[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8482]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 11, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 61
Recent Flight Experience: Pilot in Command; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 61
[Docket No. 27682; Notice No. 94-9]
RIN 2120-AF32
Recent Flight Experience: Pilot in Command
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to revise the Federal Aviation
Regulations (FAR) governing the recent flight experience requirements
for pilots in command (PICs). This proposal would provide relief from
essentially redundant recency requirements for PICs serving in part 121
and part 135 air carrier operations. This proposal was undertaken in
response to the Air Transport Association (ATA) petition for exemption
or other regulatory relief. By adopting this proposal, the air carrier
industry, which already complies with recency requirements found in
parts 121 and 135, would be relieved of unnecessary duplication of
recordkeeping while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.
DATES: Comments must be received by June 10, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this amendment may be mailed in triplicate or
delivered to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel,
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Docket No. 27682, 800 Independence
Avenue, Washington, DC 20591.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Alberta Brown, Project Development
Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation Division, Office of Flight
Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-8096.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the
proposal in this notice are also invited. Substantive comments should
be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments should identify the
regulatory docket or notice number and should be submitted in
triplicate to the Rules Docket address specified above. All comments
received on or before the closing date for comments specified will be
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed
rulemaking. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of comments received. All comments received will be available,
both before and after the closing date for comment, in the Rules Docket
for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must include a preaddressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 27682'' The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to
the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs,
Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-430, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications
must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
NPRMs should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which
describes the application procedure.
Background
This proposal would amend Sec. 61.57 by providing relief from
essentially redundant recency requirements and from the recordkeeping
burden for parts 121 and 135 certificate holders and their PIC's. It is
based on a petition for exemption or other regulatory relief from ATA.
ATA requested relief from essentially duplicative recordkeeping
requirements related to the recency of experience for part 121 PICs.
This ``duplication'' arises because certificate holders are currently
required to maintain records under Sec. 121.683 showing compliance with
both Sec. 61.57 and currency requirements of part 121. The FAA agrees
that part 121 air carriers already have training and checking
requirements in place that are equivalent to Sec. 61.57 recency
requirements and that maintaining records of compliance with both of
these requirements is essentially redundant.
The FAA has decided that the appropriate response to the ATA
petition is to propose a change to the existing regulations. In
addition, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate to propose the
same relief to part 135 certificate holders as they also have training
and checking requirements already in place that are equivalent to the
recency requirements of Sec. 61.57.
Discussion of the Proposal
ATA petitioned on behalf of its affected member airlines and other
similarly situated airlines for exemption, or other appropriate
regulatory relief, from the requirements of Secs. 61.57(e) and
121.683(a)(1). A summary of the ATA petition was published in the
Federal Register on March 9, 1993, (58 FR 16576), and one comment was
received from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). ALPA generally
agreed with the intent of the petition but was concerned that pilots
who had been absent from flying for long periods of time and pilots
trained annually, instead of semiannually, under ``single visit
exemptions,'' discussed below, would not be current. The FAA has
considered all facts and circumstances presented by the petitioner and
comments made by ALPA.
Under Sec. 61.57, Recent flight experience, paragraphs (a)-(b) are
reserved, paragraph (c) concerns general experience, paragraph (d)
concerns night experience, and paragraph (e) concerns instrument
experience. Currently, under Sec. 61.57, PICs serving in part 121 and
part 135 operations are excluded from compliance with paragraph (c).
PICs serving in part 121 (and some part 135) operations are excluded
from compliance with paragraph (d). All parts 121 and 135 PICs,
however, must comply with paragraph (e).
The FAA agrees with the premise of the ATA petition. It is not the
intent of the FAA to require duplicative recency requirements for PICs
serving in part 121 or part 135 air carrier operations. The FAA does
intend, however, that each PIC serving in these air carrier operations
receive adequate recency experience.
Currently, part 121 and part 135 certificate holders record all
flight time. It is common industry practice for air carriers to file
instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plans and perform navigation
solely by reference to instruments regardless of meteorological
conditions. As a result, almost all flight time logged by PICs in parts
121 and 135 air carrier operations is in IFR but is not broken down
into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) or visual
meteorological conditions (VMC). Therefore, in order for PICs in parts
121 and 135 air carrier operations to comply with Sec. 61.57(e) they
must log separately their flight time in and out of IMC. Under
Secs. 121.683 and 135.63, parts 121 and 135 certificate holders must
also keep additional records of their PICs' IFR flight time in and out
of IMC to show that their PIC comply with Sec. 61.57. The FAA finds
that having both pilots and certificate holders separately log flight
hours in and out of IMC meteorological conditions is redundant. This
duplicative logging of flight time is an unnecessary burden on both the
PICs and the air carriers and adds no safety benefits.
The FAA has determined that both part 121 and part 135 certificate
holders have recency requirements in place, in addition to their normal
day to day operations, that are at least equivalent to the recency
requirements of Sec. 61.57. Therefore, the specific requirements to
obtain recent flight experience under Sec. 61.57 are unnecessary for
part 121 and part 135 air carrier operations.
The FAA has considered ALPA's comment to ATA's petition concerning
the single visit exemption. The single visit approach to checking,
which allows air carriers to certify competency of pilots through a 12-
month visit instead of at 6-month intervals as required by
Sec. 121.441(a)(1), is a part of the Advanced Qualification Program
(AQP) concept. The FAA has reviewed the single visit exemptions to
determine if training and checking under a single visit exemption or a
future AQP would be equivalent to the requirements of Sec. 61.57. SFAR
58, which authorizes AQP's, provides for approval of an alternate
method of compliance for qualifying, training, certifying, and
otherwise ensuring competency of crewmembers who are trained and
qualified to serve in operations under parts 121 and 135. The FAA has
granted exemptions to several part 121 operators to use the single
visit concept, with certain conditions and limitations, while these
carriers are awaiting AQP approval. Experience under these exemptions
has shown that a level of IFR competency equivalent to that required by
parts 61, 121, and 135 can be maintained.
This proposed amendment would avoid unnecessary recordkeeping for
the air carrier pilots during the time they are performing part 121 or
135 flights. Additionally, this proposal relieves parts 121 and 135
certificate holders from the need to keep a record of their pilots'
compliance with Sec. 61.57. Pilots are still personally responsible for
showing currency when they are flying in an operation conducted under
part 91.
The FAA has decided not to extend this proposed amendment to part
125 operators. Most part 125 training and checking rules are not
equivalent to those in parts 121 and 135, nor do they need to be.
Although some part 125 operators have approached training programs
which exceed part 125 requirements, these programs have been submitted
by choice, not to meet a FAA requirement.
The FAA concludes that the proposed amendment would provide an
equivalent level of safety. Part 121 and part 135 pilots are required
and are expected to be trained to the highest level of qualification.
Current air carrier operations and the availability of simulators
ensure part 121 and part 135 air carrier pilots maintain currency far
beyond the minimum requirements of Sec. 61.57.
International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation
Regulations
The FAA has determined that a review of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation Standards and Recommended Practices is not
warranted because this proposal eliminates duplicative recordkeeping
for U.S. carriers and has no effect on actual currency.
Regulatory Analysis
The FAA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant
rulemaking action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review). The anticipated costs and benefits associated
with this proposed rule are summarized below.
The estimated benefit of the proposed rule is the relief from
recordkeeping for parts 121 and 135 certificate holders and pilots.
There are about 18,000 captains working for parts 121 and 135
certificate holders. It is estimated that each of them would meet the
relevant requirement for Sec. 61.57 after flying about five days every
6 months and spending 5 minutes per day logging their flying. After
that, the regulation would require no additional recordkeeping. The FAA
estimates that about 14,900 hours would be used for recordkeeping
purposes. Given that the median monthly earnings for a captain (for
majors, nationals, and regionals) in 1992 dollars is about $11,100 or
about $135 per hour, then the industry could realize a potential annual
cost savings of about $2.01 million annually. However, if the
recordkeeping duties were performed by the first officer or flight
engineer, then the potential savings would not be as great.
There would be no incremental costs associated with this proposed
rule since there would be an equivalent level of recent flight
experience requirements for parts 121 and 135 PICs; in essence only the
recordkeeping requirements would be relaxed. The FAA has concluded that
there would be no degradation of safety. Therefore, the FAA has
concluded that the proposed rule is cost beneficial.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by Government regulations. The RFA requires
agencies to review proposed rues that may have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The Regulatory Flexibility Criteria and Guidance, FAA Order
2100.14A, sets guidelines for determining whether small entities are
significantly affected by regulations. The fleet size for an operator
of aircraft for hire to be considered a small entity is nine or fewer
aircraft. The threshold annualized cost levels for operators of
aircraft for hire in 1992 dollars was $4,575 for unscheduled operators.
Because the cost threshold for scheduled operators would be higher, the
FAA presents the cost data for the unscheduled operator as a worst case
scenario.
The proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative on small entities. The entities that would be
affected are national and regional air carriers. The median salary of
captains for national and regional air carriers, but not major
carriers, in 1992 dollars was between $3,000 and $5,800 per month or
between $30 and $58 per hour. Assuming it would take an additional 50
minutes a year for the captains of these small entities (9 or fewer
aircraft) to separately record their flight time in and out of IMC, at
$58 per hour, approximately 95 captains would have to be employed by
one of these small entities before they would reach their threshold
annualized cost level of $4,575. There are no small entities employing
95 captains. Therefore, a substantial number of small entities would
not suffer a significant economic impact as a result of this proposed
rule.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess the
effects of regulatory changes on international trade. This rule will
have no economic impact on U.S. operators international operations
since the rule only affects parts 121 and 135 certificate holders and
is not a requirement for foreign operators nor is it required for U.S.
air carriers to operate in foreign operations. Based on this
information, the FAA concludes that the proposed rule change would have
no impact on international trade.
Federalism Implications
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the states, or on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), the FAA has considered the information collection impact
associated with this proposed rule and finds that the proposal, if
adopted, would result in some reduction in required recordkeeping. The
FAA requests comments on this issue and will address its findings in
the final rule.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the
findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. The FAA certifies that this proposal, if
adopted, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In addition, this proposal is not
considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 61
Airmen, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The Amendment
The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part
61 of the Federal Aviation Regulations as follows:
PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS AND FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS
1. The authority citation for part 61 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1355, 1421, 1422, and 1427;
49 U.S.C. 106(g).
2. Section 61.57 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
(a)-(b) [Reserved]
(c) General experience. No person may act as pilot in command of an
aircraft carrying passengers, nor of an aircraft certificated for more
than one required pilot flight crewmember, unless, within the preceding
90 days, that person has made three takeoffs and three landings as the
sole manipulator of the flight controls in an aircraft of the same
category and class and, if a type rating is required, of the same type.
If the aircraft is a tailwheel airplane, the landings must have been
made to a full stop in a tailwheel airplane. For the purpose of meeting
the requirements of the paragraph, a person may act as pilot in command
of a flight under day VFR or day IFR if no persons or property other
than as necessary for compliance thereunder, are carried.
(d) Night experience. No person may act as pilot in command of an
aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after
sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise (as published in the American
Air Almanac) unless, within the preceding 90 days, that person has made
at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop during that
period in the category and class of aircraft to be used.
(e) Instrument Experience.
(1) Recent IFR experience. No pilot may act as pilot in command
under IFR, nor in weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed
for VFR, unless that pilot has, within the past 6 calendar months--
(i) In the case of an aircraft other than a glider, logged at least
6 hours of instrument time under actual or simulated IFR conditions, at
least 3 of which were in flight in the category of aircraft involved,
including at least 6 instrument approaches, or passed an instrument
competency check in the category of aircraft involved.
(ii) In the case of a glider, logged at least 3 hours of instrument
time, at least half of which were in a glider or an airplane. If a
passenger is carried in the glider, at least 3 hours of instrument
flight time must have been in gliders.
(2) Instrument Competency Check. A pilot who does not meet the
recent instrument experience requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this
section during the prescribed time or 6 calender months thereafter may
not serve as pilot in command under IFR, nor in weather conditions less
than the minimums prescribed for VFR, until that pilot passes an
instrument competency check in the category of aircraft involved, given
by an FAA inspector, a member of an armed force of the United States
authorized to conduct flight tests, an FAA-approved check pilot, or a
certificated instrument flight instructor. The Administrator may
authorize the conduct of part or all of this check in a pilot ground
trainer equipped for instruments or an aircraft simulator.
(f) This section does not apply to operations conducted under parts
121 or 135 of this chapter.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 31, 1994.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 94-8482 Filed 4-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M