Exemption No. 10005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

DOUGLAS J. CONCIATU Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0519

for an exemption from §§ 61.123(g) and 61.129(a)(3)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated May 26, 2009, Mr. Douglas J. Conciatu, 8260 Denwood Drive, Apt. 27, Sterling Heights, Michigan 48312, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from §§ 61.123(g) and 61.129(a)(3)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption would allow Mr. Conciatu to use certain fixed gear airplanes for the conduct of a commercial pilot practical test (§ 61.123(g)) as well as to conduct some of the required training for a commercial pilot certificate (§ 61.129(a)(3)(ii)).

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 61.123(g) prescribes, in pertinent part, that to be eligible for a commercial pilot certificate, a person must pass the required practical test on the areas of operation listed in § 61.127(b) of this part that apply to the aircraft category and class rating sought.

Because the exemption request pertains to training and testing for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine land rating, § 61.127(b)(1) only applies.

Section 61.129(a)(3)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that for an airplane single-engine rating, except as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, a person who applies for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category and single-engine class rating must log at least 250 hours of flight time as a pilot that consists of at least 20 hours of training on the areas of operation listed in § 61.127(b)(1) of this part that includes at

AFS-09-275-E2

least 10 hours of training in an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps, and acontrollable pitch propeller, or is turbine-powered, or for an applicant seeking a singleengine seaplane rating, 10 hours of training in a seaplane that has flaps and a controllable pitch propeller.

The petitioner supports his request with the following information:

Mr. Conciatu requests an exemption to allow an alternate method of doing airplane single-engine land commercial pilot flight training as required by § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) using the portable training device with U.S. Patent No. 6,638,071 instead of an actual complex single-engine land airplane. In addition, the petitioner seeks relief to allow for an optional method of conducting the commercial pilot – airplane practical test in a non-complex single-engine land airplane using the aforementioned portable training device instead of an actual complex single-engine land airplane.

Mr. Conciatu states that a grant of exemp tion would not adversely impact safety during flight training because:

1. Fixed gear airplanes are inherently safer to train in than are retractable gear airplanes;

2. Fixed gear airplanes are statistically safer to train in than retractable gear airplanes; and

3. The flight training would still be done w ith an authorized instructor onboard.

Further, Mr. Conciatu states that a grant of exemption would not adversely impact safety after the flight training because:

1. The pilot trainee would receive all of the training provided by the current regulations;

2. The pilot trainee would receive additional training experiences with the instructor; and

3. The pilot trainee would still be evaluated by an authorized instructor and certified as proficient to operate a complex airplane.

Mr. Conciatu believes a grant of exemption would be in the public interest. The petitioner contends an exemption would reduce flight training costs, improve flight training quality, and improve the availability of advanced flight training. In addition, the petitioner believes that a grant of exemption would provide for an improved method of doing training for complex airplanes. Mr. Conciatu states that with this exemption, pilot trainees can experience in-flight malfunctions involving landing gear circuit breakers. These malfunctions cannot be safely replicated when using a retractable gear airplane. Additionally, pilot trainees can be made to experience in-flight malfunctions requiring the changing of a landing gear indicator bulb. This malfunction also cannot3

be safely replicated when using an actual retractable gear airplane. Mr. Conciatu contends that with the above-mentioned training improvements, the number of gear-up landings will potentially be reduced.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for

Federal Register publication because this is not a precedent-setting petition.

The FAA's analysis and decision is as follows:

The FAA has fully considered the petitioner’s request and supporting information. The FAA finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the current regulation.

The FAA finds there is insufficient safety data regarding the use of the portable training device (U.S. Patent 6,638,071) in a non- complex single-engine land airplane to determine that equivalent level of safety would be achieved when used during training and during the practical test phase of airmen certification under part 61 subpart Fcommercial pilots . However, the FAA is in the process of collecting safety data from Mr. Gregg Stockman (Exemption No. 9778A) regarding the conduct of commercial pilot training and the commercial pilot practical test using the portable training device with U.S. Patent No. 6,638,071. In addition, the FAA is undertaking a rulemaking effort that has the potential of making the need for the requested relief from § 61.123(g) and § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) unnecessary. On August 31, 2009, the FAA published

in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking; “Pilot in Command Proficiency Check and Other Changes to the Pilot and Pilot School Certification Rules” (74 FR 44779). This proposed rulemaking addresses the issues in your petition for exemption. Therefore, the FAA denies the petitioner’s request to use an airplane equipped with the portable training device with U.S. Patent No. 6,638,071 during the conduct of training for a commercial pilot certificate and for the conduct of an initial commercial pilot airplane single-engine land practical test.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 401134

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Mr. Douglas J. Conciatu for an exemption from §§ 61.123(g) and 61.129(a)(3)(ii) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 28, 2010.

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure