U.S. Department of Transportation

FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION



## REGULATORY EVALUATION

QUALIFICATION, SERVICE AND USE OF CREWMEMBERS AND AIRCRAFT DISPATCHERS

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

(14 CFR 65, 119, 121, 135, 142)

Office of Aviation Policy and Plans Operations Regulatory Analysis Branch, APO-300

March 2010TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page No.

I. Introduction.......................................

................................................... ....................2

II. Background ....................................

................................................... ....................2

III. Benefit-Cost Analysis .........................

................................................... ..................5 III.A. General Assumptions .......................

................................................... ..........5 III.B. Benefit Analysis ..........................

................................................... ...............6 III.B.1. Benefit Assumptions ................

................................................... ..........6 III.B.2. Accident Population and Scoring............................................ ..............7 III.B.3. Quantification of Safety Benefits..

................................................... .....9

III.B.3.A. Pilots Training Benefits III.B.3.B. Flight Attendant Training Benefits III.B.3.C. Aircraft dispatcher Training Ben efits III.B.3.D. Qualitative Benefit Discussion III.B.3.E. Quantified Accident Prevention B enefit Summary III.C. Costs..........................

................................................... ...............................25 III.C.1. General Cost Assumptions and Data S ources.....................................25 III.C.2. Subpart BB Costs ...................

................................................... ..........26

III.C.2.A Pilot, Flight Attendant and Flight Engineer Assumptions III.C.2.B. Number of Pilots , Flight Attendants and Flight Engineers Affected III.C.2.C. Subpart BB Pilot and Flight Engineer Cost Estimation Methodology III.C.2.D. Subpart BB Fligh t Attendant Cost Estimation Methodology III.C.3. Subpart CC Costs ........

................................................... .....................50 III.C.3.A Aircraft dispatc her Assumptions III.C.3.B. Number of Aircra ft dispatchers Affected III.C.3.C. Subpart CC Aircr aft dispatcher Cost Estimation Methodology III.D. Government Costs...............

................................................... .....................56 III.E. Industry Cost Estimate .........

................................................... ....................61

IV. Poisson Distribution Analysis Modeling Acciden t Probability............................ 64

V. Benefit Cost Summary............................

................................................... ............66

VI. Appendices.....................................

................................................... .....................702

I. INTRODUCTION

In January 2009, the FAA published a notice of prop osed rulemaking (NPRM) for “Qualification, Service, And Use of Crewmembers And Aircraft Dispatchers”. Based on industry comments, the FAA has updated the NPRM reg ulatory evaluation. This preliminary regulatory evaluation estimates the costs and benef its of a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend the regulations for tra ining programs of air carriers that operate under parts 121 and 121/135. The proposed changes are intended to increase safety and contribute significantly to reducing the frequency of aviation accidents. The proposal also reorganizes and revises training and qualification requirements to make them easier to use and

understand.

The primary purpose of this proposed rule is to est ablish new requirements for traditional air carrier training programs to ensure that safety-cri tical training and evaluation is provided for crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers. In developing the training and evaluation requirements, the FAA reviewed the current standards in subparts N, O and P, as well as the flight training tasks listed in Appendix E (flight training require ments), F (proficiency check requirements), and H (advanced simulation) of part 121.

The FAA estimates the total cost of the proposed ru le would be approximately $391.9 million in nominal dollars, $199.1 million at a seven percent present value, and $290.3 million at a three percent present value. The estimated potential qua ntified safety benefits over the 10-year analysis interval is $445.1 million, $222.9 million at a seven percent present value, and $327.5 million at a three percent present value.

The FAA estimates the total cost of the proposed ru le would be approximately $391.9 million in nominal dollars, $199.1 million at a seven percent present value, and $290.3 million at a three percent present value. The estimated potential qua ntified safety benefits over the 10-year analysis interval is $445.1 million, $222.9 million at a seven percent present value, and $327.5 million at a three percent present value. The foll owing table shows these results.3

II. BACKGROUND

The regulations governing pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants and aircraft dispatcher qualification and training requirements are in 14 C FR part 121 subparts N and O. Subpart N prescribes the requirements for establishing and ma intaining a training program for pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants, aircraft dispatchers, and other operations personnel and requirements for the use of training devices in conducting the p rogram. Subpart O prescribes pilot, flight engineer and flight attendant qualifications. Appe ndix E to part 121 establishes the training tasks required for pilot initial, transition, and upgrade flight training. Appendix F to part 121 establishes the tasks for pilot proficiency checks. Appendix H to part 121 provides guidelines and a means for using advanced airplane simulators for flightcrew training and checking.

The FAA reviewed its crewmember training regulation s to identify improvements in training program content and application that would reduce h uman error among crewmembers, particularly in hazardous or emergency situations. Based on this review, the FAA identified the following proposed changes to the current rules:

• Train and evaluate flightcrew members in a complete flightcrew environment.

• Require Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) to be administered in a simulator during recurrent training.

• Require training and practice in the use of Crewmem ber Resource Management (CRM) principles integrated with technical skills.

• Require a qualified Flight Simulation Training Devi ce (FSTD) to be used for training, testing, and checking of flightcrew members.

• Require simulator training for proper pilot reactio n to Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) Resolution Advisories.4

• Provide a structured training program based on newl y prescribed Qualification Performance Standards (QPS), and on programmed hours that may n ot be reduced below levels prescribed by regulation.

• Maintain individual pilot proficiency test and prof iciency check records for five years, in accordance with the Pilots Records Improvement Act (PRIA).

• Require training in the following special hazards: - Unusual attitudes, and - Upset/disturbance and loss of control.

Generally, the proposed reorganization of the train ing and qualification requirements would accomplish the following:

• Consolidate crewmember requirements in current subp arts N and O of part 121 into a new subpart BB.

• Delete obsolete references to flight navigators.

• Dispatcher requirements in current subparts N and P of part 121 would be consolidated into a new subpart CC.

• Drug and alcohol testing requirements and hazardous materials training requirements to remain in subparts N and O.

• Consolidate practical training and checking standar ds in appendices E and F of part 121 into revised QPS appendices for pilots and flight e ngineers.5

III. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS

This section details the derivation of the FAA’s es timation of the benefits and costs. First, we discuss the general assumptions used in our estimat ion of the benefits and costs. Then we explain the estimation of the quantified and qualif ied benefits. Next, we discuss the estimation of the quantified costs. We then present the estim ation of costs to the Federal Government. Airline operators separately estimated their costs and impacts. Their cost estimate is presented for information. Lastly, we summarize benefits and costs for this SNPRM.

III.A. General Assumptions

The FAA made the following general assumptions to f acilitate the benefit and cost analysis for this regulatory evaluation:

• The base year is 2010.

• All monetary values are expressed in constant 2010 dollars. The present value of the potential 10-year benefit stream was calculated by discounting the monetary values using a three and seven percent present value rate from 201 6 to 2025.

• This final rule would be published in 2011.

• This proposed rule would become effective 120 days after publication of the final rule. The compliance date for airlines would be in 2016 or fi ve years after the effective date of the final

rule.

• The analysis period extends for 10 years from 2016 through 2025. We believe this analysis period fully accounts for the expected benefits and costs.

• It is not the intent of the FAA, for this proposed rule to affect operators with AQP pilot training programs beyond adding minimal costs. The refore, the FAA did not include Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) operator costs in the SNPRM’s cost estimate or accidents that occurred by operators with AQP pilot training programs in the benefit estimate. Based on the FAA’s analysis of six exist ing AQP operators, on average, this proposal could require an AQP operator to be expect ed to add five to six tasks to their current training curriculum, assuming the carrier has not o btained approval of alternative means of6

compliance for tasks not currently addressed. Also , based on an estimate that each task may take from two to 10 minutes, this may result in any where between 10-60 minutes of additional training to an operator’s current progra m. The FAA believes that the cost of these

additional five to six tasks would be minimal for t hose operators with AQP pilot training

programs.

The FAA requests comments on these assumptions, acc ompanied by clear documentation.

III.B. Benefit Analysis

The FAA estimates the phased-in benefits of this pr oposed rulemaking are about $445.1 million in nominal dollars, $222.9 in seven percent present value, and $327.5 million in three percent present value terms. The benefits would accrue fro m the proposed additional operational and training initiatives that are designed to meet the aviation accident reduction goals established in the FAA’s safety agenda. The proposed regulations would enhance traditional training programs by requiring the NTSB recommended use of flight sim ulation training devices for pilots and flight engineers, and including additional training requirements in areas that are critical to safety. Although the FAA believes the methodology employed in the regulatory evaluation (RIA) provides an accurate estimate of benefits associate d with the provisions of the SNPRM, in Appendix 8, we also discuss an alternate methodolog y that would result in a more conservative

estimation of benefits.

III.B.1. Benefit Assumptions

In addition to the general assumptions at the begin ning of the Benefit-Cost analysis section, the FAA made the following general assumptions to facil itate the benefit analysis for this regulatory

evaluation:

• Past accident history is an accurate reflection of future accidents.

• Safety benefits are realized after 2016, when progr ams must be in place.7

The FAA requests comments on these benefit assumpti ons, accompanied by clear

documentation.

III.B.2. Accident Population and Scoring

The FAA expects the major benefit of this proposed rule would be to prevent or mitigate future accidents. For the accident avoidance safety benef it analysis, the FAA reviewed accident data for U.S. certificate holders required to train unde r parts 121 and 121/135 over the 22-year interval from 1988 through 2009. The FAA Accident Investigation and Prevention Group (AVP) provided a listing of all parts 121 and 121/135 acc idents that have occurred since 1988. The FAA Flight Standards Service (AFS) and AVP reviewed each of these accidents and developed a list of accidents potentially related to this rule, including 240 pilot related accidents, 22 flight attendant related accidents, and seven dispatcher a ccidents for a total of 269 accidents. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investi gations identified several areas of inadequate training that were either the probable c ause or contributing factors for many of these accidents, such as incomplete manuals, inadequate s tandards/procedures, unstabilized approach below 500 feet, crew resource management, turbulenc e, thunder storms, wind shear, instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions, crosswind, and tailw ind. For each of these accidents, AFS developed a regulatory change that could have mitig ated each accident.

From the list of 269 accidents, the FAA eliminated duplicate accident listings and accidents by operators with an AQP pilot training program since this rulemaking would have only minimal impact on these operators. We then eliminated acci dents that occurred while the carrier was operating under part 135. After the 1995 commuter rule, part 135 operators were merged into part 121 creating a higher standard of safety on th ese operators flightcrew training programs. In addition, since the proposal only applies to part 1 35 operators in commuter scheduled service with two pilots, as dictated by the type certificat e data sheets, no current part 135 operators meet these criteria or would be affected by the proposed rule.8

This elimination process resulted in a list of 149 pilot-related accidents, 22 flight attendantrelated accidents, and seven dispatcher-related acc idents. Of the 149 pilot-related accidents, 23 (about 15 percent) involved one or more fatalities and 126 (about 85 percent) had no fatalities. The pilot related-accidents resulted in 491 fatalit ies, 169 serious injuries, and 572 minor injuries. The flight attendant-related accidents resulted in one fatality, 24 serious injuries, and 42 minor injuries. There were no fatalities, three serious injuries, and one minor injury for the seven dispatcher-related accidents.

The importance of training varies for each of the a ccidents. Therefore, the FAA Accident Investigation and Prevention group (AVP) rated each accident by conducting a Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) scoring process. All o f the accidents that have had final National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports publishe d have been scored against the CAST safety enhancements. AVP used the NTSB recommendat ions along with narratives, probable cause, contributing factors and other pertinent dat a to score the accidents.

AVP used a Joint Implementation Monitoring Data Ana lysis Team (JIMDAT)-like method because many of the issues in these accidents are n ot well defined in the probable cause or contributing factors statements of the NTSB reports . The JIMDAT-type scoring system is from 0 to 5, and the score is based upon the likelihood that the rule change would have mitigated that accident. The scoring does not consider the effect s of AQP, nor does it reflect GPWS-TAWS 1 and the virtual elimination of Part 121 CFIT (Contr olled Flight Into Terrain) accidents. The level and percentage of effectiveness criteria foll ows:

5- 95% effectiveness. The proposed requirement dir ectly addresses the NTSB causal factors and would prevent the accident in the future.

4- 75% effectiveness. The proposed requirement dir ectly addresses the majority of the NTSB causal factor and would probably prevent or is likely to reduce the risk of the respective accident, given the circumstances that prevailed.

1 (Ground Proximity Warning System)-( Terrain Awaren ess Warning System)9

3- 55 % effectiveness. The proposed requirement di rectly addresses one of several NTSB causal factors and is likely to reduce the risk of the respective accident, given the circumstances that prevailed.

2- 35% effectiveness. The proposed requirement gen erally addresses the NTSB causal factors and is likely reduce the risk of the respec tive accident, given the circumstances that prevailed.

1- 15% effectiveness. The proposed requirement is likely to have reduced the risk of the respective accident, given the circumstances that p revailed.

0- 0% effectiveness. The proposed requirement woul d not reduce the risk of this type of

accident in the future.

Table 1 shows the distribution of these effectivene ss criteria for the pilot, flight attendant and dispatcher-related accidents.

The accident date, operator, aircraft model, accide nt location, and effectiveness criteria are in Appendix 1 for the pilot-related accidents, Appendi x 2 for the flight attendant-related accidents and Appendix 3 for the dispatcher-related accidents

.

III.B.3. Quantification of Safety Benefits

This section describes the methodology to quantify the safety benefits for the proposed rule. We first discuss the component costs of an averted acc ident which form the quantitative basis for10

future pilot, flight attendant and dispatcher-relat ed benefits. We then present the methodology we developed to estimate the safety benefits for th e pilot, flight attendant and aircraft dispatcherrelated historical accidents. Lastly, we summarize our quantified safety benefit estimates for pilots, flight attendants, and dispatchers.

The proposed regulations enhance traditional traini ng programs by requiring the use of flight simulation training devices for pilot and flight en gineers and including additional training requirements in areas that are critical to safety. The proposal also reorganizes and revises the qualification and training requirements. The propo sed changes are intended to contribute significantly to reducing aviation accidents.

The benefit of avoiding an accident includes averte d fatalities, injuries, aircraft replacement or repair, and accident investigation costs. In estim ating benefit values, the FAA uses $6.0 million as a base case for an avoided fatality (VSL), $521, 000 for a serious injury (assumed to be the average of a severe, serious, and moderate injury), and $12,000 for a minor injury. 2 The additional associated medical and legal costs for a fatality are $265,400, for a serious injury (assumed to be the average of a severe, serious, an d moderate injury) $93,267, and for a minor injury $5,000. 3 The weighted average air carrier accident investi gation cost for the NTSB is $110,300, for an FAA accident investigation $57,800 , and for a private accident investigation $280,900. 4 The NTSB accident investigation reports provided the number of fatalities and injuries. 5 The FAA also conducted a sensitivity analysis on the VSL which is discussed in the “Sensitivity Analysis on VSL and Hourly Pilot Simul ator Costs” section below.

Destroyed aircraft were valued at their replacement cost. 6 Aircraft with substantial damage were valued at 13 percent of the aircraft value. 7 Aircraft with minor damage were not valued in thi s

2 Office of the Secretary of Transportation Memorandu m, "Treatment of Value of a Statistical Life in Dep artmental Analysis – 2009 Annual Revision”, March 2009. 3 APO Bulletin APO-2-1, “Treatment of Value of Life a nd Injury in Economic Analyses”, February 2002, upd ated in 2010 and included in Appendix 4. 4 http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guid ance/benefit_cost/media/050404%20Critical%20Values% 20D ec%2031%20Report%2007Jan05.pdf 5 https://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm 6 Table 5.1 from the “Economic Values for FAA Investm ent and Regulatory Decisions, A Guide”, updated in 2009 and included in Appendix 5. 7 Ibid. Restoration of repair.11

evaluation. The FAA determined the aircraft damage status from NTSB accident investigation reports. 8

III.B.3.A. Pilot Training Benefits

This section details the methodology used to estima te future safety benefits estimated from the historical pilot-related accidents.

Using the scoring effectiveness and component costs described above, we computed the safety benefits for fatalities, injuries, and inspections for each of the 149 pilot-related accidents. Next, we estimated the aircraft replacement or repair val ues based on amount of damage reported in the NTSB accident reports for each accident. We th en summed the safety benefits for our fatality, injury, and inspection estimate with the aircraft replacement or repair estimate for each accident. We multiplied that sum by the AVP effect iveness ratio for each accident to obtain a final safety benefit value per accident. Lastly, w e summed all accidents’ safety benefit values to equal an estimated total value of about $964.0 mill ion.

The pilot-related accidents occurred over the 22-ye ar interval from 1988 to 2009. The most recent accident this rule would mitigate is the Col gan Air accident in February 2009. Computing the mean of the estimated total value of about $964 .0 million over the 22-year historical pilotrelated accident interval resulted in about $43.8 m illion per year. Assuming an equally likely preventable accident average would happen in any ye ar over the 10-year analysis interval results in a total benefit of about $438.2 million in nomin al terms, $219.4 million for a seven percent present value, and $322.4 million for a three perce nt present value.

Table 2 shows these results.

8 https://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/aviation.htm12

III.B.3.B. Flight Attendant Training Benefits

This section presents the methodology used to estim ate future safety benefits estimated from the historical flight attendant-related accidents.

Using the component costs described above, we compu ted the safety benefits for fatalities, injuries, and inspections for each of the 22 accide nts involving a flight attendant. The losses from these accidents were largely due to injuries. Next, we estimated the aircraft replacement or repair values based on amount of damage reported in the NTSB accident reports for each accident. According to the NTSB accident reports, the accidents involving flight attendants were mostly the result of turbulence, which resulted in injuries but little to no airplane damage. One accident involved a flight attendant who died, whil e operating an exit door, by setting off an explosive door release when the aircraft was pressu rized. We included the airplane damages for

this accident.

We then summed the safety benefits for our fatality , injury, and inspection estimate with the aircraft replacement or repair estimate for each ac cident. Next, we multiplied the sum by the

AVP effectiveness ratio for each accident to obtain a final safety benefit value per accident.13

Lastly, we summed each of the safety benefit values to obtain an estimated total value of about $10.8 million.

Flight attendant-related accidents occurred over th e 22-year interval from 1988 to 2009. We note that all of the flight attendant-related accid ents used in this analysis occurred from 1995 to 2007. There may have been a change in the NTSB rec ord keeping in 1998. We request comment on what may be an anomaly causing our benef it estimate to be understated.

Computing the mean of the estimated total value of about $10.8 million over the 22-year historical flight attendant-related accident interv al resulted in about $491,000 per year. Assuming an equally likely preventable accident ave rage would happen in any year of the 10- year analysis interval result in about $4.9 million in nominal terms, $2.5 million for a seven percent present value, and $3.61 million for a thre e percent present value.

Table 3 shows these results.

III.B.3.C. Aircraft Dispatcher Training Benefits

This section discusses the methodology used to esti mate future safety benefits estimated from the historical dispatcher-related accidents.14

In six of the seven accidents cited, the NTSB focus ed on the aircraft dispatcher's failure to provide the crew with weather, turbulence, braking, or Notice to Airmen information. The SNPRM provides a structured approach to training di spatchers in their operational control responsibilities and authority. This training coup led with an effective Dispatcher Resource Management (DRM) program could have prevented these accidents with the prompt interaction of the aircraft dispatcher and Pilot in Command dur ing abnormal weather events. In the seventh accident, the aircraft dispatcher was not cited, be cause the operator was a supplemental carrier operating with a flight following system (i.e. ther e was no dispatcher). In the SNPRM, we are proposing that supplemental carriers be required to have certificated aircraft dispatchers who will have equal responsibility with the pilot or flight engineer for the pre-flight planning, including weight and balance.

Using the component costs described above, we compu ted the safety benefits for fatalities, injuries, and inspections for each of the seven dis patcher-related accidents. Next, we estimated the aircraft replacement or repair values based on amount of damage reported in the NTSB accident reports for each accident.

For each accident, we then summed the safety benefi ts for our fatality, injury, and inspection estimate with the aircraft replacement or repair es timate for each accident. Next, we multiplied the sum by the AVP effectiveness ratio for each acc ident to obtain a final safety benefit value per accident. Lastly, we summed each of the safety ben efit values to obtain an estimated total value of about $4.34 million.

Aircraft dispatcher-related accidents occurred over the 22-year interval from 1988 to 2009. We note that all of the aircraft dispatcher-related ac cidents used in this analysis occurred from 1998 to 2007. There may have been a change in the NTSB record keeping in 1998. Again, we request comment as a data anomaly may result in understated benefits.

Computing the mean of the estimated total value of about $4.34 million over the 22-year historical aircraft dispatcher-related accident int erval resulted in about $197,500 per year.15

Assuming an equally likely preventable accident ave rage would happen in any year of the 10- year analysis interval results in about $1.97 milli on in nominal terms, about $0.99 million for a seven percent present value, and about $1.45 millio n for a three percent present value.

Table 4 shows these results.

Under current regulations, supplemental operators m ust always list an alternate airport for domestic operations, because flight followers curre ntly do not have the training and qualification standards of aircraft dispatchers. The FAA is prop osing to offer relief to supplemental operators who operate domestically with no alternate airport if certain weather minimums are met and if they comply with the new subpart CC prior to the 5 year phase-in period. The benefits of offering relief to supplemental operators who opera te domestically with no alternate airport are a reduction in required fuel for the flight. Reduced fuel means that the carrier could either carry more revenue generating cargo or passengers on the flight, or burn less fuel due to lower weight, resulting in reduced fuel costs, aircraft emissions , and maintenance cost on engines or airframes because of the reduced takeoff and landing weights when no alternate airport is required. The FAA did not quantify these benefits because supplem ental operators typically operate either nonscheduled or on-demand service, which translates in to Revenue Passenger or Ton Miles (RPM or RTM) which are difficult to estimate. In addition, weather conditions, the specific aircraft type16

and its fuel burn, and the length of the route and alternative would also be difficult to estimate. Thus the total benefit calculation for the proposal is somewhat underestimated.

III.B.3.D. Qualitative Benefit Discussion

The proposed rule would also generate qualitative b enefits for pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers. Qualitative benefits include enhanced aviation safety with increased training and evaluation requirements, and reduced air pollution and fuel costs.

A major qualitative benefit area is the value of ha ving well-trained crew members to solve minor problems before they become accidents. The aviatio n system and transport category aircraft are extremely complex, but extremely safe. When an acc ident occurs, it is generally the result of a long chain of multiple failures. The crew members are generally the last opportunity to break the chain and prevent an accident. It is well establis hed that crew members who are insufficiently trained are less likely than well-trained crew memb ers to quickly and efficiently diagnose and solve problems. Every day, small events and mishap s are dealt with by crew members and they

never become accidents. The outcome of small event s and mishaps is mitigated by the quick action of well trained crew members. Flight 1549 t hat landed safely in the Hudson River is an example of how very quick reaction and decision mak ing by a well trained cockpit crew can avert a catastrophe. A small number of incidents a nd accidents caused by things other than training or human error could have been prevented o r mitigated if crew members had quickly behaved differently. While we have documented the likely size of the accident problem with training as a factor, it is not possible to estimat e the impact of increased problem solving capability as the number of insufficiently trained crewmembers is reduced. It is, however, real and significant.

The following qualitative benefit discussion detail s flightcrew member, flight attendant, and aircraft dispatcher training.

Flightcrew members17

In developing the rule’s requirements, the FAA prop oses to enhance the training and evaluation requirements for flightcrew members and to require the use of flight simulation training devices (FSTD). The proposed changes seek to make a signif icant contribution to the FAA’s accident reduction goal by directly addressing the safety go als from two recent FAA “Call to Action” initiatives, including pilot “upset recovery” train ing and improvement of runway safety by requiring training in critical runway safety issues

.

The existing recurrent qualification and training r equirements for PICs and SICs differ in several respects. Current regulations require different tr aining tasks and events for PICs and SICs. For example, PICs receive more training tasks and more frequent proficiency checks than SICs. In addition, PICs are required to complete recurrent t raining every 6 months while SICs are required to complete recurrent training every 12 mo nths. In addition, under current regulations, PICs and SICs may train separately.

The current disparity between the training requirem ents for PICs and SICs is not consistent with actual line operations. During actual operations, pilots must work as a flight crew unit. Typically, today’s flight operations involve PICs a nd SICs sharing both pilot flying and monitoring responsibilities on the flight deck. Th is proposal would streamline the training for PICs and SICs to ensure they are provided training that mirrors to the greatest extent possible actual line operations. Accordingly, under this pr oposal, PICs and SICs would complete recurrent training on a 9-month basis, complete the same academic subjects and job performance tasks listed in the QPS, and demonstrate proficienc y in the flying and monitoring duties associated with the prescribed tasks and events. T hese proposed changes facilitate training flightcrew members in a complete crewmember environ ment that simulates actual line operations.

In selecting the proposed 9-month recurrent trainin g cycle, the FAA took into consideration recurrent training cycles currently employed by ope rators training under an Advanced Qualification Program (AQP). Training cycles for t hese operators include 6-month cycles, 9- month cycles, and 12-month cycles. The FAA also co nsidered requiring PICs and SICs to train on the 6-month cycle currently required for PICs, a nd also considered requiring recurrent18

training on the 12-month cycle currently required f or SICs. Based on recent industry trends such as the prevalence of two-pilot flightcrews a nd the advent of regional carriers that have resulted in opportunities for an SIC to upgrade to a PIC without having accumulated significant experience as an SIC in a part 121 operation, the F AA believes a 12-month recurrent training cycle is not sufficient to provide adequate trainin g and experience for these less experienced

SICs.

The 9-month recurrent training cycle would provide SICs who upgrade to a PIC with more training at each training event. The proposal adds an additional simulator period to each recurrent training event for all pilots (PICs and S ICs). This increases PIC training requirements from six simulator periods in three years to eight simulator periods in that same three years. In addition, it substantially increases the number of simulator periods for SICs from three simulator periods in three years to eight simulator periods i n that same three years. Also, while this proposal reduces the frequency with which PICs retu rn for training, it increases the frequency with which SICs return for training. Extending the interval just three months for PICs (from six to nine months) would not adversely affect their sk ills. This would also enhance their CRM skills by virtue of requiring their pairing with SI Cs for each recurrent training cycle and by requiring an additional simulator period. Thus, the FAA believes that the proposed 9-month recurrent training interval is the maximum training interval allowable that would ensure the necessary safeguards are in place to address recurr ent training requirements for all pilots, including those who fly with less frequency or in e xtended or long-haul operations.

Flight Attendants

By regulation, no certificate holder may operate a passenger carrying flight under part 121 in domestic, flag or supplemental operations unless th e required number of flight attendants are on the airplane. This requirement was established bec ause flight attendants perform numerous safety duties that, when performed effectively, can mitigate or prevent injuries and loss of life in aircraft accidents. The majority of flight attenda nt training and evaluation requirements were first promulgated over 40 years ago. With the incr eased complexity of aircraft cabin systems, emergency equipment and procedures, and types of ai rcraft operations, the training and19

evaluation requirements for flight attendants must be improved to maintain an equivalent level of safety.

For example, post-9/11 security procedures have gre atly changed the scope of flight attendant safety responsibilities. With procedures that requ ire flightcrew members to remain on the flight deck during a cabin emergency, flight attendants ar e the sole responders to emergency situations in the aircraft cabin. The increased training and evaluation requirements in this proposal provide the necessary training and evaluation in the action s that flight attendants must take in an emergency to prevent or mitigate the effects of a p ossibly catastrophic accident.

In addition, the frequency of turbulence events has increased. From 1980 through 2008, U.S. air carriers had 234 turbulence accidents resulting in 298 serious injuries and three fatalities. Of the 298 serious injuries, 184 involved flight attendant s and 114 involved passengers. 9 Increased training and evaluation requirements regarding flig ht attendant response to turbulence may mitigate or prevent these accidents in the future.

Finally, due to improvements in aircraft systems an d design, aircraft accidents are becoming more survivable. On December 20, 2008, a Continenta l Airlines Boeing 737-500 veered off a runway and slid into a snowy field at the Denver ai rport. 10 The captain and five of the 110 passengers were seriously injured; the first office r, two flight attendants and 38 passengers received minor injuries; and one flight attendant a nd 67 passengers were uninjured. The airplane was substantially damaged. According to post accide nt interviews, although the flight attendants were not able to communicate with the pilots immedi ately after the airplane came to a stop, they promptly ordered an evacuation when they saw fire o utside the airplane. Flight attendant statements indicated that passengers seemed frighte ned but were responsive to instructions, and the evacuation progressed quickly and smoothly. Al l airplane occupants had exited and moved away from the airplane before the fire entered the airplane cabin. On January 15, 2009, all 155 people on board a US Airways flight survived a ditc hing into the Hudson River off New York

9 Turbulence: Staying Safe , available at http://www.faa.gov/passengers/fly_sa fe/turbulence/. 10 NTSB/AAR-10/04 (adopted 7/13/2010)20

City's west side after both engines lost power from striking a flock of birds. 11 Within seconds after the ditching, an evacuation of the airplane w as initiated via the forward and over wing exits. In both cases, flight attendant emergency response was directly responsible for increased passenger survivability.

With the trends toward increased flight attendant r esponsibility to respond to emergencies in the cabin, turbulence events, and survivable accidents, the need for flight attendants to be fully trained and prepared to execute their safety duties becomes ever more important. Increasing flight attendant proficiency in the use of aircraft systems, emergency equipment, emergency procedures, firefighting techniques, response to tu rbulence, response to passenger interference situations or medical events, may prevent or mitiga te future accidents and enhance passenger safety during flight.

For example, NTSB investigation of several accident s and incidents determined that flight attendants needed more specific training in firefig hting procedures and effective crew coordination during an in-flight fire (Recommendati ons A-01-83 through A-01-85). The proposed rule contains detailed requirements for fi refighting training, including fighting hidden fires, and the proper use of a halon fire extinguis her. Other NTSB investigations have determined that flight attendants need additional t raining in emergency evacuation procedures (Recommendations A-92-67, A-92-70, A-92-71, A-92-74 , and A-92-77). The requirements in this proposal respond to those NTSB recommendations

.

Flight attendants must be proficient in preparing a n airplane for an evacuation or a ditching, extinguishing an in-flight fire, supervising the ca bin following a decompression, handling a hijack situation, and managing passengers during an emergency evacuation. Emergency situations, by their very nature, happen infrequent ly, so the only way that flight attendants can practice skills needed in an emergency is during in itial and recurrent training.

Clearly, flight attendants mitigate accidents. Fli ght attendants who are better trained and qualified are better prepared to execute emergency procedures and may prevent deaths or

11 NTSB/AAR-10/03 (adopted 5/4/2010)21

mitigate injuries in an airplane accident. This pr oposal addresses NTSB recommendations that flight attendants need more specific training. Bas ed on the role of flight attendants to mitigate accidents and the NTSB recommendations, the FAA bel ieves the benefits from the proposed flight attendant training justify the costs. Just as good crew training helped to land the US Airways A320 on the Hudson and the flight attendant s got everyone out safely. Therefore, the training and evaluation requirements in this propos al would result in numerous qualitative benefits for flight attendants.

Aircraft Dispatchers

An aircraft dispatcher is a licensed airman certifi cated by the FAA. Flightcrew members and aircraft dispatchers share a joint responsibility f or the safe operation of each flight. Aircraft dispatchers perform numerous duties that, when perf ormed effectively, can mitigate risk to prevent accidents, fatalities, and injuries. For e xample, aircraft dispatchers analyze and evaluate meteorological information to determine potential h azards to safety of flight; select the most desirable route of flight, and compute the amount o f fuel required for the safe completion of the flight according to type of aircraft, distance of f light, maintenance limitations, weather conditions, and minimum fuel requirements prescribe d by current federal aviation regulations. Aircraft dispatchers also prepare flight plans cont aining information such as maximum allowable takeoff and landing weights, weather reports, and a irport field conditions, and perform many other tasks required for the safe completion of fli ght. Aircraft dispatchers also play a critical role during in-flight emergencies by communicating infor mation to flightcrew members to assist them in their decision-making.

Since the aircraft dispatcher training rules were f irst adopted, there has been an increase in the number and complexity of operations in part 121, as well as changes in technology, such as

NextGen. 12 To maintain an equivalent level of safety, the tr aining and evaluation requirements for aircraft dispatchers must keep pace with the in creases in airline operational control complexities that result from these advances.

12 NextGen, is the evolution from a ground-based syst em of air traffic control to a satellite-based syst em of air traffic management.22

The following is an example of how aircraft dispatc hers can mitigate risk to prevent future accidents. On December 28, 2001, a Boeing 747 cargo airplane operated by a part 121 supplemental operator had a tail strike on departur e from Anchorage, Alaska. Under current regulations, part 121 supplemental operators are no t required to have aircraft dispatchers to provide a second source of operational review. The NTSB found prior to departure that the crew failed to account for the weight of the additional fuel and inadvertently used the same performance cards that were used for the previous l anding. The NTSB found the probable cause of the accident was inadequate preflight planning/p reparation and failure to calculate aircraft weight and balance by the flight crew (NTSB Event I D ANC02LA008). The FAA believes this accident could have been mitigated if the pilots ha d been required to share joint responsibility with a certificated aircraft dispatcher involved in the preflight planning of this operation. The FAA recognizes that requiring the shared responsibi lity of operational control between the PIC and the certificated aircraft dispatcher in supplem ental operations increases the safety of the flight, creates a single level of safety for all pa rt 121 operations, and provides qualitative benefit s for the proposal regarding aircraft dispatchers.

Qualitative benefits also include addressing open N TSB safety recommendations related to crewmember training. The changes proposed in this SNPRM address the following NTSB recommendations:

• Crewmember Resource Management (CRM) training (Reco mmendations A-88-71 and A-94-96);

• Flight attendant training (Recommendations A-92-67, A-92-70, A-92-71, A-92-74, and A-92-77);

• TCAS RA training (Recommendation A-93-46);

• Use of simulators to conduct LOFT (Recommendations A-94-191 through 194);

• Training of flightcrews to respond to sudden, unusu al or unexpected aircraft upsets (Recommendation A-96-120);

• Training of crewmembers to respond to in-flight fir es (Recommendations A-01-83 through A-01-85);

• Aircraft pressurization on the ground while the gro und-based air conditioning is supplying conditioned (cooled or heated) air to the cabin (Recommendation A-07-96);23

• Monitoring of exit availability on the ground after a significant event to help expedite and emergency evacuation (Recommendation A-09-26);

• Communication and coordination between Flight Crewm embers and Flight Attendants regarding emergency and unusual situations (Recomme ndation A-09-27);

• Pilot monitoring duties (Recommendation A-10-10);

• Requirements for flightcrew member academic trainin g regarding leadership (Recommendations A-10-13, A-10-14, and A-10-15);

• Pilot recordkeeping requirements regarding training performance (Recommendations A10-17 and A-10-18);

• Develop and implement procedures to establish airsp eed reference (Recommendation A10-21); and

• Develop and conduct stall recovery training and pro vide stick pusher familiarization training for pilots of stick-pusher equipped aircra ft (Recommendations A-10-22 and A10-23). 13

III.B.3.E. Quantified Accident Prevention Benefit S ummary

The safety benefits from these initiatives would be derived from flight attendants having a better awareness of turbulence hazards, aircraft behavior in turbulence, the need to maintain personal safety, as well as the importance of communication and coordination between pilots, flight engineers, and flight attendants during turbulence events.

Pilots and flight engineers would also be better pr epared for emergency situations, such as upset/disturbance and loss of control, unusual atti tudes, and recovery from approach to stall.

Improvements in aircraft dispatcher training progra ms enhances safety by including additional training requirements to ensure that each aircraft dispatcher is trained and proficient in the different aircraft types to which the aircraft disp atcher is assigned. In addition, aircraft dispatcher training program improvements also incre ases safety by including training in

hazardous weather and Enhanced Weather Information Systems (EWINS) as required areas of study.24

Table 5 summarizes our safety benefit estimates for pilots, flight attendants and dispatchers.

The proposed changes seek to make a significant con tribution to the FAA’s accident reduction goal by directly addressing the safety goals from t wo recent FAA “Call to Action” initiatives including pilot “upset recovery” training and impro vement of runway safety by requiring training in critical runway safety issues.

The FAA requests comments, with supporting document ation, on the benefit analysis for this proposal.

13 The NTSB Safety Recommendation Letters are availab le online at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/ lett ers.htm.25

III.C. Cost Analysis

From 2016 to 2025, the FAA estimated the total nomi nal dollar cost of the proposed rule would be about $391.9 million, $199.1 million at a seven percent present value, and $290.3 million at a three percent present value. The costs would accru e from additional pilot, flight engineer, flight attendant, and aircraft dispatcher training require ments, additional travel costs to and from training facilities, and the use of additional simu lators or training facilities. Those individuals affected by the new training requirements include p ilots-in-command (PIC), pilots second-incommand (SIC), flight engineers, flight attendants and aircraft dispatchers.

III.C.1. General Cost Assumptions and Data Sources

In addition to the general assumptions at the begin ning of Section III. Benefit-Cost Analysis , the FAA made the following general assumptions to facil itate the cost analysis for estimating the proposals costs to pilot, flight engineer, and flig ht attendant training programs. This section also includes an identification of key data sources.

• No costs would be realized from 2010 through 2015.

• The number of pilots, flight engineers, flight atte ndants, and aircraft dispatchers employed by parts 121 and 121/135 operators was obtained throug h the FAA National Vital Information Subsystem (NVIS) 14 database at the end of December 2009 and represent s our estimate of the number of employees in 2010.

• The NVIS database only provides a total number of p ilots, flight engineers, flight attendants and aircraft dispatchers. Therefore we assume 4.0 percent of the total number of pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants and aircraft dispatche rs are check pilots, check flight engineers, check flight attendants and check aircraft dispatch ers.

• We also assume that 2.0 percent of the total pilots , flight engineers, flight attendants and aircraft dispatchers are instructors.

14 The National Vital Information Subsystem (NVIS) is a subsystem of the Flight Standards Automation Sys tem (FSAS), a comprehensive information system used pri marily by inspectors to record and disseminate data associated with inspector activity and the aviation environmen t. NVIS maintains up-to-date information about the aviation community within Flight Standards jurisdiction. Thi s database contains the general information about t he operator including the number of pilots, flight attendants, engineers, and navigators; contractors; exemptions and deviations.26

• Using the FAA Aerospace Forecasts , for fiscal years 2009-2025, 15 the FAA estimated that the affected population of pilots, flight engineers, fl ight attendants and aircraft dispatchers would grow at approximately 0.3 percent per year. These new employees would have to undergo initial, new hire, or, for flight attendants, basic qualification training.

• The average ground school class size for pilots, fl ight engineers, flight attendants, aircraft dispatchers, check pilots, check flight engineers, check flight attendants, check aircraft dispatchers and instructors training is 20.

• Based on the locations of the flight simulators and training centers, and the corresponding per diem rates for those locations, the FAA assumes tha t the weighted averages for lodging and meals are $92 and $44, respectively. 16 Per Diem cost (i.e., lodging and meals) rates are based on rates established annually by the General Services Administration (GSA) for

travelers on official Government business to use fo r their lodging, meals, and incidental

expenses.

• The FAA determined there would be a cost to certifi cate holders for employees who travel by air because of the additional training times requir ed by this proposed rule. We estimated an air travel cost by taking the product of two, 17 times the domestic Cost per Available Seat Mile (CASM), and the average trip length. 18 Therefore, the FAA assumed that the cost for employees who travel by air is $126.37.

• Pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants, and ai rcraft dispatchers who travel by car would travel approximately 40 miles at a cost of $0.54 pe r mile. 19

The FAA requests comments on these cost assumptions , accompanied by clear documentation.

III.C.2. Subpart BB Costs

The FAA analyzed the expected costs of subpart BB f rom 2010 through 2025. A factor driving the expected costs were the additional hours the pr oposed rule would add to the pilots, flight

15 Active Pilots by Type of Certificate, FAA Aerospac e Forecasts: Fiscal years, Airline Transport, 2009– 2025; Airline Transport 2010-2020. 16 Includes incidental expenses. 17 Round trip flights from home to training center an d return. 18 Department of Transportation Form 41 database.27

engineers, flight attendants, check pilots, check f light engineers, check flight attendants and instructor training. Other cost drivers included t he capital and operating costs of simulators and expanding training facilities. Expected costs for subpart BB would be about $386.3 million. These costs would begin to accrue in 2016, five yea rs after the rule is expected to take effect, and

would continue to 2025.

Subpart BB would impose either an addition or a red uction of the hours of initial, transition, conversion, requalification, upgrade, and recurrent training costs to operator pilot and flight engineer training programs. Subpart BB would also impose either an addition or a reduction of the hours of basic qualification, requalification, and recurrent training costs to operator flight attendant training programs. The incremental costs of training to pilots and flight engineers are estimated at about $380.9 million, in nominal dolla rs, plus $5.5 million for flight attendants. The FAA estimates the additional paperwork costs would be about $1.7 million for pilots and flight engineers.

Under the assumption that existing facilities are o ptimized, 20 Subpart BB would also result in additional capital and operating expenses to either build or expand training and simulator facilities for traditionally-trained pilots, flight engineers and flight attendants. Rather than estimate the capital recovery costs over the life c ycle of simulators and expansion of facilities,

we estimated the rent of simulator services with a usage fee per pilot or flight engineer, or an inclusive flight attendant instructional usage fee expense for a ground school classroom training session. As in the NPRM, and after extensive indus try validation, the FAA estimates the average cost of simulator session to be $550 an hour. The FAA estimates the weighted average hourly training cost for the inclusive flight attendant in structional ground school expense to be $37.43.

Many of the changes in subpart BB are either editor ial or procedural. These types of proposed revisions do not add any new requirements or impose costs. Some changes expand or clarify the intent of the proposed rule through reorganization, updating terminology, and clarifying

19 According to the 2009 “Your Driving Costs” brochur e, a family will spend $54.00 per 100 miles on gas, oil, tires, and maintenance. Retrieved from http://www.aaa.com

. 20 The FAA contacted many of the responders to the NP RM and confirmed that their existing training facil ities, simulators, and ground school classes are optimized

.28

procedures. These proposed editorial or procedural changes would not impose any new requirements or costs.

III.C.2.A. Pilot, Flight Engineer and Flight Atten dant Assumptions

The FAA made the following general assumptions to f acilitate the analysis for estimating the costs for the new training requirements to pilots, flight engineers, and flight attendants.

The following assumptions apply to estimating the p ilot and flight engineer training costs for operators with traditional training programs:

• 100 percent of the pilots, check pilots and instruc tors attend a recurrent training cycle every 9

months.

• At the time of this writing, there are 18 operators with AQP pilot training programs that employ approximately 62 percent of all part 121 pil ots. In addition, there are about a dozen operators either developing or considering AQP curr iculums for their pilots who employ approximately 16 percent of all part 121 pilots. T he FAA contacted other operators with traditional pilot training programs and they have e xpressed interest in converting to an AQP curriculum. We assume that two percent of the pilo ts, who work for operators with traditional pilot training programs, would convert to an AQP pilot training curriculum annually over the 10-year analysis interval.

• Five percent of the affected pilots and flight engi neers would require transition, conversion, upgrade, requalification, or upgrade training.

• For pilots or flight engineers who must complete re qualification training, one-third would go through Phase I training, one-third would go thr ough Phase II training, and one-third would go though Phase III training.

• Of the affected pilots and flight engineers 32 perc ent would require transition training, eight percent conversion training, five percent requalifi cation, or 55 percent upgrade training.

• Pilots and flight engineers undergoing transition, requalification, conversion and upgrade training would require the same number of simulator tasks required by initial or new hire training.29

• Training and checking in the simulator occur with b oth seats filled with persons either in training for the respective seat or who are qualifi ed to operate the airplane from that seat. The FAA has a requirement for training and checking to be accomplished under a "full crew concept," where every seat in the simulator will be filled. When a full crew concept cannot be accomplished, the proposed rule language identif ies what persons may fill the seat. However, if the pilot that is scheduled to receive the training or undergo the check cannot be present, and the operator has exhausted the list of persons the FAA provided as acceptable, then the operator may put two pilots-in-command (PI C) or two pilots second-in-command (SIC) together for training but not checking. For training, this analysis allows any combination of PICs and SICs to train together.

• Currently, due to simulator training scheduling tod ay, it is not unusual to have someone who does not actually require the training to occupy on e of the seats in the simulator. Although the FAA believes there would be a cost savings from this proposal by making both PIC and SIC have a nine month recurrent training cycle, we did not attempt to quantify the cost savings in this analysis. We request comments on t his issue.

• Two pilots and one instructor would occupy a simula tor during training.

• Pilots and flight engineers undergoing transition, requalification, conversion, upgrade, or recurrent training would train on one airplane grou p per training cycle. 21

• 80 percent of the affected pilot population would f ly to their training locations, while the remaining 20 percent of the affected population wou ld travel by car.

• 80 percent of the affected pilot and flight enginee r population who attend ground school would use distance learning, while the remaining 20 percent of the affected population would

travel.

• 85 percent of pilots operate turbojet airplanes and 15 percent operate turboprop airplanes.

• Although a very small number of flight engineers in part 121 operated turbo-propeller or reciprocating engine powered aircraft, this analysi s assumes that 100 percent of flight engineers operate turbojet airplanes.

• The FAA contacted industry and determined that the average simulator usage fee equals $550 per hour. We believe the rental price accurat ely reflects the cost of capital.

21 The initial, transition, upgrade, conversion, requ alification training cycle occurs once while the re current training cycle occurs every nine months.30

The following assumptions apply to estimating the f light attendant training costs:

• The total number of affected flight attendants at t he end of December 2009 is 100,970 and will represent the number of employees in 2010. 22

• Five percent of the affected flight attendants, che ck flight attendants and instructors would require requalification training.

• For flight attendants who must complete requalifica tion training, 80 percent would go through Phase I training and 20 percent would go th rough Phase II training.

• Flight attendants would train for an average of two equipment groups. 23

• Flight attendants would train for both aircraft dur ing the same training cycle.

• The SNPRM is not establishing a programmed hour tra ining requirement for check flight attendant or flight attendant instructor training. However, we assume the SNPRM will cause operators to require additional training. The addi tional training would be four hours of initial and two hours of annual recurrent training per chec k flight attendant and flight attendant

instructor.

• 95 percent of flight attendants work in turbojet ai rplanes and 5 percent work in turboprop airplanes.

• Although there are no emergency training hours spec ified in the current Federal Aviation Regulations, the national norm is 24 hours.

• In January 2010, the FAA surveyed the Aviation Safe ty Inspectors (ASI) for five major airlines. They stated the percentage of flight att endants who traveled to training ranged between zero to 80 percent with an average of 47 pe rcent. Therefore, we assumed that 47 percent of the affected flight attendant population would fly to their training locations, while the remaining 53 percent of the affected population would travel by car.

• Flight attendants usually receive a minimal stipend amount for initial training. This analysis does not include this minimal stipend to offset the costs to flight attendants.

• The capital and operating expenses of expanding tra ining facilities are estimated using an average hourly usage fee for the inclusive flight a ttendant instructional ground school

22 NVIS.31

expense for the additional training hours required by this proposal. Operators provided the FAA with average hourly costs for basic qualificati on, requalification, and recurrent flight attendant training. In order to maintain the confi dentiality of operator training costs, we computed a weighted average and use an average hour ly usage fee cost of $37.43, per flight attendant, for the inclusive flight attendant instr uctional ground school expense.

• 50 percent of the affected flight attendant ground school training program would be done by distance learning, while the remaining 50 percent w ould require travel. This assumption implies when flight attendants use distance learnin g they would not incur travel expenses or the inclusive flight attendant instructional ground school expenses.

The FAA requests comments on these assumptions, acc ompanied by clear documentation.

III.C.2.B. Number of Pilots, Flight Engineers and Flight Attendants Affected

This section discusses the derivation of our estima te of the annual number of pilots, flight engineers and flight attendants employed by part 12 1 and 121/135 operators between 2010 and

2025.

The proposed rule would affect pilots of part 121 a nd 121/135 operators who do not conduct pilot training under an Advanced Qualification Prog ram (AQP). Thus we estimate only the number of pilots employed by operators in tradition al pilot training programs. The proposal will affect all flight attendants and flight engineers e mployed by part 121 and 121/135 operators.

To estimate the number of pilots, flight engineers and flight attendants employed in the 10-year analysis interval we begin with a 2010 base of 79,9 86 pilots, 1,892 flight engineers, and 100,970 flight attendants who are employed by part 121 and 121/135 operators. Next, we remove pilots who are training under an AQP program. This result s in a 2010 base of 30,395 traditionally trained pilots. We then assign a conversion, requa lification, transition and upgrade training rate of five percent and the growth rate of 0.3 percent to the number of affected pilots, flight

23 OAG Fleet Database reports an average of 1.65 equi pment groups per operator which we rounded up to tw o. The OAG Fleet Database defines an equipment group as ma jor groupings of aircraft types. For example, B737 would include all of the B-737 variants.32

attendants, and flight engineers from 2010 to 2025. Lastly, we estimate that two percent of the pilots and flight engineers would move from a tradi tional to an AQP pilot training program annually.

Tables 6, 7, and 8 show the results of these calcul ations for the estimated number of pilots and flight engineers from 2010 through 2025 affected by this proposal. The ‘Initial’ column represents the number of pilots or flight engineers who would go through initial or new hire training. The ‘5.0%’ column represents the number of pilots or flight engineers who would go through conversion, requalification, transition, or upgrade training. The ‘Pilot PIC’, ‘Pilot SIC’, ‘F/E’, ‘Check PIC’, ‘Check F/E’, ‘Instructor PIC’ a nd ‘Instructors F/E’ columns represent the number of pilots and flight engineers who would go through recurrent training. We note the new training requirements would start when the proposal becomes effective in 2016. We also note

that there are no check or instructor SICs. The to tal number of pilots declines over time because annually, the attrition of pilots to AQP training p rograms exceeds the number of new pilots to traditional operators.33

To estimate the number of flight attendants, check flight attendants and instructors employed in the 10-year analysis interval, we calculated the pr oduct of four percent of 100,970 to obtain 4,039 check flight attendants. Next, we calculated the number of instructors by taking the product of two percent of 100,970 to obtain 2,019 i nstructors. These calculations resulted in a total 94,912 (100,970-4,039-2,019) flight attendant s, 4,039 check flight attendants, and 2,019 instructors employed by part 121 and 121/135 operat ors in 2010.34

Next, we calculated the requalification training ra te for flight attendants, check flight attendants and instructors by calculating the product of the n umber of flight attendants, check flight attendants and instructors and five percent by year for 2010 through 2025. Lastly we use a 0.3 percent growth rate by year for 2010 through 2025.

Table 9 shows the results of these calculations for the estimated number of flight attendants, check flight attendants and instructors from 2010 t hrough 2025. The ‘Initial 0.3%’ column represents the number of flight attendants, check f light attendants and instructors who would go through basic qualification training. The ‘Requal 5.0%’ column represents the number of flight attendants, check flight attendants and instructors who would go through requalification training. The ‘Flight Attendants’, ‘Check F/A’ and ‘Instructo rs F/A’ columns represent the number of flight attendants, check flight attendants and inst ructors who would go through recurrent training. We note the new training requirements would start w hen the proposal becomes effective in 2016.

III.C.2.C Subpart BB Pilot and Flight Engineer Cos t Estimation Methodology

Total pilot and flight engineer training costs cons titute over 95 percent of the total FAA estimated cost of the proposal. Functionally, pilo t and flight engineer training costs include simulator usage fees, pilot and flight engineer tim e and travel, and ground school. While we provide an estimate of ground school training savin gs, we do not include these savings as a result35

of the rule. The FAA expects these cost savings co uld occur with the implementation of the rule. However, industry informed us that they consider gr ound school training costs resulting from the proposal to be minimal and thus our expected pilot and flight engineer ground school savings are also minimal. We left in the ground school cost sa vings as part of this discussion to facilitate

comments.

This section presents the methodology to estimate t he costs of the incremental pilot and flight engineer training hours required by this proposal. First, we detail the current required training hours versus those proposed in the SNPRM. Then, we discuss the hourly wages and the derivation of hourly employee benefits. Next we ex plain our methodology for estimating the incremental pilot and flight engineer training hour s costs of the proposed rule. Then, we show the cost estimates from this proposed rule as they apply to pilots, flight engineers, check pilots and flight engineers, and instructor training. Las tly, we discuss the paperwork costs of revising pilot manuals, flight engineer manuals, and the cer tificate holder’s Continuous Analysis Process (CAP) document.

The FAA sets a minimum required standard for traini ng pilots and flight engineers and we believe current industry practices exceed our minim um. This regulatory evaluation will not attempt to estimate the existing practice relative to the new requirements. We base our estimate on the incremental time this proposal adds to the c urrent regulatory requirements. To the extent industry current practices exceed the regulatory re quirement, our cost estimate would result in an over estimate of the actual compliance costs.

Pilots and flight engineers must undergo two basic methods of training. The first is simulator training and the second is ground school training. We estimate that 80 percent of the pilots and flight engineers would undergo distance learning fo r their ground school training. The costs for a pilot or flight engineer to undergo distance lear ning would be the same for the hours spent in a ground school class room but would not include tran sportation costs such as airfare, automobile mileage, hotel, facility usage fees, and per diems.36

When a pilot enters a simulator for training, the p ilot must complete a prescribed number of tasks. These tasks, along with an estimate of the time necessary to complete them, are listed in the technical report in the federal docket. 24

Typically, simulator sessions are scheduled in four hour blocks. However, when a pilot completes all of the prescribed tasks before four h ours, the simulator training session is complete.

In the NRPM, the FAA estimated the costs based on f our-hour simulator sessions. After analyzing the tasks prescribed in the technical rep ort, we believe many of the simulator sessions would last less than four hours. Therefore, in the SNPRM cost analysis, we will be estimating the cost of the average number of hours the pilot s pends in the simulator rather than the number

of four-hour simulator sessions.

Tables 10 and 11 show the minimum number of pilot a nd flight engineer simulator and ground training hours currently required by the FAA, our e stimate of the number of training hours required by this proposal, and the average incremen tal difference and percentage between the

two.

The FAA requests comments on these cost estimates b ased on pilot and flight engineer simulator hours and ground training hours, accompanied by cle ar documentation.

24 http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#d ocketDetail?R=FAA-2008-0677373839

The FAA uses the hourly wages plus benefits for pil ot and flight engineer, check pilot and flight engineer and instructor as a basis to estimate the additional training costs of this proposal. Benefits include health benefits, vacation, life in surance, sick time, etc. In May 2009, the Employee Benefit Research Institute, using a Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey of employee benefits estimated the total 2009 benefit as a perc entage of payroll at 30.2 percent. 25 The FAA accepts 30.2 percent to estimate the value of benef its for pilots, check pilots, flight engineers, check flight engineers and instructors as an additi onal cost of this proposal.

Table 12 shows the hourly wage, estimated hourly be nefit, and total hourly cost we calculated for pilots and flight engineers.

The FAA estimated the pilot and flight engineer sim ulator and ground school training costs by summing the additional initial or new hire training cost with the transition, upgrade, conversion, requalification, and recurrent training costs this proposal mandates.

The FAA accepts industry’s NPRM comments that the p roposed additional training would require higher travel for simulator and ground scho ol training for pilots and flight engineers than our NPRM estimate. Using the assumptions above, we accounted for travel, hotel and per diem costs by pilots or flight engineers who traveled ei ther by airplane or automobile to their simulator or ground school training sessions. We note that p ilots or flight engineers who opted for ground school distance learning did not incur travel costs , but did incur ground school costs based on the pilots or flight engineers hourly rate in training.

25 http://www.ebri.org/pdf/publications/books/databook /DB.Chapter%2003.pdf

updated May 2009.40

We now discuss the FAA’s estimate of this proposal’ s additional simulator training costs to pilots, flight engineers, check pilots and flight e ngineers, and instructors.

The additional simulator training costs consist of the sum of travel; the pilots’, flight engineers’, and instructors’ additional hours (computed using h ourly wages plus benefits) spent in the simulator; and the additional simulator usage fees.

Travel costs include hotel, airfare or automobile m ileage, and per diem (meals, etc.) costs. We estimated the travel costs by taking the product of the number of pilots and flight engineers per additional simulator training cycle 26 and the sum of hotel, per diem and either air or a utomobile

travel costs.

We estimated the additional time in the simulator c osts by taking the product of the number of pilots or flight engineers per additional training cycle, the additional hours mandated by this proposal that a pilot must be in simulator training , and the sum of the pilots’ or flight engineers’, with the instructors’ hourly wage plus benefits. 27

Lastly, we estimated the cost of the simulator usag e fees by taking the product of the number of pilots or flight engineers per additional training cycle, the additional hours mandated by this proposal that a pilot must be in simulator training , and the $550 average hourly simulator cost, while factoring in two pilots per simulator session

.

For the check PICs, flight engineers and instructor s 28 we calculated the incremental simulator training costs mandated by this proposed rule in a similar manner as we did for the pilots and flight engineers. The only exception was that we u sed check PICs’, flight engineers’ and instructors’ wages plus benefits and incremental ho urs instead of pilots and flight engineers.

26 The initial, transition, upgrade, conversion, requ alification training cycle occurs only once while t he recurrent training cycle occurs every nine months. 27 There is one instructor for every two pilots in th e simulator. 28 We note that SIC do not have a check or instructor category.41

Lastly, we summed the initial, conversion, requalif ication, transition, upgrade, and recurrent simulator training costs to arrive at the FAA estim ate for this proposals total pilot and flight engineer training costs.

Table 13 shows the results of our calculation of th e estimate of this proposals additional simulator training costs to pilots, flight engineer s, check pilots and flight engineers and instructors. Appendix 7 shows the break out of add itional simulator costs for PICs, SICs, and flight engineers.

We note that of the $380.9 million total PIC, SIC a nd flight engineer simulator training cost, travel costs are about 20 percent, additional hours spent in the simulator costs are about 28 percent, and simulator usage costs are about 52 per cent.

We now discuss the FAA’s estimate of this proposal’ s additional ground school training costs to pilots, flight engineers, check pilots and flight e ngineers, and instructors.

Again, we provide the following discussion to facil itate comments regarding ground school cost savings. Originally we expected the SNPRM ground s chool changes would have resulted in substantial cost savings. Industry informed us the y consider ground school costs as minimal and we accepted their judgment.42

The additional ground school costs consist of the s um of the additional (or relieving) travel costs and the time pilots and flight engineers, including instructors, are in ground school.

To estimate the ground school costs incurred by thi s proposal, we first estimated the number of additional (or relieving) days a pilot or flight en gineer would be in ground school training per training cycle. 29

Travel costs include hotel, airfare or automobile m ileage, and per diems (meals, etc.) For ground school training, the FAA proposes to allow that tra ining be conducted in an environment other than a classroom by distance learning. An approved distance learning program ensures the training will provide the students with the knowled ge and cognitive skills to perform their required duties. We estimate that 80 percent of th e traditionally trained pilots would take advantage of distance learning and would save a par t 121 or 121/135 operator travel costs. For those traditionally trained pilots who travel to gr ound school facilities, we estimated the ground school travel costs by taking the product of the nu mber of pilots or flight engineers per additional training cycle, the number of additional (or reliev ing) ground school hours this proposal requires and the sum of the hotel, per diem and either air o r automobile travel costs.

Next, we calculated the additional (or relieving) t ime pilots are in ground school training by taking the product of the number of pilots and flig ht engineers, including an instructor, per additional training cycle, with the additional (or relieving) ground school hours, and their hourly wage. We note that although distance learning is a travel cost savings, we still need to include the cost of the pilot’s and flight engineer’s groun d school training time regardless of whether the pilots and flight engineers are distance learning o r in a ground school classroom.

For the check pilots and flight engineers and instr uctors, we calculated the incremental ground school training costs of this proposed rule in a si milar manner as the pilots and flight engineers. 30 The only exception was that we used instructor wage s and incremental hours instead of pilot and flight engineer wages.

29 The initial, transition, upgrade, conversion, requ alification training cycle occurs only once while t he recurrent training cycle occurs every nine months.43

Lastly, we summed the initial, transition, upgrade, conversion, requalification, and recurrent ground school training costs to arrive at a total c ost, by pilot and flight engineer, check pilot and flight engineer and instructor.

Table 14 shows the results of our calculations of t he estimate of total ground school training costs (or savings) to pilots, flight engineers, che ck pilots and flight engineers and instructors. Again, we provide these estimates to facilitate com ments.

Now we discuss the estimation of the paperwork cost s to industry for updating the pilot and flight engineer manuals and the certificate holder’ s Continuous Analysis Process (CAP) document. We first discuss the wages and benefits for the industry employees involved.

For industry wages and benefits, the following comp utations involving salaries include the hourly wage and, as discussed above, employee benef its estimated at 30.2 percent of hourly wage. The FAA obtained industry hourly wages for T echnical Writer Managers and Technical Writers from PayScale. 31

Table 15 shows the hourly wage, estimated hourly be nefit, and total hourly employee cost the FAA calculated for industry employees responsible f or updating manuals.

30 We note that SIC do not have a check or instructor category.44

The proposed SNPRM changes that deal with manuals f or operations in accordance with part 121 will require revisions to the manual requiremen ts. The manuals must include the instructions and information necessary to allow pil ots, other pilots and flight engineers to perform their required safety related duties and re sponsibilities. The manual, and any changes, must be approved by the Administrator.

The FAA estimates for a certificate holder operatin g under part 121 or 121/135 with two equipment groups, 32 on average, 35 percent of the content of these man uals will require revision. On average, we estimate that this constitutes about 86 pages for each equipment group.

From the FAA National Vital Information Subsystem ( NVIS) database, we determined this proposal would require 80 operators with traditiona l pilot training programs to update the content

of their manuals.

Table 16 shows the time we estimate for industry to update manuals.

We estimate the industry paperwork cost of reviewin g the updated manuals by calculating the product of hourly wage, the average number of equip ment groups per operator, the number of operators, and the number of hours determined for e ach category. Then we summed the costs for each employee category.

31 http://www.payscale.com/45

The total industry paperwork cost of reviewing the updated manuals is $1.47 million. On average, over the 10-year analysis interval, the co sts to update the manuals would be $147,000 annually.

The Continuous Analysis Process (CAP) requires cert ificate holders to document the effectiveness of their training and qualification p rograms, or the need to change, to allow for

continuance. The FAA does not intend for the CAP t o meet the detailed data collection requirements for operators with AQP training progra ms. The cost estimates are the time estimates to prepare and maintain the actual docume nt that outlines the certificate holder’s CAP for FAA approval as part of the approved training p rogram.

We estimate industry costs for documenting the effe ctiveness of operators with traditional training programs for each category as follows:

(a) Pilots (includes training programs for pilots, flight engineers, check pilots and check flight engineers, and instructors): (i) Initial documenting requires eight hours for review by a Technical Writer Manager for 80 passenger and cargo air carriers. (i) Recurrent documenting requires two hours for review by a Technical Writer Manager for 80 passenger and cargo air carriers. (b) Flight Attendants: (i) Initial documenting requires eight hours for review by a Technical Writer Manager for 66 passenger air carriers. (ii) Recurrent documenting requires two hours for review by a Technical Writer Manager for 66 passenger air carriers.

Table 17 summarizes the FAA expected results of the industry paperwork cost of reviewing and updated manuals and the CAP.

32 OAG Fleet Database.46

III.C.2.D. Subpart BB Flight Attendant Cost Estima tion Methodology

This section presents the methodology to estimate t he costs of the incremental flight attendant training hours required by this proposal. Unlike t he proposed requirements for pilots, which would only affect operators with traditional pilot training programs, the proposed requirements for flight attendants would affect all part 121 and 121/135 operators. First, we compare the current flight attendant training hour requirements versus those proposed in the SNPRM. Then, we detail the flight attendant hourly wages and the derivation of hourly employee benefits. Next we discuss our estimation of the additional flight attendant training costs for the proposed rule. Lastly, we show the additional flight attendant, ch eck flight attendant and instructor training cost estimates for the proposed rule.

The FAA sets a minimum required standard for traini ng flight attendants and we believe industry practices exceed our minimum. We base our estimate on the incremental time this proposal adds to the current requirements with the expectation th at actual industry compliance costs would be

lower.47

The FAA notes that although there are no minimal ho ur requirements for emergency training, we

use 24 hours as the national norm. 33

Currently, the Federal Regulations do not specify r equalification training but does provide guidance that industry currently follows. The FAA received information on 39 operator’s requalification programs. We computed a current in dustry weighted average number of hours for Phase 1 and Phase 2 requalification training by taking the product of each operator’s number of flight attendants employed in 2010 times the num ber of hours the operators of training reported. We then summed the Phase 1 and Phase 2 p roducts and divided that sum by the sum of the flight attendants employed by the 39 operators. Our calculations yielded a weighted average of 31 hours for Phase 1 training and 54 hours for P hase 2 as the current industry norm for requalification training.

Table 18 shows the minimum flight attendant trainin g hours currently required by the FAA, the number of training hours that would be required by this proposal, and the incremental difference. The FAA requests comments on these minimum flight a ttendant training hours, accompanied by

clear documentation.

33 FAA Order 8900.1 Flight Standards Information Mana gement Systems (FSIMS), Volume 3. General Technical Administration, Chapter 23 Flight Attendant Trainin g and Qualification Programs, Section 4. Flight Att endant General Emergency Training Curriculum Segment, 3-18 05, Evaluation of Training Hours.48

The FAA uses the hourly wages of a flight attendant , check flight attendant and instructors as a basis to estimate flight attendant costs. In addit ion to hourly wages, an operator also includes benefits for each employee. Benefits include healt h benefits, vacation, life-insurance, sick time, etc. In May 2009, the Employee Benefit Research In stitute, using a Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey of employee benefits estimated the total 200 9 benefit as a percentage of payroll, at 30.2 percent. 34 The FAA uses the 30.2 percent to estimate the val ue of hourly benefits for flight attendant, check flight attendant and instructors a s an additional cost of this proposal.

Table 19 shows the hourly wage, estimated hourly be nefit, and total hourly cost the FAA calculated for flight attendants, check flight atte ndants, instructors and managers.

We now discuss the FAA’s estimation of the proposal ’s additional training costs to flight attendants, check flight attendants, and instructor s.

The additional training costs to flight attendants, check flight attendants, and instructors consists of the proposal’s additional training time, transpo rtation, hotel and per diem costs, and the inclusive flight attendant instructional ground sch ool expense.

The FAA estimated the additional basic qualificatio n training costs by taking the product of the new flight attendants employed, the incremental bas ic qualification training hours this proposal requires, and the total flight attendant hourly rat e. We calculated the requalification and the recurrent costs in a similar manner. The only exce ption was that we used the requalification and

34 http://www.ebri.org/pdf/publications/books/databook /DB.Chapter%2003.pdf

updated May 2009.49

recurrent hours instead of the basic qualification hours and included the recurrent training cycle. 35

For the check flight attendants and instructors, we calculated their incremental basic qualification, requalification and the recurrent co sts in a similar manner as flight attendants. The only exception was that we used check flight attend ant and instructor wages and incremental hours instead of flight attendant wages.

Lastly, we summed the initial, recurrent and requal ification training costs to arrive at a total training cost, by flight attendant, check flight at tendant and instructor.

The FAA expects the additional training requirement s would result in additional travel for training for flight attendants, check flight attend ants, and instructors. Using the assumptions above, we calculated the travel costs by taking the product of the number of flight attendants, check flight attendants and instructors, the transp ortation costs by travel mode, and the additional travel days required. We note that flight attendan ts who use distance learning will not incur

additional travel costs.

Next, we calculated the inclusive flight attendant instructional ground school expense by taking the product of the number of flight attendants, che ck flight attendants and instructors, the incremental basic qualification, requalification, a nd recurrent training hours this proposal requires, and the inclusive flight attendant instru ctional ground school hourly expense of $37.43. We note the inclusive flight attendant instructiona l ground school expense includes the instructor costs and flight attendants who use distance learni ng would not incur this expense.

Table 20 shows the results of our calculation of th e estimate costs of this proposal to flight attendants, check flight attendants, and instructor s:

35 The basic qualification and requalification traini ng cycles occurs only once while the recurrent trai ning cycles are annual.50

III.C.3. Subpart CC Costs

The FAA has analyzed the expected costs of subpart CC proposed requirements from 2016 through 2025. The assessment of the additional hou rs required drives the cost estimate for the aircraft dispatcher, check aircraft dispatcher and instructor training. Subpart CC would impose additional hours of initial, transition, and recurr ent training costs, which would increase the costs to operators of training aircraft dispatchers, chec k aircraft dispatchers, and instructors. The estimated costs equal the product of the number of aircraft dispatchers, the additional training hours proposed, and their wages plus benefits. The incremental costs of training aircraft dispatchers are estimated at about $614.6 thousand in nominal dollars, check aircraft dispatchers about $404.8 thousand, and instructors about $202.7 thousand. The FAA determined that no additional paperwork would occur over current regul ation requirements. Thus the expected costs for subpart CC would be about $1.2 million, $622.6 thousand at a seven percent present value, and $905.6 thousand at a three percent present valu e. These costs would begin to accrue in 2016, five years after the rule is expected to take effec t, and continue to 2025.

Many of the changes in subpart CC are either editor ial or procedural in nature. These types of proposed revisions do not add any new requirements or impose costs. Some changes expand or clarify the intent of the proposed rule through reo rganization, updating terminology, and clarifying procedures. These proposed changes do n ot impose any new requirements or costs.51

III.C.3.A. Aircraft Dispatcher Assumptions

The FAA made the following assumptions to facilitat e estimating the costs for dispatcher training:

• The total number of affected aircraft dispatchers a t the end of December 2009 is 2,285 and will represent the number of employees in 2010. 36

• The average number of equipment groups per part 121 and 121/135 passenger and cargo operators is two. 37

• In December 2009, the FAA surveyed aircraft dispatc her training schools and determined the cost to certificate a flight follower ranges from $ 1,950 to $2,900, with an average of $2,400.

• Five percent of the affected aircraft dispatchers w ould require transition training.

• 100 percent of the check dispatchers and instructor s attend recurrent training every 12

months.

The FAA requests comments on these assumptions, acc ompanied by clear documentation.

III.C.3.B. Number of Aircraft Dispatchers Affected

This section discusses the derivation of our estima te of the number of aircraft dispatchers, check aircraft dispatchers, and instructors employed by p art 121 and 121/135 operators between 2010

and 2025.

The above assumptions, the turnover rate of five pe rcent, the growth rate of 0.3 percent, the 2,285 number of 2010 aircraft dispatchers, check ai rcraft dispatchers, and instructors employed by part 121 and 121/135 operators form the quantita tive basis for estimating the number of affected dispatchers from 2010 to 2025.

36 NVIS. 37 OAG Fleet Database reports an average of 1.65 equi pment groups per operator, which we rounded up to t wo. The OAG Fleet Database defines an equipment group as ma jor groupings of aircraft types. For example, B737 would include all of the B-737 variants.52

The FAA surveyed the supplemental operators and det ermined that 278 flight followers were not included in the NVIS database. From our survey, we determined that 248 of the 278 flight followers are certificated as FAA aircraft dispatch ers. The remaining 30 flight followers (278- 248) do not have FAA certificates and will have to go through initial training the year this proposal goes into effect.

Several steps are needed for a 2010 estimate of the total number of parts 121 and 121/135 dispatchers. First, we added the number of aircraf t dispatchers from the NVIS database to the number of flight followers to obtain a 2010 total o f 2,533 (2,285+248). Since the NVIS database only includes a total number for aircraft dispatche rs, we estimate the 2010 number of check aircraft dispatchers by calculating the product of four percent of 2,533 to obtain 101 check aircraft dispatchers. Next, we calculated the numb er of instructors by taking the product of two percent of 2,533 to obtain 51 instructors. Lastly, we subtract the number of check aircraft dispatchers and instructors for the 2010 NVIS total number of aircraft dispatchers. These calculations resulted in a total 2,381 (2,533-110-5 1) aircraft dispatchers, 101 check aircraft dispatchers, and 51 instructors employed by part 12 1 and 121/135 operators in 2010.

Next, we calculated the turnover and growth rate fo r aircraft dispatchers, check aircraft dispatchers, and instructors by calculating the pro duct of the number of aircraft dispatchers, check aircraft dispatchers and instructs and five p ercent for the turnover rate and 0.3 percent (5.3) for the growth rate, by year, for 2010 throug h 2025.

Table 21 shows the results of these calculations fo r the estimated number of aircraft dispatchers, check aircraft dispatchers and instructors from 201 0 through 2025. The ‘Initial’ column represents the number of aircraft dispatchers, chec k aircraft dispatchers and instructors who would go through initial training. The ‘Transition ’ column represents the number of aircraft dispatchers who would go through transition trainin g. The ‘Check Dispatchers’ and ‘Instructor Dispatchers’ columns represent the number of check aircraft dispatchers and instructors who would go through annual recurrent training. We not e these new training requirements would start when the proposal becomes effective in 2016.53

III.C.3.C. Subpart CC Aircraft Dispatcher Cost Est imation Methodology

This section presents the methodology to estimate t he costs of the incremental training hours required by this proposal. We begin by comparing t he current requirement of the number of training hours to those proposed in the SNPRM. The n, we discuss the aircraft dispatcher’s hourly wages and the employee benefits. Next we di scuss our estimation of the additional aircraft dispatcher training costs for the proposed rule. Lastly, we show our estimate of the additional aircraft dispatcher, check aircraft disp atcher and instructor training costs for the proposed rule.

The FAA sets a minimum requirement for training air craft dispatchers and we believe industry practices exceed our minimum requirement. We base our estimate on the incremental time this proposal adds to the current requirements with the expectation that actual industry compliance

costs would be lower.

Table 22 shows the minimum aircraft dispatcher trai ning hours currently required by the FAA, the number of training hours required by this propo sal, and the difference between the two. The FAA requests comments on these minimum aircraft dis patcher training hours, accompanied by

clear documentation.54

The FAA determined that the incremental training th is proposal adds would occur in-house by qualified FAA-certificated dispatchers, who are act ing as instructors, employed by the operators. Therefore, no travel time for aircraft dispatchers, check aircraft dispatchers and instructors would be necessary for the additional training requiremen ts of this proposal. The FAA will use the hourly wages of aircraft dispatchers, check aircraf t dispatchers and instructors as a basis to estimate the aircraft dispatcher costs. In additio n to hourly wages, we include employee benefits. Benefits include health benefits, vacation, life-in surance, sick time, etc. In May 2009, the Employee Benefit Research Institute, using a Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey of employee benefits estimated the total 2009 benefit as a perc entage of payroll, at 30.2 percent. 38 The FAA will use the 30.2 percent to estimate the value of hourly benefits for aircraft dispatchers, check aircraft dispatchers and instructors as an addition al cost of this proposal.

Table 23 shows the hourly wage, estimated hourly be nefit, and total hourly cost we calculated for aircraft dispatchers, check aircraft dispatcher s, instructors, and the Director of Training.

38 http://www.ebri.org/pdf/publications/books/databook /DB.Chapter%2003.pdf

updated May 2009.55

The FAA estimated the aircraft dispatcher costs by summing the initial training cost to certificate the 30 flight followers with the cost of initial tr aining for the newly hired aircraft dispatchers, th e transition cost, and the recurrent costs of trainin g existing certificated check dispatchers and instructors. First, we took the product of 30 flig ht followers and the average $2,400 certification cost. We then calculated the initial training cost by taking the product of the total increase of new aircraft dispatchers employed, the incremental training hours required, the total hourly aircraft dispatcher rate including the instructor c osts, and the average number of equipment groups per operator. We calculated the aircraft di spatcher transition costs in a similar manner as the initial training costs, with the exception of i ncluding the flight followers’ certification costs and the average number of equipment groups per oper ator.

For the check aircraft dispatchers and instructors, we calculated their incremental costs of this proposed rule in a similar manner as aircraft dispa tchers except we used check aircraft dispatcher and instructor wages and incremental hours instead of aircraft dispatchers and the Director of Training conducted the instructor classes. Also, w e calculated the recurrent costs by taking the product of the number of check aircraft dispatchers and instructors, the incremental hours, their total hourly rate including the instructor costs, a nd the average number of equipment groups per operator. Lastly, we summed the initial, recurrent and transition training costs to arrive at a total training cost, by aircraft dispatcher, check aircra ft dispatcher and instructor.

Table 24 shows the results of our calculation of th e estimate costs of this proposal to flight followers, aircraft dispatchers, check aircraft dis patchers and instructors.56

III.D. Government Costs

We present the estimation of the government costs f or this proposed rule. We start with an estimate of the wages and benefits for the FAA empl oyees involved. Next we discuss the estimated costs to the FAA for reviewing the update d crewmember manuals. Then we estimate the FAA costs to review and approve the crewmember training programs revisions. Lastly, we discuss our estimates of the FAA continuous analysi s process costs and then summarize the total estimated government costs.

The following computations involving salaries inclu de the hourly wage and, as discussed above, employee benefits, which are estimated 30.2 percent of hourly wage.

Table 25 shows the hourly wage, estimated hourly be nefits, and total hourly employee costs we calculated for managers, aviation safety inspectors and clerks.57

We now discuss the estimated costs to the FAA for r eviewing the updated crewmember manuals.

The proposed SNPRM changes that deal with manuals f or operations in accordance with part 121 and 121/135 would require revisions to the manu al requirements. The manuals must include the instructions and information necessary to allow the pilots, other pilots and flight engineers to perform their required safety related duties and re sponsibilities. The manual, and any changes, must be approved by the FAA Administrator.

The FAA estimates that, for a certificate holder op erating under part 121 and 121/135 with two equipment groups, on average 35 percent of the cont ent of these manuals will require revision. 39 On average, we estimate that this constitutes about 86 pages for each aircraft type. Review of the proposed changes will be required by the FAA an d will require an Aviation Safety Inspector (Cabin Safety) and an Aviation Safety Inspector (Op erations). The final review and acceptance of these manual revisions will be made by the FAA p rincipal operations inspector and will require one day for review.

From the FAA National Vital Information Subsystem ( NVIS) database, we determined that this proposal would require 80 operators with traditiona l pilot training programs to update the content

of their manuals.

We determined the time required for each FAA employ ee to review the updated manuals. Table

26 shows these times.

39 OAG Fleet Database58

We estimate the government cost of reviewing the up dated manuals by calculating the product of hourly wage, the average number of equipment groups per operator, the number of operators, and the number of hours determined for each FAA emp loyee category. Then we summed the costs for each employee category.

Table 27 shows these results.

We now estimate the FAA costs to review and approve the proposal’s training program

revisions.

This proposal would revise the training program req uirements for pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants, and persons authorized to administer pi lot, flight engineer, and flight attendant proficiency tests.

The overall commitment of time to review and approv e the appropriate training program or program revision impact the FAA through principal o perations inspectors, aircrew program designees, operations inspectors, cabin safety insp ectors, and FAA clerks or secretaries. The documents and information reviewed and approved or rejected are addressed here.

We estimate FAA costs for revising crewmember train ing programs for each category as

follows:

(a) Pilots (includes training programs for PIC, SIC , check and instructor pilots):59

(i) Existing module review requires one hour for review by an Aviation Safety InspectorOperations, 15 modules for each equipment group, fo r 80 passenger and cargo air

carriers. (ii) New module development requires five hours to revie w by an Aviation Safety Inspector-Operations, three new modules per aircraf t type for two equipment groups, for 80 passenger and cargo air carriers. (iii) Review by Principle Operating Inspector (POI) of co mplete Pilot training program. (b) Flight Engineers (includes training programs fo r flight engineers, check and instructor flight engineers): (i) Existing module review requires one hour for review of each existing module by an Aviation Safety Inspector-Operations, three modules for each equipment group, for 25

air carriers. 40 (ii) New module development requires five hours, by an o perations inspector, for each new module, two new modules for each equipment group, f or 25 air carriers. (iii) Review by POI of complete flight engineer training program. (c) Flight Attendants: (i) For review of the modified existing training mo dules.

A. Requires one hour for review by an Aviation Safety Inspector-Cabin Safety for 15 modules, two equipment groups, and 66 passenger air carriers. 41

B. Requires eight hours for review by an Aviation Safe ty Inspector-Cabin Safety for three emergency training modules, and 66 passenger air carriers.

C. Requires four hours for review by an Aviation Safet y Inspector-Cabin Safety for three basic indoctrination modules, and 66 passenge r air carriers. (ii) For review of the new training modules.

A. Requires eight hours for review by an Aviation Safe ty Inspector-Cabin Safety for two modules per two equipment groups, and 66 passen ger air carriers.

B. Requires eight hours for review by an Aviation Safe ty Inspector-Cabin Safety for five new emergency training modules, and 66 passeng er air carriers.

40 FAA National Vital Information Subsystem (NVIS) da tabase 41 Ibid.60

C. Requires eight hours for review by an Aviation Safe ty Inspector-Cabin Safety for one new basic indoctrination module, and 66 passeng er air carriers. (iii) Requires two hour review by a principal operations inspector of complete flight attendant training program for 66 passenger air car riers. (d) Cover, approval letter: Requires 1.5 hour revie w by a clerk or secretary for 66 passenger

air carriers.

Table 28 shows these results:

We now discuss our estimates of the continuous anal ysis process (CAP) costs to the FAA and then summarize the total estimated government costs

.

Air carriers would be required to document the effe ctiveness of their training and qualification programs, or the need to change, to allow for conti nuance. The cost of the CAP is divided into three parts: pilots, flight engineers, and flight a ttendants. To estimate the CAP costs we

calculated an initial and recurrent cost to the FAA . The initial cost was estimated by taking the product of a two hour review by an aviation safety inspector for each crewmember category. The recurrent costs were estimated by taking the pr oduct of a one hour review by an aviation safety inspector for each crewmember category.61

Table 29 shows these results.

We then summed the estimated costs to the FAA for r eviewing the updated crewmember manuals, reviewing and approving the crewmember tra ining program revisions, and the continuous analysis process.

Table 30 shows these results

On average, over the 10-year analysis interval, the government costs would be about $257,900 nominal dollars every year.

III.E. Industry Cost Estimate

Despite working closely with industry, there still remains a wide variance in the cost estimates between the FAA and industry. We tried to reduce o ur differences by drafting a technical report that outlined the tasks that we believe industry wo uld need to accomplish for the NPRM. In this report we selected a single airplane type for each of the six operators with AQP pilot training programs and the one operator with a traditional pi lot training program. We then presented this62

report to industry in December 2009 and met to disc uss the understanding of the NPRM requirements based on our technical report. 42

Discussions with industry after the December 2009 m eeting, led us to determine the following costs that industry believes the proposal would add that differ from the FAA’s intentions:

• New definition of check pilot/check captain,

• Definition of “complete flightcrew”,

o New definition for the qualification of seat substi tutes whenever training requirements dictate that crews are not perfectly m atched,

o The correct assignment of crews because of labor ag reement requirements that flying be awarded based on seniority,

o Crew pairing,

o Both seats in the simulator are not able to be fill ed,

• Increased line check task requirements,

• Additional reports and approvals,

• Operators with AQP pilot training programs would in cur substantial costs,

• Modifications to training assignment software,

• Modification to Instructor and device scheduling so ftware,

• Logic changes in crew scheduling software,

• Logic changes in schedule audit software, and

• Operators with traditional pilot training programs believe ground school costs are

minimal.

The FAA believes that once the SNPRM has been relea sed that some of these differences may be resolved. In the meantime, we provide the industry ’s cost estimates they believe this proposal will add to traditional pilot, flight engineer, fli ght attendant and aircraft dispatcher training programs. Although the FAA expects that this propo sal would have a minimal impact on operators with an AQP pilot training program, we al so include an AQP-increased cost estimate based on industry provided costs. Much of the AQP pilot training operator cost estimates from

42 “Comparison of Current Training and Qualification Requirements in Part 121, Subparts N, O, and Y, and Proposed Training and Qualification Requirements in Subpart BB”, October 31,2009.63

industry are based on the absolute requirement for only a PIC and SIC to train together in a simulator. As stated in the preamble, the FAA is r equiring a complete flight crew for training and evaluation, but allows for substitution of flig htcrew members in certain circumstances.

Based on the NPRM comments and following the Decemb er 2009 Industry meeting, we obtained operator estimates of compliance costs which differ significantly from the FAA’s estimates. In order to maintain confidentiality of the operators who provided costs estimates, we first calculated an average initial and recurrent cost by taking the quotient of each responder operator’s aircraft dispatcher, flight attendant, a nd pilot costs with their number of aircraft dispatchers, flight attendants, and traditionally t rained pilots employed in 2010. We then averaged each of these costs by operator to determi ne an average cost per individual aircraft dispatcher, flight attendant, and traditionally tra ined pilots. Next, we took the product of the average cost per individual aircraft dispatcher, fl ight attendant and traditionally trained pilot with the total number employed by part 121 and 121/135 o perators. With only minimal AQP costs, the operators estimated the SNPRM would impose $2.3 billion total nominal costs and $1.3 billion costs at a seven percent present value.

Table 31 shows these results.

Although it is the FAA’s intention that this propos al would not have more than a minimal effect on operators with AQP pilot training programs, usin g industry estimates, we estimated substantial costs to operators with AQP pilot train ing programs. Operators with AQP pilot training programs estimate they would incur an addi tional $6.0 billion in compliance costs, $3.2 billion at a seven percent present value, and $4.6 billion at a three percent present value from this64

proposal. These cost estimates are higher than we received from the NPRM because industry expects that this proposal’s requirements are more onerous for relief pilot consolidation (crew pairing) and an expected FAA approval process for t he continuous analysis process. The FAA requests specific comments from industry on how to minimize any impact on operators with an AQP pilot training program while meeting the intent of this rulemaking.

For such wide differences in costs, there must be w ide differences in the interpretation of compliance. One of the most significant difference s is crew pairing. Industry estimates appear to assume the worst case that only a PIC and SIC ca n train together in a simulator. We expect after industry has read the SNPRM preamble and rule language, such differences would be

minimized.

IV. POISSON DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS MODELING ACCIDENT

PROBABILITY

Without preventative action accidents attributed to the lack of flight crew training could occur in

the future. The FAA uses the Poisson distribution to model the accident probability of the lack of flight crew training since that distribution has been shown to be appropriate for rare event discrete outcomes. The Poisson is a one-parameter distribution whose parameter, λ , is equal to the expected number of accidents.

We estimate λ for the lack of flight crew training accidents by multiplying the total number of 178 pilot, flight attendant, and aircraft dispatche r accidents by the effectiveness criterion value’s percentage 43 and dividing the product by 22, which is the numbe r of years in the historical analysis interval from 1988 through 2009. The resu lts of our calculations yield 2.31 for λ, the average number of expected accidents per year.

Next, we multiply 2.31

, the average number of expected preventable accident s per year, by the number of years in analysis period, which extends f or 10 years from 2016 through 2025, to

43 Calculated by summing the ASAIS/AIA effectiveness values (267) for each of the 178 accidents and then dividing by the total possible effectiveness value (178*5).65

obtain 23.1 total preventable accidents. We then d ivide 23.1 by the nominal base case benefits of $445 million. This results in an average benefi t value of $19.3 million per accident.

Based on the Poisson distributions tables with λ = 2.3, there is a 67 percent probability that the proposed rule would prevent two or more accidents f or each year of the analysis interval.

The shaded area’s of Table 32 shows the results of this analysis. The P(x or more) column represents the cumulative probabilities of x or mor e accidents, per year, when x = 0,1, ... ,10.

The Poisson distribution results support the FAA’s concern regarding the need for this proposed

rule.

V. BENEFIT COST SUMMARY

The benefits of this proposal would increase safety and contribute significantly to reducing the frequency of future aviation accidents. Phased-in p otential quantified benefits would accrue from the additional training initiatives and are estimat ed to be about $445.06 million over the next 10- year analysis interval, $222.86 million at a seven percent present value, and $327.48 million at a three percent present value.66

Table 33 shows the proposals benefit breakdown by p ilot, flight attendant, and aircraft dispatcher.

The proposed rule would also generate qualitative b enefits for pilots and flight engineers, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers. Qualitative benefits include enhanced aviation safety with the increased training and evaluation requirements, reduced air pollution and fuel costs. Qualitative benefits also include addressing the op en NTSB safety recommendations related to crewmember training. The changes proposed in this SNPRM address the following NTSB recommendations:

• Crewmember Resource Management (CRM) training (Reco mmendations A-88-71 and A-94-96);

• Flight attendant training (Recommendations A-92-67, A-92-70, A-92-71, A-92-74, and A-92-77);

• TCAS RA training (Recommendation A-93-46);

• Use of simulators to conduct LOFT (Recommendations A-94-191 through 194);

• Training of flightcrews to respond to sudden, unusu al or unexpected aircraft upsets (Recommendation A-96-120);

• Training of crewmembers to respond to in-flight fir es (Recommendations A-01-83 through A-01-85);

• Aircraft pressurization on the ground while the gro und-based air conditioning is supplying conditioned (cooled or heated) air to the cabin (Recommendation A-07-96);

• Monitoring of exit availability on the ground after a significant event to help expedite and emergency evacuation (Recommendation A-09-26);

• Communication and coordination between Flight Crewm embers and Flight Attendants regarding emergency and unusual situations (Recomme ndation A-09-27);

• Pilot monitoring duties (Recommendation A-10-10);

• Requirements for flightcrew member academic trainin g regarding leadership (Recommendations A-10-13, A-10-14, and A-10-15);67

• Pilot recordkeeping requirements regarding training performance (Recommendations A10-17 and A-10-18);

• Develop and implement procedures to establish airsp eed reference (Recommendation A10-21); and

• Develop and conduct stall recovery training and pro vide stick pusher familiarization training for pilots of stick-pusher equipped aircra ft (Recommendations A-10-22 and A10-23). 44

Lastly the Poisson distribution analysis shows ther e is a 67 percent probability that the proposal would prevent two or more accidents for each year o f the analysis interval. This high probability of airplane accidents is unacceptable for the FAA’s mission of safety.

From 2010 to 2025, the FAA estimates the total cost of the proposed rule would be approximately $391.9 million in nominal dollars, $1 99.1 million at a seven percent present value, and $290.3 million at a three percent presen t value. The total costs include increased training for pilots, flight engineers, flight atten dants and aircraft dispatchers along with additional costs of more simulators, paperwork for updating manuals, and government costs for review and approval of the modified training progra ms and manuals.

Table 34 summarizes these results.

44 The NTSB Safety Recommendation Letters are availab le online at http://www.ntsb.gov/Recs/letters/lette rs.htm.68

Table 35 shows the proposal’s cost breakdown by pil ot and flight engineer training, flight attendant training, aircraft dispatcher training, g overnment and paperwork.

Table 36 shows benefits, costs, and net benefits br oken down by pilots, flight attendants, and dispatchers.

The SNPRM quantitative benefit estimate of $445.1 m illion exceeds the quantitative cost estimate of $391.9 million for pilots, flight atten dants and aircraft dispatchers. In addition, the proposed rule also has qualitative benefits. The q ualitative benefits include our response to the FAA “Call to Action” and to the 28 NTSB safety reco mmendations.

Thus, the FAA concludes that the benefits of the pr oposed rule justify the costs.69

VI. APPENDICES70 Appendix 1 – Pilot-Related Accidents717273 Appendix 2 – Flight Attendant-Related Accidents74 Appendix 3 – Aircraft Dispatcher-Related Accidents75 Appendix 476 Appendix 5

Table 5-1(a) was developed by APO to update the 200 3$ values from Table 5-1. The U.S. fleet and aircraft values we used were current as of July 2008.

Replacement values for air carriers were derived fr om proprietary databases developed by the Airliner Price Guide 45 and OAG Aviation Solutions 46 . The Airliner Price Guide provided the base and market values for each airplane model by y ear of manufacture. The OAG Aviation Solutions Fleet database provided the number of act ive airplanes.

The industry database covering each aircraft and ai rcraft type in the U.S. fleet was developed by creating a custom query from the OAG Aviation Solut ions Fleet database. The average value was developed using an estimated value for each air craft delivered in a given year, and then aggregating these values into the economic values a ircraft categories.

The updated summary of values for passenger and all cargo air carrier aircraft are shown in Table 5-1(a). Detailed data by equipment type are contained on the APO website. The first column for each operator group reports the number o f aircraft in the OAG Aviation Fleet database that were used in developing weighted aver ages. 47 The second column shows the airplane group. The third column shows the year th e airplane was manufactured. The fourth column shows the current (2008) market value values . The fifth column shows the base values, which assumes an orderly market for aircraft transa ctions. The sixth column shows the number of active aircraft as of July 31, 2008. The averag e base value of a passenger aircraft is about $18.1 million. The market value is about $1.5 mill ion less. The range in values among the equipment groups is quite large reflecting the diff erent average size and average age of aircraft in each group. Similar results hold for all cargo air craft.

45 Airliner Price Guide, 568 Waterloo Road, Suite 102 , Warrenton, VA 20186. 46 OAG Aviation Solution, 3025 Highland Pkwy, Suite 2 00, Downers Grove, Il 60515. 47 This differs from the Form 41 fleet sizes because they consider all aircraft in the U.S. fleet, inclu ding aircraft out of service, aircraft in non-commercial service and other circumstances.77 Appendix 6 Part 121/135 Pilot, Flight Engineer, Flight Attenda nt and Aircraft Dispatcher Employment 201078 Appendix 7 Break out of Simulator Costs by PIC, SIC and Flight Engineer79 Appendix 8 Alternate Benefit Analysis

The FAA believes the methodology employed in the re gulatory evaluation (RIA) provides a

reasonable accurate estimate of benefits associated with the proposed requirements of the

SNPRM. This belief is based on the fact that we on ly included accidents where the pilots received N&O training and we subjected all accident s to a CAST effectiveness process.

In Appendix 8, we discuss an alternate methodology that would result in a more conservative

estimation of benefits because the N&O SNPRM RIA be nefit analysis may be biased upwards by:

• including accidents that occurred with pilots train ed under N&O who subsequently converted to an AQP pilot training program,

• not accounting for when an operator trains their pi lots under N&O is purchased, does the pilot’s training process remain uniform, and

• not including the exit of many of the former N&O op erators from the marketplace.

When we tried to model out the potential upwards bi as, we ran into a series of insurmountable problems. Ultimately, these problems prevented us from fully modeling more than one alternate approach.

The calculation problems included:

• AQP training occurs by equipment type. Therefore o perators train pilots over a widelyvarying prolonged period of time.

• When an operator with an N&O pilot training program is purchased by an operator with an AQP pilot training program, the new operator may ph ase out airplanes and the new crews can be assigned to fly other airplanes that require N&O training, or the new operator may phase the pilots into an AQP training program under timef rame not knowable to FAA.

• As N&O operators exit the market place, we have no way of determining where their pilots went to work next; that is for an operator with an N&O, or AQP pilot training program.80

FAA believes that the RIA benefit analysis reasonab ly estimates the benefits associated with this proposal, however, we seek comments on this analysi s and the alternative benefits analysis

below.

The data for the historical review period that are necessary for an analysis based on the number of operations are problematic because of the way ai rlines transitioned from N&O to AQP. Therefore, this proposed analytical method is inten ded to serve as a proxy for this data.

The alternate benefit analysis APO prepared include s the following steps and results:

• Step 1. Indentify and calculate the percentage of the accidents used in the RIA that occurred while the pilot was training under N&O then the ope rator later switched to an AQP training program. The FAA believes this proposal addresses 149 N&O trained pilot-related accidents. Of these 149 accidents, we identified 37 accidents that occurred on airplanes operated by pilots who were trained under N&O, whose airlines l ater converted to an AQP program. The remaining 112 accidents occurred on airplanes opera ted by pilots who were trained under

N&O and whose airlines continue to train under N&O. We did not include accidents involving pilots who trained under an AQP program a t the time of the accident. The following table shows these results:

• Step 2. The FAA Accident Investigation and Prevent ion Group (AVP) rated each of the 149 accidents by conducting a Commercial Aviation Safet y Team (CAST) scoring process. This step provided an accident mitigation ratio for each of the 149 accidents.

• Step 3. For the 112 accidents that occurred on air planes operated by pilots who trained under N&O and whose airlines continue to train under N&O, we then estimated the benefits using81

the AVP-provided accident mitigation ratio along wi th the critical values for each accident’s number of fatalities, injuries, and accident invest igation costs.

• Step 4. Next, for the 37 accidents that occurred o n airplanes operated by pilots who trained

under N&O and whose airlines later switched to an A QP program we estimated the benefits using the AVP score along with the critical values for each accident’s number of fatalities, injuries, and accident investigation costs.

• Step 5. We then calculated the percentage of the 2 010 operations that were operated by pilots trained under N&O and AQP programs. The fol lowing table shows these results:

• Step 6. Next, we multiplied the results of Step 4 by the percentage of operations in 2010 by pilots trained under N&O (57.6%) versus total opera tions by part 121 operators. We believe this step under estimates the expected benefits.

• Step 7. We then summed the results from Step 3 and Step 6 to obtain the total benefits over the 22-year historical analysis interval.

• Step 8. Next, we divided the results of Step 7 by the 22-year historical analysis interval to obtain an annual average historical benefit for the 149 accidents.

• Step 9. We then assumed the equally likely prevent able accident average from Step 8 could happen in any year over the future 10-year analysis interval.

• Step 10. Lastly, we calculated the 3 and 7 percent present value for the equally likely preventable accident average from Step 9 over the f uture 10-year analysis interval.

The following table shows these results:82

Using this benefit modeling method, the SNPRM has a benefit to cost ratio of about 1.02:1.

We request comment on these assumptions and the met hodology from the following alternative benefit analysis.