AFS-13-271-E

Exemption No. 10961

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

 

In the matter of the petition of 

 

NORTHROP GRUMMAN Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0238

SYSTEMS CORPORATION 

 

for an exemption from § 61.57(e)(3) 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

 By correspondence posted in the Federal Docket on March 6, 2013, Mr. James Wayne, 

Flight Department Chief Pilot/Safety Officer, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation, 

(Northrop), One Hornet Way, XE6D50/D2, El Segundo, California 90245-2804 petitioned the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Northrop for an exemption from 

§ 61.57(e)(3) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if 

granted, would allow Northrop to operate its BE-1900 aircraft (which is type certificated to 

require only one pilot crewmember) with a two-pilot flight crew that does not meet the night 

takeoff and landing experience requirements identified in § 61.57(b).

The FAA notes that § 61.57(e) has been amended twice by the FAA to incorporate new, 

unrelated text since Northrop petitioned for exemption. While the amendments do not affect 

the text of the regulation applicable to Northrop’s petition, a new requirement added to 

§ 61.57(e) resulted in the former (e)(3) becoming (e)(4). The new § 61.57(e)(4), formerly 

§ 61.57(e)(3), is shown below:
2

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulations:

Section 61.57(e)(3), which prescribes, in pertinent part, that the night takeoff and 

landing experience requirements identified in § 61.57(b) do not apply to a pilot in 

command of a turbine-powered airplane that is type certificated for more than one 

pilot crewmember, provided that pilot has complied with the requirements of 

paragraph § 61.57(e)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

Northrop has requested relief from § 61.57(e)(3) to expand the regulatory exception in that 

regulation. Doing so would except Northrop’s two-pilot crew from the night-flying 

requirements in § 61.57(b) by meeting the § 61.57(e)(3) exception criteria for a two-pilot 

crew. 

Northrop operates two BE-1900 aircraft, which are type-certificated for one pilot. These 

Northrop aircraft are operated with two-pilot crews. In its petition, Northrop identifies 

logistical costs associated with maintaining pilot night currency in the BE-1900 that make 

compliance impractical. Further, Northrop states that its flying for night currency adds 

congestion to the airspace in the Los Angeles area. Northop requires its pilots to accomplish 

annual recurrent aircraft training by completion of a part 142 simulator training program. 

The FAA notes that on April 26, 2011, Northrop requested an exemption for the same relief. 

During the FAA’s review of that request, Northrop confirmed that all crewmembers were 

qualified and current under its part 135 certificate (FAA Certificate No. NOZA). The FAA’s 

June 2011 response (attached) indicated that § 61.57 does not apply to a pilot in command 

who is employed by an air carrier certificated under part 135 and is in compliance with 

§§ 135.243 and 135.247. We found that relief from § 61.57 was not required.

On July 1, 2013, the FAA contacted Northrop by telephone for clarification regarding its 

current petition. Northrop indicated this exemption request was for its pilots who fly under 

part 91 rather than part 135, and therefore may not meet the §§ 135.243 and 135.247 

requirements. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2013 

(78 FR 29808). No comments were received.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA reviewed the petition from Northrop and we find a grant of exemption would not be 

in the public interest or meet an equivalent level of safety. The following is a summary of our 

analysis of the petition from Northrop.

The FAA commends Northrop for its decision to operate its single-pilot aircraft with a 

two-pilot crew, and for using recurrent training from an provider certificated by the FAA
3

under part 142. We find that the recurrent training and the added crewmember can be a 

significant factor in reducing safety risk during flight operations. 

However, the FAA must consider the fact that the added crewmember is being utilized in an 

aircraft that is only type certificated for one pilot crewmember. The FAA believes that an 

equivalent level of safety to § 61.57(b) is only met by the execption found in § 61.57(e)(4),

when the aircraft being utilized by the crew requires more than one crewmember. The FAA 

notes that recent experience requirements of §§ 61.57(e)(4)(i)(C) and 61.57(e)(4)(ii)(C) must 

be obtained in an aircraft that requires more than one crewmember. These provisions require 

that a pilot obtain 15 hours of flight time, within the past 90 days, in an aircraft that the pilot 

seeks to use under the exception of § 61.57(e)(4). As currently published, this time must be 

acquired in an aircraft that requires more than one pilot crewmeber. 

If the FAA were to grant an exemption to Northrop for the 15 hours required by 

§§ 61.57(e)(4)(i)(c) and 61.57(e)(4)(ii)(c), those hours could be obtained in an aircraft that 

does not require two pilot crewmembers. However, without acting as a required crewmember

of a two-pilot crew, the FAA cannot be assured the experience obtained will contribute to the 

proficiency of the pilot. Accordingly, while Northrop’s use of FAA-certificated recurrent 

training and two-pilot crew does reduce risk, we find they do not make an equivalent level of 

safety to justify relief from the night-flying currency in § 61.57.

Additionally, the FAA does not agree with Northrop’s position that its aircraft being flown 

near Los Angeles unduly congest the local airspace. We find that Northrop aircraft operating 

during night hours for the minimal time necessary for its pilots to meet the requirements of

§ 61.57 will result in a negligible contribution to airspace congestion. 

 

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. §§ 106(f), 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Northrop Grumman Systems 

Corporation for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.57(e)(4) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2014.

/s/

John Barbagallo

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service