AFS

- 13

- 103

- E Exemption No. 1080 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

EVERGR EEN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 1240

for an exemption from § 121.652(a) and (c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By lette r dated November 16, 2012, Mr. William J. Zehner, Director of Operations, Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. (Evergreen), 3850 Three Mile Lane, McMinnville, OR

97128 petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Evergreen for an

exe mption from § 121.652(a) and (c) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow a new Evergreen pilot in command (PIC) that is subject to higher landing minimum requirements to operate to the normal, low er C ategory I minimums under the conditions stipulated.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation s :

Section 121.652 (a) prescribes that i f the PIC of an airplane has not served 100 hours as

PIC in operations under this part in the type o f airplane the PIC is operating, the minimum

de s cent altitude ( MDA ) or decision altitude/decision heigh t ( DA/DH ) and visibility landing minimums in the certificate holder's operations specification for regular, provisional, or refueling airports are increa sed by 100 feet and one

- half mile (or the runway visual range ( RVR ) equivalent).

Section 121.652(c) prescribes that Category II minimums and the sliding scale when authorized in the certificate holder's operations specifications do not apply until the PIC subject to paragraph (a) of this section meets the requirements of that paragraph in th e type of airplane he is operating.2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that at the time of initial issuance, (Ex emption 5549), Evergreen

was an Air Transport Association ( ATA ), now Airlines for America (A4A) member and received exemption extensions via A 4 A petitions. At this time, as a “ similarly situated part 121 certificate holder,” Evergreen respectfully petition s for an Exemption from 121.652(a) and (c) on our own behalf.

Evergreen proposed to include the conditions of this exemption in various manuals and to brief crew members in training on the requirements of the conditions of the exemption. Evergreen also st ated that during simulator training the company trains potential PIC’s new to the type airplane being operated in instrument approach procedures to a DH of 100 feet. Evergreen provided excerpts from a B747

- 400 training manual which addressed this training.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA finds that Evergreen operates B747

- 200 and B747

- 400 series airplanes as a cargo only operator under a part 121 supplemental c ertificate. Evergreen International had been granted Exemption 5549, with amendments, through a group exemption first granted to the

A4A on November 6, 1992. In its petition, Evergreen states that as an A 4 A member it was granted this exemption on initial issuance and ha s received subsequent extensions through the A4A submission process. Eve rgreen as a “similarly situated part 121 certificate holder” now petitions on its own behalf.

In order to ascertain whether Evergreen’s p etition meets equivalent safety standards for granting an exemption to §121.652(a) and (c), the FAA reviewed Evergreen ’s current

o perations s pecifications (OpSpecs) and other operational authorizations , such as, Evergreen’s training program, aircraft airworthiness and qualification relevant to this petition with the Evergreen ’ s Certificate Management Team. Of primary rel evance to our consideration is that Evergreen has not been issued OpSpecs C059, which authorizes Category II operations. Therefore, in evaluating Evergreen’s petition for exemption and supportin g material, the FAA

focused on C ondition No. 2 Category I, s pecific, in Exemption 5549 (as amended) , which

states :

2. Category I, specific. A PIC with fewer than 100 hours as PIC in the airplane being operated 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 is met:

a. The PIC and other required flightcrew members are trained and qualified for Category II or Category III, or are trained to an equivalent level with respect to

the airbor ne system use, ground facility use, associated procedures, and any other relevant topics.3

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 head

- up display ( HUD ) system that provides flight guidance information to decision height.

c. The approach coupler or HUD system is used for the approach to DH or until initiation of a missed approach.

d. The flightcrew mus t 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

when the weather conditions are below 4,000 RVR (3/4 mile visibility) and the

cross

- wind component exceeds 15 knots combined with a braking action report of less than “good.”

In the initial grant of exemption 5549, and in subsequent extensions, the FAA established the safety ration ale for the conditions listed in a grant of exemption from §121.652(a) and (c). Specifically

, “.... [ t ] he FAA found that to ensure equivalent or greater safety than that intended by §121.652, only certain HUD and autoland systems, used with appropriate

instr ument 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 desired , characteristi cs of the airborne system, appropriate operating limits and procedures, appropriate crew experience pairing, and suitable ground facilities. The credit allowed must also be fully consistent with the training the crew members received

, and any initial opera ting experience completed a s well as include use of appropriate training devices or simulators approved for the pertinent low visibility scenarios that are applicable.” This rationale provides continuing support for

C ondition No s

. 1 and 2 in Exemption 5549 , as amended, requiring the air carrier to be approved for Category II or III operations

.

Condition No s

. 2.a and 2.b describe the training program and f l ight crewmember training required for new PIC authorization to operate under the exemption. Evergreen trains in Level

C and D simulators

, which provide sufficient fidelity and the capability to adequately perform approaches to either a landing or missed approach under ceiling and visibility conditions relevant to this exemption. In an amplification of its initial submission

, Evergreen stated it

w ould train ne w PICs to conduct instrument landing system coupled approaches to a DH of 100 feet followed by either a missed approach or landing. Evergreen also submitted a section

from what is identified as “B

- 747

- 400 Transition Training” showing a lesson profile for a flight simulator period identified as: “SIM PERIOD 10

– LOFT.” (Line Oriented Flight Training). This profile indicates an approach to Los Angeles (KLAX) “CAT 2 ILS 25L (set

DH 10 100’ above touchdown zone elevation), Missed Approach.” A second “Cat 2 ILS 25L” is performed to a “Full Stop landing.” The second segment of “LOFT

– 10” provides a note4

stating that: “If the second pilot is also a new c aptain conduct two Cat 2 approaches, one to a missed app roach and another to a full stop.” The FAA assumes that Evergreen bases its petition for exemption on this training as establishing an equivalent level to the exemption requirement for Category II training. The FAA does not agree.

Evergreen does not prese nt the comprehensive program necessary to meet the level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule . While training in approved Level C and D simulators to a decision height of 100 feet might seem to meet an equivalent level to Category II opera tions, which normally has a DH of 100 feet, the criteria is based on far more than meeting a decision height equivalent. Without a complete presentation of enhanced crew procedures and coordination, system failure awareness, weather conditions, airport cri teria and other pertinent areas, training to a DH of 100 feet using C ategory I procedures is viewed as simply enhanced C ategory I training. Training to a DH of 100 feet using Category I procedures has been common within the industry for many years. In and of itself

, this training does not constitute an equivalent level to Category II and therefore does not meet the requirements for an exemption to §121.652(a) and (c).

Evergreen did not provide the FAA with crew approach and monitoring procedures, crew

coor dination procedures when conducting low visibility approaches

, or any other procedural presentation applicable to an equivalent to a C ategory II approach.

A review of manuals forwarded by the Evergreen P rincipal O perations I nspector indicated a

diffuse a nd confusing presentation of a C ategory II program. There were at least two places in manuals that identified an outline that very briefly addressed some C ategory II items applicable to training while at the same time, and in other places, are statements s aying that Evergreen does not have a C ategory II program and is not presently authorized for C ategory II.

Category II requires inclusion of C ategory II approaches during initial and recurrent checks. The material presented to the FAA by Evergreen provide s for training to a DH of 100 feet during a LOFT scenario. A LOFT is not a check event therefore Evergreen does not establish a level equivalent to C ategory II.

The heart of an exemption enabling a new PIC to fly to C ategory I or II published minimums

,

as stated in Condition No. 2.b, Category I, specific is crew training and qualification in the next highest level of approach operations. Evergreen is not presently authorized for Cat egory II operations

, therefore

, it must demonstrate an entire program that presents a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule ; this Evergreen did not accomplish.

Further, the Evergreen petition requested exemption 5549 without identifying a specific airplane type and series; therefore it must be assumed the p etition was meant to apply to both

the Boeing B747

- 200 series airplane and the B747

- 400 series airplane. The two series of B747 airplanes operated by Evergreen require separate type ratings with accompanying cockpit environment and crew procedures that wou ld differ in areas significant to this petition. An exemption of this nature, specific to new PICs conducting low visibility approaches, requires5

airplane

- specific procedures. While the FAA views the B747

- 400 submission inadequate as previously mentioned, the complete absence of any B747

- 200 information renders an approval impossible.

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 contain ed in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. for an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.652 (a) and (c) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 17, 2013

. /s/

John S. Duncan Deputy Director, Flight Standards

Service