Vol. 78 Monday, 

No. 135 July 15, 2013 

Part III 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 61, 121, 135, et al. 

Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations; 

Final Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42324 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 61, 121, 135, 141, and 142 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0100; Amdt. Nos. 

61–130; 121–365; 135–127; 141–1; 142–9] 

RIN 2120–AJ67 

Pilot Certification and Qualification 

Requirements for Air Carrier 

Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action creates new 

certification and qualification 

requirements for pilots in air carrier 

operations. As a result of this action, a 

second in command (first officer) in 

domestic, flag, and supplemental 

operations must now hold an airline 

transport pilot certificate and an 

airplane type rating for the aircraft to be 

flown. An airline transport pilot 

certificate requires that a pilot be 23 

years of age and have 1,500 hours total 

time as a pilot. Pilots with fewer than 

1,500 flight hours may qualify for a 

restricted privileges airline transport 

pilot certificate beginning at 21 years of 

age if they are a military-trained pilot, 

have a bachelor’s degree with an 

aviation major, or have an associate’s 

degree with an aviation major. The 

restricted privileges airline transport 

pilot certificate will also be available to 

pilots with 1,500 flight hours who are at 

least 21 years of age. This restricted 

privileges airline transport pilot 

certificate allows a pilot to serve as 

second in command in domestic, flag, 

and supplemental operations not 

requiring more than two pilot flightcrew 

members. This rule also retains the 

second-class medical certification 

requirement for a second in command 

in part 121 operations. Pilots serving as 

an air carrier pilot in command 

(captain) must have, in addition to an 

airline transport pilot certificate, at least 

1,000 flight hours in air carrier 

operations. This rule also adds to the 

eligibility requirements for an airline 

transport pilot certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating or an airline transport pilot 

certificate obtained concurrently with a 

type rating. To receive an airline 

transport pilot certificate with a 

multiengine class rating a pilot must 

have 50 hours of multiengine flight 

experience and must have completed a 

new FAA-approved Airline Transport 

Pilot Certification Training Program. 

This new training program will include 

academic coursework and training in a 

flight simulation training device. These 

requirements will ensure that a pilot has 

the proper qualifications, training, and 

experience before entering an air carrier 

environment as a pilot flightcrew 

member. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 15, 2013. 

This final rule will be effective 

immediately upon publication in the 

Federal Register. Section 553(d)(3) of 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

provides that publication of a rule shall 

be made not less than 30 days before its 

effective date, except ‘‘for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Consistent with section 

553(d)(3), and for reasons discussed in 

Section III.H.6, the FAA finds good 

cause exists to publish this final rule 

with an immediate effective date. 

Compliance Date: Unless otherwise 

noted in the regulatory text, compliance 

with the provisions of this rule is 

required by August 1, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this final 

rule contact Barbara Adams, Air 

Transportation Division, AFS–200, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8166; facsimile (202) 267–5299, 

email barbara.adams@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

final rule contact Anne Moore, Office of 

the Chief Counsel—International Law, 

Legislation, and Regulations Division, 

AGC–240, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone (202) 267–3123; facsimile 

(202) 267–7971, email 

anne.moore@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The Airline Safety and Federal 

Aviation Administration Extension Act 

of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–216) directed the 

FAA to conduct a rulemaking to 

improve the qualifications and training 

for pilots serving in air carrier 

operations. Specifically, section 216 of 

the Act focused on the qualifications of 

air carrier pilots and directed the FAA 

to issue a rule that would require all 

pilots serving in part 121 air carrier 

operations to hold an ATP certificate by 

August 2, 2013. Section 217 of the Act 

directed the FAA to amend 14 CFR part 

61 to modify ATP certification 

requirements to prepare a pilot to 

function effectively in a multipilot 

(multicrew) environment, in adverse 

weather conditions, during high altitude 

operations, and in an air carrier 

environment, as well as to adhere to the 

highest professional standards. Section 

217 also directed the FAA to ensure 

pilots have sufficient flight hours in 

difficult operational conditions that may 

be encountered in air carrier operations 

and stated that the minimum total flight 

hours to be qualified for an ATP 

certificate shall be at least 1,500 flight 

hours. Notwithstanding the stated 

minimum, the section gave the FAA 

discretion to allow specific academic 

training courses to be credited toward 

the 1,500 total flight hours, provided the 

academic training courses will enhance 

safety more than requiring the pilot to 

comply fully with the flight hour 

requirement. 

In addition to the authority provided 

in the Act, the FAA has authority under 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 to issue rules on 

aviation safety. This rulemaking is 

consistent with the authority described 

in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, 

Section 447—Safety Regulation. Under 

§ 44703, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations for the issuance 

of airman certificates when the 

Administrator finds, after investigation, 

that an individual is qualified for, and 

physically able to perform the duties 

related to, the position authorized by 

the certificate. This rulemaking is 

intended to ensure that flightcrew 

members have training and 

qualifications that will enable them to 

operate aircraft safely. For these reasons, 

the regulation is within the scope of our 

authority and is a reasonable and 

necessary exercise of our statutory 

obligations. 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Frequently Used In This Document 

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

ATP Airline Transport Pilot 

ATP CTP Airline Transport Pilot 

Certification Training Program 

FFS Full Flight Simulator 

FOQ ARC First Officer Qualifications 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device 

FTD Flight Training Device 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

PIC Pilot in Command (Captain) 

R–ATP Restricted Privileges Airline 

Transport Pilot 

SIC Second in Command (First Officer) 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

B. FAA Accident Analysis and National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

Recommendations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42325 

1These operations currently require the pilot in 

command to hold an ATP certificate. 

C. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Extension Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–216) 

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

E. Differences Between the NPRM and the 

Final Rule 

F. Related Actions 

III. General Discussion of Public Comments 

and the Final Rule 

A. ATP Certificate for All Pilots Operating 

Under Part 121 (§ 121.436) 

B. Medical Certificate (§ 61.23) 

C. Aeronautical Experience Requirement in 

the Class of Airplane for the ATP 

Certificate Sought (§ 61.159) 

D. ATP Certification Training Program for 

an Airplane Category Multiengine Class 

Rating or ATP Certificate Obtained 

Concurrently with an Airplane Type 

Rating (§ 61.156) 

1. Required Training for an ATP Certificate 

2. Training Providers 

3. Instructor Requirements 

a. Operational Experience 

b. Instructor Training 

c. Type Rating 

d. Subject Matter Experts 

4. Training Topics and Hours 

a. Academic Topics and Hours 

b. FSTD Topics 

c. Level of FSTD and Hours 

5. FAA Knowledge Test for an ATP 

Certificate 

6. Credit Toward Air Carrier Training 

Programs 

7. Additional Course Requirements 

E. ATP Certificate with Restricted 

Privileges (§ 61.160) 

1. Public Law and NPRM 

2. General Support for and Opposition to 

an ATP Certificate with Reduced Hours 

3. FOQ ARC Recommendation 

4. Military Pilots 

5. Graduates with a Bachelor’s Degree in an 

Aviation Major 

a. Flight Hour Requirement 

b. Institutional Accreditation and 

‘‘Aviation Degree Programs’’ 

c. Cross Country Time for the R–ATP 

Certificate 

d. The role of the institution of higher 

education in certifying its students 

6. Recommendations for Expanding 

Eligibility for the R–ATP Certificate 

a. Graduates with an Associate’s degree in 

an Aviation Major 

b. Transfer students 

c. Pilots with 1,500 hours who are not yet 

23 years old 

d. Other Degree Programs 

e. Other Approved Training and 

Specialized Courses 

f. Certified Flight Instructors 

7. Summary of FAA Decision 

F. Aircraft Type Rating for All Pilots 

Operating Under Part 121 (§ 121.436) 

1. Aircraft Type Rating Requirement for 

Part 121 SICs 

2. Compliance Time 

3. Aircraft Type Rating Requirement for 

SICs Outside of Part 121 

G. Minimum of 1,000 Hours in Air Carrier 

Operations to Serve as PIC in Part 121 

Operations (§ 121.436) 

1. Air Carrier Experience Requirement 

2. Part 135 and Part 91, Subpart K Time 

3. Military Time 

4. Other Time 

H. Miscellaneous Issues 

1. Pilot Supply 

a. Part 121 Pilot Supply 

b. Part 135, 141, and 142 Pilot Supply 

c. FAA Response 

2. Benefits and Cost 

3. Alternative Licensing Structure 

4. Accident Effectiveness Ratings 

5. Considerations for Offering the ATP CTP 

6. Administrative Law Issues 

7. Miscellaneous Amendments 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

This rulemaking modifies 

requirements for pilots who fly in part 

121 air carrier operations. It changes 

requirements for all pilots seeking an 

airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate 

with an airplane category multiengine 

class rating or an ATP certificate 

obtained concurrently with an airplane 

type rating. These new requirements 

will ensure that all pilots entering air 

carrier operations have a background of 

training and experience that will allow 

them to adapt to a complex, multicrew 

environment in a variety of operating 

conditions. 

Those most affected by these changes 

will be pilots applying for an ATP 

certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating or an ATP 

certificate concurrently with an airplane 

type rating. The changed requirements 

will also affect anyone wanting to serve 

as pilot in command (PIC) in part 121 

air carrier operations and anyone 

wanting to serve as PIC in part 91 

subpart K operations or part 135 

operations as defined by 

§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or § 135.243(a)(1).1

Those wanting to serve as second in 

command (SIC) in part 121 air carrier 

operations will also be affected by this 

final rule. Certificate holders approved 

under parts 121, 135, 141, or 142 will 

be affected if they choose to offer the 

ATP Certification Training Program 

(ATP CTP). 

A general summary of the previous 

pilot certification requirements versus 

the pilot certification requirements as 

defined by this final rule is included in 

the following table. 

TABLE 1—HOW PREVIOUS REQUIREMENTS ARE CHANGED BY THIS FINAL RULE

Previous requirements Requirements in final rule 

Scenario: (1) Receive an ATP certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating 

(1) Be at least 23 years old; (1) Meet all of the previous requirements; 

(2) Hold a commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating; (2) Prior to taking the ATP knowledge test successfully complete an 

ATP CTP;2 and 

(3) Pass the ATP knowledge test and practical test; and (3) have a minimum of 50 hours in class of airplane. 

(4) Have at least 1,500 hours total time as a pilot. 

(Ref. §§ 61.153, 61.156 and 61.159) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42326 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2This requirement takes effect after July 31, 2014. 

3 In this scenario a pilot must hold an ATP 

certificate issued per the requirements of § 61.159. 

An ATP certificate issued per the reduced flight 

hours in § 61.160 is not sufficient. 4 In addition, military PIC time (up to 500 hours) 

in a multiengine turbine-powered, fixed-wing 

airplane in an operation requiring more than one 

pilot may also be credited towards the 1,000 hours. 

TABLE 1—HOW PREVIOUS REQUIREMENTS ARE CHANGED BY THIS FINAL RULE—Continued 

Previous requirements Requirements in final rule 

Scenario: (2) Receive an ATP certificate with restricted privileges (restricted to serving as SIC in part 121 operations—multiengine 

class rating only) 

None. (1) Be at least 21 years old; 

(2) Hold a commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating; 

(3) Prior to taking the ATP knowledge test successfully complete an 

ATP CTP; 

(4) Pass the ATP knowledge test and practical test; and 

(5) Meet the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.160. A pilot 

may be eligible if he or she was a military-trained pilot; a graduate of 

a four-year bachelor degree program with an aviation major; a graduate of a two-year associate degree program with an aviation major; 

or has 1,500 hours total time as a pilot. 

(Ref. §§ 61.153 and 61.160) 

Scenario: (3) Serve as an SIC (first officer) in part 121 operations 

Hold: Hold: 

(1) An ATP certificate with appropriate aircraft type rating OR—An ATP 

certificate with restricted privileges and an appropriate aircraft type 

rating; and 

(1) At least a commercial pilot certificate with an appropriate category 

and class rating; 

(2) An instrument rating; and (2) At least a second-class medical certificate. 

(3) At least a second-class medical certificate. 

(Ref. §§ 121.436 and 61.23) 

Scenario: (4) Serve as SIC in a flag or supplemental operation requiring three or more pilots 

Hold: Hold: 

(1) An ATP certificate with appropriate aircraft type rating; and (1) An ATP certificate 3 with appropriate aircraft type rating; and 

(2) A first class medical certificate. (2) A first class medical certificate. 

(Ref. §§ 121.436 and 61.23) 

Scenario: (5) Serve as PIC in part 121 operations 

(1) Have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot; (1) Meet all of the previous requirements; and 

(2) Hold an ATP certificate with appropriate aircraft type rating; and 

(3) Hold a first class medical certificate. 

(2) Have a minimum of 1,000 flight hours in air carrier operations as an 

SIC in part 121 operations, a PIC in operations under either 

§ 135.243(a)(1) or § 91.1053(a)(2)(i), or any combination of these.4

(Ref. § 121.436) 

The costs and benefits of this rule are 

best described as three major elements— 

statutory costs, discretionary cost 

savings, and additional rule provisions, 

which sum to the total costs and 

benefits. While the FAA already 

requires an ATP certificate with 1,500 

hours total time as a pilot minimum for 

part 121 PICs, the statute requirement 

that SICs in part 121 operations have an 

ATP certificate is new and will take 

effect whether or not the FAA issues a 

regulation. Thus, the costs associated 

with the requirement for SICs to have an 

ATP certificate are attributable to the 

statute, not to this regulation. The FAA 

exercised its discretion permitted under 

the statute and reduced the mandated 

ATP certificate cost by establishing 

offsetting academic credits. To ensure 

the intent of increasing safety, the FAA 

established additional training 

provisions in the final rule which are 

justified by expected accident 

prevention benefits. Table 2 reflects the 

costs of the ATP certificate requirement 

for part 121 SICs as well as the 

discretionary cost savings. In addition, 

the table shows the expected costs and 

benefits of the remaining two primary 

cost drivers of the rule: the aircraft type 

rating and the ATP CTP. 

TABLE 2—STATUTORY COSTS AND BENEFITS/ FINAL RULE COST SAVINGS, COSTS, AND BENEFITS

Statute costs Total cost 

($ mil.) 

PVcost 

($ mil.) 

Part 121 ATP Certificate Requirement ............................................................................................................ $ 6,374.4 $ 2,213.0 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42327 

5Present value 7 percent discount rate over 10 

years. 

6Part 121 total safety benefits of $292.5 million 

are greater than part 121 total costs of $280.4 

million. Part 135 total safety benefits of $284.3 

million are greater than part 135 total costs of $22.4 

million. The FAA does not have a quantitative 

estimate of benefits for part 91, subpart K. The part 

91, subpart K operational rules, to include requiring 

the PIC of a multiengine airplane to hold an ATP 

certificate, were modeled after the part 135 ondemand operational rules therefore we believe there 

is a safety benefit due to the similarity of 

operations. 

TABLE 2—STATUTORY COSTS AND BENEFITS/ FINAL RULE COST SAVINGS, COSTS, AND BENEFITS—Continued 

Statute costs Total cost 

($ mil.) 

PVcost 

($ mil.) 

Statute benefits Total benefit PV benefit 

Part 121 ATP Certificate Requirement ............................................................................................................ No Identifiable Accident Benefits 

Discretionary cost savings 

Total cost 

savings 

($ mil.) 

PV cost savings 

($ mil.) 

Academic Training and Experience Credits .................................................................................................... $ <2,309.3> $ <789.8> 

Rule additional provision costs Total cost 

($ mil.) 

PV5 cost 

($ mil.) 

ATP CTP and Type Rating Total Costs .......................................................................................................... $ 312.7 $ 138.7 

Rule additional provision benefits Total benefit 

($ mil.) 

PV benefit 

($ mil.) 

All Safety Benefits 6 ......................................................................................................................................... $ 576.8 $ 251.7 

Total cost 

($ mil.) 

PV5 cost 

($ mil.) 

Total Cost of Statute Cost + Cost Savings + Rule Cost ................................................................................. $ 4,377.8 $ 1,561.9 

Total benefit 

($ mil.) 

PV benefit 

($ mil.) 

Total Benefits from Statute + Rule .................................................................................................................. $ 576.8 $ 251.7 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

On February 12, 2009, a Colgan Air 

Bombardier DHC–8–400, operating as 

Continental Connection flight 3407, was 

on an instrument approach to the 

Buffalo-Niagara airport in upstate New 

York. About 5 nautical miles from the 

airport, the pilot lost control of the 

airplane. It crashed into a house in 

Clarence Center, New York, killing 

everyone aboard and one person on the 

ground. This accident focused FAA, 

NTSB, Congressional, and public 

attention on multiple aspects of pilot 

qualifications and air carrier training 

requirements. 

The NTSB’s investigation revealed 

that the pilot had not followed 

appropriate procedures in handling the 

aircraft. As the plane leveled at an 

assigned altitude the captain applied 

power to increase the airspeed, but the 

increase in power was insufficient. The 

airplane’s flight displays indicated that 

its airspeed was slowing, but the 

flightcrew failed to recognize this. The 

airspeed continued to decrease, 

resulting in the stick shaker activating, 

and warning the pilots of a potential 

aerodynamic stall (insufficient airflow 

over the wings). The flightcrew’s 

response to the stall warning system 

was incorrect and the airplane stalled. 

The flightcrew subsequently lost control 

of the aircraft resulting in the accident. 

The NTSB’s final accident report 

identified a number of safety issues, 

including improper handling of the 

airplane, a failure to adhere to sterile 

cockpit rules, and questions about the 

adequacy of flightcrew member training 

and qualifications. The accident raised 

questions about whether SICs should be 

held to the same training and flight hour 

requirements as PICs, and whether a 

pilot’s overall academic training and 

quality of flight training were as 

important as the total number of flight 

hours. The accident also raised 

questions about pilot professionalism 

and whether pilots receive sufficient 

experience in a multicrew environment. 

In early 2010, as a response to the 

Colgan Air accident, the FAA published 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) entitled ‘‘New 

Pilot Certification Requirements for Air 

Carrier Operations’’ (75 FR 6164 

(February 8, 2010)), asking for input on 

current part 121 pilot eligibility, 

training, and qualification requirements 

for SICs. In July 2010, as a result of 

public response to the ANPRM, the FAA 

chartered the First Officer Qualification 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (FOQ 

ARC) which was comprised of a cross 

section of the aviation industry. 

In August 2010, before the ARC 

submitted its final recommendations, 

President Obama signed into law the 

Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Extension Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–216 (August 1, 2010)) (the 

‘‘Act’’). The Act included several 

specific provisions for modifying ATP 

certification requirements to prepare air 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42328 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

7As a result of modifications to the ATP 

Certification Training Program and comments made 

regarding some of the accidents used for benefits in 

the NPRM the FAA conducted a new accident 

analysis. 

8The FAA has placed a document in the docket 

for this rulemaking that provides greater detail on 

which aspects of the final rule—in particular which 

items in the curriculum for the ATP CTP—respond 

to specific NTSB recommendations. That 

supplementary material can be found at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FAA–2010–0100. 

carrier pilots to operate more safely. 

Among those provisions was the 

requirement that by August 2, 2013, all 

part 121 flightcrew members hold an 

ATP certificate. Public Law 111–216, 

section 216(a)(2)(B)(i). The FAA asked 

the FOQ ARC to consider the provisions 

of sections 216 and 217 of the Act in 

developing its final recommendations. 

Those recommendations were submitted 

to the FAA in September 2010. 

In addition to the FOQ ARC 

recommendations, the FAA reviewed 

recent accidents in parts 121 and 135 to 

find out whether the certification 

requirements were sufficient to produce 

pilots who can enter an air carrier 

environment and train and perform 

their duties effectively. The accident 

reports revealed deficiencies in— 

• Training in aircraft manual 

handling skills, 

• stall and upset recognition and 

recovery, 

• high altitude operations, 

• pilot monitoring skills, 

• effective crew resource 

management, 

• pilot leadership, professionalism, 

and mentoring skills, 

• stabilized approaches, and 

• operations in icing conditions. 

The FAA considered its accident 

analysis, the FOQ ARC 

recommendations, and numerous NTSB 

Safety Recommendations in developing 

the Pilot Certification and Qualification 

Requirements for Air Carrier Operations 

NPRM (77 FR 12374), which published 

in the Federal Register on February 29, 

2012. It proposed to amend the FAA’s 

existing requirements to obtain an ATP 

certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating and raise the 

qualifications of part 121 pilot 

flightcrew members. 

In developing this final rule, the FAA 

reviewed the requirements set forth in 

the Act, reconsidered the FOQ ARC 

recommendations, conducted a new 

accident analysis,7 reviewed NTSB 

Safety Recommendations,8 and 

considered the public comments to the 

NPRM. The provisions of this final rule 

are consistent with the statutory 

mandates set forth in the Act. The table 

below outlines the provisions of 

sections 216 and 217 of the Act and the 

parts of the final rule that correspond to 

them. 

TABLE 3—PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 111–216 AND CORRESPONDING RULE PROVISIONS

Public Law 111–216, The Airline Safety Act, Sections 216 & 217 Final rule 

1. All part 121 flightcrew members must hold an ATP certificate by August 2, 2013. (216(c)) ..... 1. An SIC in part 121 operations must have 

one of the following: 

• ATP certificate 

• ATP certificate with restricted privileges 

(§§ 61.160, 61.167) 

2. To be qualified to receive an ATP certificate, an individual shall have sufficient flight hours, 

as determined by the Administrator, to enable a pilot to function effectively in an air carrier 

operational environment; and have received flight training, academic training, or operational 

experience* * *to function effectively in an air carrier operational environment. (217(b)).

Minimum number of flight hours shall be at least 1,500 flight hours. (217(c)).

A pilot need not fully comply with the flight hours requirement above provided that the pilot has 

taken specific academic training courses, beyond those listed below, as determined by the 

Administrator. (217(d)).

2. ATP certificate with restricted privileges 

(§ 61.160). 

3. All part 121 flightcrew members must have an appropriate amount of multi-engine flight experience, as determined by the Administrator. (216(a)(2)(B)(ii)).3. (a) 50 hours of aeronautical experience in 

class of airplane required for an ATP certificate (§ 61.159); 

(b) Aircraft type rating for part 121 SICs 

(§ 121.436(a)(2)); and 

(c) 1,000-hour minimum air carrier experience 

to serve as a PIC in part 121 operations 

(§ 121.436(a)(3)). 

4. To be qualified to receive an ATP certificate an individual shall have received flight training, 

academic training, or operational experience that will prepare a pilot to:.

a. function in a multipilot environment;.

b. function in adverse weather conditions (icing);.

c. function during high altitude operations;.

d. adhere to the highest professional standards; and.

e. function in an air carrier operational environment. (217(b)(2)(A)–(E)).

The total flight hours should include sufficient flight hours in difficult operational conditions. 

(217(c)(2)).

4. ATP CTP (§§ 61.156, 121.410, 135.336, 

141.11, 142.54). 

5. Prospective flightcrew members must undergo comprehensive pre-employment screening, 

including an assessment of the skills, aptitudes, airmanship, and suitability * * * for operating in an air carrier operational environment. (216(a)(2)).

5. (a) Revised ATP requirements (ATP CTP, 

increased minimum total time as a pilot, and 

increased minimum multiengine time); 

(b) Aircraft type rating for the aircraft to be 

flown in part 121 operations (SIC) 

(§ 121.436(a)(2)); and 

(c) 1,000-hour minimum air carrier experience 

to serve as a PIC in part 121 operations 

(§ 121.436(a)(3)). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42329 

B. FAA Accident Analysis and National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

Recommendations 

Human error, as evidenced in the 

Colgan Air accident, has been a major 

factor in many of the commercial airline 

accidents over the past 10 years. The 

FAA has identified 31 accidents in part 

121 air carrier operations and 27 in part 

135 commuter and on-demand 

operations from fiscal year 2001 through 

fiscal year 2010 that could have been 

prevented if the enhanced ATP 

qualification standards and part 121 

requirements required by this final rule 

had been in effect. Those accidents 

resulted in 99 fatalities, 28 serious 

injuries, and 44 minor injuries. A 

detailed description of this analysis, and 

how it was conducted, is provided in 

Section E of the final regulatory 

evaluation and can also be found in 

Docket # FAA–2010–0100. 

The NTSB investigated these 

accidents and the changes enacted in 

this rule address, at least in part, the 

following NTSB recommendations— 

• Train flightcrews to respond to 

sudden, unusual, or unexpected aircraft 

upsets (Recommendations A–96–120, 

A–04–62, A–07–3, and A–09–113); 

• Develop and conduct stall recovery 

training and provide stick pusher 

familiarization training for pilots of 

stick-pusher equipped aircraft 

(Recommendations A–10–22 and A–10– 

23); 

• Enhance training syllabi for 

operations in high altitude 

(Recommendations A–07–1 and A–07– 

2); 

• Review training for unusual and 

emergency situations in transportcategory aircraft to make sure pilots are 

not trained to use the rudder in ways 

that could result in dangerous situations 

(Recommendation A–02–2); 

• Require procedures and guidance 

for airport situational awareness 

(Recommendation A–07–44); 

• Ensure that all carriers include 

criteria for stabilized approach in their 

flight manuals and training programs 

(Recommendations A–01–69 and A–08– 

18); 

• Require operators to provide clear 

guidance to pilots about landing 

performance calculations 

(Recommendations A–07–59 and A–08– 

41); 

• Require Crew Resource 

Management training (Recommendation 

A–03–52); 

• Require operators to verify that 

their pilot monitoring duties are 

consistent with AC 120–71A 

(Recommendation A–10–10); 

• Require flight crewmember 

academic training in leadership, 

professionalism, and first officer 

assertiveness (Recommendation A–10– 

15 and A–11–39); 

• Require training in icing conditions 

(Recommendation A–07–14 and A–11– 

47); 

• Require hypoxia awareness training 

(Recommendation A–00–110); and 

• Require training in crosswinds with 

gusts (Recommendations A–10–110 and 

A–10–111). 

C. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Extension Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–216) 

The Airline Safety and Federal 

Aviation Administration Act included 

provisions to improve airline safety and 

pilot training. Specifically, section 216, 

Flight Crewmember Screening and 

Qualifications, focused on the 

qualifications of airline pilots operating 

under part 121. In section 217, Airline 

Transport Pilot Certification, the FAA 

was directed to modify the requirements 

for an ATP certificate to better prepare 

pilots for operating in an air carrier 

environment. Both sections of the Act 

are addressed in this rulemaking. 

Section 216 directs the FAA to 

conduct a rulemaking proceeding to 

require: 

• Part 121 air carriers to develop and 

implement means and methods for 

ensuring flightcrew members have 

proper qualifications and experience; 

• All flightcrew members in part 121 

air carrier operations to hold an ATP 

certificate and to have obtained 

appropriate multiengine flight 

experience, as determined by the 

Administrator by August 2, 2013; and 

• Prospective flightcrew members to 

undergo comprehensive preemployment screening, including an 

assessment of the skills, aptitudes, 

airmanship, and suitability, of each 

applicant for a position as a flightcrew 

member in terms of functioning 

effectively in the air carrier’s 

operational environment. 

Section 216 requires the FAA to issue 

an NPRM by January 28, 2011, and a 

final rule by August 2, 2012. 

Independent of any rulemaking 

proceeding by the FAA, this section 

directs that all flightcrew members in 

part 121 air carrier operations must hold 

an ATP certificate, issued under part 61, 

by August 2, 2013. 

Section 217 of the Act requires the 

FAA to issue a final rule by August 2, 

2013, modifying the requirements for an 

ATP certificate in part 61. The section 

establishes minimum requirements for 

an ATP certificate that include: 

• Sufficient flight hours, as 

determined by the Administrator, to 

enable a pilot to function effectively in 

an air carrier operational environment; 

• Flight training, academic training, 

or operational experience that will 

prepare a pilot to function effectively in 

a multipilot (multicrew) environment, 

in adverse weather conditions, during 

high altitude operations, and in an air 

carrier environment, as well as to 

adhere to the highest professional 

standards; and 

• Sufficient flight hours, as 

determined by the Administrator, in 

difficult operational conditions that may 

be encountered by an air carrier to 

enable a pilot to operate safely in such 

conditions. 

Section 217 also directs that the 

minimum total flight hours to be 

qualified for an ATP certificate shall be 

at least 1,500 flight hours. 

Notwithstanding the stated minimum, 

the section permits the Administrator to 

allow specific academic training courses 

to be credited toward the 1,500 total 

flight hours, provided the Administrator 

determines that specific academic 

training courses will enhance safety 

more than requiring the pilot to comply 

fully with the flight hours requirement. 

Section 217 also requires the 

Administrator to consider the 

recommendations from an expert panel 

established under section 209(b) of the 

Act. That section focuses on part 121 

and part 135 training programs. A report 

to Congress and to the NTSB was 

submitted on September 23, 2011. 

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM) 

In the Pilot Certification and 

Qualification Requirements for Air 

Carrier Operations NPRM (77 FR 

12374), the FAA proposed to amend the 

existing requirements to obtain an ATP 

certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating and raise the 

qualifications of part 121 pilot 

flightcrew members. Specifically the 

NPRM proposed to— 

• Require an ATP certificate for all 

pilots operating under part 121 

consistent with the self-enacting 

provision in section 216 of the Act. 

• Establish an aeronautical 

experience requirement for 50 hours in 

the class of airplane for the ATP 

certificate sought. 

• Establish a requirement for all 

pilots operating under part 121 to obtain 

an aircraft type rating for the aircraft to 

be flown. An SIC in a part 121 flag or 

supplemental operation that requires 

three or more pilots is required by 

existing regulations to hold an ATP 

certificate with an aircraft type rating for 

the aircraft being flown, but SICs in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42330 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

9A flight simulation training device (FSTD) 

incorporates both full flight simulators (FFS) and 

flight training devices (FTD). 

other part 121 operations are not 

required to have it. 

• Establish a requirement for pilots 

seeking an ATP certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating or an ATP certificate obtained 

concurrently with an airplane type 

rating to complete specific training 

before taking the ATP knowledge test. 

The proposed requirements would 

include academic training and training 

in a flight simulation training device 9

(FSTD). A draft advisory circular 

providing additional guidance as to the 

content of the course and how to obtain 

FAA-approval was placed in the docket 

for comment. 

• Based on the discretion provided to 

the Administrator in section 217 of the 

Act, permit applicants who have 

completed ‘‘specific academic training 

courses’’ to obtain an ATP certificate 

with fewer than the minimum 1,500 

hours. 

• Allow specific academic 

coursework to be credited towards the 

total flight hours required for an ATP 

certificate. The proposed alternative 

hour requirements for a restricted 

privileges ATP certificate were— 

Æ 750 hours for a military pilot; and 

Æ 1,000 hours for a graduate of a fouryear baccalaureate aviation-degree 

program who also received a 

commercial certificate and instrument 

rating from an affiliated part 141 pilot 

school. 

• Establish a requirement that a pilot 

must have 1,000 hours in air carrier 

operations to serve as PIC in part 121 

operations. 

The NPRM provided for a 60-day 

comment period, which ended on April 

30, 2012. One request for extension to 

the comment period was received, but 

the FAA declined to extend given the 

industry input it had received from the 

advanced noticed of proposed 

rulemaking published in February 2010, 

as well as the input it received from the 

FOQ ARC. In addition, the statutory 

deadlines imposed by the Act did not 

afford the FAA additional time to 

receive comments. The FAA received 

nearly 600 comments posted to the 

docket. Commenters included major air 

carriers, regional air carriers, part 135 

operators, cargo air carriers, associations 

and industry groups, colleges and 

universities, training centers, flight 

schools, pilots, and private citizens. 

E. Differences Between the NPRM and 

the Final Rule 

TABLE 4—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NPRM AND THE FINAL RULE

Issue NPRM Final rule 

A. R–ATP certificate ............ 1. Eligible pilots: 

Æ Military-trained; 

Æ Graduates of a bachelor’s degree program with an 

aviation major; 

2. Proposed minimum age is 21 years; and 

3. Proposed minimum cross country time for military pilots is 250 hours; proposed minimum cross country 

time for graduates with a bachelor’s degree is 375 

hours. 

1. Eligible pilots: 

Æ Military-trained; 

Æ Graduates of a bachelor’s degree program with an 

aviation major; 

Æ Graduates of an associate’s degree program with an 

aviation major; 

Æ Pilots with 1,500 hours total time as a pilot; 

2. Minimum age is 21 years; and 

3. Minimum cross country time for all eligible pilots is 

200 hours. 

B. Aviation Degree Program A pilot eligible for academic credit towards a restricted 

privileges ATP certificate needs to have:. 

1. Graduated from a four-year aviation-related degree 

program (bachelor’s degree with an aviation major); 

and 

2. Obtained their commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating from an affiliated part 141 pilot school. 

1. Established criteria to define what coursework must 

be completed as part of a bachelor’s or associate’s 

degree program with an aviation major; 

2. Further defined what an associated part 141 school 

is; 

3. Created a process by which colleges and universities 

can obtain authority from the FAA to certify their 

graduates for an R–ATP certificate (new advisory circular 61-School); and 

4. More clearly defined what a graduate has to present 

at the time of the practical test to show eligibility for a 

restricted privileges ATP certificate. 

C. ATP CTP ......................... 1. Academic training: 24 hours; 

2. FSTD training: 16 hours 

Æ Level C or higher FFS: 8 hours; 

Æ Level 4 or higher FTD: 8 hours; and 

3. Draft advisory circular. 

1. Academic training: 30 hours; 

2. FSTD training: 10 hours 

Æ Level C or higher FFS: 6 hours; 

Æ Level 4 or higher FTD: 4 hours; and 

3. Advisory circular 61–ATP. 

D. ATP CTP Instructor Requirements.1. Hold an ATP certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating; 

1. Hold an ATP certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating; 

2. Meet the aeronautical experience requirements of 

§ 61.159; 

2. Meet the aeronautical experience requirements of 

§ 61.159; 

3. Have 2-years of air carrier experience; and 3. Have 2-years of air carrier experience; 

4. For training in an FSTD—have an appropriate aircraft type rating which the FSTD represents or have 

received training in the aircraft type from the certificate holder on those maneuvers they will teach. 

4. For training in an FSTD—(a) have an appropriate 

aircraft type rating which the FSTD represents, (b) 

have received training in the aircraft type from the 

certificate holder on those maneuvers they will teach, 

and (c) received training on data and motion limitations of simulation; and 

5. Hold a certified flight instructor certificate or complete 

training in fundamentals of instruction. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42331 

TABLE 4—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NPRM AND THE FINAL RULE—Continued 

Issue NPRM Final rule 

E. Reduction in an air carriers’ initial training program for Pilots Who Have 

Completed the ATP CTP.

A principal operations inspector may approve a reduction to an air carrier’s initial training program based 

on material taught by that carrier in the ATP CTP. 

A principal operations inspector may approve a reduction to an air carrier’s initial training program if the 

pilot beginning initial training has successfully completed the ATP CTP. The carrier does not have to 

provide the ATP CTP training to be eligible for a reduction. 

F. Medical Certificate ........... No change proposed to medical requirements in 

§ 61.23. Pilots exercising the privileges of an ATP 

certificate would be required to hold a first-class 

medical certificate. 

Section 61.23 requires only those pilots exercising the 

PIC privileges of an ATP certificate and SIC privileges in flag and supplemental operations requiring 

three or more pilots to hold a first-class medical certificate. An SIC in part 121 may continue to hold a 

second-class medical certificate. 

G. FFS Credit Towards 50 

hours of Multiengine Aeronautical Experience.

10 hours of FFS time that represents a multiengine airplane. 25 hours of FFS training time that represents a multiengine airplane and is part of an approved training program. 

H. Time Eligible for the 

1,000 hours of Air Carrier 

Experience.

1. All time in part 121 operations; 

2. PIC time in § 135.243(a)(1) operations; and 

3. PIC time in § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) operations 

1. All time in part 121 operations; 

2. PIC time in § 135.243(a)(1) operations; 

3. PIC time in § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) operations; and 

4. Military PIC time in a multiengine turbine-powered, 

fixed-wing airplane in an operation requiring more 

than one pilot—up to 500 hours. 

F. Related Actions 

The Act led to the establishment of 

ARCs on additional subjects— 

• Flight Crewmember Mentoring, 

Leadership, and Professional 

Development (Section 206 of the Act) 

• Flight Crewmember Training Hours 

Requirement Review (Section 209 of the 

Act) 

• Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather 

Event Training (Section 208 of the Act) 

• Air Carrier Safety and Pilot 

Training (Section 204 of the Act) 

The FAA has reviewed the 

recommendations provided by these 

ARCs and has initiated two rulemaking 

projects as a result: (1) Flight 

Crewmember Mentoring Leadership, 

and Professional Development; and (2) 

Revisions to the Qualification and 

Performance Standards in Part 60. 

In addition, on May 20, 2011, the 

FAA published a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 

proposing to amend the regulations for 

crewmember and aircraft dispatcher 

training programs in domestic, flag, and 

supplemental operations (76 FR 29336). 

This SNPRM, which was specifically 

cited in section 209 of the Act, focused 

solely on part 121 air carrier training 

program requirements. The comment 

period for the SNPRM closed on 

September 19, 2011. 

Congress addressed these related 

topics within discrete sections of the 

Act, which has resulted in the related 

rulemaking projects identified. Drafting 

proposals on related topics 

simultaneously can give the appearance 

of overlapping or duplicative 

requirements. As the final rules are 

drafted and published to address the 

discrete sections of the Act, the FAA 

will minimize any overlapping or 

duplicative requirements. 

The FAA has made regulatory 

decisions within this rule based upon 

the best currently available scientific 

data and information, and is confident 

the rule incorporates the best available 

information regarding the relationship 

between flight hours and types of 

training. In the future, however, FAA is 

likely to gather and analyze additional 

data in this area; for example, through 

safety outcomes resulting from this rule, 

and additional information collections 

associated with other rulemakings. FAA 

may also consider additional collections 

of information, and would notify the 

public of these collections through 

separate Federal Register Notices 

promulgated under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. Further information 

collected by FAA could be used to 

inform future analysis. 

Because of the likely availability of 

such data in the future, the FAA may 

obtain additional empirical evidence 

relevant to the precise relationship 

between flight hours and types of 

training. For example, Phase III of the 

Pilot Source Study, explained elsewhere 

in this preamble, suggests areas for 

further research. The FAA, consistent 

with its obligations under Executive 

Order (E.O.) 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review (Jan. 

18, 2011), and E.O. 13610 on the 

retrospective review of regulations, will 

review this evidence and may make 

modifications as necessary and 

appropriate to improve the effectiveness 

of this regulatory program. The FAA 

will consider whether such changes 

would be necessary or appropriate, and 

therefore whether this rulemaking 

would represent a good candidate for a 

formal retrospective review under E.O. 

13610. 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

A. ATP Certificate for All Pilots 

Operating Under Part 121 (§ 121.436) 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

requiring that all SICs in part 121 

operations hold an ATP certificate by 

August 2013. This proposal was meant 

to be consistent with section 216 of the 

Act, which mandates that within 3 years 

of enactment (August 2, 2013), all 

flightcrew members serving in part 121 

operations must hold an ATP certificate. 

At the time the Act was signed into law, 

PICs in part 121 air carrier operations as 

well as SICs of a part 121 flag or 

supplemental operation requiring three 

or more pilots were already required to 

hold ATP certificates. All other SICs in 

part 121 air carrier operations, however, 

were not required to hold ATP 

certificates and were permitted to hold 

an instrument rating and a commercial 

pilot certificate with the appropriate 

category and class rating for the aircraft. 

The FAA received more than 200 

comments both in support of and in 

opposition to the ATP certification 

requirement for part 121 pilots. 

American Eagle Airlines, Inc., citing a 

lack of an identified safety benefit, 

specifically suggested grandfathering all 

incumbent SICs if they have at least 

1,000 hours in the type of aircraft they 

are flying. American Airlines (AAL) 

suggested a similar grandfathering 

provision, but only for pilots who have 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42332 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

10A first-class medical certificate must be 

renewed every 12 months for pilots under age 40 

and every six months for pilots age 40 and over. A 

second-class medical certificate, on the other hand, 

must be renewed every 12 months for all pilots 

regardless of age. If first-class medical certificates 

are required, SICs who are age 40 and over will be 

required to renew their medical certificates every 

six months (as opposed to every 12 months for a 

second-class medical certificate). In addition, 

electrocardiography (EKG) testing is specifically 

required under first class medical certificate 

standards while EKG testing is used on a case-bycase basis for second class medical certificates. The 

FAA has reviewed part 121 accident and incident 

data dating back to 2001 and found no accidents or 

incidents attributable to an SIC with a medical 

condition that may have been detected by 

electrocardiography testing. 

11The FAA notes that this 50 hours of flight time 

counts towards the 1,500 hours of total time 

required for an ATP certificate. 

been an SIC for at least six years, 

accrued 1,000 hours in aircraft type as 

an SIC, and attended recurrent training 

more than three times. 

While the FAA has considered and 

appreciates all of the comments 

received, the FAA was not given any 

discretion to allow pilots serving in part 

121 operations to hold any certificate 

other than an ATP certificate. There is 

no latitude in the Act to permit a pilot 

with a commercial pilot certificate who 

is flying in part 121 today to continue 

flying beyond the date of this selfenacting provision without having 

obtained an ATP certificate. 

Accordingly, the FAA has removed the 

current certification requirements in 

§ 121.437 and added new §§ 121.435 

and 121.436. New § 121.435 contains 

the existing certification requirements 

for part 121 pilots; they will be in effect 

until July 31, 2013. After that date, the 

requirements of § 121.436 will apply. 

B. Medical Certificate (§ 61.23) 

Medical certificate requirements are 

determined by the level of pilot 

certificate that is required for the 

operation being conducted. Section 

61.23 requires a pilot exercising the 

privileges of an ATP certificate to hold 

a first-class medical certificate and a 

pilot exercising the privileges of a 

commercial pilot certificate to hold at 

least a second-class medical certificate. 

As a result of the statutory 

requirement for all pilots in part 121 to 

hold an ATP certificate, UPS and 

Spartan College sought clarification 

regarding whether all SICs in part 121 

operations would be required to hold a 

first-class medical certificate and 

whether the proposed rule would affect 

existing SICs who hold only secondclass medical certificates. 

The FAA did not address medical 

certification requirements in the NPRM 

or propose any change to the first-class 

medical certificate requirement in 

§ 61.23. Without a change, the statutory 

requirement for all part 121 flightcrew 

members to hold an ATP certificate 

would require SICs to hold first-class 

medical certificates after August 1, 

2013. 

Requiring a first-class medical 

certificate for all part 121 SICs could 

potentially remove qualified and 

experienced SICs who cannot hold a 

first-class medical certificate from part 

121 air carrier operations. It would also 

impose additional costs on industry, 

individual pilots, and the FAA that 

were not reflected in the initial 

regulatory evaluation.10 Rather than 

impose new requirements without a 

corresponding safety benefit, the FAA is 

modifying § 61.23(a)(1), (a)(2), (d)(1), 

and (d)(2) in the final rule so pilots in 

part 121 operations exercising SIC 

privileges (excluding flag or 

supplemental operations requiring three 

or more pilots) may continue to hold 

only a second-class medical certificate. 

In this regard, the amendment alleviates 

any increased cost and removes the 

possibility of inadvertently 

disqualifying incumbent SICs from part 

121 air carrier operations. 

C. Aeronautical Experience 

Requirement in the Class of Airplane for 

the ATP Certificate Sought (§ 61.159) 

Prior to the issuance of this final rule, 

an applicant for an ATP certificate with 

an airplane category multiengine class 

rating was not required to obtain any 

additional multiengine flight experience 

above what is required for a commercial 

pilot certificate with an airplane 

category multiengine class rating. 

Section 216 of the Act addresses this 

issue by requiring all pilot flightcrew 

members serving in part 121 air carrier 

operations to have appropriate 

multiengine flight experience, as 

determined by the Administrator. 

One method the FAA used to address 

the Act’s focus on multiengine 

experience was by proposing a 

requirement that pilots obtain 50 hours 

of flight time 11 in the class of airplane 

for the ATP certificate sought. The FAA 

also proposed allowing an applicant to 

receive credit for up to 10 hours of this 

flight time in a full flight simulator 

(FFS) that replicates a multiengine 

airplane. 

Ninety-three commenters addressed 

the proposed 50-hour requirement. 

Fifty-nine commenters, including the 

Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), 

Airlines for America (A4A), AAL, 

Aviation Professional Development, 

LLC, Cargo Airline Association (CAA), 

Coalition of Airline Pilots Association 

(CAPA), Embry-Riddle Aeronautical 

University (ERAU), ExpressJet Airlines, 

Inc. (ExpressJet), Flight Safety 

International (FSI), Hyannis Air Service, 

Inc. (Cape Air), National Air 

Transportation Association (NATA), 

Purdue University (Purdue), Saint Louis 

University—Parks College (Parks 

College), San Jose State University 

(SJSU), and the U.S. Airline Pilots 

Association (USAPA) indicated that 50 

hours is adequate to be eligible for an 

ATP certificate. 

The National Association of Flight 

Instructors (NAFI) added that obtaining 

50 hours would not be a significant 

problem in the industry and would 

establish a minimum number of hours 

as a base for pilots to build upon. 

Farmingdale State College (FSC) added 

that 50 hours is adequate but it is not 

a good measure of competencies. The 

International Air Transport Association 

(IATA) stated that requiring these 50 

hours is appropriate if they are used to 

develop and reinforce core 

competencies. Aerosim Flight Academy 

(Aerosim) stated the 50 hours would be 

‘‘okay’’ but ‘‘too costly and difficult to 

obtain.’’ JetBlue Airways Corporation 

(JetBlue) agreed that 50 hours in the 

class of airplane is sufficient and 

pertinent and believes it is 

representative of quality flight 

experience. 

Four commenters, including FSI, said 

that there would be no additional 

burden for those who obtain an ATP 

certificate. FSI said that most pilot 

candidates exceed the 50-hour 

requirement before obtaining an ATP 

certificate. An individual commenter 

noted that most pilots would earn this 

by getting a multiengine instructor 

rating and instructing students. 

Six individual commenters did not 

object to having such a requirement but 

stated 50 hours is too high. One of them 

suggested 25 hours in the class of 

airplane as an alternative. The Ohio 

State University (OSU) added that 

current commercial certificate 

requirements are sufficient and 

suggested giving credit towards this 

requirement through completion of an 

Advanced Jet Training (AJT) program. 

Boeing also said that 50 hours is too 

high and that the structured and focused 

FSTD training proposed in the ATP 

certification training program provides 

any needed additional multiengine 

experience above that which is 

minimally required by the commercial 

pilot certificate. The Regional Air Cargo 

Carrier Association (RACCA) stated that 

50 hours is probably adequate but may 

be unnecessarily high ‘‘presuming the 

flight time includes adequate training, 

experience, and motivation by the 

pilot.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42333 

12The FAA has modified section 61.159(a)(5) to 

permit pilots to credit FSTD time accomplished in 

approved training programs under parts 121, 135, 

and 141 toward the aeronautical experience 

requirements for the ATP certificate. Under the 

prior rule, only FSTD time accomplished as part of 

an approved training course in part 142 could be 

credited. 

Three individual commenters noted 

that 50 hours in class is too low. Two 

of these commenters recommended 100 

hours in class. Ameriflight, LLC 

(Ameriflight) added that 50 hours of 

multiengine experience is insufficient 

for part 121 operations because the 

remaining 1,450 hours could be in a 

single-engine airplane. The Allied Pilots 

Association (APA) recommended 100 

hours of flight time in the type of 

aircraft before a pilot could be eligible 

for a restricted privileges ATP 

certificate, because time in the aircraft 

type makes for a safer pilot. 

Thirteen commenters, including, 

Delta Airlines (Delta), Bemidji Aviation 

Services, Inc., the Professional Aviation 

Board of Certification (PABC), Prairie 

Air Service, Kansas State University— 

Salina (KSU), and the University 

Aviation Association (UAA), found the 

50-hour requirement unnecessary. 

Sporty’s Academy added that there is no 

evidence of accident rates to support the 

requirement. Southern Illinois 

University—Carbondale (SIU), Western 

Michigan University (WMU) and CAE, 

Inc. (CAE) added that the requirement 

should be competency based. Human 

Capital Management and Performance, 

LLC added that time gained in light 

twin-engine piston aircraft does not 

prepare pilots for high altitude, sweptwing turbojet operations. The IFL Group 

believes pilots will get that time in any 

way possible without a guarantee of 

receiving specific training, and this may 

increase the accident rate. The IFL 

Group also believes there will be an 

‘‘increase in the number of pilots who 

make fake flight time entries into their 

logbooks because of the cost of 

obtaining the additional multiengine 

flight time, thus offsetting any safety 

benefit and increasing FAA cost as a 

proportion of them are caught and the 

FAA incurs the cost of revoking their 

certificates.’’ 

Six commenters, including Purdue, 

Spartan College, and the University of 

Dubuque noted the FAA should 

consider credit for simulation. An 

individual commenter stated allowance 

for simulators should be expanded. CAE 

stated 50% of the hours should be 

allowed in a level C or D FFS due to the 

numerous training advantages of that 

training environment. Based on hiring 

data and success rates in airline training 

and line operations, ExpressJet highly 

recommended that AJT simulation time 

(in either a level 5 flight training device 

(FTD) or FFS) be credited towards the 

50 hours of multiengine time. JetBlue 

believes the capabilities and quality of 

training possible in an advanced 

simulation device far exceeds those of 

the actual aircraft and therefore 

recommends any time in an FFS should 

be credited towards the 50 hours. 

Congress directed the FAA to ensure 

that all flightcrew members have an 

appropriate amount of multiengine 

experience. Since the ATP certificate is 

the highest level of pilot certificate 

currently available, the FAA has 

determined the minimum multiengine 

experience required to apply for an ATP 

certificate should exceed the minimum 

requirements for a commercial pilot 

certificate. Additional experience in 

inherently faster and more complex 

multiengine airplanes establishes a 

foundation that provides quality 

experience to prepare a pilot for a 

professional piloting career. 

Multiengine flight experience is 

essential not only for pilots serving in 

part 121 air carrier operations but for all 

pilots who apply for an ATP certificate 

with an airplane category multiengine 

class rating. The FAA concedes there 

are no air carrier accidents that 

specifically cite a lack of multiengine 

experience as a probable cause. 

However, establishing a minimum 

experience requirement in the class of 

airplane is consistent with other pilot 

certificates and supports the 

requirements of section 216 of the Act, 

which placed significant emphasis on 

increased multiengine experience. As 

proposed, such an hour requirement 

would have minimal impact on pilots 

seeking an ATP certificate because the 

hours will likely be acquired by pilots 

engaged in other commercial aviation 

activities such as flight instruction or 

part 135 operations. This assertion was 

not disputed by many of the 

commenters. Additionally, the FAA 

reviewed the hiring minimums for part 

121 air carriers and found most have 

established hiring minimums for 

multiengine time which equal or exceed 

the proposed rule, further minimizing 

the cost of this provision. 

In response to commenters who 

suggested increasing the minimum 

hours in class of airplane above 50 

hours, the FAA accepts the 

recommendation of the FOQ ARC. The 

FAA agrees that time in the class of 

airplane alone may not prepare a pilot 

for operating a large swept-wing turbojet 

at high altitudes nor does it necessarily 

ensure competency. For that reason 

there are additional building block 

requirements in this final rule for 

obtaining an ATP certificate with a 

multiengine class rating, such as the 

ATP certification training program and 

a practical test to determine a pilot’s 

competency prior to issuance of an ATP 

certificate. The FAA notes that pilots 

will seek opportunities to acquire time 

in the class of airplane, which is no 

different than current practice. For that 

reason the FAA disagrees with the IFL 

Group’s assertion that pilots seeking 

experience in multiengine aircraft will 

result in an increase in accidents. To the 

extent that commenters have suggested 

that, as a result of the multiengine flight 

time requirement, pilots may be 

encouraged to falsify their logbooks, the 

FAA cautions that the regulations (14 

CFR 61.59) prohibit the falsification of 

logbooks. 

A majority of the commenters 

supported the proposed requirement for 

50 hours in the class of airplane to 

obtain an ATP certificate; therefore, the 

FAA has retained this provision in the 

final rule. Based on the comments 

suggesting that the FAA increase the 

amount of FFS time that may be 

credited towards the 50 hours, the FAA 

agrees that the quality of training and 

experience gained from flying an FFS is 

valuable and additional time should 

count. Advanced simulation training 

devices readily provide additional 

training opportunities in turbine aircraft 

utilizing multicrew concepts and may 

include training in difficult operational 

conditions beyond that required of 

existing pilot licensing requirements. 

The FAA disagrees with commenters 

that believe all of the multiengine 

experience could be gained in an FFS. 

The FAA believes accruing multiengine 

experience in an airplane is important 

and would eliminate the possibility of a 

pilot carrying passengers in a 

multiengine airplane without previous 

multiengine airplane experience. 

Accordingly, the FAA has amended 

§ 61.159 in the final rule. Specifically, 

§ 61.159(a)(3) will permit pilots to credit 

25 hours of flight training in an FFS that 

represents a multiengine airplane 

toward the 50 hours of flight time in the 

class of airplane. The 25 hours must be 

accomplished as part of an FAA 

approved training course (e.g., part 121 

air carrier training program).12 The FAA 

notes that an aviation training device 

(ATD) or an FTD cannot be substituted 

for the FFS in order to obtain the credit 

toward the 50 hours of multiengine 

flight time. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42334 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

13The FAA notes that a pilot is not required to 

take the ATP CTP for a type rating added to any 

other pilot certificate. The requirement only applies 

to pilots obtaining an ATP certificate concurrently 

with an airplane type rating. In addition, 

subsequent airplane type ratings added to an ATP 

certificate that already has a multiengine class 

rating would not require taking the ATP CTP. 

D. ATP Certification Training Program 

for an Airplane Category Multiengine 

Class Rating or ATP Certificate 

Obtained Concurrently with an Airplane 

Type Rating (§ 61.156) 

In Section 217 of the Act, Congress 

directed the FAA ‘‘to modify 

requirements for the issuance of an 

airline transport pilot certificate’’ to 

ensure pilots can function effectively in 

an air carrier/multipilot environment, in 

adverse weather conditions, during high 

altitude and icing operations while 

adhering to the highest professional 

standards. The public law stated that 

the FAA could consider academic 

training, flight training, or operational 

experience as a means of ensuring pilots 

have the skills identified in the public 

law. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require applicants for the ATP 

knowledge test complete an ATP 

Certification Training Program (ATP 

CTP) comprised of academic and FSTD 

training. The training program, as 

proposed, focused on the areas set forth 

in the Act and a majority of the 

competencies identified in the FOQ 

ARC report. The FAA included a draft 

advisory circular (AC) in the docket that 

provided further detail on the content 

and the structure of the course. 

1. Required Training for an ATP 

Certificate 

The FAA received over 120 comments 

regarding whether the FAA should 

require a training course prior to taking 

the ATP knowledge test. More than 30 

commenters, including Delta, A4A, 

CAPA, CAA, Parks College, and the 

Families of Continental Flight 3407, 

generally supported such a training 

course. An equal number of commenters 

including the University of Dubuque, 

Delaware State University (DSU), and 

numerous individual commenters 

generally stated such a course is 

unnecessary. Many commenters 

addressed specific elements of the 

proposal and suggested some 

alternatives which will be addressed 

later in the document. 

IATA stated that the additional 

training for the ATP certificate is 

appropriate because the current 

requirements are inadequate and have 

become irrelevant. Boeing agreed with 

the FAA’s rationale for the ATP CTP 

and asserted that pilots who 

successfully complete the program 

would have the needed ‘‘foundational 

knowledge to operate as second in 

command (SIC) in part 121 operations.’’ 

AAL echoed Boeing, indicating that the 

added training would provide valuable 

experience to future part 121 pilots. The 

National Air Disaster Alliance 

Foundation (NADA/F) was also 

supportive of the proposed course and 

highlighted the use of a standardized 

course of training. USAPA supports the 

additional training maintaining that it is 

more effective than just having a 

multiple choice exam. UAA supported 

pilots completing ground training prior 

to taking a knowledge test. 

Several commenters, including 

Aerosim, Middle Tennessee State 

University (MTSU), FSC, and WMU, 

support additional training but disagree 

with it being required for the knowledge 

test. ERAU, KSU, and 20 individual 

commenters support the additional 

training being part of a degree program 

or collegiate flight training program. 

Spartan College suggested it be part of 

an overall collegiate curriculum rather 

than a single course. 

Purdue, OSU, and the University of 

North Dakota (UND) suggested allowing 

the academic and FSTD portions of the 

proposed course to be completed at 

separate times enabling students to 

complete the academic portion as part 

of their degree program. The 

universities added that many of the 

topics are already covered as part of the 

degree program and graduates should 

get credit for the academic portion of 

the proposed course and therefore only 

have to complete the FSTD portion at a 

later time. They also suggested allowing 

the knowledge test to be completed 

following the academic portion, which 

falls more in line with how knowledge 

areas for other FAA pilot certificates are 

tested. 

ExpressJet supported imbedding the 

ATP CTP training into an air carrier’s 

initial training program. The Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) 

equated the ATP CTP to the AJT course 

the FOQ ARC recommended for pilots 

entering part 121 service and therefore 

disagrees that the ATP CTP should 

apply to all pilots required to have an 

ATP certificate. AOPA suggested the 

FAA ‘‘reword the AJT requirement so it 

is required only of individuals 

employed by part 121 air carriers, prior 

to flying in revenue service and not as 

a prerequisite to all ATP certificates.’’ 

OSU generally agreed with the 

academic portion of the course but 

believed the FSTD portion of the course 

‘‘represents an overwhelming financial 

burden’’ to ATP certificate applicants. 

Many other individual commenters 

disagreed with imposing additional 

training requirements on pilots seeking 

an ATP certificate, in part due to the 

additional cost. The General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA) 

stated an ATP applicant has already 

gone through ample training and this 

course would just be an extra cost 

burden and was unlikely to provide any 

additional safety benefit. GAMA, 

however, expressed support for the 

proposed FSTD portion of the training 

course, indicating that such training can 

be ‘‘extremely beneficial.’’ NATA 

believes the course as proposed is too 

costly. NATA is supportive of 

modifications to the ATP certification 

regulations, but indicated the delivery 

of any new training should be made 

available through lower cost methods, 

such as on-line course delivery. 

Based on the support for additional 

training expressed by many of the 

commenters, the FAA has decided to 

require academic and FSTD training for 

the ATP certificate multiengine class 

rating and the ATP certificate when 

obtained concurrently with an airplane 

type rating.13 This training, required at 

the ATP certification level, will address 

the gap in knowledge between a 

commercial pilot certificate and the 

knowledge a pilot should have prior to 

entering an air carrier environment. In 

addition, the FAA has decided that the 

safest and most effective way to ensure 

that applicants for an ATP certificate 

have met the requirements of section 

217 of the Act is to establish specific 

training requirements and evaluate the 

pilot’s understanding of those areas of 

instruction consistent with the 

regulatory framework for other pilot 

certificates. 

To the extent that several commenters 

suggested that the coursework in 

university aviation degree programs 

already may satisfy the academic 

training requirements of the ATP CTP, 

the FAA does not agree. Many colleges 

and universities teach ground school for 

other certificates and ratings as part of 

their academic curriculum that include 

a general overview of topics for which 

the collegiate program has 

comprehensive standalone courses. For 

example, despite most collegiate 

programs having a separate 

aerodynamics course, this topic remains 

a component of private pilot ground 

school and is generally reinforced in a 

concurrent flight training lab. The 

aerodynamics training for private pilots 

generally applies to small, singleengine, piston-powered aircraft—the 

type of airplane most people initially 

learn to fly. Similarly, the academic 

portion of the ATP CTP (essentially 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42335 

ground training for ATP certification) 

will focus on the aerodynamic 

principles for large turbine aircraft—the 

type of aircraft flown in part 121 

operations as well as many operations 

in part 135 and subpart K of part 91. 

The ATP CTP will then incorporate 

those concepts learned in the academic 

portion of the course into practical 

scenarios during the FSTD training to 

reinforce the critical concepts of 

operating at high altitudes and its effects 

on the airplane and the importance of 

stall recognition and recovery. The FAA 

supports colleges and universities with 

FAA certificated part 141 pilot schools 

teaching the ATP CTP but as a 

standalone course, just as they do with 

ground schools and flight labs for other 

pilot certificates and ratings. 

The FAA also maintains that the 

academic training requirements cannot 

be separated from the FSTD training. 

The FAA has acknowledged the value of 

structured university aviation degree 

programs in other parts of this final rule; 

however, the design of the ATP CTP 

ensures the knowledge gained in the 

academic portion of the course is 

directly applicable to air carrier 

operations and operating sophisticated, 

high performance, large, turbine aircraft. 

The training in the FSTD portion of the 

course consolidates the academic 

concepts with scenario-based training, 

practical applications, demonstrations, 

and multiengine experience. The course 

will consolidate many broader topics 

and focus on its applicability to air 

carrier-like operations. For many pilots 

who take the ATP CTP, it will likely be 

their first exposure to large turbine 

aircraft and how those aircraft perform 

at high altitude, how they perform in 

low energy states, and in adverse 

weather phenomena, like thunderstorms 

and icing conditions. Combining the 

academic training requirements with the 

FSTD experience is the most effective 

method to consolidate the learning and 

deliver the training and experience 

mandated by the Act. 

Additionally, the FAA has 

determined that students must complete 

both the academic and FSTD training 

prior to taking the knowledge test. By 

separating the academics and flight 

training, possibly by years since a pilot 

may wait until he or she is further in a 

professional career, the learning 

objectives are less likely to be achieved. 

In light of that fact, the knowledge test 

cannot be taken following completion of 

only the academic portion of the course. 

The FAA is retaining the requirement 

that a pilot complete all of the ATP CTP 

to be eligible to take the knowledge test. 

To those commenters that suggested 

the ATP CTP be incorporated into air 

carrier initial training because the 

subjects are already taught or because 

the training only applies to pilots in part 

121 operations, the FAA disagrees. The 

ATP CTP is the base upon which a pilot 

must build. The concepts in the course 

will apply to any pilot who flies a large 

turbine aircraft regardless of operating 

rule part and therefore has value to 

pilots flying outside of part 121. The 

ATP CTP will cover topics the air 

carrier is not required to teach. For 

those general knowledge areas that are 

currently part of a part 121 initial 

training program, the FAA has modified 

subpart N to remove those requirements 

and reduce ground training for those 

pilots who have completed the ATP 

CTP. A pilot in an air carrier training 

program receives training specific to the 

air carrier’s operation and the specific 

aircraft that pilot is going to fly. Even if 

the subjects are offered by an air carrier 

in initial training, the pilot is focused 

primarily on learning the company 

operation and the specific type of 

aircraft they will fly, not on broader, 

foundational concepts that the ATP CTP 

is designed to provide. 

The FAA recognizes commenters’ 

concerns regarding the cost of the 

proposed ATP CTP and considered 

these costs when establishing the 

requirements for the course. Section 217 

of the Act directed the FAA to modify 

the requirements for ATP certification to 

include ensuring that applicants for the 

ATP certificate have sufficient flight 

hours in difficult operational conditions 

‘‘that may be encountered by an air 

carrier.’’ The FAA sought input from the 

FOQ ARC on how to define difficult 

operational conditions and how a pilot 

can best obtain experience in those 

conditions. As indicated it its report, the 

FOQ ARC ‘‘extensively discussed the 

issue of difficult operating conditions 

and determined that simulator training 

is an important tool by which to provide 

flight experience to the pilot for 

recognition and appropriate response in 

the difficult environments experienced 

by air carriers.’’ Because of safety 

concerns, the FOQ ARC did not 

recommend that pilots be intentionally 

placed in these difficult conditions in 

actual aircraft. The FOQ ARC 

recommended scenario-based training to 

address difficult operating conditions 

including thunderstorms, icing, low 

visibility, maximum crosswinds for 

takeoff and landing, and contaminated 

runways. 

Generally, pilots from their earliest 

training are taught to avoid 

thunderstorms and icing conditions. 

Even when flying an airplane approved 

for flight in icing conditions, a pilot is 

cautioned to minimize time flying in 

icing conditions. The FAA will not 

encourage pilots to seek experience in 

hazardous conditions for the purpose of 

meeting the aeronautical experience 

requirements for the ATP certificate 

required by the Act. The FAA has long 

recognized that flight simulators and 

flight training devices provide a safe 

flight training environment that can 

reduce the number of training accidents 

by allowing training for emergency 

situations, such as fire, total loss of 

thrust, and systems failures, that cannot 

be safely conducted in flight. 61 FR 

34508 (July 2, 1996). Therefore, the FAA 

has determined that many of the 

difficult operational conditions can be 

most safely demonstrated to students 

through simulation. Simulation will be 

discussed in greater detail later in this 

section. 

Although the Act permitted the FAA 

to consider operational experience as a 

means of ensuring that a pilot has 

received adequate flight hours in 

conditions such as adverse weather, 

high altitude operations, and an air 

carrier operational environment, the 

FAA has determined that it is not 

appropriate to encourage pilots to seek 

such conditions in an aircraft. In 

addition it would be difficult to validate 

experience in those conditions. 

Moreover, it would be difficult for pilots 

to obtain experience in the complex 

aircraft that would be required to 

replicate an air carrier operational 

environment. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined 

that academic and FSTD training, 

followed by an evaluation through a 

revised knowledge test that includes the 

content of the course and subsequent 

completion of a practical test will meet 

the requirements of the Act and provide 

valuable training for the ATP certificate. 

2. Training Providers 

Due to the FSTD requirement in the 

ATP CTP, the FAA proposed that the 

course be conducted only by the 

following certificate holders who are 

approved to sponsor an FSTD under 14 

CFR part 60: A part 141 pilot school, a 

part 142 training center, or a part 119 

certificate holder authorized to conduct 

operations under parts 121 or 135. 

AOPA was concerned that the FAA 

‘‘did not consider the negative impact 

on independent part 61 flight schools, 

other training providers who conduct 

ATP certification training or [designated 

pilot examiners] who currently conduct 

ATP certificate testing.’’ NAFI 

commented the proposal completely 

excludes ‘‘the very broad base of part 61 

training providers who have 

traditionally helped maintain training 

capacity.’’ NAFI further stated that part 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42336 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

61 instructors provide a significant 

amount of training toward professional 

pilot careers and to eliminate these 

instructors may reduce overall training 

capacity and result in a negative 

economic impact on these training 

providers. ALPA recommends the 

proposed ‘‘authorized training 

provider’’ be clearly defined in the 

regulations to assure the highest 

standards and quality of training for 

ATP applicants. NATA disagreed with 

part 135 operators being eligible to offer 

the ATP CTP stating it is impractical for 

part 135 operators because the required 

FSTDs are too expensive to acquire and 

the training must be outsourced. In 

addition, NATA stated the proposed 

requirements are a disincentive for part 

135 pilots to get an ATP certificate 

because the proposed training 

requirements are not all relevant to 

operations outside of 14 CFR part 121. 

The FAA acknowledges that, as a 

practical matter, pilots preparing for the 

ATP practical test have sought flight 

training from certified flight instructors 

even without explicit regulatory training 

requirements. Although such training 

may have covered ground training on 

the aeronautical knowledge areas in 

§ 61.155, pilots primarily sought flight 

training in the specific type of aircraft 

in which they planned to take the ATP 

practical test. Although fewer pilots 

may choose to pursue an ATP certificate 

with a multiengine class rating as a 

result of the new training requirements, 

the pilots who seek an ATP certificate 

outside of an air carrier will continue to 

seek flight training from certified flight 

instructors as preparation for the 

practical test. Additionally, the practical 

test in many cases will still be given by 

designated pilot examiners who 

currently evaluate ATP applicants. 

The specified training providers for 

the ATP CTP were chiefly determined 

by two factors: (1) The ability to sponsor 

an FSTD as set forth in 14 CFR part 60; 

and (2) the structure, systems, and 

management personnel required to 

develop, implement and maintain the 

FAA approved training program. This 

structure does not typically exist and is 

not required in part 61 training. 

The FAA disagrees with those 

commenters who suggested part 135 

certificate holders should not be eligible 

to provide this course. Part 135 

operators are eligible to sponsor a 

simulator per the regulations and have 

approved designated examiners who are 

authorized to conduct proficiency 

checks that result in ATP certification. 

A part 135 certificate holder may choose 

not to provide the course because its 

pilots do not require ATP certificates or 

because it is cost prohibitive to provide 

to those pilots that do require ATP 

certificates, but that is not a regulatory 

decision. 

The FAA has determined authorized 

training providers for the ATP CTP will 

be limited to certificate holders 

conducting operations under parts 121 

or 135, and pilot schools and training 

centers certificated under parts 141 or 

142, respectively. Each of these 

certificate holders have defined 

management structures, FAA approved 

training programs, and pilot training 

record retention requirements. Further, 

each ATP CTP submitted for approval 

will be reviewed by FAA Headquarters 

to ensure standardization. The FAA has 

modified the regulations for parts 121, 

135, and 141 to permit those certificate 

holders to provide the training. 

Specifically, the FAA has: (1) Added the 

ATP CTP to the list of pilot school 

ratings in § 141.11 and to the list of 

special preparation courses in appendix 

K of part 141; and (2) established new 

§§ 121.410 and 135.336 to permit part 

121 and part 135 certificate holders to 

obtain approval to provide the ATP 

CTP. The applicability provision in part 

142 permits those training centers to 

provide training required by 14 CFR 

part 61. 

3. Instructor Requirements 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

instructors for the ATP CTP must meet 

the following requirements: 

(1) Hold an ATP certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating; 

(2) have two years’ experience in 

operations that require an ATP 

certificate to serve as PIC; and 

(3) for those instructors that will 

provide training in an FSTD, have an 

appropriate aircraft type rating which 

the FSTD represents or have received 

training in the aircraft type from the 

certificate holder on those maneuvers 

they will teach. 

As set forth in the NPRM, the 

instructors would also meet the 

individual requirements associated with 

the applicable part under which they 

provide the ATP CTP (unless 

specifically excepted in the proposed 

regulatory text) to ensure the quality of 

instruction. 

Northern Michigan College supported 

the proposed instructor requirements 

and stated an ATP training course 

taught by qualified training providers 

should provide higher quality course 

content than that provided by a local 

flight instructor, thereby increasing the 

chance for improved flight safety.’’ CAE 

stated the instructor must have the 

necessary qualifications and experience 

requirements to teach the ATP CTP. 

KSU stated the academic training 

requirements should be administered by 

a qualified instructor as part of a 

collegiate flight education program. 

AOPA, UAA, and several individual 

commenters disagreed with stipulating 

instructor qualification requirements for 

the ATP CTP. Boeing recommended 

removing the two-year experience 

requirement from the ATP CTP for 

instructors under 14 CFR parts 121, 135, 

and 142, and devising an equitable 

solution for instructors under part 141 

to gain line operational experience in 

order to instruct. Utah Valley University 

concurred with the requirement for 

instructors to hold an ATP certificate 

but was unsupportive of the air carrier 

experience requirement because very 

few highly qualified instructor pilots 

would be interested in low-paying 

educational positions. 

NAFI raised concerns over the 

apparent prohibition of subject matter 

experts (SMEs) from teaching in the 

course, stating ‘‘such a limitation could 

force the hiring of less knowledgeable 

instructors who have met the 

requirements for instruction based 

solely upon the acquisition of Part 121 

experience, and not on individual 

qualifications.’’ 

In the development of the final rule’s 

instructor requirements, the FAA 

analyzed the existing training 

requirements for instructors in each rule 

part authorized to teach the ATP CTP. 

Whereas each rule part’s instructor 

requirements are designed to meet the 

needs of the specific part (e.g. airman 

certification for part 141, simulator 

instruction for part 142, and air carrier 

operations for parts 121 and 135), none 

sufficiently cover all the competencies 

necessary to deliver the ATP CTP as 

designed. 

Based on this regulatory review and 

the public comments, the FAA has 

assembled a specific set of instructor 

requirements designed to ensure the 

ATP CTP instructor: (1) Understands 

fundamental principles of instruction; 

(2) has the requisite experience to 

deliver the training topics with 

sufficient context to air carrier 

operations; and (3) if teaching in an 

FSTD, receives training on the 

limitations of simulation in order to 

mitigate the possibility of negative 

learning. Specifically, the FAA created 

new §§ 121.410, 135.336, and 142.54 

and modified § 141.33 to standardize 

the instructor requirements for the ATP 

CTP. 

a. Operational Experience 

The FAA has determined only 

instructors with air carrier experience 

may teach the course because only 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42337 

14The FAA notes that any instructor providing 

training in an FSTD should receive training on the 

topics listed. Making such a regulatory adjustment, 

however, would be outside of the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

pilots with experience in part 121, and 

PIC experience in parts 135 and 91, 

subpart K—as defined by § 135.243(a)(1) 

and § 91.1053(a)(2)(i)—can effectively 

link the academic content of the course 

to the practical application of that 

knowledge in an air carrier 

environment. The concept and structure 

of the ATP CTP focuses on delivering 

the academic subjects and applying that 

knowledge in an FSTD through 

scenario-based training emphasizing 

how each subject area specifically 

relates to large turbine airplanes and air 

carrier operations. 

In order to clarify the position on the 

operational experience requirement, the 

FAA proposed that instructors have at 

least two years of experience as a pilot 

in command in operations under 

§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or § 135.243(a)(1), or in 

any operation conducted under 14 CFR 

part 121. Whereas the experience in part 

121 operations is directly applicable, 

the FAA chose these particular 

operations in subpart K of part 91 and 

part 135 because they are air carrier-like 

operations that require the PIC to hold 

an ATP certificate. The ability to fly at 

the ATP certificate level and have 

demonstrated this proficiency during 

evaluation is an important regulatory 

differentiation. Specifically, these pilots 

will have gained experience as a PIC of 

a turbojet airplane or an aircraft with 

seating of 10 or more in operations very 

closely aligned to part 121 operations. 

In addition, requiring air carrier 

operational experience is consistent 

with existing instructor requirements. 

Part 142 training centers are not air 

carriers, but those part 142 instructors 

who provide air carrier training must 

meet operational experience 

requirements for part 121 and part 135 

instructors. The operational experience 

is necessary to ensure that each subject 

area specifically relates to transport 

aircraft and air carrier operations. For 

that reason, having an instructor with 

air carrier experience is critical. Further, 

the FAA believes there are a sufficient 

number of instructors with the required 

experience available, many of whom are 

already employed at likely ATP CTP 

providers. For example, air carriers that 

conduct their own training often use 

their own line pilots for the FSTD 

training. The FAA recognizes ATP CTP 

instructors with the requisite experience 

may require higher pay in comparison 

to current part 141 instructors and even 

some part 142 instructors. As a result, 

the FAA has accounted for a higher 

hourly wage in its economic analysis of 

the costs associated with the course. 

The FAA also recognizes due to many 

factors, including air carriers that have 

terminated operations, employment 

records to verify air carrier experience 

may not always be available. The FAA 

has developed guidance in AC 61–138, 

Airline Transport Pilot Certification 

Training Program, which provides a 

method for a pilot to attest to previous 

experience. 

b. Instructor Training 

As part of this final rule, each 

instructor who provides training for the 

ATP CTP must receive initial training in 

the following topics: 

• The fundamental principles of the 

learning process; 

• Elements of effective teaching, 

instruction methods, and techniques; 

• Instructor duties, privileges, 

responsibilities, and limitations; 

• Training policies and procedures; 

and 

• Evaluation. 

The FAA recognizes that some of 

these training requirements may be 

duplicative for holders of a flight 

instructor certificate that has not 

expired as well as instructors already 

qualified under certain rule parts. For 

example, the fundamentals of 

instruction are trained and evaluated as 

part of the practical test standards for 

receiving a flight instructor certificate 

under part 61 and as part of the training 

for instructors under part 142. The 

fundamentals of instruction are 

reemphasized for an active flight 

instructor or through instructor 

refresher courses and annual training 

center evaluator/instructor training. As 

such, with sufficient documentation, the 

FAA does not believe pilots with 

current flight instructor certificates or 

currently qualified part 142 training 

center personnel need to repeat such 

training. This accommodation is 

reflected in the final regulatory text. 

With regard to FSTD training the FAA 

believes well-trained instructors are the 

best means of ensuring that pilots are 

receiving effective training through 

simulation. There are two necessary 

components for ATP CTP instructors: 

(1) Training on the use and limitations 

of simulation; and (2) training on the 

tasks and maneuvers required in the 

ATP CTP. With the exception of part 

142, no rule part specifically requires 

this training as a prerequisite to 

instructing in a simulator. These 

requirements are especially critical for 

the delivery of stall training, upset 

prevention and recovery training, and 

operations in icing conditions where the 

risk for negative learning is high. 

The final rule ensures that instructors 

receive initial and recurrent training on 

the following topics: 14

• Proper operation of flight simulator 

and flight training device controls and 

systems; 

• Proper operation of environmental 

and fault panels; 

• Data and motion limitations of 

simulation; 

• Minimum equipment requirements 

for each curriculum; and 

• The tasks and maneuvers that will 

be demonstrated in the FSTD. The 

specific training requirements have been 

added to § 141.33 for those instructors 

who will provide FSTD training for the 

ATP CTP. In addition, because part 121 

and part 135 instructor requirements for 

simulator operations and limitations are 

specific to air carrier training conducted 

under those parts, the FAA has added 

this requirement to new §§ 121.410 and 

135.336 to ensure that the training 

across rule parts is consistent with the 

objectives and requirements of the ATP 

CTP. 

c. Type Rating 

The NPRM also proposed the FSTD 

instructor must either have an 

appropriate aircraft type rating which 

the FSTD represents or have received 

training in the maneuvers they will 

teach. As noted above, several 

commenters expressed concern over the 

potential for negative learning during 

the FSTD portion of the ATP CTP. As 

a result the FAA has determined that 

instructors for the ATP CTP must have 

a type rating in the airplane that is 

replicated by the FSTD and receive 

training on the maneuvers they will 

teach. Requiring a type rating of 

instructors is consistent with current 

regulations for existing air carriers. For 

the purposes of the ATP CTP, the type 

rating requirement has been added to 

new §§ 121.410, 135.336, and 142.54. 

The requirement for a type rating was 

not included in part 141 regulatory text 

because those instructors must already 

hold a type rating on their pilot 

certificate in order to conduct training 

in a type specific aircraft or FSTD. 

d. Subject Matter Experts 

The FAA has clarified its position on 

SMEs delivering academic training in 

the ATP CTP. As identified by 

commenters, the ATP CTP contains 

academic subjects for which SMEs 

might be appropriate. The FAA sees 

benefit in a SME delivering a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42338 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

specialized subject such as meteorology, 

human factors, or flight dispatch. 

Because the subjects focus on applying 

knowledge to an air carrier 

environment, the FAA will allow SMEs 

to deliver content in the ATP CTP while 

requiring an instructor with the required 

air carrier operational experience be 

present to ensure that the material 

presented is applied to air carrier 

operations. The FAA has determined 

these concepts can only be properly 

conveyed through an instructor with 

practical operational experience to meet 

the objectives of the course. 

4. Training Topics and Hours 

a. Academic Topics and Hours 

The proposed ATP CTP incorporated 

most of the academic and FSTD 

competencies identified by the FOQ 

ARC and also addressed in part 

numerous NTSB safety 

recommendations. The proposed 

program hours for the ATP CTP were 

based on an assessment of the quantity 

and complexity of the subject matter. In 

the NPRM, the FAA was prescriptive for 

20 of the 24 proposed academic hours, 

leaving some discretion to the training 

providers to determine what subject 

areas needed additional time. The FAA 

believed 24 hours of academic training 

was the minimum amount of time 

necessary to cover the material and be 

effective. The FAA further described the 

academic content in a draft AC that was 

posted to the docket. 

The FAA received more than 80 

comments regarding the training topics 

and training hours for the ATP CTP. 

Commenters including ALPA, Boeing, 

and Rocky Mountain College were 

generally supportive of the topics 

proposed in the academic portion of the 

ATP CTP. 

Commenters such as A4A, Delta, 

NTSB, and IATA offered additional 

academic training topics for the ATP 

CTP such as human factors, fatigue, 

error trapping, United States Standard 

for Terminal Instrument Procedures 

(TERPS), air law, mentoring, leadership, 

professional development, decision 

making, dispatch and flight following. 

Additional commenters, including 

NAFI, recommended using the topics 

presented in the FOQ ARC report. A4A, 

FedEx Corporation (FedEx), and Parks 

College recommended additional 

training hours to teach the material, 

with total hours ranging between 30 and 

50 hours. IATA commented that there 

should not be a specified number of 

hours for the ATP CTP, but rather a 

curriculum should be established and 

approved by the FAA based on the 

concept of demonstrated competency 

for course completion. An individual 

commenter stated the FAA had not 

accounted for pre-brief and post-brief 

time that is generally part of FSTD 

training. 

The FAA concurs with major 

commenters that additional topics 

should be added and the training time 

should increase. Based on the specific 

topic areas proposed by commenters 

and the new accident analysis the FAA 

completed, the FAA reassessed the 

entire course and expanded the 

academic portion of the ATP CTP to 

emphasize certain areas proposed in the 

NPRM. In particular, the FAA has 

expanded training on leadership, 

professional development, CRM, and 

safety culture. Section § 61.156 requires 

six hours of training on these topics. 

Enhancing these training topics in the 

ATP CTP supports the objectives of 

Section 206 of the Act by raising the 

baseline knowledge level of new-hire 

pilots on these topics; however these 

provisions do not fully meet the intent 

of the statute. This will be addressed in 

the Flight Crewmember Mentoring 

Leadership, and Professional 

Development rulemaking project. 

Additionally, some subjects, 

including checklist and MEL/CDL usage 

and weight and balance, were moved 

from the FTD portion of the course to 

the academic portion. The FAA 

determined these subjects could be 

taught effectively in the academic 

portion of the course using alternative 

devices, if appropriate, that do not 

require approval under part 60. The 

expansion of training topics and focus 

on particular topic areas will remove the 

4 hours of discretion to training 

providers allotted in the NPRM and will 

increase the total minimum academic 

program hours from 24 to 30. 

As noted by one commenter, the FAA 

did not account for briefing and 

debriefing time for FSTD training 

sessions; a typical component of flight 

training. The FAA agrees that briefing 

and debriefing are an important part of 

flight training because it allows for an 

explanation of the learning objectives 

for the training session and the 

opportunity for the instructor to 

reinforce the academic topic areas prior 

to the session and following the training 

event. As such, the FAA has decided to 

emphasize briefing and debriefing time 

before and after each FSTD period in the 

61–ATP advisory circular. This 

additional briefing time (3 hours) will 

provide a review of the training topics 

before each FSTD period and tie them 

directly to the academic portion of the 

course. Briefing time before and after a 

flight is not normally a prescriptive time 

accounted for in the regulations. As 

such, the FAA has not incorporated this 

time into the programmatic hours for 

the ATP CTP in § 61.156; however, the 

time is accounted for in the economic 

analysis. 

To the extent that commenters 

recommended that the ATP CTP be 

competency-based rather than have 

specific hour requirements, such an 

approach is not appropriate given the 

objectives of the ATP CTP. The FAA is 

very aware of competency-based 

training and is clearly supportive of its 

concepts in air carrier training by 

allowing advanced qualification 

programs (AQP), which use air carrierspecific data to establish and revise 

curricula. Training for certification, 

however, is traditionally and necessarily 

more prescriptive and based on program 

hours. Competency-based programs are 

most effective when the pilot is 

continually trained and evaluated 

within the same training program over 

the course of multiple years like at an 

air carrier. A pilot typically spends 

weeks in an air carrier initial training 

program receiving multiple evaluations 

prior to the qualification event. Once 

qualified, the pilot’s performance is 

measured by multiple data sources 

including line operations. An air 

carrier’s training programs and even its 

hiring practices can be altered to adjust 

to inadequacies of its training programs 

whereas part 61 certification is typically 

a one-time evaluation of the pilot’s 

skills during a practical test. As such, 

standardized training requirements are 

necessary to achieve the level of safety 

desired. Further, since the training 

program could be provided across four 

different rule parts by different 

certificated air agencies and operators, a 

structured and approved curriculum 

combined with mandatory program 

hours will allow for the consistency 

desired by the FAA from all providers. 

b. FSTD Topics 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed as 

part of the ATP CTP 16 hours of training 

in an FSTD qualified under 14 CFR part 

60 on topics including low energy 

states/stalls, upset recovery techniques, 

adverse weather conditions, aircraft 

performance, navigation, automation, 

and CRM. The draft AC that was placed 

in the docket further defined those 

subject areas. Because the proposed 

training was focused on introducing 

pilots to general concepts affecting all 

transport category aircraft, the NPRM 

did not propose that the FSTD training 

be conducted in a particular aircraft 

type (non-type specific) as is required 

for air carrier training. The FAA stated 

in the AC, however, that the training 

should take place in an FSTD that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42339 

represents an aircraft with a maximum 

take-off weight of at least 40,000 

pounds. 

The FAA received nearly 70 

comments regarding the appropriateness 

of requiring FSTD training that is not 

specific to any aircraft type. Many of the 

commenters, including AAL, agreed the 

training course should and can include 

concepts that are generally universal to 

transport category aircraft. CAPA noted 

aircraft performance and high altitude 

flight environments are universal across 

the transport category spectrum. 

IATA stated the ATP CTP should 

include training in a non-type specific 

FSTD because ‘‘the intention of the 

course is the development of core 

competencies independent of airplane 

type and applicable to all types of multicrew transport category airplane 

operations.’’ KSU stated training on 

non-type specific FSTDs would be 

beneficial and would add significant 

value to the ATP CTP. The University 

of Dubuque and SCSU stated training in 

non-type specific FSTDs reinforces and 

demonstrates concepts covered 

academically. A4A agreed with this 

proposal and stated principles of 

transport category jet operations do not 

need to be type specific. Boeing noted 

the concepts proposed to be trained in 

FSTDs are among those that have been 

consistently identified as lacking in 

recent accidents. 

Several commenters, including 

Ameriflight, FSI, and IFL Group, 

disagreed with permitting portions of 

the ATP certification training course in 

a non-type specific FSTD. The UAA 

disagreed with any FSTD requirement 

as part of the ATP CTP and noted the 

phrase ‘‘generally universal to transport 

category aircraft’’ causes problems 

because it is onerous to pilots seeking 

an ATP certificate for non-transport 

category aircraft. 

NATA opposed the requirement for 

general instruction in an FSTD because 

it shifts the cost to pilots with no benefit 

because the training would be 

superseded by air carrier initial training. 

The FAA received several comments 

concerning the possibility for negative 

training when conducting non-type 

specific training. NATA acknowledged 

value in additional training for 

prospective ATP certificate candidates 

but stated that the ATP CTP will create 

negative learning situations by forcing 

pilots into non-applicable training. 

NATA believes there are many pilots 

operating turboprop or piston engine 

aircraft that will be required to 

accomplish the training in turbine 

simulators as part of the ATP CTP. 

NATA and RACCA believe that 

requiring these pilots to obtain training 

that does not apply to their experience 

and operational goals will lead to a 

negative experience that does not 

increase safety. 

The FAA has concluded the ATP CTP 

FSTD training topics are necessary to 

reinforce the academic topics and to 

address the requirements of the Act. In 

addition, the FAA agrees with those 

commenters that believe the FSTD 

training can be non-type specific and 

not result in negative learning and 

therefore has decided to retain the nontype specific training in an FSTD. 

First, the FAA reiterates that this 

framework of academic training and 

flight training is consistent with that of 

other pilot certificates. Pilots routinely 

receive basic certification flight training 

in one type of aircraft and then move on 

to fly many other types of aircraft 

without a negative transfer of learning. 

The training received in the ATP CTP 

will also be the last basic certification 

training a pilot receives. It will address 

topics not covered at the commercial 

pilot certificate level and establish a 

knowledge base that additional aircraft 

type-specific and air carrier-specific 

training can build upon when a pilot is 

trained to fly for an air carrier. 

Second, the ATP CTP is designed to 

teach high-level concepts that are 

applicable to operating all large 

transport aircraft. It will increase 

knowledge through academic 

introduction to concepts that are 

generally true across all large aircraft 

types and then consolidate those same 

concepts through demonstration and 

experience in FSTDs. None of the 

training tasks will require applicants to 

perform maneuvers to proficiency, but 

rather experience critical events (stall 

onset, low energy states, upset 

prevention and recovery) with 

continuous instructor explanation and 

feedback. By combining this training 

experience with instructor explanation, 

the academic portion of the course will 

be effectively consolidated while 

reducing the possibility of negative 

transfer of learning for those pilots who 

may fly different aircraft types than 

those used in the course. 

c. Level of FSTD and Hours 

The FAA proposed 16 hours in an 

FSTD—8 hours in a Level C or D FFS 

and 8 hours in a Level 4 or higher FTD. 

The FAA received more than 130 

comments regarding the level of the 

appropriate device but very little 

comment concerning the appropriate 

number of hours. 

Many commenters, including the 

Regional Airline Association (RAA), 

UND, and FIT, stated that a level 4 or 

5 FTD would be an appropriate level of 

FSTD for the entire course as long as it 

has visual capabilities and a stick 

shaker/pusher. Cape Air proposed that a 

level 5 or 6 FTD with realistic visuals 

would be sufficient for the course. OSU 

indicated a level 5 or higher device with 

visuals would be just as effective as a 

Level C FFS and would result in 

reduced costs. The commenters added 

that FTDs are an acceptable and safe 

alternative to FFSs. AOPA was 

particularly concerned that the FAA had 

not considered whether there was an 

adequate number of available FSTDs in 

the United States to accommodate the 

number of ATP applicants who will 

require training and raised concerns that 

compliance may be difficult. 

ERAU cited various studies in their 

response that raised concerns regarding 

the use of motion-based training 

devices, including the value of using 

motion-based training devices in upset 

maneuvers, and disputed the need for 

simulator training in extended 

envelopes. One study asserts there are 

compromises made between cost and 

fidelity with the goal of getting the 

highest degree of transfer of training 

from the simulation device to the real 

world (Roscoe, 1980). An additional 

study that was cited by ERAU expanded 

upon that finding, indicating that FAAqualified FFSs are unable to accurately 

portray how an airplane would react 

outside of the normal flight envelope— 

often referred to as extended envelope 

operations (Schroeder & Grant, 2010). 

ERAU noted the FAA participates in the 

International Committee for Aviation 

Training in Extended Envelopes 

(ICATEE). ERAU added ICATEE (2012) 

proposes an approach to examining the 

issue by first defining training needs 

and then proposing solutions. The 

ICATEE solution for training extended 

envelope flight tasks includes using 

flight simulation within its limitations. 

The eight hours of training with motionbased simulation in the ATP CTP will 

be for tasks in, or near, the extended 

envelope where the correlation to actual 

flight conditions is problematic. ERAU 

concluded its comment with the 

statement ‘‘[n]o motion is preferable to 

incorrect motion.’’ 

NTSB commented that, because 

simulators may not be able to accurately 

portray stalls and upset recovery, the 

FAA should allow flexibility in 

determining what level of simulation or 

automation is appropriate for specific 

training. 

A number of colleges and universities, 

including Utah Valley University (UVU) 

and Rocky Mountain College stated the 

FFS requirement in the ATP CTP creates 

a significant obstacle for colleges and 

universities with aviation degree 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42340 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

programs due to the high costs of 

obtaining and maintaining those 

devices. Aims Community College, 

which operates a Level C FFS, was 

supportive of the proposed minimum 

FFS level. Commenters, including KSU, 

SCSU, USAPA, and WMU, stated the 

approved curriculum should have 

specified goals and competencies, not 

required hours. 

The FAA concurs with many of the 

commenters’ assertions regarding the 

ability to utilize FTDs in an effective 

training program. While an FTD does 

not provide the sensory input of motion, 

the fidelity of the aircraft data and 

replication of the aircraft controls can be 

very high. These high fidelity devices 

without motion can offer effective 

training benefits for tasks that do not 

require motion inputs to meet the 

learning objective (e.g., use of 

automation and navigational 

instruments and CRM). 

Following a review of the comments 

and a training task analysis consisting of 

a re-evaluation of the FSTD topics and 

proposed device level, the FAA has 

reaffirmed that it is not possible to train 

all of the topics in an FTD. Therefore, 

the FAA has retained the requirement 

for training certain topics in an FFS. A 

flight training program that combines 

effective use of Level 4 and higher FTDs 

and the benefits of Level C or higher 

FFSs best ensures that the learning 

objectives will be effectively met. 

Notwithstanding the decision to retain 

training in FSTD, the FAA has modified 

the training hours in the final rule. 

Based on the task analysis, rather than 

the 16 hours of FSTD training proposed 

in the NRPM, the final rule requires 10 

hours of training in FSTDs: Six hours in 

a Level C or higher FFS and four hours 

in Level 4 or higher FTD. 

As previously stated, the FAA has 

moved some topics that were originally 

proposed for the FSTD portion of the 

course to the academic portion. The 

FAA has matched the remaining flight 

training objectives from the ATP CTP 

with the appropriate level of device and 

determined the ‘‘FTD topics’’ (e.g. flight 

management systems) could be trained 

in four hours rather than the eight hours 

proposed in the NPRM. As a result, the 

regulatory text of § 61.156 permits up to 

four hours of the ten hours of FSTD 

training to be completed in an FTD— 

which may be conducted in a Level 4 

or higher FTD or Level A or higher FFS 

(with or without motion activated). 

In completing the task analysis of the 

ATP CTP, the FAA also determined that 

the training that must be completed in 

a Level C or higher FFS could be 

accomplished in six hours rather than 

the eight hours proposed in the NPRM. 

Many of the maneuvers such as taxi, 

takeoff, and landing can be conducted 

only in a Level C or higher FFSs. 

Neither FTDs nor Level A or B FFSs are 

evaluated to perform such maneuvers. 

Additionally, low energy states, stall 

events, upset prevention and recovery 

techniques, and adverse weather 

conditions, including icing, 

thunderstorms, and crosswinds, require 

devices with motion cueing to achieve 

the learning objective. Only Level C or 

higher FFSs can replicate both the 

specific aerodynamic characteristics of 

the aircraft and the sensory perceptions 

that motion provides, which are 

necessary to allow the applicant the 

opportunity to fully grasp the critical 

concepts of the course. Level C or higher 

FFSs offer superior training benefits for 

maneuver-based training that cannot be 

replicated adequately by an FTD. This 

determination is based on the 

conclusion that, while both visual and 

vestibular systems are directly impacted 

by simulation, the element of these 

systems that is critical to satisfactory 

training is motion on-set (or 

acceleration) cueing. In addition, for a 

pilot’s first exposure to critical 

concepts, such as high altitude 

handling, low energy states, and aircraft 

handling in adverse weather conditions, 

Level C or higher devices are necessary 

in order for the pilot to achieve the 

learning envisioned by the Act. 

Various studies have shown an 

increase in pilot performance when 

pilots use simulators with motion. See 

Showalter, T.W.; Parris, B.L., ‘‘The 

Effects Of Motion And GSeat Cues On 

Pilot Simulator Performance Of Three 

Piloting Tasks,’’ Ames Research Center, 

Jan 1, 1980 (indicating 40% 

improvement on yaw performance and 

roll performance, engine out on takeoff 

with use of motion simulators); Parris, 

B.L.; Cook, A.M., ‘‘Effects of visual and 

motion simulation cueing systems on 

pilot performance during takeoffs with 

engine failures,’’ Ames Research Center, 

Dec 1, 1978; Hosman, R.J.A.W., & van 

der Vaart, J.C. ‘‘Effects of vestibular and 

visual motion perception on task 

performance,’’ (1981); Heintzman, 

Richard J. ‘‘Determination of Force 

Cueing Requirements for Tactical 

Combat Flight Training Devices,’’ 

Training Systems Product Group 

Aeronautical Systems Center Air Force 

Materiel Command Wright Patterson 

AFB, February 1997; Gebman, J.R.; 

Stanley, W.L.; Barbour, A.A.; Berg, R.T.; 

Birkler, J.L., ‘‘Assessing the Benefits and 

Costs of Motion for C–17 Flight 

Simulators,’’ Department of The Air 

Force, Washington, DC, June 1986. 

Accordingly, the FAA has determined 

that maneuver-based tasks must be 

conducted in a Level C or higher FFSs 

because the FFSs provide the level of 

motion cueing necessary to ensure 

proper response in real flight 

operations. These simulators most 

closely represent an aircraft with respect 

to aerodynamic handling characteristics 

and possess the motion required to 

achieve the learning objective of many 

tasks. 

The FAA agrees with ERAU’s 

assertion regarding the limitations of 

FFS in extended envelope maneuvering 

and modeling; however, none of the 

requirements in the ATP CTP involve 

training in these extended envelopes. 

The FAA believes the commenter’s use 

of the term extended envelope is 

referring to theoretical or analytical data 

used in simulation which may exceed 

typical manufacturer-captured flight test 

data. As set forth in AC 61–138, low 

energy states (slow flight), approach to 

stalls, and even the upset prevention 

and recovery training will all be 

conducted within the manufacturer’s 

supplied and FAA’s National Simulator 

Program validated aerodynamic 

envelope. 

As noted by ERAU, the FAA 

participates in ICATEE and other 

research projects in order to develop 

training tasks within current limitations 

and research adjusting future simulator 

modeling where appropriate. The 

commenter also expresses concerns over 

the lack of available displacement of 

hexapod motion platforms that could 

induce negative transfer training if the 

training task exceeds the motion 

capabilities of the device. We concur 

with this thought but re-emphasize all 

the training tasks proposed will occur 

within the validated aerodynamic and 

simulator motion envelopes. The upset 

training maneuvers used in the ATP 

CTP are supported through the research 

and development of the Airplane Upset 

Recovery Training Aid (AURTA) and 

recently validated by the 2012 Loss of 

Control Avoidance and Recovery 

Training (LOCART) ARC. The LOCART 

ARC was sponsored by the FAA and 

additionally supported by International 

Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the 

European Aviation Safety Agency, and 

Transport Canada to develop 

recommendations for upset prevention 

and recovery maneuvers in order to 

minimize the loss of control inflight 

accidents worldwide. The AURTA was 

developed by Airbus, Boeing, and the 

Flight Safety Foundation; it contains 

effective upset recovery training tools 

designed to work within the simulator’s 

designed motion platform. This training 

is intended to increase a pilot’s ability 

to recognize and avoid situations that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42341 

can lead to airplane upsets and improve 

the pilot’s ability to recover control of 

an airplane that has exceeded the 

normal flight regime. To further mitigate 

the possibility of negative transfer of 

training, the FAA has published AC 

120–109, Stall and Stick Pusher 

Training, comprehensive guidance for 

the training and checking of stall events. 

The FAA will publish additional 

guidance material in AC 61–138 for the 

academic training portion of the course 

for the aerodynamics, and upset 

prevention and recovery topics based on 

the recommendations of the LOCART 

ARC. The FAA emphasizes instructor 

training in all of its guidance material 

relating to stall and upset, for both the 

operation of the training device and 

training in the device’s limitations, in 

order to avoid a student’s potential for 

negative learning. 

In the draft AC for the ATP CTP that 

was placed in the docket when the 

NPRM published, the FAA stated that in 

order to replicate the high altitude and 

low energy handling characteristics 

desired, the FFS should represent a 

swept-wing transport category airplane 

with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 

50,000 pounds or greater. The FAA did 

not propose this standard in the 

regulatory text. Despite receiving 

significant comment on the training 

topics listed in the AC as well as what 

level of device would be appropriate, 

the FAA received only one comment— 

which was supportive—regarding the 

proposed takeoff weight or wing design 

of the type of airplane the FFS should 

represent. As part of the evaluation of 

the FFS training topics and learning 

objectives, the FAA reviewed all of the 

approved FFSs under 14 CFR part 60 

including the associated weights of the 

aircraft they represent. Based on that 

review, the FAA has determined an FFS 

representing an aircraft with a 

maximum takeoff weight of at least 

40,000 pounds is necessary to meet the 

objectives of the ATP CTP. 

The weight of the aircraft the 

simulator represents is an important 

factor in ensuring handling 

characteristics of a typical transport 

aircraft. The 40,000 pound minimum 

requirement will ensure the device can 

replicate the lower performance margins 

and handling qualities inherent in 

transport category aircraft when being 

operated near their maximum operating 

weight at altitudes near their service 

ceiling. Critical concepts such as high 

speed slowdowns and approach to stall 

recoveries, which can take thousands of 

feet to recover at high altitudes, cannot 

be achieved in lighter aircraft types with 

higher thrust-to-weight ratios. The FAA 

notes that 40,000 pounds generally 

captures most regional aircraft including 

larger turboprops like the Bombardier 

DHC–8–400. To ensure that the 

objectives of the ATP CTP are met, the 

FAA has incorporated the weight 

requirement from the AC into § 61.156. 

Due to the potential for differing 

interpretations associated with the 

terms ‘‘swept-wing’’ or ‘‘straight wing,’’ 

the FAA has decided to remove that 

language from the FSTD requirements. 

The weight requirements described 

above and listed in the final regulatory 

language will produce the desired 

handling qualities sought in order to 

achieve the objectives of the course. 

In response to commenters’ concerns 

over the lack of sufficient number of 

training devices to deliver the ATP CTP, 

currently there are 407 FAA-evaluated 

Level C or higher FFS devices that 

replicate aircraft with a maximum 

takeoff weight at or exceeding 40,000 

pounds. These devices represent 98% of 

all Level C and D FFSs that have been 

approved by the FAA. The FAA has 

evaluated the average number of ATP 

certificate applicants per year over the 

last 10 years (5,500), compared to the 

number of devices (81 FTDs and 407 

FFSs) defined by the rule and 

recommended for use in the ATP CTP. 

Being conservative, the FAA assumed 

that all 10 hours of FSTD training would 

occur in Level C or higher FFSs. 

Assuming each FFS is capable of five 4- 

hour simulator periods per day 

(allowing for one 4-hour maintenance 

period per day), the U.S. inventory of 

these FFSs offers over 700,000 simulator 

periods. The 5,500 ATP certificate 

applicants will require 16,500 FFS 

periods from the U.S. inventory—less 

than 2% of available simulator time. 

Use of FTDs in the course will only 

improve availability. The AC suggests 

the FTD should replicate multicrew 

aircraft and be equipped with a flight 

management system (FMS) and 

autoflight. Currently, 68% of FAAevaluated Level 4 or higher FTDs (a total 

of 81 FTDs) replicate the desired aircraft 

as defined by AC 61–138. Therefore, the 

FAA has determined even with 

moderate usage for non ATP CTP 

training, there is ample inventory of 

available FSTD time to accommodate 

the requirements of the course. 

Finally, the FAA has decided to allow 

for consideration of a deviation from the 

weight requirement set forth in § 61.156. 

The FAA established a baseline weight 

because it believes that having all FFSs 

representing aircraft weighing 40,000 

pounds or more allows for adequate 

demonstration of the learning objectives 

described in AC 61–138. The FAA 

recognizes, however, that there may be 

FFSs that represent an aircraft weighing 

less than 40,000 pounds that may be 

capable of replicating the lower 

performance margins and handling 

qualities desired at higher altitudes to 

meet the learning objectives of the 

course. If a training provider seeks to 

use a device that does not meet the 

weight criteria set forth in § 61.156, it 

must apply for a deviation. In 

considering a deviation request, the Air 

Transportation Division, the National 

Simulator Program, and the certificate 

holder’s assigned principal inspector or 

TCPM will work together to determine 

if the training platform ensures quality, 

effective training for ATP applicants 

and provides an equivalent level of 

safety. 

d. FSTD Cost 

As reflected in the final regulatory 

evaluation, the cost to provide the 

training is estimated to be equivalent 

across all possible training providers. 

Although part 121, 135, 141 and 142 

certificate holders may sponsor a 

simulator under part 60, there is no 

requirement to own a simulator. Many 

part 121 and part 135 certificate holders 

currently utilize simulation for training 

without the ownership and maintenance 

of the devices. It is common practice for 

many air carriers to enter into 

agreements with other carriers and part 

142 training centers to lease time in 

FSTDs. Additionally, there is no 

requirement to deliver the ATP CTP 

training program, and each certificate 

holder must individually determine if 

providing the course best meets its 

needs and ability. Although the FAA 

considered cost when aligning the 

appropriate device to the training task, 

meeting the learning objective was the 

paramount consideration. 

5. FAA Knowledge Test for an ATP 

Certificate 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

revise the aeronautical knowledge areas 

in § 61.155 to incorporate the new 

knowledge areas in the ATP CTP. We 

noted that such a revision would result 

in changes to the ATP knowledge test. 

Commenters such as IATA and the IFL 

Group believed the current ATP 

knowledge test is inadequate. 

Commenters assert the current 

preparatory products available to 

applicants of the knowledge test only 

ensure rapid rote memorization of the 

material and not knowledge retention. 

The FAA concurs and has determined 

academic knowledge gained and 

evaluated in a classroom setting, 

reinforced with demonstration and 

experience in an FSTD, and then 

validated by a revised written 

knowledge test gives the applicant the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42342 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

15As set forth in § 61.39(b), the knowledge test 

results for pilots who pass the knowledge test 

before August 2014—meaning they have not 

completed the ATP CTP—will expire 24 months 

after the date the test was passed. These pilots may 

not use an expired knowledge test to take the 

practical test even if they are employed by an air 

carrier. 

best chance of knowledge retention. 

This knowledge will allow the student 

to perform more effectively upon 

entering an air carrier environment—the 

ultimate goal of the Act. 

The FAA also proposed to extend the 

validity period for the knowledge test 

for an ATP certificate to five years in 

consideration of the applicant’s time 

and financial commitment to the ATP 

CTP. The FAA considered the extension 

appropriate due to the proposed 

elimination of the ability for air carrier 

pilots to use expired knowledge tests. 

The FAA received no comments on this 

proposal. In the final rule, FAA has 

retained the five-year validity period for 

the ATP knowledge test only for those 

pilots who pass the knowledge test after 

having completed the ATP CTP— 

meaning any test passed after July 31, 

2014. The FAA has also retained the 

provision that allows pilots employed 

by certificate holders in parts 121, 125, 

or 135 to use expired knowledge tests. 

As set forth in § 61.39, pilots employed 

in parts 125 and 135 may use an expired 

knowledge test if they have completed 

the ATP CTP and the operator’s 

approved pilot-in-command training or 

checking program. New hire pilots in 

part 121 operations may use an expired 

knowledge test if they have completed 

the ATP CTP and the operator’s initial 

training program.15 These pilots 

employed by air carriers are subject to 

additional training and evaluation 

requirements that will ensure that they 

have a continued understanding of the 

general concepts of the ATP CTP. If an 

applicant outside of an air carrier 

environment fails to take the practical 

test within five years of taking the 

knowledge test, he or she must retake 

the knowledge test to validate retention 

of the subject areas of the ATP CTP. The 

FAA has modified § 61.35 to make clear 

that a person may not take the 

knowledge test for the ATP certificate 

with an airplane category multiengine 

class rating until the person is 18 years 

of age. 

Finally, as set forth in existing 

§ 61.49, those applicants who fail the 

knowledge test for the ATP certificate 

after completing the ATP CTP are 

required to receive the necessary 

remedial training from an approved 

ATP CTP training provider and receive 

an endorsement before retaking the 

knowledge test. 

6. Credit Toward Air Carrier Training 

Programs 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

the ATP CTP would be a basic 

certification requirement, not an air 

carrier training program requirement. 

This position was consistent with the 

provision in the Act that directed the 

FAA to modify the ATP certificate to 

require the specific training previously 

discussed in this final rule. The FAA 

specifically asked commenters whether 

changes or reductions could be made to 

a part 121 air carrier training program 

based on the proposed content of the 

ATP CTP. There were 27 respondents 

who indicated that air carriers could 

either incorporate the ATP CTP into 

their initial program or reduce initial 

training hours based on the air carrier 

providing the ATP CTP. Whereas most 

of the respondents were favorable to air 

carriers offering the course, commenters 

were split on the issue of reducing an 

air carrier’s initial training program as a 

result of the ATP CTP. FlightSafety and 

Aerosim supported a reduction of initial 

training if additional subjects were 

covered by the ATP CTP. RAA indicated 

that reductions to air carrier flight 

training programs based on the 

proposed content of required ATP CTP 

would be difficult because the content 

of the ATP CTP was more generic than 

air carrier training. A4A stated ‘‘a 

review of initial training should be 

accomplished’’ without further 

explanation for why such a review 

should occur. Ameriflight claimed there 

is no legal basis for air carriers to 

provide part 61 training. 

Although part 121 and part 135 

operators may elect to offer this training 

for their pilots, it would remain separate 

from part 121 and part 135 training 

requirements. Because the proposed 

ATP CTP is part of the basic 

certification requirements for an ATP 

certificate, air carriers who elect to offer 

this training would be required to 

provide the course to their pilots prior 

to beginning initial training. The FAA 

proposed that principal operations 

inspectors may approve a reduction of 

hours in an air carrier’s initial training 

program based on material taught in the 

ATP CTP. However, because the ATP 

CTP requirements are basic certification 

requirements, these hours could not be 

reduced based on the contents of an air 

carrier’s initial training program. 

The FAA agrees with many 

commenters that the initial flight 

training should not be reduced because 

type-specific and operator-specific 

training is critical in the development of 

air carrier pilots. The FAA conducted a 

review of the ground training required 

for initial training in part 121, subpart 

N. The general subjects that are listed in 

§ 121.419(a)(1) contain many of the 

more basic knowledge requirements 

now addressed by the ATP CTP. 

The FAA has determined that some 

reductions in initial training for those 

more generic items listed in 

§ 121.419(a)(1) can occur. However, in 

place of requiring POI approval for these 

reductions, as was proposed in the 

NPRM, the FAA has decided to amend 

the general subject areas of initial 

training for those air carrier new hire 

pilots who have completed the ATP 

CTP prior to initial training. As these 

general subjects will now be taught in 

the ATP CTP, it will raise the baseline 

knowledge for all new hire pilots 

entering part 121 operations. This 

change will allow for more air carrier 

specific training to occur in initial 

training while allowing for reductions 

in the required program hours. The FAA 

notes that, until August 1, 2016—the 

date that all knowledge test results 

completed without completion of the 

ATP CTP will have expired—air carrier 

training classes could be comprised of 

some pilots who have completed the 

ATP CTP and some pilots who have not 

completed the course. 

With regard to Ameriflight’s comment 

regarding the impropriety of air carriers 

providing training that results in part 61 

certification, the FAA is unclear of the 

basis of Amerifight’s confusion. 

Regulations have recognized part 61 

certification events for ATP certification 

and type ratings through air carrier 

training programs for many years. 

7. Additional Course Requirements 

The FAA has added provisions to new 

§§ 121.410, 135.336, and 142.54 to 

ensure that certificate holders maintain 

certain standards for the ATP CTP. First, 

there is a provision in the final rule that 

prevents certificate holders from issuing 

graduation certificates unless a student 

has satisfactorily completed all of the 

training requirements for the ATP CTP. 

Second, the FAA is requiring certificate 

holders to establish a mechanism that 

insures continued evaluation of the ATP 

CTP to guarantee that training 

techniques, procedures, and standards 

are acceptable to the Administrator. 

These requirements are in addition to 

the administrative requirements that are 

already contained in the various rule 

parts. Because part 141 pilot schools 

currently have similar requirements for 

training courses and are required to 

renew their certificates every two years, 

no provisions have been added to that 

part. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42343 

16The Act specified that these training courses 

must be beyond the additional training required by 

the Act itself. In other words, the new training 

mandated by the Act could not be a basis for a 

reduction in flight hours below 1,500 hours. 

17Current regulations do not define the term 

‘‘flight hours;’’ therefore, the FAA assumes that the 

1,500 flight hours referenced in the Act represents 

the 1,500 hours total time as a pilot currently 

required by § 61.159. 

E. ATP Certificate With Restricted 

Privileges (§ 61.160) 

1. Public Law and NPRM 

Section 217 of the Act mandates that 

an applicant for an ATP certificate have 

‘‘at least 1,500 flight hours.’’ The section 

gave the FAA discretion to permit 

applicants to obtain an ATP certificate 

with fewer than the minimum 1,500 

hours if they have completed ‘‘specific 

academic training courses,’’ 16 as 

determined by the Administrator. The 

Act permitted a reduction only upon a 

determination by the Administrator that 

the courses would ‘‘enhance safety more 

than requiring the pilot to fully comply 

with the flight hours requirement.’’17

Based on the discretion afforded to 

the Administrator in section 217, the 

FAA proposed a new section, 

§ 61.160,which set forth two alternative 

flight hour requirements for an ATP 

certificate with airplane category 

multiengine class rating based on 

academic experience. Specifically, the 

FAA proposed to permit military pilots 

who have graduated from an Armed 

Forces undergraduate pilot training 

school to obtain an ATP certificate with 

750 total flight hours and graduates of 

four-year aviation degree programs with 

integrated flight training to obtain an 

ATP certificate with 1,000 total flight 

hours. 

The FAA proposed to limit the 

privileges of any pilot who obtains an 

ATP certificate under the aeronautical 

experience requirements of new 

§ 61.160. As set forth in the NRPM, a 

pilot holding an ATP certificate with 

fewer than 1,500 hours (an R–ATP 

certificate) would not be permitted to 

act as PIC in part 121 operations or as 

PIC in operations conducted under 

§ 91.1053 and § 135.243—the only 

operations under parts 91 and 135 that 

require the PIC to hold an ATP 

certificate. A pilot holding an R–ATP 

certificate would also not be permitted 

to serve as SIC of an aircraft in flag or 

supplemental operations that require 

three or more pilots because, even prior 

to the statutory requirement, SICs in 

those operations were required to hold 

an ATP certificate. 

In addition, the FAA proposed to 

modify the eligibility requirements of 

§ 61.153 to establish a minimum age of 

21 years for an R–ATP certificate. The 

FAA also proposed amending § 61.167 

to preclude a pilot who holds an R–ATP 

certificate from providing instruction 

under that section. 

2. General Support for and Opposition 

to an ATP Certificate With Reduced 

Hours 

Sixteen commenters, including APA, 

CAPA, USAPA, and Kestrel Aviation, 

LLC, (Kestrel) believe reducing the flight 

hour requirement to be eligible for an 

ATP certificate should not be allowed. 

The Families of Continental Flight 3407 

stated that they would like to see ‘‘every 

pilot required to have the minimum 

1,500 actual flight hours before being 

eligible for an ATP certificate.’’ Four 

New York Congressmen and RACCA 

opposed a reduction in flight time for 

everyone except military pilots. Several 

individual commenters added that 

completing flight training through a part 

141 pilot school or part 142 training 

center cannot replace flight experience. 

CAPA commented that ATP 

certification is a well-proven system and 

the 1,500-hour minimum time 

requirement provides an undeniable 

basic level of safety and operational 

proficiency. APA stated: (1) The 1,500 

flight hour requirement helps ensure 

that a mature, experienced aviator will 

be at the controls; (2) there is no 

substitute for experience; and (3) the 

most effective way for pilots to gain 

essential experience is to fly aircraft. 

APA noted that, along with total flight 

hours, ATP certificate requirements 

include cross country, night, and 

instrument flight hours that develop 

pilot skills that cannot be taught in a 

classroom or properly developed in a 

simulator. CAPA stated that real-world 

experience is vital. 

NAFI submitted results of a survey it 

conducted with 427 of its members 

regarding the proposals and questions 

presented in the NPRM. A majority of 

the responders indicated that they did 

not support an ATP certificate with 

restricted privileges for pilots with 

fewer than 1,500 flight hours based on 

academic training or experience. 

However, the results of the survey also 

showed that a significant number of 

NAFI members (327 respondents) 

believed that segments of the pilot 

community other than military pilots 

and graduates of four-year aviation 

degree programs should be eligible for 

an R–ATP certificate. 

AmeriFlight commented that the 

proposed rule will isolate many factions 

of the industry and funnel students to 

the cost-prohibitive four-year college 

flight training programs. AmeriFlight 

questioned whether the FAA believed 

that the knowledge gained while 

attending a four-year postsecondary 

institution is an adequate replacement 

for 500 hours of flight time and 175 

hours of flight time in cross-country 

operations. Delta stated that a reduction 

in hours, training, or experience for 

pilots exercising the PIC privileges of an 

ATP certificate is not appropriate based 

on the statute. 

The majority of commenters, 

including representatives of air carriers, 

educational institutions, and aviation 

organizations, were generally supportive 

of a restricted privileges ATP certificate 

but recommended alternatives to the 

proposal and suggested that it be made 

available to a greater number of pilots. 

Fifteen commenters offered opinions 

and comments on what they referred to 

as arbitrary hour requirements, 

including CAA and IATA. A4A stated 

that flight time alone does not ensure 

pilot proficiency or professionalism and 

added that formal education combined 

with good hiring practices, training, and 

mentoring will produce the most highly 

qualified pilots. American Flyers/Nova 

Southeastern University argued that the 

FAA should not consider flight hours 

alone as a satisfactory indicator or 

piloting ability, judgment, or 

experience. It stated that the 

qualification for the R–ATP certificate 

should be based on a combination of 

academic training and experience. 

Several commenters, including AOPA, 

RACCA, and the University of Dubuque 

thought the minimum age of 21 for an 

R–ATP was also arbitrary. One 

individual commenter added that there 

was no evidence to suggest age 18 

undermined safety. 

SAFE stated that academic experience 

should only be used to reduce flight 

hours if there is demonstrable evidence 

to support it. Four commenters, 

including WMU, and John A. O’Brien 

Consulting, LLC, agreed that a R–ATP 

certificate should be permitted based on 

training or experience. 

GAMA argued that there should be no 

flight hour minimum; rather, the FAA 

should focus on ensuring the quality of 

flight training. It added that eligibility 

for an R–ATP certificate should be 

determined through evaluation of the 

quality of the applicant’s academic and 

practical flight training. Three 

commenters noted that the quality of 

flight experience was a better indicator 

of pilot success than only quantity of 

flight hours. Six commenters contended 

that the FAA needs to allocate resources 

to develop a better formula for rating the 

formal training, education, and 

experience of candidates for an R–ATP 

certificate. 

The FAA continues to support an 

ATP certificate with restricted privileges 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

18The FAA notes that Section 217 of the Act 

directed the FAA to ensure that applicants for an 

ATP certificate had received ‘‘flight training, 

academic training, or operational experience’’ that 

would prepare the pilot to function effectively in 

an air carrier environment. Several paragraphs later 

in Section 217, Congress gave the Administrator 

discretion to reduce flight hours for the ATP 

certificate based on ‘‘specific academic training 

courses.’’ The FAA has determined that the failure 

to list operational experience in this provision of 

the Act does not permit the FAA to reduce flight 

hours based on operational experience. 

for pilots who are at least 21 years of 

age. The majority of commenters 

asserted that allowing a reduction in 

flight hours based on academic 

coursework is safe, appropriate, and 

meets the intent of Congress. For the 

commenters who disagree with 

establishing an ATP certificate with 

fewer than 1,500 hours, the FAA also 

maintains that flight experience in an 

aircraft is an important component in 

developing the knowledge and skills 

necessary for a pilot to perform 

effectively in the air carrier 

environment. However, by granting the 

FAA discretion to reduce the required 

flight hours based on specific academic 

training, the Act acknowledged that 

flight time is not necessarily the only 

component to developing a safe and 

qualified pilot. The FAA concurs and 

has determined structured academic 

training integrated with flight training 

programs can provide more safety 

benefit than simply meeting the 1,500 

hour flight time requirement alone. 

Accordingly, the FAA will permit a 

pilot to obtain an ATP certificate with 

restricted privileges and serve as an SIC 

in part 121 operations. The minimum 

aeronautical experience requirements 

and age requirements of an R–ATP 

certificate will greatly exceed the 

commercial pilot certificate 

requirements previously required to 

serve as SIC in part 121 operations. As 

discussed in greater detail below, the 

academic coursework prerequisites for 

the R–ATP certificate together with the 

additional flight hour experience and 

the new training required for ATP 

certification will result in a pilot who is 

better prepared to enter an air carrier 

environment than meeting the 1,500 

hour requirement alone. 

The FAA emphasizes that pilots who 

meet these alternative hour 

requirements will be required to pass 

the same ATP knowledge test and 

practical test as pilots who obtain an 

ATP certificate at 1,500 hours. In 

addition, in the final rule, the FAA is 

retaining the limitations on the 

certificates of pilots who obtain an ATP 

certificate with the reduced flight hours. 

These pilots will have the following 

limitation placed on their certificates: 

‘‘Restricted in accordance with 14 CFR 

61.167’’ and ‘‘Holder does not meet the 

pilot-in-command aeronautical 

experience requirements of ICAO.’’ 

Pilots who hold ATP certificates with 

these limitations will not be permitted 

to act as PIC in any operation that 

requires an ATP certificate or serve as 

SIC in flag or supplemental operations 

that require three or more pilots. The 

FAA will remove the restriction from 

the ATP certificate once the pilot 

provides satisfactory evidence of having 

met the age requirements in 

§ 61.153(a)(1) and the aeronautical 

experience requirements of § 61.159. 

The flight time requirements for an 

ATP certificate under § 61.159 are not 

being altered by this rule. Therefore, 

pilots acting as PIC under part 121, 

§ 135.243(a)(1), and § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) are 

still required to have at least 1,500 

hours of total time as a pilot. 

Additionally, the age requirement for 

obtaining an ATP certificate to serve as 

PIC is not being altered in § 61.153. 

Pilots must continue to be at least 23 

years old to act as PIC in operations that 

require an ATP certificate or to serve as 

SIC in flag or supplemental operations 

requiring three or more pilots. The FAA 

agrees with many of the commenters 

that the existing total time requirements 

for an ATP certificate are appropriate to 

act as PIC. 

The following sections address 

specific comments about alternative 

crediting systems, the eligibility of 

military pilots and graduates of fouryear aviation degree programs as 

proposed in the NPRM, and specific 

recommendations from commenters 

regarding expanding eligibility for the 

R–ATP certificate beyond those 

proposed in the NPRM. 

3. FOQ ARC Recommendation 

The FOQ ARC recommended 

crediting academic training as well as 

aeronautical experience. The ARC 

developed a complex system that not 

only permitted flight-hour credit for a 

variety of academic training including 

both two- and four-year aviation degrees 

but also allowed weighted credit for 

various flight experience. 

Eleven commenters, including NAFI, 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing), 

NATA, RAA, JetBlue, WMU, Purdue, 

and FSC suggested that the FAA 

implement a system of weighted flight 

hour reductions based on pilot 

experience. NAFI noted that the Pilot 

Source Study and the recommendations 

of the FAA’s FOQ ARC should be 

referenced in any consideration of credit 

options. Boeing stated that the FAA 

should credit all manner of training that 

would better prepare pilots for air 

carrier operations. Boeing noted that 

this would include all college aviation 

programs, approved courses from part 

141 and part 142 certificate holders, and 

all related experience and courses. 

The RAA argued that the FAA should 

adopt the recommendations of the FOQ 

ARC. It noted the FOQ ARC 

recommended an aeronautical 

experience credit system that 

incorporated many of the individual 

recommendations identified by other 

commenters. The RAA contended that 

the FOQ ARC credit system is the model 

for establishing the proper level of 

eligibility and academic credit levels 

that should be provided for students of 

worthy programs. Finally, the RAA 

added that the NPRM fails to recognize 

the myriad of important providers of 

academic education and relevant flight 

experience that should be considered 

for flight hour reductions. Additional 

supporters of the FOQ ARC crediting 

system included A4A, CAA, American 

Eagle Airlines, Inc., ExpressJet, 

Aerosim, FedEx, Cape Air, AAL, John 

O’Brien Consulting, MTSU, Spartan 

College, and numerous individual 

commenters. 

The National Training Aircraft 

Symposium (NTAS), which consisted of 

80 industry members from academia, air 

carriers, and flight training providers, 

recommended a crediting system very 

similar to the FOQ ARC crediting 

system with the only difference in the 

amount of credit allowed for flight 

instruction. Supporters of the NTAS 

system included JetBlue, WMU, Purdue 

University, and FSC. 

The FAA has reconsidered the FOQ 

ARC crediting system and determined 

that implementation and oversight of 

such a complex system, or a variation of 

it, would be too burdensome. Allowing 

a large number of crediting options 

creates a much more complicated 

process for FAA examiners and 

designees in determining and validating 

how much credit a pilot can get to be 

eligible for an R–ATP certificate. In 

addition, the weighted flight experience 

concept gives a multiplier effect to 

hours that were deemed more 

applicable to air carrier operations and 

therefore more valuable to a prospective 

air carrier flightcrew member. While the 

FAA finds value in the weighted flight 

experience concept, the Act does not 

permit giving flight hour credit to 

certain types of flight experience to 

reduce the minimum required flight 

hours for the ATP certificate.18

Considering phases I and III of the 

Pilot Source Study, the crediting system 

proposed by the ARC, and the 

structured academic coursework a 

graduate completes for an aviation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42345 

degree, the FAA has determined that a 

reduction in flight hours is appropriate, 

and we have retained credit for 

academic training in the final rule. In 

addition to decisions surrounding the 

crediting system proposed by the ARC, 

the FAA also engaged in extensive 

qualitative evaluation of aviation degree 

programs and courses, which will be 

discussed in more detail later in this 

final rule. This evaluation, coupled with 

the documentation that will be provided 

by the aviation programs, will help to 

ensure that crediting hours are only 

granted for legitimate aviation program 

coursework. 

4. Military Pilots 

Commenters submitted 95 responses 

regarding the proposal to allow military 

pilots to obtain an R–ATP certificate 

with 750 hours of flight time. Eightyeight commenters agreed a restricted 

privileges ATP certificate is appropriate 

for military pilots. Several other 

individual commenters observed that 

the military operational environment is 

different than the air carrier 

environment, so reductions based on 

military experience are not justified. 

CAPA specifically stated there is no 

empirical evidence that a graduate from 

a military program has better experience 

or skill than other airman. 

Four New York congressmen and 

RACCA opposed a reduction in flight 

time for anyone except military pilots. 

These commenters acknowledged the 

highly specialized disciplined screening 

and training procedures military pilots 

undergo. 

Twenty-eight commenters, including 

Delta, CAA, and RAA, indicated a 750- 

hour requirement for former military 

pilots is too high. Most commenters 

stated 500 hours is more appropriate. 

Spartan College stated ‘‘the rigor and 

quality selection process for military 

pilots linked with highly structured 

training meets or exceeds the 

requirements of the NPRM’’ and added 

that 500 hours is appropriate for 

military pilots who operate in a multicrew environment. 

An additional 17 commenters 

including ERAU, KSU, JetBlue, NAFI, 

PABC, GAMA, FSC, CAE, NATA, DSU, 

and a number of individuals agree 

military pilots should be eligible for a 

restricted privileges ATP certificate but 

did not suggest how much experience is 

appropriate. Three commenters, 

including Aerosim, stated 750 hours is 

too low and suggested 1,000 hours 

instead. Aerosim conducted a survey of 

over 300 of its part 141 flight training 

institutions that indicated that 71% of 

the respondents support a reduction in 

flight hours for military pilots, with 

55% of respondents stating that 750 

hours was adequate. 

The FAA has determined that 

permitting military pilots to obtain an 

R–ATP certificate with fewer than 1,500 

hours is appropriate due to the quality 

and structure of military training. To be 

accepted into a pilot training program in 

one of the branches of the military, a 

person must undergo a rigorous 

screening process including an 

assessment of aviation aptitude. 

Depending on the branch of the 

military, an applicant for pilot training 

must hold an associate’s degree or a 

bachelor’s degree. Once accepted into a 

pilot training program, a person is 

assigned full-time to aviation training. 

As an example, the United States Air 

Force Specialized Undergraduate Pilot 

Training (SUPT) includes four to six 

weeks of academic and preflight 

training on aerospace physiology, 

altitude chamber tests, aircraft systems, 

aviation weather, mission planning, and 

navigation. After initial academic and 

preflight training, the Air Force student 

pilot undergoes 22 weeks of primary 

aircraft training before transitioning to a 

track of advanced aircraft training that 

continues for another 24 to 28 weeks. 

During flight training, military pilots 

continue their academic training 

through detailed briefings and 

debriefings of their flight training. An 

Air Force student pilot is committed to 

a 12-hour duty day while at SUPT, and 

his or her flight proficiency is 

continuously assessed. Additionally, 

during the flight training phases, an Air 

Force student pilot participates in flight 

training every day, either in a simulator 

or an aircraft. 

Similarly, a Navy pilot completes a 

six-week indoctrination program which 

includes classes in aerodynamics, air 

navigation, aviation physiology, and 

engineering. The Navy pilot next 

completes primary training in 

approximately 22 weeks. It includes 

ground-based academics, FSTDs, and 

flight training. The Navy pilot then 

continues to advanced flight training. 

Based on the comprehensive and 

demanding nature of military pilot 

training, the FAA is adopting the 

proposed requirement to allow military 

pilots who have graduated from an 

Armed Forces flight training program to 

apply for the ATP practical test after 

obtaining 750 hours of flight time. To 

the extent that some commenters have 

suggested a reduction is not appropriate 

due to operational differences in 

military operations, the FAA responds 

that the completion of military pilot 

training and the accumulation of 750 

flight hours does not automatically 

result in an R–ATP certificate. Rather, a 

military pilot will still be required to 

complete the ATP certification training 

program in new § 61.156, pass the ATP 

knowledge test, and pass the ATP 

practical test or air carrier evaluation 

that results in the issuance of an ATP 

certificate. In addition, prior to serving 

in part 121 operations, military pilots 

will be required to complete an air 

carrier’s initial training program and 

pass a proficiency evaluation. 

Accordingly, a military pilot will be 

required to demonstrate knowledge of 

civilian operations. 

The FAA has modified § 61.39 to 

require military pilots applying for the 

ATP practical test to present the 

documents listed in § 61.160(a) to 

substantiate eligibility for an R–ATP 

certificate. These documents include an 

official U.S. Armed Forces record that 

shows that the applicant graduated from 

a U.S. Armed Forces pilot training 

school and received a rating 

qualification as a military pilot. 

Graduation from a training program 

designed to qualify a military pilot 

solely for operation of unmanned 

aircraft systems will not satisfy the 

requirement in § 61.160(a). 

Additionally, the FAA notes that 

regulations do not currently permit the 

time acquired while operating an 

unmanned aircraft system to be logged 

to meet aeronautical experience 

requirements for FAA certification. 

Although several commenters have 

suggested the FAA allow a further 

reduction in flight hours for military 

pilots, the FAA has received no 

compelling data to support such a 

reduction. In addition, the FAA notes 

that, based on averages provided by the 

military, an additional reduction would 

have limited impact on those that could 

take advantage of this provision. 

Specifically, the majority of military 

pilots who complete their service 

obligations will have acquired the 1,500 

hours required for an unrestricted ATP 

certificate. Army pilots who average 

approximately 800 hours when they 

complete their service obligations and 

pilots who are honorably discharged 

from the military prior to completing 

their service obligation would be most 

likely to benefit from the R–ATP 

certificate. 

5. Graduates With a Bachelor’s Degree 

in an Aviation Major 

One hundred and seventy-five 

commenters supported an R–ATP 

certificate for applicants with a 

bachelor’s degree with an aviation 

major. Several academic institutions 

including the Council for Higher 

Education Accreditation (CHEA), the 

American Association of Community 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42346 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

19There is further discussion of the FAA’s review 

of academic curriculum later in this document. This 

review provided additional support to the agency’s 

decision to retain the credit for graduates of 

aviation degree programs. 

21A summary of the findings of the 2012 Pilot 

Source Study was submitted to the rulemaking 

docket. The FAA considered the results along with 

additional factors during development of the final 

rule. A recent journal article discussing the results 

of the 2012 Pilot Source Study concluded that 

‘‘flight hours are not a good predictor of 

performance.’’ The journal article can be found in 

the Journal of Aviation Technology and 

Engineering, Vol.II, Issue 2 (2013) at: http:// 

docs.lib.purdue.edu/jate/vol2/iss2/2/. 

Colleges, UAA, Fox Valley Technical 

College of Aeronautics, WMU, Aims 

Community College, ERAU, Hesston 

College, Purdue, KSU, FSC, 

Westminster College, UVU, SIU, OSU, 

MTSU, DSU, Spartan College, Nova 

Southeastern University, and Florida 

Institute of Technology were supportive 

of the flight experience reduction based 

on academics. In addition, several 

individual commenters stated that 

graduates of an aviation degree program 

should be eligible to obtain an R–ATP 

certificate because the quality of 

training received at such schools is 

superior to that received under part 61. 

CAPA commented that there is no 

empirical evidence that a graduate of an 

aviation degree program has better 

experience or skill than an airman who 

has not. CAPA also stated that, because 

most pilots cannot afford the 

‘‘extraordinarily high cost of specialized 

aviation institutions,’’ the reduction in 

flight hours for these graduates is unfair 

because an applicant with financial 

resources can ‘‘purchase’’ their 

qualifications without having to gain 

flying experience. Moore Air, Inc. stated 

that permitting pilots from aviation 

bachelor’s degree programs affiliated 

with part 141 schools discriminates 

against pilots with fewer economic 

resources. John A. O’Brien Aviation 

Consulting, LLC, stated the restricted 

privileges ATP certificate should not be 

limited to college graduates from ‘‘select 

universities.’’ AAL commented that the 

NPRM encourages pilots to attend a 

four-year aviation college or university 

but fails to recognize that such paths are 

available only to those willing and able 

to afford such educational paths. AAL 

acknowledges that higher education and 

quality training should be encouraged 

but quality training is also available in 

places outside accredited four-year 

aviation colleges. 

In support of a reduction based on 

academic credit, Parks College (Parks) 

stated that its aviation graduates 

accomplish approximately 220 ‘‘hours 

of ground and classroom instruction 

leading to a [commercial pilot 

certificate] with an instrument rating.’’ 

Parks noted that, in addition to this 

classroom training for pilot certification, 

its students complete an additional 480 

hours (32 credit hours) of academic 

coursework on topics related to aviation 

and air carrier operations. UND also 

provided information demonstrating 

that graduates of its professional flight 

curriculum must complete 464 hours of 

instruction in required aviation 

coursework that includes courses on 

human factors, flight physiology, 

advanced aerodynamics, and aviation 

weather. These students must also 

complete ground and flight training 

toward a commercial pilot certificate 

and instrument rating. 

Based on the fact that the academic 

coursework completed as part of an 

aviation major generally exceeds the 

time a pilot might spend in ground 

school outside of that environment, the 

FAA continues to support a reduction of 

flight hours for graduates with an 

aviation major from a four-year 

institution of higher education who 

complete ground and flight training as 

part of approved training courses at a 

part 141 pilot school that is associated 

with the institution of higher education. 

Over the course of several years, these 

graduates complete significant aviation 

coursework well above the hours of 

ground training required for commercial 

pilot certification. In addition, a 

student’s knowledge and flight 

proficiency are continuously evaluated 

throughout the degree program. 

Notwithstanding the FAA’s continued 

support for a reduction in required 

flight hours for these applicants, the 

FAA has refined, clarified, and 

expanded some elements of the R–ATP 

certificate as it applies to graduates of 

degree programs with aviation majors in 

the final rule. These modifications are 

discussed in the following sections. 

a. Flight Hour Requirement 

Notwithstanding general support for a 

reduction in hours for these pilots, 

many commenters recommended 

reducing the hours below the 1,000 

hours proposed in the NPRM. 

One hundred sixty-five commenters 

stated that 1,000 hours is too high, 

including OSU, Aviation Professional 

Development, LLC (APD), DSU, and the 

Pilot Career Initiative. AAL and 

Westminster College stated 1,000 hours 

is much too high to provide an incentive 

for pilots to pursue a formal education. 

Most commenters responded that a 

total flight time of 500 to 750 hours is 

more appropriate for graduates of a fouryear aviation degree program. Many 

commenters, including Delta, ERAU, 

and Rocky Mountain College cited the 

Pilot Source Study as evidence that the 

FAA should allow pilots with fewer 

than 1,000 hours to be employed by air 

carriers. The American Aviation 

Institute (AAI) along with several other 

commenters suggested the rule be 

simplified by establishing the 750-hour 

threshold for an R–ATP certificate to 

civilian candidates who have graduated 

from accredited programs including 

two- and four-year universities, 

programs designed for university 

graduates, and other structured 

academies run by training organizations 

and by airlines. AAI also recommended 

the FAA establish requirements for 

academies to qualify them. Other 

commenters suggested that the FAA 

offer an R–ATP certificate to graduates 

of a four-year collegiate flight program 

with fewer total flight hours, generally 

in the range between 500 and 1,000 

flight hours. 

Ten commenters, including KSU, 

SJSU, WMU, UVU, Aerosim, ALPA, 

American Flyers, and Nova 

Southeastern University believe the 

proposed 1,000 hours of flight 

experience is adequate. Approximately 

47 percent of NAFI’s members indicated 

that 1,000 hours is too low but did not 

specify how many of those responding 

generally oppose an R–ATP certificate. 

The FAA has considered the 2010 and 

2012 Pilot Source Studies, the FOQ ARC 

report, and the structured academic 

coursework in aviation a graduate 

receives 19 and has determined that, 

based on the best currently available 

information, it is appropriate to retain 

the minimum 1,000-hour aeronautical 

experience requirement for graduates of 

four-year degree program with an 

aviation major who obtain their 

commercial pilot certificate and 

instrument rating from an associated 

part 141 pilot school. Commenters have 

not provided compelling evidence to 

support a further reduction in hours for 

graduates of these programs. Many 

commenters referenced the 2010 Pilot 

Source Study (which indicated that the 

most successful pilots in initial training, 

without any consideration of the 

manner in which they received their 

aviation training, were those pilots 

hired with 500–1,000 hours) to justify 

why they felt the FAA should reduce 

the hour requirement further.20 The 

FAA notes that the third phase of the 

Pilot Source Study, which was 

submitted to the docket, indicated that 

pilots with 1,001–1,500 total flight 

hours had more completions in training 

than any other group, including the 

group with 500–1,000 total flight 

hours.21


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42347 

b. Institutional Accreditation and 

‘‘Aviation Degree Programs’’ 

The FAA proposed in the NPRM to 

permit a reduced flight hour 

requirement for applicants who hold a 

bachelor’s degree with an aviation major 

obtained from a postsecondary 

educational institution that satisfies the 

definition of ‘‘accredited’’ as established 

by Department of Education in 34 CFR 

600.2. The Department of Education 

maintains a database of accredited 

postsecondary institutions and 

programs available at the following Web 

site: http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/. 

UAA fully supported the proposed 

requirement that any degree-granting 

institution qualifying its graduates for 

reduced flight hours must be accredited 

by a nationally recognized accrediting 

agency as defined by the Department of 

Education in 34 CFR 600.2. UAA 

contended that this type of accreditation 

insures the validity of the institution 

granting the degree and provides the 

most inclusive form of accreditation 

possible by which to prepare pilots for 

the proposed R–ATP certificate. UAA 

added some of their member institutions 

hold program-specific accreditation in 

addition to institutional accreditation, 

but the majority do not have program 

accreditation at this time. UAA looked 

at current, national collegiate flight 

training and indicated the number of 

eligible institutions will decrease from 

over 164 to 29 if program specific 

accreditation becomes a requirement. 

UAA noted that two institutions that 

currently hold program accreditation are 

phasing out their pilot training 

programs. 

KSU stated that the relationship 

between the academic institution and 

the flight training provider signifies a 

strong commitment to quality pilot 

education and fosters an environment of 

professional pilot training. KSU added 

that Aviation Accreditation Board 

International (AABI) accreditation and 

part 141 approval by the FAA provide 

the needed quality assurances for the 

quality and integrity of flight training. 

Purdue added that the same credit 

should be given to graduates of AABIaccredited flight programs regardless of 

the part under which the school 

operates. APD agreed with the proposal 

to provide an R–ATP certificate but 

indicated that those R–ATP certificates 

should be available only for those 

students attending an AABI-accredited 

flight school. 

The FAA received several comments 

requesting the FAA further define 

‘‘aviation degree program.’’ The NTSB 

supported an ATP certificate with 

restricted privileges provided standards 

are established for student performance 

and the type of degree programs are 

more clearly defined. An individual 

commenter also suggested ‘‘aviationrelated degree’’ is too broad. The 

commenter suggested the FAA specify 

the number of hours as well as the 

subject areas that should be taught. 

Barbary Coast Consulting expressed 

concern that the determination of what 

degree credits would qualify for a 

reduction in hours would fall to the 

academic institution and recommended 

that the FAA should make this 

determination based on how these 

classes will actually enhance aviation 

safety. 

The Families of Continental Flight 

3407 stated that, while there is value to 

aeronautical knowledge and training 

provided by four-year accredited 

institutions that offer aviation degrees, 

such graduates should not ‘‘blindly be 

accorded flight hour credit without 

carefully evaluating each course to 

determine if it meets the law’s specific 

criteria[.]’’ The Families of Continental 

Flight 3407 specifically noted that the 

law required that academic training 

courses ‘‘enhance safety more than 

requiring the pilot to fully comply with 

the flight hours requirement.’’ P.L. 111– 

216, sec. 217(d). The Families of 

Continental Flight 3407 further stated 

that the FAA should develop a 

procedure to carefully evaluate the 

coursework in each graduate’s academic 

program and only give credit to courses 

that enhance aviation safety and not 

courses that focus on ‘‘tangential areas 

of aviation.’’ They indicated that credit 

should be based on a course-by-course 

basis and not a blanket 500-hour 

reduction. 

NATA noted that the Act gave the 

FAA authority to allow for reduced 

hours based on a safety assessment. It 

argued that the FAA failed to 

demonstrate in the NPRM that it had 

performed a comprehensive analysis. 

AAI indicated that the FAA should set 

specific program standards that can be 

met at the undergraduate or graduate 

levels at accredited schools and 

universities. 

Spartan College commented that the 

education program must be well 

integrated with the university to make 

sure that classroom and flight lab time 

match the learning objectives. Spartan 

College recommended that all academic 

and ground school courses be taught by 

faculty and instructional staff employed 

by the institution. Spartan College 

indicated, however, that flight training 

could be taught either by an institution’s 

instructional staff or by one or more 

qualified contractors through written 

contract. 

The FAA is retaining the requirement 

for institutional accreditation in this 

final rule because accreditation ensures 

that education provided by institutions 

of higher education meet acceptable 

levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, 

as defined by the Department of 

Education in 34 CFR 600.2, develop 

evaluation criteria and conduct peer 

evaluations to assess whether those 

criteria are met. According to CHEA, 

accredited status is a signal to students 

and the public that an institution meets 

at least threshold standards for its 

faculty, curriculum, student services, 

and libraries. 

The FAA acknowledges the value of 

programmatic accreditation, but it is not 

the sole means of assuring the quality of 

an aviation degree program for the 

purpose of qualifying students for an R– 

ATP certificate. Currently, AABI is the 

only organization that provides 

accreditation to aviation degree 

programs. As noted by UAA, if programspecific accreditation becomes a 

requirement for the R–ATP certificate, 

the number of eligible institutions will 

be reduced to 29. 

The FAA agrees, however, with 

commenters who believe that the 

requirements of ‘‘aviation degree 

programs’’ must be better defined. The 

FAA has reviewed aviation degree 

curriculum requirements from over 100 

colleges and universities and found that 

graduates of four-year universities 

receive bachelor’s degrees with as few 

as 27 credit hours and as many as 85 

credit hours in aviation and aviationrelated courses. In addition, required 

courses and electives within aviation 

degree programs vary significantly. 

Many aviation degree programs are not 

focused primarily on preparing a 

student for a career as a professional 

pilot but rather for careers in areas such 

as air traffic control, aerospace 

engineering, aircraft maintenance, or 

business aviation. If the requirements 

proposed in the NPRM were not refined, 

graduates of those degree programs 

could be eligible for an R–ATP 

certificate without having completed 

relevant coursework designed to 

improve their knowledge and skills as a 

pilot. 

For this reason, the FAA has decided 

that broad approval of aviation degree 

programs based on accreditation alone 

is not sufficient. Rather, the most 

critical element for determining whether 

a graduate should be eligible for an R– 

ATP certificate is the body of 

coursework completed prior to 

graduating with a degree in an aviation 

major. Establishing more specific 

program criteria for eligibility for an R– 

ATP certificate will better ensure that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42348 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

22The FAA estimated that, as part of a degree 

program, students will complete an average of 12– 

15 credit hours of ground and flight training toward 

FAA certificates and ratings. Students will 

complete an additional 45–48 credit hours of 

broader aviation and aviation-related coursework 

during 15-week semesters. 

academic training courses enhance 

safety such that a reduction in flight 

hours is consistent with the Act. 

The FAA has modified § 61.160 from 

that proposed in the NPRM to clarify the 

academic requirements a student must 

complete to be eligible for an R–ATP 

certificate. In the final rule, the FAA has 

established that a student must: 

• Earn a bachelor’s degree in an 

aviation major; 

• Complete 60 semester credit hours 

in aviation and aviation-related 

coursework designed to improve and 

enhance the knowledge and skills of a 

person seeking a career as a professional 

pilot; 

• Complete ground training for a 

commercial pilot certificate and an 

instrument rating under approved part 

141 curricula at the institution of higher 

education; 

• Complete flight training for 

commercial pilot certificate and an 

instrument rating under approved part 

141 curricula at the institution of higher 

education or at a part 141 pilot school 

associated with the institution of higher 

education; and 

• Obtain a commercial pilot 

certificate with airplane rating and an 

instrument rating upon completion of 

ground and flight training. 

The FAA has established 60 semester 

credit hours in aviation and aviationrelated coursework designed to improve 

and enhance the knowledge and skills 

of a person seeking a career as a 

professional pilot as the minimum 

requirement. In determining whether a 

course is designed to improve and 

enhance the knowledge and skills of a 

person seeking a career as a professional 

pilot, the institution should consider the 

objective and purpose of the course. For 

instance, an introductory course on air 

traffic control could be designed to 

provide a foundation for both pilots and 

for students intending to pursue a career 

as an air traffic controller. On the other 

hand, an upper-level or advanced air 

traffic control course is primarily 

intended to prepare a person to work as 

an air traffic controller with little 

additional benefit to a person seeking a 

career as a pilot. Although knowledge of 

tower operations is instructive, an 

upper-level air traffic control course is 

not generally designed with the goal of 

improving and enhancing the 

knowledge and skills of a person 

seeking a career as a professional pilot. 

These credit hours may include 

coursework outside the aviation 

department so long as the course 

focuses on an aviation-related topic. For 

example, credit hours obtained in a 

meteorology course outside the aviation 

department could count toward the 

required 60 credit hours because it 

introduces the student to basic weather 

theory that will affect flight decisions. 

As further explained in AC 61–139, 

Institution of Higher Education’s 

Application for Authority to Certify its 

Graduates for an Airline Transport Pilot 

Certificate with Reduced Aeronautical 

Experience, the FAA believes that 

courses in subject areas like aircraft 

performance and aerodynamics, aircraft 

systems, aviation human factors, air 

traffic control and airspace, aviation law 

and regulations, aviation weather, and 

aviation safety represent courses that are 

designed to enhance and improve the 

knowledge and skills of a person 

seeking a career as a professional pilot. 

The FAA expects that, in addition to the 

ground and flight training required for 

FAA certification, aviation students will 

have completed coursework in all of 

these areas as part of their aviation 

degree. 

Finally, an R–ATP certificate 

applicant must have a commercial pilot 

certificate with an airplane category and 

instrument rating earned from a part 141 

pilot school that is part of the academic 

institution or associated with the 

academic institution through a formal 

training agreement. Under § 61.160, a 

graduate must have completed all 

ground training for the commercial pilot 

certificate and instrument rating at the 

institution of higher education. 

Accordingly, the academic institution 

must, at a minimum, hold a part 141 

pilot school certificate for ground 

training. This requirement will ensure 

that the ground training for certification 

is integrated into the institution’s 

broader academic curriculum. The flight 

training for the commercial pilot 

certificate and instrument rating may be 

completed either at the institution, if it 

holds a part 141 pilot school certificate 

for flight training, or at a part 141 pilot 

school that is associated with the 

undergraduate institution through a 

formal training agreement. The FAA 

notes it has revised § 141.26 to require 

a pilot school that provides flight 

training for an institution of higher 

education that holds a letter of 

authorization under § 61.169 must have 

a formal training agreement with that 

institution of higher education. 

Under the standards established in 

the final rule, the FAA estimates that 

students who are eligible for an R–ATP 

certificate will complete over 600 

instructional hours 22 in aviation and 

aviation-related coursework designed to 

prepare them for a career as a 

professional pilot. Concurrently with 

their broader aviation coursework, 

students will complete the required 

ground and flight training and pass the 

practical tests for a commercial pilot 

certificate and instrument rating. These 

students are continuously evaluated 

with academic testing and flight 

evaluations over the course of several 

years. Based on these factors, a graduate 

of a bachelor’s degree program who 

completes the requirements set forth in 

§ 61.160 is eligible for an R–ATP and 

may apply for the ATP practical test 

with 1,000 hours total time as a pilot. 

In setting the criterion for 60 semester 

credit hours in aviation and aviationrelated coursework, the FAA decided to 

allow partial recognition for applicants 

with bachelor’s degrees with aviation 

majors who fall short of the 60 credit 

hour requirement. Applicants who have 

completed at least 30 semester credit 

hours in aviation and aviation-related 

coursework designed to improve and 

enhance the knowledge and skills of a 

person seeking a career as a professional 

pilot may apply for an R–ATP certificate 

with 1,250 hours total time as a pilot. 

The applicant’s coursework must 

include all of the ground and flight 

training for a commercial pilot 

certificate and instrument rating. 

c. Cross Country Time for the R–ATP 

Certificate 

To apply for an ATP certificate under 

§ 61.159, a pilot must accumulate 1,500 

hours total time as a pilot that must 

include 500 hours of cross-country 

flight time. In the NPRM, the FAA 

proposed to require military pilots who 

apply for an R–ATP certificate with 750 

hours total time as a pilot to have 250 

hours of cross-country flight time. The 

NPRM proposed requiring graduates 

with aviation majors who apply for an 

R–ATP certificate with 1,000 hours total 

time as a pilot to have 375 hours of 

cross-country flight time. The reduction 

in the required cross-country flight time 

was proportional to the reduction in 

total flight hours. 

UND’s John D. Odegard School of 

Aerospace Sciences submitted a 

research study that was conducted to 

assess the impact of the proposed rule 

on the supply of pilots who primarily 

obtain their flight experience from flight 

instructing. UND’s study concentrated 

on the nature of flight time acquired as 

a flight instructor as it relates to the 500 

hours of cross-country flight time 

required to apply for the ATP certificate. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42349 

The participants in the study included 

line flight instructors from 17 collegiate 

aviation programs. Based on its 

research, UND concluded that the 

average flight instructor would have to 

log 2,100 total flight hours before 

accumulating 500 hours of crosscountry flight time. UND recommended 

that the FAA amend the rule to require 

a minimum of 200 hours of crosscountry flight experience to obtain an 

R–ATP certificate rather than the 375 

hours proposed in the NPRM for 

graduates of four-year aviation 

programs. 

The FAA has reviewed the 

information provided by UND and 

determined that it is appropriate to 

reduce the cross-country flight time 

required for all applicants for an R–ATP 

certificate to 200 hours. In reaching this 

decision, the FAA considered the past 

and current requirements of both the 

commercial pilot and ATP certificates. 

Although 200 hours is below the 

requirements for an ATP certificate 

under § 61.159, the FAA believes pilots 

will accumulate a significant and 

relevant amount of cross-country 

experience as SICs in part 121 

operations before being eligible to 

obtain an unrestricted ATP certificate 

and upgrade to PIC. The 200 hours of 

cross-country experience represents a 

significant increase over the 50 hours of 

cross-country flight time required for 

the commercial pilot certificate—the 

prior requirement to serve as SIC in part 

121 operations. Pilots who hold an R– 

ATP certificate will be required to meet 

the 500 hours of cross-country flight 

time required in § 61.159 prior to having 

the limitation removed from their 

certificate. The FAA notes that the 200 

hours of cross-country flight time is 

consistent with the ICAO standard for 

an unrestricted ATP certificate. 

d. The Role of the Institution of Higher 

Education in Certifying Its Students 

Under new § 61.169, an institution of 

higher education may apply for 

authority to certify that its graduates 

have met the academic eligibility 

requirements for an R–ATP certificate. 

The institution may not certify a student 

based solely on the degree received or 

the aviation major that has been 

completed. Rather, it will be required to 

evaluate each student’s coursework 

before certifying that a graduate has met 

all of the academic eligibility 

requirements. 

To obtain authority to certify students 

for eligibility for the R–ATP certificate 

under new § 61.160, an institution of 

higher education must submit an 

application and supporting 

documentation, as appropriate, to the 

FAA that includes: 

• List of aviation majors offered by 

the institution; 

• Type of degree offered; 

• Institutional accreditation 

information; 

• Part 141 pilot school information; 

• List of substantial changes to degree 

programs in past five years; 

• Course descriptions of aviation and 

aviation-related courses that may be 

used to satisfy the credit hours required 

by § 61.160; and 

• Training agreements for flight 

training provided by a part 141 pilot 

school, if applicable. 

The institution must identify on the 

form those academic courses that satisfy 

the requirements of § 61.160. 

Specifically, the institution must 

demonstrate that a course is designed to 

improve and enhance the skills and 

knowledge of a person seeking a career 

as a professional pilot. These courses 

will include the ground and flight 

training courses required for FAA 

certification as well as other coursework 

within the aviation department, such as 

Aviation Law, Human Factors, or 

Advanced Aircraft Systems. Courses 

outside the aviation department may 

also satisfy the requirements of § 61.160. 

For example, a physics course may 

qualify as an aviation-related course 

provided the course description clearly 

indicates aircraft performance and 

aerodynamics are the primary focus of 

the course. The institution must 

demonstrate that it offers sufficient 

aviation and aviation-related courses 

that a graduate could rely upon to meet 

at least 30 semester credit hours. 

The application and FAA review 

process for institutions seeking a letter 

of authorization to certify students is 

further explained in AC 61–139. The AC 

provides greater detail on the aviation 

and aviation-related coursework used to 

satisfy the semester credit hour 

requirement. In addition, the AC 

provides information related to the part 

141 pilot school requirements, 

including training agreements, and the 

institution’s responsibility to notify the 

FAA of any changes that will affect its 

letter of authorization. Once the FAA 

has determined that an institution of 

higher education has met all the 

requirements, it will issue a letter of 

authorization granting the school 

authority to add a certifying statement 

to a student’s transcript or other 

document deemed acceptable by the 

Administrator. The certifying statement 

must denote whether the graduate is 

eligible to apply for an R–ATP 

certificate based on the applicable 

criteria in § 61.160 at 1,000 hours 

(graduates who have completed at least 

60 credit hours), or 1,250 hours 

(graduates who have completed at least 

30 credit hours). A graduate will then be 

required to present the certifying 

document, along with all other 

documentation required in § 61.39, 

when applying for the practical test for 

an R–ATP certificate. 

6. Recommendations for Expanding 

Eligibility for the R–ATP Certificate 

A significant number of commenters, 

including air carriers, educational 

institutions, training providers, 

instructors, and aviation organizations 

suggested that a greater number of pilots 

should be eligible for an ATP certificate 

with reduced flight hours. Specifically, 

commenters suggested that the FAA 

make the R–ATP certificate available to 

the following candidates: 

• Graduates of two-year aviation 

degree programs with commercial pilot 

certificates and instrument ratings from 

an affiliated part 141 pilot school; 

• Students who come to eligible 

programs already holding commercial 

pilot certificates and instrument ratings; 

• Students from non-eligible 

programs who transfer into and graduate 

from eligible programs; 

• Pilots who are age 21 and have 

1,500 hours of flight time; 

• Graduates with bachelor’s degrees 

with aviation majors and obtain 

commercial pilot certificates and 

instrument ratings from a non-affiliated 

part 141 pilot school; 

• Graduates with bachelor’s degrees 

with aviation majors and obtain 

commercial pilot certificates and 

instrument ratings from an affiliated 

part 61 flight training program; 

• Graduates with associate’s degrees 

with aviation majors and obtain 

commercial pilot certificates and 

instrument ratings from a non-affiliated 

part 141 pilot school; 

• Graduates with associate’s degrees 

with aviation majors who obtain 

commercial pilot certificates and 

instrument ratings from an affiliated 

part 61 flight training program; 

• Pilots who have completed training 

programs at ‘‘Aviation Academies’’ (part 

141 pilot school or part 142 training 

center); 

• Pilots who have completed ‘‘other’’ 

aviation courses (e.g. AJT, Upset 

Prevention and Recovery Training 

(UPRT)); 

• Certified Flight Instructors (CFI); 

and 

• Graduates of colleges and 

universities who do not have aviation 

degrees 

A discussion of the options suggested 

by commenters follows. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42350 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

a. Graduates With an Associate’s Degree 

in an Aviation Major 

In the NPRM, the FAA did not 

propose any reduction in total flight 

time for graduates of two-year aviation 

degree programs. Thirty six 

commenters, including Fox Valley 

Technical College Aeronautics Advisory 

Committee (FVTC), Experimental 

Aircraft Association (EAA), Aims 

Community College, NAFI, Jet 

Transitions, American Association of 

Community Colleges, Hesston College, 

Spartan College, UAA, CAE, and 

ExpressJet, argued that graduates of 

pilot schools not associated with a fouryear aviation degree program should 

also be eligible for reduced flight time 

to be eligible for an R–ATP certificate. 

Most of the thirty six commenters stated 

that two-year college flight training 

programs should be eligible for an R– 

ATP certificate. 

Fox Valley Technical College and the 

American Association of Community 

Colleges contended that the proposed 

rule is arbitrary and discriminatory and 

that graduates of two-year colleges and 

universities should be allowed to obtain 

an R–ATP certificate. 

Aims Community College added that 

its students receive the same focused 

aviation training discussed in the NPRM 

and should be eligible for the same 

credit that graduates of four-year degree 

programs receive. According to Aims, 

these students complete the same flight 

hour and academic instruction 

requirements as students at four-year 

institutions, even though they do not 

complete as many courses unrelated to 

aviation. Aims indicated that students 

who earn an Associate of Applied 

Science degree complete 72 credit hours 

as part of its fixed-wing professional 

pilot program. They also stated the twoyear college and university system 

nationwide has been providing welltrained pilots for the airlines and other 

aviation employers for decades. They 

suggested that, with the high cost of 

flight training and college in general, 

now is not the time to take away an 

efficient, effective, reasonably priced, 

educational opportunity from those who 

cannot afford the cost and time required 

for a four-year degree program. 

CAE contended that quality 

instruction and flight experience can be 

delivered in two-year programs 

affiliated with part 141 pilot schools or 

part 142 training centers. Spartan 

College supported academic credit 

based on a variety of educational tracks 

including four-year and two-year 

collegiate aviation degrees. UAA, 

ExpressJet, and several other 

commenters argued that the FAA failed 

to include two-year programs, which 

should be afforded academic credit as 

provided in the FOQ ARC report. 

The UAA added that two-year college 

and university aviation degree programs 

are a key part of the overall collegiate 

aviation-related pilot supply. To 

validate the assertion, the UAA 

conducted a telephone survey in April 

2012, which reached a total of 29 

community college aviation degree 

programs out of 40 identified as flight 

training providers. Based on the data 

obtained in the survey, the UAA 

estimates more than 2,000 aviation 

students are currently enrolled in twoyear degree programs. For the 29 

respondents, it was found that: ‘‘(1) 

1,474 total students were enrolled in 

aviation flight-related degrees at these 

institutions, or, on average, 51 students 

per institution; (2) the student 

enrollment ranged from a low of 7 

students to a high of 292 students; and 

(3) of the 29 institutions reporting, 18 

conducted flight training solely under 

part 141, 6 operated under part 61, and 

5 used a combination of parts 61 and 

141.’’ 

UAA recommended changing the 

proposed § 61.160 to eliminate the 

differentiation between two- and fouryear schools and recommended a 750- 

hour minimum for the R–ATP 

certificate. The EAA contended that the 

FAA should form a working group to 

explore what modifications should be 

made to these two-year school 

accreditation standards in order for their 

programs and students to qualify for the 

revised ATP aeronautical experience 

requirements in § 61.160. 

The AAI recommended that the FAA 

adopt a program-based standard and not 

define acceptability solely by the length 

of the program. AAI commented that a 

student at a four-year institution 

pursues coursework in non-aviation 

fields, which is far less relevant than the 

aviation coursework actually taken. 

Based on the FAA’s extensive review 

of two-year and four-year aviation 

degree programs, the FAA has 

determined that it is appropriate to 

permit graduates who obtain an 

associate’s degree with an aviation 

major to apply for an R–ATP certificate 

with fewer than 1,500 total hours. The 

two-year colleges, universities, and their 

graduates who responded to the NPRM 

have provided sufficient information to 

support a reduction in the flight hour 

requirement for an R–ATP certificate. 

The FAA has found that these 

graduates receive degrees with a range 

of 24 to 56 credit hours in aviation and 

aviation-related coursework. On 

average, however, graduates of associate 

degree programs complete fewer credit 

hours in aviation coursework than 

graduates of bachelor’s degree programs. 

For that reason, the FAA disagrees with 

giving the same credit to two-year 

programs. Accordingly, the FAA has 

modified § 61.160 to permit graduates of 

approved two-year degree programs 

with aviation majors to apply for an R– 

ATP certificate with 1,250 total hours of 

flight time. 

As set forth in § 61.160(c), graduates 

of two-year programs must complete a 

minimum of 30 semester credit hours in 

aviation and aviation-related 

coursework designed to improve and 

enhance the knowledge and skills of a 

person seeking a career as a professional 

pilot. The 30 credit hours may include 

coursework outside of the aviation 

department so long as the course 

focuses on an aviation related topic. The 

FAA assumes on average courses are 

offered at three semester credit hours 

per course. The 30 credit hours 

therefore will include the ground and 

flight training courses for a commercial 

pilot certificate and instrument rating 

and other aviation and aviation-related 

courses. 

As with bachelor’s degree programs, 

the graduate will need to acquire a 

commercial pilot certificate with an 

airplane category and instrument rating 

from a part 141 pilot school that is part 

of the undergraduate institution. The 

institution of higher education must 

hold a part 141 pilot school certificate 

and provide all ground training for the 

commercial pilot certificate and 

instrument rating. This requirement will 

ensure that the ground training is 

integrated into the broader academic 

curriculum. The flight training may be 

completed either at the institution, if it 

holds a part 141 pilot school certificate 

for flight training, or at a part 141 pilot 

school that is associated with the 

undergraduate institution through a 

training agreement. 

b. Transfer Students 

SIU believes students who move from 

a two-year aviation degree program to 

an affiliated four-year aviation program 

and complete their bachelor’s degree 

and the required flight training under 

part 141 should be eligible for a 

restricted privileges ATP certificate. 

KSU similarly states students who 

transfer to a four-year collegiate flight 

training degree program with an 

affiliated part 141 pilot school should 

have the same eligibility as a student 

who solely attends a four-year collegiate 

flight training degree program with an 

affiliated part 141 pilot school. KSU 

noted, however, that the school 

receiving a transfer student must 

evaluate the student’s performance and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42351 

ensure that the school’s own 

performance standard is met before 

graduation can occur. 

The FAA acknowledges students 

follow a number of different paths for 

completing post-secondary education at 

a college or university. Some students 

start at community colleges and transfer 

to four-year degree programs while 

other students transfer between different 

four-year institutions of higher 

education. The FAA does not want to 

deter individuals from seeking 

alternative paths to achieving an 

aviation degree and therefore has 

determined that students who transfer 

into a two-year or four-year degree 

program with an aviation major could 

be eligible for an R–ATP certificate. 

These graduates would be eligible for an 

R–ATP certificate provided they 

complete the applicable requirements of 

§ 61.160, including the semester credit 

hours and ground and flight training. 

The FAA acknowledges that many of 

the larger four-year degree programs 

with aviation majors have satellite 

programs that are two-year programs. 

The satellite schools follow the same 

ground and flight training curriculum as 

the parent school which makes for a 

smooth transition from the two-year 

program to the four-year program. The 

FAA believes those graduates should 

also be eligible for an R–ATP certificate 

provided the requirements of § 61.160 

are met and documented through 

official college transcripts and records. 

Further guidance and clarification on 

transfer credit is provided in AC 61– 

139. 

c. Pilots With 1,500 Hours Who Are Not 

Yet 23 Years Old 

Three commenters stated pilots 

should be able to obtain an R–ATP 

certificate at the age of 21 or less as long 

as they meet the full aeronautical 

experience requirements for the ATP 

certificate, including the 1,500 hours of 

total flight time. The commenters added 

that the existing age 23 requirement for 

the ATP certificate is arbitrary, 

discriminatory, and not based on 

science. AOPA commented that the 

FAA should allow any applicant to 

obtain an ATP certificate at the age of 

21 and receive restricted privileges. 

NATA supports no age requirement if 

the ATP minimums are met, stating 

those pilots should be eligible for a 

restricted privileges ATP certificate. 

Many pilots who have not yet reached 

the age of 23 have met or exceeded the 

1,500 hours of total time as a pilot 

required for an ATP certificate. The 

FAA has remained consistent through 

denials of requests for exemption and 

previous rulemaking efforts to maintain 

the eligibility requirement of 23 years of 

age for an ATP certificate. The FAA has 

stated that the minimum age 

requirement of 23 years ensures ‘‘a high 

maturity level for those pilots who are 

permitted to operate as PIC in 

operations requiring an ATP 

certificate.’’ Exemption No. 7472. 

Commenters have failed to provide any 

compelling evidence to support a 

change to the long-standing requirement 

that a pilot exercising the PIC privileges 

of an ATP certificate be at least 23 years 

of age. Therefore, the FAA has not 

changed the age requirements for pilots 

serving as PIC in part 121 air carrier 

operations, SIC in part 121 flag or 

supplemental operations requiring three 

or more pilots, or operations conducted 

under §§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i) and 

135.243(a)(1). 

Based on the comments, however, the 

FAA has determined that a pilot who 

has reached the age of 21, has logged 

1,500 hours total time as a pilot, and 

satisfies the remaining aeronautical 

experience requirements for an R–ATP 

certificate should be permitted to apply 

for an R–ATP certificate and serve as an 

SIC in part 121 operations. These pilots 

will exceed the age requirement of 18 

years old that is currently required to 

obtain a commercial pilot certificate 

which, prior to the final rule, allowed a 

pilot to serve as SIC in part 121. 

Additionally, these pilots will have 

achieved the total flight time for an ATP 

certificate obtained under § 61.159. The 

FAA has determined that permitting 

such pilots to serve as SICs is an 

increase in the level of safety under 

current regulations and is consistent 

with the public law’s focus on a higher 

level of flight experience for pilots 

serving in part 121 air carrier 

operations. 

As with other applicants for an R– 

ATP certificate, these pilots will be 

required to complete 200 hours of crosscountry flight time. The remaining 300 

hours of cross-country flight time can be 

completed as an SIC in part 121 

operations. The minimum age of 21 for 

an R–ATP certificate will allow those 

pilots currently serving as SICs in part 

121 operations to continue serving in 

their current role provided they meet 

the required aeronautical knowledge 

and experience requirements and 

successfully accomplish an evaluation 

that results in ATP certification and an 

aircraft type rating. 

d. Other Degree Programs 

Twenty-seven commenters stated that 

graduates from four-year universities 

affiliated with part 61 schools should 

also be eligible for an R–ATP certificate. 

One commenter suggested that the FAA 

establish a fair method whereby flight 

proficiency could be measured against 

part 141 standards to allow part 61 

students a reduction in flight hours. 

Another individual commenter pointed 

out that part 141 schools are given an 

unfair advantage over part 61 schools. 

UVU stated that graduates from fouryear aviation programs with integrated 

flight training should qualify for an R– 

ATP certificate regardless of whether 

their training was conducted under part 

61 or part 141. 

Numerous commenters stated that 

AABI accredited institutions with part 

61 schools should be eligible for a 

restricted privileges ATP certificate at 

1,000 flight hours. Purdue believes any 

AABI-accredited aviation program 

should be eligible for credit regardless 

of whether the associated flight training 

is conducted under 14 CFR parts 61, 

141, or 142. 

Several commenters, including DSU 

and CAE, believed pilots with an 

aviation-related degree and part 141 

flight training from a separate 

organization should be eligible for a 

restricted privileges ATP certificate. 

SIU, AAL, and Prairie Air Service, Inc. 

argued that the FAA should extend 

eligibility for the R–ATP certificate to 

any four-year college graduate, 

regardless of academic major or where 

flight training was obtained. 

Westminster College supported 

academic credit as a substitute for flight 

experience adding that credit should be 

extended to graduates of a part 141 pilot 

school with any four-year college degree 

or associate’s degrees in aviation. 

Many commenters disagreed with 

allowing credit for an ATP certificate for 

training received from non-affiliated 

part 141 pilot school. IATA stated that, 

if this proposition were to become a 

reality, it would require an 

unreasonable amount of FAA oversight 

in determining the adequacy of each 

applicant’s training. ALPA’s support of 

flight hour reduction for the restricted 

ATP certificate for college or university 

educated pilots is based on a 

comprehensive flight training 

curriculum integrated with the student’s 

education. Several of the individual 

commenters stated that graduates of an 

aviation degree program should be 

eligible to obtain an R–ATP certificate 

because the quality of training received 

at such schools is superior to that 

received under part 61. 

The FAA has considered all of the 

various methods for obtaining academic 

and flight experience proposed by 

commenters but decided that degree 

programs with non-aviation majors, 

flight training conducted under part 61, 

and non-integrated flight training 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42352 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

should not be eligible for an ATP 

certificate with fewer than 1,500 hours. 

The FAA has permitted a reduction for 

graduates who receive bachelor’s 

degrees and associate’s degrees with 

aviation majors and receive part 141 

ground and flight training for a 

commercial pilot certificate and an 

instrument rating as part of a broader 

aviation curriculum. 

The FAA does not agree with those 

commenters who believe that graduates 

with degrees unrelated to aviation 

should be eligible for an R–ATP 

certificate. These graduates have not 

completed coursework that prepares 

them for a career as a professional pilot 

and such an allowance would not be 

consistent with the Act. As discussed 

above, the FAA has emphasized the 

importance of an aviation curriculum in 

permitting a reduction in flight hours. It 

is the significance of aviation 

coursework above and beyond what is 

required for pilot certification that is the 

primary basis for permitting a reduction 

in flight hours. To underscore this fact, 

the FAA has established a minimum 

number of credit hours in aviation and 

aviation-related coursework designed to 

improve and enhance the knowledge 

and skills of a person seeking a career 

as a professional pilot that these 

students must complete to be eligible for 

an R–ATP certificate. Although 

completing a bachelor’s degree may 

develop certain qualities in an 

individual that may assist them in a 

career as a professional pilot, those 

qualities are not directly relevant to 

aviation and should not be the basis for 

a reduction in flight hours. 

For those commenters who believe 

that the reduction should apply to 

graduates irrespective of whether they 

complete ground and flight training 

through a part 141 pilot school or under 

part 61, or whether or not the flight 

training is integrated with the academic 

coursework, the FAA disagrees. By 

requiring the institution of higher 

education to hold a part 141 certificate 

to teach at least the ground training, the 

FAA ensures that the training for a 

commercial certificate and instrument 

rating is incorporated into the broader 

academic aviation curriculum. In 

addition, the FAA has oversight of the 

training conducted through part 141 

program approval. Those pilot schools 

must renew their certificates every 24 

months and demonstrate the quality of 

the training through an established 

training standard. 

e. Other Approved Training and 

Specialized Courses 

Forty-one commenters, including the 

Pilot Career Initiative (PCI), AOPA, 

Paradigm Shift Solutions, Inc., Prairie 

Air Service, Inc., SIU, MTSU, and 

Spartan College, encouraged the FAA to 

permit pilots with other training 

experiences to qualify for an R–ATP 

certificate. 

AOPA and AAI contend that the FAA 

defined ‘‘academic credit’’ too narrowly. 

NAFI advised consideration of what 

would constitute ‘‘academic study’’ and 

recommended that it not be limited only 

to university or college training 

programs. NAFI stated that it was 

possible that other institutions or 

training providers could develop highly 

effective ‘‘academic study’’ training 

programs. NAFI added that a 

standardized criterion that could be 

applied across various programs would 

be necessary to allow such a condition 

to be successful and measurable. 

PCI contended that the structured 

flight academies should qualify for a 

reduction in hours because they have 

strong academic and flight training 

programs conducted through an 

approved FAA curriculum. John A. 

O’Brien Aviation Consulting, LLC 

indicated that aviation academies 

should be eligible since they provide 

interaction with experienced airline 

professionals and flight instruction in 

accordance with FAA regulations to 

individuals seeking employment as a 

pilot at an airline. The training is 

specialized and regimented for an 

individual with very little aviation 

background to acquire the skills and 

knowledge to graduate from a program, 

in a short timeframe, with all of the 

pilot certificates necessary to fly at an 

air carrier. AOPA is also supportive of 

credit for training completed at aviation 

‘‘academies.’’ 

AOPA and two other commenters 

stated that the FAA should allow credit 

for individual academic courses and not 

simply apply a blanket reduction at 

graduation. Paradigm Shift Solutions 

and four additional commenters noted 

the FAA had not considered Advanced 

Jet Training for credit—a unanimous 

recommendation from the FOQ ARC. 

Another commenter noted the FAA had 

not considered pilots enrolled in FAAIndustry Training Standards programs 

or those pilots who complete air carrier 

training through an Advanced 

Qualification Program. The Upset 

Prevention and Recovery Training 

Association (UPRTA) added that the 

FAA should issue restricted ATP 

certificates with reduced flight hour 

requirements to all ATP candidates, 

provided they have received academic 

and flight instruction in upset 

prevention and recovery from qualified 

instructors. 

NATA recommended that the FAA 

expand the flight hour credit ‘‘to 

include a comprehensive framework 

similar to the recommendations of the 

FOQ ARC and any other science-based 

advanced training courses that provide 

a benefit to safety.’’ NATA stated that, 

if the FAA did not expand the proposal, 

the NPRM should be withdrawn in its 

entirety until such time as a more 

comprehensive framework could be 

created. The AAI contended that credit 

should be applied to other structured 

academies run by training organizations 

or air carriers. 

Twelve commenters, including John 

A. O’Brien Aviation Consulting, LLC, 

the AAI, PABC, UAA, Sporty’s 

Academy, and the IFL Group argued 

that students attending flight schools 

that are not associated with an 

accrediting entity, also referred to as 

flight academies, should be eligible for 

reduced time to qualify for a restricted 

ATP certificate. 

A4A argued all part 141-trained pilots 

should be eligible for a restricted ATP 

because part 141 pilot schools are 

subject to the same standards, regardless 

of their affiliation with a four-year 

college. IFL Group similarly argued that 

the FAA should extend credit to any 

commercial, instrument, multi-engine 

pilot who has graduated from a part 141 

pilot school. Aerosim also argued 

graduates from independent part 141 

schools that offer a structured training 

program, with air carrier procedures, 

policies, and standards, should be 

eligible for academic credit. 

The FAA does not support a 

reduction in flight hours for pilots who 

complete training at an ‘‘aviation 

academy,’’ or for pilots who complete 

their ground and flight training at a part 

141 pilot school. The reduction for 

graduates who receive bachelor’s or 

associate’s degrees with aviation majors 

was not based solely on the completion 

of ground and flight training for 

certification at a part 141 pilot school. 

Rather, the reduction was based on the 

content and substance of a broader 

academic curriculum completed 

concurrently with ground and flight 

training for certification. The FAA notes 

that the regulations already reflect a 

reduction in flight hours for a 

commercial pilot certificate completed 

at a part 141 pilot school or part 142 

training center. Pilots who complete a 

commercial pilot certificate as part of an 

approved part 141 or part 142 

curriculum can apply for a commercial 

pilot certificate with 190 total flight 

hours, as opposed to the 250 hours 

required for those pilots who train 

under part 61. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42353 

The FAA acknowledges that flight 

academies generally provide focused 

training to prepare pilots for a 

professional pilot career; however, the 

FAA does not agree that the academic 

curriculum is sufficient to meet the 

intent of the Act. Flight academies do 

not spend an abundance of time in 

aviation coursework, separate from the 

minimally required ground school, over 

a period of several years. These 

academies lack the accredited and 

structured academic environment that 

the aviation colleges and universities 

provide. The courses taught by aviation 

academies are primarily focused on 

flight training and obtaining certificates 

and ratings rapidly. Many programs 

advertise a person can obtain their 

private pilot certificate, commercial 

pilot certificate, instrument rating, and 

certified flight instructor certificates in 

12 months or less. 

The FAA also does not support a 

reduction in flight hours for specialized 

courses such as upset recovery training 

and advanced jet training. The FAA 

encourages pilots to seek additional 

training that will enhance their skills 

and abilities; however, the FAA does 

not have the resources to evaluate every 

possible course that could be the basis 

for a reduction in flight hours. The FAA 

also does not support a reduction in 

flight hours for those pilots who obtain 

FAA certificates through a FITS 

program or who complete air carrier 

training through AQP. These programs 

are designed to meet existing regulatory 

requirements and do not represent 

additional training courses that merit a 

reduction in flight time. In addition, 

allowing a large number of crediting 

options creates an increasingly 

complicated process for FAA examiners 

and designees in determining and 

validating how much credit a pilot can 

get to be eligible for an R–ATP 

certificate. 

f. Certified Flight Instructors 

Many commenters indicated that the 

individuals who perform best in air 

carrier initial training are those that 

have CFI certificates and were hired 

with 500 to 1,000 hours. The 

commenters contended that the Pilot 

Source Study in 2010 and 2012 

provided support with statistically 

significant results for the argument that 

CFIs perform better in part 121 training. 

The pilots that had CFI certificates had 

more training completions and required 

fewer extra training events in part 121 

training. NTAS, AABI, Spartan College, 

and one individual commenter stated 

that credit for CFI ratings and flight 

instruction given should qualify for a 

reduction in flight hours. Another 

individual commenter suggested that a 

restricted ATP should be available to 

active CFIs. 

The FAA recognizes that, while 

completing the ground and flight 

training for a CFI certificate is valuable, 

it is not the predominant reason that a 

CFI is recognized for his or her 

knowledge and skill. It is the time spent 

in the training environment teaching 

other pilots that reinforces a CFI’s skills 

and abilities. Therefore, the FAA does 

not agree with commenters who suggest 

that this time meets the intent of the 

academic crediting provision in the 

statute. The operational experience 

gained from teaching is what is 

valuable, not the academic coursework 

to obtain the certificate. As with 

specialized courses, the FAA 

encourages pilots to seek additional 

training that will enhance their skills 

and abilities like CFI certificates; 

however, CFI ground schools are 

designed to meet existing regulatory 

requirements and do not represent 

additional training courses that merit a 

reduction in flight time as permitted 

under the Act. In addition, allowing a 

large number of crediting options 

creates a much more complicated 

process for FAA examiners and 

designees in determining and validating 

how much credit a pilot can get to be 

eligible. 

7. Summary of FAA Decision 

The FAA is adopting the following 

alternative total flight hour 

requirements for an R–ATP certificate 

with airplane category multiengine class 

rating or an ATP certificate obtained 

concurrently with an airplane type 

rating: 

• 750 hours for a military pilot who 

has graduated from a flight training 

program in the Armed Forces; 

• 1,000 hours for a graduate who 

holds a bachelor’s degree with an 

aviation major (60+ aviation semester 

credits) from an institution of higher 

education who also receives a 

commercial certificate and instrument 

rating from an associated part 141 pilot 

school; 

• 1,250 hours for a graduate who 

holds a bachelor’s or an associate’s 

degree with an aviation major (30+ 

aviation semester credits) from an 

institution of higher education who also 

receives a commercial certificate and 

instrument rating from an associated 

part 141 pilot school; and 

• Pilots who have reached age 21, 

have logged 1,500 hours total time as a 

pilot, and satisfy the remaining 

aeronautical experience requirements 

defined in § 61.160. 

F. Aircraft Type Rating for All Pilots 

Operating Under Part 121 (§ 121.436) 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

requiring all SICs in part 121 operations 

hold an aircraft type rating for the 

aircraft flown in revenue service by 

August 1, 2013. A total of 113 

commenters responded to this proposed 

requirement. 

1. Aircraft Type Rating Requirement for 

Part 121 SICs 

Seventy-eight commenters, including 

A4A, AOPA, APA, CAA, CAPA, Cape 

Air, Delta, ExpressJet, Parks College, 

NADA/F, PABC, Aviation Professional 

Development, FSC, FedEx, IATA, NAFI, 

UAA, USAPA, and WMU, agreed with 

the proposed aircraft type rating 

requirement. ALPA, CAE, and FSI 

support the proposed requirement 

because it would require a type rating 

for part 121 SICs flying domestically; 

thus harmonizing the U.S. with current 

ICAO standards. Boeing supported the 

proposed aircraft type rating 

requirement for part 121 SICs because it 

encourages one level of safety for 

operations involving aircraft that require 

type ratings. ERAU, Purdue, Rocky 

Mountain College, and SIU, agreed with 

the proposed rule requiring SICs in part 

121 air carrier operations to hold an 

aircraft type rating, provided the air 

carrier is responsible for supplying the 

type rating to the SIC. An individual 

commenter said that operators should 

provide the type rating to decrease costs 

for new hire pilots. Rocky Mountain 

College noted that pilot supply would 

diminish if the cost of the type rating is 

transferred to the pilot. 

Twenty-two commenters, including 

KSU and GAMA generally disagreed 

with requiring SICs in part 121 air 

carrier operations to hold an aircraft 

type rating. Four commenters, including 

AAL and the IFL Group, said that 

requiring SICs in part 121 air carrier 

operations to hold an aircraft type rating 

is not necessary and that current 

regulations and air carrier training 

programs are sufficient. Ameriflight 

stated experience, not certification, is 

the problem. Prairie Air Services 

‘‘doubted’’ that any accidents would 

have been prevented if the SIC had a 

type rating. Bemidji Aviation Services, 

Inc. indicated that SIC checks achieve 

the same goal. UPRTA supports upset 

prevention and recovery training as an 

alternative to obtaining a type rating. 

Aerosim and an individual commenter 

noted that a type rating has not 

historically been an indicator that SICs 

are properly trained. 

The FAA agrees with the large 

number of commenters who said that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42354 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

requiring an aircraft type rating for all 

SICs serving in part 121 operations 

would improve safety in part 121 air 

carrier operations. In addition, this 

requirement responds to the objectives 

of section 216 of the Act, which requires 

the Administrator to determine the 

appropriate multiengine airplane flight 

experience for pilot flightcrew members. 

The historic division of 

responsibilities between the PIC and SIC 

have changed. In today’s air carrier 

environment, both the PIC and SIC 

share the role of pilot flying and pilot 

monitoring. Therefore, the FAA has 

determined that requiring an SIC to 

train to the same level of aircraft 

handling proficiency as the PIC by 

obtaining an aircraft type rating is 

appropriate. The FAA assumes most 

pilots will obtain an aircraft type rating 

at the air carrier as part of initial 

training. The practical test for an SIC to 

obtain an aircraft type rating will 

include the same tasks and maneuvers 

as those required for a PIC receiving a 

type rating. Because this practical test 

would be administered by an FAA 

inspector or designee, the test would 

serve as an additional level of oversight 

of the SICs aircraft handling skills and 

abilities. The FOQ ARC members 

unanimously recommended that an SIC 

hold a type rating in the aircraft to be 

flown in part 121 air carrier operations. 

2. Compliance Time 

JetBlue and AAL requested a 

grandfather clause for existing SICs to 

enable additional compliance time and 

reduce the financial burden that would 

be incurred by requiring unplanned 

training and evaluation sessions. JetBlue 

estimated it would cost $6 million to 

provide a type rating to its current 1,120 

SICs who do not hold a type rating for 

the aircraft they fly. This estimate is 

based on the cost provided in the FAA’s 

initial regulatory evaluation, which 

estimated the incremental per-pilot cost 

of a type rating for existing SICs at 

$5,389. AAL is concerned about the 

additional cost burden of providing a 

type rating to their 852 current SICs 

who do not have type ratings. AAL 

added that the FAA should consider 

allowing qualified simulator instructors 

or check airmen to validate flying skills 

for those pilots with at least 1,000 hours 

in type during their next recurrent 

training cycle. Upon completion of the 

evaluation event, AAL suggested having 

a letter issued to the pilot to take to an 

FAA office to obtain their ATP 

certificate. Delta estimated the shortterm cost to provide the type rating to 

its more than 1,800 SICs who already 

have ATP certificates but not the type 

rating for the aircraft flown to be $11.6 

million dollars. 

AAI, A4A, Delta, FedEx, and UPS also 

requested that the proposed compliance 

deadline of August 1, 2013 be extended. 

They specifically proposed a 

compliance deadline of 5 years or 

during transition or upgrade training. 

JetBlue proposed aligning the 

compliance time frame with initial, 

transition, or upgrade training. Some 

commenters indicated that, for current 

SICs, the compliance period for the type 

rating requirement should be five years 

or be aligned with upgrade training. 

UVU, SJSU, and four individual 

commenters discussed implementation 

of a grandfather clause for current 

students currently enrolled in college to 

become a pilot. 

The FAA estimates that even if an air 

carrier does not currently provide 

aircraft type ratings to its SICs, the 

impact of the proposed rule to its 

training program would be low. 

Currently, all SICs in part 121 

operations receive extensive training 

and a thorough evaluation at the end of 

the air carrier’s initial training program. 

During the evaluation, SICs must 

demonstrate that they can perform most 

of the maneuvers and tasks that would 

be required for an aircraft type rating. 

The FAA acknowledges that an SIC may 

need some additional hours of training 

on tasks and maneuvers required for an 

aircraft type rating that are not currently 

required during the SIC evaluation. The 

FAA believes, however, that the 

practical test for the aircraft type rating 

could be performed in the same 

simulator session currently used for the 

evaluation. The FAA acknowledges that, 

unlike an evaluation, which is typically 

conducted by a check airman, the 

practical test for an aircraft type rating 

would have to be administered by an 

FAA inspector or FAA designee. 

As a result of the statutory deadline 

requiring all part 121 SICs to hold ATP 

certificates by August 2, 2013, most 

current part 121 SICs that hold only a 

commercial pilot certificate will likely 

receive an aircraft type rating during an 

ATP certification event administered by 

the air carrier prior to the deadline. 

Many air carriers have already initiated 

a change to their approved training 

programs to provide ATP certificates 

and type ratings to SICs who hold only 

commercial pilot certificates. The FAA 

assumes the proposed compliance date 

for the type rating will not be an issue 

because this population of SICs will 

receive a type rating simultaneously 

with an ATP certificate. 

In the initial regulatory evaluation, 

the FAA assumed that air carriers would 

provide a type rating to their SICs who 

already hold ATP certificates during 

annual recurrent training. With the 

publication of the final rule so close to 

the proposed compliance date, it is 

likely that air carriers will have to 

schedule additional training and testing 

events for these SICs to obtain a type 

rating by August 2013 unless the FAA 

extends the compliance date. To the 

extent commenters suggested aligning 

the type rating requirement and upgrade 

training, the FAA has determined that 

would result in an unnecessary delay 

given the assumptions in the initial 

regulatory evaluation. The time period 

for upgrade to PIC is approximately 5 

years for regional carriers and 10 years 

for major air carriers. 

To balance the cost and timing 

concerns raised by commenters with the 

benefits of requiring SICs to hold an 

aircraft type rating, the FAA has 

decided to extend the compliance date 

to January 1, 2016 for pilots who have 

been employed as part 121 SICs on or 

before July 31, 2013. This change is 

reflected in the new § 121.436(c). The 

extended compliance period will allow 

air carriers to make the appropriate 

modifications to their approved training 

programs and incorporate the type 

rating requirement into their recurrent 

training and transition training. In 

addition, it will alleviate the burden 

placed on the aircrew program 

designees and FAA employees who will 

need to administer the certification 

event for the large number of SICs who 

may require aircraft type ratings. The 

FAA notes that the extended 

compliance date will most benefit 

current SICs who hold ATP certificates 

and already have relevant experience 

operating the aircraft they are flying. 

The FAA does not support a 

grandfather provision that would result 

in differing SIC certification 

requirements. Nor does it support 

certification by air carrier employees 

who are not designees of the 

Administrator. There is no precedent for 

an evaluation event that results in the 

issuance of an FAA certificate or rating 

being conducted by someone other than 

a designee of the Administrator. The 

commenters did not offer any 

persuasive arguments for why non-FAA 

employees or designees should be 

allowed to administer these evaluation 

events. 

3. Aircraft Type Rating Requirement for 

SICs Serving in Operations Outside of 

Part 121 

Fifteen commenters stated that SICs 

serving in operations outside of 14 CFR 

part 121 should hold a type rating if the 

PIC is also required to hold a type rating 

under the rule part. CAPA supported 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42355 

23The FAA has included an exception from this 

requirement for pilots who are serving as pilot in 

command in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013. 

the idea of requiring SICs serving in 

operations conducted under parts 91, 

125, and 135 to hold a type rating 

because flying tasks are based on the 

pilot flying and pilot monitoring 

designations, not on seat specific 

maneuvers, as was once the case. FSI 

commented that even under normal 

operations there may be scenarios where 

the SIC does not have the knowledge 

and experience to successfully land the 

aircraft. FSI and an individual 

commenter also noted that SICs should 

hold a type rating as a way of ensuring 

they can safely fly the aircraft in the 

event the PIC is incapacitated. IATA 

stated in its comments that a type rating 

gives SICs more insight into the 

technical and operational characteristics 

and specifics of the aircraft and 

generates more confidence, which can 

be translated into increased operational 

safety. APA stated that all pilots should 

be required to accomplish the same 

training to the same standards. Delta 

commented that requiring SICs flying 

operations outside of part 121 to hold a 

type rating issued in accordance with 

the practical test standard would ensure 

that all pilots serving as flightcrew 

members and carrying passengers for 

hire meet the same standard. 

Forty-five commenters including 

Rocky Mountain College, IFL Group, 

and Prairie Air Services, disagreed with 

requiring SICs serving in operations 

outside of part 121 to hold an aircraft 

type rating. KSU, Purdue, FSC, and 

Aviation Professional Development, 

LLC stated that the current rules for 

parts 91, 125 and 135 are sufficient and 

there is no need for a type rating 

requirement. GAMA also commented 

that there are sufficient regulations in 

place for parts 91, 125 and 135 

operations and added there are no safety 

issues related to the SIC not having a 

type rating. Spartan College also stated 

that current regulations are sufficient 

and that the training received by SICs is 

adequately preparing them for line 

operations. Bemidji Aviation Services 

Inc. commented that a type rating 

evaluation is no different than the 

checkride that most airlines already 

make an SIC pass. Aerosim commented 

that type-rating training has not 

historically been any indicator of a 

properly trained pilot. Aerosim stated 

that real scenario-based training 

coupled with a structured training 

program would result in a more 

competent pilot. 

AAL, RAA, Pilot Career Initiative, 

Cape Air, and PABC expressed concern 

that a type rating requirement for SICs 

serving in parts 91, 125, or 135 would 

restrict an important time building 

avenue for pilots aspiring to serve in 

part 121 operations. Additionally, the 

Pilot Career Initiative, Cape Air, 

ExpressJet Airlines, and Airlines for 

America noted that the Act only 

addresses part 121 operations. For this 

reason the type rating requirement 

should be limited to part 121 

operations. 

NATA commented that an SIC type 

rating requirement outside of part 121 is 

not relevant because the FAA did not 

propose such a requirement in the 

NPRM, nor did the FAA present 

conclusive evidence of a need for 

requiring a type rating for SIC serving in 

operations under parts 91, 125 or 135. 

Parks College commented that there is a 

clear potential safety benefit to requiring 

SICs under parts 91, 125 and 135 to 

possess a type rating; however, there is 

not enough data regarding the potential 

economic impacts of the proposal to 

offer a cost-benefit based 

recommendation. ERAU commented 

that it is unnecessary because 

operations under other rule parts are not 

similar. 

The FAA agrees with commenters that 

the flight-related tasks are no longer 

based on seat position, but rather by the 

pilot flying versus pilot monitoring 

designations. Additionally, the FAA 

agrees that type-specific training could 

increase the technical and operational 

knowledge level of SICs on specific 

aircraft. The Act was specific to 

modifying the ATP certificate and part 

121 operations. As such, the NPRM did 

not propose that SICs under other 

operating parts obtain an ATP certificate 

or aircraft type rating. Even though the 

FAA specifically solicited comments on 

requiring SICs serving outside of part 

121 to obtain a type rating, a specific 

requirement was not included in the 

draft regulatory text in the NPRM. 

Additionally, the FAA did not provide 

any economic impact information in the 

regulatory evaluation that was provided 

with the NPRM. While the FAA did 

receive comments that supported 

extending the type rating requirement to 

operations outside of part 121, a 

majority of the commenters did not 

support such a requirement. As a result 

the FAA intends no action at this time. 

G. Minimum of 1,000 Hours in Air 

Carrier Operations To Serve as PIC in 

Part 121 Operations (§ 121.436) 

Prior to the issuance of this final rule, 

SICs in part 121 operations were only 

required to hold a commercial pilot 

certificate with an instrument rating, 

which can be obtained in as few as 190 

flight hours. If hired by a part 121 air 

carrier with these minimums, SICs 

would acquire over 1,000 hours in air 

carrier operations before meeting the 

regulatory requirements for the ATP 

certificate, which is required to serve as 

PIC in part 121 operations. Therefore, 

regulations minimized the chance that 

two pilots with little or no air carrier 

experience could be paired together as 

a flightcrew. The Act’s requirement for 

part 121 SICs to hold ATP certificates 

significantly changes the flightcrew 

composition for those operators who 

hire pilots with the minimum flight 

time requirements. By raising the 

certificate requirement of part 121 SICs, 

the natural mentoring period may no 

longer exist without additional 

regulation. The FAA notes that this 

requirement will create time for 

mentoring to occur for pilots new to the 

air carrier environment, which supports 

in part the objectives of Section 206 of 

the Act. That statutory requirement will 

be addressed in the Flight Crewmember 

Mentoring Leadership, and Professional 

Development rulemaking project. 

The intent of the proposed 1,000-hour 

air carrier experience requirement in 

§ 121.436 was to prevent two pilots in 

part 121 operations with little or no air 

carrier experience from being paired 

together as a flightcrew in line 

operations. In addition, it would ensure 

that pilots obtain at least one full year 

of relevant air carrier operational 

experience before assuming the 

authority and responsibility of a PIC in 

operations conducted in part 121 

operations. As proposed, the 1,000 

hours in air carrier operations could be 

a combination of time as PIC in 

operations conducted under 

§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i), § 135.243(a)(1), or as 

an SIC in part 121 operations.23

1. Air Carrier Experience Requirement 

Twenty-nine commenters, including 

AAL, A4A, ALPA, CAA, CAPA, PABC, 

Pilot Career Initiative, The Families of 

Continental Flight 3407, USAPA, UVU, 

and WMU, stated the proposed 1,000 

hour requirement is appropriate. 

Over 40 commenters, including CAE 

and KSU, believe the proposed rule is 

excessive with some proposing 

alternative hours of air carrier 

experience. Delta specifically stated that 

750 hours is enough time for a pilot to 

complete initial training, meet operating 

experience requirements, and acquire 

approximately 18 months of flying 

experience. Additionally, over the 18- 

month period the pilot would be 

exposed to seasonal weather differences, 

mechanical issues, passenger issues, 

and air traffic control issues. GAMA, 

Rocky Mountain College, FSC, Purdue, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42356 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

and Spartan College commented that the 

proposed time was too long and that 

upgrade from SIC to PIC should be 

based on competency, not on the 

number of flight hours. The UAA and 

SIU commented that the requirements 

for a PIC should be established by the 

air carrier and the air carrier’s POI. UAA 

and SUI also commented that pilots 

who obtain an unrestricted ATP 

certificate with 1,500 hours would need 

a minimum of 2,500 total flight hours to 

upgrade to a part 121 PIC. SICs with an 

R–ATP certificate would need a 

minimum of 1,750 (military pilots) to 

2,000 total flight hours (graduates of 

qualifying four-year aviation degree 

programs) to upgrade to a part 121 PIC. 

UAA and SIU are concerned that these 

flight hours may exceed what is 

necessary to train safe, competent PICs. 

Fifteen commenters contended the 

requirement is unnecessary. 

Ameriflight, Inc., Boeing, JetBlue, and 

Kestrel commented that setting a flight 

time requirement for upgrade will not 

guarantee an increased level of 

operational safety or competency. These 

commenters assert that minimum hour 

requirements are not a guarantee that a 

desired experience has been gained and 

that flight time alone does not provide 

an opportunity to assess the pilot’s 

ability to act as PIC. ExpressJet Airlines 

stated that the current requirements for 

a PIC in part 121 are sufficient because 

air carrier PIC candidates complete a 

rigorous training program, which is 

approved by the FAA. These pilots also 

receive continuous oversight through 

recurrent training and checking events. 

ERAU noted the proposed requirement 

is arbitrary, too long, and limits the air 

carrier’s flexibility. 

RAA supported the requirement for 

1,000 hours of experience in air carrier 

operations for part 121 passenger 

service, but believes that requirement is 

excessive for part 121 all-cargo 

supplemental operations. RAA is 

concerned that because supplemental 

carriers providing feeder service are 

often limited to shorter flight legs, it 

could take three or more years for a pilot 

to gain 1,000 hours as an SIC. RAA 

states that these operations pose no 

threat to the flying public and a more 

suitable time requirement should be 

considered for part 121 supplemental 

carriers. 

The FAA has considered all of the 

comments and determined that keeping 

the 1,000-hour air carrier experience 

requirement is appropriate for all 

operations under part 121. This 

requirement will ensure that an SIC has 

experienced an entire year of relevant 

air carrier operational experience before 

assuming the authority and 

responsibility of a part 121 operation as 

PIC. The FAA does not differentiate part 

121 flightcrew member certification and 

qualification requirements based upon 

whether they are conducting passenger 

or supplemental (cargo) operations. The 

FAA acknowledges that this 

requirement will increase the minimum 

time required for a pilot prior to serving 

as PIC in part 121 operations. If a pilot 

is entering part 121 service with no 

previous air carrier experience, it may 

take more than one year for the pilot to 

upgrade to PIC. The FAA estimated in 

the initial regulatory evaluation for the 

NPRM that flightcrew members serving 

in part 121 operations fly on average 

750 hours per year. However, the FAA 

notes that part 121 pilots are permitted 

by regulations to fly up to 1,000 hours 

per calendar year (§ 121.471). The FAA 

also notes that for most operators the 

1,000-hour requirement will not be a 

factor given actual upgrade times for 

SICs exceed the minimum time it would 

take to acquire 1,000 hours, and thus we 

believe there will be minimal costs and 

benefits from this provision. 

2. Part 135 and Part 91, Subpart K Time 

The FAA received over fifty 

comments on whether to credit flight 

time earned in part 135 and subpart K 

of part 91 towards the 1,000 hours of air 

carrier experience requirement. The 

majority of commenters supported 

including the PIC flight time in these 

operations as proposed in the NPRM as 

part of the requirement. AAL, GAMA, 

KSU, and RACCA stated this time is 

similar to part 121 operations and 

provides a useful base of experience. 

FedEx, ExpressJet, ALPA, IFL Group, 

and Purdue specifically commented that 

other PIC time in part 135 operations 

should also count toward the 1,000-hour 

requirement. Conversely, five 

commenters, including APA, CAPA, 

and USAPA, stated operations under 

part 135 and subpart K of part 91 and 

should not count towards the proposed 

1,000-hour experience requirement. 

In the NPRM the FAA also asked 

commenters if SIC time outside of part 

121 should count towards the 1,000 

hour requirement to upgrade to PIC in 

part 121. The majority of commenters 

on this question offered that some SIC 

time outside of part 121 operations 

should count toward the requirement. 

Cape Air said that flight time as an SIC 

in scheduled part 135 operations should 

count. ExpressJet said that SIC time in 

subpart K of part 91 and part 135 

operations should count. FedEx 

commented that subpart K to part 91, 

part 125, and part 135 operations can 

involve complex aircraft and experience 

relevant to part 121 operations; 

therefore, that time should count. FSI 

said that multicrew time accrued by 

SICs in subpart K of part 91 and parts 

135 and 125 should count toward the 

1,000 hours. ALPA commented that SIC 

time in part 135 and subpart K of part 

91 should count if the time was 

acquired in a multiengine turboprop or 

turbojet airplane. NATA commented 

that SIC time outside part 121 should 

count because experience in multiple 

operational scenarios is beneficial. 

Purdue said that SIC time should count 

as long as it was acquired while flying 

in a multi-pilot crew under subpart K of 

part 91 or part 135. UPRTA said that SIC 

time outside of part 121 should count 

only if the SIC has completed upset 

prevention and recovery training. 

Aviation Professional Development 

and FSC said that SIC time accrued 

outside of part 121 operations should 

not count because other operations are 

dissimilar. The PABC stated that SIC 

time accrued outside of part 121 

operations should not count towards 

this requirement because the mentoring 

and experience needed to become an 

effective part 121 PIC cannot be 

received outside of part 121 operations. 

USAPA does not support counting flight 

time in subpart K of part 91 or part 135 

operations towards the 1,000 hour 

requirement. 

The FAA has decided that pilots 

should not be permitted to count any 

time as a required SIC in operations 

conducted outside of 14 CFR part 121. 

These SICs are not exercising the 

privileges of an ATP certificate and have 

not demonstrated leadership and 

command abilities necessary to exercise 

operational control of a flight in 

conditions most similar to operations 

conducted under part 121. The FAA has 

concluded that the time an SIC spends 

observing a PIC in part 121 operations 

plays an important role in preparing the 

SIC for eventual upgrade to PIC. A PIC 

in part 121 air carrier operations is 

expected to possess leadership and 

command abilities, including 

aeronautical decision making and the 

sound judgment necessary to exercise 

operational control of the flight. The 

FAA has determined that developing 

these abilities is most effectively done 

by performing the duties of an SIC in 

part 121 air carrier operations while 

under the supervision of an experienced 

PIC. 

The FAA has determined that the 

ability to fly at the ATP certificate level 

and have demonstrated this proficiency 

during evaluation is an important 

regulatory differentiation. The FAA first 

proposed that certain operations under 

part 135 should require an ATP 

certificate in 1977. In that NPRM, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42357 

FAA stated the requirement to hold an 

ATP certificate to act as PIC in some 

part 135 operations was ‘‘[. . . ] based 

in part on operational complexity and 

the number of persons carried, would 

provide a level of safety more 

comparable to that provided by Part 

121.’’ For these same reasons the FAA 

has determined that flight time acquired 

as a PIC in operations under 

§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i),and § 135.243(a)(1) 

and flight time acquired as an SIC in 

part 121 operations should count 

towards the 1,000 hour air carrier 

experience requirement. Operations 

under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or 

§ 135.243(a)(1) require an ATP 

certificate, are multicrew operations, 

and generally use turbine aircraft and 

therefore are the most applicable to part 

121 operations. The FAA has 

determined that, while other part 91 and 

part 135 operations may involve certain 

elements that are relatable to part 121 

operations, the varied nature of 

operations does not make credit toward 

the 1,000 hour requirement appropriate. 

As such, the proposed requirement that 

the 1,000 hours in air carrier operations 

may be a combination of time as PIC in 

operations conducted under 

§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or § 135.243(a)(1) or as 

SIC in part 121 operations remains 

unchanged from the NPRM. 

3. Military Time 

Delta, A4A, AAL, and FedEx 

commented that flight time in military 

operations should count toward the 

1,000-hour air carrier experience 

requirement. UPS specifically asked 

whether military flight time counted 

towards the 1,000-hour air carrier 

operating experience requirement. FSI 

indicated that multicrew flight time in 

the military should count. An 

individual commenter stated that 

military pilots who fly transport 

category aircraft as PIC should be able 

to credit up to 500 hours of their 

transport category military flight time. 

The commenter stated that this would 

still require them to fly 500 hours for an 

air carrier before being eligible to act as 

PIC for a part 121 operation. 

The FAA recognizes that many pilots 

in the course of their military careers 

will obtain significant multicrew 

experience as PICs of transport category 

aircraft and therefore has added 

paragraph (c) to new § 121.436 to allow 

500 hours of military flight time accrued 

as PIC of a multiengine turbinepowered, fixed-wing airplane in an 

operation requiring more than one pilot 

to be credited to the 1,000-hour 

requirement. While there is value in this 

experience, the FAA does agree with 

some of the commenters that these 

pilots operate in a unique system that is 

different from a part 121 air carrier 

environment. The FAA has determined 

that military pilots would benefit from 

spending some time serving as a 

required crewmember in a civilian air 

carrier operation before upgrading to 

PIC. This time would prepare them for 

operating in compliance with the 

regulations that govern civil aviation, 

the air carrier’s particular operating 

specifications, and the airplane’s 

operations manual. 

4. Other Time 

FedEx, A4A, and FSI said that flight 

time in part 125 should count toward 

the 1,000 hours of air carrier experience 

required to serve as PIC in part 121 

operations. The FAA determined that 

flight time in part 125 should not count 

because, although these operations 

share certain characteristics with part 

121 operations, they are not sufficiently 

similar to count toward the 1,000 hours 

of air carrier experience. Part 125 does 

not involve common carriage, a pilot is 

only required to have a commercial 

pilot certificate, and the operating rules 

in part 125 differ significantly from the 

operating rules in part 121. 

FedEx, AA, A4A, and FSI commented 

that flight time in international air 

carrier operations should count toward 

the 1,000 hours required to serve as PIC 

in part 121 operations. The FAA 

concluded that, although foreign air 

carrier operations are similar to U.S. air 

carrier operations, there are significant 

differences related to the environment 

under which foreign air carrier 

operations are conducted, including 

possible cultural differences. Most 

importantly, pilots serving for foreign 

air carriers do not operate under U.S. 

regulations and may not have 

experience in the U.S. national airspace 

system. The FAA concluded that 

requiring these pilots to serve first as an 

SIC in part 121 operations before 

upgrading to PIC is appropriate. 

CAE commented that the FAA should 

consider a minimum time in aircraft 

type if a pilot does not have sufficient 

flight time in subpart K of part 91, part 

135, or part 121 to meet the 

requirement. While time in type is 

valuable, the proposed requirement is 

directed at gaining relevant experience 

in complex air carrier operational 

environments rather than in aircraft 

handling. The FAA has determined that 

the proposed requirement for SICs to 

obtain a type rating will provide 

additional experience and proficiency 

in aircraft-specific handling and 

knowledge. Therefore, the FAA has 

decided not to allow credit for time in 

the type of aircraft towards the 1,000 

hours of air carrier operating 

experience. 

H. Miscellaneous Issues 

1. Pilot Supply 

In the NPRM the FAA sought 

comment on the potential impact to 

pilot supply on part 121 and part 135 air 

carriers as well as part 141 pilot schools 

and part 142 training centers as a result 

of the requirement for all SICs in part 

121 to hold an ATP certificate. The FAA 

received 267 comments regarding pilot 

supply from airlines, industry/trade 

groups, colleges and universities, pilot 

training centers, and pilots. 

a. Part 121 Pilot Supply 

More than 100 commenters 

specifically stated the proposed ATP 

requirements for part 121 SICs would 

hurt part 121 pilot supply. The 

University of Dubuque, SIU, and 58 

other commenters stated the ATP 

certificate requirement for part 121 SICs 

would significantly affect air carriers’ 

ability to hire new pilots, particularly 

regional air carriers. 

Only a handful of commenters 

provided specific information to 

support the assertion that part 121 pilot 

supply will diminish. Among these 

commenters was the UAA. Their 

comments included data that suggests 

there is a diminishing supply of pilots 

in general at a time when forecasts 

suggest a consistent and growing global 

demand for pilots. UAA stated in their 

comments: 

• Overall, U.S. airline domestic 

revenue passenger enplanements are 

expected to grow an average of 2.2 

percent per year from 2011 to 2032 and 

international revenue passenger 

enplanements by U.S. carriers are 

expected to grow 4.2 percent per year 

from 2011 to 2032. 

• Currently, Boeing forecasts a global 

need for 460,000 pilots through the year 

2030, with 97,350 of those needed for 

North America. This demand is based 

upon projected fleet growth and pilot 

retirements. 

• Pilots who turned 60 in the years 

2007 to 2012 will be forced to retire 

beginning in 2012. UAA estimated that, 

beginning in 2018 or 2019, as many as 

2,000 part 121 pilots will be forced to 

retire each year due to the Age 65 rule. 

• FAA statistics demonstrate the 

number of new student pilot certificates 

issued has declined from 2007 to 2010 

by more than 12,000. The number of 

new commercial pilot certificates issued 

also declined significantly from 2007 

through 2010. 

• A study conducted by the 

University of North Dakota indicates 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42358 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

only slightly more than half the flight 

instructors surveyed who initially 

planned on an airline career still have 

that long-term goal. 

• The Pilot Source Study (2010) 

indicates a decrease in military pilots 

moving to air carriers. As the U.S. 

Armed Forces continue contraction, 

fewer military pilots are needed. 

ALPA stated in their comments that 

there will be no impact on the pilot 

supply based on this rule because there 

are thousands of qualified pilots 

currently on furlough. They also noted 

that the availability of pilots is a 

function of the health of the air carrier 

industry. 

CAPA stated the business practices 

and models of many of our nation’s 

carriers have reduced the career 

expectations of entry-level pilots to a 

standard that will not allow a pilot to 

support a family. This new economic 

reality is what is driving many qualified 

pilots out of the job market. CAPA 

stated there will not be a pilot shortage 

but a shortage of pilots willing to work 

for low wages. 

Several commenters, including RAA, 

ExpressJet, JetBlue, Ameriflight, 

Paradigm Shift Solutions, Inc., and 

GAMA stated this rule will exacerbate 

the pilot shortage caused by the Age 65 

rule. Ameriflight added that no pilots 

will be available for operators of small 

aircraft as a result of talent drain to 

larger operators. 

The AAI contended that within five 

years the proposed rule will result in a 

severe flight shortage to small 

communities. It also contends that the 

rule will threaten feeder routes and hub 

operations. 

IATA contended that the proposed 

rule will be felt first in regional carriers 

but will eventually affect legacy carriers 

as well. ExpressJet, Delta, Parks College, 

and two other commenters state that the 

rule sacrifices quality pilot candidates 

by focusing on flight time instead of the 

quality of training. American Eagle 

Airlines, Inc., states that the rule will 

put U.S. air carriers at a disadvantage 

with foreign carriers. 

Cape Air, UPS, FSC, CAA, ERAU, 

A4A, CAE, Human Capital Management 

and Performance, LLC, Aviation 

Professional Development, LLC, DSU, 

Spartan College, LeTourneau 

University, and three other commenters 

predict that the arbitrary hour 

requirements of the proposed ATP 

certificate with restricted privileges will 

discourage students from seeking air 

carrier careers. 

b. Part 135, 141, and 142 Pilot Supply 

The FAA also received comments on 

the impact the proposed rule would 

have on part 135 operators, 141 pilot 

schools, and 142 training centers. The 

RAA commented that students will be 

less attracted to part 141 schools that are 

not associated with a four-year 

university and college accredited 

aviation degree programs because those 

students could not take advantage of the 

R–ATP hour requirements. 

SJSU commented that part 141 pilot 

schools and 142 training centers may 

see a decline in new student enrollment 

because some students already struggle 

to afford training costs and will not be 

willing to spend the extra money 

needed to meet the new requirements of 

a part 121 SIC position. On the other 

hand, ALPA commented that it expects 

enrollment at accredited colleges and 

universities with part 141 pilot training 

programs to increase. It also anticipates 

the rule ‘‘could result in the creation of 

training partnerships between those 

accredited colleges and universities and 

training academies (e.g., CAE and 

FlightSafety International) that possess 

part 141/142 certificates to utilize the 

certified flight training simulators that 

these flight training academies may 

have.’’ 

DSU commented that it already has a 

high attrition rate because the flight 

training component of its program 

doubles the cost of the aviation degree 

compared to other degrees offered by 

the university despite the fact that it 

makes no money on the flight training. 

It is concerned the rule would increase 

the attrition rate further. 

CAE commented that part 141 

operators might retain their instructors 

longer but may also suffer from reduced 

customer throughput as the new rule 

virtually eliminates their options to 

provide training at any level of 

reduction below the 1,500 hours. 

Parks College commented that part 

135 operators and part 91 subpart K 

operators may face negative impacts in 

two ways. First, if the supply of pilots 

qualified for part 121 operations 

diminishes significantly, causing entry 

wages to increase, there may be a shift 

of employees from part 91 and part 135 

operations to part 121 operations. 

Secondly, the supply of pilots that gain 

their initial crew experience in part 121 

operations as SIC, then move to part 135 

operations or part 91 subpart K as PIC 

may decrease. It also anticipates that the 

proposed ATP CTP would increase 

training volume at part 142 training 

centers, as they currently operate the 

majority of Level ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ 

simulators. Additionally, training 

volume at part 142 certified training 

facilities would significantly increase, 

as only a limited number of part 141 

and collegiate programs currently 

operate approved Level 4⁄5 FSTD 

devices. 

NADA/F commented that the 1,500 

flight hours and ATP requirement 

should benefit part 141 training centers 

and should have no impact on part 135 

carriers as they already require an ATP 

and 1,500 hours. 

Cape Air commented that it is likely 

that many part 135 pilots with ATP 

certificates will be recruited by the 

larger part 121 carriers who would then 

not have to incur the costs of the ATP 

CTP. This natural career progression 

essentially places the majority of the 

burden of acquiring ATP certificates to 

smaller airlines, with limited resources. 

c. FAA Response 

The FAA does not dispute the factual 

numbers of decreased pilot starts and 

the decreased number of commercial 

and flight instructor certificates issued 

over the past 10 years. However, the 

FAA also cannot change the 

requirement under the Act that all pilots 

in part 121 operations have an ATP 

certificate by August 2013. The FAA has 

decided to take advantage of the 

relieving option within the Act to offer 

an ATP certificate with restricted 

privileges, which would permit some 

pilots to obtain the ATP certificate with 

less than 1,500 hours. While pilot 

supply was not the reason the FAA 

considered such an option, the FAA has 

determined it would be a cost-relieving 

measure and would address some of the 

pilot supply concerns. 

Despite the reduced pool of eligible 

pilots (i.e. pilots with the total flight 

hours for an ATP certificate), the current 

level of safety will be maintained 

because pilots must continue to meet 

certification and qualification standards 

before serving as a pilot in part 121 

operations. As under current 

regulations, any pilot who fails to 

demonstrate satisfactory performance 

for the ATP certificate or successfully 

complete all of the requirements within 

the air carrier training program will not 

serve in part 121 operations. We do not 

see safety compromised because of a 

reduced eligible pilot pool. 

The FAA acknowledges it is possible 

that as a result of the reduced pool of 

eligible pilots, some carriers with less 

competitive compensation packages 

may experience a higher failure rate due 

to an inability to attract the best 

candidates, which in turn is a cost to 

that carrier. Determining the actual cost 

is very difficult to identify due to lack 

of available data and long term hiring 

data is difficult to forecast. The FAA 

notes, however, the candidates who 

have traditionally performed the best in 

initial training, as identified by the ARC 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42359 

24 In the NPRM initial regulatory evaluation, the 

FAA estimated that the total benefit for accidents 

involving SICs with fewer than 1,500 hours of flight 

time was $23 million. The final rule regulatory 

evaluation estimates it to be $16 million. 

and the pilot source study, are those 

candidates that will be eligible for a 

restricted privileges ATP certificate. 

2. Benefits and Cost 

Ameriflight questioned why the FAA 

calculated the cost of the proposed rule 

post-statute (meaning without the costs 

associated with the self-executing ATP 

certificate requirement), but claimed a 

$23 million dollar benefit 24 from the 

ATP certificate requirement. Ameriflight 

recommended the FAA not be allowed 

to take a benefit from any proposed rule 

it is not accounting for in its costs. 

The FAA’s Office of Accident 

Investigation and Prevention (AVP) 

conducted an accident analysis 

accidents of those accidents where the 

SIC had less than 1,500 hours and found 

no relationship with the ATP certificate 

requirement. AVP found the probable 

cause and contributing factors for those 

accidents to be other issues that are 

addressed by the ATP CTP and the 

aircraft type rating requirement. 

Therefore, the FAA did not attribute any 

benefit to the ATP certificate 

requirement. However, as reflected in 

the final regulatory evaluation, if one 

were to attribute all of the benefits 

claimed for those accidents to the ATP 

certificate requirement (meaning there 

was no other attributable cause for the 

accident other than the fact that the SIC 

did not have an ATP certificate and 

1,500 hours), it would total $23 million 

(NPRM). 

Ameriflight and RACCA believe that 

the cost of the final rule will exceed 

$141 million for the airline industry and 

should therefore precipitate a review 

under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995. The $141 million dollar 

figure that triggers the Unfunded 

Mandates assessment relates to costs 

imposed in any one year on the private 

sector, which is not the case for this 

rule. The total costs attributable to the 

rule over a 20-year period are just 

$312.7 million and the highest cost in 

any year is under $20 million (2032). 

Consequently, the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act is not implicated by this 

final rule. 

Ameriflight and RACCA objected to 

the finding of no economic impact on 

part 135 operators. RACCA questioned 

‘‘the thoroughness and validity of the 

economic impact analyses’’ and 

suggested ‘‘one reason for the FAA’s 

inaccuracy is their complete disregard 

of Part 135 on-demand flying.’’ 

Ameriflight and RACCA also object to 

the FAA’s finding that the (annualized) 

cost of the rule is less than 0.5% of the 

operating revenues of all small firms 

affected by the rule and request that this 

finding be reevaluated taking into 

account RACCA members and other 

similarly-placed part 135 carriers. 

In conducting the economic analysis, 

the FAA did not disregard part 135 ondemand operations as evidenced by the 

accident analysis conducted by AVP. 

For part 135 operators, the FAA 

determined that this rule would have 

had no economic impact on those 

operators. Operating revenue data is not 

available for most part 135 operators as 

most are privately held. However, the 

three part 135 operators for which we 

do have operating revenue, as measured 

by number of PICs (4 to 45 PICs), 

encompass almost the entire size range 

of part 135 operators (1 to 55 PICs). The 

finding that there would be an 

insignificant economic impact therefore 

applies to RACCA members and other 

similarly-placed part 135 carriers. 

In commenting on the costs of the 

ATP CTP, AOPA indicated the FAA did 

not calculate the time required of air 

carriers to ‘‘navigate the cumbersome 

schedules of part 142 training centers or 

airline in-house training centers’’ to 

schedule simulator training and 

estimated the cost to be a minimum of 

two hours per ATP applicant. AOPA 

also stated the ATP CTP costs did not 

account for travel expenses because the 

FAA assumed the ATP CTP training 

would take place immediately prior to 

initial training for the air carrier, but 

‘‘the FAA does not address pilots 

seeking ATP certification outside of the 

air carrier environment.’’ AOPA also 

questioned the training pay assumption, 

stating that ‘‘It seems highly unlikely a 

pilot earns only $43 a day—$2 per day 

less than their daily per diem—while 

training. . . .’’ 

The FAA estimates the social cost of 

the ATP CTP by estimating the impact 

on the low-cost providers of the 

training—part 121 air carriers and part 

142 training centers. To also include the 

pecuniary impact on training schools 

would be double counting. The FAA 

does not agree with costing two hours 

per applicant to schedule training. 

Given the inventory availability of 

FSTDs discussed previously, the FAA 

believes the impact to training 

department administrators will be 

minimal. With respect to travel costs, 

the FAA has modified its assumption 

and believes that 50% of pilots will be 

trained directly by air carriers and 50% 

will be trained by part 142 training 

centers. We believe it is highly 

reasonable to assume that ATP 

certification training by air carriers will 

take place just prior to initial pilot 

training so there will be no incremental 

travel costs. However, we now include 

travel costs for pilots undergoing ATP 

certification training at part 142 training 

centers. We agree that we 

underestimated training pay in the 

NPRM and have increased our estimate 

for the final rule. 

In reference to our estimate of the cost 

of the 1,500-hour requirement, the IFL 

Group disputed the assertion that a new 

pilot can easily fly 750 hours in a year 

outside of part 121 operations. The IFL 

group noted that kind of flight time has 

historically been obtained working for 

an air carrier, which the pilot will no 

longer be able to do. The commenter 

added, although flight instructing is 

another way to build time, as a result of 

the declining student pilot starts, the 

ability for pilots to earn that much time 

annually is not realistic. Upon review, 

the FAA has reduced its assumption to 

500 hours of flight time annually. 

With respect to the cost of the ATP 

CTP, NATA asserted the costs are borne 

by the individual, not an air carrier. 

‘‘Should the FAA reject NATA’s 

comment that costs of the ATP CTP 

should be computed based upon impact 

to the regulated individual pilot, NATA 

asserts that the FAA still must modify 

its estimates to reflect the higher 

training costs faced by Part 135 and 91 

subpart K operators’’ due to smaller 

class sizes and the need to contract with 

training providers. 

The FAA believes that most pilots 

will receive the ATP CTP through 

employment—either at large air carriers, 

with their own training facilities and 

simulators, or at part 142 training 

centers through training agreements. 

The inefficiencies of small size can be 

greatly mitigated by contracting out, 

and, in fact, many small operators 

already use contract training to meet 

existing training requirements. 

Moreover, the ATP CTP, as a general 

program, is not specific to any type 

aircraft, nor to any rule part (121, 135, 

91K). Therefore, we believe that 

competitive part 142 training centers 

will deliver generic ATP CTP training to 

individuals, as well as air carriers, at 

costs no higher than our conservative 

estimate. 

3. Alternative Licensing Structure 

In the NPRM the FAA posed two 

questions which focused on an 

alternative pilot licensing structure for 

part 121 pilots. The FAA asked if it 

should consider an alternative licensing 

structure for pilots who desire only to 

fly for a part 121 air carrier (e.g. 

multicrew pilot license). The FAA also 

asked if it were to adopt a licensing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42360 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

structure for a multicrew pilot license 

(MPL), what would be the appropriate 

amount and type of ground and flight 

training. 

With respect to the question of 

whether the FAA should consider an 

alternative licensing structure for 

prospective part 121 pilots, a total of 79 

commenters including IATA, JetBlue, 

NAFI, Boeing, PABC, FedEx, A4A, CAE, 

RAA, Delta, NADA/F, USAPA, ERAU, 

Spartan College, and UAA provided 

input. Just over half of the commenters 

were supportive of the FAA considering 

an alternative method to certificate part 

121 air carrier pilots. NTAS supplied 

the results of their industry polling; 

their responders reflected similar 

results. Sixty-two percent of their 

responders were in favor of the FAA 

considering an MPL-like structure. 

FAA’s harmonization with ICAO was 

the most selected reasoning for support 

according to the NTAS poll. 

Some commenters including IATA 

and Boeing, noted the benefits of an 

alternative licensing structure for pilots 

who desire only to fly for a part 121 air 

carrier. IATA noted results show pilots 

training in a multicrew environment 

exhibit proficiency and safety. Boeing 

stated the graduates of these programs 

are highly competent in the knowledge 

and skills required for air carrier 

operations. An individual commenter 

stated training for such a license 

specifically develops the core 

competencies necessary to operate as a 

part 121 SIC. Another individual 

commenter noted MPL is one of the 

most rigorous structured pilot training 

programs. 

CAE stated its top recommendation is 

for the FAA to adopt a U.S. MPL. 

Another individual commenter noted 

the MPL would allow applicant pilots to 

save time and money in reaching their 

goal. Aerosim stated the MPL has been 

proven to be effective training outside 

the United States and should be 

considered in the United States. LETU 

noted many other countries are using 

the ICAO MPL to address pilot shortage. 

The RAA stated there is more than 

enough experience in alternate pilot 

training and licensing approaches 

elsewhere in the world to support FAA 

consideration of such an approach. 

Several commenters including ERAU 

disagreed with an alternative licensing 

structure for pilots who desire only to 

fly for a part 121 air carrier and noted 

the lack of information regarding MPL 

programs. ERAU noted not enough 

performance data exists on pilots from 

MPL programs. CAPA stated an MPLlike structure would replace fully 

qualified and type rated pilots with ones 

that have limited knowledge and 

experience thus reducing safety. 

The Families of Continental Flight 

3407, NADA/F, GAMA, USAPA, and 

Bemidji Aviation Services, Inc., 

disagreed with an alternative licensing 

structure for pilots who desire only to 

fly for a part 121 air carrier. Families of 

Continental Flight 3407 suggested an 

ATP should be the minimum for SICs. 

NADA/F stated they are opposed to 

altering the ATP requirements and 

noted the option of multicrew license is 

not part of the legislation. USAPA stated 

the FAA should keep the current ATP 

standard. Bemidji Aviation Services, 

Inc., stated pilots need to have more 

experience than an MPL. FSI noted their 

ATP courses already include 

appropriate CRM training. American 

Flyers and NOVA Southeastern 

University stated the FAA should not 

accept a lower standard of skill. 

With respect to the question of what 

would be the appropriate amount and 

type of ground and flight training for an 

MPL-like certification structure, 35 

commenters provided specific 

recommendations on the ground and 

flight training for an MPL-like structure. 

Seventeen commenters recommended 

looking to existing ICAO standards or 

rules in place in other countries. 

ExpressJet recommended the FAA 

should review the existing MPL 

structure as outlined in Annex 1 to the 

International Convention on Civil 

Aviation and consider the desired 

outcomes and harmonizing with ICAO 

before determining the amounts and 

types of training. 

JetBlue supported an alternative 

licensing structure and stated ground 

and flight training should be determined 

by a comprehensive task analysis and 

qualification standard, derived from an 

Instructional Systems Design (ISD) 

process, and in alignment with the 

requirements of ICAO. Similarly, CAE 

states MPL candidates meet the 

requirements of a pilot operating in 

multicrew transport category aircraft in 

all environments developed through an 

ISD approach. It is not determined by 

hours, but by meeting objectives of the 

required competencies through 

theoretical and flight training, as 

specified by the ICAO Procedures for 

Air Navigation Services (PANS) 

Training Document. Consistent with the 

concepts of Advanced Qualification 

Program (AQP), MPL is a continuous 

improvement training process validated 

by empirical data. 

FedEx, AAL, and A4A each stated the 

FAA should consider MPL requirements 

in accordance with ICAO standards or 

as recommended from an ARC. JetBlue 

recommended an ARC be convened to 

propose an alternate licensing structure 

for pilots seeking employment with a 

part 121 air carrier. Delta, ALPA, and 

CAE also recommended the FAA form 

an MPL ARC to develop 

recommendations for the adoption of 

MPL program. 

The FAA is appreciative of the 

comments received regarding an 

alternative certification avenue for part 

121 air carrier pilots. Whereas the FAA 

recognizes the potential benefits of such 

a certification structure, it is also 

cognizant of the potential risks such a 

dramatic departure from traditional 

certification and experience 

requirements could present. The FAA 

also agrees with commenters on the 

limited data points available for a 

comprehensive evaluation of existing 

MPL programs abroad. Although the 

FAA cannot commit to a timetable for 

the organization of an ARC, the FAA 

believes such an industry group could 

properly research, study, and provide 

detailed recommendations to the FAA 

for additional consideration. 

4. Accident Effectiveness Ratings 

In the NPRM the FAA sought 

comment on the effectiveness ratings for 

the specific accidents identified in 

Appendix 4 of the Initial Regulatory 

Evaluation. Appendix 4 contained the 

list of part 121 and part 135 accidents 

that may have been prevented as a result 

of this rulemaking. The accident 

analysis was conducted by the FAA’s 

Office of Accident Investigation and 

Prevention (AVP) in the Assessment of 

the Effectiveness of Public Law 111–216 

in Reducing Accident Risk posted to the 

docket. Only six commenters addressed 

the effectiveness ratings of the accident 

analysis. 

Ameriflight and an individual 

commenter quoted AVP’s assessment 

that it found little relationship between 

the 1,500 hour requirement and airplane 

accidents, and therefore found little 

benefit for that requirement. Only seven 

of the 31 accidents used for the 14 CFR 

Part 121 benefit analysis had SICs with 

less than 1,500 hours. The individual 

commenter also stated that it appears 

that since the 1,500 hour requirement is 

mandated by statute, the FAA found it 

unnecessary to examine the 1,500 hour 

requirement as a tool for improving 

safety. Aerosim disagreed with the 

accident analysis because none of the 

accidents reviewed were caused by low 

time SIC. UPS commented that it was 

unaware of any evidence to suggest the 

accidents cited by the FAA as the 

benchmark for both benefit and 

prevention would have been avoided if 

the proposals in this NPRM had been in 

place. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42361 

25A4A specifically questioned the effectiveness 

ratios in Great Lakes Aviation accident (6/20/2007), 

the Air Tahoma accident (8/13/2004), the Mesa 

Airlines accident (10/16/2001), and the Avjet 

accident (3/29/2001). 

A4A states that the FAA should 

‘‘exclude the 24 part 121 accidents that 

include SICs with more than 1,500 

hours as not relevant to this 

rulemaking.’’ A4A questioned the 

effectiveness ratios on several specific 

accidents 25 because the NTSB 

determined that the probable causes of 

the accidents were failures by the PIC 

not the SIC. A4A based its conclusion 

on the fact that this final rule ‘‘mandates 

additional experience for a SIC’’ and, 

therefore, any accident based primarily 

on an NTSB finding that the PIC was 

primarily responsible for the accident 

should be excluded. 

The FAA did consider the 1,500 hour 

requirement for SICs as a regulatory 

baseline, since it is required by the Act, 

when reviewing the accidents. However, 

both the proposed rule and final rule 

would have affected the eligibility of 

both the PIC and the SIC involved in the 

accidents cited in AVP’s analysis. The 

eligibility of flight crews is based on the 

ATP certificate requirement for SICs and 

the 1,000 hours of air carrier experience 

for the PIC. In all 3 accidents that 

received ‘‘high’’ effectiveness scores 

(meaning there is a 75% reduction in 

the likelihood of the accident under the 

proposed rule), crew performance 

essentially explained the accidents and 

the rule would have affected the 

eligibility of both pilots, as neither the 

PIC nor the SIC met the proposed 

minimum experience for their 

respective positions under the proposed 

and final rule. AVP concluded that more 

experience and seasoning would have 

affected the outcome of these accidents. 

AVP also acknowledged in its 

analysis that, as a matter of analytical 

principle, no accident received an 

effectiveness score higher than 0.9 based 

on the assumption that the FAA can 

never be certain that any intervention 

would eliminate all risk in a particular 

scenario. The accident analysis 

considered the entire proposal, not just 

the requirement for part 121 SICs to 

hold an ATP certificate. AVP found the 

rulemaking to be effective at least to 

some degree against 31 accidents 

analyzed, and in most cases the 

effectiveness scores were ‘‘low’’ or 

‘‘low-to-moderate.’’ 

As a result of the comments and the 

changes incorporated into the final rule, 

AVP re-evaluated the part 121 and part 

135 accidents and made some 

adjustments. The full review of the 

accident analysis is available as part of 

the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for 

the final rule, which is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

5. Considerations for Offering the ATP 

CTP 

In the NPRM, the FAA sought 

comment on what factors parts 121, 135, 

141, and 142 certificate holders would 

principally consider in determining 

whether to offer the ATP CTP. The FAA 

received 39 comments to this question. 

Of the comments received, a majority 

of the commenters including 

Ameriflight, CAE, SIU, and ERAU, 

indicated having a Level C or higher 

FFS would be a consideration. UND 

commented that it does not have a Level 

C or D FFS. The cost to acquire, house, 

operate, and maintain the device would 

be prohibitive. UND was quoted $8 

million dollars to purchase a Level C 

FFS. This means UND would have to 

charge $1,000 per hour to operate the 

simulator. This cost does not include 

the cost to build a building to house the 

FSTD or the cost to hire staff to operate 

the equipment. The UAA commented 

that the proposed requirement for a 

Level C FFS severely limits the number 

of 141 certificate holders who could 

provide the training. UAA stated that 

none of its member colleges or 

universities own Level C FFSs. UAA 

stated the proposal would thrust more 

training on part 121 operators and the 

large part 141 pilot schools and 142 

training centers. 

Another consideration by many of the 

commenters was whether the certificate 

holder had instructors that met the 

proposed requirement of two years of 

experience in airline operations. Boeing, 

SIU, and UAA commented that the 

requirement for ATP CTP instructors to 

have two years of experience under 

§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i), or § 135.243(a)(1), or 

in any part 121 operation does not 

assure proficiency in instructing. Boeing 

further commented that the instructor 

requirement is overly burdensome on 

part 141 and 142 certificate holders as 

these organizations have no ability to 

qualify instructors that did not already 

meet the requirement. 

Additional comments focused on 

which certificate holders might need to 

provide the ATP CTP. American 

Airlines commented that aviation 

colleges will be incentivized to offer the 

course; however costs to the certificate 

holder would be a significant factor in 

determining whether to develop and 

offer such a course. JetBlue speculates 

the ATP CTP requirement would 

necessitate part 135, regional part 121 

carriers, and parts 141 and 142 

certificate holders to offer the ATP CTP 

immediately to help alleviate pilot 

supply concerns. JetBlue added that an 

ATP certificate is a prerequisite to pilot 

employment for it, however, market 

forces and future pilot supply ‘‘will 

ultimately determine our and other part 

121 major airlines’ decision to offer the 

course.’’ 

The FAA appreciates the commenters 

input on what the considerations will be 

for offering the ATP CTP and took the 

identified concerns into consideration 

in developing this final rule. 

6. Administrative Law Issues 

This final rule will be effective 

immediately upon publication in the 

Federal Register. Section 553(d)(3) of 

the Administrative Procedure Act 

provides that publication of a rule shall 

be made not less than 30 days before its 

effective date, except ‘‘for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’ 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Consistent with section 

553(d)(3) and for reasons discussed 

below, the FAA finds good cause exists 

to publish this final rule with an 

immediate effective date. 

As noted earlier, independent of any 

rulemaking action by the FAA, all 

flightcrew members in part 121 

operations must hold an ATP certificate 

by August 2, 2013. Under this final rule, 

certain pilots will be able to obtain an 

ATP certificate with fewer than 1,500 

hours based on specific academic 

training courses. The FAA has 

established a process by which 

institutions of higher education may 

apply for authority to certify graduates 

for an R–ATP certificate. Without an 

immediate effective date, the FAA 

cannot begin to issue this authority, 

which will delay issuance of R–ATP 

certificates. Such a delay could result in 

hardship for those pilots currently 

serving in part 121 air carrier operations 

who would otherwise qualify for an R– 

ATP certificate. To minimize 

disruptions to part 121 operations and 

reduce the impact on pilots currently 

serving in part 121 with commercial 

pilot certificates, the FAA finds good 

cause exists for this rule to take effect 

immediately upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

7. Miscellaneous Amendments 

The FAA proposed several 

miscellaneous amendments to parts 61 

and 142. These amendments— 

maintained in the final rule—are nonsubstantive technical amendments 

intended to define terms, remove 

obsolete provisions, and make minor 

conforming changes to existing 

regulations. In addition, the FAA has 

made a slight modification to § 61.71(c). 

This change makes clear that a person 

may be considered to meet the 

aeronautical experience, aeronautical 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42362 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

knowledge, and areas of operation 

requirements of part 61 under the terms 

of a Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement 

(BASA) and associated Implementation 

Procedures for Licensing (IPL). As 

previously written, the provision could 

have given the impression that a person 

who holds a foreign pilot license and is 

applying for a U.S. pilot certificate on 

the basis of a BASA is automatically 

considered to have met the 

requirements of part 61. In fact, a 

foreign pilot is only considered to have 

met those requirements specifically 

identified in the BASA and IPL. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies 

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. We 

suggest readers seeking greater detail 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined this final rule has 

benefits that justify its costs, satisfies a 

Congressional requirement to improve 

aviation safety, and is a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because it 

raises novel policy issues contemplated 

under that executive order. The rule is 

also ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The 

final rule, if adopted, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

will not create unnecessary obstacles to 

international trade, and will not impose 

an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

In the Act, Congress mandated that all 

part 121 pilots serving as second in 

command (SICs) have an airline 

transport pilot (ATP) certificate with at 

least 1,500 flight hours. This statutory 

requirement is self-executing, it will 

take effect whether or not the FAA 

issues a regulation. We estimate the 

costs of the ATP certificate requirement 

to be $6.4 billion ($2.2 billion in present 

value), almost all of which stems from 

the 1,500-hour flight time requirement. 

The statute allows the FAA 

Administrator to specify academic 

training as an offset to the 1,500-hour 

flight time requirement provided the 

training enhances safety. This rule 

provides cost savings benefits from its 

provision of such academic training 

credits toward the 1,500-hour 

requirement (by means of the R–ATP 

certificate) and also by its provision 

allowing pilots with a minimum age of 

21 to be eligible for the R–ATP 

certificate. Our estimate of these cost 

savings are $2.3 billion with a present 

value savings of $0.8 billion. 

The final rule requires that all SICs 

serving in part 121 operations hold a 

type rating in the airplane flown and 

requires that an ATP CTP be completed 

by all applicants for an ATP certificate 

with an airplane category multiengine 

class rating (or an ATP certificate 

obtained concurrently with an airplane 

type rating). The costs of the final rule 

training and aircraft type rating 

requirements total $312.7 million 

($138.7 million in present value). The 

expected benefits from the new training 

requirements are $576.8 million with a 

present value of $251.7 million. 

For part 121 operators the final rule 

is cost-beneficial as present value 

benefits, at $127.5 million, exceed 

present value costs, at $124.6 million. 

For part 135 operators present value 

benefits, at $124.2 million, exceed 

present value costs, at $9.8 million. 

Although the FAA does not have a 

quantitative estimate of benefits for part 

91, subpart K, operators, we believe that 

the ATP CTP will sufficiently enhance 

safety for part 91, subpart K, operators 

to make the rule cost-beneficial for these 

operators as well. Because of the 

similarity of their operations, we believe 

that part 91 subpart K operators are 

subject to similar risks as part 135 

operators. The lack of identifiable rulerelated accidents reflects the 

significantly smaller scope of part 91 

subpart K operations compared to part 

135 operations and a possible underrecording of part 91 subpart K accidents. 

Additional discussion can be found in 

the full regulatory evaluation. 

Statute and Rule Costs and Benefits 

TABLE 5A—STATUTE COSTS AND BENEFITS

Statute costs Total cost 

($ mil) 

PV cost 

($ mil) 

ATP Certificate Requirement—Knowledge & Practical Tests ................................................................. $29.9 $31.1 

ATP Certificate Requirement—Eligibility Restrictions ............................................................................. 6,344.5 2,181.9 

Part 121 ATP Certificate Requirement ............................................................................................. 6,374.4 2,213.0 

Statute Benefits ....................................................................................................................................... No Identifiable Accident Benefits. 

TABLE 5B—FINAL RULE COSTS

Final rule costs Total cost 

($ mil) 

PV cost 

($ mil) 

Part 121 Operators .................................................................................................................................. $280.4 $124.6 

Part 135 Operators .................................................................................................................................. 22.4 9.8 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42363 

26 Due to a decline in real income in 2011 and 

2012, the growth factors for these years are 0.98246 

and 0.99702, respectively. Email from OST, March 

7, 2013. 

TABLE 5B—FINAL RULE COSTS—Continued 

Final rule costs Total cost 

($ mil) 

PV cost 

($ mil) 

Part 91, Subpart K, Operators ................................................................................................................. 9.8 4.3 

Total Training/Type Rating Costs ..................................................................................................... 312.7 138.7 

TABLE 5C—FINAL RULE SAFETY BENEFITS

Final rule safety benefits Total benefits 

($ mil) 

PV benefits 

($ mil) 

Part 121 Safety Benefits .......................................................................................................................... $292.5 $127.5 

Part 135 Safety Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 284.3 124.2 

All Safety Benefits ............................................................................................................................ 576.8 251.7 

TABLE 5D—COST SAVINGS BENEFITS OF FINAL RULE

Final rule cost savings Total cost savings 

($ mil) 

PV cost savings 

($ mil) 

Military Academic Training Credit (750 hrs) ............................................................................................ $547.1 $188.2 

4-Year Degree Academic Training Credit (500 hrs) ............................................................................... 972.0 333.0 

2-Year Degree Academic Training Credit (250 hrs) ............................................................................... 490.1 165.8 

Pilots with 1,500 Hrs Flight Time Eligible for Restricted ATP Certificate at Age 21 .............................. 300.1 102.8 

Cost Savings from Rule Relief ......................................................................................................... 2,309.3 789.8 

Notes: 1. Part 121 PV cost of $124.6 million includes $123.1 million in ATP CTP costs and $1.5 million in type rating costs. 

2. Details may not add up to totals due to rounding. 

Who is potentially affected by this rule? 

Pilots working for or seeking 

employment by air carriers operating 

under part 121 will be affected. It could 

also impact pilots working for or 

seeking employment by operators in 

parts 135 and 91, subpart K. Certificate 

holders approved under parts 121, 135, 

141, or 142 will be affected if they 

choose to offer the ATP CTP. 

Institutions of higher education that 

seek the authority to certify their 

graduates have met the requirements for 

a restricted privileges ATP certificate 

may also be affected. 

Assumptions: 

• We use a 20-year period of analysis 

in order to more fully account for costs 

that will accumulate over time as new 

pilots replace retiring pilots unaffected 

by the rule. All monetary values are 

expressed in 2010 dollars. In calculating 

present values, we discount back to the 

end of 2010/beginning of 2011. 

• All monetary values are expressed 

in 2010 dollars. Present value discount 

rate is 7 percent (Office of Management 

& Budget, Circular A–4, ‘‘Guidelines 

and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost 

Analysis of Federal Programs,’’ October 

29, 1992, p. 8, www.whitehouse.gov/ 

omb/circulars/index.html). 

• Value of statistical life (VSL) begins 

at $8.86 million in 2010, and increases 

to $10.7 million in 2032 by an annual 

growth factor of 1.0107.26

Memorandum: Guidance on Treatment 

of the Economic Value of a Statistical 

Life in Departmental Analyses [February 

2013]. United States Office of the 

Secretary of Transportation (OST). 

• Number of rule-related accidents 

and associated number of fatalities, 

number of minor & serious injuries, and 

aircraft damage: FAA, Office of 

Accident Investigation and Prevention 

(AVP). 

• Market value of aircraft and 

restoration costs: APO update to 2008 of 

data in Economic Values for FAA 

Investment and Regulatory Decisions, A 

Guide, Section 5, Office of Aviation 

Policy and Plans, U.S. Federal Aviation 

Administration, Wash., DC, Dec. 31, 

2004. The 2008 data is updated from 

2008 to 2010 by the GDP implicit price 

deflator. 

• Number of part 121 PICs and SICs 

by airline, part 135 ATP pilots, and part 

91, subpart K, fractional ownership 

program PICs: FAA, Flight Standards 

Service, National Vital Information 

Subsystem (NVIS) database (Nov. 22, 

2010; Dec. 10, 2010). 

• Pilot growth rate (0.6%): U.S. DOT, 

FAA, Aviation Policy & Plans. FAA 

Aerospace Forecast: 2010–2030. Table 

29, ‘‘Active Pilots by Type of 

Certificate’’, Air Transport, Avg Annual 

Growth, 2009–2030. 

• Cost of ATP CTP and cost of type 

rating: Estimated from 2010 FAA 

industry survey and FAA Flight 

Standards Service. 

• Percentage of part 121 SICs without 

an ATP certificate (regional = 85 

percent; major/cargo = 15 percent): 

Estimated from 2010 FAA industry 

survey. 

• Percentage of part 121 SICs without 

a type rating (regional = 90 percent; 

major/cargo = 30 percent): Estimated 

from 2010 FAA industry survey. 

• Typical number of years for 

upgrade from SIC to PIC (Major airlines: 

10 years, Regional airlines: 5 years): 

Estimated from 2010 FAA industry 

survey. 

• Typical number of years after which 

PIC will move from regional airline to 

major airline (2 years): Estimated from 

2010 FAA industry survey. 

• Pilot salary data by airline (2008): 

www.airlinepilotcentral.com. 

• Early and medical part 121 pilot 

retirement rate (0.5%): Email from Kit 

Darby, President, KitDarby.com 

Aviation Consulting, LLC, Peachtree 

City, GA, 12/18/2010. 

• Part 121 pilot retirement rate 

(3.6%): Email from Kit Darby, President, 

KitDarby.com Aviation Consulting, LLC, 

Peachtree City, GA, 12/20/2010. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42364 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• Part 135 and part 91, subpart K, 

retirement rate (3.0%): We used this rate 

in the FOQ Initial Regulatory Evaluation 

(p. 17) and received no comments. 

• Flight experience of military pilots 

leaving the service: FAA Flight 

Standards Service. 

• Hiring minimums by airline & 

airline group and percentage of pilots 

hired with military training: Kit Darby, 

President, KitDarby.com Aviation 

Consulting, LLC, Peachtree City, GA. 

• Number of baccalaureates with 

aviation-related degrees: Aviation 

Accreditation Board International 

(AABI), Gary W. Kiteley, Executive 

Director, 3410 Skyway Drive, Auburn, 

AL. 

Benefits of This Rule 

The benefits of this final rule are that 

it provides some mitigation of the cost 

of the Airline Safety and Federal 

Aviation Extension Act of 2010 mandate 

and will provide accident prevention 

safety benefits from the rule’s training 

program in response to Congressional 

direction. We estimate the cost to be 

$6.4 billion ($2.2 billion in present 

value) to be the Congressionallymandated self-executing requirement 

that all part 121 SICs have an ATP 

certificate with at least 1,500 flight 

hours. The FAA found no quantifiable 

relationship between the 1,500-hour 

requirement and airplane accidents 

because all part 121 PICs have an ATP 

certificate and 1,500 flight hours, and, 

in most accident cases, the SICs had 

1,500 flight hours. Very importantly, 

because the 1,500-hour requirement will 

become law regardless of FAA action, 

the costs for this requirement do not 

require an FAA benefit justification for 

such costs. Congress allowed, and the 

final rule provides, cost-savings benefits 

from the rule’s provision for academic 

training credits (including credit for 

military training) toward the 1,500-hour 

requirement. The final rule also 

provides cost savings by reducing the 

minimum age requirement for pilots 

with 1,500 flight hours to 21 years. The 

cost savings that result from these 

provisions are $2.3 billion, with a 

present value of $0.8 billion. 

Primarily because of the training 

requirements of this rule, the FAA 

expects that the rule will reduce the 

number of future accidents. The 

quantified benefits from this rule are 

based upon the value of preventing 

future accidents. The methodology 

begins by identifying previous accidents 

that this rule could have prevented, or 

mitigated. We then estimate the 

probability that such accidents would 

be prevented in the future were the rule 

in place. 

The ATP CTP is designed to address 

the gap in knowledge identified by the 

FOQ ARC between a commercial pilot 

and the knowledge a pilot should have 

when entering an air carrier 

environment. The basic concepts 

addressed by these requirements are 

applicable to pilots operating in part 

135 and part 91, subpart K operations as 

well as pilots in part 121 operations. 

The ATP CTP has a comprehensive 

topic list to address these deficiencies 

that are the underlying causes of many 

airplane accidents: 

• Aerodynamics 

Æ Stall recognition/recovery 

Æ Upset prevention/recovery 

Æ High altitude operations 

Æ Energy management 

Æ Operating in a multicrew 

environment 

• Air Carrier Operations 

Æ Physiology/Fitness for duty 

Æ Communications 

Æ Ground operations 

Æ Aircraft systems and performance 

• Crew Resource Management 

• Knowledge-based decision-making 

• Leadership and Professional 

development 

• Manual Aircraft Handling Skills 

• Pilot Monitoring Responsibilities 

Æ Communication 

Æ Risk management 

Æ Decision making 

Æ Threat and error management 

The FAA determined that 58 

accidents were partially attributable to 

pilot qualification issues, over the 2001– 

2010 period of accident analysis. We 

estimated the value of preventing these 

58 accidents in the future to be worth 

$838.6 million. After taking into 

account probability that pilot 

certification and qualification training 

would prevent these accidents, we 

derived part 121 safety benefits of about 

$292.5 million, with present value 

$127.5 million, and part 135 safety 

benefits of about $284.3 million, with 

present value $124.2 million. 

Costs of This Rule 

Without this final rule, the Act’s 

mandate would cost $6.4 billion ($2.2 

billion in present value). Because the 

mandate of the SIC 1,500-hour 

requirement will become law regardless 

of FAA action, the costs for this 

requirement are not a cost of this rule. 

The final rule provides cost savings by 

reducing the minimum total hours for 

an ATP certificate for military pilots and 

graduates of bachelor’s and associate’s 

degree programs with aviation majors, 

and by reducing the minimum age 

requirement for pilots with 1,500 flight 

hours to 21 years. The cost savings that 

result from these provisions are $2.3 

billion, with a present value of $0.8 

billion. The costs of the final rule 

training requirements for ATP certificate 

applicants and the aircraft type rating 

requirement total $312.7 million ($138.7 

million in present value). Of these costs 

part 121 operators are estimated to incur 

$280.4 million ($124.6 million in 

present value). 

Cost Benefit Summary 

The purpose of this final rule is to 

meet pilot certification and qualification 

requirements imposed by Congress in 

Sections 216 and 217 of the Act. 

Congress mandated the ATP certificate 

requirement—the most expensive 

requirement of this final rule, $6.4 

billion ($2.2 billion in present value), 

although Congress allowed the FAA to 

provide academic training credits (by 

means of the R–ATP) which result in 

cost savings of $2.0 billion ($0.7 billion 

in present value) that partially offset the 

requirement. The final rule also 

partially offsets the requirement by 

reducing the R–ATP minimum age 

requirement for pilots with 1,500 hours 

to age 21. This relief provides an 

additional cost savings of $0.3 billion 

($0.1 billion in present value). Lastly, 

the costs of the final rule training 

requirements for ATP certificate 

applicants and the aircraft type rating 

requirement total $312.7 million ($138.7 

million in present value) with expected 

benefits of $576.8 million ($251.7 

million in present value). 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

1. Introduction and Purpose of This 

Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a 

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide-range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42365 

27Annualized cost is the annual cash flow of an 

annuity that yields the same present value as the 

total present value cost. 

28The FAA has also modified the compliance 

date for the ATP CTP and the type rating 

requirements to provide additional time to all pilots 

and operators to accommodate the new 

requirements. 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

As required by Section 603(a) of the 

RFA, we prepared and published an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

(IRFA) as part of the NPRM for this rule 

(77 FR 12374, February 29, 2012). As a 

result of that analysis we determined 

this rule would not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities for the following reason: The 

annualized cost 27 of the rule is less than 

2% of operating revenues for all small 

firms that would be affected by the rule. 

Section 604 of the RFA also requires 

an agency to publish a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) in the 

Federal Register when issuing a final 

rule. Section 604(a) requires that each 

FRFA contain: 

(1) A succinct statement of the need 

for, and objectives of, the rule; 

(2) a summary of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the IRFA, a summary of 

agency’s assessment of such issues, and 

a statement of any changes made to the 

proposed rule resulting from such 

comments; 

(3) a description of and an estimate of 

the number of small entities for which 

the final rule will apply; 

(4) a description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

(5) a description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statues, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

2. Objectives of This Rule 

The purpose of this final rule is to 

meet pilot certification and qualification 

requirements imposed by Congress in 

Sections 216 and 217 of the Airline 

Safety and Federal Aviation Extension 

Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–216). The 

provisions of this Act were the result of 

the fatal accident of Colgan Air Flight 

3407 that occurred in Buffalo, New 

York, on February 12, 2009. In addition 

to specific mandated requirements, the 

Act requires the FAA to address certain 

issues in pilot qualification and 

certification. This rule addresses those 

issues, most importantly with training 

requirements to qualify pilots for the 

ATP certificate mandated by the Act. 

3A. Summary of the Significant Issues 

Raised by the Public Comments in 

Response to the IRFA, a Summary of the 

Assessment of the Agency of Such 

Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes 

Made to the Proposed Rule Resulting 

From Such Comments 

The FAA received more than 200 

comments on the requirement that all 

pilots, including SICs, hold an ATP 

certificate (requiring 1,500 flight hours), 

many in opposition to the requirement. 

These comments were made in response 

to the proposed rule, not the IRFA per 

se. Several commenters also objected to 

our finding in the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis that there was no 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. These 

objections appear to stem from the 

commenters’ belief that the cost we 

attribute to the statute is a cost of the 

rule. But the requirement for all pilots 

in part 121 operations to hold an ATP 

certificate is Congressionally-mandated 

and self-executing, so the significant 

costs associated with this requirement 

are attributable to the statute, not the 

rule. 

The statute allows the FAA to grant 

academic training credits, effectively 

reducing the costs of the 1,500-hour 

requirement. As a result of the 

comments on the ATP certificate 

requirement and the R–ATP certificate, 

in the final rule the FAA will broaden 

the scope of academic credits to include 

pilots with a two-year degree with an 

aviation major. The FAA will also 

permit a pilot with 1,500 hours of flight 

time to obtain an R–ATP certificate at 

the age of 21. 

With regard to the costs associated 

with the ATP certification training 

program, NATA stated that ‘‘Since no 

requirement exists or is proposed that 

require air carriers to provide the ATP 

CTP, we believe the FAA must perform 

its analysis of this proposal assuming 

the impact is on individual pilots 

pursuing ATP certification.’’ NATA also 

stated that the FAA failed to account for 

dramatically higher training costs for 

part 135 and 91 subpart K operators 

compared to part 121 operators owing to 

far smaller class sizes, often one or two 

pilots at a time, and their inability to 

use in-house training personnel to the 

same extent as a large airline. This lack 

of ability to use efficiencies the way 

large airlines do would lead to 

significantly higher costs. 

The FAA believes that most pilots 

will receive the ATP CTP through 

employment—either at air carriers, with 

their own training facilities and 

simulators, or at part 142 training 

centers through training agreements, as 

these are the organizations that have the 

FFSs required for the ATP CTP. The 

inefficiencies of small size can be 

greatly mitigated by contracting out this 

training, and, in fact, many of the 

smallest operators already use contract 

training to meet existing training 

requirements. Moreover, the ATP CTP, 

as a general program, is not specific to 

any type aircraft, nor to any rule part 

(121, 135, 91K). Therefore, we believe 

that competitive part 142 training 

centers will deliver generic ATP CTP 

training to individuals, as well as air 

carriers, at costs no higher than our 

conservative estimate. 

3.B. A Description of the Steps the 

Agency Has Taken To Minimize a 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities and * * * Why Other 

Significant Alternatives to the Rule That 

Affect Small Entities Were Rejected 

The FAA has no discretion with 

respect to the Congressionally-mandated 

requirement that all part 121 pilots hold 

an ATP certificate. Although not 

specific to small entities, the FAA has 

mitigated the cost of the 1,500 flight 

hour requirement for an ATP certificate 

by allowing credits towards total flight 

time based on academic training 

courses. These credits are provided by 

means of a new R–ATP certificate. The 

final rule also reduces the minimum age 

requirement for the R–ATP certificate to 

age 21. The regulatory evaluation 

estimates this relief provided in the 

final rule will reduce the cost of the 

Congressionally-mandated ATP 

certificate requirement by $2.3 billion 

(present value cost: $0.8 billion).28

Several commenters believe removing 

the ability for pilots to receive training 

for the multiengine airplane ATP 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42366 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

29U.S. Small Business Administration. Table of 

Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 

American Industry Classification System Codes, 

July 21, 2006. Web site: www.SBA.gov. 

30www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/ 

number_of_employees/. 

31The largest small part 121 operator has 1,446 

employees and 391 pilots, the largest number of 

pilots for any part 121 operator identified as small. 

The largest operator that we inferred to be small 

had 231 pilots. 

certificate under part 61 will hurt local 

fixed-base operators (FBOs) and CFIs. 

These commenters believe that allowing 

FBOs and CFIs to provide the ATP CTP 

would reduce the cost of the training 

and the negative impact on part 61 

instructors and part 61 flight schools. 

The FAA notes that prior to this final 

rule there were no training requirements 

for the multiengine airplane ATP 

certificate so pilots who sought the 

certificate on their own did not seek 

training with an instructor except when 

they were ready to take their practical 

test. Because most ATP certificates are 

currently accomplished through 

evaluation events conducted by 

employers under other rule parts (i.e., 

parts 121 or 135) rather than through 

part 61 instruction, the FAA does not 

believe that there will be a significant 

impact on part 61 instructors and part 

61 flight schools by excluding those 

groups from providing the ATP CTP. 

As for the new requirement for pilots 

to complete the ATP CTP, the FAA has 

determined that the safest and most 

effective way to ensure that applicants 

for an ATP certificate have met the 

requirements of section 217 of the Act 

is to establish specific requirements that 

include training in an FSTD. The 

requirements specifically relating to 

training at high altitude, in adverse 

weather, and in difficult operational 

conditions cannot be safely or 

effectively accomplished in aircraft. For 

that reason, the ATP CTP can be 

provided only by certificate holders 

who can sponsor an FSTD. 

The FAA does not believe that there 

is an alternative to the ATP CTP 

requirement that could be applied to 

small entities. The Act identified several 

critical areas that must be part of the 

training required to apply for an ATP 

certificate to prepare pilots to operate in 

an air carrier environment. To allow 

smaller operators who conduct 

operations that require pilots to hold an 

ATP certificate to meet a reduced 

training standard would not be 

responsive to the Act and would create 

two different standards for pilots who 

are exercising the privileges of an ATP 

certificate. 

To the extent that small businesses 

were concerned about the costs 

associated with the type rating, as noted 

earlier, the FAA has adjusted the 

compliance date from August 2, 2013, to 

January 1, 2016, for those pilots who are 

employed as a pilot by a part 121 

certificate holder by July 31, 2013. 

Although not specific to small entities, 

this will reduce the impact on small 

entities. In any case, type rating costs for 

new-hire pilots are minimal given the 

statutory requirement for an ATP 

certificate. 

4. Description of the Small Entities to 

Which the Final Rule Will Apply and an 

Estimate of Their Number 

The final rule would affect firms in 

part 121, part 135, and part 91, subpart 

K, operations in the following North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) industries, for all four 

of which the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standard is 

1,500 employees.29 The SBA size 

standard as defined in 13 CFR 121.201, 

is the largest size that a business 

(including its subsidiaries and affiliates) 

may be to remain classified as a small 

business by the SBA. As the size 

standard is identical at 1,500 employees 

for all four air transportation industries, 

we do not attempt to classify affected 

firms by particular air transportation 

industry. 

TABLE 6—SBA SIZE STANDARD FOR NAICS AIR TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRIES

NAICS code 2002 U.S. NAICS title SBA Size standard 

481111 ........ Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation ................................................................... 1,500 employees. 

481112 ........ Scheduled Freight Air Transportation ......................................................................... 1,500 employees. 

481211 ........ Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation ........................................... 1,500 employees. 

481212 ........ Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation .................................................. 1,500 employees. 

The FAA database (2010) has 92 

operators classified as part 121 air 

carriers. Using Department of 

Transportation 2009 employment 

data,30 we identified 32 of these part 

121 operators as large and an identical 

number as small. Using other 

employment data, we identified eight 

more part 121 operators as large, seven 

as subsidiaries of a group with more 

than 1,500 employees and one known to 

be large (UPS). We identified one more 

part 121 operator as small, as a 

subsidiary of a group with less than 

1,500 employees. We inferred 19 more 

operators to be small on the basis of 

pilot numbers.31 So in all, we identified 

40 of the 92 part 121 operators as large 

and 52 as small. Therefore, there are a 

substantial number of small entities 

operating as part 121 air carriers. 

We also identified five of the nine 

part 91, subpart K, operators as small on 

the basis of employment data available 

from the FAA database. We had no 

corresponding employment data for part 

135 operators. The largest part 135 

operator, however, had just 55 PICs, so 

we infer that all 1,106 part 135 operators 

are small. Table 7 below lists our 

identified small entities operating under 

part 121, part 135, and part 91 subpart 

K operators along with data to assess the 

impact of the final rule on them, as 

discussed below. We list all 52 small 

part 121 operators and all nine small 

part 91 subpart K operators, but, owing 

to their large numbers, only the three 

part 135 operators for which we have 

operating revenue data. Revenue data is 

not available for most part 135 operators 

as most are privately held. However, the 

three part 135 operators for which we 

do have operating revenue, as measured 

by number of PICs (4 to 45 PICs), 

encompass almost the entire size range 

of part 135 operators. 

5. Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Final 

Rule 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

The final rule levies requirements that 

must be met by certificate holders who 

wish to offer or provide the ATP CTP. 

While requiring the gathering and 

maintaining of information and, in 

certain cases, the reporting of some of 

that information to the FAA, these 

sections require no additional burdens 

on the certificate holders beyond what 

is required by the current rule or that 

which is currently borne by certificate 

holders in regular practice. Exceptions 

to this are the following: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42367 

a. One-time development and 

submission of an ATP CTP to the FAA 

for approval. 

b. One-time record keeping costs for 

pilot training pertaining to completion 

of the ATP CTP. 

c. One-time application to the FAA by 

an institution of higher education 

seeking the authority to certify its 

graduates of a degree program with an 

aviation major for an R–ATP certificate. 

d. One-time cost per student to the 

institution of higher education for an 

academic advisor to review graduate 

transcripts to determine eligibility for an 

R–ATP certificate. 

TABLE 7—ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE FINAL RULE ON SMALL PART 121, PART 135, AND PART 91 SUBPART K 

OPERATORS

Operator name Air carrier 

category 

Primary 

operations 

Pilot 

numbers 

Total 

2009 emp 

Pilots 

(parts 

121, 135, 

or 91K) 

(percent) 

Ann. cost 

($1000s) 

Cost as 

% of 

operating 

revenue 

Operating 

revenue 

($1000) 

Operating 

revenue 

source 

ABX AIR INC ................................................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 313 1435 0.54 46 0.00 1,173,146 DOT. 

AEKO KULA INC (Aloha Air Cargo) ............... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 22 315 0.04 3 0.00 280,309 DOT. 

AERO MICRONESIA INC ............................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 12 

AIR TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL LLC ...... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 113 396 0.20 17 0.01 273,016 DOT. 

AMERIJET INTERNATIONAL INC .................. Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 56 540 0.10 8 0.01 138,372 DOT. 

AMERISTAR AIR CARGO INC ....................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 17 0.03 3 0.04 6,942 DOT. 

ARROW AIR INC ............................................ Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 50 613 0.09 7 0.00 206,805 DOT. 

ASTAR AIR CARGO INC ................................ Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 85 631 0.15 13 0.00 347,018 DOT. 

AVIATION SERVICES LTD ............................. Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 18 

CAPITAL CARGO INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES INC.Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 100 223 0.17 15 0.03 53,209 DOT. 

CENTURION AIR CARGO INC ...................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 47 567 0.08 7 0.00 164,905 DOT. 

CORPORATE AIR ........................................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 75 

EVERGREEN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES 

INC.

Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 132 442 0.23 19 0.00 518,843 DOT. 

FALCON AIR EXPRESS INC ......................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 25 0.04 4 0.03 11,665 DOT. 

FLORIDA WEST INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS INC.Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 32 51 0.06 5 0.00 113,736 DOT. 

GULF AND CARIBBEAN CARGO INC ........... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 42 63 0.07 6 0.02 25,270 DOT. 

KALITTA AIR LLC ........................................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 231 860 0.40 34 0.01 666,161 DOT. 

KALITTA CHARTERS II LLC .......................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 23 0.04 3 0.02 14,048 DOT. 

LYNDEN AIR CARGO L L C .......................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 49 175 0.08 7 0.01 88,289 DOT. 

MERIDIAN ASSOCIATES ............................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 8 

MIAMI AIR INTERNATIONAL INC .................. Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 80 409 0.14 12 0.01 151,868 DOT. 

MOUNTAIN AIR CARGO INC ......................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 126 

NATIONAL AIR CARGO GROUP INC ........... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 23 500 0.04 3 0.02 20,882 DOT. 

NORTHERN AIR CARGO INC ....................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 24 197 0.04 4 0.01 47,197 DOT. 

OMNI AIR INTERNATIONAL INC ................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 255 1032 0.44 38 0.01 438,327 DOT. 

PRESCOTT SUPPORT CO ............................ Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 13 0.02 2 0.02 8,614 DOT. 

RHOADES AVIATION INC .............................. Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 4 

SIERRA PACIFIC AIRLINES INC ................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 10 0.02 1 0.01 11,199 DOT. 

SKY KING INC ................................................ Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 32 0.06 5 0.03 16,583 DOT. 

SKY LEASE I INC (Tradewinds Airlines) ........ Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 49 47 0.08 7 0.01 63,683 DOT. 

SOUTHERN AIR INC ...................................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 186 589 0.32 27 0.02 170,478 DOT. 

SWIFT AIR L L C ............................................ Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 29 0.05 4 0.05 8,643 DOT. 

TATONDUK OUTFITTERS LTD ..................... Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 47 288 0.08 7 0.02 40,371 DOT. 

USA JET AIRLINES INC ................................. Cargo ......... Part 121 ..... 70 244 0.12 10 0.01 128,053 DOT. 

DYNAMIC AIRWAYS LLC ............................... Charter ....... Part 121 ..... 8 

AERODYNAMICS INC .................................... Charter PAX Part 121 ..... 14 211 0.02 2 0.00 53,595 DOT. 

RYAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES INC ........ Charter PAX Part 121 ..... 151 540 0.26 22 0.02 142,069 DOT. 

TEM ENTERPRISES INC (Xtra Airways) ....... Charter PAX Part 121 ..... 40 120 

VISION AIRLINES INC .................................... Charter PAX Part 121 ..... 116 131 0.20 17 0.03 62,366 DOT. 

WORLD AIRWAYS INC .................................. Charter PAX Part 121 ..... 391 1446 0.68 58 0.01 653,144 DOT. 

BRENDAN AIRWAYS LLC (USA 3000 Airlines).Mainline ...... Part 121 ..... 54 390 0.09 8 0.00 227,850 DOT. 

MN AIRLINES LLC (Sun Country Airlines) ..... Mainline ...... Part 121 ..... 143 642 0.25 21 0.01 224,232 DOT. 

VIRGIN AMERICA INC ................................... Mainline ...... Part 121 ..... 330 1421 0.57 49 0.01 326,023 DOT. 

CHAMPLAIN ENTERPRISES INC 

(CommutAir).

Regional ..... Part 121 ..... 150 300 

EMPIRE AIRLINES INC .................................. Regional ..... Part 121 ..... 111 250 

ERA AVIATION INC (In Frontier Alaska 

Group).

Regional ..... Part 121 ..... 57 

GREAT LAKES AVIATION LTD ...................... Regional ..... Part 121 ..... 231 1.12 128 0.13 100,033 10–K. 

GULFSTREAM INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES 

INC.

Regional ..... Part 121 ..... 156 

HAWAII ISLAND AIR INC ............................... Regional ..... Part 121 ..... 38 0.18 21 0.08 24,907 DOT. 

HYANNIS AIR SERVICE INC ......................... Regional ..... Part 121 ..... 212 850 

PENINSULA AIRWAYS INC ........................... Regional ..... Part 121 ..... 119 

SEABORNE VIRGIN ISLAND INC .................. Regional ..... Part 121 ..... 21 0.10 12 1.73 670 CLEAR. 

USA JET AIRLINES INC ................................. Part 135 ..... 45 0.62 6 0.02 27,380 DOT. 

AVIATION CONCEPTS ................................... Part 135 ..... 10 0.14 1 0.05 2,568 DOT. 

VICTORY AIR TRANSPORT INC. .................. Part 135 ..... 4 0.05 0 0.02 2,745 DOT. 

AIRSPRINT US ............................................... Part 91K ..... 5 27 0.16 1 

AVANTAIR ....................................................... Part 91K ..... 136 340 4.25 17 0.01 149,001 CLEAR. 

CORPORATE EAGLE MGT SVCS ................. Part 91K ..... 13 33 0.41 2 0.01 11,419 CLEAR. 

EXECUTIVE FLT SVCS .................................. Part 91K ..... 60 100 1.87 7 0.00 2,024,000 CLEAR. 

PLANE SENSE ................................................ Part 91K ..... 61 160 1.90 7 0.01 94,000 CLEAR. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42368 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

32This is a change from the NPRM that will allow 

pilots of age 21 or 22, with 1,500 hours flight time, 

to obtain the R–ATP certificate. 

33The rule applies to the airplane class, so 

applicants for an ATP certificate with single-engine 

class rating will be required to have 50 hours of 

single-engine time. 

34 Kit Darby, President, www.KitDarby.com, 

Aviation Consulting, LLC, Peachtree City, GA. 

35Operating Revenue—www.transtat.bts.gov, Air 

Carrier Financial Reports (Form 41 Financial Data), 

Schedules P1.1 & P1.2. We average for as many of 

the five years of data as is available. Operating 

Other Compliance Requirements 

This final rule will require the 

following: 

1. An ATP certificate for all pilots 

operating in part 121. This requirement 

codifies the Congressionally-mandated 

1,500 hours flight time required for an 

ATP certificate, but will allow an R– 

ATP certificate to be held by (a) military 

pilots with 750 hours of flight 

experience and (b) graduates of fouryear or two-year degree programs with 

aviation majors who obtain their 

commercial pilot certificate with 

instrument rating from an affiliated part 

141 pilot school. To be eligible for an R– 

ATP, graduates of a four-year program 

will be required to have 1,000 hours of 

flight experience, while graduates of a 

two-year program will be required to 

have 1,250 hours of flight experience. 

a. The R–ATP certificate will allow a 

pilot to serve in part 121 air carrier 

operations as an SIC only. With an R– 

ATP certificate, however, part 121 SICs 

need only hold a second class medical 

certificate, not the first class medical 

certificate that is the requirement for 

PICs. 

b. The minimum age for an R–ATP 

certificate will be reduced to 21 years.32

The current age requirement for an ATP 

certificate will remain at 23 years. 

2. A minimum of 50 hours of 

multiengine flight experience. This 

requirement will apply not just to pilots 

serving in part 121 operations, but to all 

pilots who apply for an ATP certificate 

with an airplane category multiengine 

class rating.33 This will include PICs in 

part 135 operations that require an ATP 

certificate, and PICs in part 91, subpart 

K, Fractional Ownership Programs, 

which require the PIC to hold an ATP 

certificate. 

3. An ATP Certification Training 

Program for applicants for an ATP 

certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating or an ATP 

certificate obtained concurrently with 

an aircraft type rating. This is a 

foundational course that will include 

academic study as well as flight training 

in FSTDs to meet the Act’s requirements 

that pilots have the necessary training 

and experience discussed previously to 

function effectively in an air carrier 

environment. The course will provide 

training necessary to overcome the 

knowledge gap (between the 

commercial pilot certificate and the 

knowledge required for an air carrier 

SIC) and will address the current lack of 

a training requirement for ATP 

certification. These competencies 

include crew coordination, checklist/ 

briefing items, low energy states/stalls, 

and adverse weather conditions, 

including icing, thunderstorms, and 

crosswinds with gusts. The course 

topics will be incorporated into the ATP 

knowledge test. In addition to applying 

to all pilots in part 121 operations, this 

requirement will apply to PICs in part 

135 operations that require an ATP 

certificate, and PICs in part 91, subpart 

K, Fractional Ownership Operations, 

which require the PIC to hold an ATP 

certificate. 

4. An aircraft type rating for all SICs 

serving in part 121 operations. The FOQ 

ARC made the same recommendation 

and this requirement responds to the 

objectives of section 216 of the Act, 

which requires the Administrator to 

determine the appropriate multiengine 

airplane flight experience for pilot 

flightcrew members. Currently only 

PICs in part 121 operations, and SICs in 

flag or supplemental operations 

requiring three or more pilots, are 

required to hold an aircraft type rating. 

The FAA has determined that requiring 

aircraft type ratings for all pilots in part 

121 operations will improve safety by 

further exposing pilots to an advanced 

multiengine aircraft and a multicrew 

environment. Also the provision for an 

airplane type rating requires a pilot who 

serves as SIC to be tested to the same 

standard as the PIC and to demonstrate 

proficiency in difficult operational 

conditions, including adverse weather 

and high altitude operations. 

5. A minimum of 1,000 hours in air 

carrier operations to serve as PIC in part 

121 operations. Under the final rule, 

SICs must accumulate 1,000 flight hours 

in air carrier operations before becoming 

eligible for upgrade to PIC. Without the 

1,000-hour requirement, SICs with an 

unrestricted ATP certificate would be 

eligible to upgrade to PIC as soon as 

they attain 1,500 flight hours, regardless 

of their experience. The 1,000-hour 

requirement will ensure that a pilot will 

have at least one full year of relevant 

operational experience before upgrading 

to PIC. The final rule allows a pilot to 

count PIC time in part 135 operations 

that require an ATP and in part 91, 

subpart K, operations, as well as SIC 

time in part 121 operations. Pilots with 

experience as PICs in military transport 

operations will be allowed to count up 

to 500 hours of such experience as well. 

The FAA estimates that cost will be 

minimal for the requirement of 50 hours 

of multiengine time for the ATP 

certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating. As noted in the 

regulatory evaluation and preamble, 

multiengine hours are typically 

acquired while engaged in other 

commercial aviation activities such as 

flight instruction or part 135 operations 

on the way to obtaining the ATP 

certificate. Moreover, minimums for 

multiengine time vary among airlines 

from 50 hours to as much as 1,500 

hours.34

The FAA also estimates as minimal 

the costs of the requirement that a part 

121 SIC have 1,000 hours of air carrier 

operating experience before upgrade 

from SIC to PIC. According to a 2010 

FAA survey of industry, the average 

number of years to upgrade is about five 

years for regional airlines and more than 

ten years for major airlines. Even 

without air carrier operating experience 

in part 135 or part 91, subpart K 

operations, at an average number of 750 

flight hours a year, an SIC will 

accumulate the required hours in less 

than one and a half years. 

Compliance Cost by Part 121 Operators 

Table 5 shows the cost of the final 

rule for the part 121 operators. Costs of 

the ATP CTP are allocated between the 

regional airlines and the major/cargo 

airlines by the percentage of pilots 

employed by the two airlines (Nov. 2010 

part 121 pilots, 78,258: Regionals— 

20,565 [26.3%], Major/cargo airlines— 

57,693 [73.7%]). 

As explained in the regulatory 

evaluation, the FAA expects that the 

compliance cost of the ATP CTP for part 

121 air carriers will fall heavily, if not 

exclusively, on the regional airlines. So 

in assessing the economic impact on 

small regional airlines, we assume the 

entire ATP CTP costs fall on regional 

airlines. But in order to assess the 

economic impact on small cargo 

airlines, we assume the impact is 

proportional to the number of pilots. We 

do the same with the type rating costs, 

although the magnitudes are small 

compared to the ATP CTP costs. 

Economic Impact on Small Entities 

In order to assess the economic 

impact of this final rule on small firms, 

we allocate annualized costs to small 

firms based on the number of affected 

pilots and measure the economic impact 

on small firms by each firms’ 

annualized costs as a percentage of their 

average 5-year, 2005–2009 operating 

revenues.35 While the economic burden 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42369 

revenue for Great Lakes Aviation is from its SEC 

10–K filing. Operating revenues for part 91 subpart 

K air carriers is from the CLEAR database and is for 

2011. 

36For part 121 operations since regional airlines 

and major/cargo airlines are analyzed separately, 

operator pilot percentages are calculated with 

respect to the total number of pilots in the relevant 

group. 

of this rule will have a disproportionate 

impact on small entities, the compliance 

cost will not result in a significant 

economic cost on small entities. This 

analysis measures the economic impact 

on small entities in a two-step process. 

All of the compliance costs are training 

costs for new pilots (plus type rating 

costs for part 121 operators). Again, the 

Congressional mandate that all pilots 

have an ATP certificate is self-enacting 

and not an FAA requirement. Thus the 

1,500 hour requirement costs are not 

included in these compliance costs. 

While the FAA believes the annual 

estimates of new pilots are reasonably 

accurate for the part 121, part 135, or 

part 91 subpart K industry, we do not 

know the turnover per operator. The 

annual new pilot hires per operator are 

estimated as a percentage of total 

industry pilots (part 121, part 135, or 

par 91 subpart K) multiplied by the 

system-wide number of new pilots. The 

estimated new pilot hires for each 

operator are then multiplied by the 

annualized training cost to obtain the 

total annualized cost per operator. 

The annual training cost is simply the 

per-pilot training cost multiplied by the 

annual number of newly hired pilots. 

The annualized training cost is less than 

$3,300 per pilot. This per-pilot training 

cost estimate is $3,242 for a part 121 

operator and $3,178 for a part 135 

operator and also for a part 91 subpart 

K operator. The higher cost for part 121 

operators is due to the additional type 

rating cost. As a point of reference, the 

average cost per pilot over the 20-year 

estimation period of the rule is 

approximately $4,000 (based on total 

cost, not present value). Clearly the perpilot training cost is not a significant 

economic impact. 

The number of new pilots per year 

equals the number of retired pilots plus 

the additional pilots above the previous 

year (net growth). On average the annual 

number of new pilots is 3,531 for part 

121; 282 for part 135; and 124 for part 

91, subpart K. The estimated number of 

new pilots per operator equals the 

operator’s current percentage of 

industry pilots (part 121, part 135, or 

part 91 subpart K) 36 multiplied by the 

total number of new pilots. Table 7 lists 

that percentage for many small entities. 

To calculate the cost per operator, that 

percentage per operator is then 

multiplied by the total annualized cost, 

$11.51 million for part 121 operators, 

$0.897 million for part 135 operators, 

and $0.394 million for part 91, subpart 

K operators. These annualized costs are 

based on the present value training costs 

(and type rating costs for part 121 

operators) calculated in the regulatory 

evaluation. 

While Table 7 provides economic 

impact estimates for many operators, a 

generic estimate more simply makes the 

point that the compliance costs of this 

rule do not create a significant economic 

impact per operator. In general, the 

annual number of new pilots per 

operator is substantially less than 10 

percent of the operator’s total pilots. For 

this case, an operator with a 100 pilots 

will have no more than 10 new pilots 

per year. With training costs of $3,300 

per pilot the annual training cost is less 

than $33,000. As long as the operator 

receives operating revenue greater than 

$2 million these costs will be less than 

2 percent of annual operating revenue. 

The FAA does not believe costs less 

than 2 percent of annual operating 

revenue to have a significant economic 

impact. As Table 7 shows the 

percentage of annual compliance cost is 

nearly always less than 0.05 percent and 

never over 2 percent of annual operating 

revenue. 

The rule will have a disproportionate 

impact on small entities. Given the 

Congressional mandate that all pilots 

have an ATP certificate and that this 

mandate disproportionally affects small 

entities, the FAA considered, but had 

limited alternatives with which to 

provide more relief to small operators. 

In considering the economic impact of 

this rule, the FAA created the R–ATP 

certificate based on education credits, 

and for pilots with 1,500 flight hours, a 

minimum age of 21, instead of age 23. 

This rule imposes only training costs on 

new pilots and small type rating costs 

on part 121 pilots. The compliance 

period for the type rating requirement 

for those pilots serving in part 121 by 

July 31, 2013, has been extended in the 

final rule. As both the per-pilot training 

costs are modest and the annual number 

of new pilots is small, the compliance 

cost relative to annual operating 

revenue is always less than 2 percent 

and almost always less than 0.05 

percent. Therefore, as the FAA 

Administrator, I certify that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that it would have only a 

domestic impact and therefore would 

not create unnecessary obstacles to the 

foreign commerce of the United States. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation with the 

base year 1995) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$143.1 million. Excluding the 

Congressionally driven costs, the 

compliance costs of this rule never 

exceed $100 million in any one year. 

This final rule does not contain such an 

unfunded mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Title: Pilot Certification and 

Qualification Requirements for Air 

Carrier Operations. 

This proposal contains the following 

new information collection 

requirements. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted 

the information requirements associated 

with this proposal to the Office of 

Management and Budget for its review. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

approved these new information 

collection requirements associated with 

this final rule and assigned OMB 

Control Number 2120–0755. 

Summary: The paperwork burden is 

comprised of two areas. First, this final 

rule amends the requirements for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42370 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

37For 2013 there are no Paperwork Reduction Act 

costs for the ATP CTP. All costs begin in 2014. 

obtaining an airline transport pilot 

(ATP) certificate by requiring pilot 

applicants for an ATP certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating or an ATP certificate obtained 

concurrently with an airplane type 

rating to complete a new ATP 

Certification Training Program. Any part 

142 training center, part 141 pilot 

school, or air carrier wishing to offer the 

new training program would be required 

to submit the curriculum to the FAA for 

approval. 

In addition, the final rule provides a 

method for an institution of higher 

education to seek the authority to certify 

its graduates of a degree program with 

an aviation major to apply for a 

restricted privileges ATP certificate. The 

final rule will require the institution to 

hold a part 141 pilot school certificate 

from the FAA to provide pilot training 

within the degree program(s) listed in 

their letter of authorization. The 

institution of higher education seeking 

this authority will be required to submit 

an application on a new form that was 

developed for this purpose. 

Public Comments: With regard to the 

FAA’s paperwork estimates, NAFI was 

the only commenter. Their comment 

stated—without providing specific 

details—that ‘‘the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden is 

significantly lacking in areas of 

consideration that have been included, 

representative estimates of costs, and 

the effects that will result from the 

proposed changes.’’ NAFI added that it 

was unaware of any data that has been 

developed that accurately allows for 

proper costing of these effects and 

recommended ‘‘that this data be sought 

prior to any long term changes in order 

to more accurately study and make 

decisions regarding proposed changes.’’ 

Without additional detail from the 

commenter, the FAA is uncertain how 

to respond to NAFI’s concerns regarding 

the accuracy of its estimates. The FAA 

believes that the estimates in the NPRM 

accurately reflected the paperwork 

burden of the proposal. 

Notwithstanding, the FAA has 

reevaluated the paperwork burden of 

the final rule and has made some 

adjustments to the ATP CTP paperwork 

costs. In addition, the FAA has added 

additional paperwork costs for 

institutions of higher education who 

seek the authority to certify its graduates 

of a degree program with an aviation 

major to apply for a restricted privileges 

ATP certificate by requiring them to 

submit an application. 

Use of: The information collection for 

the ATP Certification Training Program 

will ensure pilots seeking employment 

in an air carrier environment are 

adequately trained on the knowledge 

and skills they need to function in a 

multicrew environment in a variety of 

operating conditions. The requirement 

to submit the ATP Certification Training 

Program curriculum to the FAA for 

approval will provide greater oversight 

of the training programs and ensure 

consistency of both course and 

instructional quality among the training 

centers, pilot schools, and air carriers. 

Part 121, 135, 141, or 142 certificate 

holders that wish to offer or provide the 

ATP Certification Training Program are 

required to develop and submit a course 

for approval by the FAA. For those that 

provide this training, additional pilot 

training record keeping would also be 

required. 

Industry ATP CTP Development Costs 

Initial number of certificate holders 

offering the ATP CTP = 20 

Time needed to develop the ATP CTP 

= 120 hours 

Salary of a ground instructor = $32.55 

First-Year Cost (2014) 37

Cost: 20 × 120 × $32.55 = $78,120 

Time: 20 × 120 = 2,400 hours 

Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs 

Cost: 1 × 120 × $32.55 = $3,906 

Time: 1 × 120 = 120 hours 

Total Costs Over 20 Years (2013–2032) 

Cost: $78,120 + (18 × $3,906) = 

$148,428 

Time: 2,400 + (18 × 120) = 4,560 hours 

Average per Year 

Cost: $148,428/20 = $7,421 

Time: 4,560/20 = 228 hours 

Industry Record Keeping Costs 

Initial number of ATP certificate 

applicants = 3,731 

Time needed for record keeping per 

pilot = 0.1 hours 

Salary of a ground instructor = $32.55 

First-Year Cost (2014) 

Cost: 3,731 × 0.1 × $32.55 = $12,145 

Time: 3,731 × 0.1 = 373 hours 

Subsequent Years Costs (assume 0.6% 

annual growth rate) 

Cost: $231,501 

Time: 7,112 hours 

Total Costs Over 20 Years (2013–2032) 

Cost: $12,145 + $231,501 = $243,646 

Time: 373 + 7,112 = 7,485 hours 

Average per Year 

Cost: $243,646/20 = $12,182 

Time: 7,485/20 = 374 hours 

FAA ATP CTP Review Costs 

Initial number of certificate holders 

requesting ATP CTP approval = 20 

Time needed to review the ATP CTP 

for initial and final approval = 44 

hours 

Salary of an aviation safety inspector 

= $61.50 

First-Year Cost (2014) 

Cost: 20 × 44 × $61.50 = $54,120 

Time: 20 × 44 = 880 hours 

Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs 

Cost: 1 × 44 × $61.50 = $2,706 

Time: 1 × 44 = 44 hours 

Total Over 20 Years (2013–2032) 

Cost: $54,120 + (18 × $2,706) = 

$102,828 

Time: 880 + (18 × 44) = 1,672 hours 

Average per Year 

Cost: $102,828/20 = $5,141 

Time: 1,672/20 = 83.6 hours 

FAA Approval Letter Costs 

Initial number of certificate holders 

requesting ATP CTP approval = 20 

Time needed to issue the approval 

letter = 0.5 hours 

Salary of clerk/secretary = $24.67 

First-Year Cost (2014) 

Cost: 20 × 0.5 × $24.67 = $246.70 

Time: 20 × 0.5 = 10 hours 

Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs 

Cost: 1 × 0.5 × $24.67 = $12.34 

Time: 1 × 0.5 = 0.5 hours 

Total Over 20 Years (2013–2032) 

Cost: $246.70 + (18 × $12.34) = $469 

Time: 10 + (18 × 0.5) = 19 hours 

Average per Year 

Cost: $469/20 = $23 

Time: 19/20 = 0.95 hours 

The information collection for the 

authority to certify graduates of a degree 

program in an aviation major will 

ensure pilots who seek eligibility for a 

restricted privileges ATP certificate 

based on academic training at an 

institution of higher education have the 

option to complete aviation coursework 

designed to improve and enhance the 

knowledge and skills of a person 

seeking a career as a professional pilot. 

Institutions of higher education who 

seek the authority to certify its graduates 

of a degree program with an aviation 

major to apply for a restricted privileges 

ATP certificate are required to submit 

the necessary information about the 

degree program(s), including aviation 

and aviation-related coursework, in 

order to obtain the authority to certify 

a graduate has met the restricted 

privileges ATP certificate requirements 

established in this final rule. 

Institution of Higher Education 

Application Costs 

Initial number of institutions of 

higher education applying for the 

authority to certify graduates = 150 

Time needed to complete the 

application = 8 hours 

College professor hourly wage = 

$53.33 

First-Year Cost (2013) 

Cost: 150 × 8 × $53.33 = $63,966 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42371 

Time: 150 × 8 = 1,200 hours 

Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs 

Cost: 1 × 8 × $53.33 = $427 

Time: 1 × 8 = 8 hours 

Total Over 20 Years (2013–2032) 

Cost: $63,966 + (19 × $427) = $72,109 

Time: 1,200 + (19 × 8) = 1,352 hours 

Average per Year 

Cost: $72,109/20 = $3,605 

Time: 1,352/20 = 68 hours 

Review of Transcripts Costs 

Initial number of graduates = 648 

Time needed to review a graduate’s 

transcript = 0.5 hours 

Academic advisor hourly wage = 

$53.33 

First-Year Cost (2013) 

Cost: 648 × 0.5 × $53.33 = $17,279 

Time: 648 × 0.5 = 324 hours 

Subsequent Years Costs (assume 0.6% 

annual growth rate) 

Cost: $348,696 

Time: 6,538 hours 

Total Over 20 Years (2013–2032) 

Cost: $17,279 + $348,696 = $365,973 

Time: 324 + 6,538 = 6,862 hours 

Average per-Year 

Cost: $365,973/20 = $18,299 

Time: 6,862/20 = 343 hours 

FAA Review of Application Costs 

Initial number of applications to 

review = 150 

Time needed to review the 

application = 6 hours 

Salary of an aviation safety inspector 

= $61.50 

First-Year Cost (2013) 

Cost: 150 × 6 × $61.50 = $55,350 

Time: 150 × 6 = 900 hours 

Subsequent Years: Per-Year Costs 

Cost: 1 × 6 × $61.50 = $369 

Time: 1 × 6 = 6 hours 

Total Over 20 Years (2013–2032) 

Cost: $55,350 + (19 × $369) = $62,361 

Time: 900 + (19 × 6) = 1,014 hours 

Average per Year 

Cost: $62,361/20 = $3,118 

Time: 1,014/20 = 51 hours 

F. International Compatibility 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified the following 

differences. 

The FAA notes that, although pilots 

will be able to obtain a restricted 

privileges ATP certificate in fewer than 

the ICAO standard of 1,500 hours, those 

pilots will not have the pilot in 

command privileges of pilots who hold 

unrestricted ATP certificates. This pilot 

in command restriction will be reflected 

on the pilot’s certificate. The experience 

and qualifications of the pilots who 

hold restricted privileges ATP 

certificates will exceed the ICAO 

standards for second-in-command. 

The FAA also notes certain longstanding U.S. differences on file with 

certain ICAO Medical Assessment 

standards continue to apply under this 

action. Although this rule permits SICs 

in part 121 to hold only a second-class 

medical certificate, those SICs who 

serve in international operations will 

need to obtain an FAA first-class 

medical certificate to compensate for the 

electrocardiography difference between 

a first class medical certificate and a 

second class medical certificate. As 

such, U.S. pilots who fly internationally 

must continue to comply with this 

international aviation standard. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 308(c) and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The 

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

going to http://www.regulations.gov and 

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation 

safety. 

14 CFR Part 141 

Airmen, Educational facilities. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42372 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

14 CFR Part 142 

Airmen, Educational facilities. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 61 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102– 

45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 2. Amend § 61.1 as follows: 

■ A. Remove paragraph designations 

(b)(1) through (b)(19); 

■ B. Add new definitions of Accredited, 

Institution of higher education, and 

Nationally recognized accrediting 

agency to paragraph (b) in alphabetical 

order; 

■ C. Revise paragraph (iii) of the 

definition of Authorized instructor in 

paragraph (b); 

■ D. Revise the definition of Cross 

country time; and 

■ E. Remove definitions of Flight 

simulator and Flight training device. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 61.1 Applicability and definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Accredited has the same meaning as 

defined by the Department of Education 

in 34 CFR 600.2. 

* * * * * 

Authorized instructor means— 

* * * * * 

(iii) A person authorized by the 

Administrator to provide ground 

training or flight training under part 61, 

121, 135, or 142 of this chapter when 

conducting ground training or flight 

training in accordance with that 

authority. 

Cross-country time means— 

(i) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(ii) through (vi) of this definition, time 

acquired during flight— 

(A) Conducted by a person who holds 

a pilot certificate; 

(B) Conducted in an aircraft; 

(C) That includes a landing at a point 

other than the point of departure; and 

(D) That involves the use of dead 

reckoning, pilotage, electronic 

navigation aids, radio aids, or other 

navigation systems to navigate to the 

landing point. 

(ii) For the purpose of meeting the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

(except for a rotorcraft category rating), 

for a private pilot certificate (except for 

a powered parachute category rating), a 

commercial pilot certificate, or an 

instrument rating, or for the purpose of 

exercising recreational pilot privileges 

(except in a rotorcraft) under § 61.101 

(c), time acquired during a flight— 

(A) Conducted in an appropriate 

aircraft; 

(B) That includes a point of landing 

that was at least a straight-line distance 

of more than 50 nautical miles from the 

original point of departure; and 

(C) That involves the use of dead 

reckoning, pilotage, electronic 

navigation aids, radio aids, or other 

navigation systems to navigate to the 

landing point. 

(iii) For the purpose of meeting the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for a sport pilot certificate (except for 

powered parachute privileges), time 

acquired during a flight conducted in an 

appropriate aircraft that— 

(A) Includes a point of landing at least 

a straight line distance of more than 25 

nautical miles from the original point of 

departure; and 

(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of 

dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic 

navigation aids; radio aids; or other 

navigation systems to navigate to the 

landing point. 

(iv) For the purpose of meeting the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for a sport pilot certificate with powered 

parachute privileges or a private pilot 

certificate with a powered parachute 

category rating, time acquired during a 

flight conducted in an appropriate 

aircraft that— 

(A) Includes a point of landing at least 

a straight line distance of more than 15 

nautical miles from the original point of 

departure; and 

(B) Involves, as applicable, the use of 

dead reckoning; pilotage; electronic 

navigation aids; radio aids; or other 

navigation systems to navigate to the 

landing point. 

(v) For the purpose of meeting the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for any pilot certificate with a rotorcraft 

category rating or an instrumenthelicopter rating, or for the purpose of 

exercising recreational pilot privileges, 

in a rotorcraft, under § 61.101(c), time 

acquired during a flight— 

(A) Conducted in an appropriate 

aircraft; 

(B) That includes a point of landing 

that was at least a straight-line distance 

of more than 25 nautical miles from the 

original point of departure; and 

(C) That involves the use of dead 

reckoning, pilotage, electronic 

navigation aids, radio aids, or other 

navigation systems to navigate to the 

landing point. 

(vi) For the purpose of meeting the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for an airline transport pilot certificate 

(except with a rotorcraft category 

rating), time acquired during a flight— 

(A) Conducted in an appropriate 

aircraft; 

(B) That is at least a straight-line 

distance of more than 50 nautical miles 

from the original point of departure; and 

(C) That involves the use of dead 

reckoning, pilotage, electronic 

navigation aids, radio aids, or other 

navigation systems. 

(vii) For a military pilot who qualifies 

for a commercial pilot certificate (except 

with a rotorcraft category rating) under 

§ 61.73 of this part, time acquired 

during a flight— 

(A) Conducted in an appropriate 

aircraft; 

(B) That is at least a straight-line 

distance of more than 50 nautical miles 

from the original point of departure; and 

(C) That involves the use of dead 

reckoning, pilotage, electronic 

navigation aids, radio aids, or other 

navigation systems. 

* * * * * 

Institution of higher education has the 

same meaning as defined by the 

Department of Education in 34 CFR 

600.4. 

* * * * * 

Nationally recognized accrediting 

agency has the same meaning as defined 

by the Department of Education in 34 

CFR 600.2. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 61.23 as follows: 

■ A. Revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2); 

■ B. Revise paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) 

and (d)(2)(i). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 61.23 Medical certificates: Requirement 

and duration. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Must hold a first-class medical 

certificate: 

(i) When exercising the pilot-incommand privileges of an airline 

transport pilot certificate; 

(ii) When exercising the second-incommand privileges of an airline 

transport pilot certificate in a flag or 

supplemental operation in part 121 of 

this chapter that requires three or more 

pilots; or 

(iii) When serving as a required pilot 

flightcrew member in an operation 

conducted under part 121 of this 

chapter if the pilot has reached his or 

her 60th birthday. 

(2) Must hold at least a second class 

medical certificate when exercising: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42373 

(i) Second-in-command privileges of 

an airline transport pilot certificate in 

part 121 of this chapter (other than 

operations specified in paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii) of this section); or 

(ii) Privileges of a commercial pilot 

certificate; or 

* * * * * 

(d) Duration of a medical certificate. 

Use the following table to determine 

duration for each class of medical 

certificate: 

If you hold 

And on the date of examination for your 

most recent medical 

certificate you were 

And you are conducting an operation requiring Then your medical certificate expires, for that 

operation, at the end of the last day of the 

(1) A first-class medical 

certificate.

(i) Under age 40 ......... an airline transport pilot certificate for pilot-incommand privileges, or for second-in-command privileges in a flag or supplemental 

operation in part 121 requiring three or 

more pilots.

12th month after the month of the date of examination shown on the medical certificate. 

(ii) Age 40 or older ..... an airline transport pilot certificate for pilot-incommand privileges, for second-in-command privileges in a flag or supplemental 

operation in part 121 requiring three or 

more pilots, or for a pilot flightcrew member 

in part 121 operations who has reached his 

or her 60th birthday..

6th month after the month of the date of examination shown on the medical certificate. 

*******

(2) A second-class 

medical certificate.

(i) Any age .................. an airline transport pilot certificate for secondin-command privileges (other than the operations specified in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section), a commercial pilot certificate, 

or an air traffic control tower operator certificate.

12th month after the month of the date of examination shown on the medical certificate. 

*******

■ 4. Amend § 61.35 by removing the 

word ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph 

(a)(1), redesignating paragraph (a)(2) as 

paragraph (a)(3), adding a new 

paragraph (a)(2), and revising 

redesignated paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to read 

as follows: 

§ 61.35 Knowledge test: Prerequisites and 

passing grades. 

(a) * * * 

(2) After July 31, 2014, for the 

knowledge test for an airline transport 

pilot certificate with an airplane 

category multiengine class rating, a 

graduation certificate for the airline 

transport pilot certification training 

program specified in § 61.156; and 

(3) * * * 

(iii) Date of birth, which shows: 

(A) For issuance of certificates other 

than the ATP certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating, the applicant meets or will meet 

the age requirements of this part for the 

certificate sought before the expiration 

date of the airman knowledge test 

report; and 

(B) For issuance of an ATP certificate 

with an airplane category multiengine 

class rating obtained under the 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

§ 61.159 or § 61.160, the applicant is at 

least 18 years of age at the time of the 

knowledge test; 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 61.39 to revise paragraphs 

(a) and (b); redesignate paragraphs (c) 

through (e) as paragraphs (e) through (g); 

and add paragraphs (c) and (d) to read 

as follows: 

§ 61.39 Prerequisites for practical tests. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b), (c), and (e) of this section, to be 

eligible for a practical test for a 

certificate or rating issued under this 

part, an applicant must: 

(1) Pass the required knowledge test: 

(i) Within the 24-calendar-month 

period preceding the month the 

applicant completes the practical test, if 

a knowledge test is required; or 

(ii) Within the 60-calendar month 

period preceding the month the 

applicant completes the practical for 

those applicants who pass the 

knowledge test after completing the 

airline transport pilot certification 

training program in § 61.156; 

(2) Present the knowledge test report 

at the time of application for the 

practical test, if a knowledge test is 

required; 

(3) Have satisfactorily accomplished 

the required training and obtained the 

aeronautical experience prescribed by 

this part for the certificate or rating 

sought; 

(4) Hold at least a third-class medical 

certificate, if a medical certificate is 

required; 

(5) Meet the prescribed age 

requirement of this part for the issuance 

of the certificate or rating sought; 

(6) Have an endorsement, if required 

by this part, in the applicant’s logbook 

or training record that has been signed 

by an authorized instructor who 

certifies that the applicant— 

(i) Has received and logged training 

time within 2 calendar months 

preceding the month of application in 

preparation for the practical test; 

(ii) Is prepared for the required 

practical test; and 

(iii) Has demonstrated satisfactory 

knowledge of the subject areas in which 

the applicant was deficient on the 

airman knowledge test; and 

(7) Have a completed and signed 

application form. 

(b) An applicant for an airline 

transport pilot certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating or an airline transport pilot 

certificate with an airplane type rating 

may take the practical test with an 

expired knowledge test only if the 

applicant passed the knowledge test 

after July 31, 2014, and is employed: 

(1) As a flightcrew member by a part 

119 certificate holder conducting 

operations under parts 125 or 135 of this 

chapter at the time of the practical test 

and has satisfactorily accomplished that 

operator’s approved pilot-in-command 

training or checking program; or 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42374 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) As a flightcrew member by a part 

119 certificate holder conducting 

operations under part 121 of this 

chapter at the time of the practical test 

and has satisfactorily accomplished that 

operator’s approved initial training 

program; or 

(3) By the U.S. Armed Forces as a 

flight crewmember in U.S. military air 

transport operations at the time of the 

practical test and has completed the 

pilot in command aircraft qualification 

training program that is appropriate to 

the pilot certificate and rating sought. 

(c) An applicant for an airline 

transport pilot certificate with a rating 

other than those ratings set forth in 

paragraph (b) of this section may take 

the practical test for that certificate or 

rating with an expired knowledge test 

report, provided that the applicant is 

employed: 

(1) As a flightcrew member by a part 

119 certificate holder conducting 

operations under parts 125 or 135 of this 

chapter at the time of the practical test 

and has satisfactorily accomplished that 

operator’s approved pilot-in-command 

training or checking program; or 

(2) By the U.S. Armed Forces as a 

flight crewmember in U.S. military air 

transport operations at the time of the 

practical test and has completed the 

pilot in command aircraft qualification 

training program that is appropriate to 

the pilot certificate and rating sought. 

(d) In addition to the requirements in 

paragraph (a) of this section, to be 

eligible for a practical test for an airline 

transport pilot certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating or airline transport pilot 

certificate obtained concurrently with 

an airplane type rating, an applicant 

must: 

(1) If the applicant passed the 

knowledge test after July 31, 2014, 

present the graduation certificate for the 

airline transport pilot certification 

training program in § 61.156, at the time 

of application for the practical test; 

(2) If applying for the practical test 

under the aeronautical experience 

requirements of § 61.160(a), the 

applicant must present the documents 

required by that section to substantiate 

eligibility; and 

(3) If applying for the practical test 

under the aeronautical experience 

requirements of § 61.160(b), (c), or (d), 

the applicant must present an official 

transcript and certifying document from 

an institution of higher education that 

holds a letter of authorization from the 

Administrator under § 61.169. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 61.55 by revising 

paragraph (a)(3) and by removing the 

phrase ‘‘part 121,’’ from paragraph (e) 

introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 61.55 Second-in-command 

qualifications. 

(a) * * * 

(3) At least a pilot type rating for the 

aircraft being flown unless the flight 

will be conducted as domestic flight 

operations within the United States 

airspace. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 61.57 by revising 

paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in 

command. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) This section does not apply to a 

pilot in command who is employed by 

an air carrier certificated under part 121 

or 135 and is engaged in a flight 

operation under part 91, 121, or 135 for 

that air carrier if the pilot is in 

compliance with §§ 121.435 or 121.436, 

as applicable, and § 121.439, or 

§§ 135.243 and 135.247 of this chapter, 

as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 61.71 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows; 

§ 61.71 Graduates of an approved training 

program other than under this part: Special 

rules. 

* * * * * 

(b) A person may apply for an airline 

transport pilot certificate, type rating, or 

both under this part, and will be 

considered to have met the applicable 

requirements under § 61.157, except for 

the airline transport pilot certification 

training program required by § 61.156, 

for that certificate and rating, if that 

person has: 

(1) Satisfactorily accomplished an 

approved training program and a 

proficiency check for that airplane type 

that includes all the tasks and 

maneuvers required to serve as pilot in 

command in accordance with the 

requirements of subparts N and O of 

part 121 of this chapter; and 

(2) Applied for an airline transport 

pilot certificate, type rating, or both 

within the 60-day period from the date 

the person satisfactorily accomplished 

the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) for 

that airplane type. 

(c) A person who holds a foreign pilot 

license and is applying for an equivalent 

U.S. pilot certificate on the basis of a 

Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement and 

associated Implementation Procedures 

for Licensing may be considered to have 

met the applicable aeronautical 

experience, aeronautical knowledge, 

and areas of operation requirements of 

this part. 

■ 9. Amend § 61.153 as follows: 

■ A. Revise paragraph (a); 

■ B. Redesignate paragraphs (e) through 

(h) as paragraphs (f) through (i); and 

■ C. Add a new paragraph (e). 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 61.153 Eligibility requirements: General. 

* * * * * 

(a) Meet the following age 

requirements: 

(1) For an airline transport pilot 

certificate obtained under the 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

§§ 61.159, 61.161, or 61.163, be at least 

23 years of age; or 

(2) For an airline transport pilot 

certificate obtained under the 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

§ 61.160, be at least 21 years of age. 

* * * * * 

(e) After July 31, 2014, for an airline 

transport pilot certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating or an airline transport pilot 

certificate obtained concurrently with 

an airplane type rating, receive a 

graduation certificate from an 

authorized training provider certifying 

completion of the airline transport pilot 

certification training program specified 

in § 61.156 before applying for the 

knowledge test required by paragraph 

(g) of this section; 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 61.155 as follows: 

■ A. Remove the word ‘‘and’’ after the 

semicolon in paragraph (c)(12); 

■ B. Remove the period from the end of 

paragraph (c)(13) and add the phrase ‘‘; 

and’’ in its place; and 

■ C. Add paragraphs (c)(14) and (d). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 61.155 Aeronautical knowledge. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(14) After July 31, 2014, for airplane 

category multiengine class rating or 

airplane type rating, the content of the 

airline transport pilot certification 

training program in § 61.156. 

(d) An applicant who successfully 

completes the knowledge test for an 

airline transport pilot certificate prior to 

August 1, 2014, must successfully 

complete the practical test within 24 

months from the month in which the 

knowledge test was successfully 

completed. An applicant who passes the 

knowledge test prior to August 1, 2014, 

but fails to successfully complete the 

practical test within 24 months must 

complete the airline transport pilot 

certification training program specified 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42375 

in § 61.156 and retake the knowledge 

test prior to applying for the practical 

test. 

■ 11. Add § 61.156 to read as follows: 

§ 61.156 Training requirements: Airplane 

category—multiengine class rating or 

airplane type rating concurrently with 

airline transport pilot certificate. 

After July 31, 2014, a person who 

applies for the knowledge test for an 

airline transport pilot certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating must present a graduation 

certificate from an authorized training 

provider under part 121, 135, 141, or 

142 of this chapter certifying the 

applicant has completed the following 

training in a course approved by the 

Administrator. 

(a) Academic training. The applicant 

for the knowledge test must receive at 

least 30 hours of classroom instruction 

that includes the following: 

(1) At least 8 hours of instruction on 

aerodynamics including high altitude 

operations; 

(2) At least 2 hours of instruction on 

meteorology, including adverse weather 

phenomena and weather detection 

systems; and 

(3) At least 14 hours of instruction on 

air carrier operations, including the 

following areas: 

(i) Physiology; 

(ii) Communications; 

(iii) Checklist philosophy; 

(iv) Operational control; 

(v) Minimum equipment list/ 

configuration deviation list; 

(vi) Ground operations; 

(vii) Turbine engines; 

(viii) Transport category aircraft 

performance; 

(ix) Automation, navigation, and 

flight path warning systems. 

(4) At least 6 hours of instruction on 

leadership, professional development, 

crew resource management, and safety 

culture. 

(b) FSTD training. The applicant for 

the knowledge test must receive at least 

10 hours of training in a flight 

simulation training device qualified 

under part 60 of this chapter that 

represents a multiengine turbine 

airplane. The training must include the 

following: 

(1) At least 6 hours of training in a 

Level C or higher full flight simulator 

qualified under part 60 of this chapter 

that represents a multiengine turbine 

airplane with a maximum takeoff weight 

of 40,000 pounds or greater. The 

training must include the following 

areas: 

(i) Low energy states/stalls; 

(ii) Upset recovery techniques; and 

(iii) Adverse weather conditions, 

including icing, thunderstorms, and 

crosswinds with gusts. 

(2) The remaining FSTD training may 

be completed in a Level 4 or higher 

flight simulation training device. The 

training must include the following 

areas: 

(i) Navigation including flight 

management systems; and 

(ii) Automation including autoflight. 

(c) Deviation authority. The 

Administrator may issue deviation 

authority from the weight requirement 

in paragraph (b)(1) of this section upon 

a determination that the objectives of 

the training can be met in an alternative 

device. 

■ 12. Amend § 61.157 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 61.157 Flight proficiency. 

* * * * * 

(c) Exceptions. A person who applies 

for an aircraft type rating to be added to 

an airline transport pilot certificate or 

an aircraft type rating concurrently with 

an airline transport pilot certificate, and 

who is an employee of a certificate 

holder operating under part 121 or part 

135 of this chapter, does not need to 

comply with the requirements of 

paragraph (b) of this section if the 

applicant presents a training record that 

shows completion of that certificate 

holder’s approved training program for 

the aircraft type rating. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 61.159 as follows: 

■ A. Redesignate paragraphs (a)(3) 

through (a)(5) as paragraphs (a)(4) 

through (a)(6); 

■ B. Add a new paragraph (a)(3); 

■ C. Remove the phrase ‘‘paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii)’’ from newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(4)(i) and add the phrase 

‘‘paragraph (a)(4)(ii)’’ in its place; 

■ D. Remove the phrase ‘‘paragraph 

(a)(3)’’ from newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(4)(ii) and add the phrase 

‘‘paragraph (a)(4)’’ in its place; and 

■ E. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraph (a)(5). 

The addition and revision read as 

follows 

§ 61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane 

category rating. 

(a) * * * 

(3) 50 hours of flight time in the class 

of aircraft for which the rating is sought. 

A maximum of 25 hours of training in 

a full flight simulator representing a 

multiengine airplane may be credited 

toward the flight time requirement of 

this paragraph if the training was 

accomplished as part of an approved 

training course in parts 121, 135, 141, or 

142 of this chapter. A flight training 

device or aviation training device may 

not be used to satisfy this requirement. 

* * * * * 

(5) Not more than 100 hours of the 

total aeronautical experience 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section may be obtained in a full flight 

simulator or flight training device that 

represents an airplane, provided the 

aeronautical experience was 

accomplished as part of an approved 

training course in parts 121, 135, 141, or 

142 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Add § 61.160 to read as follows: 

§ 61.160 Aeronautical experience— 

airplane category restricted privileges. 

(a) Except for a person who has been 

removed from flying status for lack of 

proficiency or because of a disciplinary 

action involving aircraft operations, a 

U.S. military pilot or former U.S. 

military pilot may apply for an airline 

transport pilot certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating or an airline transport pilot 

certificate concurrently with an airplane 

type rating with a minimum of 750 

hours of total time as a pilot if the pilot 

presents: 

(1) An official Form DD–214 

(Certificate of Release or Discharge from 

Active Duty) indicating that the person 

was honorably discharged from the U.S. 

Armed Forces or an official U.S. Armed 

Forces record that shows the pilot is 

currently serving in the U.S. Armed 

Forces; and 

(2) An official U.S. Armed Forces 

record that shows the person graduated 

from a U.S. Armed Forces 

undergraduate pilot training school and 

received a rating qualification as a 

military pilot. 

(b) A person may apply for an airline 

transport pilot certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating or an airline transport pilot 

certificate concurrently with an airplane 

type rating with a minimum of 1,000 

hours of total time as a pilot if the 

person: 

(1) Holds a Bachelor’s degree with an 

aviation major from an institution of 

higher education, as defined in § 61.1, 

that has been issued a letter of 

authorization by the Administrator 

under § 61.169; 

(2) Completes 60 semester credit 

hours of aviation and aviation-related 

coursework that has been recognized by 

the Administrator as coursework 

designed to improve and enhance the 

knowledge and skills of a person 

seeking a career as a professional pilot; 

(3) Holds a commercial pilot 

certificate with an airplane category and 

instrument rating if: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42376 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) The required ground training was 

completed as part of an approved part 

141 curriculum at the institution of 

higher education; and 

(ii) The required flight training was 

completed as part of an approved part 

141 curriculum at the institution of 

higher education or at a part 141 pilot 

school that has a training agreement 

under § 141.26 of this chapter with the 

institution of higher education; and 

(4) Presents official transcripts or 

other documentation acceptable to the 

Administrator from the institution of 

higher education certifying that the 

graduate has satisfied the requirements 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(c) A person may apply for an airline 

transport pilot certificate with an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating or an airline transport pilot 

certificate concurrently with an airplane 

type rating with a minimum of 1,250 

hours of total time as a pilot if the 

person: 

(1) Holds an Associate’s degree with 

an aviation major from an institution of 

higher education, as defined in § 61.1, 

that has been issued a letter of 

authorization by the Administrator 

under § 61.169; 

(2) Completes at least 30 semester 

credit hours of aviation and aviationrelated coursework that has been 

recognized by the Administrator as 

coursework designed to improve and 

enhance the knowledge and skills of a 

person seeking a career as a professional 

pilot; 

(3) Holds a commercial pilot 

certificate with an airplane category and 

instrument rating if: 

(i) The required ground training was 

completed as part of an approved part 

141 curriculum at the institution of 

higher education; and 

(ii) The required flight training was 

completed as part of an approved part 

141 curriculum at the institution of 

higher education or at a part 141 pilot 

school that has a written training 

agreement under § 141.26 of this chapter 

with the institution of higher education; 

and 

(4) Presents official transcripts or 

other documentation acceptable to the 

Administrator from the institution of 

higher education certifying that the 

graduate has satisfied the requirements 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(d) A graduate of an institution of 

higher education who completes fewer 

than 60 semester credit hours but at 

least 30 credit hours and otherwise 

satisfies the requirements of paragraph 

(b) may apply for airline transport pilot 

certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating or an airline 

transport pilot certificate concurrently 

with an airplane type rating with a 

minimum of 1,250 hours of total time as 

a pilot. 

(e) A person who applies for an 

airline transport pilot certificate under 

the total flight times listed in paragraphs 

(a), (b), and (c) of this section must 

otherwise meet the aeronautical 

experience requirements of § 61.159, 

except that the person may apply for an 

airline transport pilot certificate with 

200 hours of cross-country flight time. 

(f) A person who has 1,500 hours total 

time as a pilot, 200 hours of crosscountry flight time, and otherwise meets 

the aeronautical experience 

requirements of § 61.159 may apply for 

an airline transport pilot certificate 

under this section. 

(g) An airline transport pilot 

certificate obtained under this section is 

subject to the pilot in command 

limitations set forth in § 61.167(b) and 

must contain the following limitation, 

‘‘Restricted in accordance with 14 CFR 

61.167.’’ The pilot is entitled to an 

airline transport pilot certificate without 

the limitation specified in this 

paragraph when the applicant presents 

satisfactory evidence of having met the 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

§ 61.159 and the age requirement of 

§ 61.153(a)(1). 

(h) An applicant who meets the 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of this 

section is issued an airline transport 

pilot certificate with the limitation, 

‘‘Holder does not meet the pilot in 

command aeronautical experience 

requirements of ICAO,’’ as prescribed 

under Article 39 of the Convention on 

International Civil Aviation if the 

applicant does not meet the ICAO 

requirements contained in Annex 1 

‘‘Personnel Licensing’’ to the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation. An applicant is entitled to an 

airline transport pilot certificate without 

the ICAO limitation specified under this 

paragraph when the applicant presents 

satisfactory evidence of having met the 

ICAO requirements and otherwise meets 

the aeronautical experience 

requirements of § 61.159. 

■ 15. Amend § 61.165 as follows: 

■ A. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(2) 

through (c)(5) as paragraphs (c)(3) 

through (c)(6); 

■ C. Add new paragraph (c)(2); 

■ D. Revise newly redesignated 

paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(5); 

■ E. Revise paragraph (e) introductory 

text and paragraph (e)(1); 

■ F. Redesignate paragraph (f) as 

paragraph (g); 

■ G. Add new paragraph (f); 

■ H. Remove the phrase ‘‘paragraphs (a) 

through (e)’’ from newly redesignated 

paragraph (g) introductory text and add 

the phrase ‘‘paragraphs (a) through (f)’’ 

in its place; and 

■ I. Remove the phrase ‘‘paragraph 

(f)(1)’’ from newly redesignated 

paragraph (g)(3) and add the phrase 

‘‘paragraph (g)(1)’’ in its place. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 61.165 Additional aircraft class category 

and ratings. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) After July 31, 2014, successfully 

complete the airline transport pilot 

certification training program specified 

in § 61.156; 

(3) Pass a knowledge test for an 

airplane category multiengine class 

rating or type rating on the aeronautical 

knowledge areas of § 61.155(c); 

* * * * * 

(5) Meet the aeronautical experience 

requirements of § 61.159 or § 61.160; 

and 

* * * * * 

(e) Additional class rating within the 

same aircraft category. Except as 

provided in paragraph (f) of this section, 

a person applying for an airline 

transport pilot certificate with an 

additional class rating who holds an 

airline transport certificate in the same 

aircraft category must— 

(1) Meet the eligibility requirements 

of § 61.153, except paragraph (g) of that 

section; 

* * * * * 

(f) Adding a multiengine class rating 

or airplane type rating to an airline 

transport pilot certificate with a single 

engine class rating. A person applying 

to add a multiengine class rating or 

airplane type rating to an airline 

transport pilot certificate with an 

airplane category single engine class 

rating must— 

(1) Meet the eligibility requirements 

of § 61.153; 

(2) Pass a required knowledge test on 

the aeronautical knowledge areas of 

§ 61.155(c), as applicable to multiengine 

airplanes; 

(3) Comply with the requirements in 

§ 61.157(b), if applicable; 

(4) Meet the applicable aeronautical 

experience requirements of § 61.159; 

and 

(5) Pass a practical test on the areas 

of operation of § 61.157(e)(2). 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Revise § 61.167 to read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42377 

§ 61.167 Airline transport pilot privileges 

and limitations. 

(a) Privileges. (1) A person who holds 

an airline transport pilot certificate is 

entitled to the same privileges as a 

person who holds a commercial pilot 

certificate with an instrument rating. 

(2) A person who holds an airline 

transport pilot certificate and has met 

the aeronautical experience 

requirements of § 61.159 and the age 

requirements of § 61.153(a)(1) of this 

part may instruct— 

(i) Other pilots in air transportation 

service in aircraft of the category, class, 

and type, as applicable, for which the 

airline transport pilot is rated and 

endorse the logbook or other training 

record of the person to whom training 

has been given; 

(ii) In flight simulators, and flight 

training devices representing the aircraft 

referenced in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section, when instructing under the 

provisions of this section and endorse 

the logbook or other training record of 

the person to whom training has been 

given; 

(iii) Only as provided in this section, 

except that an airline transport pilot 

who also holds a flight instructor 

certificate can exercise the instructor 

privileges under subpart H of this part 

for which he or she is rated; and 

(iv) In an aircraft, only if the aircraft 

has functioning dual controls, when 

instructing under the provisions of this 

section. 

(3) Excluding briefings and 

debriefings, an airline transport pilot 

may not instruct in aircraft, flight 

simulators, and flight training devices 

under this section— 

(i) For more than 8 hours in any 24- 

consecutive-hour period; or 

(ii) For more than 36 hours in any 7- 

consecutive-day period. 

(4) An airline transport pilot may not 

instruct in Category II or Category III 

operations unless he or she has been 

trained and successfully tested under 

Category II or Category III operations, as 

applicable. 

(b) Limitations. A person who holds 

an airline transport pilot certificate and 

has not satisfied the age requirement of 

§ 61.153(a)(1) and the aeronautical 

experience requirements of § 61.159 

may not: 

(1) Act as pilot in command in 

operations conducted under part 121, 

§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i), or § 135.243(a)(1) of 

this chapter, or 

(2) Serve as second in command in 

flag or supplemental operations in part 

121 of this chapter requiring three or 

more pilots. 

■ 17. Add § 61.169 to read as follows: 

§ 61.169 Letters of authorization for 

institutions of higher education. 

(a) An institution of higher education 

that is accredited, as defined in § 61.1, 

may apply for a letter of authorization 

for the purpose of certifying its 

graduates for an airline transport pilot 

certificate under the academic and 

aeronautical experience requirements in 

§ 61.160. The application must be in a 

form and manner acceptable to the 

Administrator. 

(b) An institution of higher education 

must comply with the provisions of the 

letter of authorization and may not 

certify a graduate unless it determines 

that the graduate has satisfied the 

requirements of § 61.160, as appropriate. 

(c) The Administrator may rescind or 

amend a letter of authorization if the 

Administrator determines that the 

institution of higher education is not 

complying or is unable to comply with 

the provisions of the letter of 

authorization. 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

■ 18. The authority citation for part 121 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

40119, 41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 

44709–44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 

46105.2. 

■ 19. Amend § 121.409 by revising 

paragraph (b) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 121.409 Training courses using airplane 

simulators and other training devices. 

* * * * * 

(b) Except for the airline transport 

pilot certification training program 

approved to satisfy the requirements of 

§ 61.156 of this chapter, a course of 

training in an airplane simulator may be 

included for use as provided in 

§ 121.441 if that course— 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Add § 121.410 to read as follows: 

§ 121.410 Airline transport pilot 

certification training program. 

(a) A certificate holder may obtain 

approval to establish and implement a 

training program to satisfy the 

requirements of § 61.156 of this chapter. 

The training program must be separate 

from the air carrier training program 

required by this part. 

(b) No certificate holder may use a 

person nor may any person serve as an 

instructor in a training program 

approved to meet the requirements of 

§ 61.156 of this chapter unless the 

instructor: 

(1) Holds an airline transport pilot 

certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating; 

(2) Has at least 2 years of experience 

as a pilot in command in operations 

conducted under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or 

§ 135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or as a 

pilot in command or second in 

command in any operation conducted 

under this part; 

(3) Except for the holder of a flight 

instructor certificate, receives initial 

training on the following topics: 

(i) The fundamental principles of the 

learning process; 

(ii) Elements of effective teaching, 

instruction methods, and techniques; 

(iii) Instructor duties, privileges, 

responsibilities, and limitations; 

(iv) Training policies and procedures; 

and 

(v) Evaluation. 

(4) If providing training in a flight 

simulation training device, hold an 

aircraft type rating for the aircraft 

represented by the flight simulation 

training device utilized in the training 

program and have received training 

within the preceding 12 months from 

the certificate holder on: 

(i) Proper operation of flight simulator 

and flight training device controls and 

systems; 

(ii) Proper operation of environmental 

and fault panels; 

(iii) Data and motion limitations of 

simulation; 

(iv) Minimum equipment 

requirements for each curriculum; and 

(v) The maneuvers that will be 

demonstrated in the flight simulation 

training device. 

(c) A certificate holder may not issue 

a graduation certificate to a student 

unless that student has completed all 

the curriculum requirements of the 

course. 

(d) A certificate holder must conduct 

evaluations to ensure that training 

techniques, procedures, and standards 

are acceptable to the Administrator. 

■ 21. Revise § 121.419 to read as 

follows: 

§ 121.419 Pilots and flight engineers: 

Initial, transition, and upgrade ground 

training. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, initial, transition, and 

upgrade ground training for pilots and 

flight engineers must include 

instruction in at least the following as 

applicable to their assigned duties: 

(1) General subjects— 

(i) The certificate holder’s dispatch or 

flight release procedures; 

(ii) Principles and methods for 

determining weight and balance, and 

runway limitations for takeoff and 

landing; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42378 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) Enough meteorology to insure a 

practical knowledge of weather 

phenomena, including the principles of 

frontal systems, icing, fog, 

thunderstorms, and high altitude 

weather situations; 

(iv) Air traffic control systems, 

procedures, and phraseology; 

(v) Navigation and the use of 

navigation aids, including instrument 

approach procedures; 

(vi) Normal and emergency 

communication procedures; 

(vii) Visual cues prior to and during 

descent below DA/DH or MDA; 

(viii) Approved crew resource 

management initial training; and 

(ix) Other instructions as necessary to 

ensure competence. 

(2) For each airplane type— 

(i) A general description; 

(ii) Performance characteristics; 

(iii) Engines and propellers; 

(iv) Major components; 

(v) Major airplane systems (e.g., flight 

controls, electrical, hydraulic); other 

systems as appropriate; principles of 

normal, abnormal, and emergency 

operations; appropriate procedures and 

limitations; 

(vi) Procedures for— 

(A) Recognizing and avoiding severe 

weather situations; 

(B) Escaping from severe weather 

situations, in case of inadvertent 

encounters, including low-altitude 

windshear, and 

(C) Operating in or near 

thunderstorms (including best 

penetrating altitudes), turbulent air 

(including clear air turbulence), icing, 

hail, and other potentially hazardous 

meteorological conditions; 

(vii) Operating limitations; 

(viii) Fuel consumption and cruise 

control; 

(ix) Flight planning; 

(x) Each normal and emergency 

procedure; and 

(xi) The approved Airplane Flight 

Manual. 

(b) Initial ground training for pilots 

who have completed the airline 

transport pilot certification training 

program in § 61.156 must include 

instruction in at least the following as 

applicable to their assigned duties: 

(1) Ground training specific to the 

certificate holder’s— 

(i) Dispatch or flight release 

procedures; 

(ii) Method for determining weight 

and balance and runway limitations for 

takeoff and landing; 

(iii) Meteorology hazards applicable 

to the certificate holder’s areas of 

operation; 

(iv) Approved departure, arrival, and 

approach procedures; 

(v) Normal and emergency 

communication procedures; and 

(vi) Approved crew resource 

management training. 

(2) The training required by paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section for the airplane 

type. 

(c) Initial ground training for pilots 

and flight engineers must consist of at 

least the following programmed hours of 

instruction in the required subjects 

specified in paragraph (a) of this section 

and in § 121.415(a) unless reduced 

under § 121.405: 

(1) Group I airplanes— 

(i) Reciprocating powered, 64 hours; 

and 

(ii) Turbopropeller powered, 80 

hours. 

(2) Group II airplanes, 120 hours. 

(d) Initial ground training for pilots 

who have completed the airline 

transport pilot certification training 

program in § 61.156 must consist of at 

least the following programmed hours of 

instruction in the required subjects 

specified in paragraph (b) of this section 

and in § 121.415(a) unless reduced 

under § 121.405: 

(1) Group I airplanes— 

(i) Reciprocating powered, 54 hours; 

and 

(ii) Turbopropeller powered, 70 

hours. 

(2) Group II airplanes, 110 hours. 

■ 22. Add § 121.435 to read as follows: 

§ 121.435 Pilot qualification: Certificate 

and experience requirements. 

(a) No pilot may act as pilot in 

command of an aircraft (or as second in 

command of an aircraft in a flag or 

supplemental operation that requires 

three or more pilots) unless he holds an 

airline transport pilot certificate and an 

appropriate type rating for that aircraft. 

(b) No certificate holder may use nor 

may any pilot act as a pilot in a capacity 

other than those specified in paragraph 

(a) of this section unless the pilot holds 

at least a commercial pilot certificate 

with appropriate category and class 

ratings for the aircraft concerned, and an 

instrument rating. Notwithstanding the 

requirements of § 61.63(b) and (c) of this 

chapter, a pilot who is currently 

employed by a certificate holder and 

meets applicable training requirements 

of subpart N of this part, and the 

proficiency check requirements of 

§ 121.441, may be issued the 

appropriate category and class ratings 

by presenting proof of compliance with 

those requirements to a Flight Standards 

District Office. 

(c) The requirements of this section 

will expire on July 31, 2013. After that 

date, the requirements of § 121.436 

apply. 

■ 23. Add § 121.436 to read as follows: 

§ 121.436 Pilot Qualification: Certificates 

and experience requirements. 

(a) No certificate holder may use nor 

may any pilot act as pilot in command 

of an aircraft (or as second in command 

of an aircraft in a flag or supplemental 

operation that requires three or more 

pilots) unless the pilot: 

(1) Holds an airline transport pilot 

certificate not subject to the limitations 

in § 61.167 of this chapter; 

(2) Holds an appropriate aircraft type 

rating for the aircraft being flown; and 

(3) If serving as pilot in command, has 

1,000 hours as second in command in 

operations under this part, pilot in 

command in operations under 

§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter, pilot in 

command in operations under 

§ 135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or any 

combination thereof. For those pilots 

who are employed as pilot in command 

in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, 

compliance with the requirements of 

this paragraph (a)(3) is not required. 

(b) No certificate holder may use nor 

may any pilot act as second in 

command unless the pilot holds an 

airline transport pilot certificate and an 

appropriate aircraft type rating for the 

aircraft being flown. A second-incommand type rating obtained under 

§ 61.55 does not satisfy the requirements 

of this section. 

(c) For the purpose of satisfying the 

flight hour requirement in paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section, a pilot may credit 

500 hours of military flight time 

obtained as pilot in command of a 

multiengine turbine-powered, fixedwing airplane in an operation requiring 

more than one pilot. 

(d) Compliance with the requirements 

of this section is required by August 1, 

2013. However, for those pilots who are 

employed as second in command in part 

121 operations on July 31, 2013, 

compliance with the type rating 

requirement in paragraph (b) of this 

section is not required until January 1, 

2016. 

§ 121.437 [Removed] 

■ 24. Remove § 121.437. 

■ 25. Amend § 121.543(b)(3)(i) to read 

as follows: 

§ 121.543 Flight crewmembers at controls. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) In the case of the assigned pilot in 

command during the en route cruise 

portion of the flight, by a pilot who 

holds an airline transport pilot 

certificate not subject to the limitations 

in § 61.167 of this chapter and an 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 42379 

appropriate type rating, is currently 

qualified as pilot in command or second 

in command, and is qualified as pilot in 

command of that aircraft during the en 

route cruise portion of the flight. A 

second in command qualified to act as 

a pilot in command en route need not 

have completed the following pilot in 

command requirements: The 6-month 

recurrent flight training required by 

§ 121.433(c)(1)(iii); the operating 

experience required by § 121.434; the 

takeoffs and landings required by 

§ 121.439; the line check required by 

§ 121.440; and the 6-month proficiency 

check or simulator training required by 

§ 121.441(a)(1); and 

* * * * * 

Appendix H to Part 121 [Amended] 

■ 26. Amend Appendix H to Part 121 by 

removing the reference ‘‘§ 61.153(g)’’ 

from the last paragraph of the appendix 

and adding the reference ‘‘§ 61.153(h)’’ 

in its place. 

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND 

ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND 

RULES GOVERNING PERSON 

ONBOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 27. The authority citation for part 135 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 41706, 

40113, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711– 

44713, 44715–44717, 44722, 45101–45105. 

■ 28. Add § 135.336 to read as follows: 

§ 135.336 Airline transport pilot 

certification training program. 

(a) A certificate holder may obtain 

approval to establish and implement a 

training program to satisfy the 

requirements of § 61.156 of this chapter. 

The training program must be separate 

from the air carrier training program 

required by this part. 

(b) No certificate holder may use a 

person nor may any person serve as an 

instructor in a training program 

approved to meet the requirements of 

§ 61.156 of this chapter unless the 

instructor: 

(1) Holds an airline transport pilot 

certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating; 

(2) Has at least 2 years of experience 

as a pilot in command in operations 

conducted under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) of 

this chapter, § 135.243(a)(1) of this part, 

or as a pilot in command or second in 

command in any operation conducted 

under part 121 of this chapter; 

(3) Except for the holder of a flight 

instructor certificate, receives initial 

training on the following topics: 

(i) The fundamental principles of the 

learning process; 

(ii) Elements of effective teaching, 

instruction methods, and techniques; 

(iii) Instructor duties, privileges, 

responsibilities, and limitations; 

(iv) Training policies and procedures; 

and 

(v) Evaluation. 

(4) If providing training in a flight 

simulation training device, holds an 

aircraft type rating for the aircraft 

represented by the flight simulation 

training device utilized in the training 

program and have received training and 

evaluation within the preceding 12 

months from the certificate holder on: 

(i) Proper operation of flight simulator 

and flight training device controls and 

systems; 

(ii) Proper operation of environmental 

and fault panels; 

(iii) Data and motion limitations of 

simulation; 

(iv) Minimum equipment 

requirements for each curriculum; and 

(v) The maneuvers that will be 

demonstrated in the flight simulation 

training device. 

(c) A certificate holder may not issue 

a graduation certificate to a student 

unless that student has completed all 

the curriculum requirements of the 

course. 

(d) A certificate holder must conduct 

evaluations to ensure that training 

techniques, procedures, and standards 

are acceptable to the Administrator. 

■ 29. Amend § 135.341 by adding a 

sentence to the end of paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 135.341 Pilot and flight attendant 

crewmember training programs. 

(a) * * * This deviation authority 

does not extend to the training provided 

under paragraph (c) of this section. 

* * * * * 

PART 141—PILOT SCHOOLS 

■ 30. The authority citation for part 141 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

44701–44703, 44707, 44709, 44711, 45102– 

45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 31. Amend § 141.11 by adding 

paragraph (b)(2)(viii) to read as follows: 

§ 141.11 Pilot school ratings. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(viii) Airline transport pilot 

certification training program. 

* * * * * 

■ 32. Revise § 141.26 to read as follows: 

§ 141.26 Training agreements. 

(a) A training center certificated under 

part 142 of this chapter may provide the 

training, testing, and checking for pilot 

schools certificated under this part and 

is considered to meet the requirements 

of this part, provided— 

(1) There is a training agreement 

between the certificated training center 

and the pilot school; 

(2) The training, testing, and checking 

provided by the certificated training 

center is approved and conducted under 

part 142; 

(3) The pilot school certificated under 

this part obtains the Administrator’s 

approval for a training course outline 

that includes the training, testing, and 

checking to be conducted under this 

part and the training, testing, and 

checking to be conducted under part 

142; and 

(4) Upon completion of the training, 

testing, and checking conducted under 

part 142, a copy of each student’s 

training record is forwarded to the part 

141 school and becomes part of the 

student’s permanent training record. 

(b) A pilot school that provides flight 

training for an institution of higher 

education that holds a letter of 

authorization under § 61.169 of this 

chapter must have a training agreement 

with that institution of higher 

education. 

■ 33. Amend § 141.33 by adding 

paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 141.33 Personnel. 

(a) * * * 

(4) In addition to meeting the 

requirements of paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section, each instructor used for the 

airline transport pilot certification 

training program in § 61.156 of this 

chapter must: 

(i) Hold an airline transport pilot 

certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating; 

(ii) Have at least 2 years of experience 

as a pilot in command in operations 

conducted under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or 

§ 135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or as a 

pilot in command or second in 

command in any operation conducted 

under part 121 of this chapter; and 

(iii) If providing training in a flight 

simulation training device, have 

received training and evaluation within 

the preceding 12 months from the 

certificate holder on— 

(A) Proper operation of flight 

simulator and flight training device 

controls and systems; 

(B) Proper operation of environmental 

and fault panels, 

(C) Data and motion limitations of 

simulation; 

(D) Minimum equipment 

requirements for each curriculum; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3
42380 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 135 / Monday, July 15, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(E) The maneuvers that will be 

demonstrated in the flight simulation 

training device. 

* * * * * 

■ 34. Amend Appendix K to Part 141 as 

follows: 

■ A. Revise paragraph 4.(b) and 4.(c). 

■ B. Add paragraph 13. 

Appendix K to Part 141—Special 

Preparation Courses 

* * * * * 

4. * * * 

(b) Except for the airline transport pilot 

certification program in paragraph 13 of this 

appendix, training in a flight simulator that 

meets the requirements of § 141.41(a) of this 

part, may be credited for a maximum of 10 

percent of the total flight training hour 

requirements of the approved course, or of 

this section, whichever is less. 

(c) Except for the airline transport pilot 

certification program in paragraph 13 of this 

appendix, training in a flight training device 

that meets the requirements of § 141.41(b) of 

this part, may be credited for a maximum of 

5 percent of the total flight training hour 

requirements of the approved course, or of 

this section, whichever is less. 

* * * * * 

13. Airline transport pilot certification 

training program. An approved airline 

transport pilot certification training program 

must include the academic and FSTD 

training set forth in § 61.156 of this chapter. 

The FAA will not approve a course with 

fewer hours than those prescribed in § 61.156 

of this chapter. 

PART 142—TRAINING CENTERS 

■ 35. The authority citation for part 142 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 

40119, 44101, 44701–44703, 44705, 44707, 

44709–44711, 45102–45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 36. Amend § 142.1 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 142.1 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart prescribes the 

requirements governing the certification 

and operation of training centers. Except 

as provided in paragraph (b) of this 

section, this part provides an alternative 

means to accomplish training required 

by parts 61, 63, 65, 91, 121, 125, 135, 

or 137 of this chapter. 

(b) * * * 

(2) Approved under subpart Y of part 

121 of this chapter, Advanced 

Qualification Programs, for the 

authorization holder’s own employees; 

* * * * * 

■ 37. Amend § 142.3 by revising 

paragraph (3) of the definition of Course 

and the definition of Flight training 

equipment to read as follows: 

§ 142.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Course means— 

* * * * * 

(3) A curriculum, or curriculum 

segment, as defined in subpart Y of part 

121 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

Flight training equipment means full 

flight simulators, as defined in § 1.1 of 

this chapter, flight training devices, as 

defined in § 1.1 of this chapter, and 

aircraft. 

* * * * * 

■ 38. Amend § 142.49 by revising 

paragraph (c)(3)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 142.49 Training center instructor and 

evaluator privileges and limitations. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) If instructing or evaluating in an 

aircraft in flight while serving as a 

required crewmember, holds at least a 

valid second class medical certificate; 

and 

* * * * * 

■ 39. Add § 142.54 to read as follows: 

§ 142.54 Airline transport pilot certification 

training program. 

No certificate holder may use a person 

nor may any person serve as an 

instructor in a training program 

approved to meet the requirements of 

§ 61.156 of this chapter unless the 

instructor: 

(a) Holds an airline transport pilot 

certificate with an airplane category 

multiengine class rating; 

(b) Has at least 2 years of experience 

as a pilot in command in operations 

conducted under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or 

§ 135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or as a 

pilot in command or second in 

command in any operation conducted 

under part 121 of this chapter; 

(c) Except for the holder of a flight 

instructor certificate, receives initial 

training on the following topics: 

(1) The fundamental principles of the 

learning process; 

(2) Elements of effective teaching, 

instruction methods, and techniques; 

(3) Instructor duties, privileges, 

responsibilities, and limitations; 

(4) Training policies and procedures; 

and 

(5) Evaluation. 

(d) If providing training in a flight 

simulation training device— 

(1) Holds an aircraft type rating for the 

aircraft represented by the flight 

simulation training device utilized in 

the training program and have received 

training and evaluation within the 

preceding 12 months from the certificate 

holder on the maneuvers that will be 

demonstrated in the flight simulation 

training device; and 

(2) Satisfies the requirements of 

§ 142.53(a)(4). 

(e) A certificate holder may not issue 

a graduation certificate to a student 

unless that student has completed all 

the curriculum requirements of the 

course. 

(f) A certificate holder must conduct 

evaluations to ensure that training 

techniques, procedures, and standards 

are acceptable to the Administrator. 

§ 142.55 [Amended] 

■ 40. Amend § 142.55 as follows: 

■ A. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the 

phrase ‘‘part 187’’ and add in its place 

the phrase ‘‘part 183’’; and 

■ B. In paragraph (d), remove the phrase 

‘‘SFAR 58’’ and add in its place the 

phrase ‘‘subpart Y of part 121 of this 

chapter’’. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 

44701(a), and Secs. 216–217, Public Law 

111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 on July 10, 2013. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16849 Filed 7–10–13; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES3