U.S. Department

of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

# DRAFT

Advisory
Circular

Subject: Guidance for Conducting and Use of Flight Standardization Board Evaluations. Date: Draft for
comment

Initiated by: AFS-200 AC No: 120-53B
Change:

1. PURPOSE. The FAA is seeking comment on this draft advisory c ircular (AC) which provides information and guidance on the supplement al notice of proposed rulemaking, Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers, which was published for comment on May 20, 2011. This advisory circula r (AC) describes an acceptable means, but not the only means, of compliance with the Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding training, qualification, and type rating of flight crewmembers operating under CFR
Part 121. Included are criteria for the determinati on and approval of training, checking, and currency necessary for the operation of aircraft. D etails of the systems, processes, and tests necessary to apply this AC are explained in the app endices. This AC is intended to enhance safety by:

• Providing a common method of assessing applicant pr ograms

• Directly relating pilot training and qualification requirements to fleet characteristics, operating concepts, and pilot assignments

• Permitting better planning and management of fleets , pilot assignments, and training resources by outlining what FAA requirements apply, what training resources or devices are needed, and what alternatives are possible

• Permitting timely and consistent decisions about fl eet acquisition, integration, modification, or phaseout associated with pilot tra ining, qualification, or pilot assignments

• Permitting manufacturers to design aircraft that ta ke advantage of new technology or their similarity with existing related aircraft, as appropriate to a particular operator’s fleet

• Encouraging cockpit standardization by crediting co mmonality and identifying necessary
constraints when differences exist

• Providing a recommended framework for application o f suitable credits or constraints to better address new technology and future safety enh ancementsAC 120-53B DRAFT MM/DD/YY

Page 2 Par 4 Comments to this draft AC may be submitted to the d ocket for the corresponding rulemaking, docket FAA 2008-0677 at www.regulations.gov before the comment period for the rulemaking
closes.

2. CANCELLATION. AC 120-53A, Guidance for Conducting and Use of Flig ht Standardization Board Evaluations, dated OCT 15, 20 08, would be cancelled upon review of the comments to this draft AC and publication of the fi nal rule and guidance material for this rulemaking.

3. FOCUS. This AC addresses aircraft manufacturers or modifi ers who design, test, and certificate aircraft. In addition, it reflects thos e changes in 14 CFR Part 121 which apply to operators whose pilots operate related aircraft of the same manufacturer in a mixed fleet and operators seeking credit for prior pilot experience with related aircraft of the same manufacturer.

4. DISCUSSION.

A System for Pilot Training and Qualification. The FAA specifies qualification criteria (minimum training, checking, and currency) for part icular aircraft through Flight Standardization Board (FSB) evaluations and findings. FSB findings are described in reports for specific aircraft. The reports provide guidance to certificate-holding district offices (CHDO) for use by principal operations inspectors (POI) and other inspectors. F SB reports may serve as a basis for the FAA to approve operators’ programs and for pilot certif ication.

When requested by industry, the Flight Standards Se rvice (AFS) of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), through the Aircraft Evaluati on Groups (AEG) will undertake an analysis
of new and derivative aircraft and their associated systems for the purpose of providing recommendations for training, checking, recency of experience and operating experience, as well as pilot certification. The FAA uses these analyse s to develop consistent and practical recommendations for the training, checking, currenc y, recent experience and certification of pilots for transport aircraft. These recommendatio ns are documented in FSB reports for each aircraft, and may be used by a certificate holder t o develop its training programs. FSB findings are described in reports for specific aircraft or r elated aircraft. The FSB report establishes provisions for training program modification for re lated aircraft for flightcrew members. The reports provide guidance to certificate-holding dis trict offices (CHDO) for use by principal operations inspectors (POI) and other inspectors. F SB report recommendations serve as a basis for the FAA to approve operators’ programs under CF R §121.1206 “Designation of Related Aircraft”, CFR §121.1215 “Modification of Training Programs”, and CFR §121.1230 “Deviation from the requirements of §121.1225 “Flight Crewmemb er Operating experience”, §121.1227 “Consolidation”, and §121.1229 “Recent experience.”

a. Changing Needs. Necessary support for the FSB process is provided b y the industry. In the past, procedures varied by manufacturer, indivi dual project, operator, and other factors including:MM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B

Par 5 Page 3 (1) Introduction of new and related aircraft and increa ses in the significance of modifications to existing aircraft, particularly wi th regard to engines or avionics.

(2) Integration of related fleets of aircraft following airline acquisitions or mergers.

(3) Increased dependence on leased aircraft, many of wh ich are configured differently than an operator’s basic fleet.

(4) A wider variety of equipment options available in new or retrofit aircraft.

(5) Introduction of new technology in cockpit enhancem ents.

5. SUMMARY OF REVISIONS. This AC describes necessary revisions and enhanceme nts to the FSB process to address uniform, systematic, tim ely, and comprehensive application of 14 CFR Part 121 in a changing and increasingly complex operational environment. This AC recognizes the concept of reduced differences betwe en related aircraft and defines the training, checking, currency, and recency of experience requi rements.

a. This AC revision clarifies, and introduces new term s and concepts. These include:

(1) Clarification of the terms “aircraft type certifica te” and “related aircraft”.

(2) The difference between currency and recency of expe rience is defined.

(3) A new definition of “common type rating” which defi nes a specific relationship between a type rating specific to a given type cert ificated aircraft with another type rating specific to a separate type certificated aircraft o f the same make. This new definition conforms to the current provisions of CFR Part 121. The applica bility of this definition is based on the levels
of difference between the aircraft.

(4) Modified checking requirements to embrace the conce pt of checking only at the
difference levels between related aircraft.

(5) A new term, “common takeoff and landing credit” (CT LC).

(6) An introduction of the T6 test to provide for CTLC (recency of experience) in mixed fleet flying between separate type-certificated air craft of the same make with common takeoff and landing characteristics. The intent of the T6 t est is to provide a comparison of aircraft that have not previously been evaluated for CTLC using t he T2 test.

(7) A means to identify and evaluate new technologies t hat may not be associated with an
aircraft evaluation.

(8) A distinction between supervised line flying (SLF) and operating experience (OE).

6. SETTING FAA REQUIREMENTS. The FSB process is made up of proposal development, testing, draft provisions formulation, FSB final determinations and FAA approval.Page 4 Par 6

a. Applicant’s Proposals. Aircraft manufacturers or modifiers usually initiat e proposals for formulation or amendment of FSB provisions. This is done in conjunction with application for aircraft type certification or supplemental type ce rtification of an aircraft or system. The FAA, operators, and, in certain instances, other organiz ations or individuals, may initiate proposals or
amendments.

b. Standardized Tests. A main element of the requirements formulation proc ess is the use of standardized testing to determine pilot training and qualification requirements. One or more of six tests are applied depending on the proposal’s d egree of differences between related aircraft, difference levels sought, and the outcome of any pr evious tests. Only the necessary tests are used. Tests may be waived or difference levels may be assigned based on operational experience.

c. FAA Formulation and Implementation of FSB Provision s. Following testing and formulation of draft provisions, FSB determinations are then made specifying Master Difference Requirements (MDR) and any necessary supporting inf ormation. Supporting information may pertain to operator certification, airmen certifica tion, and other items necessary for proper application of MDRs. FSB reports will be used in th e evaluation, certification, and approval of operators’ programs.

d. Revision of FSB Provisions. FSB reports are periodically updated when new or modified aircraft are introduced, when requested by an applicant based on OE, or when the FAA determines it is necessary for safety reasons.

e. Type Ratings. A new type rating is typically assigned when an air craft is built under a new type certificate. A new type rating may also be assigned if level E training differences are
determined between a candidate aircraft and the bas e aircraft. The type rating determination and any training, checking, and currency specifications established under the testing process of this AC are determined by evaluating the handling qualit ies and core pilot skills related to the
candidate aircraft.

7. OPERATOR COMPLIANCE WITH FAA REQUIREMENTS.

a. Obtaining FSB Information. Operators are advised of pertinent FSB information through FAA CHDOs and POIs. Operators may also obta in FSB information from aircraft manufacturers or modifiers, other operators, or oth er aviation organizations that maintain awareness of FAA policies, and the Web site http:// www.opspecs.com.

b. Certificated Operator Compliance with Mixed Fleet F lying. When aircraft are flown in mixed fleets, certificated operators will comply with the applicable 14 CFR Part 121 requirements and the associated QPS. Certificated operators operating related aircraft who have received approval for modifications to flightcrew t raining and qualification as provided by
121.1215 will comply with Operator Difference Requirements ( ODR) as approved by their Certificate Management Office (CMO) or Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO) and concurred by the Air Transportation Division, AFS-2 00. For operation of related aircraft in mixed fleets the certificated operators identify a base aircraft, describing differences that exist
between their base aircraft and the candidate aircr aft, and by specifying particular means of compliance to satisfy MDRs. Sample FSB ODRs provide guidance for the approval of anPar 8 Page 5

operator’s mixed fleet flying program and specify n ecessary constraints or permissible credits. The description of specific differences and complia nce methods are identified in the operator’s ODRs. Constraints or credits may relate to knowledg e, skills, Flight Simulator Training Devices (FSTDs), maneuvers, checks, currency, or any other factors necessary for safe operations. Constraints or credits may be applied generally or only to specific aircraft or pilot positions. Once approved, the operator’s program will be condu cted in accordance with (IAW) these approved ODRs. ODR proposals are provided to the FA A CHDO in a standard tabular format and are approved by POIs only if they meet MDRs and other pertinent FSB provisons. The operator may apply to amend the ODRs when changes o ccur in the base aircraft, comparison aircraft, and/or FSTDs that affect the approval bas is of the ODRs.

8. APPLICATION OF FSB PROVISIONS TO AIRMEN CERTIFICATI ON. The evaluation items that FSB reports specify include t he following:

• Knowledge

• Skills

• Abilities

• Maneuvers

• Performance criteria

• Other relevant items for proficiency checking

9. FSTD APPROVALS.

a. FSTDs are associated with each of the training diff erence levels. FSTDs are approved for particular operators by their POIs IAW CFR Part 60 and 121.1345. In some instances, standard FSTD criteria may not be appropriate for new techno logy. The FSB may specify additional criteria in FSB reports in these instances.

10. REVIEW AND APPROVAL. This is a process for review of FSB evaluations and approval of FSB reports.

11. APPEAL OF FAA DECISIONS. The Director, Flight Standards Service, AFS-1, assi gns responsibility to resolve appeals of the FSB findin gs

John Allen Director, Flight Standards ServiceMM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B Appendix 1

Page 1 APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. DEFINITIONS.....................................

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

2. REFERENCES (current editions)...................

................................................... ........................5AC 120-53B DRAFT MM/DD/YY

Appendix 1

Page 2 APPENDIX 1. DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES

1. DEFINITIONS.

NOTE: Definitions provided in Appendix 1 apply excl usively to this advisory circular (AC).

a. Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG). FAA organization that sets training, checking, currency, type rating, Master Minimum Equipment Lis t (MMEL), and maintenance standards for assigned certificated aircraft types. AEGs also address operational aspects of aircraft type
certification and resolution of service difficultie s.

b. Applicant. For the purposes of this AC, an applicant may be a manufacturer, modifier, or operator.

c. Base Aircraft. An aircraft designated by the applicant and used a s a reference to compare differences with another aircraft.

d. Candidate Aircraft. The aircraft that will be subjected to the FSB eva luation process outlined in this AC for comparison purposes.

e. Check. An assessment of crewmember proficiency during whi ch limited training or practice is allowed. The assessment is of knowledge and skill in tasks to the standards identified and required by the appropriate QPS. If the check i s given for the purpose of flight crew member
certification it will be considered a test. That te st is an assessment of crewmember proficiency during which additional training or practice is not allowed.

f. Common Type Rating. “Common type rating” is a term used in FSB reports to describe a relationship between type ratings for aircraft wi th different type certificates that are defined in 14 CFR Part 121 as “related” having no greater than a level D training differences. The type rating for a certificated aircraft can be determine d to be related to another type rating of another certificated aircraft of the same make provided the aircraft meet the criteria of the T1 (equivalence) or the T2 (handling characteristics) and T3 (core pilot skills with no greater than level D differences). The pilot who is receiving a type rating on the basis of being related must be current and qualified in the base aircraft at th e time of the check and is issued a type rating after receiving differences training and checking o n the candidate related aircraft. This check is not a “full” proficiency check, but an abbreviated check on the differences from the base to the candidate aircraft. The differences check, unless i t includes the requirements for a recurrent check, cannot reset the “recurrent clock” (a pilot’ s base month for checking purposes).

g. Common Takeoff and Landing Credit (CTLC). CTLC is a program/process that allows recency of experience credit between related aircraft (same make) with the same or different type certificate data sheets (TCDS) that can be demonstrated to have the same handling and flying characteristics during the following:



### • Takeoff and initial climbMM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B Appendix 1

Page 3 

### • Approach and landing, including the establishment o f final landing configuration

NOTE: The T6 test is used for aircraft that were no t tested (T2) during the initial aircraft evaluation for type rating designa tion.

h. Configuration. Aircraft physical features, which are distinguishab le by pilots, with respect to differences in systems, cockpit geometry , visual cutoff angles, controls, displays, aircraft geometry, and/or number of required pilots

.
i. Currency. Currency is the recent experience necessary for the safe operation of aircraft, equipment, and systems as designated by the Flight Standardization Board (FSB).

j. Difference Levels. Difference levels are formally designated levels of training methods or devices, checking methods, or currency methods t hat satisfy differences requirements between related aircraft. A range of five difference levels in order of increasing requirements, identified as A through E, are specified for training, checkin g, and currency purposes.

k. Differences Training. Training required before any person may serve as a required crewmember on an aircraft of a type for which diffe rences training is included in the certificate holder’s approved training program.

l. Differences Check. A partial proficiency check of the qualification o f a pilot at the
difference levels between related aircraft. A diffe rences check can be between series of aircraft on the same aircraft type certificate (TC) or betwe en aircraft of separate aircraft TCs of the same
manufacturer and is based on the certificate holder ’s approved training and qualification

program.

m. Flight Characteristics. Flight characteristics are handling characteristic s or performance characteristics perceivable by a pilot. Flight char acteristics relate to the natural aerodynamic response of an aircraft, particularly as affected b y changes in configuration and/or flight path parameters (e.g., flight control use, flap extensio n/retraction, airspeed change, etc.).

n. Flight Operations Evaluation Board (FOEB). The FOEB is responsible for preparation and revision of Master Minimum Equipment Lists (MME Ls). The board members are drawn
from the FAA.

p. Flight Simulator Training Device (FSTD). A Full Flight Simulator (FFS) or a Flight Training Device (FTD).

q. Flight Standardization Board (FSB). The FSB is responsible for specification of minimum training, checking, currency, and type rati ng requirements, if necessary, for U.S.
certificated civil aircraft. The board members are drawn from the FAA (AEG, Headquarters, Flight Standards field offices operations personnel ).

r. Handling Characteristics. The manner in which the aircraft responds with res pect to rate and magnitude of pilot initiated control input s to the primary flight control surfaces (e.g., ailerons, elevator, rudder, spoilers, cyclic, colle ctive, etc.).Page 3 (and 6)

s. Line Oriented Flying (LOF). The LOF phase of the test is used at the discretio n of the FSB during the T3 test to validate the proposed tra ining and checking. The LOF fully assesses particular difference areas, examines implications of mixed fleet flying, assesses special circumstances such as minimum equipment list (MEL) effects, and evaluates the effects of pilot errors potentially associated with the differences.

t. Master Difference Requirements (MDR). MDRs are those requirements applicable to pilot training and qualifications that pertain to d ifferences between related aircraft. MDRs are specified by the FSB in terms of the minimum differ ence levels. MDRs form the basis for an operator to develop their operator differences requ irements (ODR).

u. Mixed Fleet Flying. Mixed fleet flying is the operation of a base airc raft and one or more related aircraft for which credit may be taken for training and/or checking events. The FSB process defines minimum training, checking, and cur rency difference levels between related
aircraft.

v. Operational Characteristics. As used with respect to aircraft, means those feat ures that are distinguishable by limitations, flight characte ristics, normal procedures, nonnormal procedures, alternate or supplementary procedures, or maneuvers.

w. Operator Difference Requirements (ODR). If differences exist within an operator’s fleet that affect pilot knowledge, skills, or abili ties pertinent to systems or procedures, ODR tables provide a uniform means for operators to com prehensively manage difference programs and provide a basis for FAA approval of mixed fleet flying.

x. Recency of Experience

. With respect to flight experience as required by 14 CFR 121.1229, means a pilot’s completion of the require d number of takeoffs and landings as sole manipulator of the controls within a specified peri od of time.

y. Related Aircraft. Any two or more aircraft of the same make with eith er the same or different type certification data sheets that have been demonstrated and determined to have commonality to the extent that credit between those aircraft may be applied for training, checking, recency of experience, or operating exper ience, as authorized by the FAA

.

z. Same Type Rating. A type rating is assigned when no greater than a l evel D training
difference is determined between a series of aircra ft with the same aircraft TCs.

aa. Series. Aircraft sharing the same aircraft Type Certificat ion (TC). Specific variations that are usually defined by the manufacturer and usually result in an amended aircraft TC.

bb. Supplementary Procedures. Those procedures that are identified in the Flight Crew Operation Manual (FCOM) under the section “Suppleme ntary Procedures” describing procedures not described under the “Normal Procedur es” or “Nonnormal Procedures” sections.Page 4

cc. Supervised Line Flying (SLF). Supervised experience associated with the introduct ion of equipment or procedures requiring post qualifica tion skill enhancement during which a pilot occupies a specific pilot position and performs par ticular assigned duties for that pilot position under the supervision of a qualified company instru ctor or check airman.

dd. Training Footprint. A training footprint is a summary description of a training program, usually in short tabular form, showing training sub jects, modules, procedures, maneuvers or other program elements, which are planned for compl etion during each day or phase of training.

ee. Type Rating. A type rating is a “one time”, permanent endorseme nt on a pilot certificate indicating that the holder of the certificate has c ompleted the appropriate training and qualification as required by 14 CFR 121.1333. It is recorded by the FAA on the pilot’s certificate indicating the make, model, and series of aircraft, if applicable.

2. REFERENCES (current editions).

• Title 14 CFR Part 121

• Title 14 CFR Part 60

• Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Manageme nt System

• AC 61-89, Pilot Certificates, Aircraft Type Ratings

• AC 120-35, Line Operational Simulations: Line Orien ted Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line Operational Eval uation

• AC 120-40, Airplane Simulator Qualification

• AC 120-45, Airplane Flight Training Device Qualific ation

• AC 120-51, Crew Resource Management Training

• FAA-S-8081-5, Aircraft Type Rating Practical Test S tandards for AirplaneMM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B Appendix 2

Page 1 APPENDIX 2. PILOT TRAINING, QUALIFICATION, AND PILO T RATING REQUIREMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PURPOSE.........................................

................................................... ................................4

2. FOCUS.............................................

................................................... ................................4

3. INTRODUCTION a. A Comprehensive System for Pilot Training and Qu alification................................. 4 b. Master Differences Requirements (MDR) Set by FAA .............................................. 4 c. Specification of Constraints or Credits.........

................................................... ........... 4 d. Recognition of Unique Operator Characteristics..

................................................... ... 4 e. Basis for Requirements..........................

................................................... .................. 5 f. Relationship to other FAA Policies. .............

................................................... ........... 5

4. CONCEPTS a. An Integrated System for Pilot Training and Qual ification........................................ 5
b. MDRs............................................

................................................... ........................... 5
c. Difference Levels...............................

................................................... ...................... 8 d. Training Difference Levels......................

................................................... ................ 9 e. Checking Difference Levels ......................

................................................... ............ 11 f. Currency Difference Levels......................

................................................... ............. 12 g. Operating Experience (OE) for Aircraft ..........

................................................... ...... 15 h. Supervised Line Flying (SLF) ....................

................................................... ........... 15 i. Recency of Experience. ..........................

................................................... ............... 16 j. Operator Difference Requirements (ODR)..........

................................................... .. 16

5. FORMULATION OF FSB REPORTS, MDRs, AND DESIGNATIO N OF TYPE RATINGS. a. Requirements Formulation Process Overview.......

................................................... .... 24 b. Proposals for MDRs, Example ODRs, and Special Re quirements ................................ 24
c. Difference Level Tests. .........................

................................................... ................... 27 d. FSB Assessments and Proposal Formulation. .......

................................................... .... 27
e. Comments Solicited..............................

................................................... ................. 31 f. FSB Final Determinations and Findings...........

................................................... ..... 31 g. FSB Report Preparation Distribution and FAA Appl ication. ................................... 32 h. FSB Report Revision. ............................

................................................... ................ 33

6. OPERATOR’S APPLICATION OF FSB PROVISIONS, PREPAR ATION, USE, AND
REVISION OF ODRs.
a. General.........................................

................................................... .......................... 34 b. Application of MDRs and Preparation and Use of O DRs. ....................................... 34 c. Selecting Base Aircraft. ........................

................................................... ................. 35 d. Identification of Differences and the Analysis o f Effects of Those Differences...... 35 e. Identification of Compliance Methods. ...........

................................................... ...... 36 f. When Proposed ODR Compliance Methods Do Not Meet MDRs........................... 36AC 120-53B DRAFT MM/DD/YY

Appendix 2

Page 2 g. Application, Review and Approval................

................................................... ........ 36 h. Implementation Provisions Transition Period. ....

................................................... .. 37
i. ODR Revision....................................

................................................... .................... 37

7. FAA REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OPERATOR PROGRAMS
a. General.........................................

................................................... .......................... 40 b. Operator Application of ODRs. ...................

................................................... .......... 40
c. Base and Other Aircraft Identification..........

................................................... ......... 41 d. Approval of ODRs. ...............................

................................................... ................. 42
e. FSB Revision of MDRs or Other FSB Provisions.... ................................................ 42 f. Proving Tests. ..................................

................................................... ...................... 43 g. Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) or SLF.....

................................................... . 43
h. OE ..............................................

................................................... ............................ 43
i. Limitations on the Total Number of Related Aircr aft .............................................. 43 j. Compliance Checklist for CHDOs..................

................................................... ....... 43
k. Aircraft That Do Not Have an FSB Report ........

................................................... ... 44

8. APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS TO AIRMEN CERTIFICAT ION.
a. General.........................................

................................................... .......................... 44 b. Checks Regarding Complex Systems. ...............

................................................... .... 44

9. FSTD APPROVAL.................................................................................44

a. NSP Representation to the FSB.............................................................4 4

10. REVIEW AND APPROVAL... .........................

................................................... .............44

11. APPEAL OF FAA DECISIONS ........................

................................................... ............45



### ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1. Master Difference Requirements (MDR) Tabl e Example.......................................... 7

Figure 2. Difference Level Table ...................

................................................... .......................15

Figure 3-1. Design Operator Differences Requirement s Table Example.................................... 18

Figure 3-2. Systems Operator Differences Requiremen ts Table Example..................................1 9

Figure 3-3. Maneuver Operator Difference Requiremen ts Table Example ................................23

Figure 4. Master Requirements Formulation ..........

................................................... ..............28

Figure 5. Test Definitions.........................

................................................... .............................29

Figure 6. “T” Tests 1 Thru 5 .......................

................................................... ..........................30

Figure 7. Standard Method and FSTDs................

................................................... .................32MM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B Appendix 2

Page 3 Figure 8. FSB Process ..............................

................................................... .............................39

APPENDIX 2. PILOT TRAINING, QUALIFICATION, AND PILO T RATING REQUIREMENTSAC 120-53B DRAFT MM/DD/YY

Appendix 2

Page 4 1. PURPOSE. This appendix describes a comprehensive system for pilot Training and qualifications outlined in this advisory circular ( AC). It includes definitions, criteria, processes, tests, methods, and procedures necessary for unifor m application of the system.

2. FOCUS. The appendix applies to and is used by:

• Aircraft manufacturers or modifiers who design, tes t, and certificate under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

• Operator, manufacturer, or other training centers h aving programs approved for use under
14 CFR Part 121.

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) offices and i nspectors administering programs
under 14 CFR Part 121.

3. INTRODUCTION.

a. A Comprehensive System for Pilot Training and Quali fication. This AC and its appendices provide a systematic means to address re quirements for training, checking, and currency within applicable 14 CFR Part 121. Definit ions, criteria, processes, procedures, tests, and methods are consistent with and clarify applica tion of current rules in particular situations for specific aircraft. This AC describes a comprehe nsive system for the FAA and industry to evaluate and approve use of particular aircraft and operator programs. The respective roles of training, checking, and currency are clarified. Thi s includes defining the role and criteria for designation of type ratings for existing, new, or m odified aircraft. The system is particularly suited to addressing transition, differences progra ms, and mixed fleet flying. The system aids in assuring that pilots attain and maintain the knowle dge, skills, and abilities needed to operate assigned aircraft safely.

b. Master Differences Requirements (MDR) Set by FAA. The FAA’s Flight Standardization Board (FSB) sets MDRs to address di fferences between related aircraft.

c. Specification of Constraints or Credits. The system permits the specification of constraints or permissible credits. Constraints or credits may relate to knowledge, skills, abilities, FSTDs, maneuvers, checks, currency, or any other su ch factors necessary for safe operations. Constraints or credits may apply generally to aircr aft, particular pilot positions, or other
situations or conditions.

d. Recognition of Unique Operator Characteristics. The system recognizes the unique characteristics of individual operators while achie ving uniformity in application of FAA safety
standards. FAA MDRs determine uniform bounds to tai lor individual operator’s unique requirements to a particular fleet and situation. P rincipal operations inspectors (POI) approve each operator’s unique requirements within FAA MDRs . Operator unique requirements accommodate particular combinations of related airc raft flown, pilot assignment policies, training methods and devices, and other factors tha t relate to the application of the FAA MDRs. Accordingly, the system preserves operator flexibil ity while standardizing the FAA’s role inMM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B Appendix 2

Page 5 review, approval, and monitoring of training, check ing, currency, and mixed fleet flying programs as applicable to14 CFR Part 121.

e. Basis for Requirements. The determination of type rating, minimum differenc es training, checking and currency requirements focus on basic operation of aircraft in the National Airspace System (NAS) under both instrument flight rules (IFR) and visual flight rules (VFR). Included are all flight phases from preflight to sh utdown under both normal and nonnormal
conditions.

f. Relationship to other FAA Policies. Although this AC, and the FSB provisions in some instances, address particular types of operations o r specific aircraft systems (e.g., use of flight guidance control systems for Category II/III instru ment approaches, long-range navigation, etc.), other ACs address these issues more thoroughly. Thi s AC and FSB provisions address such issues only to the extent necessary to assure that pilots are qualified to operate pertinent systems or equipment as part of initial or continuing quali fication.

4. CONCEPTS.

a. An Integrated System for Pilot Training and Qualifi cation.

(1) System Elements. An integrated FAA/applicant system and process est ablished to determine appropriate requirements, applies the req uirements, and meets those requirements on a continuing basis, for uniform pilot Training and qu alification.

(2) System Overview. The system uniformly applies FAA master requiremen ts in a way that tailors a particular aircraft, to any operator ’s unique situation or fleet. The FAA approves unique operator and fleet requirements for each ope rator based on FAA master requirements. The system develops FAA master requirements based o n objective criteria and tests, with applicants’ support for analysis, and testing. FSB reports for related aircraft describe FAA master requirements. MDRs express FAA master requirements (the minimum acceptable difference levels between related aircraft). An operator’s tra ining program, checklist, operations manuals, pilot certification, CTLC programs, and other such approvals are by-products of compliance with MDRs. Operators comply with MDRs using unique ODRs, tailored to that operator’s programs and approved by the FAA. ODRs, based on and in comp liance with the MDRs, specify requirements uniquely applicable to a particular op erator’s mixed fleet flying situation. An operator’s specific document describes ODRs by iden tifying a base aircraft, differences between related aircraft, and that operator’s compliance me thods for each related aircraft. Paragraph 4j describes ODRs. Paragraph 6 describes ODR preparati on and use. Paragraph 7 describes FAA approval of ODRs.

b. MDRs.

(1) MDR Applicability. MDRs are those requirements applicable to pilot tr aining and qualification that pertain to differences between r elated aircraft. MDRs specify the minimum acceptable difference levels between related aircra ft that may be approved for operators. One related aircraft is selected by the applicant as a reference for comparison purposes and is considered a base aircraft. This is typically the f irst aircraft on which pilots are qualified, or is the aircraft of which an operator has the largest n umber. Difference levels between the baseAC 120-53B DRAFT MM/DD/YY

Appendix 2

Page 6 aircraft and other related aircraft then specify th e minimum difference requirements to be met for pilot training and qualification. Major differences in a particular fleet are defined between groups of related aircraft rather than specifying differen ces between each possible configuration and combination of configurations between related aircr aft. MDRs are specified in terms of training, checking, and currency difference levels described in paragraph 4d and are shown on an MDR
table.

(2) MDR Content. MDRs specify the minimum training, checking, and c urrency acceptable to the FAA for pilot training and qualif ication regarding differences.

(3) MDR Formulation, Description, and Revision. MDRs are formulated by the FAA FSB for each related aircraft. MDRs are originally specified when an aircraft is first type certificated. MDRs are formulated using standardize d tests and evaluations in conjunction with the type certification or supplemental type certifi cation process. MDRs are based on an applicant’s (usually an aircraft manufacturer) prop osal, FAA evaluation of that proposal, OE, and test results when tests are necessary. FSB dete rminations also consider operator recommendations, safety history, and other relevant information. MDRs are described in provisions of an FSB report and may be revised if n ecessary. MDRs are revised when aircraft are developed or modified, tests or OE shows a need for revision, a revision is requested by an applicant and evidence indicates the need for revis ion, or rules or FAA policies change. MDRs are revised by a process similar to that used for i nitial formulation of requirements.

(4) MDR Use. MDRs are applied to specific operators through for mally described ODRs that are developed by and tailored to each ope rator. FAA field offices use the MDRs as the basis for approval of individual operator’s dif ferences programs for approval of initial or transition programs where credit for previous train ing or experience with other related aircraft is sought.

(5) The MDR Table. An example of typical MDRs for the B-737-200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, and 900 is shown in Figure 1. MDR ta ble requirements are shown for each pair of aircraft by notations in each element of correspond ing columns and rows of the table. Each
element of the table identifies the minimum differe nces training, checking, and currency requirements applicable to mixed fleet flying. The MDR table identifies a pertinent base aircraft and particular aircraft for which requirements are sought. Note the minimum difference levels that correspond to the pertinent column and row, an d special requirements in footnotes, if applicable.

(6) Use of Higher or Lower Difference Levels. Operators will satisfy difference requirements by using the methods acceptable for th e specified level or a higher level. Lower level methods may be used in addition to the requir ed levels but may not substitute for the required level or be used exclusively instead of th e required level.Page 7 FIGURE 1. MASTER DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS (MDR) TABLE

(7) Differences within a Series. Differences may exist even within series shown on an MDR table, such as within the A-318/319/320/321 ser ies. MDR elements may show requirements from one series to another identified in the footnotes. Such requirements however, apply only if pertinent differences exist between t hose aircraft.

(8) More than One Related Aircraft. When an operator assigns a pilot to more than one related aircraft of the same type certificate ( ie B -737-100/200/300/400/500/next generation), or more than one related aircraft of different type certificates (ie A-320, A-330, and A-340), each pertinent requirement of the MDR table applies.

(9) Special Requirements.

(a) MDR Footnotes. Footnotes can be used to credit, constrain, or set alternate levels when special situations apply. Use of footnotes per mits accommodation of variations in installed equipment, options, pilot knowledge or experience o n other aircraft, training methods or devices, or other factors that are not addressed by basic le vels between aircraft. For example, a footnote

FROM AIRCRAFT TYPE RATING:
B-737 B-737 BASIC

B-737-100, 200 (SP77) B-737-200

ADV B-737-300,

400, 500 (NON-EFIS) B-737-300,

400, 500 (EFIS) B-737-600,

700, 800, 900

B-737 BASIC B-737-100, 200 (SP77) A/A/A

(2) NAV-B/B/C (6) PMS-C/B/C B/A/B

(2) NAV-B/B/C (6) PMS-C/B/C C*/C*/D C*/C*/D D/D/D

B-737-200 ADV B/A/B

(1) PDCS-

C/B/C (2) NAV-B/B/C (4) AFCS-

C/B/C (6) PMS-C/B/C A/A/A

(1) PDCS-

C/B/C (2) NAV-B/B/C (4) AFCS-

C/B/C (6) PMS-C/B/C C*/C*/D

(1) PDCS-

B/B/C (2) NAV-B/B/C (5) LIMITED
FMS-C/B/C C*/C*/D

(1) PDCS-

B/B/C (2) NAV-B/B/C D/D/D

(1) PDCS-

B/B/C (2) NAV-B/B/C

B-737-300, 400,
500 (NON-EFIS) C*/C*/D

(5) LIMITED
FMS-C/B/C C*/C*/D

(5) LIMITED
FMS-C/B/C A/A/A

(7) CROSS
MODEL-

A/A/B C/B/B (8) C/B/B

B-737-300, 400,
500 (EFIS) (3) C*/C*/D

(5) LIMITED
FMS-C/B/C (3) C*/C*/D

(5) LIMITED
FMS-C/B/C (3) C/B/B A/A/A (7) CROSS
MODEL-

A/A/B (8) C/B/B

(9) PFD/ND-

D/C/CTO AIRCRAFT

B-737-600, 700, 800, 900 D/D/D D/D/D (8) C/B/B (9) PFD/ND-

D/C/C (8) C/B/B

(9) PFD/ND-

D/C/C A/A/A

(9) PFD/ND-

D/C/C (11) EDFCS-

C/C/CPage 8

may allow credit or apply constraints to the use of a particular flight guidance control system (FGCS), flight management system (FMS), or electron ic flight instrument system (EFIS), which is installed on aircraft. Footnotes are an appropri ate means to address requirements that relate to specific systems (e.g., flight director and FMS) ra ther than a particular aircraft. In such instances, generic knowledge or experience with the particular system may be readily transferable between related aircraft. Footnotes may also be used to set different requirements for initial training or checking rather than for recurrent training or chec king. When necessary, footnotes are fully described in the body of the FSB report.

(b) Other Limitations. Other limitations may occasionally be identified w ithin a difference level (e.g. C*/C*/C). The asterisk follo wing the difference level in such instances identifies a special requirement or limitation pert aining to a particular training method or device. Such notes typically relate to acceptable FSTDs whe n the FSTD evaluation and approval process
or standard criteria of this AC are not available t o address a particular situation appropriately.

(10) MDRs for Aircraft with the Same or Different Type C ertificate. A single FSB report and MDR table may apply to aircraft that are assigned the same type certificate with the same type rating. For example, a single MDR table m ay cover the A-318/319/320/321. A single FSB report and MDR table may also apply to differen t type certificated aircraft. For example, a single MDR table may cover the B-757 and B-767 or t he A320, A330, and A340. When level E training is required for an aircraft with a same ai rcraft TC and an additional type rating is assigned, such as the B-747 and B-747-400, a single MDR table for all series of a typecertificated aircraft still applies. Minimum accept able difference levels are assigned based on standard tests described in Appendix 3.

c. Difference Levels.

(1) General Description. Difference levels are formally designated levels o f training methods or devices, checking methods, or means of m aintaining currency that satisfy minimum difference requirements or type rating requirements . Difference levels specify FAA requirements proportionate to and corresponding with increasing differences between related aircraft. A range of five difference levels in order of increasing re quirements, identified as A through E, are each specified for training, checking, and currency. MDR s are specified in terms of difference levels. Difference levels are used to credit knowledge, ski lls, and abilities applicable to an aircraft for which a pilot is already qualified and current, dur ing initial, transition or upgrade training for other related aircraft. Operators, who conduct mixe d fleet flying where credit is sought, should apply difference levels and address all mixed fleet flying requirements to ensure compliance with FAA requirements necessary to assure safe operation s.

(2) Basis for Levels. Difference levels apply when a difference with pot ential to affect fight safety exists between related aircraft. Diffe rences may also affect knowledge, skills, or abilities required of a pilot. If no differences ex ist or if differences exist but do not affect knowledge, skills, abilities or flight safety, then difference levels are not assigned nor are they applicable to pilot training and qualification. Whe n difference levels A through E apply, each
difference level is based on a scale of differences in design features, systems, or maneuvers. In assessing the effects of differences, both flight c haracteristics and procedures are considered,Page 9

since flight characteristics address handling quali ties and performance, while procedures include normal and abnormal/nonnormal/emergency items.

(3) Relationship Between Training, Checking, and Curren cy Levels. While particular aircraft are often assigned the same lev el (e.g., C/C/C) for training, checking, and currency, such assignment is not necessary. Levels may be assigned independently. For example, an aircraft may be assigned level C for training, l evel D for checking, and level C for currency (e.g., C/D/C).

(4) Designation of Related Aircraft Type Ratings. Candidate aircraft having the same TC are assigned the same type rating if training di fferences are no greater than level D. Candidate aircraft of the same make having differen t TCs that have training differences no greater than level D will be assigned a different t ype rating that is considered a common type rating to the base aircraft. Candidate aircraft of the same make that have E level training difference requirements will be assigned a differen t type rating. A candidate aircraft with systems such as heads-up display (HUD), Enhanced Vi sion Systems (EVS), or Synthetic Visions Systems (SVS) may require Level E training without requiring a new type rating. The FSB, with the concurrence of the Air Transportation Division, AFS–200, will make these determinations.

d. Training Difference Levels.

(1) Level A Training. Level A difference training is that differences tr aining between related aircraft that can adequately be addressed t hrough self-instruction. Level A training represents a knowledge requirement that, once appro priate information is provided, understanding and compliance can be assumed. Level A compliance is achieved by such methods as issuance of operating manual page revisi ons, dissemination of operating bulletins, or
differences handouts to describe minor differences in aircraft. Level A training is limited to the following situations:

(a) A change that introduces a different version of a s ystem/component for which the pilot has already shown the ability to understa nd and use (e.g., an updated version of an engine).

(b) A change that results in minor or no procedural cha nges and does not adversely effect safety if the information is not reviewed or forgotten (e.g., a different vibration damping engine mount is installed, expect more vibration in descent; logo lights are installed, use is optional).

(c) Information that highlights a difference, which is evident to the pilot, inherently obvious, and easily accommodated (e.g., different l ocation of a communication radio panel, a different exhaust gas temperature limit that is pla carded, or changes to nonnormal “read and do” procedures).

(2) Level B Training. Level B difference training is applicable to aircr aft with system or procedure differences that can adequately be add ressed through aided instruction. At level B, aided instruction is appropriate to ensure pilot un derstanding, emphasize issues, provide a standardized method of presenting material, or aid retention of material following training. Level B aided instruction can utilize slide/tape pr esentations, computer based tutorial instruction,Page 10

stand-up lectures or video tapes. Situations not co vered under the provisions of level A training may require level B (or higher levels) if certain t ests described in later paragraphs fail.

(3) Level C Training. Level C differences training can only be accomplis hed through use of devices that are capable of systems training . Level C differences training is applicable to related aircraft having part task differences that affect skills or abilities and knowledge. Training highly integrated flight operations and maneuvers i n “real time.” Level C may require selfinstruction or aided instruction, but cannot be ade quately addressed by a knowledge requirement alone. Training devices are required to supplement instruction, ensure attainment or retention of pilot skills and abilities, and accomplish the more complex tasks, usually related to operation of particular aircraft systems. While level C systems knowledge or skills relate to specific rather than fully integrated tasks, performance of steps t o accomplish normal, nonnormal, alternate, recall procedures, or maneuvers related to particu lar systems (e.g., flight guidance control systems/flight management systems) may be necessary . Typically, the minimum acceptable training media for level C training would be intera ctive computer-based training, cockpit systems FSTD, cockpit procedure trainers or part task train ers (e.g., FMS or traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS)).

(4) Level D Training. Level D training can only be accomplished with dev ices capable of performing flight maneuvers and addressing full task differences of knowledge, skills, and/or abilities. Devices capable of flight maneuvers addr ess full task performance in a dynamic real time environment. The devices enable integration of knowledge, skills, and abilities in a simulated flight environment, involving combination s of operationally oriented tasks and realistic task loading for each relevant phase of f light. Level D training, knowledge, and skills to complete necessary normal, nonnormal, alternate, or recall procedures are fully addressed for each related aircraft. Level D differences training requires mastery of interrelated skills that cannot be adequately addressed by separate acquisit ion of a series of knowledge areas or skills
that are interrelated. The differences are not so s ignificant that a full transition training course i s required. If demonstrating interrelationships betwe en the systems is important, use of a series of separate devices for systems training will not suff ice. Training for level D differences requires a training device that has accurate, high fidelity in tegration of systems and controls, and realistic instrument indications. Level D training may also r equire maneuvers, visual cues, motion cues, dynamics, control loading or specific environmental conditions. Weather phenomenon such as low visibility, CAT III, or windshear may or may no t be incorporated. Where simplified or generic characteristics of an aircraft type are use d in devices to satisfy difference level D training, significant negative training must not oc cur as a result of the simplification. Typically, the minimum acceptable training media for level D t raining would be Flight Training Device
level 6.

(5) Level E Training. Level E training is applicable to candidate aircra ft having such significant full task differences that require a “h igh fidelity” environment to attain or maintain knowledge, skills, or abilities. Training at level E can only be satisfied by the use of a FFS qualified at level C or D consistent with FAA crite ria. Level E training, if done in an aircraft, should be modified for safety reasons where maneuve rs can result in a high degree of risk (i.e., an engine set at idle thrust to simulate an engine failure). As with other levels, when level EPage 11

training is assigned, suitable credit or constraint s may be applied for knowledge, skills, and/or abilities related to other pertinent related aircra ft. Credits or constraints are specified for the subjects, procedures, or maneuvers shown in FSB rep orts and are applied through the ODR table.

NOTE: Training differences levels specified by the FSB represent minimum requirements. Operators may use a device associated with a higher difference level to satisfy a training differences requirement. For example, if
level C differences are assessed due to installatio n of a different FMS, operators may train pilots using the FMS installed in a FFS as a system trainer if a dedicated part task FMS training devic e is not available.

e. Checking Difference Levels.

(1) Initial and Recurrent Checking. Difference checking addresses any pertinent pilot certification that includes type rating checks, pro ficiency checks, Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) evaluations, and any other checks spe cified by FSB reports. Initial and recurrent checking levels are the same unless otherwise speci fied by the FSB. In certain instances, it may be possible to satisfactorily accomplish recurrent checking objectives in devices that do not meet initial checking requirements. In such instances, t he FSB may recommend certain devices that do not meet initial check requirements for use to admi nister recurring checks. The POI/Training Center Program Manager, in coordination with the FS B, may require checking in the initial level device when doubt exists regarding pilot comp etency or program adequacy.

(2) Level A Checking. Level A checking indicates that no check related t o differences is required at the time of differences training. A pilot is responsible for knowledge of each
related aircraft flown. Differences items should be included as an integral part of subsequent recurring proficiency checks.

(3) Level B Checking. Level B checking indicates that a “task” or “syste ms” check is required following transition and recurring differe nces training. Level B checking typically applies to particular tasks or systems such as FMS, TCAS, or other individual systems or related groups of systems.

(4) Level C Checking. Level C checking requires a partial proficiency ch eck using a device suitable for meeting level C (or higher) dif ferences training requirements following transition and recurrent differences training. The partial check is conducted relative to particular maneuvers or systems designated by the FSB. Example of a level C check: Evaluation of a sequence of maneuvers demonstrating a pilot’s abili ty to use a FGCS or FMS. An acceptable scenario would include each relevant phase of fligh t that uses the FGCS or FMS.

(5) Level D Checking. Level D checking requires a partial proficiency che ck for one or more related aircraft following both transition and recurrent training. The partial proficiency check covers the particular maneuvers, systems, or devices designated by the FSB. Level D checks are performed using scenarios representing a “real time” flight environment and devices permitted for level D differences training. A full proficiency check is typically conducted on the base aircraft, and a partial proficiency check on t he related aircraft, covering all pertinent
differences.Page 12

(6) Level E Checking. Unless specified, level E checking requires that a full proficiency
check be conducted in a level C or D FFS. As with o ther levels, when level E checking is assigned, suitable credit or constraints may be app lied for knowledge, skills, and/or abilities related to other pertinent related aircraft. Credit s or constraints are specified for the subjects, procedures, or maneuvers shown in FSB reports and a re applied through the ODR table.

NOTE: Assignment of level E checking requirements a lone does not result in assignment of a separate type rating. Only the assi gnment of level E training requirements may result in assignment of a separate type rating.

f. Currency Difference Levels. The term “currency” as used in this AC addresses re cent experience necessary for safe operation of aircraft as designated by the FSB. Currency issues not specified by the FSB are covered by regulation.

(1) Level A Currency. Level A currency is considered common to each rela ted aircraft. Thus, assessment or tracking of currency for separa te related aircraft is not necessary or applicable. Maintenance of currency in any one rela ted aircraft or a combination of related aircraft will suffice for any other related aircraf t.

(2) Level B Currency. Level B currency is “knowledge related” currency, typically achieved through self-review by individual pilots f or a particular aircraft. Self-review is usually accomplished by review of material provided by the operator to pilot. Such currency may be undertaken at an individual pilot’s initiative; how ever, the operator will identify the material and the frequency or other situations in which the mate rial should be reviewed. Self-review may be based on manual information, bulletins, aircraft pl acards, memos, class handouts, videotapes, or other memory aids that describe the differences, pr ocedures, maneuvers, or limits for the pertinent aircraft that pilots are flying. Examples of acceptable compliance with level B currency

are:

(a) The issuance of a bulletin that directs pilots to r eview specific operating manual information before flying a related aircraft. Level B currency may be regained by review of pertinent information to include bulletins, if that related aircraft has not been flown within a specified period (e.g., fly that related aircraft o r have completed a review of the differences in limitations and procedures within a specified numbe r of days).

(b) Pilot certification on a dispatch release that they have reviewed pertinent information for a particular related aircraft to be flown on that trip. Level B currency cannot, however, be achieved solely by review of class note s taken by and at the initiative of an individual pilot unless the adequacy of those notes is verified by the operator.

(3) Level C Currency. Level C currency is applicable to one or more desi gnated systems or procedures, and relates to both skill an d knowledge requirements. An example would be establishment of FMS currency, flight guidance c ontrol system currency, or other particular currency that is necessary for safe operation of a related aircraft. Establishment of level C for a related aircraft with an FMS would typically requir e a pilot to fly that related aircraft within the specified period of time or re-establish currency. Currency constraints for level C are establishedPage 13

by the FSB. When level C currency applies, pertinen t level B currency will also be addressed. Examples of methods acceptable for addressing level C currency are:

(a) Pilot scheduling practices resulting in a pilot bei ng scheduled to fly a related aircraft with the pertinent system/procedure within the specified period of time;

(b) Tracking of an individual pilot’s flying of related aircraft to ensure that the particular system/procedure has been flown within t he specified period of time;

(c) Use of a higher level method (level D or E currency ); or

(d) Other methods as designated or found acceptable by the FSB.

(4) Re-establishing Level C Currency. When currency is lost, currency may be reestablished by completing required items using a de vice equal to or higher than that specified for level C differences training and checking. Other me ans to re-establish currency include flights with an appropriately qualified check airman/instru ctor, completion of proficiency training, or a proficiency check. In some instances, a formal refa miliarization period in the actual aircraft with the applicable system operating while on the ground may be acceptable if permitted by the FSB. Such refamiliarization periods are completed using an operator-established procedure under the supervision of a pilot designated by the operator. In the case of a noncurrent SIC, a designated pilot-in-command (PIC) may be authorized to accompa ny a pilot to re-establish currency.

(5) Level D Currency. Level D currency is related to designated maneuver s, and addresses knowledge and skills required for perform ing aircraft control tasks in real time, with integrated use of associated systems and procedures . Level D currency may also address certain differences in flight characteristics including per formance of any required maneuvers and related normal/abnormal/emergency procedures for a particul ar related aircraft. A typical application of level D currency is to specify selected maneuvers, such as takeoff, departure, arrival, approach, or landing, which are to be performed using a parti cular FGCS and instrument display system. Either a pilot must fly a related aircraft equipped with the FGCS and particular display system sufficiently often to retain familiarity and compet ence within the specified currency period, or currency must be re-established. Currency constrain ts for level D are established by the FSB. When level D currency applies, pertinent level B an d level C currency must also be addressed. Examples of methods acceptable for addressing level D currency are:

(a) Tracking of flights by a particular pilot in a part icular related aircraft to assure experience within the specified currency period.

(b) Tracking the completion of specific maneuvers based on logbook entries, Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting Sys tem (ACARS) data, or other reliable records to assure experience within the specified c urrency period.

(c) Scheduling of aircraft or pilots to permit currency requirements to be met with verification that each pilot has actually accomplis hed the assigned or an equivalent schedule.Page 14 (d) Completion of pilot certification, proficiency chec k, proficiency training, AQP

evaluations, or other pertinent events in which des ignated maneuvers are performed in a FFS acceptable for level D currency.

(e) Use of a higher level method (level E currency).

(f) Other methods as designated or found acceptable by the FSB.

(6) Re-establishing Level D Currency. When currency is lost, currency may be reestablished by completing pertinent maneuvers using a device equal to or higher than that specified for level D differences training and chec king. Other means to re-establish currency include flight with an appropriately qualified chec k airman during training or in line operations, completion of proficiency training, or a proficienc y check.

(7) Level E Currency. Level E currency may specify system, procedure, or maneuver currency item(s) necessary for safe operations, as identified by the FSB, to be accomplished in a Level C/D FFS for that related aircraft. FSB provis ions related to takeoff and landing are applied in a way that addresses needed system or maneuver e xperience. For example, if FGCS, FMS, EFIS, navigation, or other system or maneuver exper ience is the basis for a currency requirement, approval of an operator’s program at l evel E includes the use of those systems in conjunction with satisfying takeoff and landing req uirements. In this instance, making three FSS takeoffs and landings in VFR closed traffic without using the FGCS, EFIS, or FMS may not be sufficient to meet level E currency requirements.

NOTE: Assignment of level E currency requirements d oes not result in assignment of a separate type rating. Only the assi gnment of level E training requirements may result in assignment of a separate type rating.

(8) Re-establishing Level E Currency. When currency is lost, currency may be reestablished by completing pertinent maneuvers using a device specified for level E differences training and checking. Other means to re-establish currency include flight with an appropriately qualified check airman during training or in line o perations, completion of proficiency training, a proficiency check, or AQP evaluation.

(9) Competency Regarding Abnormal/Nonnormal/Emergency P rocedures. Competency for nonnormal maneuvers or procedures is generally addressed by checking requirements; however, in particular abnormal/nonno rmal/emergency maneuvers or procedures may not be mandatory for checking or training. In t his situation, it may be necessary to periodically practice or demonstrate those maneuvers or procedur es even though it is not necessary to complete them during each check. In such instances, the FSB may specify a currency requirement for training or checking applicable to abnormal/nonnorm al/emergency maneuvers or procedures that are to be performed. This is to assure that extende d periods of time do not elapse in a series of repeated training and checking events in which sign ificant maneuvers or procedures may never be accomplished. When an abnormal/nonnormal/emergency maneuver or procedure is not mandatory and is not accomplished during each proficiency tra ining or proficiency check, but is still important to occasionally practice or demonstrate, the FSB ma y establish a currency requirement. When designated by the FSB, these currency requirements identify each abnormal/nonnormal/Page 15

emergency maneuver or procedure, the currency level applicable, and an applicable time period or any other necessary/appropriate constraints.

(10) Difference Level Summary. Difference levels are summarized in Figure 2 below for training, checking, and currency. Complete desc riptions of difference levels for training, checking and currency are given above.

FIGURE 2. DIFFERENCE LEVEL TABLE

DIFFERENCE
LEVEL TRAINING CHECKING CURRENCY

A Self instruction Not applicable (or integrated with next proficiency check) Not applicable

B Aided instruction Task or system check Self review
C Systems devices Partial check using
device Designated system

D Maneuver devices* Partial proficiency check using device* Designed maneuver(s)

E FFS c/d or aircraft

# Proficiency check using

FSS c/d
Or aircraft * Designed maneuver(s) except takeoff and landings

# = New type rating is normally assigned * = FFS or aircraft may be used to accomplish speci fic maneuvers

g. Operating Experience (OE) for Aircraft.

(1) Credits or Constraints. OE must meet the applicable requirements of the CF R Part
121.

h. Supervised Line Flying (SLF). Experience associated with the introduction of equipment or procedures requiring post qualificatio n skill enhancement during which a pilot occupies a specific pilot position and performs par ticular assigned duties for that pilot position under the supervision of a pilot instructor or chec k airman qualified for the operator. One or more of the reasons described below may apply:

(1) Introduction of new systems (e.g., Automatic Depend ent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), runway area advisory system (RAAS), etc).

(2) Introduction of new operations (e.g., oceanic opera tions, Extended Operations with Two-Engine Airplanes (ETOPS)).

(3) Experience for a particular pilot position (e.g., P IC, SIC).

(4) Special characteristics (e.g., affects of unique ai rports, mountainous areas, unusual weather, special air traffic control procedures, or nonstandard runway surfaces) on this aircraft.Page 16

i. Recency of Experience. Credit towards the recency of experience requiremen ts of 14 CFR Part 121.1229 may be permitted for takeoffs and landings performed in related aircraft as provided by CTLC. CTLC will be validated through the FSB process and must be carried out in accordance with (IAW) the operator’s CTLC approv ed program.

j. Operator Difference Requirements (ODR).

(1) ODR Purpose. If differences exist within an operator’s fleet, w hich affect pilot knowledge, skills, or abilities pertinent to system s or procedures, ODR tables provide a uniform means for operators to comprehensively manage diffe rence programs and provide a basis for FAA approval of mixed fleet flying.

(2) ODR Content. ODRs identify a base aircraft, describe difference s between aircraft, and show an operator’s methods of compliance with F AA requirements. The FAA approves an operator’s initial ODR and each subsequent revision for the following:

(a) Base Aircraft. ODRs identify an aircraft or group of aircraft (ai rcraft of the same series with minor configuration differences) w ithin an operator’s fleet as a base aircraft. The base aircraft serves as a reference for compari son with candidate aircraft. Selection criteria
and characteristics of base aircraft are described in paragraphs 6c and 7c.

(b) Candidate/Related Aircraft. ODRs identify particular aircraft flown by an operator within each fleet. ODRs consider only thos e aircraft and combinations of aircraft actually flown by that operator. ODRs describe diff erences within an operator’s fleet between the
base aircraft and other related aircraft.

(c) Significance of Differences. Differences are described in summary form and are categorized by differences in design features, systems, and maneuvers. Differences are evaluated relative to their effect on either flight characteristics, pilot skills, and/or procedures. Procedures consider normal, nonnormal, alternate, a nd recall items. Limitations are considered in conjunction with normal procedures.

(d) Compliance Methods. ODRs show how each operator’s program addresses differences, through description of training, check ing, or currency methods for each fleet. ODRs describe the specific or unique constraints or cred its applicable, and any precautions necessary to
address differences between aircraft. ODRs must com ply with and be just as or more restrictive than FAA MDRs and other FSB provisions if such prov isions are part of the operator approved training program. Constraints or credits may be app lied to all aircraft in a fleet or only to certain aircraft. Constraints or credits may address FSTDs, checking and currency methods, knowledge, skills, procedure maneuvers, or any other factors t hat apply to or are necessary for safe operations. Training, checking, and currency compli ance methods are proposed and revised by each operator consistent with ODR examples from a v ariety of sources that are acceptable to the FAA. ODR examples are found in FSB reports.

(3) Standard ODR Format. ODRs are depicted in tables in summarized form. If necessary, any explanation of details about differe nces, constraints and credits, precautions or compliance methods are included in attachments or a ppendices to ODR tables or are cross referenced to other operator documents. Figure 3 sh ows the general format for ODR tables,Page 17

including examples of design, systems, and maneuver differences. The far-left column lists design, system, or maneuver differences that are pe rtinent. The “Remarks” column summarizes specific areas or items of difference. The “Flight Characteristics” and “Procedural Change” columns identify what (if any) difference effects a re noted. The “Compliance Methods” section of the table notes the particular operator’s approv ed means of compliance with FAA MDR provisions. The following abbreviations apply:

• ACFT - Aircraft.

• AFDS - Auto Flight Display System.

• AVT - Audio Visual Tapes.

• CBT - Computer Based Training.

• EFIS - Electronic Flight Instrument System.

• EICAS - Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System.

• FSTD - Full Flight Simulator (FFS) or Flight Traini ng Device (FTD).

• FLT CHAR - Flight Characteristics.

• FMC - Flight Management Computer.

• FMS - Flight Management System.

• PROC CHNG - Procedural Changes.

• SU - Stand Up Instruction.Page 18

FIGURE 3-1. DESIGN OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLE
EXAMPLECURRBCHKG/CURRFLTCHKLVLELVLDLVLCLVLBAVT/SU/CBTAVT/SU/CBTAVT/SU/CBTCOMPLIANCE METHODTRAININGLVLAPROCCHNGNONONOFLTCHARMINORNONOREMARKS- BODY EXTENSION 104”- WING TIP EXTENSION 14”- DORSAL FIN- w/STC ST01219SE, BLENDED WINGLET- ADDITION OF FMC/AFDS/AT/IRS ETC.- GROWTH RELATED CHANGESDESIGN OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLEDIFFERENCE AIRCRAFT: 737-300BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCEDAPPROVED BY (POI):DESIGN FEATUREAIRPLANECONFIGURA-TIONPANEL LAYOUTWEIGHTSPage 19

FIGURE 3-2. SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENT S TABLE
EXAMPLECURRD90DAYS+3 FLTSEG.CHKG/CURRFLTCHKC*+OELVLELVLDLVLCCBT/FMS/ATLVLBAVT/SUAVTAVT/SUAVT/SUAVT/SUCOMPLIANCE METHODTRAININGLVLAPROCCHNGYESYESNOYESYESFLTCHARNONONONONOREMARKS- RECIRC FAN REPLACES GASPER FAN- 3 POSITION PACK SWITCH- FWD OUTFLOW VALVE LIGHTDELETED- EQUIPMENT COOLING FAN LIGHT- ADDITIONAL FAN INSTALLED (EFISONLY)- DISTRIBUTION: MINOR CHANGES- SP-300 AFDS REPLACES SP-77/SP-177- AUTOTHROTTLE ADDED*- AUTOLAND CAPABILITY ADDED*(*ONLY WHEN COMPARED TO SP-77AIRPLANES)- LNAV/VNAV- TO/GA MODE- MINOR CHANGES IN POWERDISTRIBUTION- CANNISTER OPTION ONLY*- NEW CREW MASKS*(*OPTION ON SOME -200 AIRPLANES)- DUAL-LOOP DETECTION SYSTEM- MINOR EXTING. EQUIP. CONFIGCHANGE- TWO SQUIBS PER BOTTLESYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLEDIFFERENCE AIRCRAFT: 737-300BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCEDAPPROVED BY (POI):SYSTEM21 AIR COND. &PRESSURIZATION22 AUTO-FLIGHT24 ELECTRICAL25 EMERGENCYEQUIPMENT26 FIREPROTECTIONPage 20

FIGURE 3-2. SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENT S TABLE EXAMPLE (CONTINUED)CURRCHKG/CURRFLTCHKLVLELVLDLVLCLVLBAVT/SU(CBT/AVT/SU)AVT/SUCOMPLIANCE METHODTRAININGLVLAPROCCHNGYES(YESMINOR)YESFLTCHARMINORNOREMARKS- ADD’L SPOILERS ADDED- ELECTRIC AIL TRIM- DUAL CHANNEL MACH TRIM;TEST BUTTON DELETED- SPEED TRIM ADDED- STAB TRIM BRAKE DELETED- TWO SPEED STAB TRIM- DIFFERENT STAB TRIM RANGE- ELECTRIC STAB TRIM OVERRIDE- ELECTRIC RUDDER TRIM- AUTOSLAT SYS. ADDED- TE FLAP PLACARD SPEEDS- CERTIFIED T/O FLAP SETTINGS- RUDDER SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT- (OPTION: BLENDED WINGLET W/SPEED BRAKE LOAD ALLEVIATION)- CONTINUOUS FUEL HEAT SWITCHESDELETED- FILTER BYPASS LIGHT REPLACESICING LIGHT- FUEL CAPACITY INCREASED- GND XFER OF FUEL- AUX TANK (OPTIONAL)SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLEDIFFERENCE AIRCRAFT: 737-300BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCEDAPPROVED BY (POI):SYSTEM27 FLIGHTCONTROLS28 FUELPage 21

FIGURE 3-2. SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENT S TABLE EXAMPLE (CONTINUED)CURRCHKG/CURRFLTCHKLVLELVLDLVLCLVLBAVT/SUAVT/SUAVT/SUAVT/SUCOMPLIANCE METHODTRAININGLVLAPROCCHNGYESYESYESNOFLTCHARNONONONOREMARKS- LANDING GEAR XFER UNIT- SYS A & B SOURCES ANDCOMPONENTS CHANGED; A & BINDEPENDENT- GROUND INTERCONNECT DELETED- AUTOSLAT PTU- THRUST REVERSER - ONE ON EACHSYSTEM- B QUANTITY GUAGE ADDED- STBY RUDDER ON LIGHT- ENG INLET ANTI-ICE DELETED- WING ANTI-ICE OPERATION ONGROUND PERMITTED*(*OPTION ON SOME -200 AIRPLANES)- EFIS (AS INSTALLED)- ADI/HIS (AS INSTALLED)- NAV SWITCH (AS INSTALLED)- NORM/ALT REPLACES A & B SYSBRAKES- PAIRED WHEEL ANTI-SKIDPROTECTION ON ALT BRAKES- TIRE SCREEN DELETED*- NO TOUCHDOWN OR LOCKED WHEELPROTECTION ON ALT BRAKES- SINGLE ANTI-SKID SWITCH(*OPTION ON SOME -200 AIRPLANES)SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLEDIFFERENCE AIRCRAFT: 737-300BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCEDAPPROVED BY (POI):SYSTEM29 HYDRAULIC30 ICE & RAINPROTECTION31 FLIGHTINSTRUMENTS32 LANDING GEARPage 22

FIGURE 3-2. SYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENT S TABLE EXAMPLE (CONTINUED)CURRD90DAYS+3 FLTSEG.BCHKG/CURRFLTCHKC*+OEC*LVLELVLDLVLCCBT/FMS/ATFMS/ATLVLBAVT/SUAVTAVT/SUAVT/SUAVT/SUAVT/SUAVT/SUCOMPLIANCE METHODTRAININGLVLAPROCCHNGYESYESNOYESYESNONOFLTCHARNONONONONOMINORNOREMARKS- ADDITIONAL SYS ANNUNCIATORLIGHTS ADDED- GPWS MODE 6 WINDSHEAR OPTION*(* OPTION ON SOME -200 AIRPLANES)- FMCS ADDED- IRS ADDED- ANCDU- DISTRIBUTION MINOR CHANGE- CFM-56 ENGINES- NEW INDICATORS- CASCADING VANES TYPE REVERSERWITH AUTO RESTOW- PMC ADDED- IGN SELECT SWITCH- AUTOMATIC RECOVERY AVAILABLE IFIN DUAL CHANNEL- FLIGHT DIRECTOR GUIDANCEAVAILABLE (OPTIONAL)- CHANGED- GROWTH RELATED CHANGESSYSTEMS OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLEDIFFERENCE AIRCRAFT: 737-300BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCEDAPPROVED BY (POI):SYSTEM33 WARNING34 NAVIGATION36 PNEUMATICS73, 74, 77, 80POWER PLANTWINDSHEAREQUIPMENTPERFORMANCELIMITATIONSPage 23

FIGURE 3-3. MANEUVER OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMEN TS TABLE
EXAMPLECURRD90DAYS+3 FLTSEG.CHKG/CURRFLTCHKC*+OEC*LVLELVLDLVLCFMS/ATFME/ATLVLBAVT/SUAVT/SUCOMPLIANCE METHODTRAININGLVLAPROCCHNGSEEAPPSEEAPPFLTCHARNONOREMARKS- OPTIONAL USE OF AFDS, AND A/T(ALSO AN OPTION FOR -200 AFCSAIRPLANES)- OPTIONAL USE OF FMCS- OPTIONAL USE OF AFDS, AND A/T(ALSO AN OP;TION FOR -200 AFCSAIRPLANES)- OPTIONAL USE OF FMCSMANEUVER OPERATOR DIFFERENCE REQUIREMENTS TABLEDIFFERENCE AIRCRAFT: 737-300BASE AIRCRAFT: 737-200 ADVANCEDAPPROVED BY (POI):MANEUVERNORMALTAKEOFF, CLIMB,CRUISE, DESCENT,INSTRUMENTAPPROACHES,LANDINGNON-NORMALMANEUVERSPage 24

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

(5) ODR Revision. ODR tables are revised by operators a nd re-approved by the FAA when fleet characteristics change or when complianc e methods change. Fleet characteristic changes include redesignation of base aircraft, mod ification of aircraft, addition of aircraft, change of aircraft, or phaseout of aircraft. Change s in compliance methods refer to introduction of new or different training methods, contracting f or use of different FSTDs, revision of checking or currency methods, or other such changes . Revisions to ODRs are also prepared, reviewed, and approved before operating.

NOTE: Paragraph 6 describes the development, approv al, and application of ODR tables to individual operator’s programs. Parag raph 7 describes FAA review and approval of programs by POIs.

5. FORMULATION OF FSB REPORTS, MDRs, AND DESIGNATION O F TYPE
RATINGS.

a. Formulation Process Overview. The process for FAA formulation and revision of training, checking, currency, and type rating requi rements is shown in Figure 4. The process determines which information is required for an air craft; it includes a proposal for requirements, tests, and evaluations of the proposed requirements ; it then finalizes, applies, and implements the FSB recommendations. Applicants propose MDRs, examp les of ODRs, and any other FSB provisions that are necessary. Proposals for requir ements are based on design objectives, analysis, evaluation of OE, other programs that hav e been proved acceptable to the FAA, or other methods. Setting of requirements is based on an objective set of tests and standards, analysis of results, and FAA judgments considering OE. The applicant and the FAA prepare and conduct standardized tests. The applicant provides test support, and the FSB conducts the evaluation. The FSB, in conjunction with the applic ant, evaluates the results, and the FAA formulates proposed minimum requirements. The FSB s ets final recommended requirements by specifying MDRs and other FSB provisions. An FSB re port that describes findings is disseminated to FAA field offices and posted on the operations specifications (OpSpecs) Web site for application to specific operator’s pro grams. The formulation and application process of FSB provisions starts at the time a new aircraft is proposed to the FAA and continues throughout the fleet life of that aircraft. For air craft already in service the process may be initiated when significant modifications are propos ed, a new piece of equipment (e.g., a HUD) requiring operational evaluation is introduced and requested by operators, or when mixed fleet flying takes place. The FAA addresses periodic revi sions of requirements when necessary, and revisions are initiated by the FAA and applicants a s needed.

b. Proposals for MDRs, Example ODRs, and Special Requi rements.

(1) When Proposals are Necessary. The FAA usually determines when proposals are necessary and advises the applicant what informatio n is needed, in conjunction with aircraft typePage 25

certification or supplemental certification program s. Necessary information may include MDRs for related aircraft or other elements of the FSB repor ts. The applicant considers existing MDRs and existing or proposed ODRs.

(2) Proposal Formulation. An operator, manufacturer, or an organization that modifies airplanes proposes a new design or modification. Th e applicant will then do the following:

(a) Formulate necessary information for training, check ing, and currency for the aircraft in proposals for MDRs and example ODRs.

(b) Prepare example ODR tables for candidate aircraft t o support development of a proposed MDR. These examples represent proposals fo r programs for those specific aircraft and configurations that the FAA could approve.

(c) Identify related aircraft for the proposed MDR tabl e.

(d) Formulate any necessary tests to assess difference levels and associated training, checking, and currency requirements for incorporati on in the MDR table.

(e) Identify interpretations of possible test results. The FAA and the applicant will then reach an agreement on specific tests, devices, and schedules to be used for the test program.

(f) The applicant submits proposals for the following i tems to the FAA, as necessary:

• MDRs

• Example ODRs

• Tests and criteria to be used

• Other supporting information associated with traini ng, checking, or currency

programs

c. Difference Level Tests. A sequence of five standard tests, described in App endix 3, is used to set MDRs, minimum acceptable training programs, oth er FSB provisions, and define type rating requirements. One or more of these tests are applie d depending on the difference level sought, and the success of any previous tests used in identifying M DRs. Only those tests needed are used to establish minimum requirements. The outcome of these tests, a nd any resulting difference levels that apply, establish minimum requirements for training, checki ng, currency, and type ratings. The FAA will establish an additional type rating if it is determ ined during this testing that the assignment of a l evel E differences training is required.

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

(1) Steps in the Testing Process. The typical steps of the testing process are as fo llows:Page 26 (a) The applicant develops representative training prog rams, difference programs, and

necessary supporting information, as needed.

(b) The applicant identifies proposed MDRs and example ODRs.

(c) The applicant proposes and the FAA determines which tests and criteria apply.

(d) The applicant proposes and the FAA determines which aircraft, simulation devices, or analyses are needed to support testing.

(e) The applicant makes a proposal to the FAA, and agre ement is reached on test procedures, schedules, and specific interpretation of possible results.

(f) Tests are conducted and results evaluated.

(g) The FSB draft minimum requirements are formulated.

NOTE: If the candidate aircraft is anticipated to h ave no greater than level A or B differences with the base aircraft, the FSB may e lect to directly apply a T1 test for equivalency.

(2) Test Purpose and Application. A summary of the purpose and application of each o f the six difference tests is shown in Figure 5.

(3) Test Relationships and Applications. This process is followed whenever a new aircraft is proposed, when significant changes are proposed, or when revisions to existing requirements are needed as a result of requests for change or operat ing experience. The test process relationships, the sequence of conducting tests when more than one tes t is needed, and application of test outcomes are shown in Figure 6. The start of the process is show n at the top of Figure 6.

a. When a new aircraft is certified and is not comp ared with an existing aircraft, the aircraft is evaluated using the T5 test to determine the effect iveness of the manufacturer training and evaluation plan. A type rating is assigned as a result of the evaluation.

b. When two aircraft with the same type certificate are compared, a T1 or T2/T3 test is used to
determine the level of differences between the two aircraft. The result can be the assignment of a sam e type rating if no greater than Level D differences exist or the assignment of a different type rating if
Level E differences exist.

c. When two aircraft with different type certificat es are compared, a T2/T3 test is used to
determine the level of differences between the two aircraft. An example of this is a determination of B, C, D, or E differences between the two aircraft.

(4) Test Failures and Retesting. Generally, failures do not have paths back to lowe r levels. T3 test failure at level C can lead to subsequent p assage at C (after modification of the system, operational procedures, or training and retesting) or D. Similarly, failure at level D can subsequentl y lead to either D (after modification of the system, operational procedures, or training and retesting) or E, but not C. Failure at level E can only lead to r etesting with increased programs, improved programs

,Page 27

or improved devices since there is no higher level. T5 test failure paths do not lead back to level C or level D. However, subsequent new programs do not pr eclude making a proposal at a lower differences level if technology changes, aircraft redesign take s place, training methods significantly change, or device characteristics and effectiveness change.

(5) Same and Common Type Rating Tests. Aircraft seeking same or common type rating will follow the path in Figure 6 from the top left of Figure 6 through T1 or T2 and T3 tests resulting in the assignment of level A, B, C, or D differences.

(6) “Currency” Tests. T4 currency tests are not shown in Figure 6 becaus e they are necessary only when the applicant seeks relief from system, procedural, and maneuver currency requirements set by the FSB.

(7) Detailed Test Specifications. A detailed specification for the evaluation proces s and tests to establish difference levels is described in Appe ndix 3.

d. FSB Assessments and Proposal Formulation. The FSB assesses the applicant’s proposals, test results, analysis, and any other relevant fact ors to formulate a draft FSB report, which includes MDRs and other pertinent training, checking, curren cy requirements. The FSB either validates the applicant’s proposed MDRs, training programs, and o ther information, or generates alternate requirements, which may include more stringent requ irements, additional training, additional testing,

etc.Page 28 FIGURE 4. MASTER REQUIREMENTS FORMULATIONPage 29 FIGURE 5. TEST DEFINITIONS

TEST PURPOSE APPLICATION

T1 Establishes functional equivalence Sets levels A/B

T2 Handling qualities comparison Pass permits T3, and A/B/C/D; failure sets level E and requires T5

T3 Evaluate differences and sets training/checking requirements Pass sets levels A/B/C/D; failure sets level E and requires T5

T4 Revises currency requirements Used to adjust FSB pr ovisions—if needed

T5 Sets training/checking for new or “E”
ACFT Sets level E

T6 Evaluation for CTLC Sets recency of experience requ irements

Note: Expanded descriptions are contained in Append ix 3.Page 30 FIGURE 6. “T” TESTS
1 THRU 5

START

T1 Req’d Candidate
Level E?

T1 T2

T3 Req”d

LVL
A or B T3 T5 LEVEL E No Commonality

or T5 LVL E
With B/C/D Commonality

LVL D
Differences LVL C
Differences LVL B
Differences LVL A
Differences LVL E
Differences
New T/R No

Fail

Pass Waive T1

Pass

Fail

Pass Fail Yes

SAME OR COMMON TYPE RATING

COMMOM TYPE RATING REQUIRES
SEPARATE TYPE RATING
INDORSEMENT NoPage 31

e. Comments Solicited. The FSB proposal is circulated with interested part ies representing the manufacturer, operators, and other pertinent FA A organizations such as engineering, flight test, pilots’ associations, and other aviation repr esentatives for comment, relevant information,
and recommendations.

f. FSB Final Determinations and Findings.

(1) FSB Determinations. Any comments submitted to the FAA are reconciled, a nd final FSB determinations are made. Specification of MDRs, example ODRs, acceptable training programs, and other FSB provisions are completed. A ny necessary pilot checking or currency provisions are identified. Assignment of any necess ary type rating(s) is made.

(2) Basis for FSB Judgments. FSB judgments are based on review of the applicant ’s supporting documentation, proposed ODR tables, test results, and any other pertinent information, such as FAA policies, OE, and results of other similar FSB evaluations. Specifically, FSB report provisions are based on th e following:

(a) Appropriate Data, Evaluation, or Tests. Testing may include aircraft demonstration, simulation tests, device testing, or analysis.

(b) Direct Experience. The industry may have substantial experience with successful operational programs, which can be usefu l in the assignment of minimum difference level requirements. This experience may include par ticular training devices, training/checking/currency requirements, and mixed fleet flying.

(c) Indirect Experience. Applicable experience with foreign operators, mili tary programs, or other programs that can establish the suitability of training, checking, or currency standards may be permitted as a means for FSBs to s et MDR or ODR levels.

(d) Applicant and Industry. FSB provisions are set following solicitation and
review of comments.

(3) FSTD Characteristics. Minimum characteristics for FSTDs for training, ch ecking, or currency are noted using CFR Part 60 FSTD defini tions. When standard criteria for FSTDS are not appropriate for an aircraft, the FSB identi fies suitable criteria to be applied and
coordinates with the FAA National Simulator Evaluat ion Team (NSET). Standard FSTDs applicable to each difference level are shown in Fi gure 7.Page 32 FIGURE 7. STANDARD METHOD and FSTDs

Difference
Level Difference Level

Definition Methods FSTD

A Self instruction Bulletins
Manual revisions
Handout material -------------------------

B Aided instruction Slides/video tapes Standup instruction Computer-based training (CBT) -------------------------

C System devices ------------------------- FSTDs defined in CFR 121 attachment 3, appendice Q, Table 3B

D Maneuver devices ------------------------- FSTDs defined in CFR 121 attachment 3, appendice Q, Table 3B

E FFS C/D or aircraft ------------------------- FFS C/D
Or aircraft

g. FSB Report Preparation Distribution and FAA Applica tion.

(1) Report Preparation and Approval. After MDRs are finalized, the FSB report is prepared and approved. Sufficient background or exp lanatory material is provided in the report to permit FAA personnel to apply FSB recommendation s. The following are elements of an FSB report:

(a) Purpose and Applicability

(b) Type Rating requirements

(c) Master Difference Requirements (MDRs)

(d) Acceptable Operator Difference Requirements (ODR) T ables

(e) FSB Specifications for TrainingPage 33 (f) FSB Specifications for Checking

(g) FSB Specifications for Recency of Experience

(h) Aircraft Regulatory Compliance Checklist

(i) FSB Specification for FSTDs

(j) Applications

(k) Alternate Means of Compliance

(l) Regulatory Coordination and Approval

(m) Board Record

(2) FSB Report Distribution. The FSB report is posted on the OpSpecs Web site f or implementation in approval of particular operators’ programs. The FAA technical requirements described in FSB reports are primarily intended for the operators use to develop programs that will be approved by the FAA.

(3) FSB Report Implementation. FSB recommendations and guidance are provided to FAA field offices through FSB reports for each airc raft. These reports are recommendations to FAA offices to identify acceptable criteria for mod ifying flightcrew member training and qualification programs under CFR 121.1215. FSB prov isions set acceptable standards by which FAA inspectors approve, review, correct, or limit i ndividual operator’s programs. The FSB report is the basis for approval of modifications o f training, checking, and currency programs approved by each FAA office. The report is also the basis for pilot certification by FAA or operators and the surveillance of operators’ progra ms.

h. FSB Report Revision.

(1) General FSB Revision Process. A general revision process is established to updat e determinations and findings contained in FSB report s. Revisions may be needed annually for active fleets with numerous change requests. Revisi ons may be needed infrequently for aircraft not undergoing significant change.

(2) Revisions for New Aircraft. When an applicant proposes to develop or add a ser ies of a type-certificated aircraft, MDRs and other FSB provisions are revised to address that series. If an applicant initiates this action, the procedur es noted in paragraph 5 regarding initial determination of minimum training, checking, curren cy, and type rating requirements are followed. If an operator proposes to add an aircraf t that is not covered within an existing FSB report (e.g., a foreign manufactured aircraft) POIs should consult with the pertinent Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG). An FSB will determine the b est method of addressing the development of the necessary FSB report. This is particularly i mportant for older aircraft fleets in which differences may be significant, but manufacturer su pport is no longer available and aircraft imported into the United States that have been used only by foreign operators.Page 34

(3) Revision for Aircraft Modified by Operators. When an aircraft is to be modified by an operator, the POI determines if the change af fects MDRs, example ODRs, or other FSB report provisions. The criteria for this assessment includes whether or not the difference affects pilot knowledge, skills, or abilities pertinent to flight safety. If a change meets the criteria, the operator should supply the POI with a difference de scription, an analysis of the effects of the difference and a proposed training program for the difference. The POI evaluates the proposal and if it is acceptable, seeks concurrence from AFS 200. AFS 200 will advise the applicable AEG/FSB. The AEG/FSB may concur with the POI’s anal ysis or propose other action. If FSB action is proposed and accepted by AFS 200, the AEG will initiate that action through the FSB chairman. The FSB may require that additional infor mation or analysis be provided or that the entire test process or parts thereof be applied. Th e AEG may authorize the POI to approve assignment of the difference level. Changes to the MDRs will be made through the normal FSB revision process.

6. OPERATOR’S APPLICATION OF FSB PROVISIONS, PREPARATI ON, USE, AND
REVISION OF ODRs.

a. General.

(1) Process Overview. FSB reports contain MDRs and other provisions that are applied by FAA offices in approving operators’ flightcrew m ember training and qualification programs when operating mixed fleets. MDRs are applied throu gh a particular method that identifies specific ODRs and compliance methods. This is neces sary so that regardless of which aircraft is flown, uniform training, checking, and currency sta ndards are met within the constraints of 14 CFR Part 121. Paragraph 6 describes operator appli cation of MDRs and other FSB provisions for training, checking, and currency. This is done through operator preparation and FAA approval of ODRs for each operator. This AC and FSB reports comprehensively address differences training, checking, and currency for ea ch aircraft when aircraft are used in mixed fleet flying. ODRs are used to identify credits or constraints between related aircraft. The overall process for operator application of MDRs and develo pment, approval, use, and revision of ODRs is shown in Figure 8.

(2) Availability and Use of FSB Information. FSB provisions are made available to operators through FAA CHDOs, applicants, industry t rade associations, posted on the OpSpecs Web site, or other sources. When preparing initial or difference programs for specific fleets, individual operators apply the requirements of the applicable FSB report.

b. Application of MDRs and Preparation and Use of ODRs

.

(1) Need for ODRs. When operating a mixed fleet, operators prepare th e necessary ODR table proposals to describe their particular fl eet and show compliance methods. This is done to assess effects of differences, plan complia nce methods, and obtain POI approval for that operator’s specific program. ODR tables must be pre pared and approved by the FAA for each fleet in which FSB provisions are established.

(2) Operator Responsibilities. The operator’s responsibilities include:

(a) Specification of a base aircraft.Page 35 (b) Identification of differences between the aircraft within a mixed fleet.

(c) Preparation of proposed ODR tables.

(d) Assessment and description of the effects of the di fferences on training, checking, and currency.

(e) Proposal of training, checking, and currency method s consistent with MDRs and FSB provisions.

(f) Presentation of proposed ODR tables with necessary supporting information to the FAA POI for approval.

(g) Revision of ODR tables when aircraft are introduced , modified, phased out, devices change, or MDRs change.

(3) Use of Standard ODR Format. A common format for ODR tables is used to facilitate preparation, review, use, comparison wit h MDRs, and ensure consistency of application and approval by POIs. The common format is used in all cases where ODR tables are required except when only a few minor differences exist and level A applies. In this event, letters between an operator and FAA containing the necessary inform ation and approval may suffice if acceptable to the POI.

(4) Minimum Threshold for ODR Preparation. Within the mixed fleet, a minimum threshold for preparation of ODR tables occurs when there are differences that potentially affect knowledge, skills, or abilities necessary for fligh t safety. Differences not related to this criterion
need not be addressed in ODR tables.

(5) ODR Description and Examples. ODRs are described in paragraph 4. Examples of acceptable ODR tables for a particular type-certifi cated aircraft are shown in each FSB report.

(a) Systems Shown on the ODR Table of Figure 3. An example of several pages from an ODR table is shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 sh ows the application of ODRs to address systems differences and compliance methods. In Figu re 3 differences are grouped in the order associated with a typical operations manual. Air Tr ansport Association (ATA) code numbers are shown for cross-reference. The “Remarks” column dep icts differences and the “Flight Characteristics” and “Procedural Change” columns ad dress effects of differences.

(b) Maneuvers Shown on the ODR Table of Figure 3. The “Remarks” column depicts differences. The “Flight Characteristics” a nd “Procedural Change” columns address
effects of differences. The reference “SEE APP” ref ers you to an appendix to the table, which the operator prepares to more fully list and explain th e particular procedural changes that pertain to the maneuver in the “Procedural Change” column.

c. Selecting Base Aircraft. An operator chooses a base aircraft from one of the aircraft operated. Base aircraft are defined in Appendix 1. Additional information regarding base aircraft selection is in paragraph 7.Page 36

d. Identification of Differences and the Analysis of E ffects of Those Differences.
Differences must be described between base aircraft and other related aircraft. This may be done
from base to each other related aircraft. Differenc es may also be described from any related aircraft to each other related aircraft. As long as a complete and clear relationship can be drawn
from the base aircraft to each other related aircra ft and all MDR requirements are met from the base aircraft, to each other related aircraft, ther e is no need to describe each possible combination of aircraft. This permits a comprehensive identific ation of differences that exist in the fleet, determines the effects of those differences, and sh ows compliance methods. Differences are generally organized to follow an operations manual or flight manual to facilitate use and review, and should be categorized by design, systems, and m aneuvers. Effects of differences are stated in terms of effects on flight characteristics and proc edures. Procedures include normal, nonnormal, alternate, and recall procedures, as applicable. Si nce complete descriptions may be to lengthy for direct incorporation in ODR tables, appendices, or references to other operator’s documents may
be used to describe differences or effects. Some di fferences or effects may be repeated in the analysis. For example, an FMS difference may be not ed in both a navigation system section and maneuver section associated with preflight setup. T he objective is to assure each difference that pertains to pilot training, checking, or currency i s identified and addressed, so it is not necessary to limit difference descriptions to prevent overlap

.

e. Identification of Compliance Methods. Once differences and difference effects are described, methods of comprehensively addressing ea ch difference (compliance methods) are shown. With the difference descriptions, redundancy may occur. The same training or checking compliance item shown for one item may also be asso ciated with and credited for other items. The objective for description of compliance methods is to show that each difference is addressed in some appropriate way, to show that the method an d level chosen is consistent with the FSB MDRs, and example ODRs at a level at least equal to that required by the MDRs.

f. When Proposed ODR Compliance Methods Do Not Meet MD Rs. If proposed ODR compliance methods do not satisfy MDRs or other FSB report constraints, the following
alternatives exist:

(1) Differences may be reduced or eliminated by modific ation of aircraft, systems, or procedures.

(2) Other training methods or devices that fully comply with MDRs and other FSB provisions may be acquired, leased, or otherwise ap plied.

(3) Pilot assignments may be separated for a fleet so t hat mixed flying of related aircraft
does not occur.

(4) MDR change proposals may be requested through FAA P OIs to the FSB. If FSB authorized changes to the MDRs are made, the operat or may then apply the revised criteria.

g. Application, Review and Approval. Paragraph 7 describes the FAA review and approval process. The process is summarized here to facilitate ODR table preparation. An operator submits the proposed ODR tables and necess ary supporting information to the POI to apply for differences program approval. The support ing information may include any appendicesPage 37

to the ODR tables necessary for evaluation of the p roposal, a transition plan if needed, and a proposed schedule for implementation. POIs may also require review of such pertinent and additional information as copies of bulletins, manu als, or other training materials, before they approve proposed ODRs. If devices are proposed that are not approved by the POI, or evaluated by the NSET, a review and approval of those trainin g devices may be necessary before ODR approval. Sufficient lead-time must be provided to the FAA for review. Lead-time depends on such factors as the complexity of program, proposed difference levels, number of related aircraft, other operator precedents already set, and FAA expe rience with the proposed aircraft, training devices, and methods. Many noncontroversial level A changes can be reviewed and approved in a few days. Complex programs with many related airc raft can require months for review and approval. It is the operator’s responsibility to co nsult with the POI to ensure that sufficient leadtime is provided to review initial submissions or c hanges. At least 60 days notice is acceptable for most programs. After the operator submits the p rogram proposal, POIs compare the proposed ODR with the FSB report provisions including the MD Rs. POIs consult pertinent FAA policy directives (Handbook, notices, Safety Alerts for Op erators (SAFO), etc.) for interpretations or guidance in accomplishing the review. In certain in stances the POI should consult with the FSB before ODR approval. If ODRs are consistent with FA A policies and within the constraints of the MDRs and example ODRs, the POI will approve the operator’s ODR tables and its proposed differences program. When approved by the FAA, ODRs establish the basis for training, checking, and currency programs for a given fleet f or that operator.

h. Transition Period for ODR Implementation. In certain instances, a transitional period, agreed upon by the POI with FSB concurrence, may be necessary to permit operators to continue operations under previously approved programs until they are able to comply with POI-approved FSB provisions. This is necessary when these provis ions are initially set or revised and they require lead-time for program preparation, device a cquisition, or to revise previously approved programs. Paragraph 7m and the individual FSB repor ts for each type-certificated aircraft discuss FAA approval of transition provisions.

i. ODR Revision. ODR revisions are initiated when changes occur in a n operator’s fleet relating to differences, difference effects, or com pliance methods. ODR revisions are appropriate when such changes affect pilot knowledge, skills, o r abilities relevant to flight safety. Examples of program changes or factors that may require ODR revision include:

(1) Addition or deletion of aircraft in a fleet;

(2) Modification of base aircraft or comparison aircraf t in a fleet;

(3) Change of base aircraft;

(4) Discontinuation of use, addition of new or modifica tion of training devices referenced by ODRs;

(5) Revision of training methods with a resulting chang e in compliance levels;

(6) Changes in effects of differences such as revised p rocedures, performance, or flight characteristics;Page 38

(7) FAA revision of MDRs or other FSB provisions;

(8) Adverse OE or training and checking experience that dictates inadequacy of ODRs, MDRs, or other FSB provisions;

(9) FAA surveillance results, enforcement actions, or f ailure of an operator to comply with provisions of their approved ODRs; and

(10) Other factors as determined by the POI.

NOTE: Revisions to ODRs are approved using the same procedures as for initial ODRs approval.Page 39 FIGURE. 8 FSB PROCESS

ORDER 8900.1 OTHER REQUIREMENTS
MDR TABLE

POI REVIEW
&
AFS 200
CONCURRENCE FSB
REPORT
FAA

APPROVED
ODR TABLE(S) OPERATIONS PROPOSED ODR TABLE(S) (FROM OPERATOR)

CHDO FSB

ODR REVISIONS MDR
REVISION REQUESTS (IF NEEDED) APPROVAL OF TRAINING PROGRAM(S) CHECK
AIRMEN OPS-SPECS ETC.

MDR- Master Difference Requirements
ODR- Operator Difference Requirements
POI- Principal Operations Inspector
FSB- FAA Flight Standards Board OPSPECS-Operations SpecificationsPage 40

7. FAA REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF OPERATOR PROGRAMS.

a. General.

(1) FAA Responsibilities. FAA has the responsibility for review, approval, a nd continuing surveillance of individual operator prog rams consistent with this AC and FSB recommendatons. Within a CHDO or FSDO, POIs have th e responsibility for program review and approval. In addition to review, approval, and continuing surveillance of operator programs, CHDO and other district offices manage pilot certif ication consistent with the criteria of this
AC and FSB recommendations.

b. Operator Application of ODRs.

(1) Operators Using Related Aircraft in Mixed fleet Fl ying. If FSB provisions are published, operators operating aircraft in mixed fl eet flying IAW CFR Part 121 may apply recommendations of this AC and the FSB report.

(2) Threshold Requiring ODR Preparation. Even though an operator has different configurations of aircraft used in mixed fleet flyi ng, there is some threshold below which ODR tables and POI approval is not required. The thresh old requiring AC and ODR application occurs when differences in related aircraft affect pilot k nowledge, skills, and/or abilities pertinent to flight safety. If systems, controls, indications, p rocedures, or maneuvers are different and these differences have an effect that significantly relat es to what the pilots needs to know or do for safe mixed fleet flight operation, then an operator shou ld prepare ODR tables and must seek FAA approval. Conversely, ODR tables would not need to be prepared in situations that do not affect flight safety. In such instances ODR tables are not needed even though pilots routinely operate
several related aircraft. A minimum threshold is se t to preclude unnecessary administrative assessment of mixed fleet flying, which has no safe ty implications. If changes to the fleet do not affect pilot knowledge, skills, or abilities affect ing flight safety, then such changes need not be considered in addressing FSB provisions or this AC.

(3) FAA Review of ODR Proposals. After preparation the carrier submits proposed ODR tables and supporting information to the CHDO a nd POI for review and approval. POIs evaluate the following:

(a) The operator has made an appropriate identification of a base aircraft.

(b) Operators have comprehensively identified differenc es in the particular fleet. This includes appropriate ODR table comparisons bet ween the base aircraft and each related
aircraft.

(c) The operator’s assessment of the affects of differe nces on flight characteristics and procedures for the base aircraft and each relat ed aircraft are suitable and valid.

(d) The compliance methods listed are consistent with t he requirements of the MDR tables, footnotes, other pertinent FSB report provi sions, FAA Order 8900.1, and associated advisory materials.Page 41 (e) ODR provisions adequately address any “subtle diffe rences” between related aircraft that have a possibility of inducing potent ially serious pilot errors.

(f) Training materials, methods, devices, and FSTDs pro posed are acceptable, approved by the NSET if necessary, or if FSB provis ions are applied, the ODR tables meet FSB
constraints.

(g) ASIs, APMs, and APDs are prepared to apply FSB repo rt checking standards.

(h) Implementation plans are adequate and consistent wi th FSB recommendations and other FAA policy.

(i) Other factors determined necessary by the POI are c onsidered and any requirements met.

(4) Example ODR tables and MDRs. The POI uses the example ODR tables and the MDRs provided in the FSB report as a basis for eval uating the suitability of a particular operator’s proposed ODR table. The MDR always remai ns the primary basis for comparison.
The AEG should be consulted in the absence of concl usive guidance in making such judgments. Guidance for evaluation of specific system or maneu ver items may be found by comparison of the proposal with the example ODR table shown in th e FSB report and other approved ODR tables. The operator may use devices, techniques, o r methods of an equal or higher difference
level. Critical methods should be at least at the l evel specified by the FSB on the MDRs and shown in the example ODR table. Actual ODR tables p roposed by the operator may show a variety of compliance methods to satisfy a particul ar item, ranging from level A through the level required by the MDRs. For example, if the MDR requirement is a minimum of level C, the operator may propose to use a combination of level A bulletins, level B slide tape presentations, and level C training devices to satisfy pertinent i tems. However, at least level C should be shown for critical items. The operator may choose to sati sfy a level C MDR provision with level D or
level E methods.

(5) ODR Review Example. The following is an example of the process for rev iew of a specific item on a proposed ODR table. For each pro posed ODR item both the FSB example ODR table and MDRs are consulted and compared with the operator’s proposal. If the MDRs specify that level C devices are needed for trainin g, checking, and currency between the base aircraft and a related aircraft and the example ODR table shows applicable level C systems differences or maneuvers, then the POI should ensur e that the proposed ODR table submitted also shows at least level C for those pertinent sys tems or maneuvers.

c. Base and Other Aircraft Identification.

(1) Selecting the Base Aircraft. Base aircraft are defined in Appendix 1. In genera l, base aircraft are used as reference for comparison of differences that affect, or could affect, pilot knowledge, skills, or abilities pertinent to flight safety. A base aircraft should typically be the aircraft that the operator trains to first, the air craft that the operator has the largest number of, the aircraft most pilots fly frequently, or the aircraf t that represents a configuration that the operator eventually will have as a standard. Another aircraf t may be selected as a base aircraft when the previous base aircraft is being phased out, convert ed to a new configuration, or other suchPage 42

factors. A base aircraft may be redesignated at the discretion of the operator with FAA concurrence. A base aircraft is identified by make, type-certificated aircraft, model, and series or other distinguishing classifications. Classificatio n should distinguish pertinent differences in configuration, handling characteristics, performanc e, procedures, limitations, controls, instruments, indicators, systems, installed equipme nt, options, or modifications.

(2) Identifying Related Aircraft. A related aircraft is an aircraft or a group of ai rcraft with the same characteristics that have pertinent d ifferences from a base aircraft. Pertinent differences are those that require different or add itional pilot knowledge, skills, and/or abilities that affect flight safety. Differences considered p ertinent are those relating to configuration, handling characteristics, performance, procedures, limitations, controls, instruments, indicators, systems, installed equipment, options, or modificat ions. Related aircraft can exist between different models, series or within a model/series. When designated in FSB reports, any aircraft
included in a MDR table is considered a related air craft. Like base aircraft, operators designate related aircraft by one of the following:

• Model/series.

• FAA registration “N number”.

• Operator tail number.

• Any other classification that can uniquely distingu ish pertinent differences between each related aircraft group and a base airc raft.

(3) Accounting for Each Related Aircraft. The important factor in base and related aircraft identification and ODR table preparation i s that regardless of the combination used, there should be direct and complete traceability of both differences and compliance methods. There must be a clear description showing the adequacy of compliance methods to assure proper training, checking, and currency to safely operate each aircraft assigned.

d. Approval of ODRs.

(1) Approval Method. Following review and determination that an operato r’s program addresses the FSB recommendations, the POI, with co ncurrence from AFS 200, approves that particular program by signing ODRs. ODR tables are approved for each applicable related aircraft. Signature of ODRs or revisions, together with other relevant documents such as training programs and OpSpecs, constitute approval by the PO I of that operator’s differences training, checking, and currency program requirements. ODR ta bles are used for most programs. In instances where aircraft have only a few minor diff erences at level A, approval may take the form of a letter including necessary information in lieu of using tables.

e. FSB Revision of MDRs or Other FSB Provisions. When requested, the FSB reviews an operator’s proposals and if necessary modifies MDRs and other FSB provisions. Major changes in the MDR table may require review by the full FSB . The FSB may consider minor changes or interpretations on an ad hoc basis between FSB meet ings for that aircraft. For some requests changes can be made based on existing or the suppli ed information. Complex cases may requirePage 43

testing to be conducted by the applicant before the MDR table is changed. Should the MDRs be updated to accommodate a change request, the propos ed ODR can be approved within the new
MDRs.

f. Proving Tests. When a related aircraft with difference levels C or greater is introduced by an applicant, proving runs may be needed. Provin g runs are usually needed for levels D and E. At level E, regulatory provisions for proving ru ns must be met. Training flights, test flights, delivery flights, and demonstration flights may be credited toward levels C and D proving requirements if necessary operational experiences a re demonstrated and the flights are IAW an FAA-approved plan. FAA Order 8900.1 describes polic ies for FAA approval of proving tests.

g. Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) or SLF. When operators have LOFT or SLF programs and additional related aircraft are approv ed, the POI should review those LOFT or SLF programs to assure applicability to each related ai rcraft. SLF in the aircraft, or in some instances FFS (as determined by the FSB), may be necessary IA W recommendations of the FSB report and with the approval of the POI.

h. OE. As described in this AC and FSB reports, OE is cons istent with definitions and requirements of 14 CFR Part 121. OE credit, as prov ided by the FSB for experience with related aircraft, may be permitted with the approval of the POI.

i. Limitations on the Total Number of Related Aircraft

.

(1) Mixed Flying of Multiple Related Aircraft. When mixed fleet flying involves pilots operating more than a base aircraft and a si ngle additional related aircraft, additional constraints limiting the total number of aircraft m ay apply. When more than two related aircraft are flown, POIs should specifically ensure that sub tle or compounded differences between the
various related aircraft do not result in confusion of procedures, maneuvers, or limitations. ODRs proposed for the overall combination of aircraft to be flown should be examined to ensure the following:

(a) That multiple differences do not result in confusio n of requirements or an excessive level of complexity for pilots to adjust to or retain important differences information;

(b) That subtle variations in differences information a re not mistakenly applied and lead to unsafe conditions; and

(c) That the amount of differences information is not e xcessive, not applied to the wrong aircraft, or not forgotten.

j. Compliance Checklist for CHDOs. FSB reports provide a regulatory compliance
checklist. The checklist identifies those 14 CFR Pa rt 121, ACs, or other FAA requirements that are in compliance. 14 CFR Part 121 items not shown on the checklist or items shown but not reviewed by the AEG/FSB for compliance should be re viewed by the CHDO before POI approval of OpSpecs permitting those aircraft to be used under 14 CFR Part 121. Items found not compliant by the AEG/FSB should be reconciled and c ompliance established before operation. The compliance checklist is an aid to CHDOs used to show the status of those 14 CFR Part 121 items evaluated by the AEG/FSB, but does not compre hensively address all possible 14 CFRPage 44

Part 121 items and ACs that an operator may need to demonstrate compliance. OpSpecs, exemptions, deviations, or other factors, which the AEG/FSB may not be aware of, may also apply and may modify compliance status or methods s hown in the checklist.

k. Aircraft That Do Not Have an FSB Report. When an FSB report is not prepared for a given type-certificated aircraft, or when MDRs or o ther recommendations are not shown, programs are approved IAW the 14 CFR Part 121, Orde r 8900.1, and other pertinent inspector guidance material.

8. APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS TO AIRMEN CERTIFICATION

.

a. General. In addition to master requirements, the FSB report contains specifications for administration of proficiency checks by FAA inspect ors or operator check airmen. FAA pilot certification inspectors, APMs, operator check airm en, APDs, and DPEs should be familiar with FSB provisions regarding the proper administration of any necessary checks or evaluations for type-certificated aircraft or their series covered by the FSB report.

b. Checks Regarding Complex Systems.

(1) Partial proficiency checking is required for differ ences associated with systems that are determined to be at or greater than level C.

(2) Complex systems checks include hands-on operation a nd ensure demonstrated procedural proficiency in each applicable mode or f unction. Specific items and flight phases to be checked are specified (e.g., initialization, tak eoff, departure, cruise, arrival, approach, and pertinent nonnormals).

NOTE: The FSB may recommend additional training bey ond that which is otherwise required by 14 CFR Part 121 to qualify in each type certificated
aircraft.

9. FSTD APPROVAL.

a. NSP Representation to the FSB. An NSP member may serve as an advisor to the FSB o r a member of the FSB, to address designation of and approval processes for FSTDs. (1) Coordination of NSP Criteria with the FSB. National simulator team development of criteria for training devices and approval test guides for new aircraft are coordinated with the FSB. This ensures compatibility of FSB/NSP requirem ents and effective use of resources for development of approval test guides and determinati on of FSB provisions.

NOTE: FSTDs are approved for operator use IAW 14 CF R 121.1345 and QPS Appendix 3 Table 3B.

10. REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FSB reports are approved as designated by AFS-1. I n the event that revision of an FSB report is necessary, the FSB is provided with necessary policy guidance to implement applicable changes.Page 45

11. APPEAL OF FAA DECISIONS. When there is disagreement with provisions of an F SB report, that disagreement may be expressed to the F SB chairman for the pertinent typecertificated aircraft. If an issue cannot be resolv ed, the issue may then be addressed to AFS-200. Additional information, data, or analysis may be pr ovided to support differing views regarding the FSB provisions in question.MM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B Appendix 3

Page 1 APPENDIX 3. RATINGS AND LEVEL TESTS-PLANNING AND AP PLICATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PREPARATION.....................................

................................................... ................................3

2. TYPE RATING DETERMINATION THROUGH ANALYSIS-LEVEL A OR B TRAINING
ONLY ...............................................

................................................... ......................................4

3. FUNCTION EQUIVALENCE-LEVEL A OR B TEST 1 (T1)

a. Test Purpose.......................................

................................................... ...............................5
b. Test Subjects ......................................

................................................... ...............................5

c. Test Process .......................................

................................................... ...............................5
d. Safety Pilot.......................................

................................................... .................................5

e. Successful Test....................................

................................................... ..............................6
f. Failure of Test....................................

................................................... ...............................6

4. HANDLING QUALITIES COMPARISON BETWEEN AIRCRAFT-T EST 2 (T2)

a. Test Purpose.......................................

................................................... ...............................6
b. Test Subjects ......................................

................................................... ...............................6

c. Test Process .......................................

................................................... ...............................6
d. Safety Pilot.......................................

................................................... .................................7

e. Successful Test....................................

................................................... ..............................7
f. Failure of Test....................................

................................................... ...............................7

5. SYSTEM DIFFERENCES TEST AND VALIDATION OF TRAINI NG AND CHECKING-TEST 3 (T3)

a. Test Purpose.......................................

................................................... ...............................7
b. Test Subjects ......................................

................................................... ...............................7

c. Test Process .......................................

................................................... ...............................8
d. Successful Test....................................

................................................... ..............................8

e. Failure of Test....................................

................................................... ...............................8

6. CURRENCY VALIDATION-TEST 4 (T4)

a. Test Purpose.......................................

................................................... ...............................9
b. Test Subjects ......................................

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

c. Test Process .......................................

................................................... ...............................9
d. Successful Test....................................

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

e. Failure of Test....................................

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

7. INITIAL OR TRANSITION TRAINING/CHECKING PROGRAM VALIDATIONTEST 5 (T5)

a. Test Purpose.......................................

................................................... .............................10
b. Test Subjects ......................................

................................................... .............................10

c. Test Process .......................................

................................................... .............................10
d. Successful Test....................................

................................................... ............................10

e. Failure of Test....................................

................................................... .............................10AC 120-53B DRAFT MM/DD/YY

Appendix 3

Page 2 8. COMMON TAKEOFF AND LANDING CREDIT (CTLC)-TEST 6 (T6 )

a. Test Purpose.......................................

................................................... .............................10
b. Test Subjects ......................................

................................................... .............................11

c. Test Process .......................................

................................................... .............................11
d. Successful Test....................................

................................................... ............................11

e. Failure of Test....................................

................................................... .............................11MM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B Appendix 3

Page 3 APPENDIX 3. RATING AND LEVEL TESTS—PLANNING AND APP LICATION

1. PREPARATION.

a. The type rating, difference level definition, and t est process are initiated when an applicant presents an aircraft for type certificati on. If the applicant presents a candidate aircraft to the Flight Standardization Board (FSB) as a new aircraft type certification with no anticipated application for type rating credit for similarities with aircraft previously type certificated, then the FSB analyzes the training program requirements using test T5. The results of T5 will determine a separate type rating and the minimum re quired training, checking, and currency standards as applicable to that type-certificated a ircraft. If the applicant presents an aircraft seeking pilot training, checking, or currency credi t, based on similarities with an aircraft previously type certificated, a series of possible tests (T1/T2/T3) are developed and used to
determine its level of difference with the base air craft of comparison. The results of these tests will determine the minimum required training, check ing, and currency standards as applicable to the candidate aircraft. T6 comparisons may permit C ommon Takeoff and Landing Credit (CTLC) between different type-certificated aircraft . In Appendix 2 the details of these situations provide further amplification.

b. To begin the evaluation process, the applicant iden tifies candidate aircraft. The aircraft are then assigned to logical aircraft groups to be described in Master Difference Requirements (MDR) tables and the FSB report.

c. The applicant identifies major differences pertinen t to the aircraft and makes comparisons with the proposed candidate aircraft. A differences document (i.e., an appropriate sample Operator Difference Requirement (ODR) table) summar izes the identified differences. Since combinations of related aircraft may be numerous an d only typical differences are needed at this stage for test definition, the applicant may select representative ODRs for preparation.

d. Based on the above analysis (including preliminary flight test results or flight simulation estimates, if available), the applicant proposes di fference levels to be specified in each cell of the
MDR table for the various aircraft combinations.

e. The applicant proposes applicable elements of the t est process (T1 through T5 and T6 for CTLC) and a plan for validation of the intended dif ference levels. Specific aircraft, times, devices, etc. are identified to conduct the require d tests for the candidate aircraft. Included in the proposal are any necessary interpretations of expec ted results using established standards. Any special, unique, or additional definitions of succe ssful outcomes are also identified.

f. The scope of T1 through T6 is keyed to basic visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the National Airsp ace System (NAS).

g. FAA/applicant agreement is reached on the grouping of aircraft, proposed tests, test plans, schedules, subjects, and interpretation of p ossible outcomes.

h. Subject qualifications are addressed at the time of test specification when test agreement is reached with the applicant. Test subjects for al l tests except T6 are drawn from the FAA. Subject selection considers the factors such as the following:AC 120-53B DRAFT MM/DD/YY

Appendix 3

Page 4 (1) Needed background skills of candidates (previously qualified aircraft);

(2) General flight experience and currency;

(3) Test requirements such as location, short notice ac cess, and skills needed for subjects;

(4) Technical areas, qualifications, or experience that subjects should not have to avoid test prejudice;

(5) Eventual FAA geographic or operator related distrib ution requirements for ASI, APM, and POI personnel; and

(6) Other special experience as needed for a particular program.

i. During preparation for testing and evaluation of re sults, appropriate Aircraft Certification Flight Test Branch coordination is accomplished so that flight characteristic issues and, in particular, special flight characteristics can be s uitably identified and addressed.

NOTE: Tests T1 and T2 must be conducted in the cand idate aircraft for the determination of training, checking, and currency r equirements. A FFS may be used for FSB selected T-tests that involve parti al task evaluation of systems or components, which do not directly relate to aircraft handling qualities or core pilot skills. These types of test s would normally require only a training device with no visual or motion capabili ties. The FSB chairman may elect to use a FSS before its qualification by the National Simulator Program (NSP).

2. TYPE RATING DETERMINATION THROUGH ANALYSIS-LEVEL A OR B
TRAINING ONLY.

a. Typically, with the introduction of a new aircraft, or when training credit is sought in a comparison of a base and candidate aircraft, the T1 through T5 testing process determines type rating. Not all changes or modifications to an airc raft or on occasion, the certification of a related aircraft may require flight-testing to assess their impact upon type rating. Type rating determination through analysis may be considered if the changes do not influence aircraft handling, introduce no significant change to system s operation or pilot procedures, and can be addressed at level A or B training.

b. The analysis process can be used if the aircraft ha ndling has not changed significantly. In most cases, it should be obvious that the change wi ll not affect aircraft handling but if additional data is needed to make the determination, the infor mation can be obtained from the assigned FAA Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) or through the applicant’s flight test data. Following is a list of typical changes evaluated through the ana lysis process:

(1) Maximum operating weights (revised aircraft type ce rtificate data sheet (TCDS)).MM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B Appendix 3

Page 5 (2) An engine type or thrust change that does not requi re significant design changes to aircraft flight controls.

(3) Maximum passenger capacity (revised aircraft TCDS).

(4) Avionic upgrades (Supplemental Type Certificate (ST C) or manufacturer production line upgrade).

(5) Proven electronic flight bag installation, (STC or manufacturer production line upgrade).

(6) Passenger to cargo conversions or Freighter variati on of passenger aircraft.

c. When the analysis process is completed, it is recor ded as a revision to the training courseware and to the existing FSB report for the b ase and/or candidate aircraft

3. FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE-LEVEL A OR B TEST 1 (T1).

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

.
NOTE: If the applicant communicates that the traini ng, checking and currency requirements for the candidate aircraft ma y exceed level B, the T1 test can be waived and the evaluation process then moves directly to the T2 test. By waiving the T1, the applicant acknowledges that differences exist between the base and candidate aircraft, and may de mand that training, checking, and/or currency requirements up to but no t exceeding level D are applied.

b. Test Subjects. Test subjects are designated FAA FSB members, train ed, experienced,
and current on the base aircraft with no difference s training for the candidate aircraft. The applicant may provide proficiency training to the d esignated FSB members before testing begins.

c. Test Process. The applicant initiates the test process when they propose that the minimum training, checking, and currency requiremen ts for the base and candidate aircraft are no greater than level B differences. T1 is typicall y conducted using one group of test subjects. Subjects will initially be given a “no jeopardy” fl ight check for their base aircraft to calibrate performance before taking the pertinent flight chec k in the candidate aircraft being evaluated. The flight check undertaken in the candidate aircra ft will address the differences between the base aircraft and candidate aircraft. The test may be administered or observed by more than one FSB member to ensure consistency and uniformity of test procedures and common understanding of subject performance and outcomes.

d. Safety Pilot. A “safety pilot,” serving as PIC in the aircraft an d functioning as pilot monitoring in either seat, will intervene to preven t damage to the aircraft or to limit maneuvers that endanger safety of flight.AC 120-53B DRAFT MM/DD/YY

Appendix 3

Page 6 e. Successful Test. FSB members decide the outcome of the T1 test consi stent with previously agreed upon criteria. The FSB determines the areas of differences training required and specifies necessary devices or training limitat ions. If the T1 test is passed, the pertinent aircraft pairs are assigned to level A or level B t raining differences. Successful completion of T1 results in the designation of a type rating that is either the “same” as, or is “common” to the
base aircraft.

f. Failure of Test. If the T1 test is failed and retesting is not consi dered, level A or B cannot be assigned. This generally requires complet ion of T2 and T3. If requesting training credit, the applicant may ask for and receive credi t for those items passed in T1. T1 retesting may be considered at the discretion of the FSB.

4. HANDLING QUALITIES COMPARISON BETWEEN AIRCRAFT-TEST 2 (T2).

a. Test Purpose. The T2 test compares handling qualities between the base and candidate
aircraft. At the discretion of the FSB chairman the T2 test may be completed through analysis, without requiring an aircraft flight. Determining i f the analysis process can be used requires verification that the aircraft handling has not cha nged significantly as described in the “test process”. In most cases, it should be obvious that the change will not affect aircraft handling but if the determination requires additional data, the information is obtained from the assigned FAA Aircraft Certification Office or through the applic ant’s flight test data. With FAA agreement, elements of T2 may be incorporated within the T3 te st to verify that an advanced FFS or aircraft training is not needed to address handling qualitie s.

NOTE: If T2 is conducted on an aircraft that is exp ected to require a separate type rating with CTLC, credit will be vali dated by using the T6

process.

b. Test Subjects. Test subjects are designated FAA FSB members, who a re trained, experienced and current on the base aircraft with n o differences training for the candidate aircraft. Training to proficiency may be provided t o the designated FSB members by the applicant before the start of testing.

c. Test Process. The applicant initiates the test process when they analyze available flight or simulation test data, and aircraft design or sys tem differences, and determine that handling
similarities exist between the base and candidate a ircraft. From this determination the applicant makes their T2 proposal. Before the test, represent atives of the FSB review the T2 test profile to ensure that critical handling quality aspects of th e candidate aircraft are examined. The flight evaluation consists of relevant parts of a proficie ncy check as determined by the FSB chairman. T2 consists of a comparison between selected pilot certification flight check maneuvers (normal and nonnormal) administered first in the base aircr aft (using either the actual aircraft or a level C or D FFS then in the candidate aircraft. Although T 2 testing should always be accomplished in the candidate aircraft, some portions that signific antly affect aircraft safety, such as flight contro l failures, may be conducted in a FFS suitable for th e test. Subject pilots are evaluated on performance of required maneuvers consistent with s tandards set by 14 CFR Part 121 and an assessment of the degree of difficulty in performin g maneuvers in the candidate aircraft compared to the base aircraft. The test may be admi nistered or observed by more than one FSBMM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B Appendix 3

Page 7 member to ensure consistency and uniformity of test procedures and common understanding of subject performance and outcomes.

d. Safety Pilot. The safety pilot serving as PIC in the aircraft and functioning as pilot monitoring in either seat, will intervene to preven t damage to the aircraft or to limit maneuvers which endanger safety of flight. The safety pilot c an only assist the subject pilot in areas unrelated to the handling qualities determination. For example, the safety pilot can remove impediments to progression of the test but cannot f ly, coach, or train the subject on any aspect of the test related to handling, vision cues, or motio n cues. The safety pilot may not actuate primary flight controls during the evaluation, or instruct, lead, or coach test subjects in any manner. The safety pilot may:

(1) Perform all routine pilot monitoring duties.

(2) Set up or adjust systems including those normally o perated by the pilot flying in accordance with pretest agreements.

(3) Address or resolve procedural impediments.

(4) Manage and satisfy checklists.

(5) Make normal call outs.

e. Successful Test. The FSB members decide T2 test outcome consistent w ith previously agreed upon criteria. Acceptable pilot performance in completion of designated maneuvers, without differences training, establishes that the candidate and base aircraft are sufficiently alike in handling characteristics to permit assignment of level B, C, or D. The test process can then advance to differences training and the T3 test.

f. Failure of Test. Failure of T2 means that major handling differences exist during critical phases of flight or that numerous less critical dif ferences were identified that warrant training in a FFS or aircraft. Accordingly, level E differences will be assigned and the FAA will issue a separate type rating. With a T2 failure, the next s tep in the testing process is T5 to validate level E requirements and the proposed training cour se. Failure of the T2 does not necessarily
mean that the base and candidate aircraft do not sh are a high degree of system and/or handling commonality. The applicant may elect to use the dat a collected during the T2 process to justify approval of a shortened type rating course for pilo ts that are trained on the base aircraft and are transitioning to the candidate.

5. SYSTEM DIFFERENCES TEST AND VALIDATION OF TRAINING AND CHECKING- TEST 3 (T3).

a. Test Purpose. Test 3 is used to evaluate the proposed differences training, checking, and training devices at levels B, C, or D.

b. Test Subjects. Test subjects are designated FAA FSB members, train ed, experienced, and current on the base aircraft and have completed the applicant’s proposed differences trainingAC 120-53B DRAFT MM/DD/YY

Appendix 3

Page 8 in the candidate aircraft. Training to proficiency may be provided to the designated FSB members by the applicant before the start of testin g.

c. Test Process. T3 is a system differences test and a validation of training and checking. It is used when the equivalent handling test (T2) is s uccessfully completed or when T2 is being incorporated as part of T3. T3 is administered in t wo phases following differences training of a pilot in the candidate aircraft.

(1) First Phase. The successful completion of a pilot c ertification flight check to assess pilot knowledge, skills, and abilities pertinent to operation of the aircraft being tested. If a full check is proposed, the tests are similar to those u sed for T1 as described in paragraph 2 above. If a partial check is used, the process is similar, bu t the FSB determines the test items based on the applicant’s proposals. The first phase will include either a proficiency check as defined by 14 CFR Part 121 , partial proficiency check, or ind ividual aircraft system operation check administered to pilots in the FSS or candidate airc raft. The check is administered assuming currency in the base aircraft and completion of the proposed training in the candidate aircraft.

(2) Second Phase. Line oriented flying (LOF) following completion of the flight check. The LOF phase of the test is used to validate the t raining and checking being proposed, fully assess particular difference areas, examine implica tions of mixed fleet flying, assess special circumstances such as minimum equipment list (MEL) effects, and identify the effects of pilot errors potentially related to the differences. The test is done in a real line flight environment that includes typical weather, routes, airports, air tra ffic control (ATC), and other factors that are
characteristic of those in which that aircraft will be operated. LOF tests may be conducted in test aircraft, FSS, or with a combination of these in co njunction with function and reliability certification tests. The LOF portion of the test ma y be used to evaluate complex issues or issues that cannot be fully detailed in a brief flight che ck since a check only samples pilot knowledge and skills in a limited and highly structured envir onment. LOF is an integral part of T3 and must be successfully completed before “initial” assignme nt of difference levels. In developing and selecting scenarios for evaluation consider the fol lowing:

Likelihood of occurrence

Possible consequences

The timeliness of pilot discovery and correction

d. Successful Test. The FSB members decide the outcome of the T3 consis tent with previously agreed upon criteria and completion of L OF with appropriate pilot performance. Passing T3 leads to setting respective difference l evels and validates differences training and checking at level B, C, or D between related aircra ft.

e. Failure of Test. Failure of T3 occurs with either failure of the che ck, agreed criteria, or unsatisfactory performance during the LOF portion o f the test. In certain failure cases, T3 can lead to assignment of level E and a separate type r ating. When a T3 failure is due to deficiencies in the proposed training program, at the discretion of the FSB, T3 may be repeated using different test subjects (pilots) following revision of the training program addressing the deficiencies. The following are examples that may l ead to the assignment of level E differences:MM/DD/YY DRAFT AC 120-53B Appendix 3

Page 9 (1) T3 experience or difficulties that show the need fo r assignment of training levels approaching typical initial/transition levels.

(2) T3 pilot performance that indicates that devices or methods associated with level D are not adequate to achieve training or checking ob jectives.

(3) Repeated failures of attempts to pass T3 test at le vel D training differences. In the case of retesting, new subjects may be required at the discretion of the FSB Chairman.

NOTE: Repeated failure of test at level D differenc es by one or more subject’s (pilot) inadequate performance, that is n ot an individual subject’s failure due to sub-par or atypical personal perform ance as determined by the FSB, may lead to assignment of level E differences.

6. CURRENCY VALIDATION-TEST 4 (T4).

a. Test Purpose. The T4 test is a currency test that can be used whe n an applicant seeks relief from existing FSB currency provisions. In th e context of this AC, currency addresses system procedural and maneuvering differences betwe en related aircraft. T4 does not include takeoff and landing recency of experience.

b. Test Subjects. Designated FAA FSB members.

c. Test Process. If an applicant desires a change in the currency pr ovisions, a T4 test may be conducted. This test may be done before or after the aircraft enters into service. In the event the test cannot be done before entry into service, the FSB established limits apply. Criteria that may be used by the FSB to set level B, C, D differe nces for currency for initial FSB determinations include the following examples:

(1) Complex flight critical systems affecting control o r navigation.

(2) Critical nonnormal maneuvers differing between rela ted aircraft (e.g., V1 engine failure, emergency descent, etc.), requiring one ac ceptable demonstration/training or checking event (typically 6 months but demonstration period may also vary by pilot position).

(3) Secondary systems (e.g., Oxygen or auxiliary power unit (APU)).

d. Successful Test. The FSB members decide the outcome of T4 consistent with previously agreed upon criteria. A successful test validates t hat the proposed less restrictive currency provisions are accepted as a means of compliance wi th applicable rules, provisions of this AC, and/or currency provisions and provide an equivalen t level of safety.

e. Failure of Test. Failure indicates that the proposed less restrictiv e currency provisions do not provide an equivalent level of safety. At the d iscretion of the FSB, retesting may be appropriate.

7. INITIAL OR TRANSITION TRAINING/CHECKING PROGRAM VALIDATION-TEST 5 (T5).Page 10

a. Test Purpose. T5 test validates the applicant’s training course(s ) at level E (new type rating). It is appropriate when:

(1) A full initial or transition training/checking prog ram requires validation;

(2) An applicant seeks training credits between two air craft with different type ratings (a typical goal under shortened training programs); or

(3) T2 or T3 are failed.

b. Test Subjects. Designated FAA FSB members.

c. Test Process. There are two methods to accomplish the T5 test pr ocess:

(1) Full Initial or Transition Training/Checking Progra m Validation. This method is used when an applicant has developed an aircraft and see ks a new type rating without any credit for commonality with any related aircraft. The applican t develops a training program to qualify and check pilots in the candidate aircraft at level E d ifferences. Subjects are trained, given flight proficiency checks and complete LOF in a process si milar to that described in paragraph 5.

(2) Shortened Transition Training/ Checking Program Validation. This method is used when an applicant has developed an aircraft and see ks a new type rating and credit for commonality with related aircraft. The applicant co nducts a handling qualities evaluation based on the applicant’s proposed ODR tables (similar to T2), followed by training and checking program validation (similar to T3). Subjects are tr ained, given flight proficiency checks and complete LOF in a process similar to that described in paragraph 5.

NOTE: When an aircraft is assigned level E differen ces because of a failure of T3 test at level D differences, credit for succe ssfully passing individual elements of the T3 test may be used as justificatio n for not duplicating those
elements in the T5 test.

d. Successful Test. The FSB members decide the T5 outcome consistent wi th previously agreed upon criteria. A successful outcome of T5 va lidates the proposed training and checking

programs.

e. Failure of Test. Failing T5 Indicates the proposed training or check ing programs require modification. A retest by mutual agreement between the FSB and applicant would normally be required.

8. COMMON TAKEOFF AND LANDING CREDIT (CTLC)-TEST 6 (T6 ).

a. Test Purpose. The applicant uses T6 when they seek credit between related aircraft toward the takeoff and landing recency of experienc e requirements of the applicable 14 CFR Part
121.1229.

b. Test Subjects. The test should consist of a sufficient number of p ilots not trained or qualified in the candidate aircraft. These subjects will be drawn from the manufacturer, industryPage 11 (and 12)

and the FAA that the FSB determines will represent a statistically relevant cross-section of operational pilots. The participants’ experience le vels, type ratings and airplane currency should reflect the proficiency difference levels needed to validate testing assumptions.

c. Test Process. Test subjects are first provided refresher training in the base aircraft to establish a baseline of proficiency. This training may be accomplished in an approved C or D FFS. The subject is then tested in the candidate ai rcraft, without any training in it, accomplishing a minimum of three takeoffs and landings without us e of the autopilot. It may not be practical to conduct some tests in an aircraft. A FFS may be use d to conduct these tests. Test subjects should be evaluated on their ability to fly the aircraft m anually through takeoff, initial climb, and approach and landing (including the establishment o f final landing configuration). The applicant
should consider the effects on the takeoff and land ing maneuvers for the following factors when designing the T6 test:

(1) Aircraft weights.

(2) Aircraft center of gravity.

(3) Takeoff and landing crosswinds.

d. Successful Test. The FSB members decide the outcome of T6 consisten t with the FAA Practical Test Standards (PTS) by demonstrating tha t an equivalent level of safety can be maintained when full or partial credit for takeoffs and landings is given between the related
aircraft.

e. Failure of Test. The test subjects’ performance relative to the FAA PTS demonstrates an equivalent level of safety cannot be maintained whe n either full or partial credit for takeoffs and landings is given between the related aircraft.