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 

 

JPMORGAN 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 Administration (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 JPMC’s pilots to use any one of JPMC’s G550 

(GV) or G650ER (GVI), Gulfstream airplanes or a Level B, C, or D simulator that represents 

one of these 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; and
2

(ii) The required takeoffs and landings 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 tailwheel.

(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 those 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 only to JPMC Corporate 

Aviation pilots who hold an FAA issued pilot certificate with a type rating in both the 

Gulfstream manufactured GV and GVI. The petitioner also states that the two airplanes are 

similar in size and have a commonality of performance, systems, 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 congestion 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 types. 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 

the 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 GV and GVI 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 the required pilot flight crewmember or is turbojet-powered; and
3

2. Within the preceding 12 calendar months, completes a pilot-in command proficiency 

check in the particular type of aircraft in which that person will serve as pilot-incommand.

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

at a minimum, 12 night takeoffs and landings annually in an aircraft that is type certificated 

for more than one required pilot and a minimum of 6 night takeoffs and landings annually in 

each particular type of aircraft. The training, combined with the proposed JPMC Conditions 

and Limitations, provide for an equivalent level of safety 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 the petitioner'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 

similar 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, this exemption, if granted, serves the public interest because it 

will reduce 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, will provide a reduction to local airspace congestion and associated 

noise issues. Nevertheless, the relief sought by the petitioner would reduce the recency 

experience of its pilots. 

The petitioner states that the relief sought by JPMC would not compromise the minimum 

level of safety as intended by the current rule because JPMC will apply the relief only within 

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

Condition and Limitation No. 4 described in the petition states:

4) Since the beginning of the preceding 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 pilot 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. The reasoning that applies to this petition 
4

underlies Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation exemptions (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 engineering test 

pilots. Additionally, by 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 pilots of these listed 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 engineering test pilots.

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

the 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-established, 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 certain 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 additional “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 exemptions 

limited the exemptions to only the company’s production and engineering test pilots. 

JPMC requested an exemption to allow JPMC’s corporate aviation pilots, who hold an FAA 

issued pilot certificate with a type rating in both the Gulfstream manufactured GV and GVI, 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 pilots will be able to maintain the 
5

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 level 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 

equivalent level of safety and is not 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 JPMorgan Chase & Company for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.57(a) is hereby 

denied. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., on March 21, 2016.

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service