AFS

- 1 3

- 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

NO RTHROP GR UMMAN Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2013

- 0238

SYSTEMS CORPORATION

for an exemption from § 61.57(e) (3)

of Tit le 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 Se gundo, California 90245

- 2804 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of N orthrop 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 oper ate 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 be en 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 n ight takeoff and landing e xperience 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 cr ews. 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 th e 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 t he 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) indicate d that § 61.57 does not apply to a pilot in comm and who is employed by an air carrier certificated under part 135 and is in compliance with §§ 135.243 and 135.247. We found th at relief from § 61.57 was not required.

On July 1, 2013, the FAA contacted Northrop by telephone for clarification regarding i ts 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 Regi ster on May 2 1 , 2013 (78 FR 2 9808 ). 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 FAA3

und er 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 tha t 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. T he FAA notes that recent experience requirement s of §§ 61.57(e)(4)(i)( C ) and 61.57(e)(4)(ii)( C ) must
be obtained in an aircraft that require s more than one crewmember. These provisions require that a pilot obtain 15 hours of flight time, within the past 9 0 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 exemp tion 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, w ithout acting as a required crewmember

of a two

- pilot crew , the FAA cannot be assure d the exper ience 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 reli ef from the night

- flying currency in § 61.57

.

Additionally, t he 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

.

Iss ued in Washington, DC, on March 21, 201 4.

/s/

John Ba r bagallo Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service