# Federal Aviation Administration Task Force On Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training Report from the Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee

July 31, 2011Report from the ACSPT ARC ii 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. ........ iv
1.0 ACSPT ARC Background ..................................................................................................... 1

ACSPT ARC Charter ............................................................................................................. ..... 1

Public Law 111–216 Section 204 ................................................................................................ 3

2.0 ACSPT ARC Process ........................................................................................................ ..... 5

3.0 Best Practices ........................................................................................................... ............... 6
3.1 Air Carrier Management Responsibilities for Flightcrew Member Education and Support 7
3.1.1 Participate in the Advan ced Qualification Program ...................................................... 7
3.1.2 Integrate Crew Resource Management and Threat and Error Management Into Training and Evaluations ...................................................................................................... ... 8
3.1.3 Implement Leadership and Command Training .......................................................... 10
3.1.4 Implement Enhanced Instructor and Evaluator Training ............................................ 11
3.1.5 Participate in Voluntary Partnership Programs ........................................................... 12
3.1.6 Use Structured Pilot Hiring Practices .......................................................................... 16
3.1.7 Conduct Operational C oordination Meetings .............................................................. 17

3.1.8 Establish Minimum Qualifications for Dire ctors of Safety and Di rectors of Training 20
3.1.9 Establish a Flight Risk Analysis Working Group ....................................................... 21

3.1.10 Provide Standardized Manual s and Use Distance Learning ...................................... 22
3.1.11 Use Simulators in Pilot Training ............................................................................... 24
3.2 Flightcrew Member Pr ofessional Standards ...................................................................... 26
3.2.1 Establish Pilot Assistance Programs............................................................................ 26
3.2.2 Establish a Flightcrew Member-Initiated Proficiency Process.................................... 28Report from the ACSPT ARC iii 3.3 Flightcrew Member Training Standards and Performance ................................................ 29
3.3.1 Implement Upset Recovery Training .......................................................................... 29
3.3.2 Implement a Pilot Remediation Strategy ..................................................................... 30
3.3.3 Implement Integrated Training .................................................................................... 31
3.3.4 Maintain Manual Flying Skills .................................................................................... 32
3.3.5 Use Simulator Motion in Training and Evaluation ..................................................... 33
3.3.6 Establish Requalification Training .............................................................................. 34
3.3.7 Conduct Jump seat Observation Flights by New Pilots .............................................. 37
3.3.8 Implement Enhanced Proficiency and Currency Requirements .................................. 38
3.4 Mentoring and Information Sharing Between Air Carriers ............................................... 40
3.4.1 Share Safety and Training Information and Practices ................................................. 40
3.4.2 Participate in Structured Information Sharing Activities ............................................ 42
3.4.3 Implement Commercial Aviation Safe ty Team Safety Enhancements ....................... 44
Appendix A—ARC Members an d Supporting Staff ............................................................ A–1

ACSPT ARC Members and Affiliation ................................................................................. A–1
ARC Supporting Staff .......................................................................................................... .. A–1
Appendix B—Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................... B–1Report from the ACSPT ARC iv 

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report was created to satisfy the Air Carri er Safety and Pilot Training (ACSPT) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) charter and sec tion 204 of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Extension Ac t of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111–216), which require an initial report before July 31, 2011. The inte nt of this document is to identify industry best practices as of July 31, 2011, comment on the current use of those be st practices, and make recommendations on their continued use in the air carrier industry.
The congressional mandate describes the need for additional reporting on air carriers’ and labor unions’ progress in impl ementing non-regulatory training -related actions recommended by the FAA Administrator, as well as on air carrie rs’ progress in developi ng data-sharing programs and ensuring the implementation of effective pract ices. Air carriers and la bor unions must have the opportunity to read this repo rt and research the 24 best prac tices before their progress in implementing those best practices can be ev aluated. The ARC’s second report will address those topics.
The ACSPT ARC members (identified in Appendix A) represent organiza tions with extensive experience in air carrier operations, safety, and training, encompassi ng a wide range of operations conducted under Title 14 Code of Fede ral Regulations (14 CFR) part 121. Based on FAA direction, the ARC’s composition, and congressi onally established timelines, the identified best practices and recommendations in this repo rt specifically apply to air carriers operating under part 121. However, certain aspects of the identified best practices may apply to those air carriers operating outside of part 121 (for example, 14 CFR pa rt 135 or part 91, subpart K). The ARC encourages such air carri ers to review its findings and adopt those practices that may enhance the safety of their operations.
Congress tasked the ACSPT ARC to consider scalab ility for small air carriers. In general, the identified best practices appl y to part 121 air carriers rega rdless of their size. The ARC recognizes that some air carriers may have unique operational considerations based on fleet size, type, or other variables. Such air carriers may develop—or already have developed—alternative means to achieve the goals identified in this re port. The ARC contends that enhancing safety should take precedence over conformity with wide spread industry pract ice when alternative practices may be more appropriate for a particular operation.
The best practices defined in this report a nd recommended for further consideration, including possible rulemaking, comprise a variety of robust, proven FAA- defined programs, as well as innovative programs developed by individual air carriers. Where implemented, these programs have contributed to the continued improvement of air carrier pilo t training, enhanced professionalism, and provided a systematic appro ach within and among air carriers, to ensure the highest possible standards for air carrier operations.
For this report, a best practice is defined as a pol icy, procedure, or technique intended to achieve an optimum outcome for a specific goal concerni ng the safety and efficiency of operations. Best practices can also be defined as the most efficient and effective way of accomplishing a task and attaining a goal. They should generally be th ose that have consistently achieved the intendedReport from the ACSPT ARC v result. Within the 4 categories defined by the ACSPT ARC charter, the ARC members identified the following 24 best practices:
Air Carrier Management Responsibilities fo r Flightcrew Member Education and Support

 Participate in Advanced Qualification Program (AQP)

 Integrate Crew Resource Management (CRM) and Threat and Error Management (TEM) into training and evaluations 1

 Implement leadership and command training 1

 Implement enhanced instructor and evaluator training 1

 Participate in voluntar y partnership programs

 Use structured pilot hiring practices

 Conduct operational coordination meetings

 Establish minimum qualifications for direct ors of safety and di rectors of training 1

 Establish a Flight Risk Analysis Working Group (FRAWG)

 Provide standardized manuals and use distance learning

 Use simulators in pilot training 1
Flightcrew Member Pr ofessional Standards

 Establish pilot assistance programs

 Establish a flightcrew member-i nitiated proficiency process
Flightcrew Member Training Standards and Performance

 Implement upset recovery training 1

 Implement a pilot remediation strategy 1

 Implement integrated training

 Maintain manual flying skills 1

 Use simulator motion in training and evaluation

 Establish requalification training 1

 Conduct jump seat observati on flights by new pilots

 Implement enhanced proficiency and currency requirements 1
Mentoring and Information Sh aring Between Air Carriers

 Share safety and training information and practices

1 A best practice for which the ACSPT ARC recommends regulatory action.Report from the ACSPT ARC vi  Participate in structured information sharing activities

 Implement Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) safety enhancements
The ARC contends that the identified best prac tices would be instituted most effectively on a voluntary basis or through the regulatory proces s, so at this time it does not recommend any legislation.
These best practices demonstrate that air ca rriers and employee orga nizations have done considerable work beyond the legislative or regul atory minimums to enhance flight safety and pilot training within the U.S. air carrier industry. Th ese practices have also enhanced safety and training programs during challenging economic ti mes. They have contributed to the current safety record for all part 121 air carriers. The ACSPT ARC believes industry should continue to pursue “one level of safety,” while ensuring im plementation of best practices for all part 121 air carriers.
The U.S. air carrier industry faces significant near-term challenges. As it addresses these challenges, the industry must en sure continued progress in enha ncing flight safety and pilot training. Anticipated pilot shortages and retireme nts will dictate a significant increase in pilot hiring. Coupled with this increase, changes in pi lot demographics will present added challenges to the industry. Implementing the best practi ces recommended by the ACSPT ARC will help to meet those challenges. Technological advances w ill enhance safety in such areas as air traffic control (ATC), and will enhance training through th e use of flight simulators. Application of these best practices, as well as the continued purs uit of safety enhancements within the industry, will further improve operational safety and pilo t training. Vigilance and adherence to these best practices will help foster a positive safety culture.Report from the ACSPT ARC 1 

## 1.0 ACSPT ARC BACKGROUND

ACSPT ARC C HARTER SUBJ: Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Trai ning Aviation Rulemaking Committee

1. PURPOSE . This document establishes the Air Ca rrier Safety and Pilot Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) accord ing to the Administrator’s au thority under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.), section 106(P)(5).

2. BACKGROUND.

a. In August 2010, Congress enacted the “Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010”. Section 204 of the Act, titled FAA Task Force on Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training, requires the FAA to establish a special task force to be known as the FAA Task Force on Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training. The duties of the task force shall include, at a minimum, evaluating best practices in the air carrier industry and providing recommendations in the following areas:
(1) Air carrier management responsibilities fo r flight crewmember education and support;
(2) Flight crewmember professional standards;
(3) Flight crewmember training standards and performance; and
(4) Mentoring and information sharing between air carriers.

b. Congress also required that the FAA Task Fo rce on Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training submit a report to Congress detailing the work of the Task Force by July 31, 2011, and again by July 31, 2012, and provide recommendations for legislative or regulatory action.

c. To carry out the FAA’s safety mandate, the FAA is chartering an ARC that will accomplish the tasks required by Congress, on the same Congressional timelines, but will also develop recommendations for the FAA regarding re gulatory action in those same areas.

3. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE COMMITTEE . The Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training ARC will provide a forum for the U.S. aviation community to discuss recommendations that will help the FAA develop requirements to ensure that air carriers establish or modify programs that address air carrier management re sponsibilities for flight crewmember education and support, professional standard s, training standards and perfor mance, as well as mentoring and information sharing between air carriers. Spec ifically, the ARC should consider and address:

a. Air carrier management res ponsibilities for flight crewmemb er education and support. b. Flight crewmember professional standards.

c. Flight crewmember traini ng standards and performance. d. Mentoring and information sh aring between air carriers.Report from the ACSPT ARC 2 The ARC shall consider scalability of their recommendations to addre ss the needs of small businesses. The ARC will develop recommendations and submit them to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety for rulemaking consideration by July 31, 2011.

4. COMMITTEE PROCEDURES

.

a. The committee provides advice and recommenda tions to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safely. The committee acts solely in an advisory capacity. b. The committee will discuss and present information, guidance, and recommendations that the members of the committee consider re levant in addressing the objectives.
5. ORGANIZATION, MEMBERSH IP, AND ADMINISTRATION.

a. The FAA will establish a committee represen ting the various parts of the industry and Government.

(1) The ARC will consist of no more than 15 individuals.

(2) The FAA will invite selected organizations a nd individuals to participate as a member in the ARC. The ARC will include representatives from the aviation community, including pilot associations and training organizations.

(3) The FAA will identify the number of ARC members that each organization may select to participate. The Associate Admi nistrator for Aviation Safety will then request that each organization name its repr esentative(s). Only the representative for the organization will have authority to speak for the organization or group that he or she represents.

(4) Active participation and commitment by memb ers will be essential for achieving the committee objectives and for continued membership on the ARC.

b. The Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety will receive the committee recommendations and reports.

c. The Associate Administrator for Aviation Safe ty is the sponsor of the committee and will select an industry chair(s) from the member ship of the committee. Also, the Associate Administrator will select the FAA-designated re presentative for the committee. Once appointed, the industry chair(s) will:
(1) Determine, in coordination with the other members of the committee, when a meeting is required. (2) Arrange notification to all committee members of the time and place for each meeting. (3) Draft an agenda for each meeting and conduct the meeting.

e. A Record of Discussions of committee meetings will be kept.Report from the ACSPT ARC 3 f. Although not required, committee meeting quorum is desirable. g. The ARC shall consider scalability of their recommendations to addre ss the needs of small businesses.

6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . The Air Carrier Safety and P ilot Training ARC meetings are not open to the public. Persons or organizations that are not members of this committee and are interested in attending a meeti ng must request and r eceive approval before the meeting from the industry chair(s) or the designa ted Federal representative.

7. AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS. Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. section 522, records, reports, agendas, working papers, a nd other documents that are made available to or prepared for or by the committee will be avai lable for public inspection and copying at the FAA Flight Standards Service, Air Trans portation Division, AFS-200, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591. Fees will be charged for information furnished to the public according to the fee schedule published in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 7.

8. PUBLIC INTEREST. Forming the Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training ARC is determined to be in the public interest to fulfill the performance of duties imposed on FAA by law.

9. EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION. This committee is effective upon issuance. The committee will remain in existence two years from September 15, 2010, unless sooner terminated or extended by the Administrator.

P UBLIC L AW 111–216 S ECTION 204 (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall establish a special task force to be known as th e FAA Task Force on Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training (in this section referre d to as the “Task Force”).
(b) COMPOSITION.—The Task Force shall consis t of members appointed by the Administrator and shall include air carrier representatives, labor union representatives, and aviation safety experts with knowledge of foreign and domestic regulatory requirements fo r flight crewmember education and training.
(c) DUTIES.—The duties of the Task Force sh all include, at a minimum, evaluating best practices in the air carrier industry and providing recommenda tions in the following areas: (1) Air carrier management responsibilities fo r flight crewmember education and support. (2) Flight crewmember professional standards. (3) Flight crewmember traini ng standards and performance. (4) Mentoring and information sharing between air carriers.Report from the ACSPT ARC 4 (d) REPORT.—Not later than one year after the date of en actment of this Act, and before the last day of each one-year period thereafte r until termination of the Task Force, the Task Force shall submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infr astructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Tran sportation of the Senate a report detailing— (1) The progress of the Task Force in identifyi ng best practices in th e air carrier industry; (2) The progress of air carri ers and labor unions in impl ementing the best practices identified by the Task Force;
(3) Recommendations of the Task Force, if any, for legislative or regulatory actions; H. R. 5900—11 (4) The progress of air carri ers and labor unions in impl ementing training-related, non-regulatory actions recommende d by the Administrator; and (5) The progress of air carriers in developing specific programs to sh are safety data and ensure implementation of the most effective safety practices. (e) TERMINATION.—The Task Force shall terminate on September 30, 2012.
(f) APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT. — The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Task Force.Report from the ACSPT ARC 5 

## 2.0 ACSPT ARC PROCESS

The initial phase of the ACSPT ARC’s work invol ved collecting best practices in four focus areas. Because there is no universally accepted de finition of a best practice, the ARC defined several characteristics of a best practice: a polic y, procedure, or techni que intended to achieve an optimum outcome for a specific goal concerning the safety and efficiency of operations; the most efficient and effective way to accomplis h a task and attain a goal; and a practice consistently shown to ac hieve the intended result.

The ACSPT ARC collected information on best practices through several avenues, including surveying air carriers and trade associations, hearing presentations by subject matter experts (SME), and eliciting the ARC me mbers’ observations, based on th eir professional experiences. The ARC deliberately kept requests for informati on from outside sources general, in order to elicit candid responses that reflect what t hose sources believe to be best practices.
Responses to the ACSPT ARC’s requests for info rmation varied considerably in scope and depth, from endorsements of established natio nal programs to specific meeting formats at individual air carriers. Convers ely, as the ARC evaluated the re sponses to its queries, patterns emerged in which respondents described similar con cepts in different ways. In some cases, the ARC combined similar concepts to form recommended best practices. For some of the identified best practices, air carriers need flexibility in or der to tailor the practice to the size and scope of their operations.
The ACSPT ARC found it challeng ing to evaluate air carriers and labor unions’ progress in implementing the best practices before they ha d been defined and dist ributed. Where defined programs exist (AQP, for example), data are prov ided. In other cases, the ARC members applied their collective expertise to assess the progress of air carriers and labor unions in implementing these best practices. This report includes the resulting analyses with the description of each best practice. Similarly, it in cludes any recommendations for le gislative or regulatory action.Report from the ACSPT ARC 6 

## 3.0 BEST PRACTICES

This section contains 24 best pr actices identified by the ACSPT AR C. For the purpose of this report, a best practice is define d as a policy, procedure, or tec hnique intended to achieve an optimum outcome for a specific goal concerning the safety and efficiency of operations. Best practices can also be defined as the most efficient and effectiv e way to accomplish a task and attain a goal. Best practices should generally be those that have cons istently achieved the intended result. Several of the items identified as best practices are act ually formal, established programs developed over many years, while others reflect more recent developments. Regardless of whether a practice is new or esta blished, it is not enough for an air carrier or employee organization to simply state such a program exists; it must be constantly and aggressively managed to be most effective.
A safety management system (SMS) is a systema tic approach to managing risk and includes the necessary organizational structures , accountabilities, policies, and procedures. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) determined that an SMS is necessary for the effective functioning of the aviation system. A properly structured and implemented SMS will not only provide safer operation for employees and customer s, but should save money for the air carrier over time through improved efficiencies. Thoug h many aspects of an SMS are similar or identical to the ACSPT ARC’s best practices, the two should not be considered interchangeable. A robust SMS might encompass some, but not all, identified best practices and be considered effective. Similarly, an air carrier may have established many best practices and not have an SMS. SMS implementation will soon beco me mandatory, but that should not delay implementation of any of the ARC’s best practice s, nor should implementation of any individual best practice be assumed solely as a byproduct of SMS implementation.

ICAO established a dead line of January 1, 2009, 2 for member states’ air carriers, airports, and service providers to implement an SMS—a dead line the FAA declared it could not meet. However, the FAA is working to establish SM S standards and regulatory guidance using ARC recommendations, with the goal of eventual compliance with the ICAO standard. Pub. L. 111–216 requires the FAA to issue a fi nal rule covering SMS implementation by July 31, 2012, with full implementation for ai r carriers expected to require several additional years.
The following 24 best practices were identified by the ACSPT ARC.

2 ICAO Doc 9859, AN/474, Safety Management Manual (SMM), Second Edition—2009Report from the ACSPT ARC 7 

### 3.1 A IR 

### C ARRIER 

### M ANAGEMENT 

### R ESPONSIBILITIES FOR 

### F LIGHTCREW 

### M EMBER 

### E DUCATION AND 

### S UPPORT

3.1.1 P ARTICIPATE IN THE A DVANCED Q UALIFICATION P ROGRAM

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified participation in AQP 3 as an air carrier i ndustry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry
Commercial aviation is undergoing significant evolution, porten ts of which are already evident in changing pilot demographics, changing cock pit technology, and planned changes in the National Airspace System environment. This changing environment presents an ongoing challenge to maintain, if not improve traini ng that ensures flight crew proficiency is commensurate with safety. AQP provides a cons istent structure that can accommodate change.
AQP is a voluntary alternative to the traditiona l air carrier training a nd checking program under part 121. In AQP, the FAA is authorized to approve modifications to traditional program requirements, subject to justificat ion of an equivalent or better level of safety. Implementation of AQP at an air carrier requires a formal in structional systems design methodology to define training requirements customized to that air ca rrier’s operation. It inte grates the training and evaluation of cognitive abilities at each stage of a curriculum. CRM 4 and TEM 5 are fully integrated in the curriculum, ensuring human factors skills and technical skills are trained to meet defined proficiency standards. For evaluation purposes, pilots must demonstrate proficiency in tasks that test technical and resource /error management skills.
Air carriers participating in AQP must design an d implement data collect ion strategies that diagnose cognitive ability and proficiency ski lls. Modifications to traditional program requirements must be supported by the collected performance data. For example, data may indicate that pilots demonstrated proficiency during recurrent training a nd in line operations in a particular maneuver that is currently required u nder part 121 training. In that case, AQP would provide the air carrier the ability to modify its training program, refocus the curriculum, and address a different maneuver that data show s may need additional emphasis. Monthly data collection reports must be submitted to the FAA for analysis and trend monitoring.

3 Advisory Circular (AC) 120–54A, Advanced Qualification Program. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Librar y/rgAdvisoryCircular .nsf/list/AC%20120- 54A/$FILE/AC%20120-54a.pdf

4 AC 120–51E, Crew Resource Management Training. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Librar y/rgAdvisoryCircular .nsf/list/AC%20120- 51E/$FILE/AC120-51e.pdf

5 Answering the Call to Action on Airline Safety and Pilot Training. http://www.faa.gov/library/reports/m edia/call_to_action_Jan2010.pdfReport from the ACSPT ARC 8 Instructors and evaluators who rate personnel must undergo reliability traini ng to learn to utilize explicit strategies to verify th e proficiency and standardization for crew-oriented, scenario-based training and evaluation tasks. AQP encourages air carriers to us e a suite of equipment matched on the basis of analysis to th e training requirements at any given stage of a curriculum. Air carriers participating in AQP must collec t and analyze performance proficiency data on students, instructors, and evalua tors to refine and validate thei r curricula. They also must continually update their programs to address threats and risks id entified within their unique operations based on, for example, Line Operatio ns Safety Audit (LOSA), Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) and Av iation Safety Action Program (A SAP) data, and changes in pilot demographics. These programs measure the effectiveness of the training in mitigating the identified threats and risks.
As previously noted, air carriers with approved AQPs are required to submit monthly reports on pilot performance data. Analysis and sharing of aggregate industry AQP data would assist the FAA and industry in identifying a nd addressing industry trends, and assist individual air carriers in assessing the effectiveness of their traini ng programs against the norm. The FAA should periodically perform this aggr egate data analysis in coordi nation with industry (pilots and carriers) and share its findings.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice As of May 10, 2011, there are currently 32 air carriers training under AQP. Ten additional air carriers have applied for AQP, had their a pplications signed and accepted by the FAA, and are currently developing th eir curricula. Currently, 16 part 121 air carriers employ 1,000 pilots or more, of which 14 are in AQP. In addition, approximately 79 percent of part 121 pilots are either training under, or have applied to train under, AQP.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required. Regulatory language already ex ists under part 121, subpart Y.
The FAA and industry (pilots and ai r carriers) share aggregate AQP data. Using this data, they develop analysis methods and protocols to id entify and address industry trends and help individual air carriers assess the effectiveness of their training progr ams against the norm.

3.1.2 I NTEGRATE C REW R ESOURCE M ANAGEMENT AND T HREAT AND E RROR M ANAGEMENT I NTO T RAINING AND E VALUATIONS

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified integration of CRM and TEM into ground and flight training and evaluation as an air carrier industry best practice.

6 The ARC contends that the identifi ed best practices would be instituted most effectively on a voluntary basis or through the regulatory process, so at this time it does not recommend any legislation.Report from the ACSPT ARC 9 Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry The study of human factors in aviation has expa nded beyond the original design and features of a cockpit and how the flight crew member interacts with it. It now includes cockpit management, professionalism, and leadership. Atte ntion to these characteristics is an integral part of understanding flightcr ew performance, which incl udes training and evaluations.
An important element in reducing risks in air ca rrier operations is a well -coordinated flightcrew that expertly uses the principles of CRM and actively engages in TEM. Most recent accidents could have been avoided had fli ghtcrews effectively used these skills. They are essential tools that pilots need to learn and c ontinually improve. Pilots cannot master these skills by attending a one-time course; a high level of profic iency requires continuous training, evaluation, and feedback.
Both CRM and TEM should be integrated into pilot training and ev aluations, including indoctrination, initial, recurrent , requalification, initial operating experi ence, and line checks. The curricula should be designed not only to train flightcrew in the concepts and application, but have scenarios imbedded throughout the training and evaluation even ts that requir e the use of these skills with increased task lo ading and other factors. This a llows the pilots to practice these skills and perform self-critiques, and for the instru ctors to provide feedback and assist the pilots in enhancing their skills.
Both initial and recurrent simulator training include Line Operational Simulation 7 lessons, which are full-mission 8 simulations conducted with maximum possi ble realism. In these training and checking sessions, information is given to in structors describing the specific CRM and TEM behaviors desired for each observed task. In a ddition to teaching and critiquing technical flying skills, instructors specifically look for CRM and TEM skills, debrief pilots on their performance, and provide instruction for improve ment based on these behaviors.
Evaluation strategies can incorporate CRM and TE M skills. This facilitates the measurement of technical and CRM and TEM skills, which can then be used for flightcrew debriefing and training. Additionally, this data is used to measure the effectiveness of the training and evaluation programs, and to continuously impr ove the training curriculum to increase the line pilots’ skills.

7 AC 120-35C, Line Operational Simulations: Line Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line Operational Evaluation http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu idance_Library/rgAdvisoryCirc ular.nsf/0/b8 6de77a355ea57b86256f2 5006d977a/$FILE/AC120-35c.pdf

8 “A full-mission simulator (FMS) accurately simu lates the aircraft and the mission environment it will operate in. The simulator will recreate sounds, motion , visual scenes, instrument presentations and all other systems in order to create a realistic fli ght training environment.” CAE, Inc., 2008–2010, http://www.cae.com/en/military/full.mission.simulator.aspReport from the ACSPT ARC 10 Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the AC SPT ARC members that in tegrated human factors training and evaluation is a comm on practice among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 Although training in the principles of CRM is currently requir ed, the ACSPT ARC recommends the FAA take additional regulatory action to require the integrati on of the practical operational application of human factors princi ples (CRM, TEM) throughout training.

3.1.3 I MPLEMENT L EADERSHIP AND C OMMAND T RAINING

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified implementation of an effective captain leadership and command training program as an air carr ier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry Leadership and command courses vary among air carriers. Their content and format include various topics, and the courses typi cally last from 1 to 3 days, or are embedded in an initial or upgrade training program. In order for leadersh ip and command training to be successful, it must be endorsed by the executive leadership of the air carrier.
A leadership and command course generally cove rs non-technical skills that a captain needs to perform his/her duties. This course cont ent includes, but is not limited to leadership, professionalism expectations, company culture, captain’s authority, a nd captain’s duties and responsibilities. The information should be soli cited from various sources within the company, such as other captains, chief pilots, the trai ning and standards depart ment, flight operations dispatch, the safety department, main tenance, and executive management.
A leadership and command traini ng course should expose new captain s to the available resources outside the cockpit. Those reso urces include other departments at the air carrier that can help new captains make more informed decisions as they operate their ai rcraft—the dispatch department, for example.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists th at provides the number of air ca rriers that have implemented this best practice. It is th e consensus of the ACSPT ARC memb ers that leadership and command training is a common practice among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 The ACSPT ARC recommends regul atory action and associated gui dance material to implement leadership and command training.Report from the ACSPT ARC 11 3.1.4 I MPLEMENT E NHANCED I NSTRUCTOR AND E VALUATOR T RAINING

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified the implementation of an enhanced instructor and evaluator training program as an air carrier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry
Instructor and evaluator duties include training, evaluating, and pr omoting standardization within the pilot group. To perform these duties, th e ACSPT ARC recommends training beyond current part 121 regulatory requirements.
To adequately train and evalua te other pilots, instructors a nd evaluators must achieve and maintain the highest levels of proficiency and knowledge as pilots. In addition, instructors and evaluators must develop and maintain effective tr aining and evaluation skills. It is essential that instructors and evaluators achieve and maintain a high level of standardization to promote standardization within the or ganization. Air carriers must foster and emphasize this standardization within th e instructor and evaluato r ranks during initial tr aining, and it must be continually reinforced in recurrent training th roughout instructor and evaluator tenure. By adhering to these levels of indi vidual proficiency and standardizat ion, instructors and evaluators establish credibility among their pilot peers. This , in turn, furthers the promotion of proficiency and standardization w ithin the pilot group.
A portion of the instructor and evaluator staff typically performs trai ning and evaluation duties in actual line operations, while othe rs perform their duties in a flight simulator. This distinction necessitates instructor and evaluator training prog rams that are specific to the type of training and evaluation each will perform. Within the simulator group, review of industry practices indicates that some air carriers enter into contr acts with individuals from outside the organization (contract instructors) to provide training, while other air carriers us e pilots from within their own ranks. Regardless of the composition of the instru ctor and evaluator staff, enhanced instructor and evaluator training will aid in maintaining and promoting the highest levels of proficiency and standardization. This enhanced training should include a performance appraisal and observation process to measure and reinforce performance sta ndards set for the instru ctors and evaluators.
The initial selection process is critical to ensuring instructors and evaluators meet high standards. This selection process should involve a multilayered approach, including recommendations, performance reviews, and evaluations. Once sele cted, an enhanced instructor and evaluator training program ensures that instructors and eval uators maintain a high le vel of proficiency and standardization. The ACSPT ARC identified ma ny of the components of this best practice indicated in the following paragraphs.
The simulator group members should observe thei r peers performing inst ruction and evaluation duties and perform their own instruction and ev aluation duties under the s upervision of already qualified instructors and evaluators . Instructors and evaluators w ho perform their duties in actual line operations should demonstrate proficiency in evaluating pilots from both pilot seats, and should be trained in methods for id entifying and managing pilot error.Report from the ACSPT ARC 12 All instructors and evaluators should attend a nnual standardization meetings to review policy and procedure changes and to discuss trends and relevant safety information. Recurrent training should include emphasis on the role of the instructor and evaluato r, as well as techniques for error recognition and management.
Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice
No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the AC SPT ARC members that e nhanced instructor and evaluator training is a common pr actice among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6

The ACSPT ARC recommends the FAA consider issuing new guidance based upon the outcome of the current rulemaking for part 121 subparts N and O.

3.1.5 P ARTICIPATE IN V OLUNTARY P ARTNERSHIP P ROGRAMS

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified the development of, pa rticipation in, and management of voluntary partnership programs as an air carrier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry For several years, air carriers have initiated or pa rticipated in a number of safety data programs. Each involves the collection of vol untary safety reports or the m onitoring of flight data. These data can take many forms and the programs include ASAP 9 , FOQA 10 , and LOSA 11 . The goal of these programs is to identify safety-related probl ems within an air carrier’s operation, including operational and procedural errors , and to develop corrective acti ons. The key to all of these programs is the inclination to proactively seek safe ty solutions, rather than wait and react to an accident or serious incident.
Human factors cause the majority of undesire d outcomes in aviation, and years of aviation accident and incident analysis has shown that understanding the human factors component is key to preventing and mitigating similar events. The human factors to which people within the

9 AC 120–66B, Aviation Safe ty Action Program (ASAP). http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu idance_Library/rgAdvisoryCirc ular.nsf/0/61c 319d7a04907a886256c 7900648358/$FILE/AC120-66B.pdf

10 AC 120–82 Flight Operational Quality Assurance. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gui dance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircul ar.nsf/0/40c02f c39c1577b686256e8 a005afb0a/$FILE/AC120-82.pdf

11 AC 120–90 Line Operation Safety Audits. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Gu idance_Library/rgAdvisoryCirc ular.nsf/0/01 3a142c839ea740862571 62006cc27d/$FILE/AC%20120-90.pdfReport from the ACSPT ARC 13 aviation system are subject sometimes lead to unintended errors in task management and professional judgment. They may also not deliver their practical skills at the trained and required levels every time. Ultimately, the goal is to mi nimize errors and the consequences of remaining errors by either monitoring or cross-ch ecking colleagues and technical solutions.
Each program represents a significant enhancem ent to air carrier safe ty, as the air carrier and its employees take responsibility for proact ively identifying and resolving safety issues. This exposes significantly more events to correction than is po ssible through regulatory surveillance and enforcement. As a result, th ese programs are likely to produce actions that will prevent accidents.

ASAP ASAP encourages air carrier employees to volunt arily report safety information that may be critical to identifying potential precursors to accidents. Under ASAP, safety issues almost always are resolved through corre ctive action rather than thro ugh punishment or discipline. ASAP is based on a safety partnership that in cludes the FAA and the certificate holder, and usually includes a third party, such as the pilot’s group or employ ee organization, if they are so represented. ASAP provides a voluntary, c ooperative, remedial, and non-punitive environment for open reporting of safety concerns. Thr ough ASAP, all parties have access to valuable information that may not otherwise be obtainable. ASAP provides timely identification of safety problems and allows for appropriate remedial act ion. Because of the non-punitive nature of the program, employees voluntarily disclose informa tion, safety data that might otherwise never come to light.
One example of success in the ASAP arena is iden tification of fatigue in the operation. With pilots now demonstrating increased confidence in the filing and disposit ion of ASAP reports, air carriers are seeing an increa se in reports that provide deta iled information on fatigue-related issues. For example, one air carrier is hol ding frequent ongoing di scussions using this self-disclosed data to remediate/mitigate fatigue concerns. ASAP data helped this air carrier institute a Fatigue Risk Mitigation System (FRM S). An FRMS is a data-driven process that systematically monitors and manages safety ri sks associated with fa tigue-related error.

FOQA FOQA is a voluntary safety program designed to make commercial av iation safer by allowing commercial air carriers and their pilots to shar e de-identified aggregate information with the FAA. FOQA collects and analyzes digital flight data generated and r ecorded electronically during daily flight operations. The fundamental objective of this partnership is to allow the FAA, pilots, and air carriers to cooperatively identify and mitigate safety risks. In addition, the air carrier and the FAA can monitor trends in aircraft operations and target their resources to address operational risk issues.
The value of FOQA is in the early identificati on of possible hazards that, when mitigated, will increase safety. A key element in FOQA is the application of corrective and follow-up action to ensure unsafe conditions are effectively and quickly remediated. Once a possible safety issue is identified through review of digita l flight data, contact with the f lightcrew can be made to betterReport from the ACSPT ARC 14 understand the conditions surroundin g the specific event, there by determining what, if any, follow up action is required. While FOQA data pr ovides the actual state of the aircraft, only through contact with the pilot can one determine why the aircraft arrived in that state. The information and insights FOQA identifies can im prove safety by significantly enhancing training effectiveness, operational proced ures, maintenance and engineer ing procedures, aircraft and systems design, and ATC procedures.

LOSA LOSA is a structured flight observation program th at uses trained observers to collect data about flightcrew behavior and situati onal factors on flights. The obje ctive of a LOSA program is to identify and develop countermeasures to hazards in the operating environment and errors in the cockpit. LOSA is closely associated w ith the concept of TEM, which addresses the identification of threats in the cockpit and beyond, and develops management and mitigation strategies.
As ICAO notes in ICAO Document 9803, Line Operations Safety Audit: 12
LOSA enables operators to assess their le vel of resilience to systemic threats, operational risks and front-line personne l errors, thus providing a principled, data-driven approach to prioritize and implement actions to enhance safety.
By monitoring the flight from the cockpit jump seat, the observer can learn much about flightcrew behavior and the strate gies flightcrews use to manage threats, errors, and undesirable states. Confidential data co llection and non-jeopar dy assurance for pilo ts are fundamental elements of the process. LOSA provides a diag nostic snapshot of strengths and weaknesses an air carrier can use to bolster its safety margins.
LOSA is complementary to FOQA and ASAP. LOSA samples all activ ities during normal operations and provides a unique opportunity to study flight management processes, both successful and unsuccessful, by noting the threat s and problems flightcr ews encounter during flight and then evaluating how they manage them. LOSA iden tifies examples of superior performance that can be reinforced and used as models for training. FOQA and ASAP differ from LOSA in that they are continuous programs, whereas LOSA is more of a specific project-based program. The full LOSA process—from advanced planning and observer selection and training to data collection (f rom several targeted or randomly selected flights), analyses, and the final report—can take between 6 and 12 mont hs. It is generally recommended to conduct a LOSA every 3 years.
Data from one program can be cross-referenced a nd used to guide data co llection in another. For example, ASAP reports may highlight a problem with departures at a particular airport. This information can be used to target more obs ervations out of that ai rport to understand the magnitude and specifics of the problem encount ered during a LOSA. Ad ditionally, a LOSA can identify high incidences of unstable approach es, leading to proce dural reviews and the

12 http://www.icao.int/anb/humanfactors/LUX 2005/Info-Note-5-Doc9803alltext.en.pdfReport from the ACSPT ARC 15 specification of new approach parameters. After a procedural change is enacted, FOQA data can help track adherence to the revised procedure.
The voluntary partnership programs are founded on c oncepts and principles established in early safety programs, such as the Aviation Safety Reporting System, established by the FAA in 1976 and managed by the National Aeronautics and Sp ace Administration (NASA). The effectiveness of these programs requires mutual trust and respect between the regulator, air carrier, and pilot, because reporting or monitoring is non-puni tive and confidential. The programs are non-punitive in the sense that reports, observations, and fli ght data cannot be used for disciplinary or enforcement acti on against individual employees, provided their actions are not deliberate and comply with progr am provisions. The programs ar e confidential in that they protect the identities of those w ho participate. Stakeholders mu st properly manage all programs; these programs rely on voluntary pa rticipation and are trust-based.
The parties that participate in these progr ams—company, employee group, and regulator—agree to work together harmoniously with the common goa l of attaining the highest level of air safety through consensus. By remaining voluntary, thes e programs attract highl y motivated volunteers, typically SMEs, who are highly respected by their peers. Trus t is the cornerstone of these programs, and it cannot be measured. Corporat e culture plays a large role in whether the programs are used proactively and non-punitively as intended, or exist in name only. Employee groups must recognize that for the programs to be genuinely effective, they must be evaluated on their effectiveness as safety tools and cannot be used for industrial leverage.
Finally, regulatory overs ight is critical, even though the programs are voluntary. The regulator has a role in ensuring the programs are used sole ly to enhance safety, and are established and maintained within the appropriate guidelines. Sa fety data supplied volunt arily by an air carrier or employee must not be used as the basis for ad verse action by the regulator. Such use has a negative effect on participation a nd results in a loss of valuable data that—in most cases—cannot be obtained through any other means.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice As of May 10, 2011, there were 63 air carriers pa rticipating in ASAP, 41 in FOQA, and 20 in LOSA. Of the 16 part 121 air carriers employing 1,000 pilots or more, 15 participate in ASAP, 15 participate in FOQA, and 12 participate in LO SA. In addition, approximately 91 percent of part 121 pilots are employed by ai r carriers that participate in ASAP, 87 percent are employed by air carriers that participat e in FOQA, and 61 percent are employed by air carriers that participate in LOSA.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required. The ACSPT A RC strongly believes the effectiveness of these partnership programs lies in the fa ct that they are undertaken vol untarily out of an institutional commitment to improving safety rather than to fulfill a regulatory requirement. For these programs to endure and maintain a high degree of integrity, the partic ipating parties must maintain a trusting relationship. By not requiring these programs, participating entities maintain a vested interest in their succe ss and effectiveness, thereby mi nimizing influence by any of theReport from the ACSPT ARC 16 parties’ agendas. In addition, a cornerstone of the programs is the assurance to reporters that information provided is held in confidence and protected from misuse. This protection is currently provided by statute, and that statutory protection only applies to voluntary programs. Requiring these programs would nulli fy that statutory protection.

3.1.6 U SE S TRUCTURED P ILOT H IRING P RACTICES

Best Practice
The ACSPT ARC identified the use of a “structure d” approach to screening prospective pilot candidates, involving a multiphase, multidisciplin ary approach as an air carrier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry
Several U.S. air carriers have excellent structured hiring prac tices that have been improved over time, and have demonstrated their value by c onsistently identifying the best candidates. A comprehensive hiring program offe rs air carriers the greatest opportunity of obtaining the best possible applicant.
Structured hiring practices include the use of a multidisciplinary, multi-step approach that employs modern technology and scientific tools to create a managed process that flags desired attributes in an equitable and unbiased manner. This hiring appr oach generally begins with the application process, when the em ployer checks applicants for all prerequisites and ensures there are no automatic disqualifiers—f or example, lack of appr opriate licenses and medical qualifications. Once the applicant has successfully completed the initial screening process, the employer invites the candidate fo r further screening a nd testing. This ma y include electronic evaluations, personal interviews, simulator ev aluations, situational awareness assessments through scenario based interviews, and other variations of testing.
Many of the testing functions given throughout th e screening and selection process use modern technology and scientific tools to evaluate c ognition, personality, and aptitude. Employers may use devices from desktop systems to full flight s imulators to evaluate flight-skill capabilities. The ability to manage people, use good judgment, communicate effectively, and work in a team environment are just as vital for success as th e applicant’s flying skills and technical knowledge.
The International Air Transport Association (IATA) recently published the results of an international panel of experts’ efforts to defi ne best practices. This manual, The Guidance Material and Best Practices for Pilot Aptitude Testing, is available via IATA’s Web site. 13 It states:
Professional Aptitude Testing has proven to be highly effective and efficient. If correctly implemented, it can contribute to considerab le cost savings for the airline. The costs associ ated with implementing a f unctional aptitude testing

13 IATA, 1 June 2010, http://www.iata.org/ps/publicat ions/Documents/pilot-aptit ude-testing-guide.pdfReport from the ACSPT ARC 17 system are significantly lower compared to the costs of high failure rates resulting from immature selection. Benefits of sound aptitude testing include enhanced safety, lower overall training costs, highe r training and operational performance success rates, a more positive working environment, reductions in labor turnover, enhancement of the reputation of the flight operations department and positive development of the air carrier’s brand. An integral part of the quality assurance program within an airline includes the development and use of a pilot aptitude testing system with periodic program review and adjustments to the process. This effort will require the management of pilot-performance data as a collaborative effort between all involved parties (HR, Flight Operations, Training and Aptitude Testing).
IATA notes elsewhere in the document that, “The term Aptitude Testing is used as hypernym, overarching all areas of aptitude diagnostics (basic abilities, specific/operational abilities, social competencies and personality traits).”

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the AC SPT ARC members that some of their constituents use a “structured” approach to screening prospective pilot candidates, involving a multiphase, multidisciplinary approach; however, the ARC is unaware if this can be considered a common practice among all air carriers.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required.

3.1.7 C ONDUCT O PERATIONAL C OORDINATION M EETINGS

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified conducting operational coordination meetings as an air carrier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry Maintaining operational alignment in the air carri er industry is complex. Changes in operational procedures need to be communicated to fli ght operations, traini ng, principal operations inspectors, and employee groups. Regularly sche duled operational coordination meetings serve a variety of purposes, but in every case are intended to open lines of communication and establish synergies between and within department s or other entities. These meetings should be encouraged within all air carriers, their FAA overs ight entities, and their employee organizations. They are opportunities to share experiences and data to reach common outcomes on issues and events. Coordination meetings also enhance an air carrier’s safety by ensuring coordination in procedures, policies, and training between depart ments, employee organizations, and the FAA. Soliciting input and involv ing all of these parties increases sa fety and promotes standardization. The variations include, but are not limited to:Report from the ACSPT ARC 18  Standardization coordination meetings,

 Inter-flight department coordination,

 Inter-departmental coordination,

 FAA/air carrier coordination, and

 Employee organization/air carrier coordination.
Implementation of a SMS will incorporate many of the elements of this recommendation.

Standardization Coor dination Meetings Standardization coordination meetings ensure instructors and evaluators have the same understanding of procedures and apply them to training and evaluation in the same manner. These meetings include fleet management, ground in structors, simulator in structors, simulator check airmen, line check airmen, designated exam iners, and FAA aircrew program managers. This provides an opportunity to review recent changes, trends, and data, while confirming a uniform understanding of procedures and policie s. Instructors and evaluators share their experiences and generate valuable discu ssion on fleet or flight operations topics.

Inter-Flight Depart ment Coordination Inter-flight department coordina tion meetings are conducted to en sure the flight operations and flight training departments are operating in con cert with each other. The goal is to discuss procedural and policy changes before implemen tation, thus striving to live up to the motto “We fly like we train.” These meetings go one step further in standardizing procedures as much as feasible among the fleets. This gives pilots a solid procedural ba sis when transitioning between fleets. These meetings typically are firs t held at the fleet level, in which the fleet management team and instructors and evaluators discuss fleet issues and manual modifications. The meetings then expand to representatives from all fleets to discuss th e applicability of those same modifications to all fleets.

This coordination extends to recu rring manpower meetings to confirm appropriate staffing levels and allocation of the cadre of check airmen on a recurring basis. Other inter-flight department coordination meetings include AQP team meetings. Participants review data and consider modifications to the training program, to en sure the efficacy of the training program.
Inter-flight departmental coordination meetings can also in clude a meeting of the air carrier vice president’s staff or flight leadership counc il meetings, where department leaders coordinate a variety of programs and issues.Report from the ACSPT ARC 19 Inter-Departmental Coordination Inter-departmental coordination me etings are intended to ensure th e flight department is working in harmony with other operational departments, in cluding safety, maintena nce, flight service, operational control (dispatch and crew scheduling) , crew planning, airport services, and capacity planning. These meetings serve to standardize procedures—for example, determining whether a checklist change would impact the flight attenda nt duties and responsibili ties—and provide flight department perspective on companywide decisions, such as consideratio ns associated with serving a new destination.

FAA/Air Carrier Coordination Monthly meetings with the principals at th e FAA Certificate Management Office and the associated aircrew program managers keep the lines of communica tion open between the certificate holder and the FAA. The meetings include flight training, flight operations, and flight safety briefings. They allow for a fra nk discussion on trends and data, as well as updates to changes in the air carrier or the FAA.

Employee Organization/Air Carrier Coordination An employee organization’s involvement in coor dination can take many forms. These can be stand-alone meetings or they can be integrated into the a bove meetings. Having employee organizations involved in a majority of these me etings allows the air ca rrier and its employees to obtain the same information. This consistent information ensures both entities are at the same starting point when creating soluti ons. It also creates an at mosphere of cooperation in an apolitical environment. Involvement can incl ude groups such as the employee organization’s safety committee, flight training committee, check airman committee, and aeromedical committee.
In summary, it is this group’ s experience that such coordina tion meetings aid in regulatory compliance, and provide great benefit to the air carrier’s operations a nd its employees. These meetings promote coordination and standardization within the air carrier, as well as between the air carrier, the FAA, an d employee organizations.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that operational coordination meetings are commonly practiced among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required.Report from the ACSPT ARC 20 3.1.8 E STABLISH M INIMUM Q UALIFICATIONS FOR D IRECTORS OF S AFETY AND D IRECTORS OF T RAINING

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified establishing minimum qua lifications for a director of training and director of safety as an air carrier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry Part 119 of 14 CFR requires an ai r carrier to have qualified pers onnel serving full time in the following or equivalent positions: director of safe ty, director of operations, chief pilot, director of maintenance, and chief inspector.
Part 119 lists the qualifications for a ll of these positions except the director of safety. In light of the complexity and implementation of an SMS across the spectrum of air carrier operations, it is appropriate to establish a set of minimum criteria for a director of safety, including experience and education, similar to those defi ned for other critical positions.
Effective training tailored to an air carrier’s fl eet and operating environm ent is one of several foundational elements necessary for continued safe operations. The nature of modern training methodologies for curriculum development and de livery of the material itself is extremely dynamic. Elements like AQP, distance learning, and expanded use of full flight simulators often can effectively replace prescriptive rote traini ng, and place far greater si gnificance than ever before on the administration of training programs. In addition, pilots’ experience levels vary more widely today than in the past, presenting the challenge of training a group of pilots with varying levels of experience and different backgr ounds to the same high proficiency standards. Training programs must be integrated with ot her air carrier programs—such as safety data collection and scheduling—to achieve the intended benefit. It is no longer simply a matter of checking off items the FAA says must be taught , but employing a variety of data sources to help identify potential traini ng issues , and then designing, validating, and obtaining approval for relevant changes in trai ning content and methodology, all w ithin the existing regulatory framework.
The ACSPT ARC reviewed the requirements of part 119, and conclude d there are benefits associated with creating and de fining qualifications for the in dividual responsible for direct oversight of an air carrier’s training programs. This is consistent with other complex positions critical to the safety and effec tiveness of air carrier operations. Qualifications should include specific criteria, such as professional qualifi cations, management experience, educational background, and training that i ndicate the candidate could eff ectively develop, maintain, and coordinate training programs and personnel. In the context of part 119, this position could be defined as a director of traini ng, but the ARC recognizes the actua l title of such a position may vary between air carriers and that the FAA’ s normal processes for approving air carrier management positions would accommodate va riations in organization structures.Report from the ACSPT ARC 21 Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the AC SPT ARC members that a number of air carriers currently have specific criteria for the designated director of tr aining and director of safety. Some air carriers—with what the ARC members be lieve are particularly effective safety and training programs—subscribe to the philosophy of comprehensively defining both positions’ qualifications and required background.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6

The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA conven e a body of stakeholders for further review.

3.1.9 E STABLISH A F LIGHT R ISK A NALYSIS W ORKING G ROUP

Best Practice
The ACSPT ARC identified the establishment of a FRAWG as an air carrier industry best practice. A FRAWG collects and analyzes safety -related data from multiple sources, applies a formal risk assessment strategy to determin e action priorities, and achieves stakeholder agreement on actions.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry It is an industry-wide concern th at training is too often prescribed as the solution to any potential safety-related threat before prope r analysis is performed. Becaus e training resources are limited, choices must be made to apply those resources to: (1) issues that are bona fide systemic areas of concern, as opposed to “one-offs,” and (2) issues where training can have a positive impact. An air carrier’s FRAWG is de signed to address this.
FRAWG membership should include leadership representatives of the FAA, employee organizations, and the stakeholder departments, such as flight tr aining, flight safety, and flight standards. The FRAWG reviews al l available operational data s ources, including but not limited to AQP, FOQA, ASAP, LOSA, and the Voluntary Disclosure Reporting Program. Additionally, industry safety information from sources like Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing (ASIAS), the Flight Safety Foundati on (FSF), the Air Trans port Association of America, Inc. (ATA), the Regional Airlin e Association (RAA), the FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board, and NASA can be used as benchmarks for an air carrier’s internally derived data and its training programs.
The FRAWG’s review/analysis of safety-related data should follow a formal risk assessment process, in which the working group evaluates i ssues by likelihood of recu rrence and severity of the potential outcome. Such a process prioritizes resources for higher risk issues. In addition, a FRAWG should follow a formal process to determine appropriate risk-mitigation actions in response to identified priorities. Not every identif ied risk can or should be mitigated by training, and training solutions are most effective when a knowledge or skill deficiency exists. If knowledge or skill gaps do not exist, the FRAW G should recommend other solutions, such as policy and procedure changes, hardware or so ftware modifications, or other adaptations.Report from the ACSPT ARC 22 The FRAWG should meet periodically to analyz e all data sources, both to identify new risk-mitigation priorities and to determine if previously implemented mitigation strategies (such as training program adjustments) are effective. Implementation of an SMS will incorporate many of the elemen ts of this recommendation.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that FRAWG is a practice in place or being developed among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required.

3.1.10 P ROVIDE S TANDARDIZED M ANUALS AND U SE D ISTANCE L EARNING

Best Practices The ACSPT ARC identified standardizing paper a nd electronic publications associated with company operations, specific aircraft operating in formation, and training materials across aircraft fleets as an air carrier industry best practice. Closely linked with the standardization of publications, the ARC has identified continuous accessibility to these publications, other reference materials and the use of distance lear ning as air carrier indus try best practices.

Progress in Identifying these Best Pr actices in the Air Carrier Industry The standardizing of paper and electronic public ations and procedures between fleets is a best practice, as there are multiple human-factor advantages to be gained in the cockpit. Many part 121 air carriers and others in the industry have chosen to incorporate operating manuals and procedures with standardized layouts across fleets, providing prove n safety advantages.
Transfer of training or learning between aircraft is not automatic The relationship between old knowledge and the material being learned must be made clear, or old knowledge could inhibit learning the new skill. Pilots familiar with seve ral airplane electrical or navigation systems can use that existing knowledge to more efficiently learn a new system, par ticularly if the older aircraft system is more complex. This sort of experience-based learning occurs when training material has a similar layout to what the pilot has used in the past.
Information delivery begins in the training en vironment. Training in accessing relevant information occurs not only in initial aircraft training, but also when a pilot transitions between aircraft types. In developing a strategic information delivery pla n, the air carrier must strive to group company operational manuals and aircraft -specific operating manuals in a way that maximizes the employee’s ability to match patterns.
Air carriers seeking more effective methods of delivering employee training use various forms of distance learning. Air carriers and pilots ha ve found distance learning gives employees more convenient access to necessary training material s, enabling their workforce to view thoseReport from the ACSPT ARC 23 materials as often as necessary. Another major fact or in air carriers’ use of distance learning is the increasingly technology savvy wo rkforce; a new generation of professionals expects training to be available via more sophisticated channels. Distance learning is scal able to meet the needs of the air carrier, and experi ence has shown that air carriers can effectively present certain training topics via distance learning.
The air carrier industry recognize s that pilots have an easier experience learning the unique qualities of new aircraft when th ey can efficiently locate, retrieve, and process information using a consistent schema. For example, a pilot finds the transition of moving from an Airbus 320 to a Boeing 767—a significantly different aircraft—mad e easier by retaining ma ny familiar skills and habits from the operation of the previous aircraft.
Standardizing procedures and publ ications across fleets would im prove efficiency in training time and increase the trainee’s knowledge retenti on. Any increase in knowl edge retention will improve performance on the line, which will lead to a much-improved response to emergencies, when pilots and flightcrew member s operate under stressful conditions.

Air carriers and other stakeholde rs should ensure that standard ization does not hide critical airplane differences. For example, an automa tion-based standard operating procedure may need to be different for the Boeing 777 aircraft than fo r an early Boeing 757 aircraft if the former has more advanced automation features than the latter. Even with such required operating differences, it is still possible to standardize the layout of manuals to create clear similarities between markedly different aircraft types.
While automated flight features have reduced the need for continuous active input from pilots to maintain cruise flight, the need to access, retrieve, and process information has increased dramatically over the past several decades. All-weather flight operations in complex and congested airspace underscore the ne ed for pilots to be able to quickly and efficiently retrieve critical aircraft systems information, company operational guidance, and navigation information required for safe operations. Air carriers must be proactive in designing information delivery systems that facilitate training, retention, a nd the use of essential flight information.
Electronic flight bags (EFB) ar e gaining popularity in the air car rier industry. An EFB is any electronic display device intended primarily for cockpit use. Along with company and aircraft manuals, EFBs can store and display a variety of aviation data or perform calculations for aircraft performance or fuel loading procedures. Regardless of whether an air carrier uses paper or electronic manuals, the manual content should be in a standardized format.
Regarding the continuous availability of tr aining materials, the ACSPT ARC recommends air carriers employ advanced processes and methodologies to devel op, maintain, and deploy operational and training documentation to their workforce, thus providing quick access to reference materials.Report from the ACSPT ARC 24 The goals of constantly improving the safety of operations, ensuring accurate information is readily available, and ensuring the content of such material is rele vant and current with original equipment manufacturers, regulations, and ot her external sources justify upgrading these systems. Many air carriers now give flightcrew members and maintenance technicians computers, hand-held devices, or other modern tools to provide the most up-to-date and accurate information available at any time or place. This practice helps those em ployees better prepare for flight operati ons and training.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing these Best Practices No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that have implemented these best practices. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that tr aining and flight manual standardization and accessibility and the effective use of distance learning is in place or being developed among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required.

3.1.11 U SE S IMULATORS IN P ILOT T RAINING

Best Practice
The ACSPT ARC identified the use of simulation in pilot training as an air carrier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry For many years, the air carrier industry has used simulation for training flightcrew members. As computer technology evolve d significantly in the last 10 to 15 years, so has simulation technology in aviation industry training. Because of advances in simulation technology, the industry most often prefers simu lation to in-aircraft training.
Simulator training can expose flightcrew members to concentrated training scenarios that include system malfunctions (for example, loss of aircra ft hydraulics), abnormal operations (for example, engine failures), and hazardous meteorological conditions (for example, wind shear and turbulence) that cannot be experienced in an ai rcraft without elevated risk. Additionally, many conditions, hazardous or otherwise, simply cannot be trained in an aircraft—for example, low-visibility operations and maxi mum crosswinds. Simulation also enables exposure to aircraft handling characteristics in advers e environmental conditions, such as icing, that otherwise would be difficult to experience due to geographica l constraints and seasona l weather patterns. Simulation training reduces the demand in an already overcrowded air traffic system and substantially reduces fuel consump tion and associated carbon emissions.
Air carriers and training organizatio ns are continually seeking more fidelity and expanded use of simulation technology in their training programs. The following items are just some of the areas in which simulators could be improved to enhance their benefits to the industry:Report from the ACSPT ARC 25  Aerodynamic modeling: Improved models of stall and icing effects to support upset prevention, recognition, and rec overy training requirements.

 Visual modeling: Continuing increase in scen e content in terms of detail, extent of coverage, resolution, and concur rency with the real world.

 Weather modeling: Realistically evolving la rge weather patterns. Better models of turbulence, gusts, crosswinds, and icing conditions.

 ATC modeling: Simulation of greater numbers of air and ground traffic entities, with behaviors consistent with r eal-world ATC procedures. The development and refinement of this technology will support Next Generati on Air Transportation System type cockpit traffic displays and ATC communications co rrelated with traffic movement. Robust speech recognition is advancing, but the tec hnology has not yet reached necessary levels of fidelity to meet the requirements.

 Motion modeling: Improved motion cueing al gorithms to reproduce aircraft control behaviors and objective moti on cueing test standards.

 Instructor aids: There will be increased fo cus on technology to assist instructors with delivering a consistent quality of training. This includes bett er instructor monitoring and assessment tools and student brief and debrief tools.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that the us e of simulation in pilot training is a common practice among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 The ACSPT ARC feels that attainment of a high leve l of safety within the air carrier industry is supported by the optimum use of high-fidelity simulation. This level of use should be the standard. However, the ARC rec ognizes that some operational cons traints may exist that inhibit the maximum use at some carriers. Regulations, through due process, shoul d allow an air carrier to demonstrate an equivalent le vel of safety. Therefore, th e ARC recommends that the FAA convene an industry panel to t horoughly study the nature of regul ations that would support the above principles.Report from the ACSPT ARC 26 

### 3.2 F LIGHTCREW 

### M EMBER 

### P ROFESSIONAL 

### S TANDARDS

3.2.1 E STABLISH P ILOT A SSISTANCE P ROGRAMS

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified peer programs as an air carrier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry These assistance programs are ad ministered by pilots and provide support from trained peers who volunteer their time. These programs occas ionally employ the services of professional practitioners in various disciplines. Pilo t assistance programs do not directly address professional piloting skills such as proficiency is sues. Rather, they focus on pilots’ mental and physical health to ensure that f actors external to the cockpit do not have an adverse impact on proficiency. Examples of these factors would be family stress, chemical dependencies, and personal conflicts with ot her flightcrew members.
Often, these programs employ pilot-assistance co mmittees as umbrella groups, which contain subcommittees specializing in human-factors issues in specific disciplines. These disciplines provide guidance for pilots having difficulty with any aspect of their professional or personal lives that could affect their wo rk. Peer volunteers are trained and available any time to address personal issues that, if left unr esolved, could lead to problems both inside and outside of the cockpit, and ultimately result in decreased safety. In some instances, mental health professionals or other practitioners can be retained under sp ecific guidelines. Conf identiality is the key element of these committees and the cornerstone fo r their success. Therefore, they must handle sensitive personal issues disc reetly and with a high degr ee of dignity and respect.
Typically, there are five common pilot assistance subcommittees:

 Aeromedical committee: This committee of p ilots works with experts in the field of aviation physiology and medical standards, and c oordinates research into areas that over time may have a negative impact on a pilot’s he alth. Examples include research into the effects of high-altitude radiation exposure a nd the long-term effects of fatigue due to flight and duty-time regulations and disr upted circadian rhythms due to long-haul intercontinental flights.

 Critical Incident Response Program (CIRP) committees: The purpose of an air carrier industry CIRP committee is to mitigate the ps ychological impact of an accident, incident, or other traumatic event. A CI RP strives to facilitate recove ry from those events before harmful reactions affect job performance, careers, families, and health. A CIRP committee provides both pre- incident/accident training and post-incident/accident crisis-intervention services. A CIRP, comp rised of trained peer volunteers, may be successful in mitigating the negative effects of stressors that can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by properly counseling fellow fli ghtcrew members who have survived a traumatic incident or accident. Mental health professionals are a resource for CIRP volunteers and may be called on when needed.Report from the ACSPT ARC 27  Human Intervention and Motivation Study (HIM S) program: Pilots voluntarily staff these programs to deal with alcohol and chemical dependency. The HIMS conducted several years ago recognized that alcohol and chemical dependency are legitimate diseases, and are not only medically disquali fying, but also life threatening. Diagnosed pilots go through a chemical dependency treatm ent program specifically tailored to meet the needs of air carrier pilots. Through st rict adherence to the program’s protocols, hundreds of pilots have regained their medical certification. A key element of a HIMS program is strict monitoring by participating doctors and sponsoring pilot peers. HIMS protocols must be strictly followed as a condi tion of recertification. There is a degree of regulatory compliance because recovering pilo ts are subject to me dical certification standards established by the FAA. HIMS programs must be followed with FAA oversight.

 Professional Standards committee: This commit tee consists of trai ned pilot volunteers, and provides a forum for pilots to address ethical problems or unprofessional conduct. Pilot peers address concerns about pilot behavi or in the workplace, particularly regarding unprofessional conduct. With peers w ho understand the personal and professional challenges pilots face, Professional St andards committees he lp pilots reach mutually-agreed-upon resolutions to conflicts . The volunteers maintain a neutral, nonjudgmental position while working with th e parties under strictconfidentiality. Professional Standards committees can provi de early intervention, thus preventing situations from developing that might requir e company discipline, and ensuring a safer and more efficient work environment.

 Pilot assistance network: This network of p eer volunteers provides p ilots with private, confidential help or counseling for personal problems. The i ssues these networks address usually are not job related, but are persona l problems—such as marriage, family, and health—that could lead to distractions wh ile flying, potentially undermining safety. The committee is comprised of a number of on- call volunteers available any time. Since its inception, this program has helped pilots manage personal problems and maintain their careers. This program complements Professional Standards committees by assisting pilots with personal issues outside th e purview of professional standards.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the AC SPT ARC members that pilo t assistance programs are a common practice among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required.
The ACSPT ARC strongly recommends that thes e peer programs remain voluntary. A purely voluntary program usually attracts the best peer volunteers be cause they employ the volunteer spirit and volunteers generally are more motivat ed to provide support to their fellow pilots.Report from the ACSPT ARC 28 Regulating these voluntary programs may negatively affect confidentiality, which is the key element of these programs. This would elimin ate the privacy of peer-to-peer conversations, which is vital to the success of the pr ograms in their current volunteer state.

3.2.2 E STABLISH A F LIGHTCREW M EMBER -I NITIATED P ROFICIENCY P ROCESS

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified establishing a flightcrew member-initiated prof iciency process as an air carrier industr y best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry The skills involved in operating an air carrier aircraft are perishab le. As with any complex task, proficiency is at its highest wh en the skills are exercised regula rly, and proficiency can diminish as time passes without exercising those skills. Current proficie ncy regulations are intended to ensure that pilots exercise their skills periodi cally. If they do not, the regulations specify that pilots need refresher exercises before they can perform without superv ision. When some time has passed since a pilot’s skills were last exercised—but not enough time to require action—it would be beneficial for the pilot to seek an oppo rtunity to acquire additi onal flight experience.
Circumstances such as infrequent flying due to se asonal shifts in flight schedules, international flights that have only two landings per rotati on, a pilot maintaining reserve status, extended illnesses, and delays in the transition to flying a different aircraft after training may contribute to a perceived lack of proficiency. Based on thes e circumstances, pilots may desire opportunities outside their awarded monthly flyi ng schedule to reinforce certain flying skills in which they do not feel proficient.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that flight crew member-initiated proficiency is a voluntary practice not common among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6
The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA conven e a body of stakeholders for further review.Report from the ACSPT ARC 29 

### 3.3 F LIGHTCREW 

### M EMBER 

### T RAINING 

### S TANDARDS AND 

### P ERFORMANCE

3.3.1 I MPLEMENT U PSET R ECOVERY T RAINING

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified implementation of upset prevention, recognition, and recovery training as an air carrie r industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry An aircraft upset can occur due to environm ental conditions, mechanical malfunctions, wake turbulence, or other unusual phenomenon which di splaces an aircraft from its normal flight attitude. Early pilot training focused on low- energy maneuvers and stalls, however with the transition to large swept-wing aircraft and then to simulator training, training was limited to approach to stalls. Recent in cidents and accidents have renewed efforts to improve training and simulation to better equip pilots with the knowledge and psychomotor skills necessary to handle these events.
Although upset training is not required by part 121 regulation, most air carr iers incorporate some form of upset training in thei r initial and recurrent training programs including the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid 14 . Many of the better training events currently in place use simulation technology to its full extent, enabling the use of unplanned aircraft upsets requiring the flightcrew to practice avoi dance and recovery techniques.
Industry working groups have addr essed training in extended enve lopes. These working groups focused on reviewing the current practices in extended envelope training to identify shortcomings in data and training media requ irements. Recommendations by the FAA/Industry Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group have resu lted in development of the Stall Advisory Circular, anticipated to be published in 2011.
Based on an FAA working group’s efforts, th e FAA recently issued Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 10012—Stall Rec overy, Minimum Loss of Altitude 15 , which discusses the terminology and procedures for “Minimal Lo ss of Altitude” and its recommended action.

14 Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid, FAA, 12/1/2010, http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/

15 SAFO 10012 Possible Misinterpretation of the Prac tical Test Standards (PTS) Language “Minimal Loss of Altitude.” http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_op erators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2010 /SAFO10012.pdfReport from the ACSPT ARC 30 Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that upset recovery training is a common practice among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6

The ACSPT ARC recommends re gulatory action and guidance.

3.3.2 I MPLEMENT A P ILOT R EMEDIATION S TRATEGY

Best Practice
The ACSPT ARC identified structured remedial training programs w ith detailed tracking systems as an air carrier industry best practic e when dealing with pilots who demonstrate persistent training and evalua tion performance deficiencies.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry On October 27, 2006, the FAA released SAFO 06015, Remedial Training for Part 121 Pilots, encouraging air carriers to voluntarily implement remedial training for pilots with persistent performance deficiencies. 16 A well-designed remedi al training strategy is most effective when implemented with a standardized and structured plan. A standard ized set of events should occur after a pilot demonstrates defici ent performance in a training or evaluation event. In addition, the strategy should include a struct ured tracking system to protect the interests of the air carrier and the individual pilots.
The purpose of the remediation strategy is to es tablish guidelines providing additional training to pilots who are unable to meet proficiency objec tives within the air carr ier’s approved training program footprint. The strategy requires a system for tracking unsatisfactory performance during training events and evaluations. It also re quires a remediation plan that specifies standard actions—such as remedial training and pilo t review boards (PRB)—in response to the unsatisfactory performance.
Remedial training events should be customized to address the specific area of deficiency. They should be non-punitive.
Standard remedial training allowances—the amount of remedial training assigned in response to specific training failures—should be defined. Standard allowances ensure consistent limits are placed on the additional resources to be invested during remediat ion. These allowances should be derived through review of historical training data.

16 SAFO 06015 Remedial Training for Part 121 Pilots. http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_op erators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2006 /safo06015.pdfReport from the ACSPT ARC 31 Thresholds for repetitive or se vere occurrences of unsatisfact ory performance should trigger actions beyond additional remedial training, including placing the pilo t in the air carrier’s special tracking program, shorter intervals between recurrent training events, additional line checks, PRBs, and other appropriate forms of evaluati on. Along with clearly defined thresholds for entry into special tracking, th e program should define when a pilot has demonstrated persistent proficiency and is able to exit sp ecial tracking and return to normal training and checking intervals.
In cases in which a pilot has reached the thresh old triggering the creation of a PRB, the PRB reviews all aspects of a pilot’s training and evaluation performance, including any relevant external circumstances that may be impacting pe rformance, to determine future actions. The PRB decides whether additional remedial training is appropriate, and if so, the amount and type of remedial training offered. The PRB may also decide to discontinue training and instead terminate the pilot’s employment. PRB membersh ip should include leaders from the appropriate departments (including but not limited to training , standards, and the chie f pilot’s office) and a peer advocate. The PRB should consult the defi cient pilot and any instructors who trained or evaluated the pilot to gath er the information needed to make a sound decision.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the AC SPT ARC members that pilot remediation strategy is a common practice among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6

The ACSPT ARC recommends rulemaking and guidance.

3.3.3 I MPLEMENT I NTEGRATED T RAINING

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified an integrated system s training approach inco rporating the latest technology and curriculum development techniques as an air carrier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry Current regulations require both ground and fli ght training. Historical ly, ground training took the form of a lecture aided at times by a chal kboard, overhead projection, or most recently a Microsoft PowerPoint presentati on. The student would open a text book to a graph or picture of a system, listen to the instructor, and attempt to visu alize the system in actio n. Frequently, all such ground instruction on all systems would be grouped together into several days or weeks of classroom time before the student ever saw any of the various systems in action. This separation of ground and “flight phases” frequently resulted in less-than-adequate retention of pertinent systems knowledge.Report from the ACSPT ARC 32 Advances in technology used for information deli very and understanding of the learning process led to the development of an integrated systems training approach. Such an approach typically includes a coordinated mix of texts, computer-based or clas sroom training, and instructor-led part-task training prior to flight training. After reading and/or watching computer-based or classroom modules, students ar e able to apply the knowledge to demonstrate practical application and proficiency skil ls. Integrating academic and practical training on individual aircraft systems in this way helps a student learn a system and be tter understand how each system, and the pilot’s inputs to that system, affect the overall opera tion of an aircraft.
For example, to teach the operation of the aircraft electrical system effectively, some classroom time would be dedicated to studying the basic co mponents and characteristics. For maximum effectiveness, this relatively abstract discus sion of theory would immediately be followed by graphic depictions of the entire system in the sp ecific context of the ai rcraft, then by practical demonstrations using advanced tr aining devices. Such advanced exposure shows the student the real-world application of the academic presentati on, illustrating how specific controls affect the operation of the components and overall syst em, how normal operations are conducted, and how troubleshooting procedures are developed and implemented.
This best practice is manifested in a corporate culture that rec ognizes and embraces advances in educational practices and supportin g technologies, and demonstrates its support through this best practice. The regulatory framework must allow the flexibility to adapt curricula to changing training needs so air carriers can use that unde rstanding of learning processes and technologies to enhance the effectiveness of training resources.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that integrated training is occurring among several of thei r constituents. However, the ARC is unaware if it can be considered a common practice among all air carriers.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required. The ACSPT ARC recommends that existing guidance should be reviewed for applicability to advances in educational practices and supporting technologies, and updated accordingly.

3.3.4 M AINTAIN M ANUAL F LYING S KILLS

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified having and taking the opportunity to maintain manual flying skills as an air carrier i ndustry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry Increased availability of advanced generation auto mation for control of the aircraft flight path has greatly increased the crew’s ability to more accurately and precisely control the aircraft’sReport from the ACSPT ARC 33 flight path. This, along with a de sire to more effectively utili ze the limited airspaces available, has led to requirements for operators to equi p, train, and use this au tomation in place of traditional hand flying of the aircraft. Required Navigation Performance approaches, departures, sensitive noise monitoring, and Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum airspace are all examples of either discouraged or prohibited manual flying.
Manual flying, however, remains a required skill for today’s aviator. In the case of automation not being available or utilized, the successful outcome of the f light depends on the proficiency of the pilot manually manipulati ng the flight controls. For th e reasons previously discussed, the opportunities to maintain that proficiency are increasingly limited.
The operator’s basic flight manual or fleet manua l presents an opportunity for an air carrier to express its desire and set li mitations regarding appropriate times for its pilots to maintain proficiency in manual flying.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that manual flying guidance is provided by several of thei r constituents. However, the ARC is unaware if it can be considered a common practice among all air carriers.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6

The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA encour age air carriers to provi de guidance in their operating manuals for manual flying. The ARC al so encourages the FAA to do further studies.

3.3.5 U SE S IMULATOR M OTION IN T RAINING AND E VALUATION

Best Practice
The ACSPT ARC identified as an air carrier indust ry best practice the use of flight simulation training devices (FSTD) that in clude full motion for training to proficiency, testing, and checking for pilot qualification air carrier events.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry Pilot training is best accomplished in a speci fied sequence. Early pilot training without a motion-capable device can be an efficient way to help students master the procedures necessary to accomplish flight training tasks. Th is type of rote learning helps prepare students for later advanced realism traini ng. Mastering the procedures, how ever, is only one step in the learning process. The training still needs to be accomplished to the established standards. Whether the pilot candidate continues to meet this standard should be determined in an environment that replicates as closely as po ssible what the pilot will experience while flying the line with passengers.Report from the ACSPT ARC 34 An example would be mastering the task of landi ng an aircraft. It is possible to learn and practice the steps required to perf orm the landing without fully re plicating the actual operating environment. However, a pilot applicant should not be qualified to land an aircraft with passengers on board until he or she experiences the task and performs it to an acceptable standard in a realistic environment. Landings occur in day-to-day operations while enduring turbulence, in crosswinds, and with varying airc raft load factors, all in various visibility conditions. These effects can be cumulative an d should be fully experienced in training. The same applies if something were to go wr ong with the maneuver. The pilot should not experience the full dynamics of a deflated tire on landing for the first time with passengers on board. Pilots should perfect these tasks under co nditions as realistically simulated as possible while under the effect of the stress that will accompany them. This environment can be replicated with current full-motion FSTDs, as long as they accurately re plicate the environment the pilot will operate in.
Regarding recurrent training requirements, a pilo t with years of experience flying the line may have never experienced a tire defl ation on landing, an engine failure on takeoff, or any number of other situations that might occur while flying the line. Pilots should experience these maneuvers in a training environment, pres ented as closely as possible to the real-world maneuvers to maintain peak performance. Modern full-motion FSTDs can replicate this environment.
There are more elements to simulated flight tr aining than just motion, including sound, visuals, and ATC. The air carrier indus try should ensure these elements are as realistic as technology will allow to safely achieve a near–lifelike expe rience in training. Pilots should be trained to proficiency and checked in a devi ce that replicates in-flight co nditions to the greatest degree available. The overall objective is to not only tr ain tasks, but to ensure the pilot is equipped to manage the complex operational environm ent of current aviation infrastructure.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the AC SPT ARC members that use of simulator motion in flight training and eval uating is a common practice among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6

The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA conven e a body of stakeholders for further review and harmonization with ICAO guidelines as outlined in ICAO Document 9625.

3.3.6 E STABLISH R EQUALIFICATION T RAINING

Best Practice
The ACSPT ARC identified as air carrier indus try best practices the establishment of requalification training criteria based on time since last performing flightcrew member duties, requiring requalification operating experience, a nd requiring requalifica tion indoctrination.Report from the ACSPT ARC 35 Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry There are various types of training programs con ducted at air carriers. Pilots new to an air carrier, commonly referred to as “new hires,” typically at tend a “Basic Indoctrination” training course, followed by ground and simulator (f light) training for a speci fic aircraft type. Once that training is complete, th e pilot obtains experience in th e aircraft, under the supervision of a check airman; this is called “operating ex perience.” After becoming qualified on the given aircraft and pilot positio n, a pilot periodically attends recurrent training. In addition to recurrent training, a pilot has to have enough takeoffs and landings to remain current, according to 14 CFR.
A pilot becomes disqualified when he or she does not attend recurrent training or does not accomplish enough takeoffs and landings. To regain qualification, a pilot is entered into a pilot requalification training course. These cour ses vary greatly based on the reason for disqualification. For example, a pilot who has b een out sick for 3 years will receive much more training than a pilot who has not had enough takeoffs and landings within the last 90 days. The sick pilot needs more time to relearn or re fresh his or her knowledge of aircraft systems, policies, and procedures.
While current regulation requires requalifica tion, many of the details are unspecified by regulation and left open to interpretation. Requa lification programs at different air carriers and under the management of different FAA offices vary.

Requalification Criteria The most accurate determinant of a pilot’s potentia l loss of proficiency is the time since last performing flightcrew member duties. The traini ng required to regain th e appropriate level of knowledge and proficiency should be based on the tim e since the pilot last applied those skills. The training requirements are currently based on the time since the lapse occurred, which may be considerable. There are various types of requalification and nu merous ways this training is accomplished. The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA better define some of these practices and encourage the implementation of id entified best practices. The following sections elaborate on best practices for requalification prerequisites, re qualification line checks/operating experience, and requalif ication indoctrination.

Requalification Prerequisites Requalification prerequisites are not well defined by current regulat ions. Air carriers use a wide variety of standards, ranging from “time since la st disqualified” to “time since last performing the duties of the flightcrew memb er position.” This time determines the type and duration of training a pilot receives to regain qualifica tions. The following scenario and two examples illustrate the differences this practice can create.

Scenario : An air carrier conducts recurrent training every 12 months. A pilot completes recurrent training on January 1, 2010, and flies for the last time before becoming sick on January 5, 2010.Report from the ACSPT ARC 36 Example I : If the requalification curriculum is based on 6 months’ elapsed time since becoming disqualified, this pilot would have become disqualified on February 28, 2011 (the end of the twel fth month after January 1, 2010, plus the one grace month), and would have another 6 months (since becoming disqualified) on top of that, which in turn means the curriculum is valid until July 31, 2011.
Example II : If the particular requalificati on curriculum is based on 6 months’ elapsed time since last performing the du ties in the specific flightcrew member duty position, this pilot would not be disqua lified before the next recurrent cycle, but would require the same requalif ication curriculum on July 5, 2010.
As seen from the above examples, there is a nearly 13–month discrepancy between the two methodologies. The conservative approach to requalification training prerequisites are more prudently based on the time since performing duties, because it more closely judges the proficiency of the pilot.
Not only should requalification prer equisites be based on time sin ce last performing the duty as a pilot in the given seat and aircra ft type, but consideration should also be given to the experience level the pilot obtained before lo sing qualification on the aircraft. A review of the individual’s performance while completing training and opera tions in the aircraft type should be an additional consideration.

Requalification Line Check /Operating Experience Unlike other qualification training curricula, requalification trai ning does not require operating experience when line checks are required.
During qualification training, afte r completion of simulator training, operating experience is conducted. This allows a pilot to consolidate kn owledge and skills, learned in training, in line operations while under the supervis ion of a qualified check airman. Upon completion of the operating experience, a line check may be c onducted. A line check is a pass/fail event administered by a qualified check airman.
In some cases requalification training require s a line check with no oppor tunity for operating experience prior to the check. This does not a llow for renewed exposure to line operations under the supervision of a qualified ch eck airman prior to the line ch eck. Often, it would benefit the pilot and the air carrier to conduct operating experience, as opposed to only conducting a line check.

Requalification Indoctrination
The basic indoctrination course is required only one time in a pilot’s career with an air carrier. This course provides the basis for the remai nder of the pilot’s trai ning, including ground and flight training. After an extended absence from th e air carrier, it is prudent to add an abbreviated requalification indoctrination cour se for certain requalif ication pilots, based on the time elapsed since the pilot performed his or her duties at the air carrier. This course covers many general topics, such as security, hazardous materials, human factors, flightcrew operating manuals, andReport from the ACSPT ARC 37 airport/approach charts. This training program provides pilots returning from a long absence an opportunity to re-familiarize them selves with these topics.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the AC SPT ARC members that requ alification training, as specified above, is not a common practice among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 The FAA should complete rulemaking for part 12 1, subparts N and O, and provide appropriate guidance material requiring requa lification syllabus requirements based upon time since last performing flightcrew member duties. In cases where line checks are required for requalification, operating experience prio r to the line check should be conducted. This rulemaking should also requ ire requalification indoctrination for pilots who have not flown for an extended period.

3.3.7 C ONDUCT J UMP SEAT O BSERVATION F LIGHTS BY N EW P ILOTS

Best Practice
The ACSPT ARC identified a structured new hire observation flight progra m as an air carrier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry A new hire flight observation progr am is designed to give a new pilot an opportunity to observe routine line operations while riding on the cockpit jump seat. New pilots will begin the program after completion of the aircraft qualification program and prior to initial operating experience. After reporting to the crew domic ile, learning how to check in fo r a trip, meeting the crew, and observing the dynamics of line ope rations on a specified minimum number of segments, the new pilot is in a better position to en ter the working pilot seat, having gained familiarity with day-today line operations. In addition, the pilot travels in full uniform as part of the working crew. This program could include securing the aircra ft for the night and experiencing firsthand the process involved in a typical layover. As the new pilot initially will fly as a first officer, it is recommended that he or she carefully observe and shadow a working first officer to gain familiarity with his or her upcoming duties.
The benefit of this program is that the new pilot can gain init ial operating experience without becoming task saturated in the control seat of a new, unfamiliar environment. As part of the new pilot experience during the probationary period, the domicile chief pilot’s office helps counsel the new pilot through the first year. Some pilots under go quarterly progress interviews to review their probationary report forms, which are completed by captains on each trip.Report from the ACSPT ARC 38 Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that observation flights by new pilots are occurring at several of their constituents. However, the ARC is unaware if it can be considered a common practice among all air carriers.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required.

3.3.8 I MPLEMENT E NHANCED P ROFICIENCY AND C URRENCY R EQUIREMENTS

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified enhanced proficiency and currency requirement s as an air carrier industry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry According to § 121.439(a), no certificate holder may use any person nor may any person serve as a required pilot flightcrew member, unless w ithin the preceding 90 days that person has made at least three takeoffs and landings in the type of airplane in wh ich that person is to serve. Any person who fails to make the three required takeoffs and landings in line operations or the simulator within any consecutive 90-day period mu st reestablish recency of experience (takeoff and landing currency).
If reestablishment of takeoff and landing curren cy is required, additional maneuvers must be completed to regain currency. As a practical matter, these maneuvers are frequently completed in a full motion simulator. As a best practice, some air carriers have recognized the potential benefit of optimizing these simulator periods, us ing the full scheduled time, to allow exposure to challenging maneuvers not frequently encounte red in line operations, such as low-visibility approaches, engine failures, and missed appro aches, in addition to th e required regulatory

maneuvers. This best practice would increase these pilots’ proficiency in a traini ng environment, without placing a significant additional sc heduling burden on air carriers. The pilot, check airman, and simulator resources must be available to co mply with the existing requirements under § 121.439. The incremental maneuvers would merely uti lize typically available time to accomplish.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the AC SPT ARC members that e nhanced proficiency and currency requirements are not common practices among their constituents.Report from the ACSPT ARC 39 Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6

The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA conv ene a group of stakeholders to review modification of the existing rule.Report from the ACSPT ARC 40 

### 3.4 M ENTORING AND 

### I NFORMATION 

### S HARING 

### B ETWEEN 

### A IR 

### C ARRIERS

3.4.1 S HARE S AFETY AND T RAINING I NFORMATION AND P RACTICES

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified sharing of safety a nd training information and practices as an air carrier industr y best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry
Safety Alliances Safety alliances evolved over time to match the n eeds of the industry, and have proven to be very effective in enhancing safety. They exist wi thin code-sharing and industry partnerships. Although not required to contribut e by current regulations, air car riers’ directors of safety routinely come together to ensure ro bust, consistent safety performance.
The mainline and their affiliated regional air ca rriers provide a level of coordination, sharing, review and support to each other. In fact, mainline and their a ffiliated regional air carriers have well established processes and procedures for ro utine review and continuous monitoring of the partners and sharing of data and best practices to enhance the safe ty of all partner air carriers.

Air carrier alliances work to ensure that al l network partner air ca rriers operate with comprehensive safety programs. These alliances spend considerable time sharing information and defining exactly what effective programs cons ist of to ensure inclusion in both the mainline and their affiliated re gional air carriers.
The overall intent of these programs is to exce ed the baseline regulator y requirements of 14 CFR by establishing and maintaining an infrastructure to effectivel y support one level of safety. While the partnership safety alliance structure of each mainline and affiliated regional air carrier may appear different, they have the following common elements:

 The air carriers’ directors of safety meet r outinely to advance safety, with the goal of continuous improvement of both the mainline and their affiliated regional air carriers.

 Participants openly share sa fety data and information to address real concerns.

 Participants share hazard- and risk-mitigation strategies.

 Participants share experiences and best prac tices on how to make safety programs more comprehensive and effective for both the mainline and their affiliated regional air carriers.

 Participants explore ways to raise the “saf ety bar” through collaborative problem solving.

 Participants standardize polic ies and procedures to allow consistent application for mainline and their affiliated regional air carriers.Report from the ACSPT ARC 41  Mainline and their affiliated regional air carri ers assist each other in implementation and enhancement of voluntary safety programs.

 Participants address industry guidance (SAFOs, Information for Operators (InFO), and CAST initiatives).
Within some air carrier alliances, the pilot group s have formed similar alliances to exchange information on issues of mutual c oncern, including safety practices.

Training Alliances Training alliances have emerged among some mainline and their a ffiliated regiona l air carriers as a venue for exchanging information and sharing best practices to impr ove training programs. Directors of training from partic ipating air carriers meet routinely to discuss issues such as:

 Sharing best practices:

o Training department organization.

o AQP implementation.

o Data collection and reporting.

o Specific maneuver training, such as stall recovery.

 Prioritizing high-intere st training issues:

o AQP—development of instructional pr ograms and qualification standards.

o SMS—documenting program improvement with data.

 Addressing industry guidance:

o SAFO.

o InFO.

o Industry initiatives.

International Safety Alliances Safety alliances also occur within internationa l network alliances. For example, all mainline air carriers participate in international safety alliances through their membership in global air carrier alliances (oneworld, SkyTeam, and Star Alliance). The following table lists and compares the alliances to which mainline air carriers belong. Category oneworld SkyTeam Star Alliance
Member air carriers 14 13 27 Aircraft 2,473 1,941 4,023 Employees 311,830 316,445 402,208 Passengers/year 335.7 million 384 million 603.8 million Daily departures 9,381 13,000 21,000Report from the ACSPT ARC 42 Category oneworld SkyTeam Star Alliance Number of airports 901 898 1,160
Countries served 145 169 181

Global alliance member air carriers must meet strict safety standards, including IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) standards and ot her alliance safety requirements. All three global alliances maintain safety groups comprise d of their member air carriers’ directors of safety, who meet regularly to share safety inform ation and best practices to ensure the highest levels of safety are maintained at all alliance air carriers.
In addition, pilot groups within some international alliances ha ve formed similar alliances, to exchange information on issues of mu tual concern, including safety practices.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice
It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members th at sharing safety and training information and practices is common among their constituents.
Mainline and their affiliated regi onal air carrier partners have fully implemented safety alliances. All mainline air carriers are participating and co ntributing members of global safety alliances, and are on the IOSA registry. Two mainline air carriers and their affiliated regional partners have implemented training alliances. Of those, one mainline air carrier and its affiliated regional partners have integrated the training alliance into their regional safety al liance, while the other’s training alliance is separate from its safety alli ance. Both approaches have been productive for the participating air carriers.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required.

3.4.2 P ARTICIPATE IN S TRUCTURED I NFORMATION S HARING A CTIVITIES

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified voluntary participation in structured information sharing activities as an air carrier i ndustry best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry Trade associations and industry groups voluntarily charter and main tain formal groups, typically known as councils or committees, the sole purpose of which is to provide a venue for participants to exchange safety-related informa tion and practices they ha ve found beneficial in enhancing the safety of their operations.
Many groups within the industry have voluntarily deve loped forums that provide a venue for participants to exchange ideas and share be st practices. These can be industry meetingsReport from the ACSPT ARC 43 (for example, stakeholder groups send represen tatives to discuss a specific topic), trade organization meetings (for example, members of a trade association form internal committees, each with a specific focus, such as operations, training, or safety), or employee organizations (for example, an employee organization form s internal committees similar to the trade association). ATA and RAA, for example, ha ve formally defined councils that address operations, safety, and training issues inte rnally among their members and externally between the trade organizations. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) and the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associ ations have similarly designed councils and committees.

Members of the air carrier indus try understand safety should not be a basis for competition, so safety-related discussions allow for an open excha nge of ideas, data, and practices. Typically, the sole purpose of such groups is to allow me mbers to send representatives to meetings and exchange ideas outside the structure of compe titive business practices. Group meetings provide an opportunity to share ideas and data on how to improve training for a given maneuver, improve procedures, or improve pilot training in general. These meetings provide opportunities to share, learn, and benchmark in an e ffort to avoid risk and impr ove the quality of training.
In addition to the previously mentioned opportun ities, industry members ha ve additional formal opportunities for information sh aring. For example, FSF unites members from across the international aviation community, including air carriers, business aviation, and individual and corporate members from 150 different countries . These members can provide input on the development of various safety initiatives in tended to benefit segments of the aviation community. Members and non-members alike can pa rticipate in periodic seminars or similar presentations on safety-related information.
Similarly, ALPA hosts an annual Air Safety Foru m (portions of which are open to the public), which typically provides a forum for pilots, air carriers, avia tion businesses, and government representatives to share safety information.
Industry members have other meeting opportun ities to share data and ideas beyond the committee and association structures defined ab ove. Some of those meeting opportunities are highlighted elsewhere in this report. Others include—

 ASIAS. The air carrier industr y enables the analysis and tracking of accident precursors, as well as identification and tracking of newly identified operational risks. Directed studies, benchmarking capabilities, and CAST metrics are among the benefits of participation.

 Technical operations and training groups, in cluding the Operations Specifications Working Group, Master Minimum Equipm ent List Industry Group, and the AQP Working Group.

 International working groups, including the Pacific Operations Working Group, Pacific ATC Coordination Group, IATA (La tin America, Europe, and Asia), ICAO conferences, and the FSF International Air Safety Seminar.

 IATA Safety Trend Evaluation, Analysis & Data Exchange System (STEADES). STEADES provides rates on key safety perfor mance indicators, helping air carriersReport from the ACSPT ARC 44 benchmark and establish safety performance targets in accordance with ICAO requirements for SMS.
Participation in such meetings and work ing groups provides the opportunity to share information, improve safety and training programs, and ensure stakeholder participation in the regulatory process, with the ultimate goal of ensuring a safer ai r carrier industry.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that partic ipation in structured information sharing activities is a co mmon practice among their constituents.

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required.

3.4.3 I MPLEMENT C OMMERCIAL A VIATION S AFETY T EAM S AFETY E NHANCEMENTS

Best Practice The ACSPT ARC identified implementation of app licable CAST safety enhancements as an air carrier industr y best practice.

Progress in Identifying this Best Pr actice in the Air Carrier Industry When CAST was founded in 1998, it set out to unite aviation stakeholders—including government, industry, and employee groups—to wo rk cooperatively toward achieving the highest levels of safety for global commercial aviation. CAST accomplishe d its initial goal of reducing the commercial aviation fatality rate in the United States by 80 percent over a 10-year period. The ACSPT ARC recommends all stakehol ders establish and maintain awareness of CAST safety enhancements, and implement the e nhancements applicable to their air carriers.
CAST has evolved beyond the “forensic” approach of examining past accident data alone, and now focuses on risk prediction and mitigation stra tegies. Using aviation incident data, CAST can identify emerging safety threats before they result in accidents. For example, CAST derived a program to address wrong runway departur es, and CAST recommendations include the installation of cockpit moving map displays and deployment of runway awareness systems.

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice No specific documentation exists about the number of air carriers that ha ve implemented this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that implementation of applicable CAST safety enhancements is occurring at seve ral of their constituents. However, the ARC is unaware if this can be considered a common practice among all air carriers.Report from the ACSPT ARC 45 Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions 6 No regulatory action is required.Report from the ACSPT ARC A

– 1 

## APPENDIX A—ARC MEMBERS AND SUPPORTING STAFF

ACSPT ARC M EMBERS AND A FFILIATION
Capt. Warren Christie, Committee Co-chair
Capt. Rory Kay, Committee Co-chair

Mr. Charles Enders, FAA, Designated Federal Official

Air Line Pilots Association, International Capt. John Rosenberg

Mr. Chris Baum

Air Transport Association of America, Inc. Capt. Paul Morell

Mr. Chris Broom CAE SimuFlite Mr. Gary Morrison

Mr. Steve Hall

The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations Capt. Bob Coffman
Capt. John Sabel

Flight Safety Foundation
Mr. Kevin Hiatt

Regional Airline Association
Mr. Scott Foose

ARC S UPPORTING S TAFF

Federal Aviation Administration
Ms. Catherine Burnett

Mr. Louis Ebersole

Mr. Robert Frenzel
Ms. Sara Mikolop PAI Consulting Ms. Kelly Akhund
Ms. Emily Dziedzic

Ms. Sarah O’BrienReport from the ACSPT ARC B

– 1 

## APPENDIX B—ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AC Advisory Circular ACSPT Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training

ALPA Air Line Pilots A ssociation, International

AQP Advanced Qualification Program ARC aviation rulemaking committee ASAP Aviation Safety Action Program ASIAS Aviation Safety Information Analysis and Sharing ATA Air Transport Association of America, Inc.
ATC air traffic control
CAST Commercial Avia tion Safety Team

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIRP Critical Incident Response Program CRM Crew Resource Management

EFB electronic flight bag
FAA Federal Aviation Administration FOQA Flight Operational Quality Assurance FRAWG Flight Risk Analysis Working Group FRMS Fatigue Risk Mitigation System FSF Flight Safety Foundation FSTD flight simulation training device HIMS Human Intervention and Motivation Study IATA International Air Transport Association
ICAO International Civ il Aviation Organization

InFO Information for Operators IOSA International Air Transport A ssociation Operational Safety Audit LOSA Line Operations Safety Audit NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration PRB pilot review boardReport from the ACSPT ARC B

– 2 PTSD post-traumatic stress disorder

RAA Regional Airline Association SAFO Safety Alert for Operators

SME subject matter expert SMS safety management system STEADES Safety Trend Evaluation, An alysis & Data Exchange System TEM Threat and Error Management
U.S.C. United States Code