AFS

- 15

- 1823

- E Exemption No. 15616

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

J PMORGAN CHASE & Co. Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2015

- 1677

for an exemption from § 61.57(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter dated February 25, 2015, Mr. John Donofrio

, Chief Pilot, VP

, Corporate Aviation, JPMorgan Chase & Company, ( JPMC ), 73 Tower Rd. Westchester County Airport, White Plains, NY 10604

, petitioned the Federal Aviation Administrat ion (FAA) on behalf of JPMC for an exemption from § 61.57(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow JPM C ’s pilots to use any one of JPM C ’s G550 (GV) or G650ER (GVI), Gulfstream airplanes or a Lev el B, C, or D simulator that represents

one of the se types of Gulfstream airplanes to meet the takeoff and landing experience requirements of § 61.57.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation :

Section 61.57(a) prescribes , in pertinent part, that,

Recent flight experience: Pilot in command. (a) General experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers or of an aircraft certificated

for more than one pilot flight crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings within the preceding 90 days, and

—

(i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and2

(ii) The required takeoffs and landi ngs were performed in an aircraft of the same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), and, if the aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tai lwheel.

(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day VFR or day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the aircraft, other than thos e necessary for the conduct of the flight.

(3) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training device that is

—

(i) Approved by the Administrator for landings; and

(ii) Used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

The petitioner states that its petition is intended to provide relief o nly to JPMC Corporate Aviation pilots who hold an FAA issued pilot certificate with a type rating in both the

Gulfstream manufactur ed G V and G VI

. The p etitioner also states that the two airplanes are simila r in size and have a commonality of performance, s ystems

, and handling characteristics.

The petitioner states that the relief requested to the recent flight experience requirements, if granted, will reduce the need for conducting local training flights as well as provide a reduction to local airspace con gestion and noise issues associated with day/night training flights. In consideration of the proposed JPMC Conditions and Limitations, JPMC will maintain a demanding set of recent flight experience requirements across two substantially similar airplane typ es. JPMC believes the conditions and limitations imposed on its pilots within this request maintain an equivalent level of safety as intended by the rule.

The petitioner also states that JPMC’s internal training requirements are twice as restrictive as

th e current FAA rule . Each JPMC pilot is required to successfully complete an approved 142 curriculum for § 61.58 every six (6) months while alternating between the G V and G VI Level D FSI simulators, thereby completing a pilot

- in

- command proficiency check:

1. Within the preceding 6 calendar months in an aircraft that is type certificated for more

than t h e required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet

- powered; and3

2. Within the preceding 12 calendar months, completes a pilot

- in command proficiency check in the p articular type of aircraft in which that person will serve as pilot

- in

command.

According to the petitioner, t his additional internal JPMC training requirement will guarantee

, at a minimum

, 12 night takeoffs and landings annually in an aircraft that is ty pe certificated for more than one required pilot and a minimum of 6 night takeoffs and landings annually in each p articular type of aircraft. The training

, combined with the proposed JPMC Conditions

and Limitations

, provide for an equivalent level of safet y as intended by the rule while eliminating redundant training and expense.

A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2016 (81 FR 2942). No comments were received.

The FAA’ s analysis is as follows:

The FAA reviewed t he peti tioner's supporting information and finds that JPMC has failed to

demonstrate that the exemption would provide an equivalent level of safety. Additionally, the

FAA finds that JPMC has not shown how its situation is unique when compared to other

simi lar corporate operators subject to the same rule, who continue to comply with the rule requiring pilots to maintain proficiency in takeoffs and landings

.

According to the petitioner, t his exemption, if granted, serves the public interest bec ause it

will r educe the need for conducting local training flights . The petitioner states that JPMC training flights

, utilized to meet the operational shortfall of the general experience flight requirement for currency

, wi ll provide a reduction to local airspace congest ion and associated

n oise issues

. Nevertheless, the relief sought by the petitioner would reduce the recency experience of its pilots.

The petiti oner states that t he relief sought by JPMC would not compromise the minimum level of safety as intended by th e current rule because JPMC will apply the relief only with in

the context of its proposed Conditions and Limitations as described in the petition

. Proposed

C ondition and Limitation No. 4 described in the petition states:

4) Since the beginning of the pre ceding 12 calendar months, the pilot must accomplish 120 hours of pilot time, 60 hours of which must be in one of the G550 or G650ER airplanes; or

(1) Since the beginning of the preceding 6 calendar months, the pilot must accomplish 60 hours of p ilot time, 30 hours of which must be in one of the G550 or G650ER airplanes

The FAA has only granted exemptions from § 61.57(a) to aircraft manufacturing companies for their production and engineering test pilots. T he reasoning that applies to this petit ion4

underlies Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation exemption s (Nos. 6859, 9887

, 9889

, as amended) and Boeing Airplane Company exemption No. 6843. However, the conditions and

limitations of all four exemptions make it applicable only to production and engineeri ng test pilots. Additionally, b y letter dated August 5, 1998, and supplemental information dated October 5, 1998 (exemption 6859)

, Gulfstream stated that its pilots log an average of 500 to 600 flight hours per year. In those exemptions

, the FAA recognized the skills needed to be a production and engineering test pilot and the continual experience Gulfstream pilot receive each year. This was a critical component in determining an equal level of safety. JPMC cannot
ensure that its corporate pilot s of these l isted Gulfstream models have the skill and knowledge of production and engineering test pilots. Additionally , JPMC indicated in its proposed

Conditions and Limitations that its corporate pilots may have much less annual experience than production and engin eering test pilots.

The GV requires a separate pilot type rating from the GVI. The GV pilot type rating includes

t h e GIV

- X, GIV

- X (G350), GIV

- X (G450), GV, GV

- SP, GV

- SP (G500), and GV

- SP (550)

. The Flight Standardization Board (FSB) Report for the GIV

- X, GV and GV

- SP airplanes, revision 9, paragraph 8.1 states, “Currency is considered to be common for the GIV

- X, G

- V

and GV

- SP. Separate tracking of currency for the GIV

- X, G

- V and GV

- SP is not necessary or applicable. Currency will be maintained, or re

- estab lished, in accordance with 14 CFR sections 61.57, 61.58, 135.247, and/or 135.351.”

The Gulfstream GVI also holds a separate pilot type rating (GVI). Due to many similar or identical systems on both the GV

- SP and the GIV

- X, the FSB was asked to evaluate a “full” GVI (G650) initial training course, which is designed for a pilot with no previous Gulfstream experience, and a “shortened” GVI (G650) initial training course. Although a shortened initial type rating course was approved for those pilots meeting c ertain experience requirements in a

GIV

- X and GV

- SP, the shortened course still required take

- offs and landings in the GVI to be in the aircraft, or a level C or D simulator. Additionally, paragraph 8 of the FSB report states,
“The FSB has found no additio nal “Recent Experience” requirements for the GVI, other than those already specified in 14 CFR parts 61, 125 and 135.”

Equal Level of Safety:

In issuing the Gulfstream exemptions (#s 6859, 9887 and 9889, as amended) and the Boeing exemption (# 6843) , the FAA took into consideration not only the skills needed to be a production and engineering test pilot, but also the continual experience levels of these pilots to meet the equal level of safety requirement

. Condition and Limitation #1 of those exempti ons limited the exemption s to only the company ’s production and engineering test pilots

.

JPMC requested an exe mption to allow JPMC ’s c orporate a viation pilots

, who hold an FAA issued pilot certificate with a type rating in both the Gulfstre am manufacture d G V and G VI

, to

meet the takeoff and landing experience requirements of § 61.57. JPMC has not shown how

its pilots have the same skills and high degree of proficiency as production and engineering test pilots

. Additionally, JPMC cannot ensure that these p ilots will be able to maintain the5

continual experience levels of Gulfstream or Boeing production and engineering test pilots.

Finally, when granting the previous exemptions

, the FAA took into consideration that

, normally, these flight operations do not involve the carriage of passengers and all personnel who are being carried are considered essential flight crewmembers. This would not be the case with corporate flight operations. Consequently, the JPMC has not shown how the exemption would provide a leve l of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule

.

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not provide an equi v alent level of safety and is not in the public interest

. Therefore, pursuant to th e authority

contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 106(f), 40113 and 44701 , delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of JPMorgan Chase & Company for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.57(a) is hereby

denied.

Issued in Washington, D

. C

. , on March 2 1 , 2016

.

/s/

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service