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, 2011 
Report 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 Advanced 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 Coordination Meetings .............................................................. 17

3.1.8 Establish Minimum Qualifications for Directors of Safety and Directors of Training 20

3.1.9 Establish a Flight Risk Analysis Working Group ....................................................... 21

3.1.10 Provide Standardized Manuals and Use Distance Learning ...................................... 22

3.1.11 Use Simulators in Pilot Training ............................................................................... 24

3.2 Flightcrew Member Professional Standards ...................................................................... 26

3.2.1 Establish Pilot Assistance Programs............................................................................ 26

3.2.2 Establish a Flightcrew Member-Initiated Proficiency Process.................................... 28
Report 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 Safety Team Safety Enhancements ....................... 44

Appendix A—ARC Members and Supporting Staff ............................................................ A–1

ACSPT ARC Members and Affiliation ................................................................................. A–1

ARC Supporting Staff ............................................................................................................ A–1

Appendix B—Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................... B–1
Report from the ACSPT ARC iv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report was created to satisfy the Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training (ACSPT) Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC) charter and section 204 of the Airline Safety and Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111–216), which require 

an initial report before July 31, 2011. The intent of this document is to identify industry 

best practices as of July 31, 2011, comment on the current use of those best 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 implementing non-regulatory training-related actions recommended by 

the FAA Administrator, as well as on air carriers’ progress in developing data-sharing programs 

and ensuring the implementation of effective practices. Air carriers and labor unions must have 

the opportunity to read this report and research the 24 best practices before their progress in 

implementing those best practices can be evaluated. The ARC’s second report will address 

those topics. 

The ACSPT ARC members (identified in Appendix A) represent organizations with extensive 

experience in air carrier operations, safety, and training, encompassing a wide range of 

operations conducted under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 121. Based on 

FAA direction, the ARC’s composition, and congressionally established timelines, the identified 

best practices and recommendations in this report 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 part 135 or part 91, subpart K). 

The ARC encourages such air carriers to review its findings and adopt those practices that may 

enhance the safety of their operations. 

Congress tasked the ACSPT ARC to consider scalability for small air carriers. In general, the 

identified best practices apply to part 121 air carriers regardless 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 report. The ARC contends that enhancing safety 

should take precedence over conformity with widespread industry practice when alternative 

practices may be more appropriate for a particular operation. 

The best practices defined in this report and 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 pilot training, enhanced 

professionalism, and provided a systematic approach 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 policy, procedure, or technique 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 effective way of accomplishing a task 

and attaining a goal. They should generally be those that have consistently achieved the intended 
Report 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 for 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 evaluations1

 Implement leadership and command training1

 Implement enhanced instructor and evaluator training1

 Participate in voluntary partnership programs 

 Use structured pilot hiring practices 

 Conduct operational coordination meetings 

 Establish minimum qualifications for directors of safety and directors of training1

 Establish a Flight Risk Analysis Working Group (FRAWG) 

 Provide standardized manuals and use distance learning 

 Use simulators in pilot training1

Flightcrew Member Professional Standards 

 Establish pilot assistance programs 

 Establish a flightcrew member-initiated proficiency process 

Flightcrew Member Training Standards and Performance 

 Implement upset recovery training1

 Implement a pilot remediation strategy1

 Implement integrated training 

 Maintain manual flying skills1

 Use simulator motion in training and evaluation 

 Establish requalification training1

 Conduct jump seat observation flights by new pilots 

 Implement enhanced proficiency and currency requirements1

Mentoring and Information Sharing 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 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. 

These best practices demonstrate that air carriers and employee organizations have done 

considerable work beyond the legislative or regulatory minimums to enhance flight safety and 

pilot training within the U.S. air carrier industry. These practices have also enhanced safety 

and training programs during challenging economic times. 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 implementation 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 ensure continued progress in enhancing flight safety and pilot 

training. Anticipated pilot shortages and retirements will dictate a significant increase in pilot 

hiring. Coupled with this increase, changes in pilot demographics will present added challenges 

to the industry. Implementing the best practices recommended by the ACSPT ARC will help to 

meet those challenges. Technological advances will enhance safety in such areas as air traffic 

control (ATC), and will enhance training through the use of flight simulators. Application of 

these best practices, as well as the continued pursuit of safety enhancements within the industry, 

will further improve operational safety and pilot 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 CHARTER

SUBJ: Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

1. PURPOSE. This document establishes the Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC) according to the Administrator’s authority 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 for 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 Force 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 regulatory 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 responsibilities for flight crewmember education 

and support, professional standards, training standards and performance, as well as mentoring 

and information sharing between air carriers. Specifically, the ARC should consider and address: 

a. Air carrier management responsibilities for flight crewmember education and support. 

b. Flight crewmember professional standards. 

c. Flight crewmember training standards and performance. 

d. Mentoring and information sharing between air carriers. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 2 

The ARC shall consider scalability of their recommendations to address 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 recommendations 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 relevant in addressing the objectives. 

5. ORGANIZATION, MEMBERSHIP, AND ADMINISTRATION. 

a. The FAA will establish a committee representing 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 and 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 Administrator for Aviation Safety will then 

request that each organization name its representative(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 members 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 Safety is the sponsor of the committee and will 

select an industry chair(s) from the membership of the committee. Also, the Associate 

Administrator will select the FAA-designated representative 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 address the needs of small 

businesses. 

6. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. The Air Carrier Safety and Pilot 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 meeting must request and receive approval before the meeting from the 

industry chair(s) or the designated Federal representative. 

7. AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS. Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. section 

522, records, reports, agendas, working papers, and other documents that are made available to 

or prepared for or by the committee will be available for public inspection and copying at the 

FAA Flight Standards Service, Air Transportation 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. 

PUBLIC LAW 111–216 SECTION 204 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall 

establish a special task force to be known as the FAA Task Force on Air Carrier Safety and Pilot 

Training (in this section referred to as the “Task Force”). 

(b) COMPOSITION.—The Task Force shall consist 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 for flight crewmember 

education and training. 

(c) DUTIES.—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 for flight crewmember education and support. 

(2) Flight crewmember professional standards. 

(3) Flight crewmember training 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 enactment of this Act, and before the last 

day of each one-year period thereafter until termination of the Task Force, the Task Force shall 

submit to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives 

and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report detailing— 

(1) The progress of the Task Force in identifying best practices in the air carrier industry; 

(2) The progress of air carriers and labor unions in implementing 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 carriers and labor unions in implementing training-related, 

non-regulatory actions recommended by the Administrator; and 

(5) The progress of air carriers in developing specific programs to share 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 involved collecting best practices in four focus 

areas. Because there is no universally accepted definition of a best practice, the ARC defined 

several characteristics of a best practice: a policy, procedure, or technique intended to achieve 

an optimum outcome for a specific goal concerning the safety and efficiency of operations; the 

most efficient and effective way to accomplish a task and attain a goal; and a practice 

consistently shown to achieve 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 members’ observations, based on their professional experiences. 

The ARC deliberately kept requests for information from outside sources general, in order to 

elicit candid responses that reflect what those sources believe to be best practices. 

Responses to the ACSPT ARC’s requests for information varied considerably in scope and 

depth, from endorsements of established national programs to specific meeting formats at 

individual air carriers. Conversely, as the ARC evaluated the responses to its queries, patterns 

emerged in which respondents described similar concepts 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 order to tailor the practice to the size and scope of 

their operations. 

The ACSPT ARC found it challenging to evaluate air carriers and labor unions’ progress in 

implementing the best practices before they had been defined and distributed. Where defined 

programs exist (AQP, for example), data are provided. 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 includes any recommendations for legislative or regulatory action. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 6 

3.0 BEST PRACTICES 

This section contains 24 best practices identified by the ACSPT ARC. For the purpose of this 

report, a best practice is defined as a policy, procedure, or technique 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 effective way to accomplish a task and 

attain a goal. Best practices should generally be those that have consistently achieved the 

intended result. Several of the items identified as best practices are actually formal, established 

programs developed over many years, while others reflect more recent developments. 

Regardless of whether a practice is new or established, 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 systematic 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 customers, but should save money for the air carrier 

over time through improved efficiencies. Though 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 become mandatory, but that should not delay 

implementation of any of the ARC’s best practices, nor should implementation of any individual 

best practice be assumed solely as a byproduct of SMS implementation. 

ICAO established a deadline of January 1, 2009,2

 for member states’ air carriers, airports, and 

service providers to implement an SMS—a deadline the FAA declared it could not meet. 

However, the FAA is working to establish SMS 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 final rule covering SMS implementation by 

July 31, 2012, with full implementation for air 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—2009 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 7 

3.1 AIR CARRIER MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES FOR FLIGHTCREW MEMBER 

EDUCATION AND SUPPORT

3.1.1 PARTICIPATE IN THE ADVANCED QUALIFICATION PROGRAM

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified participation in AQP3 as an air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Commercial aviation is undergoing significant evolution, portents of which are already evident 

in changing pilot demographics, changing cockpit technology, and planned changes in the 

National Airspace System environment. This changing environment presents an ongoing 

challenge to maintain, if not improve training that ensures flightcrew proficiency is 

commensurate with safety. AQP provides a consistent structure that can accommodate change. 

AQP is a voluntary alternative to the traditional air carrier training and checking program under 

part 121. In AQP, the FAA is authorized to approve modifications to traditional program 

requirements, subject to justification of an equivalent or better level of safety. Implementation 

of AQP at an air carrier requires a formal instructional systems design methodology to define 

training requirements customized to that air carrier’s operation. It integrates the training and 

evaluation of cognitive abilities at each stage of a curriculum. CRM4 and TEM5 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 and implement data collection strategies that 

diagnose cognitive ability and proficiency skills. 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 and in line operations in 

a particular maneuver that is currently required under 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 shows 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_Library/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_Library/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/media/call_to_action_Jan2010.pdf 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 8 

Instructors and evaluators who rate personnel must undergo reliability training to learn to utilize 

explicit strategies to verify the proficiency and standardization for crew-oriented, scenario-based 

training and evaluation tasks. AQP encourages air carriers to use a suite of equipment matched 

on the basis of analysis to the training requirements at any given stage of a curriculum. 

Air carriers participating in AQP must collect and analyze performance proficiency data on 

students, instructors, and evaluators to refine and validate their curricula. They also must 

continually update their programs to address threats and risks identified within their unique 

operations based on, for example, Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA), Flight Operational 

Quality Assurance (FOQA) and Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) 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 and addressing industry trends, and assist individual air carriers 

in assessing the effectiveness of their training programs against the norm. The FAA should 

periodically perform this aggregate data analysis in coordination 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 applications signed and accepted by the FAA, and 

are currently developing their 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 Actions6

No regulatory action is required. Regulatory language already exists under part 121, subpart Y. 

The FAA and industry (pilots and air carriers) share aggregate AQP data. Using this data, they 

develop analysis methods and protocols to identify and address industry trends and help 

individual air carriers assess the effectiveness of their training programs against the norm. 

3.1.2 INTEGRATE CREW RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND THREAT AND ERROR MANAGEMENT 

INTO TRAINING AND EVALUATIONS

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 identified 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 Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

The study of human factors in aviation has expanded beyond the original design and features 

of a cockpit and how the flightcrew member interacts with it. It now includes cockpit 

management, professionalism, and leadership. Attention to these characteristics is an integral 

part of understanding flightcrew performance, which includes training and evaluations. 

An important element in reducing risks in air carrier 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 flightcrews effectively used these skills. They are essential tools 

that pilots need to learn and continually improve. Pilots cannot master these skills by attending 

a one-time course; a high level of proficiency requires continuous training, evaluation, 

and feedback. 

Both CRM and TEM should be integrated into pilot training and evaluations, including 

indoctrination, initial, recurrent, requalification, initial operating experience, 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 events that require the use of 

these skills with increased task loading and other factors. This allows the pilots to practice these 

skills and perform self-critiques, and for the instructors to provide feedback and assist the pilots 

in enhancing their skills. 

Both initial and recurrent simulator training include Line Operational Simulation7

 lessons, which 

are full-mission8 simulations conducted with maximum possible realism. In these training and 

checking sessions, information is given to instructors describing the specific CRM and TEM 

behaviors desired for each observed task. In addition to teaching and critiquing technical flying 

skills, instructors specifically look for CRM and TEM skills, debrief pilots on their performance, 

and provide instruction for improvement based on these behaviors. 

Evaluation strategies can incorporate CRM and TEM 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 improve 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_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/b86de77a355ea57b86256f2

5006d977a/$FILE/AC120-35c.pdf 

8

 “A full-mission simulator (FMS) accurately simulates 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 flight training environment.” CAE, Inc., 2008–2010, 

http://www.cae.com/en/military/full.mission.simulator.asp
Report 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that integrated human factors 

training and evaluation is a common practice among their constituents. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6 

Although training in the principles of CRM is currently required, the ACSPT ARC recommends 

the FAA take additional regulatory action to require the integration of the practical operational 

application of human factors principles (CRM, TEM) throughout training.

3.1.3 IMPLEMENT LEADERSHIP AND COMMAND TRAINING 

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified implementation of an effective captain leadership and command 

training program as an air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Leadership and command courses vary among air carriers. Their content and format include 

various topics, and the courses typically last from 1 to 3 days, or are embedded in an initial or 

upgrade training program. In order for leadership and command training to be successful, it 

must be endorsed by the executive leadership of the air carrier. 

A leadership and command course generally covers non-technical skills that a captain needs 

to perform his/her duties. This course content includes, but is not limited to leadership, 

professionalism expectations, company culture, captain’s authority, and captain’s duties and 

responsibilities. The information should be solicited from various sources within the company, 

such as other captains, chief pilots, the training and standards department, flight operations 

dispatch, the safety department, maintenance, and executive management. 

A leadership and command training course should expose new captains to the available resources 

outside the cockpit. Those resources include other departments at the air carrier that can help 

new captains make more informed decisions as they operate their aircraft—the dispatch 

department, for example. 

Progress of Air Carriers and Labor Unions in Implementing this Best Practice 

No specific documentation exists that provides the number of air carriers that have implemented 

this best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that leadership and command 

training is a common practice among their constituents. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6

The ACSPT ARC recommends regulatory action and associated guidance material to implement 

leadership and command training. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 11 

3.1.4 IMPLEMENT ENHANCED INSTRUCTOR AND EVALUATOR TRAINING

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 Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Instructor and evaluator duties include training, evaluating, and promoting standardization within 

the pilot group. To perform these duties, the ACSPT ARC recommends training beyond current 

part 121 regulatory requirements. 

To adequately train and evaluate other pilots, instructors and evaluators must achieve and 

maintain the highest levels of proficiency and knowledge as pilots. In addition, instructors and 

evaluators must develop and maintain effective training and evaluation skills. It is essential that 

instructors and evaluators achieve and maintain a high level of standardization to promote 

standardization within the organization. Air carriers must foster and emphasize this 

standardization within the instructor and evaluator ranks during initial training, and it must be 

continually reinforced in recurrent training throughout instructor and evaluator tenure. By 

adhering to these levels of individual proficiency and standardization, instructors and evaluators 

establish credibility among their pilot peers. This, in turn, furthers the promotion of proficiency 

and standardization within the pilot group. 

A portion of the instructor and evaluator staff typically performs training and evaluation duties 

in actual line operations, while others perform their duties in a flight simulator. This distinction 

necessitates instructor and evaluator training programs 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 contracts with individuals from outside the organization 

(contract instructors) to provide training, while other air carriers use pilots from within their own 

ranks. Regardless of the composition of the instructor 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 standards set for the instructors 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 selected, an enhanced instructor and evaluator 

training program ensures that instructors and evaluators maintain a high level of proficiency and 

standardization. The ACSPT ARC identified many of the components of this best practice 

indicated in the following paragraphs. 

The simulator group members should observe their peers performing instruction and evaluation 

duties and perform their own instruction and evaluation duties under the supervision of already 

qualified instructors and evaluators. Instructors and evaluators who perform their duties in actual 

line operations should demonstrate proficiency in evaluating pilots from both pilot seats, and 

should be trained in methods for identifying and managing pilot error. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 12 

All instructors and evaluators should attend annual 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 evaluator, 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that enhanced instructor and 

evaluator training is a common practice among their constituents. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6 

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 PARTICIPATE IN VOLUNTARY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified the development of, participation in, and management of voluntary 

partnership programs as an air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

For several years, air carriers have initiated or participated in a number of safety data programs. 

Each involves the collection of voluntary safety reports or the monitoring of flight data. These 

data can take many forms and the programs include ASAP9, FOQA10, and LOSA11. The goal of 

these programs is to identify safety-related problems within an air carrier’s operation, including 

operational and procedural errors, and to develop corrective actions. The key to all of these 

programs is the inclination to proactively seek safety solutions, rather than wait and react to an 

accident or serious incident. 

Human factors cause the majority of undesired 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 Safety Action Program (ASAP). 

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/61c319d7a04907a886256c

7900648358/$FILE/AC120-66B.pdf 

10 AC 120–82 Flight Operational Quality Assurance. 

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/40c02fc39c1577b686256e8

a005afb0a/$FILE/AC120-82.pdf 

11 AC 120–90 Line Operation Safety Audits. 

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/013a142c839ea740862571

62006cc27d/$FILE/AC%20120-90.pdf 
Report 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 minimize errors and the consequences of remaining 

errors by either monitoring or cross-checking colleagues and technical solutions. 

Each program represents a significant enhancement to air carrier safety, as the air carrier 

and its employees take responsibility for proactively identifying and resolving safety issues. 

This exposes significantly more events to correction than is possible through regulatory 

surveillance and enforcement. As a result, these programs are likely to produce actions that 

will prevent accidents. 

ASAP 

ASAP encourages air carrier employees to voluntarily report safety information that may be 

critical to identifying potential precursors to accidents. Under ASAP, safety issues almost 

always are resolved through corrective action rather than through punishment or discipline. 

ASAP is based on a safety partnership that includes the FAA and the certificate holder, and 

usually includes a third party, such as the pilot’s group or employee organization, if they are so 

represented. ASAP provides a voluntary, cooperative, remedial, and non-punitive environment 

for open reporting of safety concerns. Through 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 action. Because of the non-punitive nature of the 

program, employees voluntarily disclose information, safety data that might otherwise never 

come to light. 

One example of success in the ASAP arena is identification of fatigue in the operation. With 

pilots now demonstrating increased confidence in the filing and disposition of ASAP reports, 

air carriers are seeing an increase in reports that provide detailed information on fatigue-related 

issues. For example, one air carrier is holding frequent ongoing discussions using this 

self-disclosed data to remediate/mitigate fatigue concerns. ASAP data helped this air carrier 

institute a Fatigue Risk Mitigation System (FRMS). An FRMS is a data-driven process that 

systematically monitors and manages safety risks associated with fatigue-related error. 

FOQA 

FOQA is a voluntary safety program designed to make commercial aviation safer by allowing 

commercial air carriers and their pilots to share de-identified aggregate information with the 

FAA. FOQA collects and analyzes digital flight data generated and recorded 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 identification 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 digital flight data, contact with the flightcrew can be made to better 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 14 

understand the conditions surrounding the specific event, thereby determining what, if any, 

follow up action is required. While FOQA data provides 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 improve safety by significantly enhancing training 

effectiveness, operational procedures, maintenance and engineering procedures, aircraft and 

systems design, and ATC procedures. 

LOSA 

LOSA is a structured flight observation program that uses trained observers to collect data about 

flightcrew behavior and situational factors on flights. The objective 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 with 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 level of resilience to systemic threats, 

operational risks and front-line personnel 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 strategies flightcrews use to manage threats, errors, and undesirable 

states. Confidential data collection and non-jeopardy assurance for pilots are fundamental 

elements of the process. LOSA provides a diagnostic 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 activities during normal 

operations and provides a unique opportunity to study flight management processes, both 

successful and unsuccessful, by noting the threats and problems flightcrews encounter during 

flight and then evaluating how they manage them. LOSA identifies 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 (from several targeted or randomly selected flights), analyses, and 

the final report—can take between 6 and 12 months. It is generally recommended to conduct a 

LOSA every 3 years. 

Data from one program can be cross-referenced and used to guide data collection in another. 

For example, ASAP reports may highlight a problem with departures at a particular airport. 

This information can be used to target more observations out of that airport to understand the 

magnitude and specifics of the problem encountered during a LOSA. Additionally, a LOSA can 

identify high incidences of unstable approaches, leading to procedural reviews and the 

                                                            

12 http://www.icao.int/anb/humanfactors/LUX2005/Info-Note-5-Doc9803alltext.en.pdf 
Report 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 concepts 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 Space 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-punitive and confidential. The programs are 

non-punitive in the sense that reports, observations, and flight data cannot be used for 

disciplinary or enforcement action against individual employees, provided their actions are not 

deliberate and comply with program provisions. The programs are confidential in that they 

protect the identities of those who participate. Stakeholders must properly manage all programs; 

these programs rely on voluntary participation and are trust-based. 

The parties that participate in these programs—company, employee group, and regulator—agree 

to work together harmoniously with the common goal of attaining the highest level of air safety 

through consensus. By remaining voluntary, these programs attract highly motivated volunteers, 

typically SMEs, who are highly respected by their peers. Trust is the cornerstone of these 

programs, and it cannot be measured. Corporate 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 oversight is critical, even though the programs are voluntary. The regulator 

has a role in ensuring the programs are used solely to enhance safety, and are established and 

maintained within the appropriate guidelines. Safety data supplied voluntarily by an air carrier 

or employee must not be used as the basis for adverse action by the regulator. Such use has a 

negative effect on participation and 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 participating 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 LOSA. In addition, approximately 91 percent of 

part 121 pilots are employed by air carriers that participate in ASAP, 87 percent are employed 

by air carriers that participate in FOQA, and 61 percent are employed by air carriers that 

participate in LOSA. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6 

No regulatory action is required. The ACSPT ARC strongly believes the effectiveness of these 

partnership programs lies in the fact that they are undertaken voluntarily 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 participating parties must 

maintain a trusting relationship. By not requiring these programs, participating entities maintain 

a vested interest in their success and effectiveness, thereby minimizing influence by any of the 
Report 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 nullify that statutory protection. 

3.1.6 USE STRUCTURED PILOT HIRING PRACTICES

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified the use of a “structured” approach to screening prospective pilot 

candidates, involving a multiphase, multidisciplinary approach as an air carrier industry 

best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Several U.S. air carriers have excellent structured hiring practices that have been improved 

over time, and have demonstrated their value by consistently identifying the best candidates. 

A comprehensive hiring program offers 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 approach generally begins with the 

application process, when the employer checks applicants for all prerequisites and ensures there 

are no automatic disqualifiers—for example, lack of appropriate licenses and medical 

qualifications. Once the applicant has successfully completed the initial screening process, the 

employer invites the candidate for further screening and testing. This may include electronic 

evaluations, personal interviews, simulator evaluations, situational awareness assessments 

through scenario based interviews, and other variations of testing. 

Many of the testing functions given throughout the screening and selection process use modern 

technology and scientific tools to evaluate cognition, personality, and aptitude. Employers may 

use devices from desktop systems to full flight simulators 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 the 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 define 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 considerable cost savings for the 

airline. The costs associated with implementing a functional aptitude testing 

                                                            

13 IATA, 1 June 2010, http://www.iata.org/ps/publications/Documents/pilot-aptitude-testing-guide.pdf 
Report 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, higher 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT 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 Actions6 

No regulatory action is required. 

3.1.7 CONDUCT OPERATIONAL COORDINATION MEETINGS

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified conducting operational coordination meetings as an air carrier 

industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Maintaining operational alignment in the air carrier industry is complex. Changes in operational 

procedures need to be communicated to flight operations, training, principal operations 

inspectors, and employee groups. Regularly scheduled 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 departments or other entities. These meetings should be 

encouraged within all air carriers, their FAA oversight 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 departments, employee organizations, and the FAA. 

Soliciting input and involving all of these parties increases safety 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 Coordination 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 instructors, simulator instructors, simulator 

check airmen, line check airmen, designated examiners, and FAA aircrew program managers. 

This provides an opportunity to review recent changes, trends, and data, while confirming a 

uniform understanding of procedures and policies. Instructors and evaluators share their 

experiences and generate valuable discussion on fleet or flight operations topics. 

Inter-Flight Department Coordination 

Inter-flight department coordination meetings are conducted to ensure the flight operations and 

flight training departments are operating in concert with each other. The goal is to discuss 

procedural and policy changes before implementation, 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 basis when transitioning 

between fleets. These meetings typically are first 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 the applicability of those 

same modifications to all fleets. 

This coordination extends to recurring 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 ensure the efficacy of the training program. 

Inter-flight departmental coordination meetings can also include a meeting of the air carrier 

vice president’s staff or flight leadership council meetings, where department leaders coordinate 

a variety of programs and issues. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 19 

Inter-Departmental Coordination 

Inter-departmental coordination meetings are intended to ensure the flight department is working 

in harmony with other operational departments, including safety, maintenance, 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 attendant duties and responsibilities—and provide flight 

department perspective on companywide decisions, such as considerations associated with 

serving a new destination. 

FAA/Air Carrier Coordination 

Monthly meetings with the principals at the FAA Certificate Management Office and the 

associated aircrew program managers keep the lines of communication open between the 

certificate holder and the FAA. The meetings include flight training, flight operations, and 

flight safety briefings. They allow for a frank 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 coordination can take many forms. These can be 

stand-alone meetings or they can be integrated into the above meetings. Having employee 

organizations involved in a majority of these meetings allows the air carrier and its employees 

to obtain the same information. This consistent information ensures both entities are at the same 

starting point when creating solutions. It also creates an atmosphere of cooperation in an 

apolitical environment. Involvement can include 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 coordination meetings aid in regulatory 

compliance, and provide great benefit to the air carrier’s operations and its employees. These 

meetings promote coordination and standardization within the air carrier, as well as between the 

air carrier, the FAA, and 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 have 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 Actions6

No regulatory action is required. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 20 

3.1.8 ESTABLISH MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR DIRECTORS OF SAFETY AND DIRECTORS 

OF TRAINING

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified establishing minimum qualifications for a director of training and 

director of safety as an air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Part 119 of 14 CFR requires an air carrier to have qualified personnel serving full time in the 

following or equivalent positions: director of safety, director of operations, chief pilot, director 

of maintenance, and chief inspector. 

Part 119 lists the qualifications for all 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 defined for other critical positions. 

Effective training tailored to an air carrier’s fleet and operating environment is one of several 

foundational elements necessary for continued safe operations. The nature of modern training 

methodologies for curriculum development and delivery 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 training, and place far greater significance 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 backgrounds to the same high proficiency standards. 

Training programs must be integrated with other 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 training issues , and then designing, validating, and obtaining approval 

for relevant changes in training content and methodology, all within the existing regulatory 

framework. 

The ACSPT ARC reviewed the requirements of part 119, and concluded there are benefits 

associated with creating and defining qualifications for the individual responsible for direct 

oversight of an air carrier’s training programs. This is consistent with other complex positions 

critical to the safety and effectiveness of air carrier operations. Qualifications should include 

specific criteria, such as professional qualifications, management experience, educational 

background, and training that indicate the candidate could effectively develop, maintain, and 

coordinate training programs and personnel. In the context of part 119, this position could be 

defined as a director of training, but the ARC recognizes the actual 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 variations 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that a number of air carriers 

currently have specific criteria for the designated director of training and director of safety. 

Some air carriers—with what the ARC members believe 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 Actions6

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

3.1.9 ESTABLISH A FLIGHT RISK ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP

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 determine action priorities, and achieves stakeholder 

agreement on actions. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

It is an industry-wide concern that training is too often prescribed as the solution to any potential 

safety-related threat before proper analysis is performed. Because 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 designed to address this. 

FRAWG membership should include leadership representatives of the FAA, employee 

organizations, and the stakeholder departments, such as flight training, flight safety, and flight 

standards. The FRAWG reviews all available operational data sources, 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 Foundation (FSF), the Air Transport Association of 

America, Inc. (ATA), the Regional Airline 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 issues by likelihood of recurrence 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 identified 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 FRAWG should recommend other solutions, such as 

policy and procedure changes, hardware or software modifications, or other adaptations. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 22 

The FRAWG should meet periodically to analyze 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 elements 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 have 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 Actions6 

No regulatory action is required. 

3.1.10 PROVIDE STANDARDIZED MANUALS AND USE DISTANCE LEARNING

Best Practices 

The ACSPT ARC identified standardizing paper and electronic publications associated with 

company operations, specific aircraft operating information, 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 learning as air carrier industry best practices. 

Progress in Identifying these Best Practices in the Air Carrier Industry 

The standardizing of paper and electronic publications 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 proven 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 several airplane electrical or navigation systems can 

use that existing knowledge to more efficiently learn a new system, particularly 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 environment. 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 plan, 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 have found distance learning gives employees more 

convenient access to necessary training materials, enabling their workforce to view those 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 23 

materials as often as necessary. Another major factor in air carriers’ use of distance learning is 

the increasingly technology savvy workforce; a new generation of professionals expects training 

to be available via more sophisticated channels. Distance learning is scalable to meet the needs 

of the air carrier, and experience has shown that air carriers can effectively present certain 

training topics via distance learning. 

The air carrier industry recognizes that pilots have an easier experience learning the unique 

qualities of new aircraft when they 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—made easier by retaining many familiar skills and 

habits from the operation of the previous aircraft. 

Standardizing procedures and publications across fleets would improve efficiency in training 

time and increase the trainee’s knowledge retention. Any increase in knowledge retention will 

improve performance on the line, which will lead to a much-improved response to emergencies, 

when pilots and flightcrew members operate under stressful conditions. 

Air carriers and other stakeholders should ensure that standardization does not hide critical 

airplane differences. For example, an automation-based standard operating procedure may need 

to be different for the Boeing 777 aircraft than for 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 need 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, and the use of essential flight information. 

Electronic flight bags (EFB) are gaining popularity in the air carrier 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 training materials, the ACSPT ARC recommends 

air carriers employ advanced processes and methodologies to develop, 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 relevant and current with original 

equipment manufacturers, regulations, and other 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 employees better prepare 

for flight operations 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 training 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 Actions6

No regulatory action is required. 

3.1.11 USE SIMULATORS IN PILOT TRAINING

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 Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

For many years, the air carrier industry has used simulation for training flightcrew members. 

As computer technology evolved 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 simulation to in-aircraft training. 

Simulator training can expose flightcrew members to concentrated training scenarios that include 

system malfunctions (for example, loss of aircraft hydraulics), abnormal operations (for example, 

engine failures), and hazardous meteorological conditions (for example, wind shear and 

turbulence) that cannot be experienced in an aircraft without elevated risk. Additionally, many 

conditions, hazardous or otherwise, simply cannot be trained in an aircraft—for example, 

low-visibility operations and maximum crosswinds. Simulation also enables exposure to aircraft 

handling characteristics in adverse environmental conditions, such as icing, that otherwise would 

be difficult to experience due to geographical constraints and seasonal weather patterns. 

Simulation training reduces the demand in an already overcrowded air traffic system and 

substantially reduces fuel consumption and associated carbon emissions. 

Air carriers and training organizations 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 recovery training requirements. 

 Visual modeling: Continuing increase in scene content in terms of detail, extent of 

coverage, resolution, and concurrency with the real world. 

 Weather modeling: Realistically evolving large 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 real-world ATC procedures. The development and refinement 

of this technology will support Next Generation Air Transportation System type cockpit 

traffic displays and ATC communications correlated with traffic movement. Robust 

speech recognition is advancing, but the technology has not yet reached necessary levels 

of fidelity to meet the requirements. 

 Motion modeling: Improved motion cueing algorithms to reproduce aircraft control 

behaviors and objective motion cueing test standards. 

 Instructor aids: There will be increased focus on technology to assist instructors with 

delivering a consistent quality of training. This includes better 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that the use of simulation in pilot 

training is a common practice among their constituents. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6 

The ACSPT ARC feels that attainment of a high level 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 recognizes that some operational constraints may exist that inhibit 

the maximum use at some carriers. Regulations, through due process, should allow an air carrier 

to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety. Therefore, the ARC recommends that the FAA 

convene an industry panel to thoroughly study the nature of regulations that would support the 

above principles. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 26 

3.2 FLIGHTCREW MEMBER PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

3.2.1 ESTABLISH PILOT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Best Practice 

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

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

These assistance programs are administered by pilots and provide support from trained peers 

who volunteer their time. These programs occasionally employ the services of professional 

practitioners in various disciplines. Pilot assistance programs do not directly address 

professional piloting skills such as proficiency issues. Rather, they focus on pilots’ mental and 

physical health to ensure that factors 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 other flightcrew members. 

Often, these programs employ pilot-assistance committees 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 work. Peer volunteers are trained and available any time to address 

personal issues that, if left unresolved, 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 specific guidelines. Confidentiality is the key 

element of these committees and the cornerstone for their success. Therefore, they must handle 

sensitive personal issues discreetly and with a high degree of dignity and respect. 

Typically, there are five common pilot assistance subcommittees: 

 Aeromedical committee: This committee of pilots works with experts in the field of 

aviation physiology and medical standards, and coordinates research into areas that over 

time may have a negative impact on a pilot’s health. Examples include research into the 

effects of high-altitude radiation exposure and the long-term effects of fatigue due to 

flight and duty-time regulations and disrupted 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 psychological impact of an accident, incident, 

or other traumatic event. A CIRP strives to facilitate recovery 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, comprised 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 flightcrew 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 (HIMS) 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 disqualifying, but also life threatening. Diagnosed 

pilots go through a chemical dependency treatment program specifically tailored to meet 

the needs of air carrier pilots. Through strict 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 condition of recertification. There is a degree of 

regulatory compliance because recovering pilots are subject to medical certification 

standards established by the FAA. HIMS programs must be followed with FAA 

oversight. 

 Professional Standards committee: This committee consists of trained pilot volunteers, 

and provides a forum for pilots to address ethical problems or unprofessional conduct. 

Pilot peers address concerns about pilot behavior in the workplace, particularly regarding 

unprofessional conduct. With peers who understand the personal and professional 

challenges pilots face, Professional Standards committees help pilots reach 

mutually-agreed-upon resolutions to conflicts. The volunteers maintain a neutral, 

nonjudgmental position while working with the parties under strict confidentiality. 

Professional Standards committees can provide early intervention, thus preventing 

situations from developing that might require company discipline, and ensuring a safer 

and more efficient work environment. 

 Pilot assistance network: This network of peer volunteers provides pilots with private, 

confidential help or counseling for personal problems. The issues these networks address 

usually are not job related, but are personal problems—such as marriage, family, and 

health—that could lead to distractions while 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 the 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that pilot assistance programs are 

a common practice among their constituents. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6

No regulatory action is required. 

The ACSPT ARC strongly recommends that these peer programs remain voluntary. A purely 

voluntary program usually attracts the best peer volunteers because they employ the volunteer 

spirit and volunteers generally are more motivated 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 eliminate the privacy of peer-to-peer conversations, 

which is vital to the success of the programs in their current volunteer state. 

3.2.2 ESTABLISH A FLIGHTCREW MEMBER-INITIATED PROFICIENCY PROCESS

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified establishing a flightcrew member-initiated proficiency process as an 

air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

The skills involved in operating an air carrier aircraft are perishable. As with any complex task, 

proficiency is at its highest when the skills are exercised regularly, and proficiency can diminish 

as time passes without exercising those skills. Current proficiency regulations are intended to 

ensure that pilots exercise their skills periodically. If they do not, the regulations specify that 

pilots need refresher exercises before they can perform without supervision. 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 opportunity to acquire additional flight experience. 

Circumstances such as infrequent flying due to seasonal shifts in flight schedules, international 

flights that have only two landings per rotation, 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 these circumstances, pilots may desire opportunities 

outside their awarded monthly flying 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that flightcrew member-initiated 

proficiency is a voluntary practice not common among their constituents. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6 

The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA convene a body of stakeholders for further review. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 29 

3.3 FLIGHTCREW MEMBER TRAINING STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE

3.3.1 IMPLEMENT UPSET RECOVERY TRAINING

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified implementation of upset prevention, recognition, and recovery 

training as an air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

An aircraft upset can occur due to environmental conditions, mechanical malfunctions, wake 

turbulence, or other unusual phenomenon which displaces 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 incidents 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 carriers incorporate some 

form of upset training in their initial and recurrent training programs including the Airplane 

Upset Recovery Training Aid14. 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 avoidance and recovery techniques. 

Industry working groups have addressed training in extended envelopes. These working groups 

focused on reviewing the current practices in extended envelope training to identify 

shortcomings in data and training media requirements. Recommendations by the FAA/Industry 

Stall and Stick Pusher Working Group have resulted in development of the Stall Advisory 

Circular, anticipated to be published in 2011. 

Based on an FAA working group’s efforts, the FAA recently issued Safety Alert for 

Operators (SAFO) 10012—Stall Recovery, Minimum Loss of Altitude15, which discusses the 

terminology and procedures for “Minimal Loss 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 Practical Test Standards (PTS) Language “Minimal Loss 

of Altitude.” 

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2010

/SAFO10012.pdf 
Report 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 have 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 Actions6 

The ACSPT ARC recommends regulatory action and guidance. 

3.3.2 IMPLEMENT A PILOT REMEDIATION STRATEGY

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified structured remedial training programs with detailed tracking 

systems as an air carrier industry best practice when dealing with pilots who demonstrate 

persistent training and evaluation performance deficiencies. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice 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 remedial training strategy is most effective when 

implemented with a standardized and structured plan. A standardized set of events should occur 

after a pilot demonstrates deficient performance in a training or evaluation event. In addition, 

the strategy should include a structured tracking system to protect the interests of the air carrier 

and the individual pilots. 

The purpose of the remediation strategy is to establish guidelines providing additional training 

to pilots who are unable to meet proficiency objectives within the air carrier’s approved training 

program footprint. The strategy requires a system for tracking unsatisfactory performance 

during training events and evaluations. It also requires a remediation plan that specifies standard 

actions—such as remedial training and pilot 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 remediation. 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_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2006

/safo06015.pdf 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 31 

Thresholds for repetitive or severe occurrences of unsatisfactory performance should trigger 

actions beyond additional remedial training, including placing the pilot in the air carrier’s special 

tracking program, shorter intervals between recurrent training events, additional line checks, 

PRBs, and other appropriate forms of evaluation. Along with clearly defined thresholds for 

entry into special tracking, the program should define when a pilot has demonstrated 

persistent proficiency and is able to exit special tracking and return to normal training and 

checking intervals. 

In cases in which a pilot has reached the threshold 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 performance, 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 membership should include leaders from the appropriate 

departments (including but not limited to training, standards, and the chief pilot’s office) and a 

peer advocate. The PRB should consult the deficient pilot and any instructors who trained or 

evaluated the pilot to gather 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that pilot remediation strategy 

is a common practice among their constituents. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6 

The ACSPT ARC recommends rulemaking and guidance. 

3.3.3 IMPLEMENT INTEGRATED TRAINING

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified an integrated systems training approach incorporating the latest 

technology and curriculum development techniques as an air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Current regulations require both ground and flight training. Historically, ground training took 

the form of a lecture aided at times by a chalkboard, overhead projection, or most recently a 

Microsoft PowerPoint presentation. The student would open a textbook to a graph or picture of a 

system, listen to the instructor, and attempt to visualize the system in action. 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 delivery 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 classroom training, and instructor-led 

part-task training prior to flight training. After reading and/or watching computer-based or 

classroom modules, students are able to apply the knowledge to demonstrate practical 

application and proficiency skills. Integrating academic and practical training on individual 

aircraft systems in this way helps a student learn a system and better understand how each 

system, and the pilot’s inputs to that system, affect the overall operation 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 components and characteristics. For maximum 

effectiveness, this relatively abstract discussion of theory would immediately be followed by 

graphic depictions of the entire system in the specific context of the aircraft, then by practical 

demonstrations using advanced training devices. Such advanced exposure shows the student the 

real-world application of the academic presentation, illustrating how specific controls affect the 

operation of the components and overall system, how normal operations are conducted, and how 

troubleshooting procedures are developed and implemented. 

This best practice is manifested in a corporate culture that recognizes and embraces advances in 

educational practices and supporting 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 understanding 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that integrated training is 

occurring among 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 Actions6 

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 MAINTAIN MANUAL FLYING SKILLS

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified having and taking the opportunity to maintain manual flying skills 

as an air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Increased availability of advanced generation automation for control of the aircraft flight path 

has greatly increased the crew’s ability to more accurately and precisely control the aircraft’s 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 33 

flight path. This, along with a desire to more effectively utilize the limited airspaces available, 

has led to requirements for operators to equip, train, and use this automation 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 flight depends on the proficiency 

of the pilot manually manipulating the flight controls. For the reasons previously discussed, 

the opportunities to maintain that proficiency are increasingly limited. 

The operator’s basic flight manual or fleet manual presents an opportunity for an air carrier 

to express its desire and set limitations 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that manual flying guidance is 

provided by 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 Actions6

The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA encourage air carriers to provide guidance in their 

operating manuals for manual flying. The ARC also encourages the FAA to do further studies. 

3.3.5 USE SIMULATOR MOTION IN TRAINING AND EVALUATION

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified as an air carrier industry best practice the use of flight simulation 

training devices (FSTD) that include full motion for training to proficiency, testing, and checking 

for pilot qualification air carrier events.

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Pilot training is best accomplished in a specified 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. This type of rote learning helps prepare students 

for later advanced realism training. Mastering the procedures, however, 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 possible 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 landing an aircraft. It is possible to learn and 

practice the steps required to perform the landing without fully replicating 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 aircraft load factors, all in various visibility 

conditions. These effects can be cumulative and should be fully experienced in training. 

The same applies if something were to go wrong 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 conditions 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 replicate the environment 

the pilot will operate in. 

Regarding recurrent training requirements, a pilot with years of experience flying the line may 

have never experienced a tire deflation 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, presented 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 training than just motion, including sound, visuals, 

and ATC. The air carrier industry should ensure these elements are as realistic as technology 

will allow to safely achieve a near–lifelike experience in training. Pilots should be trained to 

proficiency and checked in a device that replicates in-flight conditions to the greatest degree 

available. The overall objective is to not only train tasks, but to ensure the pilot is equipped 

to manage the complex operational environment 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that use of simulator motion in 

flight training and evaluating is a common practice among their constituents. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6 

The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA convene a body of stakeholders for further review 

and harmonization with ICAO guidelines as outlined in ICAO Document 9625. 

3.3.6 ESTABLISH REQUALIFICATION TRAINING

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified as air carrier industry best practices the establishment of 

requalification training criteria based on time since last performing flightcrew member duties, 

requiring requalification operating experience, and requiring requalification indoctrination. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 35 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

There are various types of training programs conducted at air carriers. Pilots new to an 

air carrier, commonly referred to as “new hires,” typically attend a “Basic Indoctrination” 

training course, followed by ground and simulator (flight) training for a specific aircraft type. 

Once that training is complete, the pilot obtains experience in the aircraft, under the supervision 

of a check airman; this is called “operating experience.” After becoming qualified on the given 

aircraft and pilot position, 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 courses vary greatly based on the reason for 

disqualification. For example, a pilot who has been 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 refresh his or her knowledge of aircraft systems, 

policies, and procedures. 

While current regulation requires requalification, many of the details are unspecified by 

regulation and left open to interpretation. Requalification programs at different air carriers and 

under the management of different FAA offices vary. 

Requalification Criteria 

The most accurate determinant of a pilot’s potential loss of proficiency is the time since last 

performing flightcrew member duties. The training required to regain the appropriate level of 

knowledge and proficiency should be based on the time 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 numerous ways this training is 

accomplished. The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA better define some of these 

practices and encourage the implementation of identified best practices. The following sections 

elaborate on best practices for requalification prerequisites, requalification line checks/operating 

experience, and requalification indoctrination.

Requalification Prerequisites 

Requalification prerequisites are not well defined by current regulations. Air carriers use a wide 

variety of standards, ranging from “time since last disqualified” to “time since last performing 

the duties of the flightcrew member position.” This time determines the type and duration of 

training a pilot receives to regain qualifications. 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 twelfth 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 requalification curriculum is based on 6 months’ 

elapsed time since last performing the duties in the specific flightcrew member 

duty position, this pilot would not be disqualified before the next recurrent cycle, 

but would require the same requalification 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 prerequisites be based on time since last performing the duty as a 

pilot in the given seat and aircraft type, but consideration should also be given to the experience 

level the pilot obtained before losing qualification on the aircraft. A review of the individual’s 

performance while completing training and operations in the aircraft type should be an 

additional consideration. 

Requalification Line Check/Operating Experience 

Unlike other qualification training curricula, requalification training does not require operating 

experience when line checks are required. 

During qualification training, after completion of simulator training, operating experience is 

conducted. This allows a pilot to consolidate knowledge and skills, learned in training, in line 

operations while under the supervision of a qualified check airman. Upon completion of the 

operating experience, a line check may be conducted. A line check is a pass/fail event 

administered by a qualified check airman. 

In some cases requalification training requires a line check with no opportunity for operating 

experience prior to the check. This does not allow for renewed exposure to line operations under 

the supervision of a qualified check airman prior to the line check. 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 remainder of the pilot’s training, including ground and 

flight training. After an extended absence from the air carrier, it is prudent to add an abbreviated 

requalification indoctrination course for certain requalification 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, and 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 37 

airport/approach charts. This training program provides pilots returning from a long absence an 

opportunity to re-familiarize themselves 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that requalification training, as 

specified above, is not a common practice among their constituents. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6

The FAA should complete rulemaking for part 121, subparts N and O, and provide appropriate 

guidance material requiring requalification syllabus requirements based upon time since last 

performing flightcrew member duties. In cases where line checks are required for 

requalification, operating experience prior to the line check should be conducted. 

This rulemaking should also require requalification indoctrination for pilots who have not flown 

for an extended period. 

3.3.7 CONDUCT JUMP SEAT OBSERVATION FLIGHTS BY NEW PILOTS

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified a structured new hire observation flight program as an air carrier 

industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

A new hire flight observation program 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 domicile, learning how to check in for a trip, meeting the crew, and 

observing the dynamics of line operations on a specified minimum number of segments, the new 

pilot is in a better position to enter 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 aircraft 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 initial 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 undergo 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 have 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 Actions6 

No regulatory action is required. 

3.3.8 IMPLEMENT ENHANCED PROFICIENCY AND CURRENCY REQUIREMENTS

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified enhanced proficiency and currency requirements as an air carrier 

industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice 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 within the preceding 90 days that person has made 

at least three takeoffs and landings in the type of airplane in which 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 must reestablish recency of experience (takeoff 

and landing currency). 

If reestablishment of takeoff and landing currency 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, using the full scheduled time, to allow exposure 

to challenging maneuvers not frequently encountered in line operations, such as low-visibility 

approaches, engine failures, and missed approaches, in addition to the required regulatory 

maneuvers. 

This best practice would increase these pilots’ proficiency in a training environment, without 

placing a significant additional scheduling burden on air carriers. The pilot, check airman, and 

simulator resources must be available to comply with the existing requirements under § 121.439. 

The incremental maneuvers would merely utilize 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that enhanced proficiency and 

currency requirements are not common practices among their constituents. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 39 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6

The ACSPT ARC recommends that the FAA convene a group of stakeholders to review 

modification of the existing rule. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 40 

3.4 MENTORING AND INFORMATION SHARING BETWEEN AIR CARRIERS

3.4.1 SHARE SAFETY AND TRAINING INFORMATION AND PRACTICES

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified sharing of safety and training information and practices as an 

air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Safety Alliances 

Safety alliances evolved over time to match the needs of the industry, and have proven to be very 

effective in enhancing safety. They exist within code-sharing and industry partnerships. 

Although not required to contribute by current regulations, air carriers’ directors of safety 

routinely come together to ensure robust, consistent safety performance. 

The mainline and their affiliated regional air carriers provide a level of coordination, sharing, 

review and support to each other. In fact, mainline and their affiliated regional air carriers have 

well established processes and procedures for routine review and continuous monitoring of the 

partners and sharing of data and best practices to enhance the safety of all partner air carriers. 

Air carrier alliances work to ensure that all network partner air carriers operate with 

comprehensive safety programs. These alliances spend considerable time sharing information 

and defining exactly what effective programs consist of to ensure inclusion in both the mainline 

and their affiliated regional air carriers. 

The overall intent of these programs is to exceed the baseline regulatory requirements of 14 CFR 

by establishing and maintaining an infrastructure to effectively 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 routinely to advance safety, with the goal of 

continuous improvement of both the mainline and their affiliated regional air carriers. 

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

 Participants share hazard- and risk-mitigation strategies. 

 Participants share experiences and best practices 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 “safety bar” through collaborative problem solving. 

 Participants standardize policies 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 carriers 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 groups have formed similar alliances to exchange 

information on issues of mutual concern, including safety practices. 

Training Alliances 

Training alliances have emerged among some mainline and their affiliated regional air carriers 

as a venue for exchanging information and sharing best practices to improve training programs. 

Directors of training from participating 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-interest training issues: 

o AQP—development of instructional programs 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 international 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 21,000 
Report 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 other alliance safety requirements. All three 

global alliances maintain safety groups comprised of their member air carriers’ directors of 

safety, who meet regularly to share safety information 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 have formed similar alliances, 

to exchange information on issues of mutual 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 that sharing safety and training information and 

practices is common among their constituents. 

Mainline and their affiliated regional air carrier partners have fully implemented safety alliances. 

All mainline air carriers are participating and contributing 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 alliance, while the other’s 

training alliance is separate from its safety alliance. Both approaches have been productive for 

the participating air carriers. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6

No regulatory action is required. 

3.4.2 PARTICIPATE IN STRUCTURED INFORMATION SHARING ACTIVITIES

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified voluntary participation in structured information sharing activities 

as an air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice in the Air Carrier Industry 

Trade associations and industry groups voluntarily charter and maintain formal groups, typically 

known as councils or committees, the sole purpose of which is to provide a venue for 

participants to exchange safety-related information and practices they have found beneficial in 

enhancing the safety of their operations. 

Many groups within the industry have voluntarily developed forums that provide a venue 

for participants to exchange ideas and share best practices. These can be industry meetings 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 43 

(for example, stakeholder groups send representatives 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 forms internal committees similar to the trade 

association). ATA and RAA, for example, have formally defined councils that address 

operations, safety, and training issues internally among their members and externally 

between the trade organizations. The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) 

and the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations have similarly designed councils 

and committees. 

Members of the air carrier industry understand safety should not be a basis for competition, so 

safety-related discussions allow for an open exchange of ideas, data, and practices. Typically, 

the sole purpose of such groups is to allow members to send representatives to meetings and 

exchange ideas outside the structure of competitive 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 effort to avoid risk and improve the quality of training. 

In addition to the previously mentioned opportunities, industry members have additional formal 

opportunities for information sharing. 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 intended to benefit segments of the aviation 

community. Members and non-members alike can participate in periodic seminars or similar 

presentations on safety-related information. 

Similarly, ALPA hosts an annual Air Safety Forum (portions of which are open to the public), 

which typically provides a forum for pilots, air carriers, aviation businesses, and government 

representatives to share safety information. 

Industry members have other meeting opportunities to share data and ideas beyond the 

committee and association structures defined above. Some of those meeting opportunities are 

highlighted elsewhere in this report. Others include— 

 ASIAS. The air carrier industry 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, including the Operations Specifications 

Working Group, Master Minimum Equipment List Industry Group, and the AQP 

Working Group. 

 International working groups, including the Pacific Operations Working Group, 

Pacific ATC Coordination Group, IATA (Latin 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 performance indicators, helping air carriers 
Report from the ACSPT ARC 44 

benchmark and establish safety performance targets in accordance with ICAO 

requirements for SMS. 

Participation in such meetings and working 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 air 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that participation in structured 

information sharing activities is a common practice among their constituents. 

Recommendations, if any, for Legislative or Regulatory Actions6 

No regulatory action is required. 

3.4.3 IMPLEMENT COMMERCIAL AVIATION SAFETY TEAM SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS

Best Practice 

The ACSPT ARC identified implementation of applicable CAST safety enhancements as an 

air carrier industry best practice. 

Progress in Identifying this Best Practice 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 work cooperatively toward achieving the 

highest levels of safety for global commercial aviation. CAST accomplished 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 stakeholders establish and maintain awareness of 

CAST safety enhancements, and implement the enhancements 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 strategies. 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 departures, 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 have implemented this 

best practice. It is the consensus of the ACSPT ARC members that implementation of applicable 

CAST safety enhancements is occurring at several 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 Actions6 

No regulatory action is required. 
Report from the ACSPT ARC A–1 

APPENDIX A—ARC MEMBERS AND SUPPORTING STAFF 

ACSPT ARC MEMBERS AND AFFILIATION

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 SUPPORTING STAFF

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’Brien 
Report 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 Association, 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 Aviation 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 Civil Aviation Organization 

InFO Information for Operators 

IOSA International Air Transport Association Operational Safety Audit 

LOSA Line Operations Safety Audit 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

PRB pilot review board 
Report 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, Analysis & Data Exchange System 

TEM Threat and Error Management 

U.S.C. United States Code