[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8490-8494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3132]




[[Page 8489]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 121



Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules   
[[Page 8490]] 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 28072; Notice No. 95-2]
RIN 2120-AF29


Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions

agency: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

action: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

summary: The FAA proposes to: Revise and clarify certain requirements 
of the Advanced Simulation Plan for part 121 operators to authorize 
more training and checking in simulators; clarify the operating 
experience requirements for certain second-in-command pilots trained 
and checked in simulators; and eliminate the requirement that the 
minimum of 1 year of employment as an instructor or check airman be 
with the operator of the simulator. This action is needed to respond to 
concerns identified by certain affected certificate holders in 
petitions for exemption. It is intended to alleviate unnecessary 
training costs while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.

dates: Comments must be received by March 16, 1995.

addresses: Comments on this proposal may be mailed in triplicate or 
delivered to: Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, 
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Docket No. 28072, 800 Independence 
Avenue Washington, DC 20591.

for further information contact: Gary E. Davis, Project Development 
Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation Division, Office of Flight 
Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-3747.

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 
proposals 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 pre-addressed, 
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments 
to Docket No. 28072.'' The postcard will be date stamped and mailed to 
the commenter.

Availability of NPRM's

    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 
NPRM's 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

Terminology

    Appendix H to 14 CFR part 121, ``Advanced Simulation Plan,'' 
provides guidelines and a means for achieving flightcrew training and 
checking in advanced airplane simulators. The three-phase plan provides 
standards for a progressive upgrade of airplane simulators so that the 
total scope of flightcrew training can be enhanced.
    Appendix H specifically describes the simulator and visual system 
requirements that must be met to obtain approval to conduct certain 
training and checking in the particular type of simulator (Phase I, II, 
or III). The term ``phase'' was used because it was expected that 
operators would be upgrading their simulator inventories in phases 
while exercising simulator privileges commensurate with the phase of 
the simulator. The upgrading of simulators in phases is now essentially 
complete and the designation of ``phase'' for identification of 
simulator complexity is no longer descriptive. Operators no longer 
begin at a lower level of qualification and upgrade in phases. The 
tendency is to acquire a given level simulator that best meets their 
needs. The agency and the industry now commonly refer to the simulators 
in terms of ``levels.'' The levels currently used to describe a 
particular simulator compared with the older phase designations are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          New terminology                      Old terminology          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A............................  Visual.                            
Level B............................  Phase I.                           
Level C............................  Phase II.                          
Level D............................  Phase III.                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is proposed to revise Appendix H to replace the old terminology 
with the new throughout the appendix. The new terminology will be used 
throughout this preamble in discussing other amendments proposed 
herein.

Advanced Simulation

    Appendix H was developed and adopted when there were no ``advanced 
simulators.'' Currently, however, advanced simulators exist which have 
permitted virtual duplication of many aircraft performance 
characteristics and systems. As a result, the vast majority of U.S. 
airline pilot training is now conducted in these advanced simulators. 
According to industry members, however, certain limitations originally 
incorporated into Appendix H still require a small, yet relatively 
expensive, amount of training to be completed in the actual airplane.
    In light of their highly satisfactory experience with these 
simulators, some industry members believe that a Level C simulator 
should be approved for those flightcrew training and checking maneuvers 
that currently are permitted only in the aircraft or in Level D 
simulators. In a petition for exemption dated October 12, 1992, the Air 
Transport Association, on behalf of its affected member airlines and 
other similarly situated airlines, petitioned for an exemption to 
provide for initial training in a Level C simulator. Trans World 
Airlines and Tower Airlines petitioned individually to use a Level C 
simulator to conduct limited initial and upgrade training and checking 
functions that would normally be conducted in a Level D simulator. 
Agreeing in part with the petitioners' supportive information and, 
based on its own experience, the FAA granted some limited relief for 
training and checking.
    More recently, United Airlines (UAL) has requested similar but 
slightly more [[Page 8491]] extensive relief than previously granted. 
UAL believes that its experience with advanced simulation, as well as 
the FAA's own experience, more than adequately justifies expanding the 
scope of flightcrew training and checking in a Level C simulator. In 
support of its request, UAL points out that: (1) The same training 
curricula and pilot proficiency standards would apply to a Level C or 
Level D simulator; (2) these curricula can be implemented and 
proficiency demonstrated effectively in a Level C simulator; and (3) 
daily local FAA oversight of training and checking programs will assure 
that these curricula and standards remain sufficient.
    UAL further believes that its request would be in the public 
interest since it is universally acknowledged that simulator training 
is superior to training in an actual aircraft and the public is served 
best when high quality training is conducted in the safest and most 
cost-effective manner.
    The FAA agrees with much of UAL's rationale in its petition; 
however, after consideration of the supportive information, the FAA 
believes that UAL is not alone or unique in its request. Therefore, the 
FAA has determined that the appropriate response to the UAL petition 
for exemption is to propose a change to the existing regulations.

Discussion of the Proposal

Authorizing Additional Training and Checking in a Level C Simulator

    All simulators duplicate or simulate the functions of an airplane 
to varying levels of accuracy. The FAA requires that, for each higher 
level of simulator, the simulator duplicate the performance of the 
airplane over larger and more critical portions of the airplane's 
operating envelope. This performance must be shown by documented 
evidence. Level D simulators must provide the highest level of flight 
realism. They must perform as the airplane performs over the largest 
portion of the airplane's operating envelope, while providing the most 
complete and technically accurate environment possible. Evidence of 
this performance must include certain sophisticated aerodynamic 
modeling that allows more complete replication of the performance of 
the airplane.
    Level C simulators are designed to operate over the same portion of 
the airplane's operating envelope as Level D simulators, and do so 
under a relatively sophisticated performance verification process. 
Level C simulators, however, are not required to have sophisticated 
aerodynamic modeling factors. Nor do they undergo the degree of 
performance verification that Level D simulators do. However, based on 
13 years of experience using Level C simulators and on the rigorous 
qualification process and performance standards required for Level C 
simulators, the FAA has determined that they may now be used for 
initial qualification and upgrade training and checking for SIC. 
Because of performance differences between Level C and Level D 
simulators, however, the pilots qualified using Level C simulators 
should meet certain prerequisite levels of experience. They should also 
be required to have supervised post qualification operational 
experience.

Prior Aeronautical Experience

    In Appendix H to part 121, the FAA proposes to add a new paragraph 
to the section entitled ``Level C, Training and Checking Permitted.'' 
It would permit SIC applicants to obtain initial and upgrade training 
and certification checks in Level C simulators if certain preconditions 
are met. The rule would require that the applicant meet the prior 
aeronautical experience requirements for an ATP certificate and 
airplane rating under Sec. 61.155, before beginning training in a Level 
C simulator and before being checked under Sec. 61.157 in a Level C 
simulator for an ATP certificate or rating.
    In addition, these SIC initial and upgrade applicants must fulfill 
special operational experience requirements under proposed new 
provisions in Sec. 121.434(c)(2). Under proposed 
Sec. 121.434(c)(2)(ii), the SIC would have to obtain line operations 
experience at the SIC duty position, supervised by a check pilot. These 
pilots will not have the option, available to other pilots under 
Sec. 121.434(c)(2)(i), to fulfill operating experience requirements by 
simply observing another pilot perform SIC duties. In addition, as part 
of this initial operating experience, these pilots would have to 
perform a minimum of four takeoffs and four landings also under the 
supervision of a check pilot.
    The proposed amendment to Sec. 121.434(f) would not allow pilots 
trained in a Level C simulator to substitute takeoffs or landings for 
required operating experience. The proposed rule would continue to 
allow other SIC pilots to reduce by 50 percent the hours of required 
operating experience by the substitution of one additional takeoff and 
landing for each hour of flight.
    Revising Appendix H to authorize expanded use of Level C simulators 
for additional training and checking would provide an equivalent or 
higher level of safety. Additionally, by not doing this training and 
checking in flight in the actual aircraft, these authorized programs 
would provide benefits in safety, energy conservation, and efficiency.

Modifying Employment Requirement

    The FAA is proposing to remove the requirement in Appendix H (in 
paragraph 3 of the section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training 
Program'') that each instructor and check airman have been employed for 
at least 1 year by the certificate holder applying for approval of the 
program. The FAA's intention, in originally requiring a minimum period 
of 1-year of employment with the operator, was to ensure suitable 
experience levels for individuals selected to be instructors and check 
airmen. The most sophisticated simulator can be of little value without 
an experienced, well-trained instructor or check airman to operate it. 
However, the agency has concluded that this goal can be achieved by 1 
year of experience serving as an instructor or check airman with any 
part 121 operator. The FAA believes that this amount of instructor 
experience, in addition to the training prerequisites for these 
individuals in Appendix H, is an adequate level of preparation for an 
instructor or check airman in a Level C simulator. Modifying the 
employment requirement in this way will not decrease safety. However, 
it should be noted that, instructors and check airmen may participate 
in more than one operator's approved training program; each operator 
must provide training for each instructor and check airman in its 
training program. Thus, an instructor or check airman who instructs for 
more than one operator must receive training in each operator's 
program.
    Similarly, the FAA is proposing to revise the section entitled 
``Phase II, Training and Checking Permitted'' in Appendix H to provide 
that pilots seeking to upgrade to pilot in command (PIC) do not have to 
have obtained the prerequisite SIC experience ``with the operator,'' 
nor have served or be serving as SIC ``with that operator.'' Again, the 
FAA believes that the level of experience required by an approved 
training program, in addition to the training prerequisites for these 
individuals in Appendix H and elsewhere under the Federal Aviation 
Regulations, establishes an adequate level of preparation regardless of 
employment with any specific operator. [[Page 8492]] 

Clarifying Training and Certification Check Requirements for Initial 
and Upgrading Training for SIC's Upgrading to PIC

    The FAA is also proposing to revise paragraph 2 of the section 
entitled ``Level C, Training and Checking Permitted,'' to clearly 
distinguish between the prerequisites for initial versus upgrade 
training and checking. To do this, paragraph 2(a) would be redesignated 
as paragraph 2 and paragraph 2(b) as paragraph 3. New paragraph 3 would 
be stated so as to eliminate the need for the flush paragraph currently 
at the end of the section.
    Current paragraph 2(a) sets forth the prerequisites for training 
and checking in a Level C simulator for SIC's upgrading to PIC in the 
same equipment. For example, a pilot serving as SIC in a Boeing 727 
upgrading to PIC in the same airplane would have to meet the 
requirements of this paragraph. Under new paragraph 2, these 
requirements would not change. The pilot would still have to have 
previously qualified as SIC in the equipment, have at least 500 hours 
of actual flight time as SIC in an airplane in the same group, and be 
currently serving as SIC in an airplane in the same group. These 
requirements are consistent with the definition of upgrade training 
under Subpart N--Training program. Section 121.400(c)(3) defines 
``Upgrade training'' as the training required for crewmembers who have 
qualified and served as SIC or flight engineer on a particular airplane 
type, before they serve as PIC or SIC, respectively, on that airplane.
    The requirements of current paragraph 2(b) must be read in 
conjunction with the final paragraph in the section to determine that 
it applies to initial training and checking for SIC's upgrading to PIC 
in an airplane type in which the pilot has never served as SIC. This 
SIC has experience in the same group of airplanes, but not in the same 
airplane to which the pilot wants to upgrade. For example, a pilot 
serving as an SIC in a Boeing 737 initially upgrading to PIC in a 
Boeing 727 must meet the requirements of this paragraph.
    New paragraph 3 would not change this requirement, but would make 
it easier for the reader to see that it applies to initial training and 
checking. The pilot would still have to be employed by an operator, be 
currently serving as SIC in an airplane in the same group, have a 
minimum of 2500 flight hours as SIC in airplanes in the same group, and 
have served as SIC on at least two airplanes of the same group. Because 
proposed new paragraph 3 would refer to ``initial'' training, the 
language in the current last paragraph is no longer needed to explain 
that pilots meeting these requirements may upgrade to another airplane 
in that group in which that pilot has not previously qualified. The 
requirements in new paragraph 3 continue to be consistent with 
Sec. 121.400(c)(1), which defines ``initial training'' as the training 
required for crewmembers and dispatchers who have not qualified and 
served in the same capacity on another airplane of the same group.

Modifying Minimum Flight Hour Requirements

    The FAA also is considering whether to propose revising certain 
flight hour experience requirements for initial and upgrade training 
and checking in a Level C simulator. Currently, pilots upgrading from 
SIC to PIC in equipment in which they have previously qualified as SIC 
are required to have at least 500 hours of actual flight time while 
serving as SIC in an airplane in the same group. Similarly, pilots who 
are initially upgrading from SIC to PIC in other equipment in which the 
pilot has not been previously qualified, must have a minimum of 2500 
hours as SIC in airplanes of the same group as the equipment to which 
they are upgrading.
    The flight hour experience requirements ensure that a pilot has 
adequate experience in order to upgrade to PIC. These values were 
established, based on the collective opinions of the FAA and industry 
members, when Appendix H was originally adopted. Since then, industry 
members have argued that the required hours are excessive. Based on the 
success of some industry members who have operated under exemptions 
that provided certain relief of these flight-hour requirements and 
other specific requirements for upgrade training under Subpart N, the 
FAA may propose, for example, to eliminate the 500 flight-hour 
requirement and reduce from 2500 to 500 the number of flight hours 
required for initial upgrade training and checking.
    The FAA seeks comments and additional information that may justify 
proposing to modify these current flight hour requirements in a future 
notice of proposed rulemaking.

Standardizing Language and Eliminating Obsolete References

    As discussed above, the term ``phase'' is no longer used to 
describe the various simulators referred to in Appendix H. Accordingly, 
it is proposed to replace ``phase'' with ``level'' wherever it appears 
and to use the current alphabetical designations for the various 
levels.
    In addition, it is proposed to remove the section entitled ``Phase 
IIA Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for Part 121 Operators'' as 
obsolete. For the same reason, it is proposed to remove paragraph 7 of 
the section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' which 
references Phase IIA. Under Phase IIA, any part 121 operator could 
conduct Phase II training for 3 and \1/2\ years from the date it was 
approved for Phase I in a simulator approved for the landing maneuver 
under Phase I. The carrier's upgrade plan had to be submitted to the 
FAA before July 30, 1981. Thus, these provisions are no longer 
effective.

Regulatory Analysis

    Executive Order 12866 established the requirement that, within the 
extent permitted by law, a Federal regulatory action may be undertaken 
only if the potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh 
the potential costs to society. In response to this requirement, and in 
accordance with Department of Transportation policies and procedures, 
the FAA has estimated the anticipated benefits and costs of this 
rulemaking action. 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. (A 
more detailed discussion of costs and benefits is contained in the full 
regulatory evaluation placed in the docket for this proposed rule).

Costs

    The proposed rule would not improve any additional costs on either 
part 121 air carrier operators or the flying public. The proposed rule 
would allow certain training practices that the FAA has determined to 
be safe and efficient methods for training pilots, and it would clarify 
other portions of Appendix H. Thus, the proposal would not impose any 
additional costs because it would permit operators to use the least 
costly methods of training while maintaining an equivalent level of 
safety for the flying public. Since current training practices would be 
maintained to current standards under the proposed rule, there would be 
no reduction in aviation safety imposed on the flying public.

Potential Cost-Relief Benefits

    The proposed rule would generate potential cost savings benefits 
estimated [[Page 8493]] at $20 million, in 1992 dollars, over the next 
10 years (or $12.4 million, discounted, using a 7.0 percent rate of 
interest). These potential cost savings benefits would take the form of 
increased operational efficiency (qualitative) and cost savings 
(quantitative) to those part 121 operators engaged in initial simulator 
training, in accordance with Appendix H.
    The potential cost savings benefits of the proposed rule represent 
the difference between the costs incurred currently by part 121 air 
carriers for initial training and checking of SIC pilots and the costs 
that would be incurred if the proposal were to become a rule. 
Currently, certain requirements for initial training and checking of 
SIC pilots that are not performed in a Level D simulator must be 
performed in the aircraft. Under the proposed rule, those requirements 
that are performed in the aircraft in lieu of a Level D simulator would 
be performed in a Level C simulator. The costs of operating the 
aircraft for those requirements above the costs of operating the less 
expensive simulator for those same requirements is the estimated 
benefit of this proposed rule.
    In an effort to derive a cost-relief estimate associated with this 
proposed rule, several part 121 air carriers were contacted. These air 
carriers provided the agency with estimated aircraft operating costs 
per hour, the time needed to train and check pilots for those 
requirements that, under the present rule, cannot be performed in a 
Level C simulator, and the number of pilots that it expects to train in 
the next 10 years.

Potential Operational Efficiency Benefits

    The potential benefits of the proposed rule would be generated in 
the form of increased operational efficiency. In the full regulatory 
evaluation placed in the docket, these potential efficiency benefits 
are presented qualitatively. These benefits are difficult to estimate 
quantitatively due, at present, to the lack of available cost 
information.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by 
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and 
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires 
government agencies to determine whether rules will have ``a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities'' 
and, in cases where they will, conduct a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis.
    Accordingly to FAA Order 2100.14A (Regulatory Flexibility and 
Guidance), a substantial number of small entities is defined as a 
number which is not less than eleven and which is more than one-third 
of the small entities subject to a proposed or existing rule. A 
significant economic impact on a small entity is an annualized net 
compliance cost which, when adjusted for inflation, equals or exceeds 
the significant cost threshold for the entity type under review.
    The entities that potentially would be affected by the proposed 
rule are small part 121 operators that own, but do not necessarily 
operate, nine or fewer aircraft. As discussed in the cost section of 
this evaluation summary, the proposed rule would not impose any costs 
on these operators because it is cost-relieving in nature. Therefore, 
the proposed rule would not impose a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small aircraft operators.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The proposed rule would have little, if any, impact on the 
competitive posture of either U.S. carriers doing business in foreign 
countries or foreign carriers doing business in the United States. This 
assessment is based on the fact that the proposed rule would not impose 
any cost on part 121 operators because it is cost-relieving in nature. 
These operators do not compete directly with air carriers engaged in 
foreign operations (part 129).

Federalism Implications

    The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct 
effects on the States, 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 12866, it is determined that this 
proposal would not have federalism implications requiring the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation 
Regulations

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO 
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent 
practicable. The FAA is not aware of any differences that this proposal 
would present if adopted. Any differences that may be presented in 
comments to this proposal, however, will be taken into consideration.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains no information collection requests 
requiring approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.).

Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the 
findings in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the 
International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this 
proposed regulation is not significant under Executive Order 12866. In 
addition, it is certified that this proposal, if adopted, will not have 
a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on an substantial 
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. 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 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Safety, 
Transportation.

The Proposed Rule

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration proposes to amend part 121 of the Federal Aviation 
Regulations (14 CFR part 121) as follows:

PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND 
SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE 
AIRCRAFT

    1. The authority citation for Part 121 continues to reads as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1355, 1356, 1357, 1401, 1421-1430, 
1472, 1485, and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g) (Revised Pub. L. 97-449, 
January 12, 1983).

    2. Section 121.434 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (f) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 121.434  Operating experience.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) A second-in-command pilot must perform the duties of a second 
in command as follows:
    (i) For a second-in-command pilot who received training for second-
in-command duties for the relevant type airplane pursuant to any 
appropriate provision of this part other than paragraph 4 of ``Level C 
Training and Checking Permitted'' in Appendix H of this part, he or she 
must perform those duties under the supervision of a check 
[[Page 8494]] pilot or observe the performance of those duties on the 
flight deck.
    (ii) For a second-in-command pilot who received training in a Level 
C simulator in accordance with Appendix H of this part, he or she must 
perform--
    (A) Those duties under the supervision of a check pilot; and
    (B) At least four takeoffs and four landings as sole manipulator of 
the controls under the supervision of a check pilot.
* * * * *
    (f) Except for second-in-command pilots who were trained for the 
airplane type in a Level C simulator in accordance with Appendix H of 
this part, the hours of operating experience for flight crewmembers may 
be reduced to 50 percent of the hours required by this section by the 
substitution of one additional takeoff and landing for each hour of 
flight.
* * * * *
    3. Appendix H is amended by replacing the words ``Phase I'', 
``Phase II'', and ``Phase III'' with the words ``Level B'', ``Level 
C'', and ``Level D'' respectively, wherever they appear; by replacing 
the words ``Phase I, II, and III'' with the words ``Level B, C, and 
D'', wherever they appear; by replacing the words ``Phase II or III'' 
with the words ``Level C or D'', wherever they appear; by replacing the 
words ``Phase I, II, or III'' with the words ``Level B, C, or D'', 
wherever they appear; by replacing the words ``Phase II, IIA, or III'' 
with the words ``Level C or D'', wherever they appear; by replacing the 
word ``phase'' with the word ``level'', wherever it appears; and by 
replacing the word ``phases'' with the word ``levels'' wherever it 
appears.
    4. The section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' in 
Appendix H is amended by removing paragraph 7 and revising paragraph 3 
to read as follows:

Appendix H to Part 121--Advanced Simulation Plan

* * * * *

Advanced Simulation Training Program

* * * * *
    3. Documentation that each instructor and check airman has served 
for at least 1 year in that capacity in a certificate holder's approved 
program or has served for at least 1 year as a pilot in command or 
second in command in an airplane of the group in which that pilot is 
instructing or checking.
* * * * *
    5. Appendix H, ``Phase II, Training and Checking Permitted'' is 
amended by revising paragraph 2. and adding paragraphs 3. and 4. to 
read as follows:
* * * * *

Level C--Training and Checking Permitted

    1. * * *
    2. Upgrade to pilot-in-command training and the certification 
check when the pilot--
    a. Has previously qualified as second in command in the 
equipment to which the pilot is upgrading;
    b. Has at least 500 hours of actual flight time while serving as 
second in command in an airplane of the same group; and
    c. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane in 
this same group.
    3. Initial pilot-in-command training and the certification check 
when the pilot--
    a. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane of 
the same group;
    b. Has a minimum of 2,500 flight hours as second in command in 
an airplane of the same group; and
    c. Has served as second in command on at least two airplanes of 
the same group.
    4. For all second-in-command pilot applicants who meet the 
aeronautical experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 of this chapter 
in the airplane, the initial and upgrade training and checking 
required by this part, and the certification check requirements of 
Sec. 61.157 of this chapter.
* * * * *
    6. Appendix H, ``Phase IIA, Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for Part 
121 Operators'' is removed in its entirety.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 31, 1995.
William J. White,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 95-3132 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M