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 Administration (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 complex 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 FAA 
2

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 petitioner 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 has 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 Instructor, 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 concludes 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