1

May 16, 2013

Docket Management Facility U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE West Building Ground Floor

Room W12

- 140 Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition for Exemption

To Whom It May Concern:

The Air Line Pilots Association, Int’l (ALPA), representing more than 50,000 pilots at 3 3 air carriers i n the United States and Canada, submits this “ Petition for Exemption ” pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Section s 11.61 and 11.63

. ALPA is joined in this request by Airlines for America (A4A). Specifically

, petitioners request a limited exemption from the requirement of holding a F irst C lass medical certificate pursuant to

1 4 C.F.R. Section 61.23 (a)((1)(i) for pilots holding airline transport pilot certificates (ATP s) but not flying as Captain in 14 C.F.R. Part 121 operations

.

Background and Regulatory Framework Requiring Clarification or

Modification

Pilots serving as Captain in Part 121 Operations have long been required to hold ATP certificates and, purs uant to 14 C.F.R. Section 61.23( a)(1)(i)

, F irst C lass medical certificates. For decades, pilots holding a Commercial Pilot Certificate have been able to fly as First Officers ( aka Second

- In

- Command (“SICs” ) ) in Part 121 Operations without meeting the qualificati ons requirements of an ATP certificate. Pilots exercising the privileges of a Commercial Pilot Certificate are required to hold at least a S econd C lass

medical certificate per 14 C.F.R. Section 61.23 (a)(2). For these many years , covering2

millions of FAR 121 flight operations, pilots have safely operated the aircraft as F irst

O fficers with a S econd C lass medical certificate.

The Airline Safety a nd Federal Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law

111

- 216) , 49 U.S.C. § 44701 Note (2010) (“the Act”) implemented new pilot qualification standards, including the mandate that SICs in part 121 operations are required to “have

obtained” or to “hold” an ATP certificate by the statutory deadline of August 2, 2013

. Id . ( Section 216

, Flight Crewmember Screening and Qualifications (a)(2)(B)(i) and (c ) ).

The threshold requirements for an ATP are more rigorous than those of a Commercial

Pilot Certificate , including a higher minimum age , more extensive aeronautical experience, a great er number of flight hours, and additional flight proficiency

standards. Cf

. 14 C.F.R. Part 61 Subpart F with Subpart G. The Act has further raised the bar for ATP qualification by r equiring additional rulemaking to modify the requirements for the issuance of an ATP certificate and enumerating the items to be considered by the FAA in the course of that rulemaking. ( See Section 217 )

. As a result

of section 217 of the Act

, FAA proposed rulemaking to modify the requirements of the

ATP and to establish a new “restricted” ATP.

ALPA strongly supports th e requirement for SICs in part 121 operations to hold
an ATP or a restricted ATP, and submitted comments so stating in the FAA’s Rulemaking on Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations

, Docket No. FAA

- 2010

- 0100; N otice No. 12

- 01 (April 28, 2012, a ttached hereto).

A s ignificant number of pilots represented by ALPA who hold ATPs

– and thus meet the statutory qualification requirement to fly as captains

– nonetheless fly as SIC s because they are capable of satisfy ing the requirements for Second Class medical

certificates

, but minor medical issues prevent them from holding First C lass medical

certificates. Unless the FAA clarifies or modi fies its regulations, many long

- standing

SICs with years of exemplary flying experience who otherwise meet the Act’s ATP qualification requirement may nonetheless be disqualified and unable to continue their

careers because of existing FAA regulations conditionin g an ATP on holding a First

Class medical certificate. Moreover, unless the regulations are amended, future pilots who fully satisfy the rigorous qualification standards necessary to obtain an ATP might be deemed ineligible to fly in 121 operations unle ss they also obtain a First Class

medical certificate. Precluding ATP

- qualified pilots from flying is not required no r intended by the Act. Accordingly, we submit this Petition for Exemption fr om 14 C.F.R. Section 61.23 (a)(1)(i), to ensure that SICs may be (and continue to be) authorized to exercise the privileges of the ATP while holding a Second Class medical certificate.3 The Language and Intent of the Act

The Act is very explicit in the language used in Sections 216 and 217 to mandate

enhanced ATP qualification s for pilots flying in part 121 operations

. First, standards are enhanced by requiring all flight crewmembers to hold ATP certificates by the specified effective date, including SICs. Second, Congress required additional FAA rulemaking

to raise the bar for ATP qualification and specifically identified each area to be addressed in such rulemaking. Thus, congressionally specified minimum requirements require pilots to have “sufficient flight hours to function effectively in an air carrier operational environment;” to have received “flight training, academic training, or operational experience that will prepare a pilot” to function effectively “in a multi

- pilot environment;” in “adverse weather conditions, including icing conditions;” to “ function effectively during high altitude operations;” to “adhere to the highest professional standards; and function effectively in an air carrier operational environment.” ( Section 217(b) ) . Further, the law specifies a requisite number of flight hours, including “hours flown in difficult operational conditions” for minimum ATP qualification. The Act does

not state any concern or have a specific requirement for any specified level of medical qualification. Rather, the detail and focus of the law makes clear that its intent is to address pilot aeronautical qualification

– as show n by flight training, academic training, and operational experience.

The new statutory requirement that every SIC must hold an ATP is an elevated qualification requirement im posed by the Act. Consistent with that statutory language and intent, we urge the FAA to ensure that all present and future SICs who meet the ATP flight, academic and operational qualific ation requirements, and the current
Second Class medical standards, be permitted t o continue flying under part 121 operations.

The Necessity For Clarification, Modification or Exemption from the Regulations

14 C.F.R. Section 61.23(a)(1)(i) states that (with exceptions not relevant hereto) a

perso n must hold a first

- cl ass medic al certificate “when exercising the privileges of an airline transport pilot certificate . . . .” To impose that requirement on every SIC after

the effective date of the Act’s universal ATP requirement, is wholly unnecessary, unduly burdensome and will cause extreme hardship to numerous SICs. As discussed above, the Act itself imposes no such requirement nor does imp lementing the regulation as written effectuate an y statutory goal. Rather, such language has generally applied to Captains whose position in part 121 operations necessitated both an ATP and

a First Class medical.4

As mentioned above , for decades and millions of FAR 121 flights, F irst O fficers

have s afely operated aircraft in FAR 121 operations while holding a Second Class

medical certificate. We believe that continuing to permit F irst O fficers to fly with a

Second C lass medical would not adversely affect safety . In fact, changing the current

medical certification requirement could force highly qualified and demonstrably safe pilots out of the airline workforce. While FAA cites PL 111

- 216 as the reason to make

F irst C lass medical certificates a requirement, we do not believe that it was the intent of congress to require ALL pilots in FAR 121 operations to hold a 1 st class medical

certificate. We urge the FAA to act promptly to prevent any adverse effect on qualified SICs. The immediate granting of an exemption from Section 61.23(a)(1)(i) for all SICs will rectify this situation. Granting this exemption will most certainly maintain an equivalent level of safety. The FAA could, of course, also choose to modify or clarify the regulation itself to limit its application to pilots flying as Captains in 12 1 operations. 1

The Public Interest

W e believe that granting this exemption would be in the public interest. The strong safety record of the US airline industry has been achieved while using experienced SICs holding Second C lass medical certificates. There has been a demonstrated need to improve the training a nd other qualifications of the SIC position, as evidenced by Public Law 111

- 216, but there has been no such demonstrated need to improve the medical qualifications of these individuals in order to maintain or improve safety. It is in the public interest to ensure that otherwise qualified SICs are not forced from airline employment solely because they do not me et the medical requirements of

C aptains.

1 While we think that the most equitable and uniform approach is either the granting of an exemption to all SICs, or a change to the regulation, if the FAA rejects this approach we alternatively request that current SICs be “grandfathered” or otherwise cred ited for their experience so as not to be disqualified by the First Class medical requirement of Section 61.23(a).5

Sincerely,

Captain Sean Cassidy , First Vice President Dan Elwell, S enior Vice President Air Line Pilots Association, Int’ l Safety, Security and Operations
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Airlines for America Washington, DC 20036 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004

cc: P. Gilligan, Assoc. Admin. for Aviation Safety, FAA

Attachment