[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49588-49620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4116]



[[Page 49587]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



 Proposed Advisory Circular No. 120-53A, Crew Qualification and Pilot 
Type Rating Requirements; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 28, 2007 / 
Notices  

[[Page 49588]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket Number FAA-2007-28498]


Proposed Advisory Circular No. 120-53A, Crew Qualification and 
Pilot Type Rating Requirements for Transport Category Aircraft Operated 
Under 14 CFR Part 121

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a proposed advisory circular and 
request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of and requests 
comments on a proposed revision to Advisory Circular (AC) No. 120-53, 
Crew Qualification and Pilot Type Rating Requirements for Transport 
Category Aircraft Operated under 14 CFR part 121. That AC provides the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidance for the evaluation and 
approval of flight crew qualification programs and the issuance of 
pilot type ratings for flight crews operating under 14 CFR part 121. 
The proposed AC streamlines the process described in AC 120-53 for 
determining the level of differences between aircraft and the credits 
the FAA assigns between those aircraft for the purposes of training, 
checking, and recency of experience requirements. The applicability of 
the proposed AC would be limited to operations conducted under 14 CFR 
part 121.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments on the proposed AC to Docket Number FAA-
2007-28498, using any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to  http://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility; 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management 
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Kirkland, Air Transportation 
Division (AFS-220), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8166, e-mail 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44703.

Comments Invited

    The proposed AC is published at the end of this notice. You may 
also receive an electronic copy of the proposed AC by accessing the 
FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published. Interested parties are invited to submit comments 
on the proposed AC to Docket No. FAA-2007-28498. All communications 
received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered 
by the FAA before issuing the final AC.
    Advisory Circular (AC) NO. 120-53, ``Crew Qualification and Pilot 
Type Rating Requirements For Transport Category Aircraft Operated under 
14 CFR part 121.''
    On May 13, 1991, the FAA issued AC 120-53 to provide guidance on 
the process the FAA uses when determining the level of flight crew 
training required to operate an aircraft under 14 CFR part 121. The 
regulations establish requirements for training, checking, and recency 
of experience for flight crews operating an aircraft under part 121.
    Further, the AC provides guidance for determining the level of 
differences between comparative aircraft when a pair of aircraft have 
similar handling or flight characteristics. An applicant may submit 
documentation requesting the FAA consider the commonality in that pair 
of aircraft be sufficient to allow credits for that commonality, which 
may then reduce the amount of duplicative training and checking 
requirements and may also reduce, for some aircraft, the recency of 
experience required by 14 CFR 121.439 (a). After completion of the 
comparative process, if the FAA is convinced that the two aircraft 
types share sufficient common characteristics, then the FAA authorizes 
qualified flight crews to receive training, checking, and in some 
cases, recency of experience credits for that commonality.
    Advisory Circular 120-53 standardizes the application process for 
applicants and explains the training and checking credits available 
when the system differences between related aircraft models are from 
Level A through D. For example, a difference that amounts to no more 
than a knowledge-based difference that can be addressed in pilot 
training by using a computer-based course of instruction (e.g., the B-
757-200 and the B-767-200 hydraulic systems), would be a Level B 
difference. On the other hand, a difference that involves full pilot 
task training (e.g., visual display and switch position requirements 
between the B-767-200 and the B-767-400) would be a Level D difference 
necessitating pilot training in a full task training device.
    The AC also explains the process for allowing full or partial 
credit for recency of experience that may be permitted when aircraft 
handling qualities are similar. For example, handling qualities for the 
Airbus A-320, A-330, and A-340 aircraft were found to be similar, 
therefore credit for recency of experience was allowed.
    If an additional series of related aircraft models having similar 
handling qualities and commonality of systems is type certificated, the 
FAA uses the guidance in AC 120-53 when deciding to allow credit for 
training, checking, and recency of experience. When difference levels 
between the aircraft models do not exceed Level D, credit is usually 
allowed. For example, evaluation of the differences in the flight deck 
configuration (e.g., visual displays and switch positions) of the B-
767-400 determined that Level D differences existed between the B-767-
400 and the B-767-200 and B-767-300 series. Therefore, the FAA allows 
credit for training and checking for Level A through D differences 
between the B-767-200/300 and the B-767-400.
    These credits have been provided also within families of aircraft 
(same make but different models sharing commonality) with similar 
handling qualities and no greater than Level D system differences. 
Examples of programs that have taken advantage of these credits are: 
``Common Pilot Type Rating'' used by Boeing and ``Cross Crew 
Qualification'' (CCQ) used by Airbus.

Proposed Revisions to AC No. 120-53A

    In view of the success of the common pilot type rating and CCQ 
programs under AC 120-53, proposed AC 120-53A describes the same 
process as AC 120-53 for evaluating the differences between comparative 
aircraft and determining the training, checking, and recency of 
experience requirements based on a commonality determination. Proposed 
AC 120-53A restates certain processes to make them more easily 
understood and applied by the FAA and industry in view of innovations 
and

[[Page 49589]]

advancements in technology and aircraft design that were not envisioned 
when AC 120-53 was written.
    This proposed AC:
     Updates the guidance to reflect the increasing commonality 
evolving in contemporary transport category aircraft design.
     Streamlines the process, with clearly defined tests, that 
permit an applicant to apply for, and the FAA to allow credit for 
demonstrating sufficient commonality between aircraft. The process is 
updated by incorporating elements of the T2 and T4 tests into the new 
T6 test.
     Shifts the emphasis from documenting the commonalities to 
documenting the differences between aircraft types.
     Makes definitional changes. ``Common type rating'' is 
replaced by ``Common pilot type rating.'' The term ``variant'' has been 
eliminated and its meaning has been consolidated into one term, 
``related aircraft.'' It also separates the terms ``Currency'' and 
``Recent experience.''
     Introduces the term ``Common Takeoff and Landing Credit'' 
applicable to receiving credit for recency of experience.
    Updates the guidance to reflect the increasing commonality evolving 
in contemporary transport category aircraft design.
    Aircraft manufacturers are now designing more aircraft that share 
similar handling and flight characteristics. The use of common flight 
deck designs has also become prevalent. These commonalities improve the 
safety of aircraft operations and provide an opportunity in the 
proposed AC for the FAA to recognize this improvement in safety by 
reducing the need for some duplicative training.
    Streamlines the process, with clearly defined tests, that permit an 
applicant to apply for, and the FAA to allow credit for demonstrating 
sufficient commonality between aircraft.
    This proposed AC provides a systematic means with clearly defined 
tests that permit an applicant to apply for, and the FAA to allow 
credit for successfully demonstrating commonality between aircraft. For 
example, the T6 test criteria are clearly defined to give applicants 
more standardized, specific test criteria than the current T2 and T4 
tests. The T6 test requires the applicant to show a commonality within 
a specific weight range, center of gravity range and maximum 
demonstrated crosswind for takeoff and landing.
    Shifts the emphasis from documenting the commonalities to 
documenting the differences between aircraft types.
    The proposed AC shifts the emphasis from documenting the 
commonalities to documenting the differences between aircraft types. 
The applicant would continue to show commonalities and the similarities 
in handling and flight characteristics by demonstrating the absence of 
differences. Where differences do exist, those differences would be 
addressed by the appropriate training, checking, and recency of 
experience requirements. In the proposed AC the FAA would continue to 
allow credit for aircraft shown to have commonality as in AC 120-53.
    Makes definitional changes.
    ``Common type rating'' is replaced by ``Common pilot type rating'' 
to show a clearer difference between a pilot type rating and a type 
certificated aircraft.
    The terms ``variant'' and ``related aircraft'' were used 
interchangeably in AC 120-53 causing some confusion. The term 
``variant'' has been eliminated and its meaning has been consolidated 
into one term, ``related aircraft.'' For example, related aircraft 
would be two or more aircraft of the same make (Airbus), but not 
necessarily under the same type certificate (A-320, A-330 and A-340).
    The AC 120-53 definitions of ``currency'' and ``recent experience'' 
were considered synonymous and used interchangeably. This 
interchangeable use ofterms has led to confusion. The proposed revision 
separates the terms to eliminate any further confusion.
    Introduces the defined term Common Takeoff and Landing Credit 
applicable to receiving credit for recency of experience.
    A Common Takeoff and Landing Credit (CTLC) allows recency of 
experience credit between related aircraft of the same make with 
different type certificates that can be demonstrated to have similar 
handling and flying characteristics. This credit is applied toward 
meeting the requirements of 14 CFR 121.439.

Conclusion

    The concept of commonality and the use of credits can reduce 
unnecessary training costs while providing an acceptable method of 
compliance with the existing regulations. Only the FAA can make a 
determination of commonality; and while an applicant may ask the FAA 
for a finding of commonality, the FAA will only make such a finding 
after the FAA is satisfied that sufficient commonality exists to permit 
crediting.
    The history of safe operation of the B-757 and B-767 with a common 
pilot type rating, and the successful use of similar programs (CCQ) 
with other aircraft models by European manufacturers demonstrates that 
the FAA can continue to safely allow credit for training, checking, and 
recency of experience between aircraft that have demonstrated 
commonality. The entire proposed AC is published with this Notice for 
the convenience of the reader as Attachment 1.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 14, 2007.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Attachment 1--Advisory Circular (AC) No. 120-53, Crew Qualification and 
Pilot Type Rating Requirements for Transport Category Aircraft Operated 
Under 14 CFR Part 121

Advisory Circular

    Subject: Crew Qualification and Pilot Type Rating Requirements for 
Transport Category Aircraft Operated Under Part 121.
    Date: MM/DD/YY.
    Initiated by: AFS-200.
    [AC No: 120-53A]
    This advisory circular (AC) provides an acceptable means, but not 
the only means, of compliance with the Code of Federal Aviation 
Regulations (CFRs) regarding qualification and type rating of flight 
crewmembers operating under Part 121 of the CFRs. Included are criteria 
for the determination and approval of training, checking, and currency 
necessary for the operation of aircraft. This AC also describes the 
process by which the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determines 
the qualification of the pilot-in-command (PIC) or second-in-command 
(SIC) of new or modified aircraft. Details of the systems, processes, 
and tests necessary to apply this AC are explained in the appendices. 
Provisions of this AC are intended to enhance safety by:

 Providing a common method of assessing applicant programs.
 Directly relating pilot training and qualification 
requirements to fleet characteristics, operating concepts, and pilot 
assignments.
 Permitting better planning and management of fleets, pilot 
assignments, and training resources by outlining what FAA requirements 
apply, what training resources or devices are needed, and what 
alternatives are possible.
 Permitting timely and consistent decisions about fleet 
acquisition, integration, modification, or phaseout associated with 
pilot qualification or pilot assignments.

[[Page 49590]]

 Permitting manufacturers to design aircraft that take 
advantage of new technology or their similarity with existing related 
aircraft, as appropriate to a particular operator`s fleet.
 Encouraging cockpit standardization by crediting commonality 
and identifying necessary constraints when differences exist.
 Providing a framework for application of suitable credits or 
constraints to better address new technology and future safety 
enhancements.

    1. Focus. This AC addresses aircraft manufacturers or modifiers who 
design, test, and certificate aircraft as well as approved 14 CFR part 
142 training centers. In addition, it applies to operators whose pilots 
operate several related aircraft of the same manufacturer in a mixed 
fleet and operators seeking credit for prior pilot experience with 
related aircraft of the same manufacturer.
    2. Cancellation. AC 120-53, Crew Qualification and Pilot Type 
Rating Requirements for Transport Category Aircraft Operated Under CFR 
Part 121, Dated May 13, 1991, Is Canceled.
    3. Discussion.
    a. A System for Pilot Qualification. The FAA specifies 
qualification criteria (minimum training, checking, and currency) for 
particular aircraft through Flight Standardization Board (FSB) 
evaluations and findings. FSB findings are described in reports for 
specific aircraft. The reports provide guidance to certificate-holding 
district offices (CHDO) for use by principal operations inspectors 
(POI) and other inspectors. FSB report provisions serve as a basis for 
the FAA to approve operators' programs and for pilot certification.
    b. Changing Needs. Necessary support for the FSB process is 
provided by the industry. In the past, procedures varied by 
manufacturer, individual project, operator, and other factors 
including:
    (1) Introduction of new and related aircraft and increases in the 
significance of modifications to existing aircraft, particularly with 
regard to engines or avionics.
    (2) Integration of related fleets of aircraft following airline 
acquisitions or mergers.
    (3) Increased dependence on leased aircraft, many of which are 
configured differently than an operator's basic fleet.
    (4) A wider variety of equipment options available in new or 
retrofit aircraft.
    (5) Introduction of new technology in cockpit enhancements.
    4. Summary of Revisions. This AC describes necessary revisions and 
enhancements to the FSB process to address uniform, systematic, timely, 
and comprehensive application of pertinent 14 CFR parts in a changing 
and increasingly complex operational environment. This AC revision 
deletes master common requirements due to a lack of practical 
application. This AC recognizes the concept of reduced differences 
between related aircraft and defines the training, checking, currency, 
and recency of experience requirements.
    a. This AC revision clarifies and introduces new terms and 
concepts. These include:
    (1) Clarification of the terms ``aircraft type certificate'' and 
``related aircraft''.
    (2) The difference between currency and recency of experience is 
defined.
    (3) A definition of ``common pilot type rating'' now including 
levels A through D for any aircraft of the same make but of different 
aircraft type certificates (TC).
    (4) Modified checking requirements to embrace the concept of 
checking only at the difference levels between related aircraft.
    (5) A new term, ``common takeoff and landing credit'' (CTLC).
    (6) An introduction of the T6 test to provide for CTLC (recency of 
experience) in mixed fleet flying between separate type-certificated 
aircraft with common takeoff and landing characteristics. The intent of 
the T6 test is to provide a comparison of aircraft that have not 
previously been evaluated for CTLC using the T2 test.
    (7) A means to identify and evaluate new technologies that may not 
be associated with an aircraft evaluation.
    (8) A distinction between supervised line flying (SLF) and 
operating experience (OE).
    b. Additional concepts are introduced to uniformly apply the 14 CFR 
parts applicable to pilot qualification and the differences. The AC's 
main concepts are summarized as follows.
    (1) Master Difference Requirement (MDR). Master requirements are 
expressed in the form of MDRs. MDRs are requirements applicable to 
pilot qualification that pertain to differences between related 
aircraft. MDRs are specified by the FSB in terms of difference levels.
    (2) Difference Levels. Difference levels are formally designated 
levels of training methods or devices, checking methods, or currency 
methods that satisfy difference requirements between related aircraft. 
Difference levels specify FAA requirements proportionate to and 
corresponding with increasing differences between related aircraft. A 
range of five difference levels in order of increasing requirements, 
identified as A through E, are each specified for training, checking, 
and currency.
    (3) Operator Difference Requirement (ODR). Operators show 
compliance with the FAA MDRs through an operator's specific ODR, which 
lists each operator`s fleet differences and compliance methods. ODRs 
specify requirements uniquely applicable to a particular fleet and 
mixed flying situation and are based on the MDRs. ODRs are those 
operator-specific requirements necessary to address differences between 
a base aircraft and one or more related aircraft, when operating in 
mixed fleet flying or seeking credit in transition programs. ODRs 
include both a description of differences and a corresponding list of 
minimum training, checking, and currency compliance methods that 
address pertinent FSB requirements.

    Note: These and other concepts are more fully described in the 
appendices.

    5. Setting FAA Requirements. The FSB process is made up of proposal 
development, testing, draft requirement formulation, FSB final 
determinations and FAA approval.
    a. Applicants' Proposals. Aircraft manufacturers or modifiers 
usually initiate proposals for formulation or amendment of FSB 
requirements. This is done in conjunction with application for aircraft 
type certification or supplemental type certification of an aircraft or 
system. The FAA, operators, and, in certain instances, other 
organizations or individuals, may initiate proposals or amendments.
    b. Standardized Tests. A main element of the requirements 
formulation process is the use of standardized testing to determine 
pilot qualification requirements. One or more of six tests are applied 
depending on the proposal's degree of differences between related 
aircraft, difference levels sought, and the outcome of any previous 
tests. Only the necessary tests are used. Tests may be waived or 
difference levels may be assigned based on operational experience.
    c. FAA Formulation and Implementation of Requirements. Following 
testing and formulation of draft requirements, FSB requirement 
determinations are then made specifying MDRs and any necessary 
supporting information. Supporting information may pertain to operator 
certification, airmen certification, approval of devices and 
simulators, and other items necessary for proper application of MDRs. 
FSB reports will be used in the evaluation, certification, and approval 
of operators' programs.

[[Page 49591]]

    d. Revision of Requirements. FSB reports are periodically updated 
when new or modified aircraft are introduced, when requested by an 
applicant based on OE, or when the FAA determines it is necessary for 
safety reasons.
    e. Pilot Type Ratings. A new pilot type rating is typically 
assigned when level E training differences are determined between the 
candidate aircraft and the base aircraft. The pilot type rating 
determination and any training, checking, and currency specifications 
established under the testing process of this AC are determined by 
evaluating the handling qualities and core pilot skills related to the 
candidate aircraft. Systems such as heads-up display (HUD), Enhanced 
Vision Systems (EVS), or Synthetic Visions Systems (SVS) may require 
Level E training without requiring a new pilot type rating. The FSB, 
with the concurrence of the Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, will 
make this determination.
    f. Common Pilot Type Rating. A common pilot type rating is assigned 
when no greater than level D training differences are determined 
between aircraft of the same type with different aircraft TCs.
    g. Same Pilot Type Rating. A same pilot type rating is assigned 
when no greater than level D training differences are determined 
between aircraft with the same aircraft TCs (series).
    6. Operator Compliance with FAA Requirements.
    a. Obtaining FSB Information. Operators are advised of pertinent 
FSB information through FAA CHDOs and POIs. Operators may also obtain 
FSB information from aircraft manufacturers or modifiers, other 
operators, or other aviation organizations that maintain awareness of 
FAA policies, and the Web site http://www.opspecs.com.
    b. Certificated Operator Compliance with Mixed Fleet Flying. When 
aircraft are flown in mixed fleets, certificated operators will comply 
with MDRs and other FSB difference provisions. Certificated operators 
accomplish this by identifying a base aircraft, describing differences 
that exist between their base aircraft and the candidate aircraft, and 
by specifying particular means of compliance to satisfy MDRs. Sample 
FSB ODRs provide guidance for the approval of an operator's mixed fleet 
flying program and specify necessary constraints or permissible 
credits. The description of specific differences and compliance methods 
are identified in the operator's ODRs. Constraints or credits may 
relate to knowledge, skills, devices, simulators, maneuvers, checks, 
currency, or any other factors necessary for safe operations. 
Constraints or credits may be applied generally or only to specific 
aircraft or pilot positions. Once approved, the operator's program must 
be conducted in accordance with (IAW) these approved ODRs. ODR 
proposals are provided to the FAA CHDO in a standard tabular format and 
are approved by POIs only if they meet MDRs and other pertinent FSB 
requirements. The operator must apply to amend the ODRs when changes 
occur in the base aircraft, comparison aircraft, and/or training 
devices that affect the approval basis of the ODRs.
    c. Credit between Programs. In addition to mixed fleet flying, ODRs 
may be used to permit credit between related aircraft in differences or 
transition training and checking programs, consistent with FSB 
provisions.
    7. FAA Approval of Operator Programs.
    a. POI Approval. FAA POIs approve operator programs when those 
programs comply with FSB provisions. If less restrictive programs are 
proposed, POIs advise the applicant that:
    (1) A request for change of the MDRs must be initiated;
    (2) The differences between related aircraft must be reduced or 
eliminated; or
    (3) An alternate approval must be sought.

    Note: An example of such a request is an exemption to the 
applicable requirement of the training section of the operational 
rule under which the operation is conducted.
    b. Limitations of POI Authority. When applicable, POIs may 
approve programs within provisions of the FSB report and this AC. AC 
provisions apply because other general constraints are identified 
such as a limitation on the number of different related aircraft 
that can be used in mixed fleet flying. POIs shall not approve 
programs outside the bounds of FSB or AC provisions without the 
authorization of AFS-200. Deviation from FSB or AC provisions will 
be approved by AFS-200, only when an equivalent level of safety can 
be demonstrated.

    8. Application of FSB Requirements to Airmen Certification. The 
evaluation items that FSB reports specify include the following:
     Knowledge;
     Skills;
     Abilities;
     Maneuvers;
     Performance criteria; and
     Other relevant items for proficiency checking or other 
checks/tests may be identified. This is appropriate to address any 
aircraft-specific factors affecting the safe operation of that aircraft 
operated under 14 CFR.
    9. Training Device and Simulator Approvals.
    a. Standard Devices or Simulators. Standardized training methods, 
devices, or simulators are associated with each of the training 
difference levels. Devices or simulators are approved for particular 
operators by their POIs, consistent with National Simulator Program 
(NSP) qualification and FSB master requirements.
    b. Special Criteria. In some instances, standard device or 
simulator criteria may not be appropriate for new technology. The FSB 
may specify additional criteria in FSB reports in these instances.
    10. Review and Approval. This is a process for review of FSB 
evaluations and approval of FSB reports.
    11. Appeal of FAA Decisions. The Director, Flight Standards 
Service, AFS-1, assigns responsibility to resolve appeals of the FSB 
findings.

James Ballough,

Director, Flight Standards Service.

APPENDIX 1.--DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES

Table of Contents

1. Definitions
2. References (current editions)

Appendix 1.--Definitions and References

    1. Definitions.

    Note: Definitions provided in Appendix 1 apply exclusively to 
this advisory circular (AC).

    Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG). FAA organization that sets 
training, checking, currency, pilot type rating, Master Minimum 
Equipment List (MMEL), and maintenance standards Maintenance Review 
Board (MRB) for assigned certificated aircraft types. AEGs also 
address operational aspects of aircraft type certification and 
resolution of service difficulties.
    Applicant. For the purposes of this AC, an applicant may be a 
manufacturer, modifier, or operator.
    Base Aircraft. An aircraft designated by the applicant used as a 
reference to compare differences with another aircraft.
    Candidate Aircraft. The aircraft that will be subjected to the 
FSB evaluation process outlined in this AC for comparison purposes.
    Common Pilot Type Rating. A pilot license endorsement between 
separate type-certificated aircraft for the purposes of pilot type 
rating that passes the testing criteria of the T1 (equivalence) or 
the T2 (handling characteristics) and T3 (core pilot skills with no 
greater than level D differences). A common pilot type rating 
endorsement is issued after a pilot has received differences 
training and checking, where required, on the type-certificated 
aircraft for which there is a common pilot type rating designation. 
The pilot who is receiving the additional endorsement must be 
current and qualified in the base aircraft; since, the check is not 
a ``full'' proficiency check as defined by Title 14 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (14 CFR), but an abbreviated differences check

[[Page 49592]]

on the differences from the base to the candidate aircraft. The 
differences check, unless it includes the requirements for a 
recurrent check, cannot reset the ``recurrent clock'' (a pilot`s 
base month for checking purposes).
    Common Takeoff and Landing Credit (CTLC). CTLC is a program/
process that allows recency of experience credit between related 
aircraft (same make) with different type certificate data sheets 
(TCDS) that can be demonstrated to have the same handling and flying 
characteristics during the following:
     Takeoff and initial climb; and
     Approach and landing, including the establishment of 
final landing configuration.

    Note: The T6 test is used for aircraft that were not tested (T2) 
during the initial aircraft evaluation for pilot type rating 
designation.

    Configuration. Aircraft physical features, which are 
distinguishable by pilots, with respect to differences in systems, 
cockpit geometry, visual cutoff angles, controls, displays, aircraft 
geometry, and/or number of required pilots.
    Currency. Currency is the recent experience necessary for the 
safe operation of aircraft, equipment, and systems as designated by 
the Flight Standardization Board (FSB).
    Difference Levels. Difference levels are formally designated 
levels of training methods or devices, checking methods, or currency 
methods that satisfy differences requirements between related 
aircraft. A range of five difference levels in order of increasing 
requirements, identified as A through E, are specified for training, 
checking, and currency purposes.
    Differences Training. Training required before any person may 
serve as a required crewmember on an aircraft of a type for which 
differences training is included in the certificate holder`s 
approved training program.
    Differences Check. A partial proficiency check of the 
qualification of a pilot at the difference levels between related 
aircraft. A differences check can be between series of the same 
aircraft type certificate (TC) or between aircraft of separate 
aircraft TCs of the same manufacturer.
    Flight Characteristics. Flight characteristics are handling 
characteristics or performance characteristics perceivable by a 
pilot. Flight characteristics relate to the natural aerodynamic 
response of an aircraft, particularly as affected by changes in 
configuration and/or flight path parameters (e.g., flight control 
use, flap extension/retraction, airspeed change, etc.).
    Flight Operations Evaluation Board (FOEB). The FOEB is 
responsible for preparation and revision of MMELs. The board members 
are drawn from the FAA.
    Flight Standardization Board (FSB). The FSB is responsible for 
specification of minimum training, checking, currency, and pilot 
type rating requirements, if necessary, for U.S. certificated civil 
aircraft. The board members are drawn from the FAA (AEG, 
Headquarters, Flight Standards field offices operations personnel).
    Handling Characteristics. The manner in which the aircraft 
responds with respect to rate and magnitude of pilot initiated 
control inputs to the primary flight control surfaces (e.g., 
ailerons, elevator, rudder, spoilers, cyclic, collective, etc.).
    Line Oriented Simulation (LOS). Use of a simulator in place of 
the aircraft to reinforce the understanding of differences between 
related aircraft. LOS should not be confused with operating 
experience (OE), which is required by 14 CFR.
    Line Operational Flying (LOF). The LOF phase of the test is used 
at the discretion of the FSB during the T3 test to validate the 
proposed training and checking. The LOF fully assesses particular 
difference areas, examines implications of mixed fleet flying, 
assesses special circumstances such as minimum equipment list (MEL) 
effects, and evaluates the effects of pilot errors potentially 
associated with the differences.
    Master Difference Requirements (MDR). MDRs are those 
requirements applicable to pilot qualifications that pertains to 
differences between related aircraft. MDRs are specified by the FSB 
in terms of the minimum difference levels. MDRs form the basis for 
an operator to develop their operator differences requirements 
(ODR).
    Mixed Fleet Flying. Mixed fleet flying is the operation of a 
base aircraft and one or more related aircraft for which credit may 
be taken for training and/or checking events. The FSB process 
defines minimum training and checking difference levels between 
related aircraft.
    Operational Characteristics. As used with respect to aircraft, 
means those features that are distinguishable by limitations, flight 
characteristics, normal procedures, nonnormal procedures, alternate 
or supplementary procedures, or maneuvers.
    Operator Difference Requirements (ODR). If differences exist 
within an operator`s fleet that affect pilot knowledge, skills, or 
abilities pertinent to systems or procedures, ODR tables provide a 
uniform means for operators to comprehensively manage difference 
programs and provide a basis for FAA approval of mixed fleet flying.
    Pilot Type Rating. A pilot type rating is a ``one time'', 
permanent endorsement on a pilot certificate indicating that the 
holder of the certificate has completed the appropriate training and 
testing required for its issuance as determined by regulation and by 
the applicable FSB report. It is recorded by the FAA on the pilot`s 
certificate indicating the make, model, and series of aircraft, if 
applicable. Title 14 CFR requires a pilot type rating to serve as 
pilot-in-command (PIC) and in some cases as second-in-command (SIC) 
of U.S. civil large or turbojet aircraft.
    Recency of Experience. With respect to flight experience as 
required by 14 CFR, means a pilot's completion of the required 
number of takeoffs and landings as sole manipulator of the controls 
within the preceding 90 days.
    Related Aircraft. Related aircraft are any two or more aircraft 
of the same make that have been demonstrated and determined to have 
commonality to the extent that credit between those aircraft may be 
applied for training, checking, or currency, as documented through 
MDR and approved by the FSB.
    Same Pilot Type Rating. A pilot type rating assigned when no 
greater than a level D training difference is determined between 
aircraft with the same aircraft TCs (series).
    Series. Aircraft sharing the same aircraft type certification 
with specific variations that are usually defined by the 
manufacturer and usually result in an amended aircraft TC.
    Supplementary Procedures. Those procedures that are identified 
in the Flight Crew Operation Manual (FCOM) under the section 
``Supplementary Procedures'' describing procedures not described 
under the ``Normal Procedures'' or ``Nonnormal Procedures'' 
sections.
    Supervised Line Flying (SLF). Supervised experience associated 
with the introduction of equipment or procedures requiring post 
qualification skill enhancement during which a pilot occupies a 
specific pilot position and performs particular assigned duties for 
that pilot position under the supervision of a qualified company 
instructor or check airman.
    Training Footprint. A training footprint is a summary 
description of a training program, usually in short tabular form, 
showing training subjects, modules, procedures, maneuvers or other 
program elements, which are planned for completion during each day 
or phase of training.

2. References (Current Editions)

     Title 14 CFR parts 1, 61, 91, 135, and 121.
     Order 8400.10, Air Transport Operations Inspector's 
Handbook.
     AC 61-89, Pilot Certificates, Aircraft Type Ratings.
     AC 120-35, Line Operational Simulations: Line Oriented 
Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line 
Operational Evaluation.
     AC 120-40, Airplane Simulator Qualification.
     AC 120-45, Airplane Flight Training Device 
Qualification.
     AC 120-51, Crew Resource Management Training.
     FAA-S-8081-5, Aircraft Type Rating Practical Test 
Standards for Airplane.

APPENDIX 2.--PILOT QUALIFICATION AND PILOT RATING REQUIREMENTS

Table of Contents

1. Purpose
2. Focus
3. Introduction
    a. A Comprehensive System for Pilot Qualification
    b. Master Differences Requirements (MDR) Set by FAA
    c. Specifications of Constraints or Credits
    d. Recognition of Unique Operator Characteristics
    e. Basis for Requirements
    f. Relation to Other FAA Policies
4. Concepts
    a. An Integrated System for Pilot Qualification
    b. MDRs
    c. Difference Levels
    d. Training Difference Levels
    e. Checking Difference Levels
    f. Currency Difference Levels

[[Page 49593]]

    g. Operating Experience (OE) for Aircraft
    h. Supervised Line Flying (SLF)
    i. Recency of Experience
    j. Operator Difference Requirements (ODR)
5. Formulation of FSB Reports, MDRS, and Designation of Pilot Type 
Ratings
    a. Requirements Formulation Process Overview
    b. Proposals for MDRs, Example ODRs, and Special Requirements
    c. Difference Level Tests
    d. FSB Assessments and Proposal Formulation
    e. Comments Solicited
    f. FSB Determinations and Findings
    g. FSB Report Preparation Distribution and FAA Application
    h. FSB Report Revision
6. Operator's Application of FSB Provisions, Preparations, Use, and 
Revision of ODRS
    a. General
    b. Application of MDRs and Preparation and Use of ODRs
    c. Selecting Base Aircraft
    d. Identification of Differences and the Analysis of Effects of 
Those Differences
    e. Identification of Compliance Methods
    f. When Proposed ODR Compliance Methods Do Not Meet MDRs
    g. Maximum Number of Related Aircraft
    h. Application, Review and Approval
    i. Implementation Provisions Transition Period
    j. ODR Revision
7. FAA Review and Approval of Operator Programs
    a. General
    b. Operator's Application of ODRs
    c. Base and Other Aircraft Identification
    d. Approval of ODRs
    e. POI Uncertainty Regarding Program Compliance
    f. Proposals That Do Not Comply With FSB Provisions
    g. FSB Revision of MDRs or Other FSB Provisions
    h. Proving Tests
    i. Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT), LOS, or SLF
    j. OE
    k. Limitations on the Total Number of Related Aircraft
    l. Compliance Checklist for CHDOs
    m. Implementation of FSB Provisions
    n. Aircraft That Do Not Have an FSB Report
8. Application of Requirements to Airmen Certification
    a. General
    b. Checking Specifications
    c. Checks Regarding Complex Systems
9. Training Device and Simulator Approval
    a. Training Device and Simulator Characteristics
    b. Aircraft/Simulator/Device Compatibility
    c. Simulator and Device Approvals
10. Review and Approval
11. Appeal of FAA Decisions

Illustrations

Figure 1 Master Difference Requirements (MDR) Table Example
Figure 2 Difference Level Table
Figure 3-1 Design Operator Differences Requirements Table Example
Figure 3-2 Systems Operator Differences Requirements Table Example
Figure 3-3 Maneuver Operator Difference Requirements Table Example
Figure 4 Master Requirements Formulation
Figure 5 Test Definitions
Figure 6 ``T'' Tests 1 Thru 5
Figure 7 Standard Method, Devices, and Simulators
Figure 8 FSB Process

APPENDIX 2.--PILOT QUALIFICATION AND PILOT RATING REQUIREMENTS

1. Purpose

    This appendix provides a comprehensive description of the system 
for pilot qualifications outlined in this advisory circular (AC). It 
includes definitions, criteria, processes, tests, methods, and 
procedures necessary for uniform application of the system.

2. Focus

    The appendix applies to and is used by:
    a. Aircraft manufacturers or modifiers who design, test, and 
certificate Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 
parts 23, 25, 27, and 29 aircraft.
    b. Operators who operate under 14 CFR.
    c. Operator, manufacturer, or other training centers having 
programs approved for use under 14 CFR.
    d. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) offices and inspectors 
administering programs under 14 CFR.

3. Introduction

    a. A Comprehensive System for Pilot Qualification. This AC and 
its appendices provide a systematic means to address requirements 
for training, checking, and currency within applicable 14 CFR parts. 
Definitions, criteria, processes, procedures, tests, and methods are 
consistent with and clarify application of current rules in 
particular situations for specific aircraft. This AC provides a 
comprehensive system for the FAA and industry to describe, evaluate, 
and approve use of particular aircraft and operator programs. The 
respective roles of training, checking, currency and airmen 
certification are clarified. This includes defining the role and 
criteria for designation of pilot type ratings for existing, new, or 
modified aircraft. The system is particularly suited to addressing 
transition, differences programs, and mixed fleet flying. The system 
aids in assuring that pilots attain and maintain the knowledge, 
skills, and abilities needed to operate assigned aircraft safely.
    b. Master Differences Requirements (MDRs) Set by FAA. The FAA's 
Flight Standardization Board (FSB) sets MDRs to address differences 
between related aircraft.
    c. Specification of Constraints or Credits. The system permits 
the specification of constraints or permissible credits. Constraints 
or credits may relate to knowledge, skills, abilities, devices, 
simulators, maneuvers, checks, currency, or any other such factors 
necessary for safe operations. Constraints or credits may apply 
generally to aircraft, particular pilot positions, or other 
situations or conditions.
    d. Recognition of Unique Operator Characteristics. The system 
recognizes the unique characteristics of individual operators while 
achieving uniformity in application of FAA safety standards. FAA 
MDRs determine uniform bounds to tailor individual operator's unique 
requirements to a particular fleet and situation. Principal 
operations inspectors (POI) approve each operator's unique 
requirements within FAA MDRs. Operator unique requirements 
accommodate particular combinations of related aircraft flown, pilot 
assignment policies, training methods and devices, and other factors 
that relate to the application of the FAA MDRs. Accordingly, the 
system preserves operator flexibility while standardizing the FAA's 
role in review, approval, and monitoring of training, checking, and 
currency programs within 14 CFR.
    e. Basis for Requirements. The determination of pilot type 
rating, minimum differences training, checking and currency 
requirements focus on basic operation of aircraft in the National 
Airspace System (NAS) under both instrument flight rules (IFRs) and 
visual flight rules (VFR). Included are all flight phases from 
preflight to shutdown under both normal and nonnormal conditions.
    f. Relationship to Other FAA Policies. Although this AC, and the 
FSB requirements in some instances, address particular types of 
operations or specific aircraft systems (e.g., use of flight 
guidance control systems for Category II/III instrument approaches, 
long-range navigation, etc.), other ACs address these issues more 
thoroughly. This AC and FSB requirements address such issues only to 
the extent necessary to assure that pilots are qualified to operate 
pertinent systems or equipment as part of initial or continuing 
qualification.

4. Concepts

    a. An Integrated System for Pilot Qualification.
    (1) System Elements. An integrated FAA/applicant system and 
process established to determine appropriate requirements, applies 
the requirements, and meets those requirements on a continuing 
basis, for uniform pilot qualification.
    (2) System Overview. The system uniformly applies FAA master 
requirements in a way that tailors a particular aircraft to any 
operator's unique situation or fleet. The FAA approves unique 
operator and fleet requirements for each operator based on FAA 
master requirements. The system develops FAA master requirements 
based on objective criteria and tests, with applicants' support for 
analysis and testing. FSB reports for related aircraft describe FAA 
master requirements. MDRs express FAA master requirements. Minimum 
acceptable difference levels between related aircraft articulate 
MDRs. An operator's training program, checklist, operations manuals, 
pilot certification, CTLC programs, and other such approvals are by-
products of compliance with MDRs. Operators comply with MDRs using 
unique ODRs, tailored to that operator's programs and approved by 
the FAA. ODRs, based on and in compliance with the MDRs, specify 
requirements uniquely applicable to a particular operator's mixed 
fleet flying situation. An operator's specific document

[[Page 49594]]

describes ODRs by identifying a base aircraft, differences between 
related aircraft, and that operator's compliance methods for each 
related aircraft. Paragraph 4j describes ODRs. Paragraph 6 describes 
ODR preparation and use. Paragraph 7 describes FAA approval of ODRs.
    b. MDRs.
    (1) MDR Applicability. MDRs are those requirements applicable to 
pilot qualification that pertain to differences between related 
aircraft. MDRs specify the minimum acceptable difference levels 
between related aircraft that may be approved for operators. One 
related aircraft is selected by the applicant as a reference for 
comparison purposes and is considered a base aircraft. This is 
typically the first aircraft on which pilots are qualified, or is 
the aircraft of which an operator has the largest number. Difference 
levels between the base aircraft and other related aircraft then 
specify the minimum difference requirements to be met for pilot 
qualification. Major differences in a particular fleet are defined 
between groups of related aircraft rather than specifying 
differences between each possible configuration and combination of 
configurations between related aircraft. MDRs are specified in terms 
of training difference levels described in paragraph 4d and are 
shown on an MDR table.
    (2) MDR Content. MDRs specify the minimum training, checking, 
and currency acceptable to the FAA for pilot qualification regarding 
differences.
    (3) MDR Formulation, Description, and Revision. MDRs are 
formulated by the FAA FSB for each related aircraft. MDRs are 
originally specified when an aircraft is first type certificated. 
MDRs are formulated using standardized tests and evaluations in 
conjunction with the type certification or supplemental type 
certification process. MDRs are based on an applicant's (usually an 
aircraft manufacturer) proposal, FAA evaluation of that proposal, 
OE, and test results when tests are necessary. FSB determinations 
also consider operator recommendations, safety history, and other 
relevant information. MDRs are described in provisions of an FSB 
report and may be revised if necessary. MDRs are revised when 
aircraft are developed or modified, tests or OE shows a need for 
revision, a revision is requested by an applicant and evidence 
indicates the need for revision, or rules or FAA policies change. 
MDRs are revised by a process similar to that used for initial 
formulation of requirements.
    (4) MDR Use. MDRs are applied to specific operators through 
formally described ODRs that are developed by and tailored to each 
operator. FAA field offices use the MDRs as the basis for approval 
of individual operator's differences programs for approval of 
initial or transition programs where credit for previous training or 
experience with other related aircraft is sought.
    (5) The MDR Table. An example of typical MDRs for the B-737-200, 
-300, -400, -500, -600, -700, -800, and -900 is shown in Figure 1. 
MDR table requirements are shown for each pair of aircraft by 
notations in each element of corresponding columns and rows of the 
table. Each element of the table identifies the minimum differences 
training, checking, and currency requirements applicable to mixed 
fleet flying. The MDR table identifies a pertinent base aircraft and 
particular aircraft for which requirements are sought. Note the 
minimum difference levels that correspond to the pertinent column 
and row, and special requirements in footnotes, if applicable.
    (6) Use of Higher or Lower Difference Levels. Operators must 
satisfy difference requirements by using the methods acceptable for 
the specified level or a higher level. Lower level methods may be 
used in addition to the required levels but may not substitute for 
the required level or be used exclusively instead of the required 
level.

[[Page 49595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU07.001

    (7) Differences Within a Series. Differences may exist even 
within series shown on an MDR table, such as within the A-318/319/
320/321 series. MDR elements may show requirements from one series 
to another identified in the footnotes. Such requirements, however, 
apply only if pertinent differences exist between those aircraft.
    (8) More Than Two Related Aircraft. When pilot assignments apply 
to more than two related aircraft, such as the A-320, A-330, and A-
340, each pertinent requirement of the MDR table applies. 
Applications of multiple requirements for flying two or more related 
aircraft and certain limits to flying large numbers of related 
aircraft are described in paragraph 7k.
    (9) Special Requirements.
    (10) MDR Footnotes. Footnotes can be used to credit, constrain, 
or set alternate levels when special situations apply. Use of 
footnotes permits accommodation of variations in installed 
equipment, options, pilot knowledge or experience on other aircraft, 
training methods or devices, or other factors that are not addressed 
by basic levels between aircraft. For example, a footnote may allow 
credit or apply constraints to the use of a particular flight 
guidance control system (FGCS), flight management system (FMS), or 
electronic flight instrument system (EFIS), which is installed on 
aircraft. Footnotes are an appropriate means to address requirements 
that relate to specific systems (e.g., flight director and FMS) 
rather than a particular aircraft. In such instances, generic 
knowledge or experience with the particular system may be readily 
transferable between related aircraft. Footnotes may also be used to 
set different requirements for initial training or checking rather 
than for recurrent training or checking. When necessary, footnotes 
are fully described in the body of the FSB report.
    (a) Other Limitations. Other limitations may occasionally be 
identified within a difference level (e.g., C*/C*/C). The asterisk 
following the difference level in such instances identifies a 
special requirement or limitation pertaining to a particular 
training method or device. Such notes typically relate to acceptable 
training device characteristics when the simulator evaluation and 
approval process or standard criteria of this AC are not available 
to address a particular situation appropriately.
    (11) MDRs for Aircraft With the Same or Common Pilot Type 
Ratings. A single FSB report and MDR table may apply to aircraft 
that are assigned the same pilot type rating (same aircraft TC). For 
example, a single MDR table may cover the A-318/319/320/321 that 
have a same pilot type rating. A single FSB report and MDR table may 
also apply to aircraft that are assigned a common pilot type rating. 
For example, a single MDR table may cover both the B-767 and B-757 
that have a common pilot type rating. When level E training is 
required for an aircraft with the same aircraft TC and an additional 
pilot type rating is assigned, such as the B-747 and B-

[[Page 49596]]

747-400, a single MDR table for all series of a type-certificated 
aircraft still applies.
    (12) Minimum acceptable difference levels are assigned based on 
standard tests described in Appendix 3.
    c. Difference Levels.
    (1) General Description. Difference levels are formally 
designated levels of training methods or devices, checking methods, 
or means of maintaining currency that satisfy minimum difference 
requirements or pilot type rating requirements. Difference levels 
specify FAA requirements proportionate to and corresponding with 
increasing differences between related aircraft. A range of five 
difference levels in order of increasing requirements, identified as 
A through E, are each specified for training, checking, and 
currency. MDRs are specified in terms of difference levels. 
Difference levels are used to credit knowledge, skills, and 
abilities applicable to an aircraft for which a pilot is already 
qualified and current, during initial, transition or upgrade 
training for other related aircraft. Operators, who conduct mixed 
fleet flying where credit is sought, should apply difference levels 
and address all mixed fleet flying requirements to ensure compliance 
with FAA requirements necessary to assure safe operations.
    (2) Basis for Levels. Difference levels apply when a difference 
with potential to affect fight safety exists between related 
aircraft. Differences may also affect knowledge, skills, or 
abilities required of a pilot. If no differences exist or if 
differences exist but do not affect knowledge, skills, abilities or 
flight safety, then difference levels are not assigned or applicable 
to pilot qualification. When difference levels A through E apply, 
each difference level is based on a scale of differences in design 
features, systems, or maneuvers. In assessing the effects of 
differences, both flight characteristics and procedures are 
considered, since flight characteristics address handling qualities 
and performance, while procedures include normal and abnormal/
nonnormal/emergency items.
    (3) Relationship Between Training, Checking, and Currency 
Levels. While particular aircraft are often assigned the same level 
(e.g., C/C/C) for training, checking, and currency, such assignment 
is not necessary. Levels may be assigned independently. For example, 
an aircraft may be assigned level C for training, level D for 
checking, and level C for currency (e.g., C/D/C).
    (4) Designation of a Pilot Type Rating. Candidate aircraft 
having the same TC are assigned the same pilot type rating if 
training differences are not greater than level D. Candidate 
aircraft having different TCs that have training differences no 
greater than level D may be assigned a common pilot type rating. A 
candidate aircraft is assigned a different pilot type rating when 
difference training level E is required. When different pilot type 
ratings are assigned because of one or more candidates requiring 
level E training, pilot type ratings may be assigned to related 
aircraft consistent with a logical grouping of the most similarly 
related aircraft.
    d. Training Difference Levels.
    (1) Level A Training. Level A difference training is that 
differences training between related aircraft that can adequately be 
addressed through self-instruction. Level A training represents a 
knowledge requirement that, once appropriate information is 
provided, understanding and compliance can be assumed. Level A 
compliance is achieved by such methods as issuance of operating 
manual page revisions, dissemination of operating bulletins, or 
differences handouts to describe minor differences in aircraft. 
Level A training is limited to the following situations:
    (a) A change that introduces a different version of a system/
component for which the pilot has already shown the ability to 
understand and use (e.g., an updated version of an engine).
    (b) A change that results in minor or no procedural changes and 
does not adversely affect safety if the information is not reviewed 
or forgotten (e.g., a different vibration damping engine mount is 
installed, expect more vibration in descent; logo lights are 
installed, use is optional).
    (c) Information that highlights a difference, which is evident 
to the pilot, inherently obvious, and easily accommodated (e.g., 
different location of a communication radio panel, a different 
exhaust gas temperature limit that is placarded, or changes to 
nonnormal ``read and do'' procedures).
    (2) Level B Training. Level B difference training is applicable 
to aircraft with system or procedure differences that can adequately 
be addressed through aided instruction. At level B, aided 
instruction is appropriate to ensure pilot understanding, emphasize 
issues, provide a standardized method of presenting material, or aid 
retention of material following training. Level B aided instruction 
can utilize slide/tape presentations, computer based tutorial 
instruction, stand-up lectures or video tapes. Situations not 
covered under the provisions of level A training may require level B 
(or higher levels) if certain tests described in later paragraphs 
fail.
    (3) Level C Training. Level C differences training can only be 
accomplished through use of devices that are capable of systems 
training. Level C differences training is applicable to related 
aircraft having part task differences that affect skills or 
abilities and knowledge. Training objectives focus on mastering 
individual systems, procedures, or tasks, as opposed to performing 
highly integrated flight operations and maneuvers in ``real time.'' 
Level C may require self-instruction or aided instruction, but 
cannot be adequately addressed by a knowledge requirement alone. 
Training devices are required to supplement instruction, ensure 
attainment or retention of pilot skills and abilities, and 
accomplish the more complex tasks, usually related to operation of 
particular aircraft systems. While level C systems knowledge or 
skills relate to specific rather than fully integrated tasks, 
performance of steps to accomplish normal, nonnormal, alternate, 
recall procedures, or maneuvers related to particular systems (e.g., 
flight guidance control systems/flight management systems) may be 
necessary. Typically, the minimum acceptable training media for 
level C training would be interactive computer-based training, 
cockpit systems simulators, cockpit procedure trainers or part task 
trainers (e.g., FMS or traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS)).
    (4) Level D Training. Level D training can only be accomplished 
with devices capable of performing flight maneuvers and addressing 
full task differences of knowledge, skills, and/or abilities. 
Devices capable of flight maneuvers address full task performance in 
a dynamic real time environment. The devices enable integration of 
knowledge, skills, and abilities in a simulated flight environment, 
involving combinations of operationally oriented tasks and realistic 
task loading for each relevant phase of flight. Level D training, 
knowledge, and skills to complete necessary normal, nonnormal, 
alternate, or recall procedures are fully addressed for each related 
aircraft. Level D differences training requires mastery of 
interrelated skills that cannot be adequately addressed by separate 
acquisition of a series of knowledge areas or skills that are 
interrelated. The differences are not so significant that a full 
transition training course is required. If demonstrating 
interrelationships between the systems is important, use of a series 
of separate devices for systems training will not suffice. Training 
for level D differences requires a training device that has 
accurate, high fidelity integration of systems and controls, and 
realistic instrument indications. Level D training may also require 
maneuvers, visual cues, motion cues, dynamics, control loading or 
specific environmental conditions. Weather phenomenon such as low 
visibility, CAT III, or windshear may or may not be incorporated. 
Where simplified or generic characteristics of an aircraft type are 
used in devices to satisfy difference level D training, significant 
negative training must not occur as a result of the simplification. 
Typically, the minimum acceptable training media for level D 
training would be flight training device level 6.
    (5) Level E Training. Level E training is applicable to 
candidate aircraft having such significant full task differences 
that require a ``high fidelity'' environment to attain or maintain 
knowledge, skills, or abilities. Training at level E can only be 
satisfied by the use of a simulator qualified at level C or D 
consistent with FAA criteria. Level E training, if done in an 
aircraft, should be modified for safety reasons where maneuvers can 
result in a high degree of risk (i.e., an engine set at idle thrust 
to simulate an engine failure). As with other levels, when level E 
training is assigned, suitable credit or constraints may be applied 
for knowledge, skills, and/or abilities related to other pertinent 
related aircraft. Credits or constraints are specified for the 
subjects, procedures, or maneuvers shown in FSB reports and are 
applied through the ODR table.

    Note: Training differences levels specified by the FSB represent 
minimum requirements. Operators may use a device associated with a 
higher difference level to satisfy a training differences 
requirement. For example, if level C differences are assessed due to 
installation of a different FMS, operators may train pilots using 
the FMS installed in a full flight simulator (FFS) as a system 
trainer if a

[[Page 49597]]

dedicated part task FMS training device is not available.

    e. Checking Difference Levels.
    (1) Initial and Recurrent Checking. Difference checking 
addresses any pertinent pilot testing or certification that includes 
pilot type rating checks, proficiency checks, Advanced Qualification 
Program (AQP) evaluations, and any other checks specified by FSB 
reports. Initial and recurrent checking levels are the same unless 
otherwise specified by the FSB. In certain instances, it may be 
possible to satisfactorily accomplish recurrent checking objectives 
in devices that do not meet initial checking requirements. In such 
instances, the FSB may recommend certain devices that do not meet 
initial check requirements for use to administer recurring checks. 
The POI/Training Center Program Manager, in coordination with the 
FSB, may require checking in the initial level device when doubt 
exists regarding pilot competency or program adequacy.
    (2) Level A Checking. Level A checking indicates that no check 
related to differences is required at the time of differences 
training. A pilot is responsible for knowledge of each related 
aircraft flown. Differences items should be included as an integral 
part of subsequent recurring proficiency checks.
    (3) Level B Checking. Level B checking indicates that a ``task'' 
or ``systems'' check is required following transition and recurring 
differences training. Level B checking typically applies to 
particular tasks or systems such as FMS, TCAS, or other individual 
systems or related groups of systems.
    (4) Level C Checking. Level C checking requires a partial 
proficiency check using a device suitable for meeting level C (or 
higher) differences training requirements following transition and 
recurrent differences training. The partial check is conducted 
relative to particular maneuvers or systems designated by the FSB. 
Example of a level C check: Evaluation of a sequence of maneuvers 
demonstrating a pilot's ability to use a FGCS or FMS. An acceptable 
scenario would include each relevant phase of flight that uses the 
FGCS or FMS.
    (5) Level D Checking. Level D checking requires a partial 
proficiency check for one or more related aircraft following both 
transition and recurrent training. The partial proficiency check 
covers the particular maneuvers, systems, or devices designated by 
the FSB. Level D checks are performed using scenarios representing a 
``real time'' flight environment and devices permitted for level D 
differences training. A full proficiency check is typically 
conducted on the base aircraft, and a partial proficiency check on 
the related aircraft, covering all pertinent differences.
    (6) Level E Checking. Unless specified, level E checking 
requires that a full proficiency check be conducted in a level C or 
D FFS. As with other levels, when level E checking is assigned, 
suitable credit or constraints may be applied for knowledge, skills, 
and/or abilities related to other pertinent related aircraft. 
Credits or constraints are specified for the subjects, procedures, 
or maneuvers shown in FSB reports and are applied through the ODR 
table.

    Note: Assignment of level E checking requirements alone does not 
result in assignment of a separate pilot type rating. Only the 
assignment of level E training requirements may result in assignment 
of a separate pilot type rating.

    f. Currency Difference Levels. The term ``currency'' as used in 
this AC addresses recent experience necessary for safe operation of 
aircraft as designated by the FSB. Currency issues not specified by 
the FSB are covered by regulation.
    (1) Level A Currency. Level A currency is considered common to 
each related aircraft. Thus, assessment or tracking of currency for 
separate related aircraft is not necessary or applicable. 
Maintenance of currency in any one related aircraft or a combination 
of related aircraft will suffice for any other related aircraft.
    (2) Level B Currency. Level B currency is ``knowledge related'' 
currency, typically achieved through self-review by individual 
pilots for a particular aircraft. Self-review is usually 
accomplished by review of material provided by the operator to 
pilot. Such currency may be undertaken at an individual pilot`s 
initiative; however, the operator must identify the material and the 
frequency or other situations in which the material should be 
reviewed. Self-review may be based on manual information, bulletins, 
aircraft placards, memos, class handouts, videotapes, or other 
memory aids that describe the differences, procedures, maneuvers, or 
limits for the pertinent aircraft that pilots are flying. Examples 
of acceptable compliance with level B currency are:
    (a) The issuance of a bulletin that directs pilots to review 
specific operating manual information before flying a related 
aircraft. Level B currency may be regained by review of pertinent 
information to include bulletins, if that related aircraft has not 
been flown within a specified period (e.g., fly that related 
aircraft or have completed a review of the differences in 
limitations and procedures within a specified number of days).
    (b) Pilot certification on a dispatch release that they have 
reviewed pertinent information for a particular related aircraft to 
be flown on that trip. Level B currency cannot, however, be achieved 
solely by review of class notes taken by and at the initiative of an 
individual pilot unless the adequacy of those notes is verified by 
the operator.
    (3) Level C Currency. Level C currency is applicable to one or 
more designated systems or procedures, and relates to both skill and 
knowledge requirements. An example would be establishment of FMS 
currency, flight guidance control system currency, or other 
particular currency that is necessary for safe operation of a 
related aircraft. Establishment of level C for a related aircraft 
with an FMS would typically require a pilot to fly that related 
aircraft within the specified period of time or re-establish 
currency. Currency constraints for level C are established by the 
FSB. When level C currency applies, pertinent level B currency must 
also be addressed. Examples of methods acceptable for addressing 
level C currency are:
    (a) Pilot scheduling practices resulting in a pilot being 
scheduled to fly a related aircraft with the pertinent system/
procedure within the specified period of time;
    (b) Tracking of an individual pilot's flying of related aircraft 
to ensure that the particular system/procedure has been flown within 
the specified period of time;
    (c) Use of a higher level method (level D or E currency); or
    (d) Other methods as designated or found acceptable by the FSB.
    (4) Re-establishing Level C Currency. When currency is lost, 
currency may be re-established by completing required items using a 
device equal to or higher than that specified for level C 
differences training and checking. Other means to re-establish 
currency include flights with an appropriately qualified check 
airman/instructor, completion of proficiency training, or a 
proficiency check. In some instances, a formal refamiliarization 
period in the actual aircraft with the applicable system operating 
while on the ground may be acceptable if permitted by the FSB. Such 
refamiliarization periods are completed using an operator-
established procedure under the supervision of a pilot designated by 
the operator. In the case of a noncurrent SIC, a designated pilot-
in-command (PIC) may be authorized to accompany a pilot to re-
establish currency.
    (5) Level D Currency. Level D currency is related to designated 
maneuvers, and addresses knowledge and skills required for 
performing aircraft control tasks in real time, with integrated use 
of associated systems and procedures. Level D currency may also 
address certain differences in flight characteristics including 
performance of any required maneuvers and related normal/abnormal/
emergency procedures for a particular related aircraft. A typical 
application of level D currency is to specify selected maneuvers, 
such as takeoff, departure, arrival, approach, or landing, which are 
to be performed using a particular FGCS and instrument display 
system. Either a pilot must fly a related aircraft equipped with the 
FGCS and particular display system sufficiently often to retain 
familiarity and competence within the specified currency period, or 
currency must be re-established. Currency constraints for level D 
are established by the FSB. When level D currency applies, pertinent 
level B and level C currency must also be addressed. Examples of 
methods acceptable for addressing level D currency are:
    (a) Tracking of flights by a particular pilot in a particular 
related aircraft to assure experience within the specified currency 
period.
    (b) Tracking the completion of specific maneuvers based on 
logbook entries, Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting 
System (ACARS) data, or other reliable records to assure experience 
within the specified currency period.
    (c) Scheduling of aircraft or pilots to permit currency 
requirements to be met with verification that each pilot has 
actually accomplished the assigned or an equivalent schedule.
    (d) Completion of pilot certification, proficiency check, 
proficiency training, AQP evaluations, or other pertinent events in

[[Page 49598]]

which designated maneuvers are performed in a device or simulator 
acceptable for level D currency.
    (e) Use of a higher level method (level E currency).
    (f) Other methods as designated or found acceptable by the FSB.
    (6) Re-establishing Level D Currency. When currency is lost, 
currency may be re-established by completing pertinent maneuvers 
using a device equal to or higher than that specified for level D 
differences training and checking. Other means to re-establish 
currency include flight with an appropriately qualified check airman 
during training or in line operations, completion of proficiency 
training, a proficiency check, or AQP proficiency evaluation.
    (7) Level E Currency. Level E currency may specify system, 
procedure, or maneuver currency item(s) necessary for safe 
operations, as identified by the FSB, to be accomplished in a Level 
C/D simulator for that related aircraft. FSB provisions related to 
takeoff and landing are applied in a way that addresses needed 
system or maneuver experience. For example, if FGCS, FMS, EFIS, 
navigation, or other system or maneuver experience is the basis for 
a currency requirement, approval of an operator's program at level E 
includes the use of those systems in conjunction with satisfying 
takeoff and landing requirements. In this instance, making three 
simulator takeoffs and landings in VFR closed traffic without using 
the FGCS, EFIS, or FMS may not be sufficient to meet level E 
currency requirements.

    Note: Assignment of level E currency requirements does not 
result in assignment of a separate pilot type rating. Only the 
assignment of level E training requirements may result in assignment 
of a separate pilot type rating.

    (8) Re-establishing Level E Currency. When currency is lost, 
currency may be re-established by completing pertinent maneuvers 
using a device specified for level E differences training and 
checking. Other means to re-establish currency include flight with 
an appropriately qualified check airman during training or in line 
operations, completion of proficiency training, a proficiency check, 
or AQP evaluation.
    (9) Competency Regarding Abnormal/Nonnormal/Emergency 
Procedures. Competency for nonnormal maneuvers or procedures is 
generally addressed by checking requirements; however, in particular 
abnormal/nonnormal/emergency maneuvers or procedures may not be 
mandatory for checking or training. In this situation, it may be 
necessary to periodically practice or demonstrate those maneuvers or 
procedures even though it is not necessary to complete them during 
each check. In such instances, the FSB may specify a currency 
requirement for training or checking applicable to abnormal/
nonnormal/emergency maneuvers or procedures that are to be 
performed. This is to assure that extended periods of time do not 
elapse in a series of repeated training and checking events in which 
significant maneuvers or procedures may never be accomplished. When 
an abnormal/nonnormal/emergency maneuver or procedure is not 
mandatory and is not accomplished during each proficiency training 
or proficiency check, but is still important to occasionally 
practice or demonstrate, the FSB may establish a currency 
requirement. When designated by the FSB, these currency requirements 
identify each abnormal/nonnormal/ emergency maneuver or procedure, 
the currency level applicable, and an applicable time period or any 
other necessary/appropriate constraints.
    (10) Difference Level Summary. Difference levels are summarized 
in Figure 2 below for training, checking, and currency. Complete 
descriptions of difference levels for training, checking and 
currency are given above.

                                        Figure 2.--Difference Level Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Difference level                     Training                Checking                Currency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.......................................  Self instruction......  Not applicable (or      Not applicable.
                                                                   integrated with next
                                                                   proficiency check).
B.......................................  Aided instruction.....  Task or system check..  Self review.
C.......................................  Systems devices.......  Partial check using     Designated system.
                                                                   device.
D.......................................  Maneuver devices *....  Partial proficiency     Designed maneuver(s).
                                                                   check using device *.
E.......................................  Simulator c/d or        Proficiency check       Designed maneuver(s)
                                           aircraft .     using simulator c/d     except takeoff and
                                                                   or aircraft *.          landings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 = New pilot type rating is normally assigned.
* = FFS or aircraft may be used to accomplish specific maneuvers.

    g. Operating Experience (OE) for Aircraft.
    (1) Application of OE. Requirements for OE are consistent with 
provisions for OE specified under 14 CFR.
    (2) Credits or Constraints. OE must meet the applicable 
requirements of the CFR part under which operations are conducted, 
except that credit for applicable OE in other related aircraft may 
be permitted. When approved by the FAA, OE associated with 
differences may be accomplished as part of or in conjunction with 
line oriented simulation (LOS).
    h. Supervised Line Flying (SLF). Experience associated with the 
introduction of equipment or procedures requiring post qualification 
skill enhancement during which a pilot occupies a specific pilot 
position and performs particular assigned duties for that pilot 
position under the supervision of a pilot instructor or check airman 
qualified for the operator. One or more of the reasons described 
below may apply:
    (1) Introduction of new systems (e.g., Local Area Augmentation 
System (LAAS), Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), 
runway area advisory system (RAAS), etc).
    (2) Introduction of new operations (e.g., oceanic operations, 
Extended-Range Operations with Two-Engine Airplanes (ETOPS)).
    (3) Experience for a particular pilot position (e.g., PIC, SIC).
    (4) Special characteristics (e.g., effects of unique airports, 
mountainous areas, unusual weather, special air traffic control 
procedures, or nonstandard runway surfaces) on this aircraft.
    i. Recency of Experience. Credit towards the recency of 
experience requirements of 14 CFR may be permitted for takeoffs and 
landings performed in related aircraft as provided by CTLC. CTLC 
must be validated through the FSB process and must be carried out in 
accordance with (IAW) the operator's CTLC approved program.
    j. Operator Difference Requirements (ODR).
    (1) ODR Purpose. If differences exist within an operator's 
fleet, which affect pilot knowledge, skills, or abilities pertinent 
to systems or procedures, ODR tables provide a uniform means for 
operators to comprehensively manage difference programs and provide 
a basis for FAA approval of mixed fleet flying.
    (2) ODR Content. ODRs identify a base aircraft, describe 
differences between aircraft, and show an operator's methods of 
compliance with FAA requirements. The FAA approves an operator's 
initial ODR and each subsequent revision for the following:
    (a) Base Aircraft. ODRs identify an aircraft or group of 
aircraft (aircraft of the same series with minor configuration 
differences) within an operator's fleet as a base aircraft. The base 
aircraft serves as a reference for comparison with candidate 
aircraft. Selection criteria and characteristics of base aircraft 
are described in paragraphs 6c and 7c.
    (b) Candidate/Related Aircraft. ODRs identify particular 
aircraft flown by an operator within each fleet. ODRs consider only 
those aircraft and combinations of aircraft actually flown by that 
operator. ODRs describe differences within an operator's fleet 
between the base aircraft and other related aircraft.
    (c) Significance of Differences. Differences are described in 
summary form and are

[[Page 49599]]

categorized by differences in design features, systems, and 
maneuvers. Differences are evaluated relative to their effect on 
either flight characteristics, pilot skills, and/or procedures. 
Procedures consider normal, nonnormal, alternate, and recall items. 
Limitations are considered in conjunction with normal procedures.
    (d) Compliance Methods. ODRs show how each operator's program 
addresses differences, through description of training, checking, or 
currency methods for each fleet. ODRs describe the specific or 
unique constraints or credits applicable, and any precautions 
necessary to address differences between aircraft. ODRs must comply 
with and be just as or more restrictive than FAA MDRs and other FSB 
provisions. Constraints or credits may be applied to all aircraft in 
a fleet or only to certain aircraft. Constraints or credits may 
address training devices, simulators, checking and currency methods, 
knowledge, skills, procedure maneuvers, or any other factors that 
apply to or are necessary for safe operations. Training, checking, 
and currency compliance methods are proposed and revised by each 
operator consistent with ODR examples from a variety of sources that 
are acceptable to the FAA. ODR examples are found in FSB reports.
    (3) Standard ODR Format. ODRs are depicted in tables in 
summarized form. If necessary, any explanation of details about 
differences, constraints and credits, precautions or compliance 
methods are included in attachments or appendices to ODR tables or 
are cross referenced to other operator documents. Figure 3 shows the 
general format for ODR tables, including examples of design, 
systems, and maneuver differences. The far-left column lists design, 
system, or maneuver differences that are pertinent. The ``Remarks'' 
column summarizes specific areas or items of difference. The 
``Flight Characteristics'' and ``Procedural Change'' columns 
identify what (if any) difference effects are noted. The 
``Compliance Methods'' section of the table notes the particular 
operator's approved means of compliance with FAA MDR provisions. The 
following abbreviations apply:

ACFT--Aircraft.
AFDS--Auto Flight Display System.
AVT--Audio Visual Tapes.
CBT--Computer Based Training.
EFIS--Electronic Flight Instrument System.
EICAS--Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System.
FBS--Fixed Base Simulator.
FFS--Full Flight Simulator.
FLT CHAR--Flight Characteristics.
FMC--Flight Management Computer.
FMS--Flight Management System.
PROC CHNG--Procedural Changes.
SU--Stand Up Instruction.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 49600]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU07.002


[[Page 49601]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU07.003


[[Page 49602]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU07.004


[[Page 49603]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU07.005


[[Page 49604]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU07.006


[[Page 49605]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU07.007

    (4) ODR Approval, Distribution, and Availability. ODRs are 
approved for each fleet by an operator's FAA POI in accordance with 
FSB report provisions. ODRs must be prepared, reviewed, approved and 
then used to govern training before start of operations. The 
operator retains approved ODRs with a duplicate copy as part of FAA 
certificate-holding district office (CHDO) records.

[[Page 49606]]

    (5) ODR Revision. ODR tables are revised by operators and re-
approved by the FAA when fleet characteristics change or when 
compliance methods change. Fleet characteristic changes include 
redesignation of base aircraft, modification of aircraft, addition 
of aircraft, change of aircraft, or phaseout of aircraft. Changes in 
compliance methods refer to introduction of new or different 
training methods, contracting for use of different devices or 
simulators, revision of checking or currency methods, or other such 
changes. Revisions to ODRs are also prepared, reviewed, and approved 
before operating.

    Note: Paragraph 6 describes the development, approval, and 
application of ODR tables to individual operators' programs. 
Paragraph 7 describes FAA review and approval of programs by POIs.

5. Formulation of FSB Reports, MDRS, and Designation of Pilot Type 
Ratings

    a. Requirements Formulation Process Overview. The process for 
FAA formulation and revision of training, checking, currency, and 
pilot type rating requirements is shown in Figure 4.
    (1) The process determines which information is required for an 
aircraft; it includes a proposal for requirements, tests, and 
evaluations of the proposed requirements; it then finalizes, 
applies, and implements the FSB requirements. Applicants propose 
MDRs, examples of ODRs, and any other FSB provisions that are 
necessary. Proposals for requirements are based on design 
objectives, analysis, evaluation of OE, other programs that have 
been proved acceptable to the FAA, or other methods. Setting of 
requirements is based on an objective set of tests and standards, 
analysis of results, and FAA judgments considering OE. The applicant 
and the FAA prepare and conduct standardized tests. The applicant 
provides test support, and the FSB conducts the evaluation. The FSB, 
in conjunction with the applicant, evaluates the results, and the 
FAA formulates proposed minimum requirements. The FSB sets final 
requirements by specifying MDRs and other FSB provisions. An FSB 
report that describes findings is disseminated to FAA field offices 
and posted on the operations specifications (OpSpecs) Web site for 
application to specific operators' programs. The formulation and 
application process of FSB requirements starts at the time a new 
aircraft is proposed to the FAA and continues throughout the fleet 
life of that aircraft. For aircraft already in service the process 
may be initiated when significant modifications are proposed, a new 
piece of equipment (e.g., a HUD) requiring operational evaluation is 
introduced and requested by operators, or when mixed fleet flying 
takes place. The FAA addresses periodic revisions of requirements 
when necessary, and revisions are initiated by the FAA and 
applicants as needed.
    b. Proposals for MDRs, Example ODRs, and Special Requirements.
    (1) When Proposals Are Necessary. The FAA usually determines 
when proposals are necessary and advises the applicant what 
information is needed, in conjunction with aircraft type 
certification or supplemental certification programs. Necessary 
information may include MDRs for related aircraft or other elements 
of the FSB reports. The applicant considers existing MDRs and 
existing or proposed ODRs.
    (2) Proposal Formulation. The formulation of a proposal 
typically starts when a manufacturer proposes a new design or design 
modification. The applicant will then do the following:
    (a) Formulate necessary information for training, checking, and 
currency for the aircraft in proposals for MDRs and example ODRs.
    (b) Prepare example ODR tables for candidate aircraft to support 
development of a proposed MDR. These examples represent proposals 
for programs for those specific aircraft and configurations that the 
FAA could approve.
    (c) Identify related aircraft for the proposed MDR table.
    (d) Formulate any necessary tests to assess difference levels 
and associated training, checking, and currency requirements for 
incorporation in the MDR table.
    (e) Identify interpretations of possible test results. The FAA 
and the applicant will then reach an agreement on specific tests, 
devices, and schedules to be used for the test program.
    (f) The applicant submits proposals for the following items to 
the FAA, as necessary:

 MDRs
 Example ODRs
 Tests and criteria to be used
 Other supporting information associated with training, 
checking, or currency programs

    c. Difference Level Tests. A sequence of five standard tests, 
described in Appendix 3, is used to set MDRs, minimum acceptable 
training programs, other FSB provisions, and define pilot type 
rating requirements. One or more of these tests are applied 
depending on the difference level sought, and the success of any 
previous tests used in identifying MDRs. Only those tests needed are 
used to establish minimum requirements. The outcome of these tests, 
and any resulting difference levels that apply, establish minimum 
requirements for training, checking, currency, and pilot type 
ratings. The FAA will establish an additional pilot type rating if 
it is determined during this testing that the assignment of a level 
E differences training is required.

    Note: One additional test, the T6 test, can be used to establish 
CTLC between related aircraft, when not previously demonstrated in a 
T2 test.

    (1) Steps in the Testing Process. The typical steps of the 
testing process are as follows:
    (a) The applicant develops representative training programs, 
difference programs, and necessary supporting information, as 
needed.
    (b) The applicant identifies proposed MDRs and example ODRs.
    (c) The applicant proposes and the FAA determines which tests 
and criteria apply.
    (d) The applicant proposes and the FAA determines which 
aircraft, simulation devices, or analyses are needed to support 
testing.
    (e) The applicant makes a proposal to the FAA, and agreement is 
reached on test procedures, schedules, and specific interpretation 
of possible results.
    (f) Tests are conducted and results evaluated.
    (g) The FSB draft minimum requirements are formulated.

    Note: If the candidate aircraft is anticipated to have no 
greater than level A or B differences with the base aircraft and a 
same or common pilot type rating is the proposed assignment, then 
the FSB may elect to directly apply a T1 test for equivalency.

    (2) Test Purpose and Application. A summary of the purpose and 
application of each of the six difference tests is shown in Figure 
5.
    (3) Test Relationships and Applications. The test process 
relationships, the sequence of conducting tests when more than one 
test is needed, and application of test outcomes are shown in Figure 
6. The start of the process is shown at the top of Figure 6. 
Resulting difference levels are at the bottom. New aircraft, for 
which a new aircraft TC is sought, follow the testing path at the 
right of the diagram for a T5 test. At the end of the process the 
aircraft is assigned a new pilot type rating. For candidate aircraft 
seeking a same or common pilot type rating the test process follows 
a path at the left of Figure 6. A series of decisions or tests leads 
to assignment of one or more levels A through D and in some 
instances may lead to level E. If level E is assigned as a result of 
this path, then a separate pilot type rating is assigned. This 
process is followed whenever a new aircraft is proposed, when 
significant changes are proposed, or when revisions to existing 
requirements are needed as a result of requests for change or OE.
    (4) Test Failures and Retesting. Generally, failures do not have 
paths back to lower levels. T3 test failure at level C can lead to 
subsequent passage at C (after modification of the system, 
operational procedures, or training and retesting) or D. Similarly, 
failure at level D can subsequently lead to either D (after 
modification of the system, operational procedures, or training and 
retesting) or E, but not C. Failure at level E can only lead to 
retesting with increased programs, improved programs, or improved 
devices since there is no higher level. T5 failure paths do not lead 
back to level C or level D. However, subsequent new programs do not 
preclude making a proposal at a lower differences level if 
technology changes, aircraft redesign takes place, training methods 
significantly change, or device characteristics and effectiveness 
change.
    (5) Same and Common Pilot Type Rating Tests. Aircraft seeking 
same or common pilot type rating will follow the path in Figure 6 
from the top left of Figure 6 through T1 or T2 and T3 tests 
resulting in the assignment of level A, B, C, or D differences.
    (6) ``Currency'' Tests. Currency tests T4 are not shown in 
Figure 6 because they are necessary only when the applicant seeks 
relief from system, procedural, and maneuver currency requirements 
set by the FSB.
    (7) Detailed Test Specifications. A detailed specification for 
the evaluation process and tests to establish difference levels are 
described in Appendix 3.

[[Page 49607]]

    d. FSB Assessments and Proposal Formulation. The FSB assesses 
the applicant's proposals, test results, analysis, and any other 
relevant factors to formulate a draft FSB report, which includes 
MDRs and other pertinent training, checking, currency requirements. 
The FSB either validates the applicant's proposed MDRs, training 
programs, and other information, or generates alternate 
requirements, which may include more stringent requirements, 
additional training, additional testing, etc.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 49608]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU07.008


[[Page 49609]]



                       Figure 5.--Test Definitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Test purpose         Application
------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1............................  Establishes          Sets levels A/B.
                                 functional
                                 equivalence.
T2............................  Handling qualities   Pass permits T3,
                                 comparison.          and A/B/C/D;
                                                      failure sets level
                                                      E and requires T5.
T3............................  Evaluate             Pass sets levels A/
                                 differences and      B/C/D; failure
                                 sets training/       sets level E and
                                 checking             requires T5.
                                 requirements.
T4............................  Revises currency     Used to adjust FSB
                                 requirements.        requirements if
                                                      needed.
T5............................  Sets training/       Sets level E.
                                 checking for new
                                 or ``E'' ACFT.
T6............................  Evaluation for CTLC  Sets recency of
                                                      experience
                                                      requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Expanded descriptions are contained in Appendix 3.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 49610]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU07.009

    e. Comments Solicited. The FSB proposal is circulated with 
interested parties representing the manufacturer, operators, and 
other pertinent FAA organizations such as engineering, flight test, 
pilots' associations, and other aviation representatives for 
comment, relevant information, and recommendations.
    f. FSB Final Determinations and Findings.
    (1) FSB Determinations. Any comments submitted to the FAA are 
reconciled, and final FSB determinations are made. Specification of 
MDRs, example ODRs, acceptable training programs, and other FSB 
provisions are completed. Any necessary pilot testing or currency 
provisions are identified. Assignment of any necessary pilot type 
rating(s) is made.

[[Page 49611]]

    (2) Basis for FSB Judgments. FSB judgments are based on review 
of the applicant`s supporting documentation, proposed ODR tables, 
test results, and any other pertinent information, such as FAA 
policies, OE, and results of other similar FSB evaluations. 
Specifically, FSB report provisions are based on the following:
    (a) Appropriate Data, Evaluation, or Tests. Testing may include 
aircraft demonstration, simulation tests, device testing, or 
analysis.
    (b) Direct Experience. The industry may have substantial 
experience with successful operational programs, which can be useful 
in the assignment of minimum difference level requirements. This 
experience may include particular training devices, training/
checking/currency requirements, and mixed fleet flying.
    (c) Indirect Experience. Applicable experience with foreign 
operators, military programs, or other programs that can establish 
the suitability of training, checking, or currency standards may be 
permitted as a means for FSBs to set MDR or ODR levels.
    (d) Applicant and Industry. FSB requirements are set following 
solicitation and review of comments.
    (3) Device or Simulator Characteristics. Minimum characteristics 
for devices or simulators for training, checking, or currency are 
noted using standard training device or simulator definitions. When 
standard criteria for methods, devices, or simulators are not 
appropriate for an aircraft, the FSB identifies suitable criteria to 
be applied and coordinates with the FAA National Simulator 
Evaluation Team (NSET). Standard devices and simulators applicable 
to each difference level are shown in Figure 7.

                               Figure 7.--Standard Method, Devices, and Simulators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Difference level                                 Devices or simulators
          Difference level                  definition                  Methods                    \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A..................................  Self instruction........  Bulletins, Manual         .......................
                                                                revisions, Handout
                                                                material.
B..................................  Aided instruction.......  Slides/video tapes,       .......................
                                                                Standup instruction,
                                                                Computer-based training
                                                                (CBT).
C..................................  System devices..........  ........................  Training devices level
                                                                                          2/3/4/5 full task
                                                                                          computer based
                                                                                          instruction (CBI).\2\
D..................................  Maneuver devices........  ........................  Training devices level
                                                                                          6/7. \3\
E..................................  Simulator C/D or          ........................  Simulator C/D or
                                      aircraft.                                           aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(\1\) Training level and simulator definitions are as specified by applicable ACs.
(\2\) Training device levels 3/4/5 typically include cockpit procedure trainers, cockpit system simulators, and
  similar devices.
(\3\) Training device 6/7 or simulator A/B typically includes fixed-base simulators or visual simulators.

    g. FSB Report Preparation Distribution and FAA Application.
    (1) Report Preparation and Approval. After MDRs are finalized, 
the FSB report is prepared and approved. Sufficient background or 
explanatory material is provided in the report to permit FAA 
personnel to properly administer FSB provisions.
    (2) FSB Report Distribution. The FSB report is posted on the 
OpSpecs Web site for implementation in approval of particular 
operators` programs. The FAA technical requirements described in FSB 
reports are primarily intended for the operators use to develop 
programs that will be approved by the FAA.
    (3) FSB Report Implementation. FSB requirements, 
recommendations, and guidance are provided to FAA field offices 
through FSB reports for each aircraft. These reports are directives 
to FAA offices to identify acceptable methods of applying pertinent 
14 CFR parts to each specific operator. FSB provisions set 
acceptable standards by which FAA inspectors approve, review, 
correct, or limit individual operator`s programs. The FSB report is 
the basis for approval of training, checking, and currency programs 
approved by each FAA office. The report is also the basis for pilot 
certification by FAA or operators and the surveillance of operators` 
programs. POIs may approve individual operator`s programs that meet 
or exceed master requirements, but they cannot approve programs that 
are less than master requirements. Aviation safety inspectors (ASI), 
aircrew program managers (APM), aircrew program designees (APD), and 
designated pilot examiners (DPE) use the report as the basis for 
administration of oral examinations, simulator checks, flight 
checks, proficiency checks, and OE. Preparation and application of 
ODRs by operators is described in paragraph 6. Review and approval 
of ODRs by FAA POIs is covered in paragraph 7.
    h. FSB Report Revision.
    (1) General FSB Revision Process. A general revision process is 
established to update determinations and findings contained in FSB 
reports. Revisions may be needed annually for active fleets with 
numerous change requests. Revisions may be needed infrequently for 
aircraft not undergoing significant change.
    (2) Revisions for New Aircraft. When an applicant proposes to 
develop or add a series of a type-certificated aircraft, MDRs and 
other FSB provisions must be revised to address that series. If an 
applicant initiates this action, the procedures noted in paragraph 5 
regarding initial determination of minimum training, checking, 
currency, and pilot type rating requirements are followed. If an 
operator proposes to add an aircraft that is not covered within an 
existing FSB report (e.g., a foreign manufactured aircraft) POIs 
should consult with the pertinent Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG). 
An FSB will determine the best method of addressing the development 
of the necessary FSB report. This is particularly important for 
older aircraft fleets in which differences may be significant, but 
manufacturer support is no longer available and aircraft imported 
into the United States that have been used only by foreign 
operators.
    (3) Revision for Aircraft Modified by Operators. When an 
aircraft is to be modified by an operator, the POI must determine if 
the change affects MDRs, example ODRs, or other FSB report 
provisions. The criteria for this assessment includes whether or not 
the difference affects pilot knowledge, skills, or abilities 
pertinent to flight safety. If a change meets the criteria, the 
operator should supply the POI with a difference description and 
analysis of the effects of the difference. The POI makes a 
preliminary estimate of the difference levels then advises the 
applicable AEG/FSB. The AEG/FSB may concur with the POI`s assessment 
or require other action. If FSB action is required, the AEG will 
initiate that action through the FSB chairman. The FSB may require 
that additional information or analysis be provided or that the 
entire test process or parts thereof be applied. The AEG may 
authorize the POI to approve assignment of the difference level. 
Changes to the MDRs will be made through the normal FSB revision 
process.

6. Operator's Application of FSB Provisions, Preparation, Use, and 
Revision of ODRS

    a. General.
    (1) Process Overview. FSB reports contain MDRs and other 
provisions that are applied by FAA offices in approving operators' 
programs. MDRs are applied through a particular method that 
identifies specific ODRs and compliance methods. Application of MDRs 
and other FSB provisions are one means to ensure pilot qualification 
for safe operations. This is necessary so that regardless of which 
aircraft is flown, uniform training, checking, and currency 
standards are met within the constraints of 14 CFR. Paragraph 6 
describes operator application of MDRs and other FSB provisions for 
training, checking, and currency. This is done through operator 
preparation and FAA approval of ODRs for each operator. When 
aircraft are used in mixed fleet flying, this AC's provisions and 
FSB provisions comprehensively address differences in training, 
checking, and currency requirements for each aircraft. In some 
instances, the FAA may limit the number of different aircraft 
permitted in mixed flying. ODRs are used to identify credits or

[[Page 49612]]

constraints between aircraft. These credits may also be applied to a 
related aircraft when transitioning to another related aircraft when 
those aircraft are intended for use in mixed or nonmixed fleet 
operation. The overall process for operator application of MDRs and 
development, approval, use, and revision of ODRs is shown in Figure 
8.
    (2) Availability and Use of FSB Information. FSB requirements 
are made available to operators through FAA CHDOs, applicant, 
industry trade associations, posted on the OpSpecs Web site, or 
other sources. When preparing initial or difference programs for 
specific fleets, individual operators apply the requirements of the 
applicable FSB report.
    b. Application of MDRs and Preparation and Use of ODRs.
    (1) Need for ODRs. When operating a mixed fleet, operators 
prepare the necessary ODR table proposals to describe their 
particular fleet and show compliance methods. This is done to assess 
effects of differences, plan compliance methods, and obtain POI 
approval for that operator`s specific program. ODR tables must be 
prepared and approved by the FAA for each fleet in which FSB 
requirements are established IAW FSB provisions.
    (2) Operator Responsibilities. The operator's responsibilities 
include:
    (a) Specification of a base aircraft.
    (b) Identification of differences between the aircraft within a 
mixed fleet.
    (c) Preparation of proposed ODR tables.
    (d) Assessment and description of the effects of the differences 
on training, checking, and currency.
    (e) Proposal of training, checking, and currency methods 
consistent with MDRs and FSB provisions.
    (f) Presentation of proposed ODR tables with necessary 
supporting information to the FAA POI for approval.
    (g) Revision of ODR tables when aircraft are introduced, 
modified, phased out, devices change, or MDRs change.
    (3) Use of Standard ODR Format. A common format for ODR tables 
is used to facilitate preparation, review, use, comparison with 
MDRs, and ensure consistency of application and approval by POIs. 
The common format is used in all cases where ODR tables are required 
except when only a few minor differences exist and level A applies. 
In this event, letters between an operator and FAA containing the 
necessary information and approval may suffice if acceptable to the 
POI.
    (4) Minimum Threshold for ODR Preparation. Within the mixed 
fleet, a minimum threshold for preparation of ODR tables occurs when 
there are differences that potentially affect knowledge, skills, or 
abilities necessary for flight safety. Differences not related to 
this criterion need not be addressed in ODR tables.
    (5) ODR Description and Examples. ODRs are described in 
paragraph 4. Examples of acceptable ODR tables for a particular 
type-certificated aircraft are shown in each FSB report.
    (a) Systems Shown on the ODR Table of Figure 3. An example of 
several pages from an ODR table is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 shows 
the application of ODRs to address systems differences and 
compliance methods. In Figure 3 differences are grouped in the order 
associated with a typical operations manual. Air Transport 
Association (ATA) code numbers are shown for cross-reference. The 
``Remarks'' column depicts differences and the ``Flight 
Characteristics'' and ``Procedural Change'' columns address effects 
of differences.
    (b) Maneuvers Shown on the ODR Table of Figure 3. The 
``Remarks'' column depicts differences. The ``Flight 
Characteristics'' and ``Procedural Change'' columns address effects 
of differences. The reference ``SEE APP'' refers you to an appendix 
to the table, which the operator prepares to more fully list and 
explain the particular procedural changes that pertain to the 
maneuver in the ``Procedural Change'' column.
    (6) Other Use of ODRs. The ODR process may be used for other 
applications such as flight attendant or dispatcher qualification 
tracking, but such use is not required as part of this AC's 
provisions.
    c. Selecting Base Aircraft. An operator chooses a base aircraft 
from one of the aircraft operated. Base aircraft are defined in 
Appendix 1. Additional information regarding base aircraft selection 
is in paragraph 7.
    d. Identification of Differences and the Analysis of Effects of 
Those Differences. Differences must be described between base 
aircraft and other related aircraft. This may be done from base to 
each other related aircraft. Differences may also be described from 
any related aircraft to each other related aircraft. All MDR 
requirements must be satisfied relative to the base aircraft so the 
pairing of aircraft not authorized to be flown in a mixed fleet 
environment by the FSB reports is avoided. As long as a complete and 
clear relationship can be drawn from the base aircraft to each other 
related aircraft and all MDR requirements are met from the base 
aircraft, to each other related aircraft, there is no need to 
describe each possible combination of aircraft. This permits a 
comprehensive identification of differences that exist in the fleet, 
determines the effects of those differences, and shows compliance 
methods. Differences are generally organized to follow an operations 
manual or flight manual to facilitate use and review, and should be 
categorized by design, systems, and maneuvers. Effects of 
differences are stated in terms of effects on flight characteristics 
and procedures. Procedures include normal, nonnormal, alternate, and 
recall procedures, as applicable. Since complete descriptions may be 
too lengthy for direct incorporation in ODR tables, appendices, or 
references to other operators' documents may be used to describe 
differences or effects. Some differences or effects may be repeated 
in the analysis. For example, an FMS difference may be noted in both 
a navigation system section and maneuver section associated with 
preflight setup. The objective is to assure each difference that 
pertains to pilot training, checking, or currency is identified and 
addressed, so it is not necessary to limit difference descriptions 
to prevent overlap.
    e. Identification of Compliance Methods. Once differences and 
difference effects are described, methods of comprehensively 
addressing each difference (compliance methods) are shown. With the 
difference descriptions, redundancy may occur. The same training or 
checking compliance item shown for one item may also be associated 
with and credited for other items. The objective for description of 
compliance methods is to show that each difference is addressed in 
some appropriate way, to show that the method and level chosen is 
consistent with the FSB MDRs, and example ODRs at a level at least 
equal to that required by the MDRs.
    f. When Proposed ODR Compliance Methods Do Not Meet MDRs. If 
proposed ODR compliance methods do not satisfy MDRs or other FSB 
report constraints, the following alternatives exist:
    (1) Differences may be reduced or eliminated by modification of 
aircraft, systems, or procedures.
    (2) Other training methods or devices that fully comply with 
MDRs and other FSB provisions may be acquired, leased, or otherwise 
applied.
    (3) Pilot assignments may be separated for a fleet so that mixed 
flying of related aircraft does not occur.
    (4) MDR change proposals may be requested through FAA POIs to 
the FSB. If FSB authorized changes to the MDRs are made, the 
operator may then apply the revised criteria.
    g. Maximum Number of Related Aircraft. Comparative differences 
between related aircraft may comply with FSB provisions; other 
limitations may also constrain mixed fleet flying. To prevent 
cumulative effects of differences for multiple related aircraft from 
adversely affecting pilot performance, the FAA sets guidelines for 
the maximum number of related aircraft to be flown. At difference 
level A, the number of related aircraft is greater since differences 
are fewer and less significant, whereas at level D or level E the 
number of related aircraft that can be flown is fewer because the 
differences are greater. To accommodate an increase in the 
differences level, increasing limitations are placed on the number 
of related aircraft that may be flown at the higher levels. 
Paragraph 7k contains specific guidance to POIs for approval of 
multiple related aircraft.
    h. Application, Review and Approval. Paragraph 7 describes the 
FAA review and approval process. The process is summarized here to 
facilitate ODR table preparation. An operator submits the proposed 
ODR tables and necessary supporting information to the POI to apply 
for differences program approval. The supporting information may 
include any appendices to the ODR tables necessary for evaluation of 
the proposal, a transition plan if needed, and a proposed schedule 
for implementation. POIs may also require review of such pertinent 
and additional information as copies of bulletins, manuals, or other 
training materials, before they approve proposed ODRs. If devices 
are proposed that are not approved by the POI, or evaluated by the 
NSET, a review and approval of those training devices may be 
necessary before ODR approval. Sufficient lead-time must be provided 
to the FAA for review. Lead-time depends on such factors as

[[Page 49613]]

the complexity of program, proposed difference levels, number of 
related aircraft, other operator precedents already set, and FAA 
experience with the proposed aircraft, training devices, and 
methods. Many noncontroversial level A changes can be reviewed and 
approved in a few days. Complex programs with many related aircraft 
can require months for review and approval. It is the operator's 
responsibility to consult with the POI to ensure that sufficient 
lead-time is provided to review initial submissions or changes. At 
least 60 days notice is acceptable for most programs. After the 
operator submits the program proposal, POIs compare the proposed ODR 
with the FSB report provisions including the MDRs. POIs consult 
pertinent FAA policy directives (Handbook, notices, Safety Alerts 
for Operators (SAFO), etc.) for interpretations or guidance in 
accomplishing the review. In certain instances the POI must consult 
with the FSB before ODR approval. If ODRs are consistent with FAA 
policies and within the constraints of the MDRs and example ODRs, 
the POI will approve the operator's ODR tables and its proposed 
differences program. When approved by the FAA, ODRs establish the 
basis for training, checking, and currency programs for a given 
fleet for that operator.
    i. Implementation Provisions Transition Period. In certain 
instances, a transitional period, agreed upon by the POI with FSB 
concurrence, may be necessary to permit operators to continue 
operations under previously approved programs until they are able to 
comply with FSB requirements. This is necessary when FSB provisions 
are initially set or revised and provisions require lead-time for 
program preparation, device acquisition, or to revise previously 
approved programs. Paragraph 7m and the individual FSB reports for 
each type-certificated aircraft discuss FAA approval of transition 
provisions.
    j. ODR Revision. ODR revisions are initiated when changes occur 
in an operator`s fleet relating to differences, difference effects, 
or compliance methods. ODR revisions are appropriate when such 
changes affect pilot knowledge, skills, or abilities relevant to 
flight safety. Examples of program changes or factors that may 
require ODR revision include:
    (1) Addition or deletion of aircraft in a fleet;
    (2) Modification of base aircraft or comparison aircraft in a 
fleet;
    (3) Change of base aircraft;
    (4) Discontinuation of use, addition of new or modification of 
training devices referenced by ODRs;
    (5) Revision of training methods with a resulting change in 
compliance levels;
    (6) Changes in effects of differences such as revised 
procedures, performance, or flight characteristics;
    (7) FAA revision of MDRs or other FSB provisions;
    (8) Adverse OE or training and checking experience that dictates 
inadequacy of ODRs, MDRs, or other FSB provisions;
    (9) FAA surveillance results, enforcement actions, or failure of 
an operator to comply with provisions of their approved ODRs; and
    (10) Other factors as determined by the POI.

    Note: Revisions to ODRs are approved using the same procedures 
as for initial ODR's approval.

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[[Page 49614]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28AU07.010

7. FAA Review and Approval of Operator Programs

    a. General.
    (1) FAA Responsibilities. FAA has the responsibility for review, 
approval, and continuing surveillance of individual operator 
programs consistent with this AC and FSB provisions. Within a CHDO, 
POIs have the responsibility for program review and approval. In 
addition to review, approval, and continuing surveillance of 
operator programs, CHDO and other district offices manage pilot 
certification consistent with the criteria of this AC and FSB 
provisions.
    (2) Approval Basis. FAA approvals are based on FSB report 
findings and policy guidance included in FAA directives (e.g., Order 
8400.10, Air Transportation Operations Inspector Handbook, notices, 
SAFOs, etc.). Except as provided for in transition plans, all 
preparations must be complete and provisions approved before 
conducting training, checking, or establishing currency under this 
AC and an FSB report.
    b. Operator Application of ODRs.
    (1) Operators Using Related Aircraft in Mixed fleet Flying. If 
FSB requirements are published, operators operating aircraft in 
mixed fleet flying must apply provisions of this AC and the FSB 
report. AC criteria and FSB MDRs must be applied anytime pilots 
operate mixed fleets between training and checking events.
    (2) Threshold Requiring ODR Preparation. Even though an operator 
has different configurations of aircraft used in mixed fleet flying, 
there is some threshold below which ODR tables and POI approval is 
not required. The threshold requiring AC and ODR application occurs 
when differences in related aircraft affect pilot knowledge, skills, 
and/or abilities pertinent to flight safety. If systems, controls, 
indications, procedures, or maneuvers are different and these 
differences have an effect that significantly relates to what the 
pilots needs to know or do for safe mixed fleet flight operation, 
then an operator must prepare ODR tables and seek FAA approval. 
Conversely, ODR tables would not need to be prepared in situations 
that do not affect flight safety. In such instances ODR tables are 
not needed even though pilots routinely operate several related 
aircraft. A minimum threshold is set to preclude unnecessary 
administrative assessment of mixed fleet flying, which has no safety 
implications. If changes to the fleet do not affect pilot knowledge, 
skills, or abilities affecting flight safety, then such changes need 
not be considered in addressing FSB or this AC provision.

[[Page 49615]]

    (3) FAA Review of ODR Proposals. After preparation the carrier 
submits proposed ODR tables and supporting information to the CHDO 
and POI for review and approval. POIs evaluate the following:
    (a) The operator has made an appropriate identification of a 
base aircraft.
    (b) Operators have comprehensively identified differences in the 
particular fleet. This includes appropriate ODR table comparisons 
between the base aircraft and each related aircraft.
    (c) The operator`s assessment of the affects of differences on 
flight characteristics and procedures for the base aircraft and each 
related aircraft are suitable and valid.
    (d) The compliance methods listed are consistent with the 
requirements of the MDR tables, footnotes, other pertinent FSB 
report provisions, FAA Order 8400.10, and associated advisory 
materials.
    (e) ODR provisions adequately address any ``subtle differences'' 
between related aircraft that have a possibility of inducing 
potentially serious pilot errors.
    (f) Training materials, methods, devices, and simulators 
proposed are acceptable, approved by the NSET if necessary, or if 
FSB provisions apply, the ODR tables meet FSB constraints.
    (g) ASIs, APMs, and APDs are prepared to apply FSB report 
checking standards.
    (h) Implementation plans are adequate and consistent with FSB 
provisions and other FAA policy.
    (i) Other factors determined necessary by the POI are considered 
and any requirements met.
    (4) The POI uses the example ODR tables and the MDRs provided in 
the FSB report as a basis for evaluating the suitability of a 
particular operator`s proposed ODR table. The MDR always remains the 
primary basis for comparison. The AEG should be consulted in the 
absence of conclusive guidance in making such judgments. Guidance 
for evaluation of specific system or maneuver items may be found by 
comparison of the proposal with the example ODR table shown in the 
FSB report and other approved ODR tables. The operator may use 
devices, techniques, or methods of an equal or higher difference 
level. Critical methods must be at least at the level specified by 
the FSB on the MDRs and shown in the example ODR table. Actual ODR 
tables proposed by the operator may show a variety of compliance 
methods to satisfy a particular item, ranging from level A through 
the level required by the MDRs. For example, if the MDR requirement 
is a minimum of level C, the operator may propose to use a 
combination of level A bulletins, level B slide tape presentations, 
and level C training devices to satisfy pertinent items. However, at 
least level C must be shown for critical items. The operator may 
choose to satisfy a level C MDR provision with level D or level E 
methods.
    (5) ODR Review Example. The following is an example of the 
process for review of a specific item on a proposed ODR table. For 
each proposed ODR item both the FSB example ODR table and MDRs are 
consulted and compared with the operator`s proposal. If the MDRs 
specify that level C devices are needed for training, checking, and 
currency between the base aircraft and a related aircraft and the 
example ODR table shows applicable level C systems differences or 
maneuvers, then the POI should ensure that the proposed ODR table 
submitted also shows at least level C for those pertinent systems or 
maneuvers.

c. Base and Other Aircraft Identification.

    (1) Selecting the Base Aircraft. Base aircraft are defined in 
Appendix 1. In general, base aircraft are used as reference for 
comparison of differences that affect, or could affect, pilot 
knowledge, skills, or abilities pertinent to flight safety. A base 
aircraft should typically be the aircraft that the operator trains 
to first, the aircraft that the operator has the largest number of, 
the aircraft most pilots fly frequently, or the aircraft that 
represents a configuration that the operator eventually will have as 
a standard. Another aircraft may be selected as a base aircraft when 
the previous base aircraft is being phased out, converted to a new 
configuration, or other such factors. A base aircraft may be 
redesignated at the discretion of the operator with FAA concurrence. 
A base aircraft is identified by make, type-certificated aircraft, 
model, and series or other distinguishing classifications. 
Classification should distinguish pertinent differences in 
configuration, handling characteristics, performance, procedures, 
limitations, controls, instruments, indicators, systems, installed 
equipment, options, or modifications.
    (2) Identifying Related Aircraft. A related aircraft is an 
aircraft or a group of aircraft with the same characteristics that 
have pertinent differences from a base aircraft. Pertinent 
differences are those that require different or additional pilot 
knowledge, skills, and/or abilities that affect flight safety. 
Differences considered pertinent are those relating to 
configuration, handling characteristics, performance, procedures, 
limitations, controls, instruments, indicators, systems, installed 
equipment, options, or modifications. Related aircraft can exist 
between different models, series or within a model/series. When 
designated in FSB reports, any aircraft included in a MDR table is 
considered a related aircraft. Like base aircraft, operators 
designate related aircraft by one of the following:
    (a) Model/series.
    (b) FAA registration ``N number''.
    (c) Operator tail number.
    (d) Any other classification that can uniquely distinguish 
pertinent differences between each related aircraft group and a base 
aircraft.
    (3) Accounting for Each Related Aircraft. The important factor 
in base and related aircraft identification and ODR table 
preparation is that regardless of the combination used, there should 
be direct and complete traceability of both differences and 
compliance methods. There must be a clear description showing the 
adequacy of compliance methods to assure proper training, checking, 
and currency to safely operate each aircraft assigned.
    d. Approval of ODRs.
    (1) Approval Method. Following review and determination that an 
operator`s program meets pertinent FSB requirements, the POI 
approves that particular program by signing ODRs. ODR tables are 
approved for each applicable related aircraft. Signature of ODRs or 
revisions, together with other relevant documents such as training 
programs and OpSpecs, constitute approval by the POI of that 
operator's differences training, checking, and currency program 
requirements. ODR tables are used for most programs. In instances 
where aircraft have only a few minor differences at level A, 
approval may take the form of a letter including necessary 
information in lieu of using tables.
    (2) POI Authority at level A and B. POIs have authority at A and 
B level to make determinations without AEG coordination if 
compliance methods are within the MDRs. This is important to provide 
timely response to minor differences requests. The results of these 
determinations are forwarded to the pertinent FSB for permanent 
retention, comparison, and future FSB evaluation.
    (3) POI Coordination Required at Level C and Above. At C, D, and 
E level the POIs may approve operator programs only if the programs 
are clearly within the requirements of the MDRs. If there is doubt 
whether or not an operator's program meets the MDRs, the POI 
consults with the FSB well before the operator's program approval 
date, to allow time for review and resolution of open issues. If the 
operator request is unclear or less strict than the MDRs 
requirements, the POI may not approve that program.
    (4) Initial and Final Approval. Like other training programs, 
POIs may authorize ``initial'' approval for an assessment period to 
review program effectiveness. Final approval should be made after 
suitable experience is obtained (generally within 6 months) IAW 
criteria in FAA Order 8400.10. In situations where initial approval 
is completed but final approval is delayed because of continuous 
revision or that results are uncertain should be avoided. When 
operators propose to add aircraft, modify existing aircraft, change 
base aircraft, phase aircraft out, or take other actions, which make 
the applicability of ODRs unclear, then the ODR tables for that 
operator must be updated. For some operators a continuous series of 
ODR table modifications will occur as its fleet changes. 
Nevertheless, the ODR tables must be current at all times. ODR 
tables are used as a primary means for establishing regulatory 
compliance and managing surveillance of training, checking, and 
currency programs.
    e. POI Uncertainty Regarding Program Compliance. The POI must 
resolve any questions before approval if it is not clear that the 
operator's proposal complies with the MDR table and other FSB 
provisions. When issues cannot be resolved to clearly establish 
compliance with MDRs or other FSB report provisions, the AEG/FSB 
should be consulted. Early in program development, POIs may need 
more consultation with FSB members. In mature programs, better 
examples will be available in FSB reports, other operator ODR, and 
the manufacturer`s larger databases for operators.
    f. Proposals that do not Comply with FSB Provisions. If the 
operator proposes a program less restrictive than the requirements 
of the MDRs or other FSB

[[Page 49616]]

provisions, then options of paragraph 6h. apply. If an operator 
wishes to pursue a proposal less restrictive than the FSB report or 
MDRs, details of the proposal and supporting documentation should be 
presented to the POI for forwarding to the AEG/FSB. The POI will 
evaluate the carrier`s proposal and, if justified, forward the 
proposal with recommendations for revision of MDRs.
    g. FSB Revision of MDRs or Other FSB Provisions. When requested 
by a POI, the FSB reviews an operator`s proposals and if necessary 
modifies MDRs and other FSB provisions. If master requirements have 
been amended and the proposal meets the revised requirement, the POI 
may approve the proposal. Other operators can also apply for similar 
approval or reductions based on the revised FSB report. Major 
changes in the MDR table may require review by the full FSB. The FSB 
may consider minor changes or interpretations on an ad hoc basis 
between FSB meetings for that aircraft. For some requests changes 
can be made based on existing or the supplied information. Complex 
cases may require testing to be conducted by the applicant before 
the MDR table is changed. Should the MDRs be updated to accommodate 
a change request, the proposed ODR can be approved within the new 
MDRs. Proposals for revisions to levels C, D, or E must be forwarded 
to the FSB for resolution through the formal FSB process. Allow at 
least 60 days for FAA evaluation of such proposals.
    h. Proving Tests. When a related aircraft with difference levels 
C or greater is introduced by an applicant, proving runs may be 
needed. Proving runs are usually needed for levels D and E. At level 
E, regulatory provisions for proving runs must be met. Training 
flights, test flights, delivery flights, and demonstration flights 
may be credited toward levels C and D proving requirements if 
necessary operational experiences are demonstrated and the flights 
are IAW an FAA-approved plan. FAA Order 8400.10 describes policies 
for FAA approval of proving tests.
    i. Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT), LOS, or SLF. When 
operators have LOFT/LOS/SLF programs and additional related aircraft 
are approved, the POI must review those LOFT/LOS/SLF programs to 
assure applicability to each related aircraft. SLF in the aircraft, 
or in some instances simulator (as determined by the FSB), may be 
necessary IAW provisions of the FSB report and with the approval of 
the POI.
    j. OE. As described in this AC and FSB reports, OE is consistent 
with definitions and requirements of 14 CFR. OE credit, as provided 
by the FSB for experience with related aircraft, may be permitted 
with the approval of the POI.
    k. Limitations on the Total Number of Related Aircraft.
    (1) Mixed Flying of Multiple Related Aircraft. When mixed fleet 
flying involves pilots operating more than a base aircraft and a 
single additional related aircraft, additional constraints limiting 
the total number of aircraft may apply. Operation of multiple 
related aircraft requires a review by the POI to ensure that pilots 
can retain and properly apply necessary differences information or 
skills for each related aircraft without confusion. When more than 
two related aircraft are flown, POIs must specifically ensure that 
subtle or compounded differences between the various related 
aircraft do not result in confusion of procedures, maneuvers, or 
limitations. ODRs proposed for the overall combination of aircraft 
to be flown must be examined to ensure the following:
    (a) That multiple differences do not result in confusion of 
requirements or an excessive level of complexity for pilots to 
adjust to or retain important differences information;
    (b) That subtle variations in differences information are not 
mistakenly applied and lead to unsafe conditions; and
    (c) That the amount of differences information is not excessive, 
not applied to the wrong aircraft, or not forgotten.
    l. Compliance Checklist for CHDOs. FSB reports provide a CFR 
compliance checklist. The checklist identifies those 14 CFR parts, 
ACs, or other FAA requirements that are in compliance. Pertinent 14 
CFR items not shown on the checklist or items shown but not reviewed 
by the AEG/FSB for compliance must be reviewed by the CHDO before 
POI approval of OpSpecs permitting those aircraft to be used under 
14 CFR. Items found not compliant by the AEG/FSB must be reconciled 
and compliance established before operation. The compliance 
checklist is an aid to CHDOs used to show the status of those 14 CFR 
items evaluated by the AEG/FSB, but does not comprehensively address 
all possible 14 CFR items and ACs that an operator may need to 
demonstrate compliance. OpSpecs, exemptions, deviations, or other 
factors, which the AEG/FSB may not be aware of, may also apply and 
may modify compliance status or methods shown in the checklist.
    m. Implementation of FSB Provisions. These provisions are 
addressed in each type-certificated aircraft FSB report and must 
comply with any criteria shown in that report. POIs approve 
implementation provisions at the same time ODR tables or revisions 
are approved. Operators that do not elect to apply this AC or 
implement FSB provisions specified by the FSB report require 
approval by the Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1.
    n. Aircraft That Do Not Have an FSB Report. When an FSB report 
is not prepared for a given type-certificated aircraft, or when MDRs 
or other provisions are not shown, programs are approved IAW the 14 
CFR, Order 8400.10, and other pertinent inspector guidance material.

8. Application of Requirements to Airmen Certification

    a. General. In addition to master requirements, the FSB report 
contains specifications for administration of pilot type rating or 
proficiency checks by FAA inspectors or operator check airmen. FAA 
pilot certification inspectors, APMs, operator check airmen, APDs, 
and DPEs should be familiar with FSB provisions regarding the proper 
administration of any necessary checks or evaluations for type-
certificated aircraft or their series covered by the FSB report.
    b. Checking Specifications. FAA pilot certification inspectors 
and APMs should assure proper application and administration of 
checks required by FSB reports as constrained by the MDR and 
specific ODR tables. FSB reports describe difference levels which 
constrain the various maneuvers, procedures, or unique factors to be 
considered by inspectors or check airmen when administering checks 
or observing OE. For example, certain nonnormal procedures may be 
required and others may be waived (for example no flap landings). 
Other unique procedures or maneuvers particular to an type-
certificated aircraft may be necessary. Any unique configurations or 
failure conditions that should be observed while administering 
checks are described.
    c. Checks Regarding Complex Systems.
    (1) Partial proficiency checking is required for differences 
associated with systems that are determined to be at or greater than 
level C.
    (2) Complex systems checks include hands-on operation and ensure 
demonstrated procedural proficiency in each applicable mode or 
function. Specific items and flight phases to be checked are 
specified (e.g., initialization, takeoff, departure, cruise, 
arrival, approach, and pertinent nonnormals). The FSB may require 
additional training beyond that which is otherwise required by 14 
CFR to qualify in each type-certificated aircraft. This training may 
be in the form of LOFT, LOS, or SLF.

9. Training Device and Simulator Approval

    a. Training Device and Simulator Characteristics.
    (1) Minimum Device and Simulator Characteristics. AC 120-40 and 
AC 120-45 describe minimum acceptable characteristics and standards 
for flight training devices and simulators. The FSB directly applies 
these standards in difference level specifications. When applicable, 
the FSB specifies other device characteristics as the minimum 
acceptable for differences training, checking, or currency between 
certain related aircraft. The FSB reports identifies these 
characteristics.
    (2) Coordination with the FAA National Simulator Program (NSP). 
When the FSB specifies device characteristics, the FSB coordinates 
with the NSET to ensure simulator criteria compatibility and 
approval process definition. If device or simulator characteristics 
have not been previously recognized by the FAA as meeting the 
provisions of this AC, FSB, or the simulator evaluation and approval 
process, they must be evaluated by the NSET in consultation with the 
FSB before use in an approved program.
    b. Aircraft/Simulator/Device Compatibility.
    (1) Devices and Simulators to Match Aircraft. When pilots fly 
related aircraft in a mixed fleet, the combination of simulators and 
training devices used must satisfy MDR and ODR provisions specific 
to the aircraft flown by that operator. The POI, FSB, and the NSP 
must address the acceptability of differences between training 
devices, simulators, and aircraft operated as appropriate. The FSB, 
POI, and when necessary, the Air Transportation Division,

[[Page 49617]]

AFS-200, or the General Aviation and Commercial Division, AFS-800, 
as applicable, identify acceptable credit for simulators and 
training devices.
    (2) Differences Between Devices, Simulators, and Aircraft. When 
differences exist between related aircraft and the proposed training 
devices, or simulators to be used, then MDRs and ODRs may be used as 
guidance for acceptance and approval as is done between aircraft. 
The FSB, the NSP, and AFS-200 or AFS-800, as applicable, should be 
consulted when uncertainty exists regarding the use of MDRs and ODRs 
for acceptance or approval of these devices. The FSB will not 
recommend use or approval of devices that differ significantly from 
the actual operated aircraft.
    c. Simulator and Device Approvals.
    (1) NSP Representation to the FSB. An NSP member may serve as an 
advisor to the FSB or a member of the FSB, to address designation of 
and approval processes for devices and simulators at C, D, and E 
difference levels.
    (2) Coordination of NSP Criteria with the FSB. National 
simulator team development of criteria for training devices and 
approval test guides for new aircraft are coordinated with the FSB. 
This ensures compatibility of FSB/NSP requirements and effective use 
of resources for development of approval test guides and 
determination of FSB requirements.

10. Review and Approval

    FSB reports are approved as designated by AFS-1. In the event 
that revision of an FSB report is necessary, the FSB is provided 
with necessary policy guidance to implement applicable changes.

11. Appeal of FAA Decisions

    When there is disagreement with provisions of an FSB report, 
that disagreement may be expressed to the FSB chairman for the 
pertinent type-certificated aircraft. If an issue cannot be 
resolved, the issue may then be addressed to AFS-200. Additional 
information, data, or analysis may be provided to support differing 
views regarding the FSB provisions in question.

APPENDIX 3.--RATINGS AND LEVEL TESTS--PLANNING AND APPLICATIONS

1. Preparation
2. Pilot Type Rating Determination Through Analysis-Level A or B 
Training Only
3. Function Equivalence-Level A or B Test 1 (T1)
    a. Test Purpose
    b. Test Subjects
    c. Test Process
    d. Safety Pilot
    e. Successful Test
    f. Failure of Test
4. Handling Qualities Comparison Between Aircraft-Test 2 (T2)
    a. Test Purpose
    b. Test Subjects
    c. Test Process
    d. Safety Pilot
    e. Successful Test
    f. Failure of Test
5. System Differences Test and Validation of Training and Checking-
Test 3 (T3)
    a. Test Purpose
    b. Test Subjects
    c. Test Process
    d. Successful Test
    e. Failure of Test
6. Currency Validation-Test 4 (T4)
    a. Test Purpose
    b. Test Subjects
    c. Test Process
    d. Successful Test
    e. Failure of Test
7. Initial or Transition Training/Checking Program Validation-Test 5 
(T5).
    a. Test Purpose
    b. Test Subjects
    c. Test Process
    d. Successful Test
    e. Failure of Test
8. Common Takeoff and Landing Credit (CTLC)-Test 6 (T6)
    a. Test Purpose
    b. Test Subjects
    c. Test Process
    d. Successful Test
    e. Failure of Test

APPENDIX 3.--RATING AND LEVEL TESTS--PLANNING AND APPLICATION

1. Preparation

    a. The pilot type rating, difference level definition, and test 
process are initiated when an applicant presents an aircraft for 
type certification. If the applicant presents a candidate aircraft 
to the Flight Standardization Board (FSB) as a new aircraft type 
certification with no anticipated application for pilot type rating 
credit for similarities with aircraft previously type certificated, 
then the FSB analyzes the training program requirements using test 
T5. The results of T5 will determine a separate pilot type rating 
and the minimum required training, checking, and currency standards 
as applicable to that type-certificated aircraft. If the applicant 
presents an aircraft seeking pilot training, checking, or currency 
credit, based on similarities with an aircraft previously type 
certificated, a series of possible tests (T1/T2/T3) are developed 
and used to determine its level of difference with the base aircraft 
of comparison. The results of these tests will determine whether the 
aircraft pilot type rating is a common pilot type rating between 
separate type-certificated aircraft; or the same pilot type rating 
of same type-certificated aircraft. The level of differences will 
determine the minimum required training, checking, and currency 
standards as applicable to the candidate aircraft. T6 comparisons 
may permit Common Takeoff and Landing Credit (CTLC) between 
different type-certificated aircraft. In Appendix 2 the details of 
these situations provide further amplification.
    b. To begin the evaluation process, the applicant identifies 
candidate aircraft. The aircraft are then assigned to logical 
aircraft groups to be described in Master Difference Requirements 
(MDR) tables and the FSB report.
    c. The applicant identifies major differences pertinent to the 
aircraft and makes comparisons with the proposed candidate aircraft. 
A differences document (i.e., an appropriate sample Operator 
Difference Requirement (ODR) table) summarizes the identified 
differences. Since combinations of related aircraft may be numerous 
and only typical differences are needed at this stage for test 
definition, the applicant may select representative ODRs for 
preparation.
    d. Based on the above analysis (including preliminary flight 
test results or flight simulation estimates, if available), the 
applicant proposes difference levels to be specified in each cell of 
the MDR table for the various aircraft combinations.
    e. The applicant proposes applicable elements of the test 
process (T1 through T5 and T6 for CTLC) and a plan for validation of 
the intended difference levels. Specific aircraft, times, devices, 
etc. are identified to conduct the required tests for the candidate 
aircraft. Included in the proposal are any necessary interpretations 
of expected results using established standards. Any special, 
unique, or additional definitions of successful outcomes are also 
identified.
    f. The scope of T1 through T6 is keyed to basic visual flight 
rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the 
National Airspace System (NAS).
    g. FAA/applicant agreement is reached on the grouping of 
aircraft, proposed tests, test plans, schedules, subjects, and 
interpretation of possible outcomes.
    h. Subject qualifications are addressed at the time of test 
specification when test agreement is reached with the applicant. 
Test subjects for all tests except T6 are drawn from the FAA. 
Subject selection considers the factors such as the following:
    (1) Needed background skills of candidates (previously qualified 
aircraft);
    (2) General flight experience and currency;
    (3) Test requirements such as location, short notice access, and 
skills needed for subjects;
    (4) Technical areas, qualifications, or experience that subjects 
should not have to avoid test prejudice;
    (5) Eventual FAA geographic or operator related distribution 
requirements for ASI, APM, and POI personnel; and
    (6) Other special experience as needed for a particular program.
    i. During preparation for testing and evaluation of results, 
appropriate Aircraft Certification Flight Test Branch coordination 
is accomplished so that flight characteristic issues and, in 
particular, special flight characteristics can be suitably 
identified and addressed.

    Note: Tests T1 and T2 must be conducted in the candidate 
aircraft for the determination of training, checking, and currency 
requirements. However, the FSB chairman may elect to use a simulator 
before its qualification by the National Simulator Evaluation Team 
(NSET). This may be done for selected FSB T-tests that involve 
partial-task evaluation of systems or components, which do not 
directly relate to aircraft handling qualities or core pilot skills. 
These types of tests would normally require only a training device 
with no visual or motion capabilities.


[[Page 49618]]



2. Pilot Type Rating Determination Through Analysis-Level A or B 
Training Only

    a. Typically, with the introduction of a new aircraft, or when 
training credit is sought in a comparison of a base and candidate 
aircraft, the T1 through T5 testing process determines pilot type 
rating. Not all changes or modifications to an aircraft or on 
occasion, the certification of a related aircraft may require 
flight-testing to assess their impact upon pilot type rating. Pilot 
type rating determination through analysis may be considered if the 
changes do not influence aircraft handling, introduce no significant 
change to systems operation or pilot procedures, and can be 
addressed at level A or B training.
    b. The analysis process can be used if the aircraft handling has 
not changed significantly. In most cases, it should be obvious that 
the change will not affect aircraft handling but if additional data 
is needed to make the determination, the information can be obtained 
from the assigned FAA Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) or 
through the applicant's flight test data. Following is a list of 
typical changes evaluated through the analysis process:
    (1) Maximum operating weights (revised aircraft type certificate 
data sheet (TCDS)).
    (2) An engine type or thrust change that does not require 
significant design changes to aircraft flight controls.
    (3) Maximum passenger capacity (revised aircraft TCDS).
    (4) Avionic upgrades (Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) or 
manufacturer production line upgrade).
    (5) Proven electronic flight bag installation, (STC or 
manufacturer production line upgrade).
    (6) Passenger to cargo conversions.
    c. When the analysis process is completed, it is recorded as a 
revision to the training courseware and to the existing FSB report 
for the base and/or candidate aircraft.

3. Functional Equivalence-Level A or B Test 1 (T1)

    a. Test Purpose. The T1 test is conducted to determine if 
training level A or B is appropriate between the base and candidate 
aircraft.

    Note: If the applicant communicates that the training, checking 
and currency requirements for the candidate aircraft may exceed 
level B, the T1 test can be waived and the evaluation process then 
moves directly to the T2 test. By waiving the T1, the applicant 
acknowledges that differences exist between the base and candidate 
aircraft, and may demand that training, checking, and/or currency 
requirements up to but not exceeding level D are applied.

    b. Test Subjects. Test subjects are designated FAA FSB members, 
trained, experienced, and current on the base aircraft with no 
differences training for the candidate aircraft. The applicant may 
provide proficiency training to the designated FSB members before 
testing begins.
    c. Test Process. The applicant initiates the test process when 
they propose that the minimum training, checking, and currency 
requirements for the base and candidate aircraft are no greater than 
level B differences. At the discretion of the FSB chairman, the T1 
test may be accomplished in a training device/simulator or airplane 
as appropriate. T1 is typically conducted using one group of test 
subjects. Subjects will initially be given a ``no jeopardy'' flight 
check for their base aircraft to calibrate performance before taking 
the pertinent flight check in the candidate aircraft being 
evaluated. The flight check undertaken in the candidate aircraft 
will address the differences between the base aircraft and candidate 
aircraft. The test may be administered or observed by more than one 
FSB member to ensure consistency and uniformity of test procedures 
and common understanding of subject performance and outcomes.
    d. Safety Pilot. A ``safety pilot,'' serving as PIC in the 
aircraft and functioning as pilot monitoring in either seat, will 
intervene to prevent damage to the aircraft or to limit maneuvers 
that endanger safety of flight.
    e. Successful Test. FSB members decide the outcome of the T1 
test consistent with previously agreed upon criteria. The FSB 
determines the areas of differences training required and specifies 
necessary devices or training limitations. If the T1 test is passed, 
the pertinent aircraft pairs are assigned to level A or level B 
training differences. Successful completion of T1 results in 
awarding of the same or a common pilot type rating.
    f. Failure of Test. If the T1 test is failed and retesting is 
not considered, level A or B cannot be assigned. This generally 
requires completion of T2 and T3. If requesting training credit, the 
applicant may ask for and receive credit for those items passed in 
T1. T1 retesting may be considered at the discretion of the FSB.

4. Handling Qualities Comparison Between Aircraft-Test 2 (T2)

    a. Test Purpose. The T2 test compares handling qualities between 
the base and candidate aircraft to determine whether training level 
B, C, or D is appropriate. At the discretion of the FSB chairman the 
T2 test may be completed through analysis, without requiring an 
aircraft flight. Determining if the analysis process can be used 
requires verification that the aircraft handling has not changed 
significantly as described in the ``test process''. In most cases, 
it should be obvious that the change will not affect aircraft 
handling but if the determination requires additional data, the 
information is obtained from the assigned FAA Aircraft Certification 
Office or through the applicant's flight test data. With FAA 
agreement, elements of T2 may be incorporated within the T3 test to 
verify that an advanced simulator or aircraft training is not needed 
to address handling qualities.

    Note: If T2 is conducted on an aircraft that is expected to 
require a separate pilot type rating with CTLC, credit will be 
validated by using the T6 process.
    b. Test Subjects. Test subjects are designated FAA FSB members, 
who are trained, experienced and current on the base aircraft with 
no differences training for the candidate aircraft. Training to 
proficiency may be provided to the designated FSB members by the 
applicant before the start of testing.

    c. Test Process. The applicant initiates the test process when 
they analyze available flight or simulation test data, and aircraft 
design or system differences, and determine that handling 
similarities exist between the base and candidate aircraft. From 
this determination the applicant makes their T2 proposal. Before the 
test, representatives of the FSB review the T2 test profile to 
ensure that critical handling quality aspects of the candidate 
aircraft are examined. The flight evaluation consists of relevant 
parts of a proficiency check as determined by the FSB chairman. T2 
consists of a comparison between selected pilot certification flight 
check maneuvers (normal and nonnormal) administered first in the 
base aircraft (using either the actual aircraft or a level C or D 
simulator) then in the candidate aircraft. Although T2 testing 
should always be accomplished in the candidate aircraft, some 
portions that significantly affect aircraft safety, such as flight 
control failures, may be conducted in a simulator suitable for the 
test. Subject pilots are evaluated on performance of required 
maneuvers consistent with standards set by 14 CFR and an assessment 
of the degree of difficulty in performing maneuvers in the candidate 
aircraft compared to the base aircraft. The test may be administered 
or observed by more than one FSB member to ensure consistency and 
uniformity of test procedures and common understanding of subject 
performance and outcomes.
    d. Safety Pilot. The safety pilot serving as PIC in the aircraft 
and functioning as pilot monitoring in either seat, will intervene 
to prevent damage to the aircraft or to limit maneuvers which 
endanger safety of flight. The safety pilot can only assist the 
subject pilot in areas unrelated to the handling qualities 
determination. For example, the safety pilot can remove impediments 
to progression of the test but cannot fly, coach, or train the 
subject on any aspect of the test related to handling, vision cues, 
or motion cues. The safety pilot may not actuate primary flight 
controls during the evaluation, or instruct, lead, or coach test 
subjects in any manner. The safety pilot may:
    (1) Perform all routine pilot monitoring duties.
    (2) Set up or adjust systems, including those normally operated 
by the pilot flying in accordance with pretest agreements.
    (3) Address or resolve procedural impediments.
    (4) Manage and satisfy checklists.
    (5) Make normal call outs.
    e. Successful Test. The FSB members decide T2 test outcome 
consistent with previously agreed upon criteria. Acceptable pilot 
performance in completion of designated maneuvers, without 
differences training, establishes that the candidate and base 
aircraft are sufficiently alike in handling characteristics to 
permit assignment of level B, C, or D. The test process can then 
advance to differences training and the T3 test.
    f. Failure of Test. Failure of T2 means that major handling 
differences exist during critical phases of flight or that numerous 
less critical differences were identified that warrant training in a 
full flight simulator or aircraft. Accordingly, level E differences 
will

[[Page 49619]]

be assigned and the FAA will issue a separate pilot type rating. 
With a T2 failure, the next step in the testing process is T5, to 
validate level E requirements and the proposed training course. 
Failure of the T2 does not necessarily mean that the base and 
candidate aircraft do not share a high degree of system and/or 
handling commonality. The applicant may elect to use the data 
collected during the T2 process to justify approval of a shortened 
pilot type rating course for pilots that are trained on the base 
aircraft and are transitioning to the candidate.

5. System Differences Test and Validation of Training and Checking--
Test 3 (T3)

    a. Test Purpose. Test 3 is used to evaluate the proposed 
differences training, checking, and training devices at levels B, C, 
or D.
    b. Test Subjects. Test subjects are designated FAA FSB members, 
trained, experienced, and current on the base aircraft with no 
differences training for the candidate aircraft. Training to 
proficiency may be provided to the designated FSB members by the 
applicant before the start of testing.
    c. Test Process. T3 is a system differences test and a 
validation of training and checking. It is used when the equivalent 
handling test (T2) is successfully completed or when T2 is being 
incorporated as part of T3. T3 is administered in two phases 
following differences training of a pilot in the candidate aircraft.
    (1) First Phase. The successful completion of a pilot 
certification flight check to assess pilot knowledge, skills, and 
abilities pertinent to operation of the aircraft being tested. If a 
full check is proposed, the tests are similar to those used for T1 
as described in paragraph 2 above. If a partial check is used, the 
process is similar, but the FSB determines the test items based on 
the applicant`s proposals. The first phase will include either a 
proficiency check as defined by 14 CFR, partial proficiency check, 
or individual aircraft system operation check administered to pilots 
in the simulator or candidate aircraft. The check is administered 
assuming currency in the base aircraft and completion of the 
proposed training in the candidate aircraft.
    (2) Second Phase. Line oriented flying (LOF) following 
completion of the flight check. The LOF phase of the test is used to 
validate the training and checking being proposed, fully assess 
particular difference areas, examine implications of mixed fleet 
flying, assess special circumstances such as minimum equipment list 
(MEL) effects, and identify the effects of pilot errors potentially 
related to the differences. The test is done in a real line flight 
environment that includes typical weather, routes, airports, air 
traffic control (ATC), and other factors that are characteristic of 
those in which that aircraft will be operated. LOF tests may be 
conducted in test aircraft, simulators, or with a combination of 
these in conjunction with function and reliability certification 
tests. The LOF portion of the test may be used to evaluate complex 
issues or issues that cannot be fully detailed in a brief flight 
check since a check only samples pilot knowledge and skills in a 
limited and highly structured environment. LOF is an integral part 
of T3 and must be successfully completed before ``initial'' 
assignment of difference levels. In developing and selecting 
scenarios for evaluation consider the following:
    (a) Likelihood of occurrence;
    (b) Possible consequences; and
    (c) The timeliness of pilot discovery and correction.
    d. Successful Test. The FSB members decide the outcome of the T3 
consistent with previously agreed upon criteria and completion of 
LOF with appropriate pilot performance. Passing T3 leads to setting 
respective difference levels and validates differences training and 
checking at level B, C, or D between related aircraft.
    e. Failure of Test. Failure of T3 occurs with either failure of 
the check, agreed criteria, or unsatisfactory performance during the 
LOF portion of the test. In certain failure cases, T3 can lead to 
assignment of level E and a separate pilot type rating. The 
following are examples that may lead to the assignment of level E 
differences:
    (1) T3 experience or difficulties that show the need for 
assignment of training levels approaching typical initial/transition 
levels.
    (2) T3 pilot performance that indicates that devices or methods 
associated with level D are not adequate to achieve training or 
checking objectives.
    (3) Repeated failures of attempts to pass T3 test at level D 
training differences. In the case of retesting, new subjects may be 
required at the discretion of the FSB Chairman.

    Note: Repeated failure of test at level D differences by one or 
more subject's (pilot) inadequate performance, that is not an 
individual subject's failure due to sub-par or atypical personal 
performance as determined by the FSB, may lead to assignment of 
level E differences.

6. Currency Validation--Test 4 (T4)

    a. Test Purpose. The T4 test is a currency test that can be used 
when an applicant seeks relief from existing FSB currency 
requirements. In the context of this AC, currency addresses system 
procedural and maneuver differences between related aircraft. T4 
does not include takeoff and landing recency of experience.
    b. Test Subjects. Designated FAA FSB members.
    c. Test Process. If an applicant desires a change in the 
currency requirements, a T4 test may be conducted. This test may be 
done before or after the aircraft enters into service. In the event 
the test cannot be done before entry into service, the FSB 
established limits apply. Criteria that may be used by the FSB to 
set level B, C, D differences for currency for initial FSB 
determinations include the following examples:
    (1) Complex flight critical systems affecting control or 
navigation.
    (2) Critical nonnormal maneuvers differing between related 
aircraft (e.g., V1 engine failure, emergency descent, etc.), 
requiring one acceptable demonstration/training or checking event 
(typically 6 months but demonstration period may also vary by pilot 
position).
    (3) Secondary systems (e.g., Oxygen or auxiliary power unit 
(APU)).
    d. Successful Test. The FSB members decide the outcome of T4 
consistent with previously agreed upon criteria. A successful test 
validates that the proposed less restrictive currency provisions are 
accepted as a means of compliance with applicable rules, provisions 
of this AC, and/or currency provisions and provide an equivalent 
level of safety.
    e. Failure of Test. Failure indicates that the proposed less 
restrictive currency requirements do not provide an equivalent level 
of safety. At the discretion of the FSB, retesting may be 
appropriate.

7. Initial or Transition Training/Checking Program Validation--Test 5 
(T5)

    a. Test Purpose. T5 test validates the applicant's training 
course(s) at level E (new pilot type rating). It is appropriate 
when:
    (1) A full initial or transition training/checking program 
requires validation;
    (2) An applicant seeks training credits between two aircraft 
with different pilot type ratings (a typical goal under shortened 
training programs); or
    (3) T2 or T3 are failed.
    b. Test Subjects. Designated FAA FSB members.
    c. Test Process. There are two methods to accomplish the T5 test 
process:
    (1) Full Initial or Transition Training/Checking Program 
Validation. This method is used when an applicant has developed an 
aircraft and seeks a new pilot type rating without any credit for 
commonality with any related aircraft. The applicant develops a 
training program to qualify and check pilots in the candidate 
aircraft at level E differences. Subjects are trained, given flight 
proficiency checks and complete LOF in a process similar to that 
described in paragraph 5.
    (2) Shortened Transition Training/Checking Program Validation. 
This method is used when an applicant has developed an aircraft and 
seeks a new pilot type rating and credit for commonality with 
related aircraft. The applicant conducts a handling-qualities 
evaluation based on the applicant's proposed ODR tables (similar to 
T2), followed by training and checking program validation (similar 
to T3). Subjects are trained, given flight proficiency checks and 
complete LOF in a process similar to that described in paragraph 5.

    Note: When an aircraft is assigned level E differences because 
of a failure of T3 test at level D differences, credit for 
successfully passing individual elements of the T3 test may be used 
as justification for not duplicating those elements in the T5 test.

    d. Successful Test. The FSB members decide the T5 outcome 
consistent with previously agreed upon criteria. A successful 
outcome of T5 validates the proposed training and checking programs.
    e. Failure of Test. Failing T5 indicates the proposed training 
or checking programs require modification. A retest by mutual 
agreement between the FSB and applicant would normally be required.

8. Common Takeoff and Landing Credit (CTLC)--Test 6 (T6)

    a. Test Purpose. The applicant uses T6 when they seek credit 
between related aircraft toward the takeoff and landing

[[Page 49620]]

recency of experience requirements of the applicable 14 CFR parts.
    b. Test Subjects. The test should consist of a sufficient number 
of pilots not trained or qualified in the candidate aircraft. These 
subjects will be drawn from the manufacturer, industry and the FAA 
that the FSB determines will represent a statistically relevant 
cross-section of operational pilots. The participants' experience 
levels, pilot type ratings and airplane currency should reflect the 
proficiency difference levels needed to validate testing 
assumptions.
    c. Test Process. Test subjects are first provided refresher 
training in the base aircraft to establish a baseline of 
proficiency, then placed in the candidate aircraft, without any 
training in it, and perform a minimum of three takeoffs and landings 
without use of the autopilot. It may not be practical to conduct 
some tests in an aircraft. A simulator may be used to conduct these 
tests. Test subjects should be evaluated on their ability to fly the 
aircraft manually through takeoff, initial climb, and approach and 
landing (including the establishment of final landing 
configuration). The applicant should consider the effects on the 
takeoff and landing maneuvers for the following factors when 
designing the T6 test:
    (1) Aircraft weights.
    (2) Aircraft center of gravity.
    (3) Takeoff and landing crosswinds.
    d. Successful Test. The FSB members decide the outcome of T6 
consistent the FAA Practical Test Standards (PTS) demonstrating that 
an equivalent level of safety can be maintained when full or partial 
credit for takeoffs and landings is given between the related 
aircraft.
    e. Failure of Test. The test subjects' performance relative to 
the FAA PTS demonstrates an equivalent level of safety cannot be 
maintained when either full or partial credit for takeoffs and 
landings is given between the related aircraft.
[FR Doc. 07-4116 Filed 8-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C