the B-757 and at least 15 hours in the B-767 for pilots who 

completed transition 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. 

5. An SIC who does not meet the requirements 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 qualified 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 least 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 another 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 transition qualification and were previously 
10

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 transition 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 increase the MDA or DA/DH and visibility landing minimums 

in accordance with § 121.652(a) when conducting flight operations in the B-757 or B767, if the PIC has at least 100 hours of PIC 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 of PIC flight time in the B-757 and at least 25 hours of PIC flight 

time in the B-767 for pilots who completed initial or upgrade 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 completed 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 completed transition qualification and were 

previously qualified at Delta with at least 100 hours on the Airbus A330, B-777, B747-400, or B-767-400. 

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

Category I or Category II instrument approach 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 approach, landing, and missed approach scenarios 

in flight training using the applicable airborne system and appropriate flight 

simulation training devices for those scenarios. 

b. Category I, specific. A PIC may be authorized 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 procedures, and any other relevant topics; 
11

ii. The aircraft and associated airborne systems are eligible for Category I or II 

for Delta when Delta’s approved B-757 and B-767 training incorporates the 

use of an approach coupler or a heads-up display (HUD) system that 

provides flight guidance information to decision height; 

iii. The approach coupler or HUD system is used for the approach to decision 

height or until initiation of a missed approach; 

iv. The flight crew must use appropriate instrument approach procedures for 

Category II or III, or equivalent instrument approach procedures acceptable 

to the Administrator; and 

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

when the weather conditions are below 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 PIC may conduct Category II operations in accordance 

with Operations Specifications paragraph 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 qualified in Category II or III instrument 

approach procedures, and use those 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 provides 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 States 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