[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 117 (Monday, June 17, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30726-30732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14082]
[[Page 30725]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
Federal Aviation Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
14 CFR Part 121
Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 30726]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 121
[Docket No. 28072; Amdt. No. 121-258]
RIN 2120-AF29
Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule: Updates the terminology used to describe
simulators; eliminates the requirement that the minimum of 1 year of
employment as an instructor or check airman be with the operator of the
simulator; and authorizes the use of Level C simulators for initial and
upgrade training and checking for second-in-command (SIC) duties. This
action responds to concerns identified by certain affected certificate
holders in petitions for exemption. It is intended to alleviate
unnecessary training costs while maintaining an equivalent level of
safety.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary E. Davis, Project Development
Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation Division, Office of Flight
Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-3747.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Final Rules
Any person may obtain a copy of this final rule by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by
calling (202) 267-9677. Communications must identify the notice number
of this final rule.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
rules should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
Background
Appendix H to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 121,
``Advanced Simulation Plan,'' provides guidelines and a means for
achieving flightcrew training and checking in advanced airplane
simulators. The three-phase plan provides standards for a progressive
upgrade of airplane simulators so that the total scope of flightcrew
training can be enhanced.
Appendix H specifically describes the simulator and visual system
requirements that must be met to obtain approval to conduct certain
training and checking in the particular type of simulator (Phase I, II,
or III).
Appendix H was developed and adopted when there were no ``advanced
simulators.'' Currently, however, advanced simulators exist which have
permitted virtual duplication of many aircraft performance
characteristics and systems. As a result, the vast majority of U.S.
airline pilot training is now conducted in these advanced simulators.
According to industry members, however, certain limitations originally
incorporated into Appendix H still require a small, yet relatively
expensive, amount of training to be completed in the actual airplane.
In light of their highly satisfactory experience with these
simulators, some industry members believe that Level C simulators
should be approved for those flightcrew training and checking maneuvers
that currently are permitted only in the aircraft or in Level D
simulators. (The differences between Level C and Level D simulators are
discussed in more detail below.) In a petition for exemption dated
October 12, 1992, the Air Transport Association, on behalf of its
affected member airlines and other similarly situated airlines,
petitioned for an exemption to provide for initial training in a Level
C simulator. Trans World Airlines and Tower Airlines petitioned
individually to use a Level C simulator to conduct limited initial and
upgrade training and checking functions that would normally be
conducted in a Level D simulator. Agreeing in part with the
petitioners' supportive information and, based on its own experience,
the FAA granted some limited relief for training and checking.
More recently, United Airlines (United) has requested similar but
slightly more extensive relief than previously granted. United believes
that its experience with advanced simulation, as well as the FAA's own
experience, more than adequately justifies expending the scope of
flightcrew training and checking in a Level C simulator. In support of
its request, United points out that: (1) The same training curricula
and pilot proficiency standards would apply to a Level C or Level D
simulator; (2) these curricula can be implemented and proficiency
demonstrated effectively in a Level C simulator; and (3) daily local
FAA oversight of training and checking programs will assure that these
curricula and standards remain sufficient.
United further believes that its request would be in the public
interest since it is universally acknowledged that simulator training
is superior to training in an actual aircraft and the public is served
best when high quality training is conducted in the safest and most
cost-effective manner.
The FAA agrees with much of United's rationale in its petition;
however, after consideration of the supportive information, the FAA
believes that United is not alone or unique in its request. Therefore,
the FAA has determined that the appropriate response to the United
petition for exemption is to change the existing regulations. On
February 14, 1995, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) (60 FR 8490) in which it proposed to revise and clarify certain
requirements of part 121, appendix H. The FAA received nine comments on
its proposal. The commenters included the Air Transport Association
(ATA), Simuflite, the Regional Airline Association (RAA), the Airline
Pilots Association (ALPA), the Federal Express Corporation (FedEx),
United, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. (ASA), American Airlines
(American), and an individual whose affiliation was not revealed. ALPA
and the individual were the only commenters who were not generally
supportive of the proposal and made several recommendations. Other
commenters expressed general support with minor modifications. All
comments are discussed below under ``Discussion of the Final Rule.''
Discussion of the Final Rule
Terminology
Simulators historically have been referred to in terms of
``phases'' because it was expected that operators would be upgrading
their simulator inventories in phases while exercising simulator
privileges commensurate with the phase of the simulator. The upgrading
of simulators in phases is now essentially complete and the designation
of ``phase'' for identification of simulator complexity is no longer
descriptive. Operators no longer begin at a lower level of
qualification and upgrade in phases. The tendency is to acquire a given
level simulator that best meets their needs. The agency and the
industry now commonly refer to simulators in terms of ``levels.'' The
FAA received two comments, from Simulflite and United, on this proposal
to modify existing appendix H terminology. Both commenters supported
the FAA's proposal to replace the term ``phase'' with the term
``level.''
[[Page 30727]]
This rule, therefore, revises appendix H, as discussed below, to
replace the old terminology with the new throughout the appendix. The
new terminology will be used throughout this preamble in discussing
other amendments to this rule.
The levels currently used to describe a particular simulator
compared with the older phase designations are:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New terminology Old terminology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level A................................... Visual.
Level B................................... Phase I.
Level C................................... Phase II.
Level D................................... Phase III.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizing Additional Training and Checking in a Level C Simulator
All simulators duplicate or simulate the functions of an airplane
to varying levels of accuracy. The FAA currently requires that, for
each higher level of simulator, the simulator duplicate the performance
of the airplane over larger and more critical portions of the
airplane's operating envelope. This performance must be shown by
documented evidence. Level D simulators must provide the highest level
of flight realism. They must perform as the airplane performs over the
largest portion of the airplane's operating envelope, while providing
the most complete and technically accurate environment possible.
Evidence of this performance must include certain sophisticated
aerodynamic modeling that allows more complete replication of the
performance of the airplane.
Level C simulators are designed to operate over the same portion of
the airplane's operating envelope as Level D simulators, and do so
under a relatively sophisticated performance verification process.
Level C simulators, however, are not required to have sophisticated
aerodynamic modeling factors. Nor do they undergo the degree of
performance verification that Level D simulators do.
The FAA proposed that Level C simulators may be used for initial
qualification and upgrade training and checking for SIC. Because of
performance differences between Level C and level D simulators,
however, the FAA proposed that pilots qualified using Level C
simulators meet certain prerequisite levels of experience. Further, the
FAA proposed that these pilots be required to have supervised post-
qualification operational experience.
Several commenters discussed the various capabilities of Level C
and D simulators. The opinions of the various commenters on this issue
are paraphrased as follows:
ATA: There is no evidence to show that a Level D simulator makes
any difference in the training and qualification of pilots when
compared to the training available in a Level C simulator. There is no
difference in flight dynamic performance between Level C and D
simulators. Level C can be treated as Level D for all training and
checking functions.
FedEx: The only perceptible difference between a Level C and D
simulator is that a Level D simulator has a daylight visual system. A
Level C simulator is capable of providing the same quality of training
as a Level D simulator. The pilot must pass the same flight test
standards on all required maneuvers in either Level C or Level D
simulators. A 1984 study concluded that a simulator, less sophisticated
than a Level C simulator, will support a large majority of the events
needed for ATP certification. Moreover, this study also concluded that
for an ATP or type rating for students with a commercial rating (1,500
hours of flight) no requirement exists for a daylight visual system.
United: The continued efforts to justify uses for a Level D
simulator are simply not supported by airline training experience.
Level C simulators are completely adequate for all training and
checking. Level D simulators cost more to buy and maintain. The
aerodynamic models and performance of Level C and D simulators are
identical. The real differences between Level C and Level D simulators
are the availability of daylight visual scenes, some special effects,
and objective tuning of sound and motion cues.
ASA: A Level C simulator should be allowed for full training and
checking for initial SIC. The FAA also should allow partial credit for
Level B under appendix H. The only significant difference is the visual
system, which, except for circle-to-land maneuvers is not a factor.
Level 5, 6, and 7 Flight Training Devices should be allowed credit
under appendix H. This would allow a combination of flight training
devices and Level B or C training.
American: A Level D simulator has an extremely limited training
value advantage over a Level C simulator. With the recent technological
advances in visual systems, a Level C simulator could be more valuable
from a training perspective than some Level D simulators. The Level C
simulator with the wide visual system is superior to the Level D
simulator with the conventional monitor optics display in meeting
training objectives.
ALPA: If a Level C simulator can be substituted for a Level D
simulator, then how is training enhanced and safety maintained? Level D
simulators provide airframe icing effects and realistic airport
lighting. They also provide airframe buffet and visual scenes such as
landing illusions, overwater approaches, and rising terrain on the
approach path.
Individual: Simulators are not all that they should be--visual
cues, inflight dynamics, landing maneuvers, and total environment
experiences have yet to be fully developed with current simulator
technology.
FAA response: The discussion of the differences between Level C and
Level D simulator programs includes consideration for the performance
standards of each and how each level of qualification may be applied to
training and checking. Application of a specific qualification level
depends in turn on student experience levels and the overall
curriculum. The FAA still believes, as industry did when appendix H was
implemented, that lower experience levels require more accurate flight
dynamic simulation and training in a wide variety of special effects
such as weather and runway contaminants. The Level D simulator
performance standards exceed Level C in special effects to include
daylight visual scenes and more accurate testing for flight dynamics,
motion, and sound. It has always been FAA's intent that the special
effects required of each qualification level be used in the curriculum
for initial and upgrade pilot qualification.
The FAA understands ALPA's concern that the special effects (to
include daylight visual scenes) required of Level D simulators
currently are not being exercised in contemporary training programs as
originally intended. These effects are one of the key elements required
for the different experience levels acceptable for use in Levels C and
D.
One commenter, ASA, suggested that appendix H should ``allow
partial credit for Level B,'' and that ``Levels 5, 6, and 7 Flight
Training Devices should be credited under appendix H.'' The FAA
believes that items 1. and 2. of the ``Advanced Simulation Training
Program'' provide the latitude to integrate Level A, B, C, and D
simulators with other simulators and training devices to maximize the
total training, checking, and certification functions.
The 1984 FAA study referenced by FedEx assumed that the ATP/Type
rating applicant met the experience requirements for an ATP as provided
under Sec. 61.155. While this is a higher experience level than that
required of an SI for part 121 operations, it speaks directly to the
application of the
[[Page 30728]]
performance differences between Level C and Level D simulators and the
related PIC and SIC qualifications and certification credits. For
example, SIC applicants that do not meet Sec. 61.155 experience may
qualify in a Level D simulator, while those applicants that do meet
this experience may qualify in a Level C simulator.
The FAA believes that further studies are needed to explore the
entire issue of ``out-of-the-window'' visual cue requirements relative
to the current and projected state of the art. A research requirement
for this study has been established. Industry participation is planned
and judged essential to the success of this research.
The FAA agrees with the commenters who have indicated that the
aerodynamic performance of Level D has been generally accepted as the
industry standard for all advanced simulators including Level C.
Therefore, the FAA accepts that the aerodynamic performance of some
(late model) Level C simulators may be identical to Level D simulators.
Level C simulators that meet Level D aerodynamic performance standards
provide training benefits in some areas equal to Level D simulators.
However, the use of Level D aerodynamics is not required of Level C,
and Level C simulators are not tested and qualified to Level D
aerodynamic standards.
Given 13 years of experience using Level C simulators, and the
rigorous qualification process and performance standards required for
Level C simulators, the FAA adopts its proposal to allow Level C
simulators to be used for initial qualification and upgrade training
and checking for SIC.
Prior Aeronautical Experience
The FAA proposed to add a new paragraph 4 to the proposed section
entitled ``Level C, Training and Checking Permitted.'' Under this
proposal, the FAA would permit SIC applicants to obtain initial and
upgrade training and certification checks in Level C simulators if
certain preconditions are met. This new paragraph, as proposed, would
require that the applicant meet the prior aeronautical experience
requirements for an ATP certificate and airplane rating under
Sec. 61.155, before beginning training in a Level C simulator and
before being checked under Sec. 61.157 in a Level C simulator for an
ATP certificate or rating.
Simuflite expressed uncertainty regarding the lack of any
requirement for recency of experience and no restrictions on
prerequisite experience for SIC applicants who meet the aeronautical
experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 in ``the'' airplane. According
to Simuflite, the proposal should have stipulated that the applicants
possess the experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 in ``an'' airplane
of equivalent class. As for the proposed revisions to the operating
experience provisions, Simuflite agreed that operating experience
should be acquired performing the duties of the respective crew
position under the supervision of a check pilot and regardless of
whether the training was done in a Level C or D simulator. However,
according to Simuflite, the provision to make operating experience
requirements more stringent for the SIC who received training in a
Level C infers that there is some belief that the training may be
insufficient and inferior.
In regard to Sec. 121.434(f), RAA recommended that the FAA
eliminate from the final rule the proposed restriction which would not
permit SIC pilots trained in a Level C simulator to reduce the hours of
initial operating experience by up to 50 percent by the substitution of
one additional takeoff and landing for each hour of flight.
FedEx stated that it could only agree that SIC's should have to
meet the flight experience requirements of Sec. 61.155, if qualifying
in a Level C simulator, if an ATP certificate is involved. If the FAA
is going to require SIC's to meet the requirements of Sec. 61.155, then
it should require all pilots qualifying as SIC's to meet those
requirements, regardless of the method used to qualify the individual.
According to FedEx, there probably are not many part 121 SIC's who do
not meet the requirements of Sec. 61.155. Further, FedEx did not agree
that Sec. 121.434(c)(2) should be tied to all pilots trained in a Level
C simulator. For FedEx, if an SIC needs supervised operating
experience, then it should be made applicable to all SIC's, regardless
of how they were qualified.
United supported a requirement for SIC operating experience to be
gained in the SIC duty position, supervised by a check pilot. However,
United did not support the proposed requirement that the operating
experience consist of at least four takeoffs and four landings as the
sole manipulator of the controls. According to United, experience with
``pilot not flying'' duties is as important as ``pilot flying'' duties.
In this regard, United concurred with ATA's opinion on rewording
Sec. 121.434(c)(2)(ii)(B). United further noted that the question of
whether or not to amend Sec. 121.434(f) in this proposal (Notice 95-2)
differed from FAA's earlier proposal to amend that same section in
Notice 93-1.
American commented that, since some training in the flight training
segment may actually begin in either a flight training device or Levels
A or B simulators to accomplish events permitted under part 121,
appendix E, the third sentence of the preamble discussion under the
heading ``Prior Aeronautical Experience'' should have been worded as
follows: ``The rule would require * * * under Sec. 61.155, before
beginning the flight training segment of a training program that uses a
Level C simulator to accomplish the inflight training items under part
121, appendix E and the part 61, appendix A check for the ATP
certificate or rating under Sec. 61.157.'' Like United, American
concurred with ATA's suggested rewording of Sec. 121.434(c)(2)(ii)(B).
FAA Response: Regarding amendments to Sec. 121.434, the FAA agrees
with the commenters and has determined that these proposed amendments
need not be retained. The FAA, in its deliberations and review of
comments, agrees with United which pointed out that the questions on
whether or not to amend Sec. 121.434(f) was contradictory to an earlier
FAA proposal. Some commenters also stated that the proposal to require
four takeoffs and four landings for the SIC as sole manipulator of the
controls was excessive and did not address pilot-not-flying duties. The
FAA has decided that the changes made to Sec. 121.434 in the final rule
entitled ``Pilot Operating and Experience Requirements'' (60 FR 20858,
April 27, 1995) satisfies these issues raised by commenters and
adequately addresses the safety concerns of the FAA. Therefore, the FAA
will not propose additional amendment to Sec. 121.434.
Regarding the proposed change to require an SIC to meet the flight
experience requirements of Sec. 61.155, the FAA has determined that
Level D simulators, used in an approved appendix H training program
that may use the prescribed special effects for the 250-hour
commercial, instrument-rated pilot, constitute the minimum acceptable
level for initial and upgrade SIC qualification in part 121 today.
Using a Level C simulator for training the 1500-hour ATP applicant is
equal to or better than using a Level D similator for training the 250-
hour commercial, instrument-rated pilot. The FAA believes that
experience requirements are a vital part of qualification, as well as
any required certification within qualification. Therefore, it is
appropriate to require Sec. 61.155 experience for SIC qualification and
training and paragraph 4 under proposed ``Level C, Training and
[[Page 30729]]
Checking Permitted'' is adopted as proposed.
Modifying Employment Requirement
This final rule will remove the requirement in appendix H (in
paragraph 3 of the section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training
Program'') that each instructor and check airman have been employed for
at least 1 year by the certificate holder applying for approval of the
program. The FAA's intention, in originally requiring a minimum period
of 1-year of employment with the operator, was to ensure suitable
experience levels for individuals selected to be instructors and check
airmen. The most sophisticated simulator can be of little value without
an experienced, well-trained instructor or check airman to operate it.
However, the agency has concluded that this goal can be achieved by 1
year of experience serving as an instructor or check airman with any
part 121 operator. The FAA believes that this amount of instructor
experience, in addition to the training prerequisites for these
individuals in appendix H, is an adequate level of preparation for an
instructor or check airman in a Level C simulator. Modifying the
employment requirement in this way will not decrease safety. However,
it should be noted that, instructors and check airmen may participate
in more than one operator's approved training program; each operator
must provide training for each instructor and check airman in its
training program. Thus, an instructor or check airman who instructs for
more than one operator must receive training in each operator's
program.
Similarly, the FAA proposed to revise the section entitled ``Phase
II, Training and Checking Permitted'' in appendix H to provide that
pilots seeking to upgrade to pilot in command (PIC) do not have to have
obtained the prerequisite SIC experience ``with the operator,'' nor
have served or be serving as SIC ``with that operator.'' Again, the FAA
believes that the level of experience required by an approved training
program, in addition to the training prerequisites for these
individuals in appendix H and elsewhere under the Federal Aviation
Regulations, establishes an adequate level of preparation regardless of
employment with any specific operator.
Commenters generally supported the FAA's proposal to remove certain
employment restrictions. However, ATA suggested deleting paragraph 3 of
the Advanced Simulation Plan entirely or, if not possible, modifying
paragraph 3 to make clear that anyone who has 1 year of experience--
namely with the military, a manufacturer, or a foreign airline--is
qualified.
RAA commented that previous experience should not be limited to
airplanes of the same group. According to RAA, the FAA should require 1
year as PIC or instructor pilot, to include military time. Further, RAA
indicated that pilots should have a type rating and should have
completed an air carrier approved training program.
FedEx commented that the proposal should be modified to include
flight instructors with experience in airplanes of the same group who
gained experience in the military, with airframe manufacturers, and/or
with training centers.
United supported the FAA's proposal to delete the requirement for
employment ``by the certificate holder'' under existing paragraph 3 of
``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' because this relief has
already been offered through exemptions issued to United and to ATA. It
also supported the FAA's proposal to delete the words ``with the
operator'' for PIC initial or upgrade training, under existing
paragraphs 2(a) (ii) and (iii) of ``Phase II Training and Checking
Permitted.''
United concurred with other commenters that equivalent military
experience should be allowed.
ASA indicated that appendix H should allow established operators to
introduce new aircraft with instructors currently employed without
waiting 1 year to gain in-type experience.
American echoed the exemption experience mentioned by United and
further stated that this experience has proven that training received
by a pilot who has already served as SIC on a large jet aircraft
provides an equivalent transfer of learning.
ALPA was opposed to the proposal indicating that it only addresses
the issue of airplane knowledge and qualification but not familiarity
with company policies and operating procedures.
FAA response: the FAA has carefully reviewed commenters' opinions
concerning its proposal to amend the 1-year employment requirement for
instructors and check airmen in part 121, appendix H and in certain
exemptions. The commenters generally concurred that safety
considerations should not be based on employment status but rather on
prior in-flight experience in the group of airplanes in which the pilot
is instructing or checking. By amending the employment provisions of
appendix H, the FAA's intent is to honor all experience gained as an
instructor or evaluator in group. This would include experience under
part 121, part 135, corporate, and military operations.
Further, in response to United's comment, the FAA adopts its
proposal to delete the words ``by the certificate holder'' from
paragraph 3 of ``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' and to delete
the words ``with the operator'' from paragraphs 2(a) (ii) and (iii) of
``Phase II Training and Checking Permitted.''
The FAA understands ALPA's concern that instructors and check
airmen should be familiar with ``company policies and operating
procedures.'' However, as previously stated, the FAA believes that the
student entry level of experience required by an approved training
program, in addition to the training prerequisites for these
individuals in appendix H, and elsewhere under part 121, establishes an
adequate level of preparation.
Clarifying Training and Certification Check Requirements for Initial
and Upgrading Training for SIC's Upgrading to PIC
Under the proposed section entitled ``Level C, Training and
Checking Permitted,'' the FAA proposed to redesignate paragraph 2(a) as
paragraph 2 and paragraph 2(b) as paragraph 3 to clearly distinguish
between the prerequisites for initial versus upgrade training and
checking. This paragraph restructuring was proposed in order to
eliminate the need for the flush paragraph currently at the end of the
section.
Current paragraph 2(a) sets forth the prerequisites for training
and checking in a Level C simulator for SIC's upgrading to PIC in the
same equipment. For example, a pilot serving as SIC in a Boeing 727
upgrading to PIC in the same airplane would have to meet the
requirements of this paragraph. Under new paragraph 2, as proposed,
these requirements would not change. The pilot would still have to have
previously qualified as SIC in the equipment, be currently serving as
SIC in an airplane in the same group, and have at least 500 hours of
actual flight time as SIC in an airplane in the same group. These
requirements are consistent with the definition of upgrade training
under Subpart N--Training Program. Section 121.400(c)(3) defines
``upgrade training'' as the training required for crewmembers who have
qualified and served as SIC or flight engineer on a particular airplane
type, before they serve as PIC or SIC, respectively, on that airplane.
The requirements of current paragraph 2(b) must be read in
conjunction with the final paragraph in
[[Page 30730]]
the section to determine that it applies to initial training and
checking for SIC's upgrading to PIC in an airplane type in which the
pilot has never served as SIC. This SIC has experience in the same
group of airplanes, but not in the same airplane to which the pilot
wants to upgrade. For example, a pilot serving as an SIC in a Boeing
737 initially upgrading to PIC in a Boeing 727 must meet the
requirements of this paragraph.
New paragraph 3, as proposed, would not change this requirement,
but would make it easier for the reader to see that it applies to
initial training and checking. The pilot would still have to be
employed by an operator, be currently serving as SIC in an airplane in
the same group, have served as SIC on at least two airplanes of the
same group, and have a minimum of 2500 flight hours as SIC in airplanes
in the same group. Because proposed new paragraph 3 would refer to
``initial'' training, the language in the current last paragraph is no
longer needed to explain that pilots meeting these requirements may
upgrade to another airplane in that group in which that pilot has not
previously qualified. The requirements in new paragraph 3 continue to
be consistent with Sec. 121.400(c)(1), which defines ``initial
training'' as the training required for crewmembers and dispatchers who
have not qualified and served in the same capacity on another airplane
of the same group.
The FAA received two comments on its proposed clarifications to
initial and upgrade training requirements for SICs under paragraphs (2)
and (3) of the section entitled ``Level C, Training and Checking
Permitted.'' (Comments received on current flight-hour requirements are
discussed below under ``Modifying Current Flight-Hour Requirements.'')
ATA requested that paragraph 2(c) be reworded as follows: ``Is
currently serving as second in command in an airplane in the same group
as the type airplane to which the pilot is upgrading.'' It further
requested that proposed paragraph 3(c), which would require a pilot to
have served as SIC on at least two airplanes of the same group, be
deleted.
American concurred with ATA's requested modification of paragraph
2(c) and ATA's suggestion to delete proposed paragraph 3(c). American
further proposed, however, adding a new paragraph 5 to address PIC's
seeking an additional type rating on an ATP within the same group
without meeting flying time experience requirements.
FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that removing the requirement
in proposed paragraph 3(c) for a PIC initial applicant to have ``served
as SIC on at least two airplanes of the same group'' will yield an
adequate level of safety. Removing this paragraph would allow an SIC
flying hour credits outside of part 121 operations.
American's comment that additional language be added to allow PIC's
to seek an additional type rating on an ATP within the same group
without meeting flying time experience requirements may have merit.
Although it would be beyond the scope of the proposal to add a new
paragraph 5, as American proposes, the FAA believes that the new PIC
upgrade language as adopted in paragraph 2 responds directly to this
concern.
Modifying Current Minimum Flight-Hour Experience Requirements
In crafting its proposal, the FAA contemplated whether to propose
revising certain flight-hour experience requirements for initial and
upgrade training and checking in a Level C simulator. Currently, pilots
upgrading from SIC to PIC in equipment in which they have previously
qualified as SIC are required to have at least 500 hours of actual
flight time while serving as SIC in an airplane in the same group.
Similarly, pilots who are initially upgrading from SIC to PIC in other
equipment in which the pilot has not been previously qualified, must
have a minimum of 2500 hours as SIC in airplanes of the same group as
the equipment to which they are upgrading.
The flight hour experience requirements ensure that a pilot has
adequate experience in order to upgrade to PIC. These values were
established, based on the collective opinions of the FAA and industry
members, when appendix H was originally adopted. Since then, industry
members have argued that the required hours are excessive. Based on the
success of some industry members who have operated under exemptions
that provided certain relief of these flight-hour requirements and
other specific requirements for upgrade training under Subpart N, the
FAA indicated in the NPRM preamble that it may propose, at some future
date, to eliminate the 500 flight-hour requirement and reduce from 2500
to 500 the number of flight hours required for initial upgrade training
and checking.
In its preamble, the FAA requested comments and additional
information that may justify proposing to modify these current flight
hour requirements in a future rulemaking. These comments are discussed
below.
ATA proposed that the FAA eliminate the requirement for an SIC to
have 500 flight hours in an airplane in the same group and reduce from
2500 to 500 the number of flight hours required for initial upgrade
training and checking. ATA recommended that the 500-hour requirement
apply to any pilot initially upgrading to PIC regardless of whether the
qualification was based on the use of a Level C simulator. If this is
not done, the perception will remain, according to ATA, that training
and checking in a Level C simulator is inferior to other methods of
pilot qualification.
FedEx concurred with ATA.
United commented that there need be no prerequisites for SIC or PIC
training or checking in Level C simulators, either initial, upgrade,
transition, or recurrent in an airline training program.
American indicated that it is has successfully exercised an ATA
exemption provision which allows the upgrading PIC, who is previously
qualified in the equipment, to train and check in a Level C simulator.
Under this exemption there is no requirement for the SIC to possess 500
hours flying time with the operator as an SIC. Further this exemption
allows the initial PIC candidate, not previously qualified in the
equipment, to possess only 500 hours flying time with the operator as
an SIC instead of 2500 hours in two different airplanes of the same
group.
ALPA did not agree with the current regulations that allow a pilot
to receive initial training exclusively in a Level D simulator without
experience prerequisites. According to ALPA, with the possibility of
low-time pilots and ab initio candidates being placed in large aircraft
in the near future, training needs to be enhanced, and not reduced in
quality.
FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the invited comments on reducing
current minimum flight-hour requirements.
Standardizing Language and Eliminating Obsolete References
As discussed above, the term ``phase'' is no longer used to
describe the various simulators referred to in Appendix H. Accordingly,
the FAA proposed to replace ``phase'' with ``level'' wherever it
appears and to use the current alphabetical designations for the
various levels.
In addition, the FAA proposed to remove the section entitled
``Phase IIA Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for part 121 Operators'' as
obsolete. For the same reason, it proposed to remove
[[Page 30731]]
paragraph 7 of the section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training
Program'' which references Phase IIA. Under Phase IIA, any part 121
operator could conduct Phase II training for 3 and \1/2\ years from the
date it was approved for Phase I in a simulator approved for the
landing maneuver under Phase I. The carrier's upgrade plan had to be
submitted to the FAA before July 30, 1981. Thus, these provisions are
no longer effective.
United supported changing the terminology and also deleting all
reference to ``Phase IIA.'' According to United, these changes
certainly are appropriate and are supported.
The proposed removal of the obsolete sections is adopted as
proposed.
Additional Comments
The FAA received some comments that are general in nature and that
do not specifically reference the proposed amendments.
For example, United proposed deleting the word ``Plan'' from the
title of appendix H since it is no longer, and has not been for many
years, a plan.
Simuflite recommended that it would seem reasonable to place
simulator and training device requirements in a separate regulatory
structure, since it is clear that all segments of the aviation training
industry may exercise the permitted simulation training and checking.
Simulator standards should stand alone in a rule addressing the use of
simulation equipment as appropriate to operations conducted under those
rules. The proposed changes should be expanded to clarify that the same
training and checking authority in Level C simulators be extended to
those part 135 operators who will not be required to comply with
subparts N and O of part 121.
ALPA would like to see an additional simulator category, perhaps
Level E, which would be a Level D with all aircraft devices such as
Traffic Collision Avoidance System, weather radar, Global Positioning
Warning System, terrain presentations, and more realistic air traffic
control communications. This would add an additional level of reality
to pilot training.
FAA response: The FAA appreciates all of above comments and
believes that they may have merit. In particular, the FAA agrees that
there is room for upgrading simulation standards to include special
equipment operations such as weather radar and TCAS (integrated where
appropriate), and realistic air-to-ground communications (ATC, Weather,
Company, etc.). These comments cannot be incorporated into this final
rule, however, because they do not address proposals that have been
published for public comment and are therefore outside the scope of the
proposal.
In addition, ATA commented that the comment period should have been
longer than 30 days to allow for more precise comments and economic
analysis.
FAA Response: In allotting the 30-day comment period, the FAA was
responding to the large number of requests for relief from the aviation
industry. The FAA considered it to be in the best interest of safety
and the public to expedite the regulation by every means possible. The
FAA did not violate any requirements of the Administrative Procedures
Act, which does not require specific comment periods for rulemaking.
Regulatory Analysis
Executive Order 12866 established the requirement that, within the
extent permitted by law, a Federal regulatory action may be undertaken
only if the potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh
the potential costs to society. In response to this requirement, and in
accordance with Department of Transportation policies and procedures,
the FAA has estimated the anticipated benefits and costs of this
rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant
rulemaking action'', as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review). The anticipated costs and benefits associated
with this rule are summarized below. (A more detailed discussion of
costs and benefits is contained in the full regulatory evaluation
placed in the docket for this rule.)
Costs
The rule does not impose any additional costs on either part 121
air carrier operators or the flying public. The rule allows certain
training practices that the FAA has determined to be safe and efficient
methods for training pilots, and it clarifies other portions of
appendix H. Thus, the rule does not impose any additional costs because
it permits operators to use the least costly methods of training while
maintaining an equivalent level of safety for the flying public. Since
current training practices could be maintained to current standards
under the rule, there is no reduction in aviation safety imposed on the
flying public.
Potential Cost-Relief Benefits
The rule generates potential cost savings benefits estimated at
$21.6 million, in 1992 dollars, over the next 10 years (or $13.3
million, discounted, using a 7.0 percent rate of interest). These
potential cost savings benefits take the form of increased operational
efficiency (qualitative) and cost savings (quantitative) to those part
121 operators engaged in initial simulator training, in accordance with
appendix H.
The potential cost savings benefits of the rule represent the
difference between the costs incurred currently by part 121 air
carriers for initial training and checking of SIC pilots and the costs
that incurred from the proposal becoming a rule. Currently, certain
requirements for initial training and checking of SIC pilots that are
not performed in a Level D simulator must be performed in the aircraft.
Under the rule, those requirements that are performed in the aircraft
in lieu of a Level D simulator can be performed in a Level C simulator.
The costs of operating the aircraft for those requirements above the
costs of operating the less expensive simulator for those same
requirements is the estimated benefit of this rule.
In an effort to derive a cost-relief estimate associated with this
rule, several part 121 air carriers were contacted. These air carriers
provided the agency with estimated aircraft operating costs per hour,
the time needed to train and check pilots for those requirements that,
under the present rule, cannot be performed in a Level C simulator, and
the number of pilots that it expects to train in the next 10 years.
Potential Operational Efficiency Benefits
The potential benefits of the rule would be generated in the form
of increased operational efficiency. In the full regulatory evaluation
placed in the docket, these potential efficiency benefits are presented
qualitatively. These benefits are difficult to estimate quantitatively
due, at present, to the lack of available cost information.
Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by
Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and
disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires
government agencies to determine whether rules will have ``a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''
and, in cases where they will, conduct a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
According to FAA Order 2100.14A (Regulatory Flexibility and
Guidance), a substantial number of small entities is
[[Page 30732]]
defined as a number which is not less than eleven and which is more
than one-third of the small entities subject to a proposed or existing
rule. A significant economic impact on a small entity is an annualized
net compliance cost which, when adjusted for inflation, equals or
exceeds the significant cost threshold for the entity type under
review.
The entities that potentially would be affected by the rule are
small part 121 operators that own, but do not necessarily operate, nine
or fewer aircraft. As discussed in the cost section of this evaluation
summary, the rule would not impose any costs on these operators because
it is cost-relieving in nature. Therefore, the rule would not impose a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small aircraft
operators.
International Trade Impact Assessment
The rule would have little, if any, impact on the competitive
posture of either U.S. carriers doing business in foreign countries or
foreign carriers doing business in the United States. This assessment
is based on the fact that the rule would not impose any cost on part
121 operators because it is cost-relieving in nature. These operators
do not compete directly with air carriers engaged in foreign operations
(part 129).
Federalism Implications
The regulations contained herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12866, it is determined that this rule
would not have federalism implications requiring the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation
Regulations
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent
practicable. The FAA is not aware of, and did not receive any comments
indicating any differences that this rule will present.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection requests requiring
approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 (d)).
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 not significant under Executive Order 12866. In addition,
it is certified that this rule 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 rule is not
considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034, February 26, 1979).
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121
Air carriers, Aircraft, Federal Aviation Administration.
The Rule
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 121 as follows:
PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,
44912, 46105.
2. Appendix H is amended by replacing the words ``Phase I'',
``Phase II'', and ``Phase III'' with the words ``Level B'', ``Level
C'', and ``Level D'' respectively, wherever they appear; by replacing
the words ``Phase I, II, and III'' with the words ``Level B, C, and
D,'' wherever they appear; by replacing the words ``Phase II or III''
with the words ``Level C or D'', wherever they appear; by replacing the
words ``Phase I, II, or III'' with the words ``Level B, C, or D''.
3. The section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' in
Appendix H is amended by removing paragraph 7 and revising paragraph 3
to read as follows:
Appendix H to Part 121--Advanced Simulation Plan
* * * * *
Advanced Simulation Training Program
* * * * *
3. Documentation that each instructor and check airman has
served for at least 1 year in that capacity in a certificate
holder's approved program or has served for at least 1 year as a
pilot in command or second in command in an airplane of the group in
which that pilot is instructing or checking.
* * * * *
4. Appendix H, ``Phase II, Training and Checking Permitted'' is
amended by revising the title and paragraph 2 and by adding paragraphs
3 and 4 as follows:
Level C
Training and Checking Permitted
1. * * *
2. Upgrade to pilot-in-command training and the certification
check when the pilot--
a. Has previously qualified as second in command in the
equipment to which the pilot is upgrading;
b. Has at least 500 hours of actual flight time while serving as
second in command in an airplane of the same group; and
c. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane in
this same group.
3. Initial pilot-in-command training and the certification check
when the pilot--
a. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane of
the same group;
b. Has a minimum of 2,500 flight hours as second in command in
an airplane of the same group; and
c. Has served as second in command on at least two airplanes of
the same group.
4. For all second-in-command pilot applicants who meet the
aeronautical experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 of this chapter
in the airplane, the initial and upgrade training and checking
required by this part, and the certification check requirements of
Sec. 61.157 of this chapter.
5. Appendix H, ``Phase IIA, Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for Part
121 Operators'' is removed in its entirety.
Issued in Washington, DC., on May 30, 1996.
David R. Hinson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-14082 Filed 6-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M