Exemption No. 10442

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC 20591

In the matter of the petition of

JOHN D. ODEGARD SCHOOL

FOR AEROSPACE SCIENCES Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0368

for an exemption from § 61.45(b)(1)(i) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations

DENIAL OF EXEMPTION

By letter received April 12, 2011, Mr. Dick Schultz, Director of Flight Operations, John D. Odegard School for Aerospace Sciences at the University of North Dakota (UND), 2784 Airport Drive, Box 9051, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58203-9051, petitioned the

Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of UND for an exemption from § 61.45(b)(1)(i) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow UND to conduct the “takeoff and landing maneuvers, and appropriate emergency procedures” in a noncomplex single-engine airplane while performing the Flight Instructor Airplane Single-Engine Land end of course stage check in the school’s approved part 141 training course outline.

The petitioner requests relief from the following regulation:

Section 61.45(b)(1)(i) prescribes, in pertinent part, that an aircraft used for a practical test must have the equipment for each area of operation required for the practical test.

The petitioner supports its request with the following information:

AFS-11-274-E The petitioner states that the com plex single-engine airplane has become a financial burden to most flight training organizations without providing a great benefit to flight training and safety. The petitioner notes that most aircraft manufacturers are no longer offering complex single-engine airplanes. As a result, flight training organizations bear the financial burden of maintaining older, less reliable airplanes in order to meet FAA2

requirements, a burden that the petitioner asserts is passed down to the student in the form of increased flight training fees. The petitioner argues that one way to reduce flight training costs is to allow the use of a lower costing, noncomplex single-engine airplane in flight instructor training and certification.

To do this, the petitioner wants to replace the training required in a PA28R-201 Piper Arrow with a Cessna 172S. The petitioner states that this would result in lower fossil fuel consumption, reduced fuel burn, and lower operating costs passed on to the student. The petitioner also states that the Piper Arrow incurs a 208 percent higher maintenance labor hour to flight hour ratio than the Cessna, again translating into higher operating costs that are passed on to the student. Additionally, the petitioner states that the replacement cost for these complex single-engine aircraft is higher than

that of the Cessna 172S.

The petitioner asserts that not providing complex airplane experience in the flight instructor certification course is not a hazard to safety. The petitioner states that the FAA currently allows flight instructors to issue a high performance airplane endorsement as long as they possess the same endorsement. The petitioner states that most of these flight instructors did not receive any high performance airplane experience in their flight instructor training, yet they are providing the instruction and issuing the endorsement. Similarly, the petiti oner states that a flight instructor who possesses a tailwheel airplane endorsement may teach and endorse students to operate these airplanes without further evaluation. The petitioner argues that the evaluation of complex airplane operations could be handled in the same manner.

The petitioner submitted additional information to support its request on June 7, 2011, (“June Petition”). In the June Petition, the petitioner referenced the denial of Exemption No. 9651 issued to Delta Connection Academy for the same type of request. The petitioner believes that in the 4 years since the denial of Exemption No. 9651 was issued, the flight training environment ha s changed to a point where the FAA should reconsider its original decision.

To support its position in the June Petition, the petitioner referenced the 2010 Nall Report produced by the AOPA Air Safety Institute. The Nall Report, according to the petitioner, stated that in 2009, thirteen general aviation accidents out of a total of 1,418 were caused by errors in operating retractable gear systems. The petitioner states that this figure represents 0.9 percent of the total general aviation accidents in 2009. The petitioner agrees that the flight instructor has numerous responsibilities in ensuring their students and tomorrow’s pilots are operating as safely as possible, however, the petitioner asserts that not all of these responsibilities are tested on initial flight

instructor certification.

Lastly, the petitioner references the final rule issued in August 2009 that revised 14 CFR parts 61, 91, and 141, “Pilot, Flight Inst ructor, and Pilot School Certification.”3

The petitioner notes that revision no. 99 allows “the commercial pilot certification course for the single engine airplane rating to be approved with the use of either a complex single engine airplane or a complex multi-engine airplane.” The petitioner asserts that as a result of this change, UND along with many other flight training programs have adopted a commercial pilot flight training program without the use of a single-engine complex airplane. UND concl udes that it is no longer highly likely that the certified flight instructor (CFI) will soon be asked to instruct in a single-engine retractable-gear equipped aircraft, as stated in the FAA’s analysis of the denial of Exemption No. 9651.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for waiving the requirement for Federal Register publication because this petition does not set a precedent.

The FAA's analysis is as follows:

The FAA has considered fully the petitioner’s request and finds that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to the current regulations.

The petition does not contain any proposal for training or evaluation that would enable its CFI applicants to meet an equivalent level of safety as those evaluated for complex-aircraft competencies. For that reason, the proposed relief, as outlined in the petition, does not meet an equivalent level of safety to that of the rule.

The petitioner cites the FAA’s denial of Exemption No. 9651 and the 2010 Nall Report, stating that only thirteen general aviation accidents out of a total of 1,418 were caused by errors in operating retractable gear systems. However, page 42 of the appendix of the 2010 Nall Report cites the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) definition of an aircraft accident, classifying an accident as an occurrence resulting in “substantial damage” to the aircraft. For that reason, the Nall Report data may appear misleadingly low, because accidents strictly related to operation of retractable gear systems rarely result in substantial damage to the aircraft. The FAA finds that occurrences involving operation of retractable gear systems do not generally cause substantial aircraft damage or injuries, and as such, the FAA is not persuaded by this portion of the petitioner’s argument.

Cost benefits for petitioner’s students and marginally reduced fuel burn do not meet our requirement for showing that the requested relief is in the public interest. The petitioner has also failed to show how it is unique from the general class of regulated persons to justify an exemption of this kind.

The FAA notes that if it were to determine relief from the current rule is acceptable, it would amend the requirements so that all persons benefit, not just the petitioner. The petitioner’s comments and arguments for an exemption to § 61.45(b)(1)(i) are being considered as part of a possible future amendment to part 61.4

The FAA’s Decision:

In consideration of the foregoing, I find that a grant of exemption would not be in the public interest and would not provide a level of safety equivalent to the current regulations. Therefore, pursuant to the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. §§ 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the petition of John D. Odegard School for Aerospace Sciences at the University of North Dakota for an exemption from 14 CFR § 61.45(b)(1)(i) is hereby denied.

Issued in Washington, D.C., on February 2, 2012.

/s/

John M. Allen Director, Flight Standards Service