LAW OFFICES 

GAROFALO GOERLICH HAINBACH PC 

1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE NW ·SUITE 590 ·WASHINGTON DC 20036-6802 

TELEPHONE 202 776-3970 · FACSIMILE 202 776-3975 

WWW.GGH-AIRLA. W.COM 

VIA FDMS 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Office of Rulemakings 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

December 1 0, 20 14 

Re: Petition of Southern Air for Renewal of Exemption No. 9845B; 

Docket No. FAA-2004-19718 

Ladies/Gentlemen: 

Southern Air Inc. (Southern), pursuant to Section 11.61 of the Federal Aviation 

Regulations, petitions for renewal of Exemption No. 9845B granting relief from FAR 

121.434( c )(1 )(ii) to permit Southern to continue to substitute a qualified, authorized company 

check airman in place of a Federal Aviation Administration inspector to observe a qualifying 

pilot-in-command (PIC) while that PIC performs prescribed duties during at least one flight that 

includes a takeoff and landing, when completing initial or upgrade training as specified in FAR 

121.424. The FAA initially granted Southern an exemption from FAR 121.434(c)(l)(ii) on 

December 29, 2004 (Exemption No. 8464) and continually has renewed or reissued that 

exemption, most recently as Exemption No. 9845B on January 30, 2013. By its terms 

Exemption No. 9845B (copy enclosed) expires March 31, 2015. Southern requests that a further 

renewal be granted prior to that date and remain effective for at least two years. 

Justification for renewal of Exemption No. 9845B is the same as for the original 

Exemption No. 8464 issued to Southern on December 29, 2004. In granting Exemption No. 

8464, the FAA determined that relief was in the public interest inasmuch as it would reduce 

"'unnecessary costs that may influence the price of services to the public" and would "improve 

the airline's ability to provide on-time, dependable air service." Exemption No. 8464, pp. 1-2. 

FAA further stated that such an exemption would not adversely affect safety, provided that 

Southern complied with certain conditions and limitations. 

Southern submits that the circumstances stated in Southern's initial petition for 

exemption in this docket are unchanged and that Southern has remained in compliance with all 
GAROFALO GOERLICH HAINBACH PC 

Federal Aviation Administration 

December 10, 2014 

Page 2 

exemption conditions and limitations. 1 Southern submits that exemption relief from FAR 

121.434( c )(1 )(ii) continues to be in the public interest and to have no adverse effect upon safety, 

as previously determined by the FAA. 

Southern submits that a summary of this petition need not be published in the Federal 

Register as the relief requested is identical to numerous exemptions granted previously, and 

granting this petition would not set a precedent. See FAR 11.87. FAA renewal of Southern's 

exemption also would be consistent with routine renewals of similar exemptions. See, e.g., 

Exemption No. 6473I granted to Federal Express Corporation, Docket No. FAA-2000-12343 and 

Exemption 9755C granted to Alaska Airlines, Inc., Docket No. F AA-2006-24996. 

Thank you for your time and attention. If there are any questions, please feel free to 

contact us. Please note the suite number in our mailing address has changed from 800 to 590. 

Sincerely, 

~pf~~ 

C:G~I;c~ Jason E. Maddux 

GAROFALO GOERLICH HAINBACH PC 

Counsel for Southern Air Inc. 

Enclosure 

In granting Exemption No. 8464A on December 29, 2006, FAA removed as unnecessary 

the condition in Exemption No. 8464 that Southern, as distinguished from the FAA, could 

conduct no more than 50 percent of the operating experience observations during any six-month 

period. Southern requests that the renewal requested here continue to not include this condition, 

which remains unnecessary. 
US. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

January 30, 2013 

Exemption No. 9845B 

800 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington. DC. 20591 

Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2004-19718 

Mr. Aaron A. Goerlich 

Counsel for Southern Air, Inc. 

Garofalo, Goerlich, Hainback PC 

1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW., Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036-6802 

Dear Mr. Goerlich: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 9845, as 

amended. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations. 

The Basis of Our Decision 

On November 13, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf 

of Southern Air, Inc. (Southern), for an extension of Exemption No. 9845. That exemption 

from§ 121.434(c)(1)(ii) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) permits Southern 

to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman or aircrew program designee for an 

FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) who is completing initial or 

upgrade training specified in § 121.424 during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff 

and a landing. 

In your petition, you indicate there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative 

to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Southern. 

AFS-13-074-E 
Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9845, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 

Therefore, under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant your petition, subject to the following 

conditions and limitations. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. A Southern check airman or aircrew program designee may conduct a 

PIC observation in place of an FAA inspector whena. 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. Southern, 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 fewer 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 Southern check airman or aircrew program designee conducting a PIC 

observation in place of an FAA inspector musta. Be approved by the Administrator to conduct the observation; 

b. Have served as a check airman or aircrew program designee for Southern for 

no fewer than 6 months; and 

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

PIC candidate being observed. 

3. Southern must maintain student, check airman, and aircrew program designee 

records that demonstrate compliance with the conditions and limitations of this 

exemption. 

2 
The Effect of our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9845, as amended, to 

March 31, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

Is/ 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service 

3