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-EThe 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 standardminimums. 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 ofoperating 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 thatfactors, 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 intype" 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 theauthority 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 areeligible 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.