AFS

- 12

- 443

- E Exemption No. 10511 A

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY

COLLEGE Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 0081

for an exemption from

§ 147.21(b)(1), (2), and (3)

of Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION

By letter dated June 15, 2012, Mr. Fred D. Dyen, Coordinator, Blue Ridge Community
College (BRCC), 43 Aviation Circle, Suite 101, Shenandoah Valley R egional Airport, Weyers
Cave, Virginia 24486, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a
reconsideration of Denial of Exemption No. 10511

, dated April 18, 2012. The proposed
exemption, if granted, would allow it to redistribute the curriculum hours of its approved

Aviation Maintenance Technician course curriculum.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulat ions :

Section 147.21(b)(1), (2), and (3) prescribes that ; (b) The curriculum must offer at least
the following number of hours of instruction for the rating shown, and the instruction
unit hour shall not be less than 50 minutes in length

— (1) Airframe

— 1,150 hours (400 general plus 750 airframe).
(2) Powerplant

— 1,150 hours (400 general plus 750 powerplant).
(3) Combined airframe and powerplant

— 1,900 hours (400 general pl us 750 airframe
and 750 powerplant).

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner asserts that the FAA made important factual errors in the denial of the
original petition and therefore requests reconsideration

.2

The petitioner states that the original denial of exemption was based on the fact that
reducing the curriculum hours would jeopardize slower learning student’s progress and
that advances in teaching delivery methods would not offset a reduction in any portion
of current curriculum requirements of part 147 appendices.

The petitioner stated that it requested that it be allowed to redistribute the curriculum

hours of instruction and not an overall reduction of mandated hours . The petitioner

states the redistri bution of hours would not change the number of hours a student is in
the classroom or the speed at which a student would need to learn the information
presented

.

The requested redistribution is as follows:

§ 147.21(b)(1) Current Requirement Requested Cha nge

General 400 450

Airframe 750 800

Total 1150 1200

§ 147.21(b)(2) Current Requirement Requested Change

General 400 450
Powerplant 750 650

Total 1150 1100

§ 147.21(b)(3) Current Requirement Requested Change

General 400 450

Airframe 750 8 00
Powerplant 750 650

Total 1900 1900

The petitioner argued that the exemptions, cited by the FAA, in support of denial of
Exemption No. 10511, are different in several key aspects. The petitioner states those
petitions, in general, wanted to reduce t he curriculum hours. The petitioner restated
that it is requesting redistribution of curriculum hours and not an overall reduction in

mandated hours.

The petitioner state d its appeal also expands on its original assertion that the

redistribution of hou rs would help ensure part 147 schools continue to provide industry
with qualified technicians despite outdated curriculum regulatory requirements. The
petitioner state d modern delivery methods allow instructors to teach the same material

in less time.

Th e petitioner stated that granting the petition would set a precedent and requested a

summary be published in the Federal Registry for public comment. The petitioner3

believes an opportunity for comments would be beneficial to BRCC, the industry and

the FAA

.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2012
(77 FR 44309). One comment was received.

The comment provided by the Aeronautical Repair Station Association ( ARSA ) agrees
with the petitioner that the current curricu lum requirements mandated under part 147 are
outdated and hinders AMT schools from providing industry with personnel that are familiar
with new and changing aircraft technology. ARSA further asserts that by allowing BRCC to

redistribute mandated curriculu m hours would ensure the institution remains competitive with
industry demands.

The FAA’ s analysis is as follows:

The FAA continues to support curriculum enhancements by AMT schools and
maintains the current regulations allow for such enhancements in teac hing levels and
content without the necessity of redirecting the minimum hourly requirements as
required by 14 CFR Part 147.21.

The FAA does not agree with the petitioner’s claim that redistribution of course hours

would not result in an overall reduction in hours specific to a mechanics certificate
with a powerplant rating. A powerplant rating currently has a curriculum requirement
for completion of 1,150 hours. The BRCC redistributed hours would result in
completion of the mechanics certificate general curriculum and powerplant rating in

1,100 hour s

. The net result actually reduces the powerplant rating requirement s by

50 hours overall. The petitioner has not shown how a decrease in the instructional
time for the powerplant portion of the airframe and powerplant mechanic curriculum
would be in the best interest of the public.

The petitioner has not offered that advances in propulsion systems and smart aircraft
currently in operation in today’s environment would not also require an actual increase

in t he hours allocated to a powerplant curriculum. On the contrary

, the petitioner
continues to support and request a reduction in this curriculum area without
justification.

The petitioner asserted that the redistribution of required curriculum hours would have
a positive impact on its program by allowing it to teach its students technical
advancements in lieu of other material that can be taught in less time. BRCC has
failed to show how a redistribution of curriculum hours would provide a level of safety

e quivalent to that required by § 147.21. Further, the petitioner has not described the
technical advancements it would provide for its students, nor has it identified what
material could be taught in less time and the justification or basis for these asser tions.4

The FAA maintains that a part 147 school is not prevented or restricted from
improving its curriculum in order to introduce new technology developments, teach a
more current and relevant curriculum, permit the use of computers or enhance the

curri culum, as long as the minimum curriculum requirements are also met.

The FAA has given full consideration to all the facts presented by the petitioner and

has come to the conclusion the reduction of instructional hours in the powerplant

curriculum or redis tribut ion of curriculum hour s requirements would not be in the
public’s best interest.

The FAA believes that if the petition were granted, a precedent would be established
that eventually would lead to the deterioration of the aviation maintenance technic ian
school program

. The FAA has determined that the relief sought could result in transfer
inconsistencies with other approved part 147 school curriculums for those students
seeking an airframe or powerplant rating. Further, a reduction of 100 hours in the
powerplant curriculum could have an unintended consequence for a transfer student
completing the part 147 curriculums in less than the required 1

, 900 hour s minimum
requirement.

The petitioner has not presented significant additional facts to support just ifying a

redistribution of curriculum hours , nor has BRCC address ed any re duction in teaching
level requirements currently found in appendix B, C, and or D, as a result of its
proposed redistribution

.

The FAA contends we correctly interpreted the request based on current law,
regulation and precedent setting considerations.

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 4 9 U.S.C. §§ 40113

and 44701, Blue Ridge Community C olleg e ’s petition for reconsideration of Denial of
Exemption No. 10511 from 14 CFR § 147.21(b)(1), (2) and (3) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D

. C

. , on March 11, 2013.

.

/s/

Michael P. Huerta

Administrator