i . 

..... i .· ,,· ...• 

July 23, 2014 

.~ ,~ i" ' '. • • =--- :--

(_;:- .. [""""< • : :.:_; '-t 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Docket Operations 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. 

WASHINGTON DC 20590 

P.O. Box 1695 

Trophy Club, Texas 7 6262-1695 

Tele: 828.301.0504 

email: jgeitz@earthlink.net 

ORI51NA L 

r:to(Jj J. 

PETITION FOR LIMITED PARTIAL EXEMPTION 

from 

14 CFR SECTION 61.23{b){5) 

Section ll.Sl(a) CONTACT INFORMATION 

Name: John L. Geitz 

Address: P.O. Box 1695 

Roanoke, Texas 76262-1695 

Telephone: (828) 301-0504 

eMail: jgeitz@earthlink.net 

Section ll.Sl(b) THE SPECIFIC SECTIONS FROM WHICH THE PETITIONER SEEKS 

EXEMPTION 

The petitioner seeks limited exemption from 14 CFR Section 61.23(b)(5) (FAR) to permit 

the Petitioner to briefly serve as a required flight crewmember for the purpose of 

compliance with Section 142.53(b)(1 ). Section 142.53(b)(1) provides for an annual 

currency requirement needed to permit the petitioner to continue acting as an 

instructor in Level C and Level D flight simulators. 

In conjunction with the granting of this exemption, it shall follow that a second-incommand temporarily relinquishing his pilot station to the Petitioner would be doing 

so in the context of FAR 91.1 05(a) (1). This section provides for a flight crewmember 

being temporarily absent from his normal duty station for purposes related to the 

operation of the aircraft. 

John L. Geitz 

Exemption Petition 61.23(b)(5) 

Page 1 of 6. 
Section 11.81 (c) THE EXTENT OF RELIEF BEING SOUGHT 

The petitioner believes the exemption will effectively delete the restriction that 

prohibits the Petitioner from briefly serving as a flight crewmember for the purpose of 

complying with FAR 142.53(b)( 1). The exemption will remove the restriction that results 

from the last eight words of FAR 61.23(b) (5). 

This exemption shall only apply in aircraft not equipped with an approved cockpit 

observer seat. 

Section 11.81 (d) THE REASONS THIS EXEMPTION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 

The public interest is served because the issuing of this exemption will provide a 

means to enhance the skill, knowledge and currency of an active LEVEL C and LEVEL 

D simulator instructor providing pilot training in turbine powered business aircraft. 

Truly effective instructors are a very limited resource. The regulations anticipate 

instructors, for various reasons, may not be able to maintain a medical certificate at a 

reasonable cost. A special issuance medical requires significant time, money, and 

external resources including the availability of medical testing support and the use of 

FAA resources to review the documentation in support of a special issue medical 

certification. In the case of a simulator instructor, consuming significant public and 

private industry resources for the purpose of a once a year two hour flight requirement does not serve the public interest. To, none-the-less, provide for optimizing the 

professional development of a simulator instructor does serve the public interest. To 

accomplish these objectives in a cost effective manner that in no way compromises 

safety is very much in the public interest. 

Section 11.81(e) REASONS WHY GRANTING THIS EXEMPTION WOULD NOT ADVERSELY 

AFFECT SAFETY and WOULD PROVIDE A LEVEL OF SAFETY AT LEAST EQUAL TO THAT 

PROVIDED ... 

The granting of the requested exemption does not adversely safety. Indeed in several 

respects, operations under the proposed exemption would be conducted with a 

higher level of safety than other operations permitted under other FARs. In specific: 

1. The Petitioner, while exercising the provisions of the proposed exemption, will be 

required to hold a valid and unrestricted type rating on the Petitioner's Airline 

Transport Pilot Certificate{# 1679965} in the type aircraft being utilized. That certificate 

is issued under Part 61 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. 

John L. Geitz 

Exemption Petition 61.23(b) (5) 

Page 2 of 6. 
2. The petitioner will be required to meet the Pilot-In-Command proficiency check 

requirements of FAR Section 61.58(a) in the type aircraft being utilized. Not withstanding the provisions of Section 61.58(a) (2), that check must have been completed 

within the preceding 12 months. 

3. When exercising the provisions of the proposed exemption, the aircraft shall not 

carry passengers. 

4. When exercising the provisions of this exemption, the Petitioner shall meet the 

requirements of Section 61.23(c) (2). This alternative medical standard has been in 

effect for ten years with no evidence the standard compromises safety. 

5. Section 61.55(b) (2) provides that a pilot accomplishing initial qualification as 

Second-in-Command in a turbojet aircraft requiring more than one flight crewmember may do so in the aircraft after becoming "familiar" with the aircraft 

documentation. Under the provision of this exemption, a similar qualification is 

accomplished. Unlike the minimum standards of FAR 61.55(b) (2), the subject of the 

qualification has previously and currently demonstrated the skill of a Pilot-inCommand in the same aircraft. This is certainly a higher safety standard than required 

under Section 61.55(b)(2). 

6. If the aircraft in question were a turbojet business aircraft certified for single pilot 

operations, an exemption of this nature would not be necessary. An unoccupied pilot 

station would otherwise be available to an individual needing to meet the requirements of FAR 142.53(b) ( 1). For the purpose in question, there would be no difference 

in the operational level of safety. 

Section 11.81 (f) SUMMARY WHICH MAY PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. 

The Petitioner requests limited partial exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations Section 61.23(b) (5) to the extent necessary to comply with 14 CFR Section 

142.53(b) ( 1). Granting of the requested exemption would permit the petitioner to 

occupy a pilot station during flight time and function as second-in-command for a 

brief period for the purpose of meeting the annual currency requirements of 14 CFR 

142.53(b)(1). 

John L. Geitz 

Exemption Petition 61.23(b) (5) 

Page 3 of 6. 
Section 11.81(g) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, VIEWS AND ARGUMENTS, TO SUPPORT 

THIS REQUEST. 

The petitioner is currently employed as a simulator instructor at a training center 

certificated under 14 CFR Part 142. The petitioner provides training in turbojet 

powered business aircraft utilizing Level C and Level D full flight simulators. 

Because of the physical size and associated complexity, these aircraft are not 

equipped with an approved observer seat (jump seat) in the cockpit. Because of the 

lack of a cockpit observer seat, the option of using an approved line-observation 

program {142.53(b) (2)} under FAR Part 135 is not plausible. 

Again, because of a lack of an approved observer seat, use of an approved in-flight 

observation course {142.53(b) (3)} has proven to be of marginal value. The majority of 

the observation must be accomplished from a cabin passenger seat. Meaningful 

activities on such a flight are most difficult to observe from a passenger seat. 

When originally published in August 1, 1996, {Federal Register, Volume 61, Number 

128, Pages 34541 and 34542} it was expressly intended that persons not holding a 

medical certificate would qualify as a simulator instructor. Further, the original 

intention of FAR 142.53(b) (3) was to provide a means of currency for an instructor who 

does not hold a medical certificate. The evidence suggested at the time, any 

instruction given in flight simulators would represent aircraft that were equipped with 

an approved cockpit observer seat. Advances in technology and the aviation 

industry in the past eighteen years have shown the original assumption is not valid. 

Althou·gh FAR 142.53(b) (3) provides an option to FAR 142.53(b) (1), it is neither the 

preferred option nor is it the optimum for refining teaching insights in the simulator 

instructor. 

Recent accidents involving turbine powered aircraft indicate basic control of the 

aircraft has been an issue. Recent amendments to the FAA Practical Test Standards 

(PTS) have placed greater emphasis on basic aircraft handling skills in pilot training, 

checking and testing. The well known limitations of full flight simulators {FAR 142.53(a) 

(4) (ii)} make those devices not the optimum means for training basic airmanship skills. 

Enabling the Petitioner to gain more refined insight into the basic handling of the 

aircraft as an instructor will better enable the Petitioner provide more detailed 

insights. The public and industry will benefit from continuous refinement in instructor 

skills. 

John L. Geitz 

Exemption Petition 61.23(b) (5) 

Page 4 of 6. 
The question might be asked why the Petitioner does not apply for a special issuance 

medical certificate. The Petitioner has been subject to special issuance medical 

certification for the past 19 years. It has become increasingly impractical to go 

through the special issuance certification process. The cost of completing the current 

required testing takes about three days and costs more than $6000.00. Since the 

advent of the Affordable Care Act, this price has been increasing continuously and 

scheduling has become nearly impossible. Further the various medical reports need 

to be forwarded to the FAA Aeromedical Office in Oklahoma, City for evaluation and 

issuance of a medical certificate. Since the Petitioner no longer engages in actual 

flight operations, all of this expense and effort is solely for the opportunity to fly two 

hours a year for the purpose of meeting the currency requirement of Part 142.53(b) 

( 1). That is not a cost effective use of the Petitioner's resources. It is not effective use of 

the limited resources of the medical industry and the FAA. 

By granting the exemption, the business aviation industry will benefit from the best 

possible currency and insight from an instructor providing pilot training. By granting 

the exemption, the Petitioner will be able to maintain the highest level of skill, 

knowledge, and technological currency in the aircraft in which he provides training 

to the business aircraft industry. 

In lieu of a copy of the Petitioner's medical certificate, a copy of the exemption shall 

be carried aboard the aircraft when the exemption is being exercised. A copy of the 

exemption shall be kept in the Petitioner's Part 142 instructor training file. 

Section 11.81 (h) EXERCISING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXEMPTION OUTSIDE OF THE 

UNITED STATES. 

The provisions of this proposed exemption shall NOT be exercised outside of the 

United States. 

Section 11.87 The FAA should grant this exemption without delay and without need 

for requesting comment in the Federal Register. 

The Petitioner is engaged full time as a simulator instructor at a pilot training center 

certificated under 14 CFR Part 142. The public and the Petitioner will find benefit in the 

quickest approval of this exemption. 

Section 11.87( a) The granting of this petition for exemption would not set a 

precedent. The petition is very limited in scope. Its applicability is very narrow and 

does not impact the general operation of aircraft except within the narrow confines 

of the petition. 

John L. Geitz 

Exemption Petition 61.23(b)(5) 

Page 5 of 6. 
Section 11.87(b) The Petitioner knows of no other petitions for exemption that have 

been filed or granted within the limited scope of this petition. 

Section 11.87(c) Delay of this petition is an on-going and evolving adversity. The 

changes in the PTS in response to recent accidents and incidents reflects this is an ongoing and developing concern. It is in the public interest that best efforts are being 

made to address these evolving concerns. 

Section 11.87(d) This petition has been filed in a timely manner. This is in response to a 

recently identified developing concern which will continue. As quickly as a means to 

address this concern was identified, this petition is being filed. 

John L. Geitz 

Petitioner 

John L. Geitz 

Exemption Petition 61.23(b) (5) 

Page 6 of 6.