Johnson-SwansonJohnson 2007

Page 1

U.S. Department
of Transporta tion
Federal Aviation
Administration
October 19, 2007
Mr. Richard Johnson
Swanson & Johnson PLLC
1906 S. Vista Avenue, Suite A
Boise, ID 83705
Dear Mr. Johnson:

This is in response to your June 16, 2007, inquny , submitted on behalf of your client, Aviation Specialties Unlimited, Inc., in which you seek an interpretation of 14 C.F.R. §135.324, as it applies to the Night Vision Goggle (NVG) guidance recently set forth in Notice 8000.349, Appendix 1, § 1606(C)(2). In part, you quote the language in Appendix 1, § 1606 C(2), which states that a caITier that:

does not hold an operating certificate and Op Specs for the same type of operation for which training is provided, or does not hold a part 142 training center cert ificate, with approved courses applicable to the training provided, must be qualified as a pilot and flight instructor for operations by the certificate holder [to provide NVG ti·aining]. (emphasis added). You ask whether this language requn·es that your client engage in pait 135 all- ambulance operations in order to provide NVG ti·aining to other part 135 an· ambulance operators. Because of the performance limitations that NVGs have on a pilot's visual cues, Notice 8000.349 set forth a separate process for verifying pait 135 operators conducting operations using NVGs, and for Pait 135 operators providing NVG ti·aining. In regard to ti·aining, all part 135 operators must meet the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 135.324 in order to conduct flight training. The language from the Notice, as quoted above, should not be read to limit part 135 operators to ti·aining only other pait 135 operators engaged in identical commercial service. Rather, the Notice should be read as giving guidance to FAA inspectors on the cn·cumstances in which the FAA would allow Pait 135 operators with the same type of operation specifications, either on-demand or commuter, to train another Pait 135 operator with the same type of operation specifications, either on-demand or commuter. When the entire Notice is read in context, an impo1t ant piece of guidance to our inspectors is that they should ensure that any NVG training in an airborne all-craft is administered by an NVG insti11ctor who is qualified to fly that pait iculai· aircraft, and whose principal employer also operates the same type of aircraft. For example, if ASU, Inc., is cert ified as a Pait 135 on-demand operator, flying a Bell-206 Helicopter, and its principal operations inspector has approved its use of NVGs in its operations, as well as its NVG ti·aining program, the FAA would allow an FAA principal operations inspector for another pait 135 operator to consider

Page 2

approving ASU, Inc., to provide NVG training to that other Part 135 on-demand operator that also flies Bell-206 Helicopters. The guidance provided in the Notice, which states that an air carrier must comply with § 135.324, is thus consistent with § 135.324, as well as additional guidance set forth in FAA Order 8900. l 0, vol.3, ch. 20, § 1, para. 3-1399 (Sept. 13, 2007), which states that an air transportation flight instructor must "hold the certificate and ratings required to serve in revenue service in the specified crewmember duty position on the specific aircraft (emphasis added)," in order to be eligible to conduct training. We appreciate your patience and trust that the above responds your concerns. If you have any questions, please contact my staff at (202) 267-3073. This response was prepared by Anne Bechdolt, Attorney, reviewed by Joseph Conte, Manager, Operations Law Branch of the Office of the Chief Counsel, and coordinated with the Air Transportation Division of Flight Standards Service.

Sincerely,

ez::OY~Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations

Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200