AFS-16-1581-E Exemption No. 16703

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

SOUTHERN AEROMEDICAL INSTITUTE Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-3596

for an exemption from § 61.31(g)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated August 19, 2015, Dr. Paul Buza, Southern AeroMedical Institute (SAMI), 1698 West Hibiscus Blvd, Melbourne, FL 32901 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of SAMI for an exemption from section (§) 61.31(g)(2) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CF R). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow SAMI to provide training and an endorseme nt to graduates of its program to meet the High Altitude Training requirements of § 61.31(g) using a simulation training device and oxygen masks within an altitude chamber.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Additional training required for operating pressu rized aircraft capable of operating at high

altitudes.

Section § 61.31(g)(2) prescribes, in pertinent part, that,

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of a pressurized aircraft unless that person has received and logged training from an authorized instructor in a pressurized aircraft, or in a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a pressurized aircraft, and obtained an endorsement in the person's logbook or training record from an authorized instructor who found the person proficient in the operation of a pressurized aircraft. The fli ght training must include at least the following subjects:2

(i) Normal cruise flight operations while operating above 25,000 feet MSL;

(ii) Proper emergency procedures for simulated rapid decompression without actually depressurizing the aircraft; and

(iii) Emergency descent procedures.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that its petition is intended to enhance and reinforce high altitude training objectives by supplementing existing training to demonstrate proficiency at altitude as well as at sea level. The petitioner notes that the relief to the training required for operating pressurized aircraft capable of operating at high altitudes, if granted, will enable SAMI to conduct better training by utilizing a unique Garmin G1000 equipped simulation device (representative of a TBM 850 cockpit) and Zodiac Aerospace oxygen masks within an altitude

chamber.

The petitioner states that replicating the cabin pressure conditions, as would exist during an actual inflight cabin decompression emergency, provides superior training compared to current programs conducted at sea level environments, where oxygen levels are normal and only a simulation of decompression is possible. The petitioner contends that in actual decompression events, pilots perform emergency procedures in the low cabin pressure environments. According to the petitioner, its simulation device set-up is such that the pilot will demonstrate proficiency in mask donning followed by proper communications and emergency descent procedures. The petitioner also contends that training conducted with the ability for a true reduction in cabin pressure teaches the signs and symptoms of hypoxia as it relates to the instrument and oxygen mask systems. The petitioner notes that the addition of exposure to, and practice in, a low oxygen environment also increases pilot knowledge on his or her specific signs and symptoms of hypoxia, and ultimately increases aviation safety. The petitioner also notes that FAA itself recomme nds learning physiological effects of hypoxia (FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 61-107B, paragra ph 2-7) while engaged in mandatory type specific high altitude training that maintains and supplements further the fundamental principles of the high altitude endorsement.

The petitioner also states that the unique configuration of SAMI’s simulation device within the high altitude chamber makes some aspects of a simulation device difficult to incorporate in an altitude chamber. The petitioner contends that the fundamental principles of the requirement to use a pressurized aircraft, flight simulator or flight-training device that is representative of a pressurized aircraft remain intact with minor variations to accommodate the unique and beneficial physiological trai ning afforded by the high altitude chamber. Additionally, the petitioner states, “Our set-up meets the intent of the rule and, consequently, an equal level of safety.” The petitioner also states that the primary benefit to the public is the enhancement of pilot training to improve aviation safety.3

The petitioner provided pictures of the simulation device set-up within the altitude chamber, a curriculum overview, subject matter elements, and lesson scenarios with its request to support its petition. Additionally, on March 18, 2016, the FAA requested and received (by email correspondence) additional pictures of the simulation device set-up in the altitude chamber.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2015 (80 FR 76612). No comments were received.

The FAA’s analysis is as follows:

The FAA reviewed the petitioner's supporting information and finds that SAMI has failed to demonstrate that this exemption, if granted, w ould provide an equivalent level of safety.

According to the petitioner, this exemption would serve the public interest because it provides superior training to its graduates and will ultimately elevate aviation safety. Section 61.31(g)(2), from which the petitioner request relief from, requires that a person receive and log training from an authorized instructor in a pressurized aircraft or a flight simulator or flight training device that is representative of a pressurized aircraft. Although conducting high altitude training in device (other than a flight simulator or flight training device) within an altitude chamber increases pilot knowledge of his or her specific signs and symptoms of hypoxia, while practicing routine aircraft operations and emergency cabin decompression procedures, the device must meet basic standards. To determine that SAMI’s training device meets basic standards, the FAA considered the initial qualification requirements and standards set by 14 CFR part 60 for a flight simu lator and a flight training device. The FAA also considered the initial qualification requirements and standards for the approval of an aviation training device. For this considerati on, the FAA referred to FAA advisory circular (AC) 61-136A, which provides information and guidance for the approval of an aviation training device under § 61.4(c). Section 61.31(g)(2 )(iii) requires that the flight training include emergency descent procedures. In respect to this consideration, SAMI failed to

demonstrate that its device meets the intent of the rule.

The FAA took into consideration not only th e possible benefits provided by conducting high altitude training utilizing a simulation device within an altitude chamber, but also the initial qualification requirements to ensure that SAMI’s simulation device meets basic standards for a training device. Due to the added benefit of experiencing hypoxia, the FAA considered forgoing the requirement for the use of a flight si mulator or flight training device in favor of a simulation device, with some minor variations for the fidelity of some technical minimum requirements (programming visual system, control force response, etc.). However, SAMI’s simulation device does not meet basic standards of having a control yoke (or control stick), rudder pedals, wing flaps, power levers, etc. Basic physical control movement with corresponding cockpit display movement is needed to meet the equal level of safety to accomplish the requirements of § 61.31(g)(2)(iii).4

Although the petitioner argues that SAMI’s set-up does not compromise the minimum level of safety as intended by the current rule, the FAA found that the petitioner failed to support or validate this claim. The simulation device does not have flight controls or power levers; does not hold a letter of authorization from the FAA to document its fidelity; and emergency decent procedures training can only be accomplished with the use of the autopilot. Therefore, SAMI’s simulation device set-up does not meet current standards for any training device and consequently does not meet an equivalent level of safety.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not provide an equivalent level of safety. Therefore, pursu ant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Southern AeroMedical Institute for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.31(g)(2) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on May 18, 2016.

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service