AFS

- 1 5

- 107

- E Exemption No. 11986

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

MR. JOHN LEE Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0896

for an exemption from §§ 60.7(a)(1), (2), and 60.7(b)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTI ON

By letter dated October 10, 2014, Mr. John Lee, 1635 Auburn Court, Waukesha, WI 53189, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 60.7(a)(1)

, (2), and (b)(1) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The prop osed exemption, if granted, would allow Mr. Lee to use a flight simulation training device (FSTD) without an approved part 142 Training Program for training and checking of flight crews.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Sectio n 60.7 prescribes, in pertinent part, that (a) A person is eligible to apply to be a sponsor of an FSTD

, if the following conditions are met:

(1) The person holds, or is an applicant for, a certificate under part 119, 141, or 142 of this chapter; or holds , or is an applicant for, an approved flight engineer course in accordance with part 63 of this chapter.

(2) The FSTD will be used, or will be offered for use, in the sponsor’s FAA approved flight training program for the aircraft being simulated as evide nced in a request for evaluation

submitted to the N ational S imulator P rogram M anager (NSPM)

.

(b) A person is a sponsor if the following conditions are met:2

(1) The person is a certificate holder under part 119, 141, or 142 of this chapter or has an

appro ved flight engineer course in accordance with part 63 of this chapter.

The petitioner supports his request with the following information:

The petition states that t his request is the result of him being informed by Simcom (a n FAA part 142 training center ) that Simcom will no longer provide FAA approved training under the provisions of its 14 CFR part 142 certificate as it pertains to the British AeroSpace Jetstream 4100 aircraft (BA

- 4100) and

, therefore

, will no longer be able to train any flight crew

mem bers. The petitioner states this prevents him from meeting the pilot

- in

- command proficiency check requirements of § 61.58 in a flight simulator.

The petitioner states that his company is involved with several construction projects throughout the State of Wisconsin and uses the BA

- 4100 aircraft to ferry the individuals

concerned to construction sites

. The petitioner asserts that n ot being able to use the aircraft

may slow down the completion of these projects and may jeopardize or delay job s associated

wit h the openings.

The p etitioner asserts that granting the exemption is in the public interest because the petitioner maintains currency and operates other aircraft for which FAA 142 approved training programs are utilized . T he petitioner contends that he could train other pilots (without an FAA approved training program) and then have those pilots receive a proficiency check in the simulator from an FAA aviation safety inspector. The petitioner also states g ranting this exemption for using SimCom of Orla ndo FL, a part 142 training center, to regain training and progressive checks by the FAA would not adversely affect safety due to the fact that he is keeping trained and maintaining proficien c y in not only this aircraft, but two other “ Type Specific Aircra ft. ”

The petitioner also states that there is only one FAA a viation s afety i nspector qualified and current to provide checks in the BA

- 4100 and asserts that failure to grant this exemption will effectively render the remaining ten BA

- 4100 aircraft which a re based in the United States inoperable due to lack of qualified flight crews.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2015 (80 FR 2776). No comments were received.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

Mr. Lee reques ts exemption from part 60

, which deals with the sponsorship and qualification of flight simulation training devices (FSTDs). Simcom has indicated that it plan s to continue to sponsor and maintain the FAA qualification of the BA

- 4100 flight simulator (FAA I D# 471) in accordance with 14 CFR Part 60. Mr. Lee was mistaken in his assertion that the3

simulator would not maintain its qualification. The only thing eliminated by Simcom was the FAA approved BA

- 4100 training program. The issue of training and checking in this simulator which affects Mr. Lee is that the sponsor (Simcom) has made a business decision to no longer maintain or offer any FAA approved training in the BA

- 4100 flight simulator. Therefore, Mr. Lee does not require an exemption from p art 60. Howev er, in order for Mr. Lee to perform the training and checking as he has requested would require an exemption

from section 61.58 as well as a deviation from p art 142 in its entirety.

Mr. Lee also points out that there is only one FAA inspector current and qualified to conduct proficiency checks in the BA

- 4100. The FAA finds that, w hile this may be true, maintaining a current and/or qualified FAA inspector would be required no matter how the check was accomplished, whether it be in a flight simulator under part 142 or in the actual aircraft under

section 61.58.

Section 61.58(g) requires that if a flight simulator is to be used to accomplish the pilot

- in

command proficiency check, then the check must be conducted under 14 CFR part 142. If the

check were to b e completed in the actual aircraft, then no 14 CFR part 142 approved training program would be required.

Part 142 provides the minimum regulatory standards required for the certification and management of an FAA approved training center. Training center r egulations address several key issues which affect the safety of flight. These issues include the review

, approval

, and surveillance of the aircraft ground and flight training modules as well as the training and qualification of ground and flight instructo rs, and many other issues in order to help ensure that pilots who train and receive checks in a flight simulator maintain the minimum safe standards established by the FAA. Without a p art 142 approval, ground and flight training in

the simulator would be u ncontrolled and could result in poor aircraft systems knowledge, improper standard and emergency operating procedures, and improper pilot techniques. Failure to maintain these minimum requirements would not be in the best interest of the public safety.

Mr . Lee could meet all of the regulatory requirements without any exemption or deviation by at least two different methods. The first method is to simply request an FAA inspector to conduct a proficiency check in the actual aircraft. The second method would be for Mr. Lee to make application for a p art 142 Air Agency Certificate through his local Flight Standards District Office, utilizing Simcom’s BA

- 4100 flight simulator.

While granting an exemption or deviation might appear to be an obvious benefit to Mr. Lee

and the owners of the other ten BA

- 4100 aircraft, the general public would not be well served by this exemption or deviation due to the increased risk associated with aircraft being operated by flight crews who completed an unstructured flight simulat or proficiency check.4

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 contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106( f ), 40113

and 44701, delegated to m e by the Administrator, the petition of Mr. Jack Lee for an exemption from 14 CFR § 60.7 is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, DC, on

.

/s/ John Barbagallo Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service