Exemption No. 10243 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20591 

In the matter of the petition of 

FLIGHTSAFETY 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. Regulatory Docket No. FAA–2010–0184

for an exemption from § 61.57(d) 

of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION 

By letter dated February 1, 2010, Mr. Stephen Fedynyszyn, Director, Regulatory 

Affairs, FlightSafety International, Inc. (FlightSafety), 95 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, 

Ontario, Canada M3K 2A5, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf 

of FlightSafety for an exemption from § 61.57(d) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would permit FlightSafety to conduct 

instrument proficiency checks (IPC) upon satisfactory completion of approved 14 CFR 

part 142 curriculums using a Level 6 flight training device (FTD). 

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 61.57(d) prescribes, in pertinent part, that a person who does not meet the 

instrument experience requirements of § 61.57(c) within the 12 calendar months 

preceding the month of the flight may not serve as pilot in command (PIC) under 

instrument flight rules (IFR) or in weather conditions less than the minimums 

prescribed for visual flight rules (VFR) until having passed an instrument proficiency 

check that consists of the areas of operation and instrument tasks required in the 

instrument rating practical test standards (IR PTS). 

AFS–10–159–E 
2

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that recent amendments to § 61.57(d) preclude FlightSafety from 

providing IPCs to pilots in FlightSafety’s Level 6 FTDs. The petitioner adds that under 

the previous rule “an IPC would consist of a representative sampling of maneuvers and 

procedures found in the Instrument PTS, as determined by the evaluator.” The 

petitioner contends that based on the previous rule, FlightSafety developed IPC 

curriculums supported by Level 6 FTDs. The petitioner states that previous training 

center program managers issued FAA approval letters authorizing FlightSafety to use 

Level 6 FTDs for completion of the flight review and checks required under §§ 61.56, 

61.57(c), 61.57(d), and/or 61.58. 

According to the petitioner, current § 61.57(d) now ties the required IPC tasks to the 

IR PTS, FAA–S–8081–4E, which specifies the minimum level of flight simulation 

training device (FSTD) that must be used to conduct an IPC. The petitioner notes that 

under the new rule FlightSafety is not permitted to use its Level 6 FTDs to complete all 

of the tasks required by an IPC. Specifically, the petitioner states that the following 

four areas of operations cannot be completed in a Level 6 FTD: 

 Area 4B, Recovery from Unusual Attitudes – Level 7 FTD required. 

 Area 6D, Circling Approach – Level A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) required. 

 Area 6E, Landing from Straight In or Circling Approach – Level B FFS 

required. 

 Area 7C, One Engine Inoperative (OEI)–Instrument Approach 

(Multiengine Airplane) – Level A FFS required. 

The petitioner states that, except for these four maneuvers, an IPC can be completed in 

a Level 6 FTD. The petitioner comments that the IR PTS does not provide alternative 

means of completing these four maneuvers. 

The petitioner asserts that there is no evidence to indicate that safety was ever 

compromised through the use of FlightSafety’s Level 6 FTDs to satisfy the 

IPC requirements. The petitioner states that some or all of FlightSafety’s Level 6 FTDs 

have the following features: 

 A four-axis motion base with control forces and travel corresponding to 

the aircraft; 

 Full-scale cockpit replication; 

 Systems representations, indications, and instrumentation that respond 

appropriately and accurately to the switches and controls of the aircraft; 

 A night visual system with a field of vision for the pilot and copilot; and 

 An instructor station with controls and seat. 
3

With regard to Area 4B, Recovery from Unusual Flight Attitudes, the petitioner argues 

that FlightSafety’s Level 6 FTDs provide pilots with all the necessary cues associated 

with recoveries from unusual attitudes. According to the petitioner, the ability to safely 

recover from an unusual attitude relies more on sound procedures based on instrument 

displays rather than on a specific level of FSTD. Therefore, the petitioner contends 

that a Level 6 FTD provides pilots with an excellent training platform to recognize and 

recover from unusual attitudes without compromising safety. The petitioner proposes 

that a grant of exemption include the following condition: The minimum level FTD 

that can be used to satisfy Area 4B, Recovery from Unusual Flight Attitudes, is a 

Level 6 FTD, provided it is used with an approved course conducted by a 

training center certificated under part 142. 

The petitioner argues that the Area 6D task, Circling Approach, can also be completed 

in a Level 6 FTD without compromising safety. The petitioner states that § 61.58(e)(2) 

allows a pilot to complete a PIC proficiency check in an FFS not specifically approved 

for circling maneuvers with certain conditions. The petitioner proposes several 

conditions for a grant of exemption based on § 61.58(e)(2), including a condition that 

an applicant may not perform circling approaches as PIC in less than basic VFR 

conditions until proficiency in circling approaches has been successfully demonstrated 

in an FFS qualified and approved for circling approaches or in an aircraft. 

With regard to Area 6E, Landing from a Straight In or Circling Approach, the 

petitioner claims that the flight review and PIC proficiency check required by §§ 61.56 

and 61.58, respectively, can be completed in an FFS not approved for landings if the 

pilot can document certain recent landing experience. The petitioner proposes the 

following condition based on §§ 61.56 and 61.58: If the FSTD is not qualified and 

approved for landings, the applicant must provide documentation that he or she meets 

the takeoff and landing requirements of § 61.57(a) or § 61.57(b). 

The petitioner also maintains that the current Instrument PTS requirement to perform 

the Area 7C, One Engine Inoperative—Instrument Approach (Multiengine Airplane), 

task in a Level A FFS is unnecessarily restrictive. The petitioner states that 

FlightSafety’s Level 6 FTDs are capable of providing realistic instrument approach 

training by replicating flight conditions and characteristics caused by an engine-out 

condition, including tactile cues associated with adverse yaw and/or asymmetric thrust. 

The petitioner believes that the objective of this maneuver is to practice engine-out 

instrument procedures rather than to qualify the person to land from the approach, and 

therefore a Level 6 FTD would be an adequate instrument training platform. 

In addition, the petitioner asserts that the purpose of the maneuver is to ensure 

competency in one engine inoperative (OEI) procedures and knowledge of the power, 

rudder, and/or aileron inputs associated with a failed engine during an instrument 

approach. The petitioner argues that a Level 6 FTD can simulate every essential part of 

this maneuver safely and accurately without the inherent risk associated with 

performing engine-out procedures in flight. The petitioner proposes the following 
4

exemption condition: The minimum level FTD that can be used to satisfy Area 7C, 

One Engine Inoperative—Instrument Approach, is a Level 6 FTD, provided it is used 

with an approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142. 

The petitioner asserts that granting an exemption is in the public interest. According to 

the petitioner, the use of FlightSafety’s FTDs provides an important service to 

general aviation pilots and the aviation community in general, especially to pilots who 

operate single and multiengine propeller and/or turbopropeller aircraft. The petitioner 

states that these are the pilots who typically come to FlightSafety for IPCs, but their 

aircraft are normally not supported by the higher level training devices. 

The petitioner contends that without an exemption, safety will be impacted. According 

to the petitioner, many customers will forego formal training and rely on proficiency 

checks in an aircraft. The petitioner states that certain customers have already canceled 

training contracts. The petitioner argues that in-flight training has inherent risks, 

especially for certain maneuvers, such as landings, OEI approaches, recoveries from 

unusual attitudes, and circling approaches. The petitioner states that the best safety 

“device” is a well-trained pilot, but without the requested exemption, many pilots will 

not take FlightSafety training because they will not be able to receive the appropriate 

§ 61.57(d) endorsement. FlightSafety believes that using a Level 6 FTD with an 

approved part 142 training program provides a level of safety equivalent to that 

conducted in the aircraft or higher level device and that it would enhance safety for a 

large segment of the aviation community. 

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on August 9, 2010, 

(75 FR 47882). No comments were received. 

The FAA’s analysis is as follows: 

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner’s supporting information and determined 

that the circumstances presented by the petitioner do not justify a grant of exemption. 

The FAA finds the petitioner has not shown that a grant of exemption would be in the 

public interest or that a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the regulations 

would be maintained. 

The petitioner contends that the recent amendment to § 61.57(d), which requires that an 

IPC consist of the areas of operation and instrument tasks in the IR PTS, precludes 

FlightSafety from providing IPCs to pilots using only its Level 6 FTDs. The petitioner 

argues it developed its IPC curriculums based on the previous version of the rule, 

which required that the IPC consist of a “representative number of tasks required by the 

instrument rating practical test.” The petitioner acknowledges therefore that under the 

previous rule the IPC tasks were still found in the IR PTS. The FAA notes that both 

the IR PTS effective under the previous rule and the current IR PTS state that an IPC 

consists of a representative number of tasks as determined by the examiner/instructor. 

It further states, however, that “As a minimum, the applicant [for an IPC] must 

demonstrate the ability to perform the TASKs as listed in the above [Rating Task 
5

Table] chart.” Both versions of the chart contain the four maneuvers cited by 

FlightSafety in its petition for exemption and neither version of the IR PTS permits use 

of a Level 6 FTD for completion of the other three tasks. 

The FAA also finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated that it is unique from the 

general class of regulated persons subject to § 61.57(d). The petitioner argues that it 

relied on the previous rule (and IR PTS) when it developed its training curriculums for 

the IPC. However, as stated previously, under the earlier rule and IR PTS, FlightSafety 

could not use a Level 6 FTD to complete all required phases of an IPC. If the FAA 

were to grant FlightSafety’s request for exemption, other persons could reasonably 

request to provide IPCs or other training, testing and/or checking in FSTDs not 

authorized. 

FlightSafety claims that its Level 6 FTDs have extra features not normally found on 

Level 6 devices. The FAA presumes that FlightSafety has qualified these devices at the 

highest possible level under part 60 or the applicable qualification standard. If the extra 

features on a particular device enable that device to be qualified at a higher level, the 

FAA encourages FlightSafety to apply for such qualification. As lower level devices 

have been found to lack the fidelity required for the particular maneuvers mentioned in 

FlightSafety’s petition, if the device(s) are not capable of being qualified at a higher 

level then the FAA does not believe it is appropriate to authorize their use to complete 

an IPC via exemption. 

Finally, the FAA finds the petitioner has not demonstrated that granting the petition for 

exemption would be in the public interest or provide an equivalent level of safety. 

The petitioner argues that granting the exemption would be in the public interest 

because FlightSafety’s IPC Level 6 FTD training provides pilots who operate single 

engine and multiengine propeller and/or turbopropeller aircraft with FTD training that 

is not normally supported by higher level FFSs. The petitioner argues that these pilots 

would have to complete an IPC in an aircraft that has inherent risks, especially for the 

four maneuvers cited in its petition. In establishing the requirements for an IPC, the 

FAA carefully considered the maneuvers a pilot must demonstrate to ensure instrument 

proficiency and the level of FSTD that should be required for these maneuvers. With 

regard to the four maneuvers cited by the petitioner, the FAA found that if the IPC is 

not performed in an aircraft, an FSTD of the appropriate level as provided for in 14 

CFR part 60 is required to ensure a pilot is instrument proficient. The FAA does not 

find that the conditions proposed in FlightSafety’s exemption request, such as meeting 

the recent takeoff and landing experience requirements in § 61.57 or not allowing a 

pilot to perform circling approaches in less than VFR conditions, would fulfill the goal 

of the IPC, which is to ensure that a pilot is able to safely operate in the IFR 

environment. 

The FAA’s Decision: 
6

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. §§ 40113 

and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of FlightSafety 

International, Inc. for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.57(d) is hereby denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on April 12, 2011. 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

 .