Exemption No.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON , DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of


### NEW ENGLAND AIRLINES, INC.
for an exemption from 

### § l35.244(a)( l) ofTitle 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

### Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0495

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION By letter dated July 15 , 2014 , as amended August 1 , Mr. William Bendokas, Director of Operations , New England Airlines (New England Air) , 56 Airport Road , Westerly, Rhode Island 02891 , petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of New England Air for an exemption from 

### § 135.244(a)( I) of Title 14 , Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would eliminate the 10 hours of initial operating experience (JO E) required for New England Air single engine pilot in command (PIC) candidates operating under visual flight rules (VFR) on the scheduled (commuter) route between Westerly , Rl and Block Island , Rl , if the pilot has completed 20 hours of aeronautical experience in another single engine aircraft in unscheduled (on demand) operations. 1 As proposed , the exemption would be granted with no expiration date.


### The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation: Section l35.244(a)(l) ofTitle 14 CFR prescribes in pertinent part, that no certificate holder may use any person , nor may any person serve, as a pilot in command ofan aircraft operated in a commuter operation, as defined in part 119 of this chapter unless that p erson has completed , prior to designation as pilot in command, on that make and basic model aircraft and in that crewmember position, the following operating experi ence in each make and basic mod e l of aircraft to be flown:

1 Although the petitioner indicates the PA28 and PA32 are the pertinent single engine aircraft included in its Operations Specifications , the petitioner did not provide make and model infomtation for the aircraft in which the 20 hours of general aeronautical experience , as proposed, would be completed. AFS-14-379-E2
( 1) Aircraft, single engine-1 0 hours.


### The petitioner supports its request with the following information: The petitioner states the weather conditions required for all VFR flight operations are enhanced beyond the basic VFR requirements for both on demand and commuter operations. Secondly, all PICs are trained to exactly the same requirements and maintain the same proficiency for either type of operation , disregarding IOE. Therefore , the same level of safety required for flight conducted unde r scheduled operations would be on par for flight s conducted under on demand operations. Thirdly , the requirement ofcompleting 20 flight hours in the aircraft is 200% greater than 

### § 135.255(a)( 1) requires even before any allowed reduction as per the same regulation; therefore , safety is enhanced by the additional pilot experience. The 20 hours would be 400% greater when considering that IOE is reducible to 5 hours total as per 

### § 135.244. In this case, the 20 hours of PIC experience greatly enhances safety.
The petitioner asserts this exemption is in the public interest because more pilots would be eligible to provide transportation to Block Island Airport, which is designated as a rural airport by the FAA. In turn , this would be an economic boost to the Block Island community by allowing more v isitors and workers convenient air transportation to the island.
A summary of the petition was published in the Federal Register on July 17 , 2014 (79 FR 53249). No comments were received.


### The FAA's analysis is as follows: Section 135.244 to part 135 of Subchapter G was added by direct final rule , effective March 1 , 1980. 2 In the year previous to the rule being published , 13 fatal accidents had occurred in commuter air carrier operations , seve ral of which involved multiple fatalities. FAA analysis ofthese accidents , many of which occurred in single pilot operations , revealed that the pilot had a low experience level in the specific aircraft make or model being operated at the time ofthe accident. , despite possessing significant aeronautical experience in similar aircraft. 3

The FAA determined that low levels of pilot operating experience in the particular make and model of aircraft flown presented an unacceptable safety risk in commuter air carrier passenger operations. Accordingly , the minimum operating experience requirements in 

### § 135.244 were established to ensure the completion of minimum supervised night time in the particular aircraft make and model before a pilot may be designated to serve as PIC of the respective aircraft in commuter operations. In

2 45 FR 7540 , 7541 , F eburary 4 , 1980

. J /d.

### 3 addition, the agency noted that although the accidents supportin g the JOE requirement for commuter operations occurred in VFR co ndition s, which posed serious implications for operations conduct ed under IFR conditions. 4

New England Air proposes an exemption that would eliminate the 1 0-hour IOE requ irement in§ 135.244 (a)( l ) for a sing le engine aircraft flown in cer tain commuter operations ,provided the p ilot has completed 20 hours of aeronautical experience as PIC in another si ngl e engine aircraft in on demand operations. As noted in the direct final rule above, low experience level in the spec ifi c make or mode l being operat ed was a factor in the accident analysis leading to the final rule implementing the IOE requirement. A ll owing 20 hours of unsupervised aeronautical exper ience in any s ing le engine aircraft 5 to substitute for the JO E requirement in another make and model would be contrary to the safety basis on which the rule was enacted.
The petitioner has failed to show that its circumstances are d ifferent from the general class of regulated persons so as to ju stify r e lief by exemption. Moreover, the petitioner has not estab li s hed how it would provide a l evel ofsafety equivalent to the regulation from which exemption is sought.



### The FAA's Decision : In con sideration of the fo rego in g, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest. T herefore , pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 

### §§ I 06(f) , 40113 , and 44701 , de legated to me by the Admi ni s trato r, the petition ofNcw England A irlines for an exemption from 1 4 CF R 135.244 (a)( l ) is hereby denied.
Issued in Washington , DC, on 

# FEB 0 5 2015

John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service

4 45 FR 7541. 5 As previously indicated , the petitioner failed to provide make and model infonnation for the aircraft it proposes to usc for thi s exemption.