\\DC - 040601/000004 - 6038755 v1

Hogan Lovells US LLP

Columbia Square

555 Thirteenth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004

Direct phone +1 202 637 8898

Direct fax +1 866 728 1992

www.hoganlovells.com

October 2, 2014

By Electronic Submission

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition of Shuttle America Corporation for Extension of

FAA Exemption No. 8819C, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-26589

Dear Sir or Madam:

Shuttle America Corporation (“Shuttle”) hereby petitions the Administrator of the Federal

Aviation Administration (“FAA”), pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 11, for an extension of FAA Exemption

No. 8819C, issued to Shuttle on December 5, 2012, exempting Shuttle from the requirements of

14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), thereby allowing Shuttle to substitute a qualified and authorized check

airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is

performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when

completing initial or upgrade training as specified in § 121.424.1

Exemption No. 8819C terminates on January 31, 2015. Shuttle respectfully requests that

this exemption be extended for at least two additional years, through at least January 31, 2017.

Shuttle hereby incorporates by reference all relevant information previously submitted in the instant

docket. Shuttle submits that extension of this exemption is in the public interest and will provide an

equivalent level of safety -- findings that the FAA made in granting the initial exemption to Shuttle on

January 10, 2007, and extending it numerous times.2

Good cause exists for the FAA to act on this petition without delay, and without publishing a

summary in the Federal Register or awaiting comments, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. No new

precedent will be established by extending the existing exemption previously granted to Shuttle.

1

Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii) prescribes, in pertinent part, that if a qualifying PIC is completing initial

or upgrade training specified in § 121.424, the PIC must be observed in the performance of prescribed

duties by an FAA inspector during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing.

2

The FAA has made similar findings and has granted (and extended) exemptions to similarly

situated applicants. See, e.g., Docket FAA-2002-12009 (Chautauqua Airlines, Inc.), Exemption 7353G

issued on July 24, 2014, effective to September 30, 2017; Docket FAA-2002-12947 (Trans States

Airlines), Exemption 10888, effective to November 30, 2016; Docket 2006-24996 (Alaska Airlines),

Exemption 9755C, effective to September 30, 2016; and Docket FAA-2007-28086 (Republic Airline Inc.),

Exemption 9346C, effective to June 30, 2015.
U.S. Department of Transportation

October 2, 2014

Page 2

\\DC - 040601/000004 - 6038755 v1

Shuttle urges the FAA to grant this non-controversial request for an extension of Exemption

No. 8819C prior to the January 31, 2015 expiration date. In the event that the FAA does not act on

this petition prior to that date, Shuttle hereby invokes and relies upon the automatic extension

provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 558(c), to the extent that such relief is

consistent with the FAA’s rules, policies and procedures, in order to continue the effectiveness of

Shuttle’s current exemption pending the FAA’s final determination on this petition.

Shuttle submits the following information in further support of this request:

The original intent of § 121.434(c)(1)(ii), issued in early 1970, was to validate the training a pilot

received in a visual simulator. Since that rule was adopted, the airline industry has had more

than 40 years of experience with visual simulators and advanced simulation. The airlines have

successfully trained tens of thousands of pilots using sophisticated advanced simulators. Shuttle

believes the advanced simulation experience of the airline industry combined with that of the

FAA has made the present rule virtually obsolete.

The FAA has for many years routinely granted similar requests for exemptions, subject to certain

conditions and limitations, finding that there is an equivalent level of safety in allowing airlines to

substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to satisfy the

observation requirements. Shuttle submits that (a) the facts presented by Shuttle do not differ

materially from those previously presented previously by Shuttle and by similarly situated

petitioners; (b) the reasons stated by the FAA for previously granting the exemption to Shuttle

and to similarly situated petitioners also apply to the situation presented herein by Shuttle; and

(c) extension of the exemption to Shuttle is in the public interest.

Shuttle currently expects that it may need to certify new PICs each year. Shuttle states that

granting this exemption would allow --

1. The FAA greater flexibility and better use of its inspection force by focusing on higher

priority safety functions;

2. Shuttle to use a qualified pilot immediately after completing OE;

3. Shuttle to significantly increase the use of qualified pilots and improve its ability to

provide on-time, dependable air service to the public; and

4. Shuttle to reduce the unnecessary cost of wages and lost productivity for those qualified

pilots waiting for the FAA observation.

By allowing a company check airman who is highly qualified in the airplane to complete the

observation, a greater level of scrutiny and objectivity would be provided for the qualifying PIC,

thus enhancing the level of safety.

Finally, consistent with the conditions and limitations set forth in Exemption 8819C, Shuttle

proposes that the extended exemption be subject to the same conditions and limitations, as

follows:

1. A Shuttle check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a PIC observation in

place of an FAA inspector when—
U.S. Department of Transportation

October 2, 2014

Page 3

\\DC - 040601/000004 - 6038755 v1

a. The Administrator preapproves that substitution for each observation of a qualifying

PIC candidate, thus reserving first right of refusal to the FAA in each case. Shuttle,

therefore, must contact an appropriate FAA office in each instance before

substituting that check airman or aircrew program designee.

b. The qualifying PIC candidate has completed no less than 10 hours of supervised

operating experience (OE) and accomplished no fewer than two takeoffs and

landings; and

c. The qualifying PIC candidate is performing PIC duties during a complete flight leg,

including flightdeck preparation, before starting engines checklist, taxi, takeoff, all

other flight phases, landing, taxi, and securing checklist.

2. Each Shuttle check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC observation in

place of an FAA inspector must—

a. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation;

b. Have served as check airman or aircrew designee for Shuttle for no less than

6 months; and

c. Not supervise the OE or conduct the initial line check for the qualifying PIC candidate

being observed.

3. Shuttle must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee records that

demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this exemption.

The FAA has previously determined that compliance with these conditions and limitations would

ensure an equivalent level of safety and would be in the public interest. Shuttle will continue to

comply with the conditions and limitations to the exemption, thereby ensuring an equivalent level

of safety for its operations.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Shuttle respectfully requests that FAA issue an

exemption, as requested herein.

Respectfully submitted,

Sheryl R. Israel

Counsel for SHUTTLE AMERICA CORPORATION

sheryl.israel@hoganlovells.com

D +1 202 637 8898

Attachment

cc: Paul Tursi, Indianapolis FSDO

Kenneth Barthel
U.S. Department of Transportation

October 2, 2014

Page 4

\\DC - 040601/000004 - 6038755 v1

ATTACHMENT

FEDERAL REGISTER SUMMARY

As stated in the foregoing petition for exemption, Shuttle America Corporation respectfully requests a

waiver of the publication and comment requirements under 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. Nevertheless, in accordance

with § 11.81(f), a summary of this Petition for an Extension of Exemption No. 8819C, for publication in the

Federal Register is as follows:

Docket No.: FAA-2006-16589

Petitioner: Shuttle America Corporation

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 C.F.R. § 121.434(c)(1)(ii)

Description of Relief Sought: To extend Exemption No. 8819C to permit Shuttle America

Corporation to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to

observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties

during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or

upgrade training as specified in 14 C.F.R. § 121.424.