Exemption No. 5549 

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20591 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 * 

 In the matter of the petition of * 

 * 

 AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA* 

 * Regulatory Docket No. 26732 

 for an exemption from * 

 Section 121.652(a) and (c) of the * 

 Federal Aviation Regulations * 

 * 

 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

 

 GRANT OF EXEMPTION 

 By letter dated December 17, 1991, Mr. Albert H. Prest, 

 Manager-Operations, Air Transport Association of America (ATA), 

 1709 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20006-5206, petitioned 

 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from 

 Section 121.652 (a) and (c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations 

 (FAR) to the extent necessary to allow member airlines of ATA and 

 other qualified Part 121 certificate holders to substitute 

 crosswind component and braking action restriction, along with a 

 requirement to utilize automatic landing and approach coupler 

 (ALAC) equipment, at the destination and alternate airports in 

 place of the existing restrictions to decision height (DH) and 

 visibility minimums for pilots-in-command (PIC) who have not yet 

 accumulated 100 hours (50, if reducible) in their current 

 aircraft type. 

 

 The petitioner requires relief from the following section: 

 Section 121.652 states, in pertinent part, that: 

 (a) If a pilot in command of an airplane has not served 100 

 hours as pilot in command in operations under this part 

 in the type of airplane he is operating, the MDA or 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 RVR equivalent). 

 

 (c) Category II minimums do not apply until the pilot in 

 command subject to paragraph (a) of this section meets 

 the requirements of that paragraph in the type of 

 airplane he is operating. 

 AFS-92-090-E 
 

 The petitioner supports its petition with the following 

 information: 

 In lieu of the requirements of Section 121.652(a) and (c) 

 the petitioner proposes the following limitations to the 

 exemption: 

 (a) Instrument landing systems (ILS) approaches will be 

 conducted using the automatic approach coupler whenever 

 minimums are reported below 3/4 mile or 4,000 runway 

 visual range (RVR) down to and including RVR 1,800. 

 (b) Landing from a Category I ILS approach below 4,000 RVR 

 or 3/4 mile visibility, will not be conducted when the 

 cross-wind component exceeds 15 knots and the braking 

 action is reported to be less than good. 

 (c) All Category II approaches and landings will be 

 conducted using the auto land approach coupler (ALAC) 

 system whenever minimums are reported below 1,800 RVR. 

 The petitioner states that the rational for the original 

 issuance of Section 121.652 was based on several factors. 

 One was the amount of time pilots needed to safely 

 transition from airplanes powered by reciprocating engines 

 to airplanes powered by turbojets. Another was the 

 additional time needed to adjust to new airborne guidance 

 and approach equipment such as ALAC, radio altimeters, and 

 flight directors. The petitioner added that it was not 

 unreasonable for the FAA to require an increase of 100 feet 

 and 1/2 mile visibility to the landing minimums for a pilot 

 who has not served 100 hours as pilot in command. 

 

 The petitioner states that present day airborne and ground 

 based equipment is more accurate and more reliable than 

 airborne and ground based equipment when the first 

 generation of jet transport aircraft was introduced. 

 ATA states that the transition from large reciprocating and 

 turboprop airplanes is not the concern that it was earlier 

 since these airplanes were replaced with turbojet aircraft 

 and that industry has constantly modified its training and 

 line surveillance programs to eliminate irrelevant subject 

 matter. 

 

 ATA states that the advances in simulation, particularly 

 with enhanced visual systems, have made training in low 

 visibility approaches realistic. Additionally, ATA states 

 that all of its member carriers now train flight crews in 

 simulators capable of replicating low visibility 

 environments for all types of approaches. ATA claims that 

 in a typical qualification program a PIC will have 

 accomplished at least 25 approaches to lower than standard 

 
 

 minimums. ATA further claims that the time spent in the low 

 visibility approach environment of today's simulators is of 

 more training value than the combination of 

 simulator/aircraft time typical of when this rule was 

 promulgated. 

 

 The petitioner states that, in addition to the improvements 

 in simulation, the operating procedures which incorporate 

 Crew Resource Management (CRM) with the improved airborne 

 and ground equipment have contributed to making low 

 visibility approach and landings among the least difficult 

 maneuvers that a pilot is required to perform. ATA claims 

 that industry has come to recognize that the most strenuous 

 demands on a new captain's skill will involve landing with a 

 high crosswind on a slippery runway. 

 

 The petitioner states that present day training programs are 

 superior to those of the early 1960's and that, unlike the 

 comparison between turbojet and piston-powered airplanes, 

 the basic flight characteristics of transport turbojet 

 airplanes do not differ significantly from one to another. 

 ATA believes that current aircraft qualification courses, 

 conducted in a simulator approved for Categories I, II, and 

 III training and the operational limitations proposed in its 

 petition, more than compensate for the experience 

 requirements of Section 121.652(a) and (c). 

 

 ATA states that with its requested relief, the scheduled 

 destination airport is guaranteed to have as least 15 

 percent more runway, in the case of an ILS, than required by 

 the regulation and no more than a 15 knot crosswind 

 component if the braking action is reported as less than 

 "good." The flight crew is likely to be more familiar with 

 and better prepared to fly the approach at the planned 

 destination. An approach to Category II minimums is 

 considered to be routine and has been demonstrated 

 successfully by both pilots many times throughout a pilot's 

 training. Diverting to an alternate airport is not a 

 routine occurrence in airline operations and many 

 experienced pilots have never diverted to an alternate 

 airport at any time during their careers. According to ATA, 

 diverting to an alternate is less safe than continuing the 

 approach at the scheduled destination limited by the 

 conditions suggested by ATA in its petition. ATA further 

 claims that, according to its information, there has never 

 been an air carrier accident that has occurred during an 

 auto-coupled/autoland approach when the weather was reported 

 in the lower limits of Categories I, II, and III. 

 

 ATA states that granting its request would be in the public 

 interest since schedules would be maintained, passengers 

 would not be inconvenienced and freight would be delivered 

 on time. ATA further states that without this relief fuel 

 consumption would be increased and the higher costs of 

 
 

 operating would eventually result in higher fares or 

 shipping charges. 

 A summary of the petition was published in the Federal 

 Register on February 5, 1992 (57 FR 4508). No public comments 

 were received. 

 The FAA's analysis/summary is as follows: 

 The regulation requiring an increase in the landing minimums 

 for all pilots in command who had not served 100 hours as 

 PIC in air carrier operations in a particular type of 

 airplane was issued in 1961. This regulation established a 

 minimum level of experience considered by the FAA as an 

 acceptable standard for assuring safe management of an 

 airplane by a new PIC. 

 

 Previously, a pilot who had not served at least 100 hours as 

 PIC was required by a scheduled air carrier's operations 

 specifications to increase published minimums by 100 feet 

 and 1/2 mile visibility. The limitations in the scheduled 

 air carrier's operations specifications permitted a PIC to 

 operate at lower landing minimums prior to obtaining 100 

 hours of experience if a company check pilot certified that 

 the pilot was qualified to do so. This produced wide 

 variations among air carriers for making the determination 

 of whether a pilot is qualified for the lower landing 

 minimums before that pilot attained a 100 hours as PIC in a 

 particular type of airplane. This resulted in some PICs 

 being qualified to make instrument approaches to landing 

 minimums with limited training and no experience as a PIC in 

 part 121 operations. 

 

 Therefore, the FAA decided in 1961 that a regulation 

 requiring 100 hours of experience in a new type of airplane 

 as pilot-in-command, previously required through operations 

 specifications, was necessary in order to achieve the high 

 degree of familiarity essential to safe operations at the 

 lowest landing minimums. The differences between airplane 

 types, whether reciprocating or turbojet powered, may be 

 considerable and usually require specialized training, 

 checking, qualification, and experience. To state, as ATA 

 has, that today's training programs are far superior to 

 those of the early 1960's, or that the basic flight 

 characteristics of transport turbojet airplanes do not 

 differ significantly from one to another, does not fully 

 characterize the experience and skill demands on a PIC who 

 must manage a transport category aircraft in an evolving and 

 highly complex airspace system. 

 

 Pilots-in-command continue to need the highest degree of 

 pilot familiarity with the airplane, its control, 

 instruments, and performance characteristics regardless of 

 the type of airplane. However, the FAA recognizes that 
 

 factors, such as advanced equipment and training can, under 

 certain conditions, provide alternate ways to achieve the 

 level of safety required by the regulation. 

 The ATA contention that the purpose of the original rule was 

 to ensure safe transition from reciprocating engine powered 

 aircraft to turbojet powered aircraft, and to allow time to 

 transition to new airborne systems is partially correct. 

 These were valid reasons for the original rule, but they 

 were not necessarily the only reasons. Other factors such 

 as evolving low visibility landing programs, flight 

 characteristics of jet aircraft, and other factors also 

 played a role. In the intervening years, circumstances have 

 significantly changed, such as the following: 

 

 (1) Few pilots now make the transition from PIC of air 

 carrier reciprocating engine aircraft directly to PIC 

 of an air carrier turbojet powered aircraft. Many 

 pilots now make the transition from PIC of one turbojet 

 powered aircraft type to another. 

 

 (2) The distinction between flight characteristics, 

 airborne systems, and procedures, for different classes 

 of aircraft as defined by "powerplant" type is becoming 

 less clear. Powerplant type is no longer the critical 

 factor in categorizing certain differences. 

 

 (3) The diversity of airborne systems and cockpit designs 

 between old and new aircraft has in many cases 

 increased. 

 (4) The experience profile of air carrier pilots is 

 significantly different among operators. 

 (5) Familiarity with particular routes, airports, and 

 specific procedures may be lower because of expanding 

 and evolving route networks of some operators. 

 The result of the above factors, which often tend to balance 

 each other, is that FAA still believes that Section 121.652 

 is appropriate for general air carrier operations. However, 

 FAA concurs with ATA that particular circumstances exist, 

 such as described in the ATA petition, where an alternate 

 means provides equivalent or greater safety and other 

 benefits. 

 

 Head-up displays (HUD), automatic landing systems, flight 

 management systems (FMS), and advanced simulators represent 

 advances that have been introduced into airline operations 

 and training. Use of this equipment and training can 

 enhance safety in many ways, including improving pilot 

 confidence, levels of performance, and predictability of the 

 tasks required of a PIC. Present day procedures and 

 training methods, which include crew resource management 

 
 

 (CRM) and line oriented flight training (LOFT) and 

 equipment, such as advanced simulators, provide a realistic 

 flight environment not easily obtainable when the regulation 

 was originally issued. 

 The FAA does not believe, however, that use of HUD or 

 autoland systems alone without proper flight deck 

 procedures, or use of advanced simulation alone without 

 appropriate training scenarios, HUD, or autoland operations 

 will necessarily provide the level of safety intended by the 

 rule. Not all HUD or autoland systems necessarily have 

 appropriate features or reliability to ensure that a crew 

 can depend on the system and not have to intervene at a 

 critical time during approach or landing. 

 

 Further, some HUDs or HUD modes do not provide guidance 

 information through touchdown, and, thus may not provide the 

 aid a pilot may need. Similarly, certain autoland systems 

 or modes may not provide a level of reliability, failure 

 protection, or performance commensurate with a new PIC's 

 ability to readily assess their inappropriate performance or 

 failure in low visibility conditions. Some systems can have 

 less than nominal performance at certain runways, or when 

 suitable ILS critical protection is not provided. Without 

 the benefit of having already seen typical autoland 

 performance in a variety of situations, the new PIC may have 

 difficulty assessing or compensating for such autoland 

 system performance. 

 

 Advanced simulator training programs typically show nominal 

 autoland performance and do not show the range of autoland 

 performance possible in actual operations. Accordingly, 

 most autoland experience is acquired during IOE or line 

 flying. Thus, occurrence of poor autoland or HUD 

 performance could defeat the purpose and advantage of using 

 HUD or autoland as a means to compensate for "experience in 

 type" for new PICs. Suitable constraints are needed to 

 address these factors. 

 

 ATA stated that there has never been an air carrier accident 

 that has occurred during an ILS auto coupled/autoland 

 approach when the weather was reported in the lower limits 

 of Categories I, II, and III ILS. The FAA has determined 

 that this fact does not render the current regulation 

 obsolete; rather, it supports the effectiveness of the 

 current regulation. 

 

 In summary, FAA partially agrees with ATA's contention that 

 certain HUD or autoland credit, following competition of 

 advanced training, is appropriate. When properly 

 implemented with appropriate constraints, such credit can 

 provide an equivalent or greater level of safety than the 

 method presently described in Section 121.652. The present 

 method depends exclusively on accumulating "flight hours in 

 
 

 type" and often does not directly relate to actual low 

 visibility operating experience, even though its sole effect 

 is adjustment of landing minimums. Further, the present 

 Section 121.652 does not appropriately recognize and credit 

 the positive contribution that modern airborne systems, 

 procedures, ground facilities, and training can make. In 

 addition, a grant of the ATA petition is likely to have 

 other benefits as well, including the following: 

 

 (1) Encouraging operators to purchase or retrofit aircraft 

 with modern airborne systems that may have safety 

 benefits for many landings, not just adverse weather 

 landings; 

 (2) Encouraging operators to equip aircraft with modern 

 airborne systems that may have safety benefits during 

 other phases of flight; 

 (3) Encouraging operators to implement improved training 

 and crew qualifications programs, and use better 

 training devices and simulators; 

 (4) Encouraging faster and more economic evolution of 

 airborne safety related systems; 

 (5) Further reducing exposure to minimum fuel situations; 

 (6) Reducing the risk of exposure to operations not using 

 high quality flight guidance, decreasing the number of 

 non-precision approaches flown, and decreasing the need 

 to use "less well equipped airports" and "lower 

 capability" ground facilities during adverse 

 conditions; 

 

 (7) Increasing the regularity of airline operations for the 

 benefit of both the general public and the operator. 

 To ensure equivalent or greater safety than that intended by 

 Section 121.652, only certain HUD and autoland systems, used 

 with appropriate instrument flight and crew procedures and 

 at appropriate airports and runways, should qualify for the 

 credit. Use of these systems must be considered as a 

 comprehensive package, considering factors such as the 

 category of landing minimums sought, characteristics of the 

 airborne system, appropriate operating limits and 

 procedures, appropriate crew experience pairing, and 

 suitable ground facilities. The credit allowed also must be 

 fully consistent with the training the crews received and 

 any IOE completed, and include use of appropriate training 

 devices or simulators approved for the pertinent low 

 visibility scenarios that are applicable. 

 

 In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of 

 exemption is in the public interest. Therefore, pursuant to the 
 

 authority in Sections 313(a) and 601(c) of the Federal Aviation 

 Act of 1958, as amended, delegated to me by the Administrator (14 

 CFR 11.53), ATA member airlines and any similarly situated Part 

 121 certificate holders are hereby granted an exemption from 

 Sections 121.652(a) and (c) to the extent necessary to permit a 

 pilot in command under Part 121 to conduct an instrument approach 

 procedure to the instrument approach procedure weather minima 

 prescribed by this exemption during the first 100 hours of 

 service as a pilot in command, in the type of airplane he or she 

 is operating, using an alternative means approved by the 

 Administrator of satisfying Sections 121.652(a) and (c), subject 

 to the following conditions and limitations: 

 

 1. For Either Category I or Category II. To use either 

 Category I or Category II instrument approach procedure 

 weather minimums under any provisions of this 

 exemption, a certificate holder must meet the following 

 general requirements. 

 

 a. The certificate holder's training and 

 qualification program must be amended to include 

 the following: 

 (1) Suitable low visibility instrument approach, 

 landing, and missed approach scenarios using 

 the applicable airborne system and 

 appropriate training devices or simulators 

 for those scenarios. 

 

 (2) Specific approval by the certificate holder's 

 principal operations inspector to use this 

 exemption for each aircraft type. 

 b. Each operator using this exemption must establish 

 a "crew pairing" policy that requires as a 

 minimum for the type airplane being used that 

 either the PIC or second-in-command (SIC) has at 

 least 75 hours of line operating flight time as 

 either the PIC or SIC. 

 

 2. Category I. New PICs 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 

 are met: 

 

 a. The PIC and other applicable flight crewmembers 

 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. 

 

 b. The aircraft and associated airborne systems are 
 

 eligible for Category I or II for that operator 

 when the certificate holder's approved training 

 program incorporates the use of an approach 

 coupler or a HUD system that provides flight 

 guidance information to decision height. 

 

 c. That approach coupler or HUD system is used for 

 the approach, and landing, to decision height or 

 until initiation of a missed approach. 

 d. The flight crew must use appropriate instrument 

 approach procedures for Category II or III, or 

 equivalent instrument approach procedures 

 acceptable to the Administrator. 

 e. Category I instrument approach procedures or 

 landings will not be initiated or completed when 

 the weather conditions are below 4,000 RVR (3/4 

 mile visibility) and if either the cross-wind 

 component exceeds 15 knots or the braking action 

 is reported as less than "good." 

 

 3. Category II. New PICs may be authorized to use the 

 lowest applicable Category II instrument approach 

 minimums for a particular runway and instrument 

 approach procedure if each of the following conditions 

 are met: 

 

 a. The PIC and other applicable flight crewmembers 

 are trained, qualified and use Category II or III 

 instrument approach procedures as appropriate. 

 b. The aircraft and associated airborne systems must 

 be approved for Category III for that operator, or 

 for Category II for that operator using an 

 approach coupler and autoland system or HUD which 

 provides flight guidance information to decision 

 height. 

 

 c. That approach coupler and autoland system or HUD 

 is used for the instrument approach procedure and 

 landing or until initiation of a missed approach. 

 This exemption terminates on November 30, 1994, unless 

 sooner superseded or rescinded. 

 /s/ Thomas C. Accardi 

 Director, Flight Standards Service 

 Issued in Washington, D.C. on November 6, 1992.