AFS-15-107-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 EXEMPTION

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 proposed 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:

Section 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 evidenced in a request for evaluation 

submitted to the National Simulator Program Manager (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 

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

The petitioner supports his request with the following information:

The petition states that this request is the result of him being informed by Simcom (an 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 

members. 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 not being able to use the aircraft 

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

with the openings. 

The petitioner 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. The 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 granting this 

exemption for using SimCom of Orlando 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 proficiency in not only this aircraft, but two other “Type 

Specific Aircraft.”

The petitioner also states that there is only one FAA aviation safety inspector 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 are 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 requests exemption from part 60, which deals with the sponsorship and qualification 

of flight simulation training devices (FSTDs). Simcom has indicated that it plans to continue 

to sponsor and maintain the FAA qualification of the BA-4100 flight simulator (FAA ID# 

471) in accordance with 14 CFR Part 60. Mr. Lee was mistaken in his assertion that the 
3

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 part 60. However, 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 part 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, while 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-incommand proficiency check, then the check must be conducted under 14 CFR part 142. If the 

check were to be 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 regulations 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 instructors, 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 part 142 approval, ground and flight training in 

the simulator would be uncontrolled 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 part 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 simulator 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 me 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