February 2, 2012

SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY TO: Federal Docket Management System, 

www.regulations.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

West Building, Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590-0001

RE: Landmark FBO, LLC (Landmark Aviation) Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR 

§§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to 14 CFR part 111

, Landmark FBO, LLC (Landmark Aviation or alternatively,

Landmark2

) hereby petitions for an exemption from §§ 135.293(a)(2), 135.293 (a)(3), 

135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347 to allow Landmark’s whollyowned subsidiary, Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, LLC3

 (PHA) to receive credit for aircraftspecific training, testing and checking received by pilots while employed by Landmark 

Aviation Waukegan, LLC (LAW) 4

, another operating unit of Landmark Aviation. 

The requested relief includes aircraft-specific5 initial new hire ground and flight training, 

written and oral tests, competency checks and pilot-in-command instrument proficiency 

checks. If granted, the exemption would eliminate the need for PHA to conduct these 

activities for the LAW pilots who meet the conditions described herein.

Pertinent Regulations 

This petition requests relief from the following training, testing and checking sections of part 

135. All sections are specific to the aircraft type being operated by the pilot:

 1 All citations are to 14 CFR unless otherwise noted.

2 Landmark Aviation is a registered trademark of Landmark FBO, LLC. Landmark Aviation is used by

Landmark FBO, LLC’s subsidiaries and to describe all aviation business interests owned by Landmark 

FBO, LLC and its subsidiaries including the two part 135 operators named above.

3 Certificate # I5WA933J

4 Certificate # IEYA828T

5 All company-specific training will be administered to the LAW pilots upon their transition to the PHA 

certificate. This petition only requests relief from FAA regulations relating to the aircraft-specific 

training, testing and checking described above.

117 North Henry Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–2903

Telephone 703.299.0784 Fax 703.299.0254

www.potomac-law.com

Marshall S. Filler Direct Dial - 703.451.7393

Admitted in the District of Columbia and Virginia E-Mail - marshall.filler@potomac-law.com
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

February 2, 2012

Page 2

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 

135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

• Section 135.345(b) sets forth the requirements for initial ground training. 

• Section 135.329(b) requires compliance with § 135.345 in its entirety.

• Section 135.347 contains, in pertinent part, initial flight training requirements.

• Section 135.293(a)(2) and (3) describe initial pilot testing (i.e., oral or written) 

requirements. 

• Section 135.293(b) requires a competency check. 

• Section 135.297 requires a pilot in command instrument proficiency check every six 

months.

Background

a. Aircraft types new to PHA

In 2010 Landmark Aviation acquired a substantial portion of the assets of DB Aviation, Inc., 

a part 135 operator based in Waukegan, IL. Landmark placed these assets into its newlycreated LAW unit which continues to operate as a separate part 135 air carrier from PHA.

As part of its internal reorganization Landmark is seeking to transition certain LAW aircraft 

and their associated flight crewmembers to the PHA certificate.6 Specifically, this involves 

21 aircraft and approximately 60 pilots. Eighteen of the 21 aircraft (and therefore most of 

these pilots) represent 12 aircraft types that are not being operated by PHA today. 

Therefore, no aircraft-specific training elements currently exist in PHA’s training program for 

these aircraft. This will require the FAA to approve new training curricula for PHA. The 

scope of that program and the associated testing and checking will depend on the FAA’s 

disposition of this petition. In that regard, PHA intends to submit the same initial training 

curriculum currently approved by the FAA for new hire LAW pilots operating these aircraft 

types. If granted PHA would reference the exemption in its reduced initial new hire program.

b. Use of part 142 training centers

Both LAW and PHA contract aircraft-specific training, testing and checking elements to 

FAA-approved training centers7 as authorized by §§ 135.291(b) and 135.294(b). The 

operator-approved programs for these aircraft types are based on the training centers’ 

programs which are also FAA-approved. The same check airmen who conducted the most 

recent events for LAW would also be approved as check airmen for PHA when it begins 

operating these aircraft. If this petition is granted the next recurrent activity for these pilots 

(after they move to the PHA certificate) would be based on the date they were last 

accomplished for LAW.

 6 Some aircraft and their pilots will continue operating on the LAW certificate.

7 FlightSafety International and CAE SimuFlight
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

February 2, 2012

Page 3

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 

135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

c. Aircraft types common to both operators

The remaining three aircraft that would move to the PHA certificate consist of two types that 

have training programs approved on both certificates. As with the 12 new aircraft types 

discussed above, the two common training programs are based on the training center’s 

FAA-approved programs. While Landmark recognizes that part 135 requires that a training 

and qualification program be approved for a particular operator, training center approved 

programs are seldom changed in a substantive way by the air carrier’s local office. 

In any event, PHA will compare the two approved initial hire training programs to determine 

any differences. Once completed, PHA would submit its evaluation to the local office along 

with a proposed reduced initial new hire program for those pilots transitioning to the PHA 

certificate. This program would be identical to PHA’s normal initial new hire program except 

it would not include the aircraft-specific portions for eligible LAW pilots.

FAA Policy 

a. FAA letter of January 28, 2010

In a letter dated January 28, 2010 to Damon Danneker of Air Rutter International the FAA 

described the methodology to be used when a certificate holder desires that newly-hired 

crewmembers receive credit for previous aircraft-specific training received while they were 

employed by another certificate holder (Attachment 1, AFS-1 letter). The FAA stated that 

the practice of automatically taking credit for prior training was contrary to the intent of the 

regulations. However, the AFS-1 letter also described a protocol that could be used in which 

the acquiring certificate holder performs a differences analysis of the two company’s training 

programs. The letter acknowledged that under appropriate circumstances the pilots could 

receive credit for prior training. The FAA letter also stated the following regarding the 

agency’s plans to issue guidance on the subject:

Additionally, the Air Carrier Training and 142 Training Center Branch of the Air 

Transportation Division, AFS·21 0, is currently developing guidance for inclusion 

in the appropriate portions of FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information 

Management System, that will detail specific procedures and guidelines 

regarding the circumstances and conditions under which an operator may 

take credit for a portion of another operator's crewmember training. This 

guidance will provide instructions for the initial approval of training 

programs that include a provision to take credit for training previously 

conducted, as well as training being conducted by another 

operator/training center. We are also developing a notice that will require all 

principal operations inspectors (POI) to review currently approved training 

programs. This review will require POls to evaluate existing programs to ensure 
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

February 2, 2012

Page 4

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 

135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

compliance with current policy and provide guidelines for the initial approval of 

training programs granting credit for training previously conducted by another 

operator/training center. This notice will include guidelines that detail the specific 

training modules and/or elements or events which are acceptable for granting 

training credit, and those that are not. The notice should be published by early 

February 2010, and the accompanying guidance to Order 8900.1 by early April 

2010. (emphasis added)

Although the AFS-1 letter addressed training only, the rationale for allowing similar credit for 

previous tests and checks under these circumstances is equally compelling. The testing and 

checking events are directly linked to the approved training program and occur during the 

same crewmember visit to the part 142 training center. The authorized check airmen who 

administer the aircraft-specific tests and checks for the LAW pilots would also administer 

them for PHA.

Providing relief from only the training requirements means that crewmembers must 

be sent back to the same approved training center for testing and checking. They 

would be evaluated by the same approved check airmen even though they are 

already current and qualified under essentially the same aircraft-specific training 

program that will be submitted for approval by PHA. In Landmark’s view, this does 

nothing to enhance safety while adding significant and unwarranted costs to the 

integration of these LAW aircraft and pilots into PHA’s operations.

b. Draft FAA Notice of December 13, 2011

On December 13, 2011 the FAA issued a draft notice8 in which it acknowledged that a part 

135 certificate holder may develop and submit for approval a reduced initial new hire 

training program for pilots who have previous experience as a crewmember in part 135 

operations and/or a particular aircraft and duty position. The document provides that a 

reduced curriculum would require detailed prerequisites to define the level of experience 

needed to enter a reduced new hire program. It further stated that while there are no 

minimum hour requirements for a reduced program, “all the ... elements of the certificate 

holder’s full initial training program must be accomplished as well as the 

qualification module because the regulations “do not permit the crediting of such 

training (with the exception of CRM and DRM training)” (emphasis added). 

Although the purpose of the notice was to clarify the scope of allowable practices it created 

confusion for the petitioner because it appears to be contrary to the AFS-1 letter in the 

following material respects: (1) the AFS-1 letter indicated that credit could be received 

under appropriate circumstances (ostensibly without an exemption), and (2) the AFS-1 letter 

 8 76 FR 80831, December 27, 2011 (Attachment 2)
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

February 2, 2012

Page 5

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 

135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

did not require that any reduced training program address all of the requirements of the full 

initial new hire program as stated in the draft notice. In addition, neither the AFS-1 letter nor 

the draft notice addressed the issue of aircraft-specific tests and checks required by 

§§135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b) and 135.297.

Landmark is submitting this petition because the draft notice does not appear to allow what 

the AFS-1 letter stated was acceptable; i.e., that under appropriate circumstances the 

acquiring carrier could take credit for a portion of the training received at the pilot’s previous 

employer after conducting a differences analysis of the two programs. Specifically, PHA 

seeks relief only for the complete aircraft-specific portion of the training, testing and 

checking conducted under the conditions described below. 

Communications with PHA’s Certificate-Holding District Office

By letter dated June 16, 2011, PHA’s Principal Operations Inspector (POI) requested the 

removal of certain provisions contained in PHA’s pilot training manual that allowed pilots 

employed by other companies to receive training and checking credit when they were hired 

by PHA under specific circumstances. Prior to the January 28, 2010 letter, these provisions 

were consistent with accepted industry practice and authorized by many FAA local offices. 

Prior to the draft notice being issued the FSDO advised PHA informally that it could take 

credit for previous aircraft-specific training provided it followed the policy set forth in the 

AFS-1 letter. However, the FSDO interpreted the AFS-1 letter as being limited to training; 

therefore, it declined to apply it to aircraft-specific testing and checking required by § 

135.293(a)(2), 135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b) and 135.297. Therefore, all current and qualified 

LAW pilots moving to the PHA certificate would require new tests and checks before they 

could serve as pilots for PHA on aircraft for which they are currently qualified. Practically, 

this means that these pilots would still have to be sent to the same part 142 training center 

because the aircraft-specific testing and checking activities occur at essentially the same 

time as the training.

Landmark has also learned that operators are being held to different standards from region 

to region. This results in some certificate holders gaining a significant competitive 

advantage over others. 

Proposed Conditions and Limitations 

Landmark proposes that the exemption be limited to aircraft-specific, initial new hire 

training, testing and checking under the following circumstances:

1. The Greensboro FSDO must approve amendments to PHA’s operations 

specifications authorizing the LAW aircraft to be operated under PHA’s air carrier 
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

February 2, 2012

Page 6

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 

135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

certificate.

2. Only those pilots transitioning from the LAW to the PHA certificate would be covered 

by the exemption.

3. The following conditions would apply to LAW pilots who are current and qualified in a 

type of aircraft not being operated by PHA on the date the exemption is granted.

a. The Greensboro FSDO must approve an initial new hire pilot training and 

qualification program that is substantially similar to LAW’s FAA-approved 

program. 

b. This program must specifically reference this exemption which would become 

part of the PHA approved program.

4. The following conditions apply to LAW pilots who are current and qualified on an 

aircraft type common to both certificates:

a. PHA must perform a differences analysis of the two carriers’ training 

programs.

b. Based on this analysis PHA would develop a reduced new-hire training 

program for the transitioning pilots up to and including receiving full credit for 

the last training, testing and checking event conducted under the LAW 

certificate on that aircraft.

c. PHA would submit the differences analysis and its proposed training program 

to the FSDO for approval.

5. The same part 142 training center user by LAW for a specific aircraft type is 

contracted to perform these activities for PHA.

6. The same LAW check airman who administered the crewmember’s most recent 

training, testing and checking events at the part 142 training center has also been 

designated as a PHA check airman for the same type aircraft.

Public Interest and Safety 

Landmark submits that the circumstances described herein are highly unusual. The 

company recognizes that operator-specific training programs may vary considerably. 

Therefore, all newly-hired LAW pilots will satisfactorily complete those requirements in the 

normal manner before they would be eligible to fly for PHA. However, the same is not true 

for aircraft-specific training under the circumstances presented here. The two operators 

have contracted with the same approved training centers, have obtained or will obtain FAA 

approval for essentially the same program and all of the required activities would be 

administered by the same check airmen. Therefore, granting the exemption would not 

adversely affect safety.

It is clearly in the public interest not to impose significant additional costs on certificate 

holders unless required in the interests of safety. This is particularly true in a down economy 

where potential job creation is critically important to the nation’s economic recovery. 

Although pilot training rules are an important component in ensuring the highest degree of 
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

February 2, 2012

Page 7

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 

135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

safety in air transportation the intent of those rules is satisfied under these circumstances. 

Each of the LAW pilots are trained, qualified and current on the same aircraft type they 

would operate for PHA. Moreover, each of those pilots will receive company-specific 

training before they would be authorized to fly under the PHA certificate. Each of them will 

receive required recurrent training and checking in the normal manner except for the fact 

that if the exemption is granted the due dates would be based on their most recent training 

center event while they were still employed by LAW.

LAW’s annual training budget is in excess of $1 million; forcing PHA to repeat essentially 

the same events out of sequence (i.e., before they would be due if the pilot continued to fly 

for LAW). This would accelerate approximately $500,000 of these costs and adversely 

impact the company’s cash flow. Moreover, granting this relief would be consistent with the 

agency’s efforts to explore processes which realize efficiencies without creating additional 

risk. 

When adopting new regulations the FAA is required to compare the costs of a new rule 

against its benefits. Although not specifically required in the case of an exemption the same 

logic dictates that the FAA evaluate the high costs of complying with the rules in this 

instance against the level of safety than an exemption would provide.

For these reasons and in accordance with § 11.81(e), granting the exemption would be in 

the public interest and would not adversely affect safety. It would also result in a level of 

safety at least equal to that required by the regulations from which the exemption is sought.

Good Cause Exists to Issue the Exemption without Notice and Comment

Landmark requests that the FAA issue the exemption without publication for notice and 

comment in the Federal Register as is normally required.

Section 11.87 lists four factors that the agency considers in deciding whether a petitioner 

has shown good cause for the FAA not to delay action on the petition. Those factors are set 

forth below in italics along with the company’s response in plain text:

(a) Whether granting the petition would set a precedent:

Petitioner is unaware whether previous exemptions were issued. However, a check 

of the FAA’s automated exemption data base revealed no exemptions relating to 

these sections were issued from 2000 to the present. Given the unique nature of 

these circumstances petitioner submits that granting an exemption to Landmark 

would not likely have widespread applications in other situations where credit for 

pilot training is requested.
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

February 2, 2012

Page 8

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 

135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

(b) Whether the relief requested is identical to exemptions previously granted: See 

response to previous question.

(c) Whether delaying action would adversely affect the petitioner: 

Delaying action on the petition would prejudice Landmark and its two air carrier 

units. The companies have already been adversely affected due to confusion in the 

industry and the FAA about the extent to which a new operator may obtain credit for 

certain portions of a pilot’s prior training. Landmark’s acquisition of DB Aviation’s 

assets occurred after the AFS-1 letter was issued.

In that letter the FAA described the procedure it expected to be followed; it stated 

that such credit was not automatic and that a differences analysis of the two training 

programs was required. While it indicated that credit could be obtained under the 

appropriate circumstances, the letter was not clear in its application to testing and 

checking.

Although guidance was promised in early 2011, the draft notice was not issued until 

the end of 2011. Moreover, that notice is materially different from the AFS-1 

document, particularly in its statement that any reduced new hire training program 

submitted for approval must address all the elements of the certificate holder’s 

normal approved program. Read literally, this means that an exemption is necessary 

to provide the relief requested since PHA seeks total credit for prior aircraft specific 

training, testing and checking under the narrow circumstances described herein. 

Having to wait several more months for the notice and comment process would 

further prejudice petitioner as it attempts to streamline the two carriers’ operations.

(d) Whether the petition was filed in a timely manner: The petition is timely filed. 

In light of the above considerations Landmark submits that good cause exists not to delay 

action on this request.

Summary of Exemption Request

In accordance with § 11.81(e), Landmark offers the following summary suitable for 

publication in the Federal Register in the event the FAA believes that good cause to waive 

publication has not been established.

Landmark Aviation petitions the FAA for an exemption from §§ 135.293(a)(2), 

135.293 (a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347 to 

allow Piedmont Hawthorne Aviation, LLC unit (PHA) to receive credit for 

aircraft-specific training, testing and checking received by pilots while they 
U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations

February 2, 2012

Page 9

RE: Landmark Aviation Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR §§ 135.293(a)(2), 

135.293(a)(3), 135.293(b), 135.297, 135.329(b), 135.345(b) and 135.347

were employed by Landmark Aviation Waukegan, LLC(LAW).

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner requests that the FAA grant the requested relief. 

Please let me know if you have any questions or desire additional information.

Respectfully submitted,

Marshall S. Filler

Counsel for Landmark Aviation

Attachments

cc: Dan Jenkins, Manager, AFS-210

Robert Burke, AFS-210

James Verre, Manager, GSO FSDO

Wayne Vohs, POI
Attachment 1
i Background, Terminology, and Policies of Contract Training Version: 1.0 Version Date: 01/03/2011 

AFS-OOl LETTER HO-03-BTPC 

U,S, Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

AdmInistration 

JAN 28 2010 

Mr. Damon Danneker 

Chief Pilot 

Air Rutter International 

4310 Donald Douglas Drive, Suite 202 

Long Beach, CA 90808 

Dear Mr. Danneker: 

This is in response to your letter dated September 29, 2009, regarding your appeal ofthe 

response from the Western-Pacific Flight Standards regional division manager denying your 

submission of a training program revision for Air Rutter International (ARI). 

At my request, the Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, conducted a thorough evaluation 

ofyour request and associated information as well as the responses provided by both 

Inspector Lackey and Mr. R. Kemp. Our findings support their conclusions concerning the 

applicability (or, more accurately, the lackthereof) offlight crewmember training conducted 

by or on behalfofanother air carrier and its creditability toward meeting the regulatory 

requirements ofARI. With the exception ofthe reference to canceled Air Transportation 

Handbook BUlletin (HBAT) 99-12, we believe the references cited in Mr. Kemp's July 9, 

2009, letter to you are appropriate and correctly address the specific issues ofone air carrier 

accepting the training conducted on behalfofanother air carrier as meeting the regulatory 

requirements ofTitle 14 Code ofFederal Regulations (14 CFR) part 135 Subpart H. With 

.specific reference to expired HBAT 99-12, the information contained in this expired bulletin 

is no longer applicable. References to the expired HBAT, cited in the previous Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) responses; do not invalidate the, basis of the technical 

decision regarding program requirements. 

Although promoted by some training organizations. the practice ofone air carrier accepting 

the crewmembern:aining provided by another air carrier as meeting its specific crewniember 

training requirements is generally contrary to the intent as well as the technical provisions of 

14 CFR parts 121 and 135. Under certain controlled conditions we do, however, believe 

that some training, specifically systems training. which is designed for a specific aircraft 

type. model, and configuration, may be creditable. This may occur provided the subject 

training mirrors the accepting operator's approved training program and does not include 

operator specific duties or responsibilities. For one operator to accept the training conducted 

under another operator's approved curriculum, without first conducting a detailed side-byside comparison designed to identifY the differences between the curriculums. is not 

consistent With sound operating practices. Parts 121 and 135 clearly outline the training 

program requirements,courseware, training devices, simulators, facilities, etc., that each 

operator must include in its approved training program. These requirements are dependent 

on an operator's equipage, operating envirorunent, complexity of the specific aircraft, 

21000072, Authorization and Surveillan<:e of Contract Training for Operators HO/PE 

FOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY Page 11 of 14 
Background, Terminology, and Policies of Contract Training Version: 1.0 Version Date: 01/0312011

­

2 

complexity ofthe type of operation, the experience and knowledge level of the students, and 

efficiency and sophistication of the operator's entire training program (including items such 

as instructor proficiency, training aids, facilities, courseware, and the operator's experience 

with the aircraft). For one operator to assume that another operator's training program 

meets these operator specific requirements, without a detailed comparison, again is not 

consistent with applicable regulations, operational control requirements, or the provisions of 

the operator's operating certificate. 

We agree with your contention that some training centers have been distributing 14 CFR 

part 135 training programs that are not consistent with current FAA regulations or policy. 

We have raised this issue with the appropriate training center management officials as well 

as associated FAA officials. Additionally, the Air Carrier Training and 142 Training Center 

Branch ofthe Air Transportation Division, AFS·21 0, is currently developing guidance for 

inclusion in the appropriate portions of FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Infonnation 

Management System, that will detail specific procedures and guidelines regarding the 

circumstances and conditions under which an operator may take credit for a portion of 

another operator's crewmember training. This guidance will provide instructions for the 

initial approval oftraining programs that include a provision to take credit for training 

previously conducted, as well as training being conducted by another operator/training 

center. Weare also developing a notice that will require all principal operations inspectors 

(POI) to review currently approved training programs. This review will require POls to 

evaluate existing programs to ensure compliance with current policy and provide guidelines 

for the initial approval of training programs granting credit for training previously conducted 

by another operator/training center. This notice will include guidelines that detail the 

specific training modules andlor elements or events which are acceptable for granting 

training credit, and those that are not. The notice should be published by early February 

2010, and the accompanying guidance to Order 8900.1 by early April 2010. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to respond to your concerns and .trust that this 

letter fully explains current and future FAA actions concerning the transfer of training credit 

between operators. 

If you accept this decision, please notify Fred Stein, AFS·40, either by telephone 

«202) 385-4517) or by e~mail (fred.stein@faa.gov) and he will close this 

Consistency and Standardization Initiative (CSI) action. Ifyou want a review at the 

next level with the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety, A VS-l, you must 

notifY Mr. Stein within 30 calendar days ofreceipt of the service director's decision. 

Ifwe do not hear from you within 30 calendar days, we will consider this CSI 

closed. 

Sincerely, 

9 L .c Pfcr-­

fW 

John M. Allen 


Director, Flight Standards Service 


Contract Training for Operators 

fOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY Page 12 of 14 
Attachment 2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 80831 

above the specified trim speed. This 

must be shown at any speed that can be 

obtained, except that speeds requiring a 

control force in excess of 40 pounds or 

speeds above the maximum allowable 

speed or below the minimum speed for 

steady unstalled flight need not be 

considered. 

(b) The stick force or position must 

vary with speed so that any substantial 

speed change results in a stick force or 

position clearly perceptible to the pilot. 

C. In place of 14 CFR part 23, 

§ 23.175, Demonstration of static 

longitudinal stability requirement, 

comply with the following: 

SC23.175 Demonstration of static 

longitudinal stability: 

(a) Climb. The stick force curve must 

have, at a minimum, a neutrally stable 

to stable slope at speeds between 85 and 

115 percent of the trim speed, with— 

(1) Maximum continuous power; and 

(2) The airplane trimmed at the speed 

used in determining the climb 

performance required by section 

23.69(a). 

(b) Cruise. With the airplane in trim 

with power for level flight at 

representative cruising speeds at high 

and low altitudes, including speeds up 

to VNO, except that the speed need not 

exceed VH— 

(1) The stick force curve must, at a 

minimum, have a neutrally stable to 

stable slope at all speeds within a range 

that is the greater of 15 percent of the 

trim speed plus the resulting free return 

speed range, or 40 knots plus the 

resulting free return speed range, above 

and below the trim speed, except that 

the slope need not be stable— 

(i) At speeds less than 1.3 VS1; or 

(ii) For airplanes with VNE established 

under section 23.1505(a), at speeds 

greater than VNE. 

(c) Landing. The stick force curve 

must, at a minimum, have a neutrally 

stable to stable slope at speeds between 

1.1 VS1 and 1.8 VS1 with— 

(1) Landing gear extended; and 

(2) The airplane trimmed at— 

(i) VREF, or the minimum trim speed 

if higher, with power off; and 

(ii) VREF with enough power to 

maintain a 3 degree angle of descent. 

D. In place of 14 CFR part 23, 

§ 23.177, Static directional and lateral 

stability requirement, comply with the 

following: 

SC23.177 Static directional and 

lateral stability: 

(a) The static directional stability, as 

shown by the tendency to recover from 

a wings level sideslip with the rudder 

free, must be positive for any landing 

gear and flap position appropriate to the 

takeoff, climb, cruise, approach, and 

landing configurations. This must be 

shown with symmetrical power up to 

maximum continuous power, and at 

speeds from 1.2 VS1 up to the maximum 

allowable speed for the condition being 

investigated. The angle of sideslip for 

these tests must be appropriate to the 

type of airplane. At larger angles of 

sideslip, up to that at which full rudder 

is used or a control force limit in section 

23.143 is reached, whichever occurs 

first, and at speeds from 1.2 VS1 to VO, 

the rudder pedal force must not reverse. 

(b) In straight, steady slips at 1.2 VS1

for any landing gear and flap positions, 

and for any symmetrical power 

conditions up to 50 percent of 

maximum continuous power, the rudder 

control movements and forces must 

increase steadily, but not necessarily in 

constant proportion, as the angle of 

sideslip is increased up to the maximum 

appropriate to the type of airplane. The 

aileron control movements and forces 

may increase steadily, but not 

necessarily in constant proportion, as 

the angle of sideslip is increased up to 

the maximum appropriate to the type of 

airplane. At larger slip angles, up to the 

angle at which the full rudder or aileron 

control is used or a control force limit 

contained in section 23.143 is reached, 

the aileron and rudder control 

movements and forces must not reverse 

as the angle of sideslip is increased. 

Rapid entry into, and recovery from, a 

maximum sideslip considered 

appropriate for the airplane must not 

result in uncontrollable flight 

characteristics. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

December 16, 2011. 

Earl Lawrence, 

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–33049 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 135 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1397] 

Clarification of Policy Regarding 

Approved Training Programs 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

availability of an FAA Notice that 

would require FAA inspectors to review 

14 CFR part 135 approved training 

programs to identify and correct those 

programs which erroneously issued 

credit for previous training or checking. 

The document also provides guidance 

on constructing reduced hour training 

programs based on previous experience. 

Upon review of the comments and any 

necessary revision, this document 

would cancel and replace FAA Order 

8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 19, 

Paragraph 3–1111. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2011–1397 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at (202) 493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Burke, Air Carrier Training 

Branch, Air Transportation Division, 

Flight Standards Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

80832 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 248 / Tuesday, December 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

267–8262; facsimile: (202) 267–5229; 

email: robert.burke@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FAA 

Order 8900.1, Flight Standards 

Information Management System, was 

issued on September 13, 2007. This 

order consolidated and replaced FAA 

Orders 8300.1, 8400.1, and 8700.1, the 

FAA’s guidance to inspectors. There 

have been numerous inquiries by part 

135 certificate holders regarding the 

acceptance of training/evaluations 

previously completed by a crewmember 

while in the employment of another 

certificate holder. Regulations do not 

permit the crediting of such training 

(with the specific exception of CRM and 

DRM training). 

Additionally, some training centers 

have distributed a training program 

template that provides credit for 

training/evaluations conducted by 

another operator. Such provisions are 

contrary to the intent as well as the 

technical provisions of part 135 and are 

not appropriate for inclusion in a 

certificate holder’s approved training 

program. 

Part 135 certificate holders may 

develop and submit for approval 

multiple curriculums for a particular 

crewmember position and aircraft make/ 

model/variant. For example, a part 135 

certificate holder may have a an initial 

new-hire curriculum designed to meet 

the requirements of new hire 

crewmembers that have minimal flight 

time, no previous part 135 experience, 

or do not have qualifications related to 

the certificate holder’s operational 

environment. The certificate holder may 

then also apply for a reduced new hire 

curriculum for pilots that have previous 

experience as a crewmember in part 135 

operations and/or the particular aircraft 

and duty position. The second 

curriculum in this example may have 

less training hours due to the 

crewmember’s extensive experience. 

Each of these curriculums would also 

have detailed prerequisites to define the 

level of experience required to enter 

into either of these new hire programs. 

There are no hour requirements which 

need to be defined on a reduced training 

program, however all the training 

elements of the certificate holder’s full 

initial training program must be 

accomplished as well as the 

qualification module. 

While the FAA generally does not 

request comment on internal Notices 

and orders, the agency has established 

a docket for public comments regarding 

this guidance for inspectors in 

recognition of the interest of current 14 

CFR part 135 certificate holders. The 

agency will consider all comments 

received by January 26, 2012. Comments 

received after that date may be 

considered if consideration will not 

delay agency action on the review. A 

copy of the proposed order is available 

for review in the assigned docket for the 

Order at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on December 13, 

2011. 

John S. Duncan, 

Acting Deputy Director, FAA Flight Standards 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–33091 Filed 12–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part Chapter II 

Fire Pots and Gel Fuel; Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for 

Comments and Information 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (‘‘the Commission,’’ 

‘‘CPSC,’’ or ‘‘we’’) has reason to believe 

that firepots and gel fuel used together 

may present an unreasonable risk of 

injury. As of September 30, 2011, the 

Commission is aware of 76 incidents 

that resulted in 2 deaths and 86 injuries 

involving firepots used with gel fuel. All 

of these incidents occurred between 

April 3, 2010 and September 1, 2011. 

Many of the injuries were severe; over 

half of the victims reportedly required 

hospitalization. This advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) initiates 

a rulemaking proceeding under the 

Consumer Product Safety Act (‘‘CPSA’’). 

We invite comments concerning the risk 

of injury associated with firepots, gel 

fuel and gel fuel containers, the 

regulatory alternatives discussed in this 

notice, and other possible ways to 

address this risk. We also invite 

interested persons to submit an existing 

standard or a statement of intent to 

modify or develop a voluntary standard 

to address the risk of injury described in 

this notice. 

DATES: Written comments in response to 

this notice must be received by February 

27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2011– 

0095, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of 

the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this rulemaking. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rohit Khanna, Fire Program Area Team 

Leader, Office of Hazard Identification 

and Reduction, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, National Product 

Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 

Research Place Rockville, MD 20850; 

telephone (301) 987–2508, or email 

rkhanna@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

CPSC staff identified firepots used 

with gel fuel as an emerging hazard in 

June 2011, after a severe injury was 

reported to the CPSC. We pursued 

investigations and conducted analyses 

of these incidents. As of September 30, 

2011, we are aware of 76 incidents 

involving firepots used with gel fuel 

that resulted in 2 deaths and 86 injuries. 

In an effort to address this emerging 

hazard, the CPSC’s Office of Compliance 

and Field Operations initiated several 

recalls of pourable alcohol gel fuel. To 

date, 12 voluntary recalls have been 

announced recalling more than 2 

million bottles of gel fuel. The products 

involved in the recalls were alcoholbased gel fuel in containers intended to 

be used with firepots. Each recalled 

product was marketed for use with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS