[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 81 (Thursday, April 27, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20858-20871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10282]




[[Page 20857]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 121



Pilot Operating and Experience Requirements; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules 
and Regulations   
[[Page 20858]] 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 27210; Amendment No. 121-248]
RIN 2120-AD88


Pilot Operating and Experience Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration amends its pilot 
qualification requirements for air carrier and commercial operator 
pilots by upgrading existing operating experience requirements, 
establishing a new kind of operating experience requirement, and adding 
requirements that would reduce the potential for an inexperienced pilot 
in command to be scheduled to fly with an inexperienced second in 
command pilot. The FAA has determined that recent practices and trends 
necessitate revising current pilot qualification regulations in the 
interest of safety to upgrade minimum crew experience and to require 
pilots to use newly developed knowledge and skills in actual line 
operations within a short time after training.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Larry Youngblut, Project Development Branch (AFS-240), Air 
Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591; 
Telephone (202) 267-8096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA is amending part 121 pilot qualification requirements. The 
FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Notice No. 93-1, 
on the subject (58 FR 15730, March 23, 1993). Most of these amendments 
are based on a joint government/industry task force committee's 
recommendation. Three proposals, on second in command (SIC) operating 
experience, FAA inspector observation of a pilot in command (PIC), and 
``satisfactory'' completion of operating experience, are not committee 
recommendations but are parallel to the basic committee's 
recommendation. The final amendments are as follows:
    1. The present requirement in Sec. 121.434(a), which prohibits a 
certificate holder from using any person ``as a required crewmember on 
an airplane unless he has completed, on that type airplane and in that 
crewmember position, the operating experience requirements required,'' 
is revised by inserting the work ``satisfactorily'' before the word 
``completed.''
    2. Operating experience requirements in Sec. 121.434 are amended to 
require that a PIC completing initial or upgrade training be observed 
during at least one flight leg by an FAA inspector in all cases, not 
just when the certificate holder's training program includes simulator 
training.
    3. Operating experience requirements in Sec. 121.434 are amended to 
require that an SIC must perform SIC duties under the supervision of an 
appropriately qualified check pilot and to eliminate the current option 
allowing an SIC to observe the performance of the duties on the flight 
deck.
    4. The hours of operating experience required in Sec. 121.434 are 
increased for PICs transitioning in Group II airplanes, and reductions 
in hours are no longer allowed for PIC initial training in Group II 
airplanes or for initial or transition training for SICs in Group II 
airplanes.
    5. Operating experience requirements for both PICs and SICs in 
Sec. 121.434 are amended to include requiring four operating cycles (at 
least two of which must be flown by the pilot). ``Operating cycle'' is 
defined in the rule as a complete flight segment consisting of a 
takeoff, climb, enroute portion, descent, and a landing.
    6. Operating experience requirements in Sec. 121.434 are amended to 
require that each PIC and SIC acquire 100 hours of line operating 
experience for consolidation of knowledge and skills within 120 days 
after completion of an airman certification practical test or 
completion of a proficiency check in the new airplane. 
``Consolidation'' is defined as the process by which a person through 
practice and practical experience increases proficiency in newly 
acquired knowledge and skills. ``Line operating flight time'' is 
defined as flight time performed in operations under part 121.
    7. A new section on operating limitations, Sec. 121.438, requires a 
PIC, when flying with an SIC who has fewer than 100 flight hours in the 
type airplane being flown, to make all takeoffs and landings during 
certain situations. This new section also requires that either a PIC or 
SIC have at least 75 hours of line operating flight time for that type 
airplane in order to be assigned to the same flight crew. (This is 
commonly called ``crew pairing.'')

History

    The FAA determined that these amendments were necessary because of 
airplane accidents and incidents that had occurred at least in part 
because of inexperienced flight crews. An accident that occurred in 
Denver in 1987 involved a Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-9-
14 which crashed on takeoff. The National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB) found that the PIC, though an experienced pilot, had very little 
total flying time in the DC-9 and was not experienced in supervising 
first officers. The SIC, who was flying the aircraft when it crashed, 
had little experience in the DC-9 and had not flown for the previous 24 
days. A second accident that occurred in New York in 1989 involved a 
USAir B-737. The NTSB found that the PIC, though experienced as an SIC, 
had only 138 hours as a PIC in air transport aircraft; the SIC, who had 
been recently hired and had just qualified for B-737 service, was 
conducting his first non-supervised line takeoff in a B-737, and also 
his first takeoff after a 39-day non-flying period.
    In response to the problem of inexperienced crews, the FAA issued 
Air Carrier Operations Bulletin (ACOB) 8-88-1 (January 21, 1988) and 
guidance to FAA field staff (July 19, 1988). The guidance to field 
staff requested that principal operations inspectors (POIs) review 
their certificate holders' policies on crew pairing and scheduling and 
send copies of these policies to FAA headquarters.
    The NTSB recommended (November 3, 1988), based on its investigation 
of the Denver accident, that the FAA issue requirements that establish 
minimum experience levels for each PIC and each SIC that would, in 
effect, ``prohibit the pairing on the same flight of pilots who have 
less than the minimum experience in their respective positions.''
    The FAA reviewed accident data, NTSB recommendations on crew 
experience, as well as past and present practices and trends in the 
aviation environment that are affecting crew experience levels. For 
example, the practice of bidding for flight crew schedules, which is 
used by air carriers, results in the most experienced pilots obtaining 
the most desirable schedules and the least experienced pilots obtaining 
the least desirable schedules. Often the least experienced pilots are 
assigned to a reserve pool and may have to wait days or weeks before 
they receive a flight assignment. This system often prevents newly 
qualified pilots from using and perfecting their new flight skills 
immediately after qualifying [[Page 20859]] on a new aircraft. It also 
increases the likelihood of pairing inexperienced pilots on the same 
flight.
    Also, in recent years manufacturers have introduced a greater 
number of new aircraft containing more equipment and systems variations 
within type. Pilots must not only learn different aircraft handling 
characteristics but they must also be able to work with a variety of 
aircraft equipment such as automated flight control and flight 
management systems.
    In response to these concerns about the experience level of crews, 
the FAA requested the Joint Government/industry Task Force on Flight 
Crew Performance, which was established in 1987, to form a committee to 
develop recommendations for establishing crew pairing requirements.\1\ 
On September 13, 1990, the committee recommended requiring all 
certificate holders operating under part 121 to provide a minimum level 
of experience for pilot crews. Specifically, the committee recommended 
the consolidation requirements, operating restrictions, and crew 
pairing restrictions. The FAA has incorporated, with some 
modifications, those recommendations in this rulemaking.

    \1\This task force was later subsumed by the Air Transportation 
Personnel Training and Qualifications Advisory Committee, 
established by FAA Order 1110.115, May 2, 1990, which committee was 
subsequently subsumed under the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Discussion

    The FAA received 14 comments on the proposed rule. These comments 
were from air carriers, pilot organizations, the NTSB, and one 
individual. Most of the commenters voice general support for the rule 
as a whole but have suggestions for changes to specific requirements. 
The following is a discussion of general comments and specific comments 
on each requirement in the rule.

General Comments

    NTSB says that the proposed rule effectively responds to its safety 
recommendations following two accidents involving the pairing of 
inexperienced pilots (Safety Recommendations A-88-107 and A-90-107 and 
-108).
    The Air Transport Association (ATA) and an individual airline say 
that the proposed rule is not justified because Air Carrier Operations 
Bulletin 8-88-1 (issued in 1988 and revised in 1991) effectively 
provides guidelines in the scheduling and pairing of pilots as well as 
recommended actions for pilots with low experience levels. ATA says 
that the proposed rule would add further, unjustified restrictions to 
this ACOB.
    The Boeing Company (Boeing) generally agrees with the proposed rule 
but says that the changes do not address the practice whereby 
commercial transport manufacturers' pilots help air carriers to 
introduce new airplane models into revenue service. Boeing says that 
the proposed rule would prevent manufacturers from providing this 
support to air carriers and that this support is needed for safe 
initial line operations when air carriers do not have pilots with 
significant experience in airplane models new to carriers.

FAA Response

    While the FAA recognizes that many air carriers have initiated crew 
pairing policies based on the ACOB, the guidance is not mandatory. The 
FAA intended the guidance as an interim action to be followed by 
mandatory rules. The FAA believes that the seriousness of the situation 
warrants rulemaking. Since most air carriers are already complying with 
the guidance, the FAA does not believe the rulemaking will be an 
excessive burden to the industry as a whole.
    The FAA does not believe this rulemaking will interfere with 
commercial transport airplane manufacturers providing pilots to assist 
air carriers during the introduction of new airplane types into revenue 
service. The FAA believes that this can be accomplished within the rule 
as proposed and adopted. Sections 121.434(h)(5) and 121.438(b) provide 
for the Administrator to issue deviations to certificate holders from 
the line operating experience requirements of Sec. 121.434(g) and the 
crew pairing limitations of Sec. 121.438(b) if special circumstances 
warrant.

Comments on Specific Sections

Section 121.431(b)--Applicability

    Currently, Sec. 121.431(b) states that the airplane groups and 
definitions prescribed in Sec. 121.400 apply to subpart O. The amended 
paragraph (b) adds definitions for the terms ``consolidation,'' ``line 
operating flight time,'' and ``operating cycle.''
    Four comments were received on the definitions and applicability. 
One commenter says that rather than use the term ``line operating 
flight time,'' the term ``flight time'' should be used so that all 
flight time (not just FAR part 121 flying) is counted towards 
consolidation. Two commenters say that the term ``consolidation'' is 
misleading in the NPRM because it describes a process by which 
proficiency is gained through practice and practical experience. Since, 
currently, pilots take proficiency checks prior to consolidation, 
commenters suggest that a different term be used.
    The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) says that the proposed rule 
should apply to part 135 operations as well. According to ALPA, this 
would be responsive to NTSB recommendation A-88-137 which recommends 
minimum experience levels for PICs and SICs in part 135 operations.

FAA Response

    The FAA intended that only line operating flight time, which is 
flight time performed in part 121 operations, be counted towards 
consolidation. The purpose of consolidation is to provide pilots flight 
experience in line operations in the airplane type that the pilot is 
newly qualified within a reasonable time after training in order to 
consolidate their skills and knowledge. Other flight time outside of a 
certificate holder's line operations may not provide the same 
experience.
    As stated in the NPRM, the FAA used the term ``consolidation,'' as 
recommended by the task force committee, with some reservation because 
the term is used in psychology books to identify a period of time that 
is part of the training/learning process or that occurs almost 
immediately after a training or teaching session. While it is true that 
a defined consolidation period may begin after a pilot has completed a 
proficiency check, proficiency is increased throughout a pilot's line 
operating flying experience and proficiency checks are conducted 
regularly throughout a pilot's career. The FAA believes that 
``consolidation'' is an acceptable term for the concept but to avoid 
any confusion the definition has been revised by changing the words 
``becomes proficient'' to ``increases proficiency.''
    The FAA is not extending these requirements to part 135 in this 
rulemaking since it is beyond the scope of the notice. However, the FAA 
has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to require that 
part 135 certificate holders who conduct commuter operations with 
airplanes for which two pilots are required, or have a passenger 
seating configuration of 10 or more seats, train and qualify 
crewmembers in accordance with the requirements of part 121, subparts N 
and O. [See Federal Register 59 FR 64272, dated December 13, 
1994.] [[Page 20860]] 

Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii)--Observation by FAA Inspector (Operating 
Experience)

    Currently Sec. 121.434(c)(1)(ii) requires that when a PIC is 
obtaining operating experience at least one flight leg that includes a 
takeoff and landing must be observed by an FAA inspector if the 
certificate holder's approved training program includes simulator 
training under Sec. 121.409(c) and if a qualifying pilot in command is 
completing initial or upgrade training specified in Sec. 121.424. The 
revised paragraph deletes the reference to simulator training in the 
certificate holder's approved training program. The FAA inspector 
observation requirement will, therefore, apply to all PICs obtaining 
operating experience if they are completing initial or upgrade 
training.
    Five comments were received on this issue. Two commenters point out 
that the original purpose of requiring FAA inspector observation was to 
validate simulator training. Since the onset of the advanced simulation 
program (FAR Appendix H) tens of thousands of pilots have been 
successfully trained using advanced simulation. According to 
commenters, in view of the excellent experience with advanced 
simulation, the requirement for FAA observation should now be dropped, 
not expanded. Adding to this requirement would not enhance safety and 
would be administratively and financially burdensome. These commenters, 
as well as three others, say that there is a shortage of available, 
qualified FAA inspectors and this requirement will cause scheduling 
programs if personal observation of flight legs by an FAA inspector is 
required. The result will be costly delays in an airline's ability to 
use newly qualified PICs. One commenter points out that even under the 
current system, carriers face significant and expensive delays awaiting 
the availability of an FAA inspector and that the proposal would 
exacerbate this problem.
    ATA, United, and the Regional Airline Association (RAA) recommend 
that this proposal be eliminated. ATA points out that if the proposal 
is implemented, the observation could take place on a pilot's first 
line trip and could be administered by an inspector who is not 
qualified on the aircraft being flown.
    Three commenters, including American Airlines and RAA, recommend 
that Designated Examiners and Aircrew Program Designees be allowed to 
observe the flight leg when FAA inspector schedules are not compatible 
and completion of the operating experience would be delayed.

FAA Response

    The initial observation requirement was implemented to provide an 
opportunity for the FAA to observe a pilot in performance of his or her 
duties before the pilot completes initial operating experience if the 
certificate holder's training program included simulator training. 
Since almost all certificate holder training programs under part 121 
now include simulator training, deleting the reference to simulator 
training does not significantly affect the current practices of 
certificate holders or the FAA. The FAA finds that the initial purpose 
of the observation requirement is still valid: to provide the FAA an 
opportunity to observe the PIC before he or she assumes unsupervised 
operations in an airplane; to validate the certificate holder's 
training program; and to provide the FAA with a quality control 
mechanism for evaluating the certificate holder's designated check 
pilot program.
    The FAA finds that allowing Designated Examiners or Aircrew Program 
Designees to substitute for FAA inspectors would not satisfy the 
purpose of this observation as described above.

Section 121.434(c)(2)--SIC Supervised Operating Experience

    Current Sec. 121.434(c)(2) requires that an SIC pilot perform the 
duties of an SIC under the supervision of a check pilot or observe the 
performance of the duties on the flight deck. The revision eliminates 
the option to observe. The revised rule requires that an SIC pilot 
acquire operating experience by performing actual SIC duties (and not 
simply by observing another SIC) under the supervision of a qualified 
check pilot.
    Two comments were received on this requirement. Both commenters 
agree with the proposal and say that it would ensure that newly trained 
SICs immediately begin consolidating newly developed skills by actually 
performing line operations and flying the airplane. Both commenters 
point out that the current system of gaining credit toward operating 
experience by passively observing another SIC is ineffective and does 
not promote proficiency. In addition, NTSB says that the proposal is 
responsive to NTSB recommendation A-88-138 which was issued after a 
Continental Airlines accident in Denver in November 1987.

Section 121.434(c)(3)--Hours of Operating Experience and Operating 
Cycles

    The current rule requires specific numbers of hours of operating 
experience for all pilots for initial and transition training in Group 
I and II airplanes as follows: (1) For initial training: 15 hours in 
Group I reciprocating powered airplanes, 20 hours in Group I 
turbopropeller airplanes, and 25 hours in Group II airplanes; (2) For 
transition training: 10 hours in Group I reciprocating powered 
airplanes, 12 hours in Group I turbopropeller powered airplanes, and 15 
hours for Group II airplanes. The amended rule changes transition 
training hours for Group II to 25 hours for PICs; 15 hours continues to 
apply for SICs. The amended rule also requires that operating 
experience include at least 4 operating cycles (at least 2 as the pilot 
flying the airplane).
    Three comments were received on this issue. Two of the comments 
overlap with reduction requirements of revised Sec. 121.434(f)(1) and 
will be discussed in that section of this preamble.
    ALPA supports the proposed rule's requirement that the pilot 
receiving the supervised operating experience be the pilot flying the 
aircraft in at least two operating cycles. ALPA agrees that this will 
ensure that qualifying pilots obtain experience in all critical phases 
of a flight operation (takeoff, climb, en route portion, descent, and 
landing) and provide safeguards against meeting supervised operating 
hours without completing all aspects of a cycle (as in long range 
flights).

Section 121.434(f)--Reduction of Operating Experience Hours

    The current rule allows the hours required in Sec. 121.434(c)(3), 
among other sections, to be reduced up to 50 percent for all pilots by 
substituting one additional takeoff and landing for each hour of 
flight. The amended rule continues to allow the reduction for Group I 
airplanes for initial and transition operating experience and for Group 
II airplanes for PIC transitional operating experience. The amended 
rule would not allow PICs meeting initial training operating experience 
requirements in Group II airplanes or SICs meeting either initial or 
transition training operating experience in Group II airplanes to 
reduce the number of required hours of operating experience in these 
type airplanes.
    Two comments were received on this issue, plus two that were 
submitted as comments on the number of hours required but are discussed 
here since [[Page 20861]] they pertain to reducing the required hours. 
Two commenters state that since the rule requires at least 4 operating 
cycles (at least 2 as the pilot flying), then PICs and SICs should be 
allowed to reduce the operating experience time by one hour for each 
takeoff and landing following the two operating cycles that are 
required. These commenters also say that the reduction should apply to 
initial, upgrade, and transition categories.
    United Airlines says that ``hour requirements for transition 
training PICs should be reducible for cycles for Group II airplanes 
just as is proposed for Group I airplanes'' and that ``if transition 
training SICs in Group II airplanes also had a 25 hour requirement 
instead of 15 hours, that time should also be reducible for cycles.''
    RAA says that the proposed rule ``appears to limit the reduction 
option in Group I airplanes to transition only'' and that this option 
should also apply to initial and upgrade training.
    ALPA agrees with the proposal because it would ``eliminate the 
capability to reduce the required hours of supervised operating 
experience according to the number of takeoffs and landings for all 
pilots except those transitioning as pilot in command'' and that ``this 
will allow an additional amount of time for pilots to become 
comfortable in their operating seat in their operational environment 
while under supervision.''

FAA Response

    The proposed and final rule state that flight crewmembers may 
substitute one additional takeoff and landing for each hour of flight 
up to a maximum reduction of 50 percent (with the exceptions described 
above). The FAA intends that after completing the four required cycles, 
a pilot may achieve a reduction in required flight hours for each 
additional takeoff and landing. This is intended to ensure that pilots 
obtain adequate hours of line flight experience while still recognizing 
that short flights, with frequent takeoffs and landings, may provide 
experience equal to longer flights.
    The change that will not allow a reduction for PICs meeting initial 
operating experience is necessary because of the importance of PICs 
gaining additional experience operating an aircraft's sophisticated 
automated equipment during initial operating experience. Both the 
increase in hours in this category and not allowing any reduction in 
hours reflect the need for thorough experience in operating the 
different equipment installed in the airplane. Likewise the reduction 
for SICs in Group II airplanes has been eliminated because SICs have 
more responsibilities in the more sophisticated aircraft that have two-
person cockpits.
    The reduction continues to apply to all pilots in Group I 
airplanes.
    Although the FAA has made no substantive changes to the rule 
language in the NPRM, paragraph (f) has been rewritten to make the 
intent clearer.

Section 121.434(g)--Consolidation

    This new rule requires that PICs and SICs acquire at least 100 
hours of line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and 
skills within 120 days after satisfactory completion of a type rating 
practical test or an initial proficiency check. In the NPRM, the FAA 
specifically requested comments on the feasibility and adequacy of the 
120-day period. The committee recommended that consolidation consist of 
100 hours of line operating flight time and that if the 100 hours was 
not completed in 120 days, an airman must receive additional training 
before extending the consolidation period.
    Seven comments were received on this requirement. Three commenters 
say that the 75-hour threshold used for crew pairing (121.438(b)) 
should also be used for consolidation rather than 100 hours. These 
commenters say that 75 hours would be sufficient as a minimum number of 
flight hours within the 120 days to ensure that the newly-acquired 
piloting skills are not lost once training and testing have ended. In 
addition, using 75 hours would simplify tracking and recordkeeping 
requirements associated with both consolidation and crew pairing. 
Finally, RAA comments that using a 75-hour requirement is further 
supported because this was the number originally used in the Task Force 
recommendation.
    ALPA recommends that the consolidation period be reduced to 100 
days or that refresher training be required. This would ensure the 
newly trained pilot a timely completion of consolidation with as little 
interruption as possible.
    ALPA also responds to the FAA's projection that 10 percent of 
crewmembers would not be able to complete consolidation in the required 
time by saying that airlines should be able to allow crewmembers in 
consolidation to get the required flight time. ALPA states that during 
a pilot's consolidation period, instead of being assigned to reserve 
status, airlines should be able to schedule these crewmembers on a 
regular basis without any additional costs being incurred. Further, 
ALPA says that if an airline displaces a line holding pilot to let a 
reserve pilot fly, there should be no net cost increase because pilots 
assigned to reserve status are guaranteed monthly minimum pay by the 
airline regardless of how many hours they fly.
    Two commenters, United Airlines and ATA, say that in certain short 
range operations, consolidation will occur long before the 100 hour 
requirement is met because of the cycles flown. ATA says that the 
experience gained by pilots involved in short haul operations from 
multiple departures and takeoffs should be recognized by the FAA. These 
commenters therefore recommend a reduction of required consolidation 
line operating flight time at a rate of one hour for one cycle to a 
maximum of 50 percent reduction in hours.
    RAA says that the proposed rule does not ensure that the clock (to 
complete consolidation) would begin at the same time for individual 
pilots. RAA says that it is possible that a PIC and SIC who were 
checked the same day in the simulator and completed their checks the 
same day in the aircraft would not have the same time remaining to 
complete the 100 hours of experience. Thus, RAA recommends that the 
phrase ``Any part of '' be removed from Sec. 121.434(g)(1).
    Alaska Airlines says that the consolidation requirement would have 
a great economic impact on air carriers because senior pilots would be 
displaced by junior pilots needing to complete consolidation 
requirements. Alaska adds that labor unions might not be willing to 
``forgo the seniority benefits assured within their agreements without 
first demanding compensation for those affected by the loss of their 
seniority rights.''

FAA Response

    There is no reduction in consolidation hours allowed for the number 
of takeoffs and landings. While operating experience hours may be 
reduced in accordance with revised Sec. 121.434(f), consolidation hours 
may not be reduced. As stated in the NPRM preamble, the crew pairing 
committee concluded and the FAA agrees that it is important for a pilot 
who has qualified in an airplane to have an opportunity to consolidate 
the newly developed piloting skills and procedural knowledge through 
substantial line operating experience in the airplane within a 
reasonably short time after completing training and satisfactorily 
demonstrating proficiency. Pilots who have satisfactorily completed 
training and demonstrated proficiency in an airplane and who do not 
soon thereafter consolidate the newly acquired [[Page 20862]] knowledge 
and skills in actual line operations may lose proficiency in the newly 
acquired knowledge and skills.
    The FAA recognizes that the 120-day consolidation period may not 
start at the same time for every pilot since it either begins after the 
satisfactory completion of a Sec. 121.441 proficiency check or after 
the satisfactory completion of any part of the flight maneuvers and 
procedures portion of either an airline transport pilot certificate 
with type rating practical test or an additional type rating practical 
test. The purpose in stating the rule this way with respect to a 
practical test is to ensure that a pilot certificate rating program 
will not be extended to the point that a loss of knowledge and skills 
would occur. By requiring the consolidation period to begin at the 
completion of any portion of the program, the carrier has an incentive 
to complete the pilot's rating program within a reasonable period.
    The FAA recognizes that the consolidation requirement may affect 
crew scheduling. How much it will affect scheduling depends on the way 
carriers are now scheduling pilots who have recently acquired a type 
rating. The FAA recognizes that there may be some incremental increase 
in costs to comply with this final rule. However given that carriers 
have 120 days to complete the consolidation period for its pilots, and 
that a 30-day extension is available in certain circumstances, with 
careful scheduling, this consolidation can be accomplished without an 
excessive burden. It is in the interests of the air carrier, the 
pilots, and the public that these pilots obtain experience in the 
airplane within a reasonable time after being qualified.
    In response to Alaska Airlines, the FAA notes that although senior 
pilots may require compensation, reserve pilots normally are paid on a 
fixed base salary; thus, the total cost of remuneration for both pilots 
should be the same.
    In response to RAA, the FAA has no knowledge of a Task Force 
recommendation that included a 75-hour consolidation period.
    A 100-day consolidation period suggested by ALPA would be beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking. In addition, the FAA notes that this 
suggestion was not part of ALPA's minority opinion filed with the Task 
Force recommendations.

Section 121.434(h)--Exceptions (Pilots Who Have Completed Line 
Operating Flight Time as an SIC on a Particular Type Airplane)

    In the NPRM paragraph (h)(1) said that pilots who have qualified 
and served as second in command on a particular type airplane (before 
the effective date of the rule) are not required to complete line 
operating flight time for consolidation as pilot in command. Similarly, 
paragraph (h)(2) said that pilots who have completed line operating 
flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills while serving as 
second in command on a particular type airplane (after the effective 
date) are not required to meet consolidation requirements on the same 
type airplane.
    The one comment received on these requirements does not agree with 
the proposal. ALPA says that the knowledge and skills required of PICs 
and SICs differ, and that there may also be substantial differences 
between aircraft even though they have common type ratings. ALPA also 
comments that there could be a considerable lapse of time between 
flying as SIC and PIC with another aircraft flown in between. Thus, 
ALPA believes that all crewmembers should go through the consolidation 
process.

 FAA Response

    The exception permitted by Sec. 121.434(h) addresses upgrade 
training, specifically, upgrading from SIC to PIC in the same airplane 
type. It does not include upgrading from flight engineer to SIC in the 
same type airplane. By definition, upgrade training is that training 
required for crewmembers who have qualified and served on a particular 
type airplane before they can serve in another duty position on the 
same type airplane. In other words, the upgrading pilot would by 
definition be familiar with that airplane, and the FAA believes that 
the operational experience requirement along with previous experience 
on that type airplane adequately addresses consolidation.
    The FAA has determined that the language in proposed 
Sec. 121.434(h)(1) unintentionally limited the grandfathering of 
current pilots to SICs who may upgrade to PIC at some future point. The 
FAA intended that all PICs and SICs who have qualified for their 
positions before the effective date of the final rule would not need to 
complete consolidation. The rule language has been changed to reflect 
this intent.

Section 121.434(h)(3)--Refresher Training

    New paragraph (h)(3) requires a pilot who flies another airplane 
type before completing the required 100 hours of line operating flight 
time to complete refresher training in the airplane for which the pilot 
has newly qualified. The NPRM states that training must be conducted by 
a qualified check pilot.
    Four comments were received on this requirement. One commenter says 
that the proposal is not necessary, but if it is kept, then it should 
also include restrictions from flying other types of aircraft including 
military reserve aircraft.
    Alaska Airlines says that the term ``refresher training'' is vague 
and could result in inconsistent requirements that were minimal in some 
cases and stringent in others. Alaska points out that ``re-
qualification programs'' are designed to provide students with training 
to reacquaint them with an aircraft type from which they have been 
absent for a specific period of time, such as extended military leaves. 
Alaska says that the proposed rule, in contrast, would deal with 
students who are current with no appreciable lapses in exposure to the 
equipment type they would be trained on. This commenter adds that its 
own re-qualification training program does not require additional 
flight training for those absent less than 90 days.
    United Airlines and ATA say that refresher training should not 
require a check airman and that it should be conducted by a qualified 
flight instructor. Thus, the proposed rule should be modified 
accordingly.

FAA Response

    The amount of refresher training depends on the extent of the lapse 
and what skills and knowledge have been lost during the lapse. As the 
FAA stated in the NPRM preamble, each certificate holder must develop 
training objectives for refresher training for each make and model 
airplane used in part 121 operations. Refresher training should ensure 
that pilots have retained, or are allowed to regain, the level or 
proficiency needed to serve in part 121 operations. This qualification 
training should focus on, among other things, procedural knowledge 
regarding the operation of the aircraft (e.g., programming the 
aircraft's flight management system) and other critical skills such as 
engine inoperative approaches and missed approaches. Refresher training 
may consist of special purpose operational training or an airplane 
flight training period when a flight simulator or flight training 
device is unavailable. Special purpose operational training is 
described in AC 120-35b, ``Line Operational Simulations: Line-Oriented 
Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, and Line 
Operational Evaluation.''
[[Page 20863]]

    The FAA agrees with the comment that refresher training could be 
conducted by a check pilot or qualified flight instructor and has 
changed this final rule accordingly.
    The requirement specifies types of aircraft operated by the part 
121 certificate holder; it does not include military reserve aircraft 
or any other aircraft not operated under part 121.

Section 121.434(h)(4)--Extension of Consolidation Period From 120 to 
150 Days

    New paragraph (h)(4) allows the consolidation period to be extended 
from 120 days to 150 days if the pilot satisfactorily completes 
refresher training or a check pilot determines that the pilot has 
retained an adequate level of proficiency after observing the pilot in 
a supervised line operating flight.
    Four comments were received on this requirement. Alaska Airlines 
does not believe that any limit on the consolidation period will affect 
safety or proficiency. As long as a student is determined to be 
continually proficient through reevaluation by a qualified check pilot, 
there is no need to limit the length of the consolidation period. 
Another commenter recommends that the consolidation period be 
extendable to 180 days, not 150 days.
    RAA recommends that carriers have the option of selecting a five-
month period for consolidation, rather than 120 days, because most 
carriers observe a monthly cycle. If consolidation were to start at the 
beginning of a month, carriers would be limited in the number of flying 
assignments they could make to new PICs and SICs. RAA states that as 
many as 25 or 30 days could be lost under this circumstance and that a 
five-month option would give carriers a greater ability to make 
assignments to achieve the consolidation objective.
    NTSB believes that the 120-day consolidation period is feasible 
under virtually all circumstances but also supports an extension to 150 
days if the required 100 hours of operating flight time cannot be 
completed in 120 days. However, NTSB stresses that such extensions 
should be approved only under extenuating circumstances and in strict 
compliance with the additional requirements of the proposed rule as a 
whole. Otherwise, the intended consolidation and stabilization of a 
pilot's newly acquired knowledge and skills would be compromised.

FAA Response

    The FAA has determined that extending the consolidation period 
beyond 150 days is not in the interest of consolidating a newly trained 
pilot's skills and knowledge. Once training and checking are completed, 
the pilot needs to practice recently learned skills in line operations 
in order to master the skills.
    The FAA finds that 180 days would be too long to achieve 100 hours 
of consolidation.
    The problem raised by RAA is a scheduling problem; requiring 100 
hours of line operating flight time within a 120-day period should not 
present a problem that cannot be managed since the average pilot flies 
approximately 60-70 hours per month.
    The FAA recognizes that consolidation of skills within 120 days is 
preferable to an extension; however, for those instances, for any 
reason, when a pilot has had less than 100 hours in 120 days, it does 
not seem reasonable to require that the pilot repeat the entire 
qualification program. A refresher training course should be sufficient 
to compensate for the lapsed time.

Section 121.434(h)(5)--Deviations From Consolidation Requirements

    New paragraph (h)(5) allows the Administrator to authorize 
deviations from consolidation requirements when: (1) A new certificate 
holder does not employ any pilots who have met the consolidation 
requirements, or (2) a certificate holder is adding new airplanes to 
its fleet, or (3) a certificate holder is reassigning pilots to a new 
domicile where they will be operating a different aircraft type.
    One comment was received on this requirement. Boeing recommends 
specific language changes to this paragraph so that it would apply to 
manufacturers as well as to certificate holders and to training 
programs as well as to certificate holders' operations specifications. 
Boeing states that without these changes the rule will ``prevent 
manufacturers from providing the level of support for initial line 
operations that is required for a safe operation when an air carrier 
does not have pilots with a significant experience base in an airplane 
new to the carrier.''

FAA Response

    Paragraph (h)(5)(ii) provides that, as one of the circumstances for 
being eligible for a deviation, a certificate holder adds to its fleet 
a type airplane not before proven for use in its operations. If a 
manufacturer provides pilots for the certificate holder's operations 
and these pilots do not meet the requirements of paragraph (g), the 
certificate holder would apply for the deviation. Since manufacturers 
are not part 121 certificate holders, they cannot apply for the 
deviation.

Section 121.438(a)--Operating Limitations--Takeoffs and Landings

    The new rule requires PICs (other than check airmen), when paired 
with SICs with less than 100 hours of line operational flight time in 
that type airplane, to make all takeoffs and landings at special 
airports or under certain conditions.
    Two comments on the general nature of the requirement were 
received. Alaska Airlines says that takeoff and landing decisions 
should be made by the PIC and be based on the conditions present during 
the operation. In some cases, the SIC may have more hours in the type 
airplane than the PIC and would be more experienced in takeoffs and 
landings in that type airplane. The proposed rule could, therefore, 
compromise safety.
    ALPA agrees with the intent of the proposed rule and supports PICs 
making takeoffs and landings in cases where SICs have minimal flight 
hours in the type of airplane being flown. However, ALPA believes that 
the PIC should have more latitude in making takeoff and landing 
decisions. For example, in cases of many short flights and poor weather 
conditions, it could become very fatiguing for the PIC to make every 
takeoff and landing; in cases such as these, it may be more appropriate 
for the SIC to make a takeoff or landing.
    United Airlines and ATA believe that the proposed rule on special 
airports is too restrictive and that PICs should have discretion in 
making this decision on a case-by-case basis determined by operational 
considerations. United says that certain operations at some special 
airports are ``entirely unremarkable'' and that PICs should be given 
the ability to allow SICs to land at such airports. On a similar note, 
ATA says that in cases where a crew must fly several turnarounds to 
another special airport in a single day's flying, the PIC should be 
given the option of allowing the SIC to complete a takeoff and landing.
    RAA and another commenter say that proposed Sec. 121.438(a)(2)(vii) 
would provide an acceptable alternative to the special airports 
requirement; it would give PICs the prerogative to permit or deny SICs 
to land or takeoff at a special airport (or for any other conditions).
    Alaska Airlines says that the proposed rule would restrict its 
operations by preventing new first officers from making landings in 30 
percent of Alaska's airports and 100 percent of Russia's airports. This 
would also adversely affect the training process because pilots would 
be restricted from gaining experience at special airports while their 
``procedural awareness is at [[Page 20864]] its highest level.'' This 
would detract from the preparation already given the pilot and have a 
negative impact on safety.
    Alaska Airlines states that Sec. 121.438(a)(2)(iii) is too 
restrictive. Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) requires a PIC to make the takeoff 
and landing if the runway has water, snow, slush, or similar conditions 
that may adversely affect airplane performance. Alaska Airlines says 
that this limitation would force the airlines's PICs to make all 
landings during the months between September and April or May. This 
commenter says that proposed Sec. 121.438(a)(2)(iv) which sets forth 
operating limitations based on the level of braking action on runways 
would adequately cover the issue of poor runway conditions. Alaska 
Airlines also points out that the task force originally recommended 
that ``runway braking action of less than `good' be the limiting factor 
in determining when a PIC must make the landing.''

FAA Response

    If the SIC has more than 100 hours in the type airplane, the 
restrictions do not apply. The rule will not restrict SICs from gaining 
experience at special airports or under certain adverse conditions 
after they have 100 hours of experience in the type airplane; however, 
the rule will restrict SICs from gaining that experience within the 
first 100 hours under circumstances that could compromise safety.
    The FAA has determined that requiring PICs to make takeoffs and 
landings at special airports even though the assigned SIC may have more 
operational experience in the aircraft is consistent with the 
operational responsibilities of the PIC. The PIC, by designation, is 
always in control of the aircraft. If a PIC is too fatigued to make a 
takeoff or landing, the PIC should not be on duty.

Section 121.438(b)--75-hour Limit (Pairing Limitations)

    This new rule requires that either a PIC or SIC have at least 75 
hours of line operating flight time for that type airplane in order to 
be assigned to the same flightcrew. In the NPRM preamble the FAA 
specifically requested comments on whether the 75-hour limit should be 
increased to 100 hours as recommended by ALPA. The FAA also requested 
comments on how this requirement should be applied. The FAA explained 
in the NPRM preamble that the committee recommendation applies these 
crew pairing restrictions only to PICs and SICs who are qualifying for 
those positions for the first time in the airplane, i.e., initial PICs 
and SICs. The committee recommendation does not apply the restrictions 
if a pilot is upgrading from SIC to PIC on the same airplane type or is 
transitioning from one airplane type to another. Under the committee 
recommendation, a new PIC in a particular type airplane with only 25 
hours of operating experience in that airplane could be paired with an 
SIC who has transitioned from another airplane type and who has only 15 
hours of operating experience in the airplane type. This is in contrast 
to the ALPA recommendation that the restrictions also apply to 
transitioning pilots.
    The FAA proposed in the NPRM that the 75-hour minimum crew pairing 
restrictions also apply to transitioning pilots.
    The rule also provides for authorizing deviations (in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (b)(3)) when: (1) A new certificate holder does not 
employ any pilots who meet the minimum requirements of this paragraph; 
(2) an existing certificate holder adds to its fleet a type airplane 
not before proven for use in its operations; or (3) an existing 
certificate holder establishes a new domicile to which it assigns 
pilots who will be required to become qualified on the airplanes 
operated from that domicile.
    Eleven comments were received on this subject. Five of these 
commenters, including United, RAA, and ATA, believe that the 75-hour 
requirement is sufficient and that it should not be increased to 100 
hours as recommended. Supporters of the proposed rule say that any 
additional hours would increase the burden on air carriers and 
complicate the crew scheduling process by extending the number of 
months necessary to complete the required number of hours. RAA says 
that any of the three components of the entire proposed rule 
(consolidation, operating limitations, and crew pairing) would achieve 
what the FAA is seeking since none of these constraints currently 
exist; thus, additional hourly requirements related to crew pairing are 
unnecessary. Finally, United, ATA, and RAA say that 75 hours may be an 
arbitrary number but that it will achieve the FAA's objective without 
being overly burdensome.
    Three commenters are against the 75-hour requirement and recommend 
using a 100 hour-requirement. ALPA says that these hours should apply 
to crew position and airplane type and that the hours should begin 
after supervised operating experience. ALPA also states that previous 
time in another crew position in the same airplane type should not be 
counted in the 100 hours. ALPA concludes that 100 hours would more 
realistically allow a crewmember to become comfortable in the aircraft 
without concerns for the experience level of other crewmembers.
    Similarly, the NTSB believes that 75 hours is insufficient for a 
crewmember to become comfortable and experienced enough with the 
airplane type to safely handle a problem if one arises. NTSB recommends 
that an initial PIC and initial SIC each have at least 100 hours in 
their respective positions on the airplane in which they have most 
recently qualified.
    The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations 
believes that the 75 hour requirement should be increased to at least 
100 hours post-supervision time for PICs and SICs on airplane type.
    Alaska Airlines Expresses concern that 75 hours seems arbitrary and 
asks whether lengthening the period would improve safety. This 
commenter further says that ``the longer the period of the pairing 
restriction, the greater the number of reserve pilots that will be 
required in order to insure sufficient pilots are available to staff 
every possible pairing.''
    Horizon Air supports the 75 hour requirement but recommends that if 
it is issued as a final rule, the consolidation requirement in 
Sec. 121.434(g) be dropped. Horizon estimates that up to 20 percent of 
its pilots would not complete their consolidation in the requisite 
time, resulting in refresher training which would be very costly.
    Five commenters address the issue of including transitioning pilots 
in the proposed crew pairing requirement. United Airlines does not 
object to the requirement applying to all pilots, including 
transitioning and upgrading pilots although it currently applies 
pairing restrictions only to initial training pilots.
    Similarly, the NTSB believes that crew pairing restrictions (of 100 
hours) should apply to upgrading and transitioning pilots. NTSB says 
that including upgrading pilots would provide PICs with additional 
seasoning experience before being paired with an inexperienced SIC; and 
that including transitioning pilots would ensure that they receive the 
operating experience they need in the newer glass cockpit, automated 
airplanes before being paired with an inexperienced PIC or SIC.
    RAA does not support the inclusion of transitioning pilots and says 
that ``the event which have been used as a basis for issuing this rule 
have involved only crewmembers following initial training for their 
position.'' RAA adds that [[Page 20865]] transition training is 
currently successful for hundreds of thousands of pilots and that this 
should be reason enough to exclude them from the proposed rule.
    Alaska Airlines is against the inclusion of transitioning pilots in 
the proposed rule because they believe that a transitioning pilot is 
very experienced in an employer's routes and procedures. Because of 
this overall experience, transitioning to a new airplane type is not 
that difficult and should not be subject to any crew pairing 
limitations.
    Two commenters address the proposed rule's deviation authority. AMR 
Eagle, Inc. says that deviation authority should be designed so that 
carriers can adjust crew pairing guidelines to the complexity of the 
operation while insuring schedule reliability and safety. AMR 
recommends that an additional condition be allowed for deviation 
authority: Operations during the day, VMC where no critical flight 
conditions are expected.
    RAA says that the conditions for deviation authority presented in 
Secs. 121.438 (b)(1) through (b)(3) are too limiting and recommends 
that a fourth paragraph be added which states: ``The certificate holder 
identifies circumstances not covered in (1), (2) or (3) which are 
acceptable to the Administrator in granting a deviation to these 
requirements.''
    Finally, Boeing requests that the deviation applicability be 
extended to manufacturers.

FAA Response

    The FAA believes that the increased level of safety attained in 
this final rule is accomplished through the combination of its 
requirements (i.e., strengthening initial operating experience 
requirements, requiring a 100-hour knowledge and skill consolidation 
period for both SICs upgrading to PIC and PICs transitioning to new or 
different types of airplanes; requiring PICs, when paired with SICs 
with fewer than 100 hours of pilot flight time in that aircraft type, 
to make all takeoffs and landings under certain conditions; and the 75-
hour pilot pairing restriction) rather than any one single requirement.
    Requiring 75 hours of pilot experience in the type aircraft being 
flown for either the PIC or the SIC provides an additional level of 
crew qualification experience. By including transitioning pilots in 
this rule the FAA establishes that the most important aspect of pilot 
pairing is total pilot flight experience in the airplane rather than 
requiring seat-specific experience. Also, rather than experience in the 
air carrier's procedures or route structure, the purpose of this 
pairing restriction is to ensure a minimum number of hours of combined 
pilot experience in that specific type aircraft.
    The FAA believes that total pilot crew experience required to meet 
the 75-hour pilot pairing restriction as proposed and adopted in this 
rule, in combination with the other requirements contained in this rule 
and the various pilot training and checking requirements contained in 
subpart N of part 121, accomplish the FAA's objective of increased 
safety while not being overly burdensome on the affected certificate 
holders.
    As stated in Sec. 121.438(b), the Administrator may authorize, upon 
application by the certificate holder, deviations from the pairing 
requirement that would allow certificate holders to use aircraft 
manufacturers' pilots to assist in the introduction of new aircraft 
types into the certificate holder's fleet under certain conditions.

Effective Date

    The FAA proposed a 30-day period after issuance of the final rule 
for carriers to plan and implement a system for scheduling flight crews 
to meet the new requirements. However, the FAA, in the NPRM, recognized 
that 30 days may be insufficient and invited comments on a realistic 
effective date.
    Five comments were received on the date. Four commenters say that 
30 days is inadequate and recommend a 120-day period. RAA says that the 
complexity of training programs and crew scheduling warrant additional 
time to implement changes. ATA says that revisions in crew scheduling 
software, personnel training, and policy manuals would require a 
minimum of 120 days. United Airlines recommends a 90-day period between 
issuance of the final rule and its effective date.

FAA Response

    The FAA agrees that a 30-day effective date would not allow enough 
time for certificate holders to comply with the requirements of this 
rule. The final rule is effective 120 days after the date of 
publication in the Federal Register.

Response to Comments

    Northwest Airlines states that the FAA assumed that including 
transitioning pilots in the NPRM added no cost to airlines. It presents 
data showing its costs would amount to $3.7 million for transitional 
pilots and $380,000 for initial pilots. Northwest's additional costs 
come from scheduling constraints and from union requirements to pay a 
previously scheduled pilot who is displaced by a pilot in training.

FAA Response

    The FAA estimated the cost of not pairing two inexperienced pilots, 
transitional or initial, would be the expense of developing an enhanced 
scheduling computer program. The FAA estimated the cost of developing 
this program to be $92,000. The FAA contends that through more 
efficient scheduling via enhanced scheduling software, the industry can 
avoid paying for displaced pilots.
    Alaska Airlines states that it would face higher costs to meet 
qualification requirements because of its older fleet. It argues that 
additional training in a simulator or in an aircraft (where modern 
simulation is unavailable) would require that ``operators have earlier 
vintage visual or phase I simulators for their older aircraft types. 
This will automatically create higher costs to fulfill these 
requirements.''

FAA Response

    The NPRM did not require a different training level for older 
fleets. Obtaining the additional operating experience and consolidation 
time should not vary significantly from company to company. However, 
the FAA did not account for each airline's cost structure when costing 
the proposed rule. The analysis assumed an average cost. If Alaska 
Airlines had significantly higher training costs, it incurred these 
costs not as a result of the NPRM, but from other corporate business 
decisions.
    The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) states that the FAA did not 
present the assumptions it used to estimate costs. Also, ALPA believes 
that airlines could minimize costs through efficient scheduling.

FAA Response

    The FAA included a list of assumptions it used to estimate the 
costs of the NPRM in an appendix in detailed regulatory evaluation. The 
FAA agrees with ALPA that airlines can reduce the cost of the NPRM 
through efficient scheduling.

Miscellaneous Comments

    ATA comments that the objectives of the proposed rule are identical 
to those contained in FAR 121.652 (High Minimums). ATA says that this 
rule is obsolete and that if the proposed rule is implemented, then 
Sec. 121.652 should be rescinded. [[Page 20866]] 

FAA Response

    Rescinding Sec. 121.652 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The 
FAA does not consider Sec. 121.652 to be obsolete but rather finds that 
the requirements of that section are necessary.

Editorial Changes

    In addition to the changes described above for Sec. 121.434, two 
editorial changes have been made to improve the organization of the 
section: (1) The flush paragraph that currently appears after paragraph 
(b)(3) has been incorporated into new paragraph (a)(3); and (2) the 
flush paragraph that currently appears after paragraph (f) has been 
designated as paragraph (i) to appear after new paragraph (h).
    In Sec. 121.434(c)(2), a second in command pilot must perform the 
duties of a second in command under the supervision of an appropriately 
trained check pilot. In the NPRM, both in the preamble and in the rule 
language, the FAA used the term ``pilot check airman'' and should have 
used the term ``check pilot'' as it is presently stated in the rule. A 
check pilot is a subset of check airman; a check flight engineer is 
also a subset of check airman. Consequently, the more accurate and 
precise term for the person supervising a SIC's IOE is ``check pilot.'' 
Thus, the FAA retains the terminology of ``check pilot'' in this final 
rule. The FAA considers this a minor, editorial change.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each 
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess 
the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting 
these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) Would 
generate benefits that justify its costs and is not ``a significant 
regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is 
significant as defined in Department of Transportation's Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures; (3) would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities; and (4) would not constitute a 
barrier to international trade. These analyses, available in the 
docket, are summarized below.

Costs

    The FAA estimates the net cost of the final rule over the next 10 
years to be approximately $45.2 million, with a present value of $31.3 
million (7 percent discount, 1993 dollars). This cost estimate includes 
the additional expense of a check pilot's time to supervise additional 
PIC transition training; the expense of consolidating an operating 
experience of additional flight time training for SICs and PICs; and of 
a computerized system to assist in pairing newly qualified pilots with 
experienced pilots.

Operating Experience and Operating Cycles for SIC Candidates

    In the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM, the FAA estimated a 
present value cost of $42.5 million to certificate holders to provide a 
check airman to supervise the operating experience for SIC candidates, 
who currently are allowed to sit in the jump seat and observe the 
performance of SIC duties to gain initial operating experience (IOE). 
This cost was based on the following assumptions:
    (1) The highest level of check airman (check pilot--all checks) was 
required to supervise the SIC candidate's IOE;
    (2) This level of check airman would be paid at a much higher rate 
than a PIC; and
    (3) A previously scheduled PIC and SIC would be displaced by the 
check airman and the SIC candidate, and these displaced pilots would be 
compensated for not flying the trip.
    For the final rule, the FAA has clarified that the level of ``check 
airman'' required is not the highest designation level of check airman 
who can administer all checks, but is instead a lower level most 
commonly called ``check pilot.'' This line check pilot, (designated as 
Line Check Pilot-All Seats) is also a check airman, but only to a level 
which at minimum will allow supervision of IOE with an SIC candidate. 
This level of check pilot is normally much more numerous within a 
carrier's pilot population than the check airman originally envisioned, 
and these pilots normally fly the line as PICs. They receive no 
additional pay for their status as check pilots, and the difference is 
best likened to that between a flight instructor and an FAA designated 
examiner in general aviation.
    Since the FAA has clarified that the check pilot supervising the 
SIC candidate can be a line or regular PIC with the check pilot 
designation, the original assumptions no longer hold. The FAA has 
revised these assumptions as follows:
    (1) Operators are only required to provide a check pilot who is 
designated to the minimum level necessary to supervise IOE;
    (2) There is a greater availability of check pilots designated to a 
sufficient level to supervise IOE than the previously estimated higher 
level ``check airmen-all checks'';
    (3) There is little if any difference in salary between a PIC and a 
PIC ``check pilot''; and
    (4) A previously scheduled PIC and SIC would not be displaced by 
the check pilot and the SIC candidate because normal scheduling can 
pair these two pilots without displacing other pilots.
    The additional operating experience requirements for SIC candidates 
impose an additional constraint on how operators schedule their pilots. 
Some of the costs of these constraints can be alleviated by making 
adjustments in the pilot scheduling system. Costs related to changing 
the scheduling system are discussed later in this regulatory 
evaluation. (See the section on Developing Computer Programming.) Other 
potential costs that cannot be alleviated by changes in the scheduling 
system have not been quantified because they are difficult to estimate. 
However, the FAA contends that based on the above set of assumptions, 
those costs will be considerably smaller than the $42.5 million 
estimated in the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM.

Operating Experience and Operating Cycles for PIC Candidates

    The final rule will increase the number of hours of observed 
supervised operating experience for transitioning PICs in Group II 
airplanes and will add operating cycle requirements for both initial 
and transitional PICs in both Group I and Group II airplanes. The 
current requirement for transitioning PICs in Group II airplanes is 15 
hours of operating experience; the new requirement will increase the 
hours to 25. The potential cost of this requirement will be the cost to 
provide a check pilot to observe the PIC candidate for the additional 
10 hours.
    The FAA estimates that there will be 3,119 transition PICs in Group 
II airplanes in 1994 assuming that 10 percent of the PICs in Group II 
airplanes require transition training each year. The cost of this 
section to air carriers will be to provide a check pilot for the 10 
additional hours of supervised operating experience for these 
transitioning PICs. Check pilots in Group II airplanes are compensated 
at $127 per hour. The cost of compliance in 1994, therefore, would be 
$4 million. [[Page 20867]] Over the years 1994-2003, the requirement 
that transitioning PIC candidates of Group II airplanes receive an 
additional 10 hours of supervised operating experience will cost $45.6 
million, with a present value of $31.5 million.
    Section 121.434(f) of the existing rule allows air carriers to 
reduce the number of hours of required PIC operating experience by 50 
percent by substituting an additional takeoff and landing for each hour 
of flight. The hours of operating experience for PICs who meet 
transition training requirements may be reduced by one hour per 
landing. Although the final rule increases the number of hours of 
operating experience for transitioning PICs, the allowance for landings 
in this provision results in a smaller increase in the costs of the 
additional operating experience hours. The FAA estimates that the 
savings will be 10 percent of the incremental costs of additional PIC 
transitional operating experience requirements in Group II airplanes. 
Over the years 1994 to 2003, the cost savings will be $4.6 million, 
with a present value of $3.2 million.
    The final rule will prohibit the reduction of the required number 
of operating experience hours for initial Group II PICs. The FAA 
estimates that under the current rule, the hourly requirements could be 
reduced by 10 percent by the allowance of one hour per landing and 
takeoff. Because the final rule removes this allowance, however, it 
will add the expense of a check pilot for those hours currently 
reduced. The FAA estimates that the additional cost of prohibiting a 
reduction of operating experience hours for initial Group II PICs in 
1994 equals $99,000 (312 pilots  x  25 hrs.  x  $127/hr.  x  10%). Over 
the next 10 years, the total cost will be $1.1 million, with a present 
value of $789,000. When this cost is added to the other costs of 
complying with the new PIC operating experience requirements over the 
next 10 years, the total cost will be $42.1 (45.6-4.6+1.1) million, 
with a present value of $29 million.

Consolidation of Learning and Skills

    Section 121.434(g) of the final rule will require candidate PICs 
and SICs to acquire 100 hours of line operating experience for 
consolidation of knowledge and skills within 120 days after the 
completion of one of the following requirements:

--An airline transport pilot certificate with type rating practical 
test;
--An additional type rating practical test; or
--A proficiency check for those pilots who already possess a type 
rating in that particular aircraft.

    The final rule will also require that if a pilot who is 
consolidating his or her skills performs any flight time in another 
type of airplane operated by the certificate holder before completing 
the 100 hours, that pilot will have to successfully complete refresher 
training before returning to the new airplane type. This refresher 
training will have to be conducted by a qualified instructor or check 
pilot. If the pilot did not complete the required 100 hours of line 
operating flight time, the certificate holder could extend the 120-day 
period to 150 days. In this instance, however, the pilot could be 
subject to refresher training if a check pilot determined that the 
pilot had not retained an adequate level of proficiency in the new 
airplane type.
    Section 121.438(a) of the final rule will prohibit SICs who have 
less than 100 flight hours in the airplane being flown from making 
takeoffs and landings, unless the PIC is a check pilot, when certain 
adverse weather and/or runway conditions exist or when the PIC 
determined that it was prudent to exercise his or her prerogative and 
make the takeoff or the landing. This restriction will not 
significantly interfere with the consolidation of learning and skills 
requirements for SICs, who should be able to acquire 100 hours of 
operating experience within the 120 days. Therefore, there are no costs 
associated with this restriction.
    The current bidding systems that most air carriers use have 
resulted in some newly type-rated or proficiency-checked pilots being 
placed on reserve for the airplanes in which they have recently 
received practical tests and/or proficiency checks. Thus, these newly 
rated pilots may not have the opportunity to consolidate their skills.
    The Joint Government/Industry Task Force on Flight Crew Performance 
included a consolidation requirement among their recommendations to the 
FAA. The FAA finds, therefore, that the current bidding systems could 
be modified to ensure that affected pilots could consolidate their 
skills within a 120-day period. To the extent that they fail to do so, 
there would be additional costs of compliance. The FAA estimates that 
with current flight times of about 75 hours per month, 90 percent of 
the affected pilots would consolidate their skills within the 120 days, 
and all of them would complete consolidation within 150 days. The costs 
of compliance associated with the 10 percent who could not complete 
consolidation within 120 days can be separated into two categories: (1) 
The cost of a supervised line observation flight conducted by a check 
pilot; or (2) the cost of refresher training.

Supervised Line Observation

    A supervised line observation flight for a pilot is conducted if 
the pilot is going to take longer than 120 days to complete the 100 
hours of operating experience. This flight is estimated to take an 
average of 2 hours. The cost that this requirement will impose will be 
the cost of providing a check pilot for those 2 hours. For SIC 
candidates, the check pilot can serve as PIC. Since there is little if 
any wage differential between PICs and check pilots, little if any 
additional cost will be imposed by this requirement. For PIC 
candidates, the check pilot will act as SIC for that supervised 
observation flight. This would impose an additional cost since check 
pilots earn more than SICs. The difference in wage between a PIC check 
pilot and an SIC ranges from $62/hour for Group II pilots and $15/hour 
for Group I pilots. The total cost of this requirement over the next 10 
years is $508,200 dollars with a present value of $351,000.

Refresher Training

    If a pilot who is consolidating his or her skills performs any 
flight time in another type of airplane operated by the certificate 
holder before completing the 120 hours, he or she will have to 
successfully complete refresher training before returning to the new 
airplane type. The FAA estimates that half of the PICs and SICs who do 
not consolidate their skills will require some refresher training. Air 
carriers have modules that they use to teach different aspects of a 
training program. The FAA expects that operators will use these modules 
to provide pilots the additional training in those areas that the check 
airmen find them to be deficient. The cost of compliance for the 
requirement for refresher training, therefore, would be the cost of 
instructors for those PICs and SICs. The FAA estimates that the 
refresher training will take an average of three hours and that Group 
II airplane instructors will be compensated at $127 per hour and Group 
I instructors at $55 per hour. In 1994, this cost will amount to 
$218,000. Over the years 1994 to 2003, the costs will total $2.5 
million, with a present value of $1.7 million.

Developing Computer Programming

    Section 121.438(b) states that ``no person may conduct operations . 
. . unless, for that type airplane, either the PIC or the SIC has at 
least 75 hours of [[Page 20868]] line operating flight time, either as 
PIC or SIC.'' The cost of implementing crew pairing guidelines would be 
that of developing software for a scheduling program to pair newly-
qualified pilots with experienced pilots. To estimate this cost, the 
FAA surveyed part 121 Principal Operations Inspectors (POIs) to learn 
how many carriers currently have internal crew pairing guidelines that 
will be in compliance with the requirement. Numbers of pilots, 
airplanes, and airplane types were obtained from FAPA's Pilot Directory 
of Employers.
    Based on the make-up of the airline pilot population, the FAA 
contends that it should not be difficult to pair a newly qualified 
pilot with one that already has the required operating experience. For 
instance, the number of pilots that need operational experience is 
relatively small compared to the number of experienced pilots. The FAA 
estimates that approximately 13 percent of pilots employed by major 
airlines, 7 percent employed by national airlines, and 38 percent 
employed by regional airlines are currently subject to crew pairing 
restrictions. In addition, many airlines operate only a few different 
types of airplanes. Among the majors, where there are an average of 14 
pilots per airplane, there are 620 pilots per type of airplane. Among 
the national air carriers, there are 10 pilots per airplane and an 
average of 45 pilots per type. Finally, among the regional air 
carriers, there are 7 pilots per airplane and 76 pilots per type.
    The crew pairing requirement could be implemented at a minimal cost 
to those air carriers that currently do not have crew pairing 
guidelines. This is because of the large number of pilots per airplane 
type and because of the number of air carriers that already have 
established crew pairing guidelines in the absence of this regulation. 
The cost of implementing crew pairing restrictions would be that of 
developing a software program to pair newly-qualified pilots with 
experienced pilots. The FAA estimates that this development will take 
one programmer one week to modify existing software programs and write 
the necessary documentation at a cost of $1,300. Based on the survey of 
POIs, the FAA estimates that 76 air carriers will have to develop a 
computer program for crew pairing. Thus, the one-time cost of this 
requirement will be $98,800 ($1,300 x 76).

Benefits

    The final rule will help to prevent accidents that result from the 
pairing of under-experienced pilots or in which in-type flight skill 
and knowledge are not consolidated. The FAA has identified two 
accidents over the past 10 years in which the NTSB determined that the 
inexperience of the pilots was the probable cause. Of the 145 
passengers that were on board these the two airplanes, 30 (20.7 
percent) were killed and 31 (21.4 percent) were seriously injured. Both 
airplanes were destroyed. The airplane in the New York accident also 
caused damage to a pier and to the approach lighting at LaGuardia 
Airport.
    The benefits of the final rule will be, in part, the number of 
casualties that it will help to prevent over the next 10 years. To 
estimate the potential fatal and serious injuries over the next 10 
years, the FAA calculated the proportion of passengers killed or 
seriously injured in such accidents and applied those proportions to 
the expected average enplacement levels over the next 10 years. The FAA 
estimates that from 1994 to 2003, the average air carrier airplane will 
have 183 seats and will carry, on average, 128 people on board--121 
passengers and 7 crew members. If this ``average'' airplane were to be 
involved in an accident similar to the ones in Denver and New York, the 
FAA estimates the casualty rate of the ``average'' accident would 
approach that of the Denver and New York accidents. Thus, the number of 
fatalities would be 26 (128 x .207) and the number of serious inquires 
would be 27 (128 x .214).
    The FAA uses a value of $2.6 million to estimate the benefit value 
of preventing a fatality and $500,000 to prevent a serious injury. 
Thus, the value of preventing the estimated number of fatalities and 
serious injuries will be $67.6 million (26 x $2.6 million) and $13.5 
million (27 x $500,000) respectively. Added to these amounts are the 
average replacement value of an air carrier airplane, $11 million, and 
the value of a major NTSB investigation, $433,500. This brings the 
total value of preventing one crew-pairing related accident over the 
next 10 years to $92.5 million ($67.6 million + $13.5 million + $11.0 
million + $433,500).
    Based on the number of air carrier operations and the number of 
accidents that have occurred over the past 10 years, the FAA projects 
that over the next 10 years, in absence of this final rule, another two 
accidents could occur. The benefits of preventing both of those 
accidents is $185 million, with a present value of $130 million.
    How much of these benefits can be attributed to this final rule is 
not certain. However, since pilot error and crew inexperience were the 
probable causes of the Denver and New York accidents, the FAA estimates 
that the final rule will prevent at least one of the future accidents. 
Thus, the present value benefits of this final rule will be $65 million 
($130 million/2).

Benefit-Cost Comparison

    The present value cost of the final rule to require several new and 
modified operating experience requirements for PICs and SICs will be 
$33.4 million over the next 10 years. The present value benefit of the 
final rule by preventing one accident over the next ten years will $65 
million. Thus, the FAA has determined that the final rule is cost-
beneficial.

Final 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 Federal regulations. The RFA requires 
agencies to review rules which may have `` a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
    The FAA has adopted criteria and guidelines for rulemaking 
officials to apply when determining whether a proposed or existing rule 
has any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Based on these criteria, a small air carrier is one that owns 
9 or fewer aircraft and a substantial number of carriers is one that is 
not less than 11 or which is more than one-third of affected small 
entities.
    The FAA has determined that approximately 35 air carriers operating 
under part 121 could be considered small entities. Based on the FAA's 
criteria and guidelines, a significant regulatory cost impact to these 
air carriers ranges from $4,300 for an unscheduled carrier to $61,600 
for a scheduled carrier to $110,100 for scheduled carriers whose entire 
fleet has a seating capacity of more than 60. These values are 
annualized costs and are expressed in 1993 dollars. Typically, there 
are about 11 pilots per aircraft for carriers operating Group II 
airplanes and 6 pilots per aircraft for carriers operating Group I 
airplanes. Approximately half of these pilots act as PICs, while the 
other half act as SICs.
    For a small scheduled carrier having a fleet seating capacity of 
more than 60 seats, owning 9 group II airplanes, and employing 99 
pilots, the FAA estimates that 5 PICs would need 10 hours of additional 
transition operating experience at a cost of $6,350 (5 x 10 x $127/hr). 
Small entities will no [[Page 20869]] longer be able to take advantage 
of reducing the required number of experience hours by exchanging one 
hour of supervised operating experience for one landing and takeoff. 
Thus, for the 5 PIC candidates, this will result in a cost of $1,600 
(5 x 25 hours x 10% x $127/hr). Two PICs would not complete their 
consolidation within the 120-day period and require a supervised line 
observation flight by a check pilot at a cost of $248 (2 x 2 
hours x $62/hr); one pilot would require refresher training at a cost 
of $381 (1 x 3 hours x $127). The costs of compliance to these carriers 
will be $8,600, which is less than the $110,100 threshold cost for a 
significant impact under the regulatory flexibility guidelines 
described above. Thus, the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of these small entities.
    Using the same methodology to estimate the cost for a small entity 
owning 9 turboprop airplanes and employing 54 pilots, 2 PICs would need 
10 hours of additional transition operating experience at a cost of 
$1,100 (2 x 10 x $55/hr). These pilots would also not be able to reduce 
the number of hours of supervised operating experience at a cost of 
$275 (2 x 25 hours x 10% x $55/hr). One pilot would not complete 
consolidation of their learning within 120 days and require a line 
observation flight at a cost of $30 (1 x 2 hrs x $15), and 1 pilot 
needing refresher training at a cost of $165 (1 x 3 hrs x $55). The FAA 
estimates that the total cost to a small turboprop-owned air carrier 
will be $1,570 per year, which is less than the $61,600 threshold for a 
scheduled air carrier operating planes with less than 60 seats. Thus, 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of these small entities.
    Finally, a small entity owning 9 reciprocating engine airplanes and 
employing 54 pilots, 2 PICs would need 10 hours of additional 
transition operating experience at a cost of $1,100 (2  x  10  x  $55/
hr). These pilots would also not be able to reduce the number of hours 
of supervised operating experience at a cost of $275 (2  x  25 hours 
x  10%  x  $55/hr). One pilot would not complete consolidation of their 
learning within 120 days and require a line observation flight at a 
cost of $30 (1  x  2 hrs  x  $15), and 1 pilot needing refresher 
training at a cost of $165 (1  x  3 hrs  x  $55). The FAA estimates 
that the total cost to a small turboprop-owned air carrier will be 
$1,570 per year, which is less than the $4,300 for small unscheduled 
carriers. Thus, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of these small entities.

International Trade Impact

    The final rule will have little impact on international trade. U.S. 
air carriers operating in international markets would incur some 
additional costs, primarily for supervised operating experience 
requirements, whereas foreign air carriers operating in the same 
markets will not be affected by the final rule. If the cost of the 
final rule (i.e., $33.4 million over the next 10 years) were borne 
entirely by U.S. carriers serving international markets, the cost would 
still represent a negligible amount of the international passenger 
revenues compared to the $280 billion forecast to be collected between 
1993 and 2002.

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. For this final rule, the FAA reviewed the SARP of Annex 6, 
applicable to pilot training for commercial air transportation 
operations. The FAA has determined that these amendments would not 
present any differences. The SARP are more general than the FAR, with 
much of the pilot training to be determined by the State of the 
Operator.
    In reviewing the JAR, the FAA finds that regulations exist that are 
similar to this final rule, though they are less specific. JAR-OPS 
1.945 addresses Conversion Training and Checking. Paragraph (e) of that 
section states ``Once a conversion course has been started a crew 
member shall not undertake flying duties on another type or variant 
until the course is completed or terminated.''

Federalism Implications

    The regulations 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 12612, it is determined that this regulation will not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

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 
regulation is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this regulation 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. This regulation is considered significant 
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 
1979). A final regulatory evaluation of the regulation, including a 
Regulatory Flexibility Determination and Trade Impact Analysis, has 
been placed in the docket. A copy may be obtained by contacting the 
person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

    Air safety, Air transportation, Aviation safety, Drug abuse, 
Narcotics, Safety, and Transportation.

The Amendment

    The Federal Aviation Administration amends part 121 of the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 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 read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1355, 1356, 1357, 1401, 1421-
1430, 1472, 1485, and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

    2. Section 121.431(b) is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 121.431  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (b) For the purpose of this subpart, the airplane groups and terms 
and definitions prescribed in Sec. 121.400 and the following 
definitions apply:
    Consolidation is the process by which a person through practice and 
practical experience increases proficiency in newly acquired knowledge 
and skills.
    Line operating flight time is flight time performed in operations 
under this part.
    Operating cycle is a complete flight segment consisting of a 
takeoff, climb, enroute portion, descent, and a landing.
    3. Section 121.434 is amended by revising the heading; removing the 
flush paragraph at the end of paragraph (b); removing the words ``the 
certificate holder's approved training program includes a course of 
training in an airplane simulator under Sec. 121.409(c) 
[[Page 20870]] and'' in paragraph (c)(1)(ii); revising the introductory 
text of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c); revising paragraphs (b)(2), 
(c)(2), (c)(3) introductory text, (c)(3)(i), (c)(3) (ii), and (f); 
designating the flush paragraph following paragraph (f) as paragraph 
(i); and adding new paragraphs (a)(3), (g) and (h) to read as follows:


Sec. 121.434  Operating experience, operating cycles, and consolidation 
of knowledge and skills.

    (a) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person serve 
as a required crewmember of an airplane unless the person has 
satisfactorily completed, on that type airplane and in that crewmember 
position, the operating experience, operating cycles, and the line 
operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills, 
required by this section, except as follows:
* * * * *
    (3) Separate operating experience, operating cycles, and line 
operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills are not 
required for variations within the same type airplane.
* * * * *
    (b) In acquiring the operating experience, operating cycles, and 
line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills, 
crewmembers must comply with the following:
 * * * * *
    (2) The operating experience, operating cycles, and line operating 
flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills must be acquired 
after satisfactory completion of the appropriate ground and flight 
training for the particular airplane type and crewmember position.
 * * * * *
    (c) Pilot crewmembers must acquire operating experience and 
operating cycles as follows:
 * * * * *
    (2) A second in command pilot must perform the duties of a second 
in command under the supervision of an appropriately qualified check 
pilot.
    (3) The hours of operating experience and operating cycles for all 
pilots are as follows:
    (i) For initial training, 15 hours in Group I reciprocating powered 
airplanes, 20 hours in Group I turbopropeller powered airplanes, and 25 
hours in Group II airplanes. Operating experience in both airplane 
groups must include at least 4 operating cycles (at least 2 as the 
pilot flying the airplane).
    (ii) For transition training, except as provided in paragraph 
(c)(3)(iii) of this section, 10 hours in Group I reciprocating powered 
airplanes, 12 hours in Group I turbopropeller powered airplanes, 25 
hours for pilots in command in Group II airplanes, and 15 hours for 
second in command pilots in Group II airplanes. Operating experience in 
both airplane groups must include at least 4 operating cycles (at least 
2 as the pilot flying the airplane).
 * * * * *
    (f) Flight crewmembers may substitute one additional takeoff and 
landing for each hour of flight to meet the operating experience 
requirements of this section, up to a maximum reduction of 50% of 
flight hours, except those in Group II initial training, and second in 
command pilots in Group II transition training. Notwithstanding the 
reductions in programmed hours permitted under Secs. 121.405 and 
121.409, the hours of operating experience for flight crewmembers are 
not subject to reduction other than as provided in this paragraph and 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (g) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, pilot in 
command and second in command crewmembers must each acquire at least 
100 hours of line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge 
and skills (including operating experience required under paragraph (c) 
of this section) within 120 days after the satisfactory completion of:
    (1) Any part of the flight maneuvers and procedures portion of 
either an airline transport pilot certificate with type rating 
practical test or an additional type rating practical test, or
    (2) A Sec. 121.441 proficiency check.
    (h) The following exceptions apply to the consolidation requirement 
of paragraph (g) of this section:
    (1) Pilots who have qualified and served as pilot in command or 
second in command on a particular type airplane in operations under 
this part before August 25, 1995 are not required to complete line 
operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills.
    (2) Pilots who have completed the line operating flight time 
requirement for consolidation of knowledge and skills while serving as 
second in command on a particular type airplane in operations under 
this part after August 25, 1995 are not required to repeat the line 
operating flight time before serving as pilot in command on the same 
type airplane.
    (3) If, before completing the required 100 hours of line operating 
flight time, a pilot serves as a pilot in another airplane type 
operated by the certificate holder, the pilot may not serve as a pilot 
in the airplane for which the pilot has newly qualified unless the 
pilot satifactorily completes refresher training as provided in the 
certificate holder's approved training program and that training is 
conducted by an appropriately qualified instructor or check pilot.
    (4) If the required 100 hours of line operating flight time are not 
completed within 120 days, the certificate holder may extend the 120-
day period to no more than 150 days if--
    (i) The pilot continues to meet all other applicable requirements 
of subpart O of this part; and
    (ii) On or before the 120th day the pilot satisfactorily completes 
refresher training conducted by an appropriately qualified instructor 
or check pilot as provided in the certificate holder's approved 
training program, or a check pilot determines that the pilot has 
retained an adequate level of proficiency after observing that pilot in 
a supervised line operating flight.
    (5) The Administrator, upon application by the certificate holder, 
may authorize deviations from the requirements of paragraph (g) of this 
section, by an appropriate amendment to the operations specifications, 
to the extent warranted by any of the following circumstances:
    (i) A newly certificated certificate holder does not employ any 
pilots who meet the minimum requirements of paragraph (g) of this 
section.
    (ii) An existing certificate holder adds to its fleet an airplane 
type not before proven for use in its operations.
    (iii) A certificate holder establishes a new domicile to which it 
assigns pilots who will be required to become qualified on the 
airplanes operated from that domicile.
* * * * *
    4. Section 121.438 is added to subpart O to read as follows:


Sec. 121.438  Pilot operating limitations and pairing requirements.

    (a) If the second in command has fewer than 100 hours of flight 
time as second in command in operations under this part in the type 
airplane being flown, and the pilot in command is not an appropriately 
qualified check pilot, the pilot in command must make all takeoffs and 
landings in the following situations:
    (1) At special airports designated by the Administrator or at 
special airports designated by the certificate holder; and
    (2) In any of the following conditions: [[Page 20871]] 
    (i) The prevailing visibility value in the latest weather report 
for the airport is at or below \3/4\ mile.
    (ii) The runway visual range for the runway to be used is at or 
below 4,000 feet.
    (iii) The runway to be used has water, snow, slush or similar 
conditions that may adversely affect airplane performance.
    (iv) The braking action on the runway to be used is reported to be 
less than ``good''.
    (v) The crosswind component for the runway to be used is in excess 
of 15 knots.
    (vi) Windshear is reported in the vicinity of the airport.
    (vii) Any other condition in which the PIC determines it to be 
prudent to exercise the PIC's prerogative.
    (b) No person may conduct operations under this part unless, for 
that type airplane, either the pilot in command or the second in 
command has at least 75 hours of line operating flight time, either as 
pilot in command or second in command. The Administrator may, upon 
application by the certificate holder, authorize deviations from the 
requirements of this paragraph (b) by an appropriate amendment to the 
operations specifications in any of the following circumstances:
    (1) A newly certificated certificate holder does not employ any 
pilots who meet the minimum requirements of this paragraph.
    (2) An existing certificate holder adds to its fleet a type 
airplane not before proven for use in its operations.
    (3) An existing certificate holder establishes a new domicile to 
which it assigns pilots who will be required to become qualified on the 
airplanes operated from that domicile.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 21, 1995.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-10282 Filed 4-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M