[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42764-42766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20406]



      

[[Page 42763]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Transportation





_______________________________________________________________________



Federal Aviation Administration



_______________________________________________________________________



14 CFR Part 61, et al.



Advanced Qualification Program; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 158 / Wednesday, August 16, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 42764]]


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61, 63, 65, 108, 121, and 135

[Docket No. 25804, Notice No. 95-13]
RIN 2120-AF00


Advanced Qualification Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to establish a new termination date for 
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 58 (55 FR 40275; Oct. 2, 
1990), which provides for the approval of an alternate method (known as 
``Advanced Qualification Program'' or ``AQP'') for qualifying, training 
and certifying, and otherwise ensuring the competency of crewmembers, 
aircraft dispatchers, other operations personnel, instructors, and 
evaluators who are required to be trained or qualified under parts 121 
and 135 of the FAR. This proposed extension is necessary to establish a 
new termination date for SFAR 58 to allow time for the FAA to complete 
the rulemaking process that will incorporate SFAR 58 into the Federal 
Aviation Regulations (FAR). The current termination date for SFAR 58 is 
October 2, 1995.

DATE: Comments must be received on or before September 5, 1995.

ADDRESS: Send or deliver comments on this notice in duplicate to: 
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
Attention: Rules Docket (AGC-10), Room 915G, Docket No. 25804, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments must be marked 
Docket No. 25804. Comments may be examined in the Rules Docket between 
8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. John Allen, Advanced Qualification Program Branch (AFS-230), Air 
Transportation Division, Office of Flight Standards, Federal Aviation 
Administration, P.O. Box 20027, Dulles International Airport, 
Washington, DC 20041-2027; telephone (703) 661-0260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In 1975, the FAA began to address two issues in part 121 pilot 
training and checking. One issue was the hardware requirements needed 
for total simulation. The other issue was the redesign of training 
programs to deal with increasingly complex human factors problems and 
to increase the safety benefits derived from the simulation. At the 
urging of the air transportation industry, the FAA addressed the 
hardware issue first. This effort culminated in 1980 in the development 
of the Advanced Simulation Program, set forth in part 121, Appendix H.
    Since then, the FAA has continued to pursue approaches for the 
redesign of training programs to increase the benefits of Advanced 
Simulation and to deal with the increasing complexity of cockpit human 
factors.
    On August 27, 1987, FAA Administrator McArtor addressed the chief 
pilots and certain executives of many air carriers at a meeting held in 
Kansas City. One of the issues discussed at the meeting focused on 
flight crewmember performance issues. This meeting led to the creation 
of a Joint Government-Industry Task Force on flight crew performance. 
It was comprised of representatives from major air carriers and air 
carrier associations, flight crewmember associations, commuter air 
carriers and regional airline associations, and government 
organizations. On September 10, 1987, the task force met at the Air 
Transport Association's headquarters to identify and discuss flight 
crewmember performance issues. Working groups in three major areas were 
formed: (1) man/machine interface, (2) flight crewmember training, and 
(3) operating environment. Each working group submitted a report and 
recommendations to the Joint Task Force. On June 8, 1988, the 
recommendations of the Joint Task Force were presented to Administrator 
McArtor.
    The major substantive recommendations to the Administrator from the 
flight crewmember training working group were the following: (1) 
Require part 135 commuters whose airplane operations require two pilots 
to comply with part 121 training, checking, qualification and record 
keeping requirements. (2) Provide for a Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation (SFAR) and Advisory Circular to permit development of 
innovative training programs. (3) Establish a National Air Carrier 
Training Program Office which provides training program oversight at 
the national level. (4) Require seconds-in-command to satisfactorily 
perform their duties under the supervision of check airmen during 
operating experience. (5) Require all training to be accomplished 
through a certificate holder's training program. (6) Provide for 
approval of training programs based on course content and training aids 
rather than using specific programmed hours. (7) Require Cockpit 
Resource Management Training and encourage greater use of Line-Oriented 
Flight Training. Specific recommendations were listed regarding 
regulatory changes and were separated into those changes which should 
be incorporated into the SFAR and those in an accompanying Advisory 
Circular.
    In June of 1988, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
issued a Safety Recommendation (A-88-71) on the subject of CRM 
training. The recommendation stemmed from an NTSB accident 
investigation of a Northwest Airline crash on August 16, 1987, in which 
148 passengers, 6 crewmembers, and 2 people on the ground were killed.
    The NTSB noted that both crewmembers had received single-crewmember 
training during their last simulator training and proficiency checks. 
In addition, the last CRM training they had received was 3.5 hours of 
ground school (general) CRM training in 1983. As a result of its 
investigation, the NTSB recommended that all part 121 carriers:

    Review initial and recurrent flightcrew training programs to 
ensure that they include simulator or aircraft training exercises 
which involve cockpit resource management and active coordination of 
all crewmember trainees and which will permit evaluation of crew 
performance and adherence to those crew coordination procedures.

    In response to the recommendations from the Joint Task Force and 
from the NTSB, the FAA, in October 1991, published SFAR 58, Advanced 
Qualification Program (AQP), which addresses all of the above 
recommendations. The FAA also published an Advisory Circular on AQP 
which describes an acceptable methodology by which the provisions of 
the SFAR are achieved. Under SFAR 58 certificated air carriers, as well 
as training centers they employ, are provided with a regulatory 
alternative for training, checking, qualifying, and certifying aircrew 
personnel subject to the provisions of FAR parts 121 and 135.
    Air carrier participation in AQP is entirely voluntary. Carriers 
electing not to participate may continue to operate under the 
traditional FAA provisions for training and checking. The long range 
advantages to participation, however, are numerous. The regulatory 
provisions of AQP offer the flexibility to tailor training and 
certification activities to a carrier's particular needs and 
operational circumstances. They encourage innovation in the development 
of training strategies. They 

[[Page 42765]]
include wide latitude in choice of training methods and media. They 
permit the use of flight training devices for training and checking on 
many tasks which historically have been accomplished in airplane 
simulators. They provide an approved means for the applicant to replace 
FAA mandated uniform qualification standards with carrier proposed 
alternatives tailored to specific aircraft. They permit carriers, whose 
operations include a mixture of parts 135 and 121, to operate under a 
single regulatory set of requirements for training and checking. They 
permit the applicant to establish an annual training and checking 
schedule for all personnel, including pilots-in-command (PIC), and 
provide a basis for extending that interval under certain 
circumstances.
    From an FAA perspective, the overriding advantage of AQP is quality 
of training. AQP provides a systematic basis for matching technology to 
training requirements and for approving training program content based 
on relevance to operational performance. The FAA's goal for this new 
program is to improve safety through improved training.
    The initial goal of the SFAR was to improve flight crew performance 
by providing alternative means of complying with certain current 
provisions in the Federal Aviation Regulations which may inhibit 
innovative use of some modern technology that could facilitate the 
training of flight crewmembers. The SFAR has encouraged carriers to 
become innovative in their approach to training. Based on the aviation 
industry participation and enthusiasm in AQP, the extension of SFAR 58 
is necessary until the rulemaking process codifies AQP as a permanent 
regulation.

Benefit/Cost Analysis

    AQP is not mandatory. Consequently, those operators who choose to 
participate in the program would do so only if it was in their best 
interest. Enough operators have found it in their best interest that 
AQP has become an important means for meeting the requirements for air 
carrier training programs. As of March 1995, 18 carriers and 2 
manufacturers have either applied to participate or are already 
participating in the program. AQP gives air carriers flexibility in 
meeting the safety goals of the training programs in parts 121 and 135 
without sacrificing any of the safety benefits derived from those 
programs. Thus, extending AQP for another 5 years would not impose any 
additional costs nor decrease the present level of safety. Because this 
proposal--1) is extending an existing program; 2) is voluntary; and 3) 
has become an important means for some operators to comply with the 
training requirements, the FAA finds that a full detailed regulatory 
evaluation is not necessary.

International Trade Impact Analysis

    The proposed rule would not constitute a barrier to international 
trade, including the export of American goods and services to foreign 
countries and the import of foreign goods and services into the United 
States. Since air carriers will not participate in AQP unless it was in 
their best interest, they likewise will not participate if it would 
impose a competitive disadvantage on them. Also, the concept of AQP is 
being embraced by foreign operators as well.

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 a 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule will have ``significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.'' FAA Order 
2100.14A outlines the FAA's procedures and criteria for implementing 
the RFA. Since this proposal would extend what has become an important 
means for some air carriers to comply with training requirements, the 
extension will not impose costs above those that air carriers are 
already incurring, and certainly not above what they would incur from 
adopting a part 121 or part 135 training program. Thus, the rule if 
issued, will not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

Federalism Implications

    The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct 
effects on the states, on the relationship between the national 
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus, in 
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that such a 
regulation does not have federalism implications warranting preparation 
of a Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

    The FAA has determined that this document involves a proposal that 
imposes no additional burden on any person. Accordingly, it has been 
determined that the action does not involve a major rule under 
Executive Order 12291; however, it is significant under DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11304; February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 61

    Air safety, Air transportation, Aviation Safety, Safety.

14 CFR Part 63

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

14 CFR Part 65

    Airman, Aviation safety, Air transportation, Aircraft.

14 CFR Part 108

    Airplane operator security, Aviation safety, Air transportation, 
Air carriers, Airlines, Security measures, Transportation, Weapons.

14 CFR Part 121

    Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Aviation safety, Pilots, Safety.

14 CFR Part 135

    Air carriers, Air transportation, Airmen, Aviation safety, Safety, 
Pilots.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, SFAR 58 (14 CFR parts 65, 108, 
121, and 135) of the Federal Aviation Regulations is amended as 
follows:
    1. The authority citation for part 61 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44710, 
44712, 44714, 44716, 44717, 44722, 45303.

    2. The authority citation for part 63 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40108, 40113, 40114, 44701-44703, 
44710, 44712, 44714, 44716, 44717, 44722, 45302, 46104.

    3. The authority citation for part 65 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40113, 44701-44703, 44710, 44712, 
44714, 44716, 44717, 447222, 45303.

    4. The authority citation for part 108 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40108, 40113, 40114, 40119, 44701, 
44702, 44705, 44712, 44714, 44716, 44717, 44722, 44901-44903, 44906, 
44912, 44935-44938, 45302, 46104, 48107.

    5. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40101, 40105, 40113, 44701-44702, 
44704-44705.

    6. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 1153, 40101, 40105, 44113, 44701-
44705, 44707-44717, 44722, 45303.


[[Page 42766]]

    7. SFAR 58 is amended by revising the expiration date in paragraph 
13.
* * * * *
    13. Expiration. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation 
terminates on October 2, 2000 unless sooner terminated.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on Friday, August 11, 1995.
Thomas C. Accardi,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 95-20406 Filed 8-14-95; 12:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M