30232 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1 81 FR 29720. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 1, 60, 61, 63, 65, 91, 121, 

135, and 141 

[Docket No.: FAA–2016–6142; Amdt. Nos. 

1–73, 60–6, 61–142, 63–41, 65–58, 91–351, 

121–381, 135–140, 141–20] 

RIN 2120–AK28 

Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training 

Devices; Pilot Certification, Training, 

and Pilot Schools; and Other 

Provisions 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking relieves 

burdens on pilots seeking to obtain 

aeronautical experience, training, and 

certification by increasing the allowed 

use of aviation training devices. Use of 

these training devices has proven to be 

an effective, safe, and affordable means 

of obtaining pilot experience. This 

rulemaking also addresses changing 

technologies by accommodating the use 

of technically advanced airplanes as an 

alternative to the use of older complex 

single engine airplanes for the 

commercial pilot training and testing 

requirements. Additionally, this 

rulemaking broadens the opportunities 

for military instructor pilots or pilot 

examiners to obtain civilian ratings 

based on military experience, expands 

opportunities for logging pilot time, and 

removes a burden from sport pilot 

instructors by permitting them to serve 

as safety pilots. Finally, this rulemaking 

includes changes to some of the 

provisions established in an August 

2009 final rule. These actions are 

necessary to bring the regulations in line 

with current needs and activities of the 

general aviation training community 

and pilots. 

DATES: This rule is effective July 27, 

2018, except for the amendments to 

§§ 61.31(e)(2) and (f)(2), 61.129(a)(3)(ii), 

(b)(3)(ii) and (j), 61.197, 61.199, 61.412, 

61.415, 91.109, and appendix D to part 

141, which are effective August 27, 

2018; the amendments to §§ 61.1 

(amendatory instruction 10 revising the 

definition of ‘‘Pilot time’’), 61.39, 

61.51(e) and (f), 61.57(c), 61.159(a), (c), 

(d), (e), and (f), 61.161(c), (d), and (e), 

135.99, and 141.5(d) which are effective 

November 26, 2018; and the 

amendments to §§ 61.3, 63.3, 63.16, 

91.313, 91.1015, 121.383, and 135.95, 

which are effective December 24, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: For information on where to 

obtain copies of rulemaking documents 

and other information related to this 

final rule, see ‘‘How to Obtain 

Additional Information’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marcel Bernard, Airmen Certification 

and Training Branch, Flight Standards 

Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 55 M Street SE, 8th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20003–3522; 

telephone (202) 267–1100; email 

marcel.bernard@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Contents 

List of Abbreviations Frequently Used in 

This Document 

I. Executive Summary 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

III. Discussion of the Final Rule 

A. Aviation Training Devices 

1. Definition of Aviation Training Device 

2. Instructor Requirement When Using a 

Full Flight Simulator, Flight Training 

Device, or Aviation Training Device To 

Complete Instrument Recency 

Experience 

3. Instrument Recency Experience 

Requirements 

B. Second in Command Time in Part 135 

Operations 

1. Airplane Requirements 

2. Part 135 Flight Instructors 

3. Logging Requirements 

4. Miscellaneous Comments on the SIC 

PDP 

5. Effective Date and Implementation 

C. Instrument Recency Experience for SICs 

Serving in Part 135 Operations 

D. Completion of Commercial Pilot 

Training and Testing in Technically 

Advanced Airplanes 

1. Definition of Technically Advanced 

Airplane 

2. Amendment to Aeronautical Experience 

Requirement for Commercial Pilots 

3. Amendments to Commercial Pilot and 

Flight Instructor Practical Test Standards 

E. Flight Instructors With Instrument 

Ratings Only 

F. Light-Sport Aircraft Pilots and Flight 

Instructors 

1. Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Training 

Privilege 

2. Credit for Training Obtained as a Sport 

Pilot 

G. Pilot School Use of Special Curricula 

Courses for Renewal of Certificate 

H. Temporary Validation of Flightcrew 

Members’ Certificates by Part 119 

Certificate Holders Conducting 

Operations Under Part 121 or 135 and by 

Fractional Ownership Program Managers 

Conducting Operations Under Part 91, 

Subpart K 

I. Military Competence for Flight 

Instructors 

J. Use of Aircraft Certificated in the 

Restricted Category for Pilot Flight 

Training and Checking 

1. Flights Necessary To Accomplish Work 

Activity Directly Associated With the 

Special Purpose 

2. LODAs for Training and Testing for 

Certification 

3. Economic Burden 

4. Operations for Compensation or Hire 

5. Exemptions 

6. FAA Interpretation of § 91.313 

K. Single Pilot Operations of Former 

Military Airplanes and Other Airplanes 

With Special Airworthiness Certificates 

L. Technical Corrections and 

Nomenclature Change 

IV. Discussion of Effective Dates for Rule 

Provisions 

V. Advisory Circulars and Other Guidance 

Materials 

VI. Section-By-Section Discussion of the 

Final Rule 

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

G. Environmental Analysis 

VIII. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

IX. Additional Information 

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents 

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

List of Abbreviations Frequently Used 

in This Document 

AATD—Advanced aviation training device 

AC—Advisory Circular 

ATD—Aviation training device 

ATP—Airline transport pilot 

BATD—Basic aviation training device 

CFI—Certificated flight instructor 

FFS—Full flight simulator 

FTD—Flight training device 

FSTD—Flight simulation training device 

ICAO—International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

IFR—Instrument flight rules 

IPC—Instrument proficiency check 

LOA—Letter of authorization 

LODA—Letter of deviation authority 

MFD—Multi-function display 

NPRM—Notice of proposed rulemaking 

PFD—Primary flight display 

PIC—Pilot in command 

SIC—Second in command 

TAA—Technically advanced airplane 

VFR—Visual flight rules 

I. Executive Summary 

On May 12, 2016, the FAA published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) titled ‘‘Regulatory Relief: 

Aviation Training Devices; Pilot 

Certification, Training, and Pilot 

Schools; and Other Provisions.’’ 1 In the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30233 

NPRM, the FAA proposed amendments 

to reduce or relieve existing burdens on 

the general aviation community. Several 

of the proposed changes resulted from 

suggestions from the general aviation 

community through petitions for 

rulemaking, industry/agency meetings, 

and requests for legal interpretation. 

The proposed changes would have 

increased the use of aviation training 

devices (ATDs), flight training devices 

(FTDs), and full flight simulators (FFSs); 

expanded opportunities for pilots in 

part 135 operations to log flight time; 

allowed an alternative to the complex 

airplane requirement for commercial 

pilot training; and permitted pilots to 

credit some of their sport pilot training 

toward a higher certificate. 

Table 1 summarizes the provisions 

proposed in the NPRM, the changes 

being made to those provisions in this 

final rule, the Code of Federal 

Regulations sections affected, and the 

total cost savings (benefits) for a 5-year 

analysis period. All of the provisions in 

this rule are either relieving or 

voluntary. For those provisions that are 

relieving, no person affected is 

anticipated to incur any costs associated 

with the relieving nature of the 

provision. The FAA assumes that as 

these provisions are relieving, all 

persons affected will use the provisions 

as they will be beneficial. For those 

provisions that are voluntary, persons 

who wish to use the new provisions will 

do so only if the benefit they would 

accrue from their use exceeds any cost 

they might incur to comply with the 

new provision. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROVISIONS AND CHANGES FROM NPRM 

Provision Summary of 

NPRM provision 

Significant 

changes from 

NPRM 

14 CFR §§ affected Summary of 

costs/benefits 

Aviation Training Devices 

Instructor requirement 

when using an 

FFS, FTD, or ATD 

to complete instrument recency.

Remove the requirement to have 

an instructor present when accomplishing flight experience requirements for instrument 

recency in an FAA-approved 

FFS, FTD, or ATD.

No longer describes the training 

devices as ‘‘approved’’.

61.51(g) ..................... 2016$–$12.5M. 

PV = Present Value. 

PV-3%—$11.4M. 

PV-7%—$10.3M. 

Instrument recency 

experience requirements.

Reduce frequency of instrument 

recency flight experience accomplished exclusively in ATDs from 

every two months to every six 

months.

Reduce number of tasks and remove three-hour flight time requirement when accomplishing 

instrument recency flight experience in ATDs.

Allows any combination of aircraft, 

FFS, FTD, or ATD to satisfy the 

instrument recency requirements.

No longer describes the training 

devices as ‘‘approved’’.

61.57(c) ..................... 2016$–83.1M. 

PV-3%—$76.1M. 

PV-7%—68.2M. 

Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools 

Second in command 

for part 135 operations.

Allow a pilot to log SIC flight time 

in a multiengine airplane in a 

part 135 operation that does not 

require an SIC.

Adds the option to use a single-engine turbine-powered airplane in 

an approved SIC PDP.

No longer requires the PIC to be a 

part 135 flight instructor.

61.1; 61.39(a); 

61.51(e), (f); 

61.159; 61.161(c), 

(d), (e); 135.99(c), 

(d).

Minimal Cost Savings—Not Quantified. 

Adds crew pairing requirements to 

ensure the PIC is qualified and 

has completed mentoring training.

Allows a pilot to log SIC time obtained in part 91 operations conducted in accordance with the 

certificate holder’s OpSpec.

Allows pilots to credit SIC time 

logged under a SIC PDP toward 

the specific flight time requirements for ATP certification.

Instrument recency 

experience for 

SICs serving in 

Part 135 operations.

Remove the reference to part 61 in 

§ 135.245(a) and add the current 

instrument experience requirements in § 61.57(c)(1) and (2) to 

new § 135.245(c).

Allows any combination of aircraft 

and FSTD to satisfy the SIC instrument recent experience requirements.

Includes an option for part 135 

SICs to reestablish instrument 

recency.

135.245 ..................... Minimal Cost Savings—Not Quantified. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30234 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROVISIONS AND CHANGES FROM NPRM—Continued 

Provision Summary of 

NPRM provision 

Significant 

changes from 

NPRM 

14 CFR §§ affected Summary of 

costs/benefits 

Completion of commercial pilot training and testing in 

technically advanced airplanes 

(TAA).

Allow TAA to be used to meet 

some or all of the currently required 10 hours of training that 

must be completed in a complex 

or turbine-powered airplane for 

the single engine commercial 

pilot certificate. TAA could be 

used in combination with, or instead of, a complex or turbinepowered airplane to meet the 

aeronautical experience requirement and could be used to complete the practical test.

Includes a general definition of 

TAA in § 61.1, and relocates the 

TAA requirements from the proposed definition to new 

§ 61.129(j).

Revises the proposed requirements for TAAs to accommodate 

existing and new technology.

Allows a person to use any combination of turbine-powered, 

complex or technically advanced 

airplanes to satisfy the training 

requirement.

61.1; 61.129(a)(3)(ii), 

(j); appendix D to 

part 141 61.31(e) 

and (f).

2016$–$3.1M. 

PV-3%—$2.8M. 

PV-7%—$2.6M. 

Clarifies that the option to use a 

TAA applies to all commercial 

pilot applicants for a single-engine class rating (land and sea).

Adds an exception to § 61.31(e) 

and (f) to allow a competency 

check under part 135 to meet 

the requirements for training in 

complex or high performance 

airplanes facilitating PIC operations.

In Notice N 8900.463, Use of a 

Complex Airplane During a 

Commercial Pilot or Flight Instructor Practical Test, the FAA 

implemented a policy change 

that allows any single engine airplane to be used for the commercial pilot and flight instructor 

practical tests.

Flight instructors with 

instrument ratings 

only.

Remove the requirement that instrument only instructors have 

category and class ratings on 

their flight instructor certificates 

to provide instrument training.

Requires an instrument only instructor to possess an airplane 

category multiengine class rating 

on his or her flight instructor certificate when providing instrument training in a multiengine 

airplane.

61.195(b), (c) ............. Minimal Cost Savings—Not Quantified. 

Sport pilot flight instructor training 

privilege.

Allow a sport pilot only instructor to 

provide training on control and 

maneuvering solely by reference 

to the flight instruments (for 

sport pilot students only).

Allows sport pilot instructors to receive the training required by 

§ 61.412 in an ATD.

Allows instrument only instructors 

to provide the training and endorsement required by § 61.412 

to sport pilot instructors.

61.412; 61.415(h); 

91.109(c).

Minimal Cost Savings—Not Quantified. 

Credit for training obtained as a sport 

pilot.

Allow a portion of sport pilot training to be credited for certain 

aeronautical experience requirements for a higher certificate or 

rating.

Allows all training received from a 

sport pilot instructor to be credited towards a higher certificate 

or rating.

Allows training received from a 

sport pilot instructor on the control and maneuvering of an aircraft solely by reference to the 

instruments to be credited towards a private pilot certificate, 

provided the sport pilot instructor 

satisfies § 61.412.

61.99; 61.109(l) ......... 2016$–$14.0M. 

PV-3%—$13.3M. 

PV-7%—$12.3M. 

Include special curricula courses in 

renewal of pilot 

school certificate.

Allow part 141 pilot schools to 

count FAA approved ‘‘special 

curricula’’ course completions 

(graduates of these courses) toward certificate renewal requirements.

No changes .................................... 141.5(d) ..................... Minimal Cost Savings—Not Quantified. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30235 

2 81 FR at 29723. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROVISIONS AND CHANGES FROM NPRM—Continued 

Provision Summary of 

NPRM provision 

Significant 

changes from 

NPRM 

14 CFR §§ affected Summary of 

costs/benefits 

Other Provisions 

Temporary validation 

of flightcrew members’ certificates.

Allow a confirmation document 

issued by a part 119 certificate 

holder authorized to conduct operations under part 121 or 135 

to serve as a temporary 

verification of the airman certificate and/or medical certificate 

during operations within the 

United States for up to 72 hours.

Adds language to also allow part 

91, subpart K program managers to issue temporary 

verification documents.

61.3; 63.3; 63.16; 

91.1015(h); 

121.383; 135.95.

Minimal Cost Savings—Not Quantified. 

Military competence 

for Flight Instructors.

Allow the addition of a flight instructor rating based on military 

competency to ‘‘simultaneously 

qualify’’ for the reinstatement of 

an expired FAA flight instructor 

certificate.

Revises reinstatement requirements to accurately reflect the 

process by which a military instructor pilot acquires an additional aircraft rating qualification.

Provides military instructor pilots 

two options for reinstatement, 

consistent with the reinstatement 

requirements for civilian holders 

of expired flight instructor certificates.

61.197; 61.199 .......... Minimal Cost Savings—Not Quantified. 

Restricted Category 

Aircraft type training and testing allowances.

Allow an operator to request and 

obtain a letter of deviation authority to conduct training and 

testing and other directly related 

activities for employees to obtain 

a type rating in a restricted category aircraft.

Removes proposed requirement 

that personnel receiving flight 

crewmember training in special 

purpose operations be employed 

by the operator providing the 

training.

Specifies that relocation flights include delivery and repositioning 

flights.

91.313 ....................... Minimal Cost Savings—Not Quantified. 

Single Pilot Operations of Former 

Military Airplanes 

and Other Airplanes with Special 

Airworthiness Certificates.

Allow pilots to operate certain 

large and turbojet-powered airplanes (specifically former military and some airplanes not type 

certificated in the standard category) without a pilot who is 

designated as SIC.

Revised to accommodate the new 

airplane certification levels 

adopted in the part 23 final rule.

91.531 ....................... Minimal Cost Savings—Not Quantified. 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle 

I, section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the 

authority of the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and rules; 49 

U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promote safe flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations and setting 

minimum standards for other practices, 

methods, and procedures necessary for 

safety in air commerce and national 

security; and 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which 

requires the Administrator to prescribe 

regulations for the issuance of airman 

certificates when the Administrator 

finds, after investigation, that an 

individual is qualified for, and 

physically able to perform the duties 

related to, the position authorized by 

the certificate. 

III. Discussion of the Final Rule 

On May 12, 2016, the FAA published 

a NPRM proposing a variety of 

provisions intended to provide relief 

from regulatory burdens to the general 

aviation community, commercial pilots, 

military flight instructors, and those 

using new technology in aviation. The 

FAA proposed changes in 12 different 

subject areas to 14 CFR parts 61, 63, 91, 

121, 135, and 141. 

The FAA received and considered a 

total of 100 comments to the NPRM. 

Commenters included 63 individuals, 

15 aviation-related companies, and 12 

aviation-related organizations. Several 

commenters provided more than one 

comment. The majority of commenters 

supported various proposed provisions, 

and many recommended changes to the 

proposed rule language. While there 

was opposition to some provisions, no 

commenters opposed the NPRM in its 

entirety. 

Because of the specific nature of each 

provision, the FAA discusses each 

provision separately. 

A. Aviation Training Devices 

This final rule amends the regulations 

governing the use of aviation training 

devices (ATDs). As stated in the 

NPRM,2 the FAA approves ATDs for use 

in pilot certification training under the 

authority provided in 14 CFR 61.4(c). 

Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 60 governs 

the qualification of flight simulation 

training devices (FSTD), which include 

full flight simulators (FFSs) levels A 

through D and flight training devices 

(FTDs) levels 4 through 7. As discussed 

in the following sections, the FAA is: (1) 

Adding a definition of ATD in § 61.1; (2) 

removing the requirement for an 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30236 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

3Prior to this final rule, an ATD was defined in 

FAA guidance but not in the regulations. AC 61– 

136A defines ATD as a training device, other than 

a FFS or FTD, that has been evaluated, qualified, 

and approved by the Administrator. This final rule 

codifies the definition in § 61.1. 

4See AC–61–136A, FAA Approval of Aviation 

Training Devices and Their Use for Training and 

Experience (November 17, 2014). 

5See FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 11, Ch. 10, Sec. 1, 

Para. 11–10–1–19 Inspector Oversight (explaining 

how the jurisdictional FSDO may conduct an 

inspection or surveillance of any FAA-approved 

ATD located within its geographical area that an 

owner or operator uses to satisfy experience or 

training requirements for pilot certificates or 

ratings). 

6 14 CFR part 1 defines ‘‘flight training device’’ as 

a replica of aircraft instruments, equipment, panels, 

and controls in an open flight deck area or an 

enclosed aircraft cockpit replica. It includes the 

equipment and computer programs necessary to 

represent aircraft (or set of aircraft) operations in 

ground and flight conditions having the full range 

of capabilities of the systems installed in the device 

as described in part 60 of the chapter and the 

qualification performance standard (QPS) for a 

specific FTD qualification level. 

7See 14 CFR 61.65(h)(2)(i), 141.41(b), and 

appendix C to part 141. 

8 81 FR at 29745. 

9Prior to this final rule, § 61.51(g)(4) required a 

pilot accomplishing instrument recency experience 

in an FFS, FTD, or ATD to have an authorized 

instructor present to observe the time and sign the 

pilot’s logbook. The FAA notes that a pilot who 

performs instrument recency in an aircraft, 

however, is not required to have an instructor 

present to observe the time. 

10 81 FR at 29724. 

instructor to be present when a pilot 

accomplishes his or her instrument 

recency in an FFS, FTD, or ATD; and (3) 

amending the regulations to allow pilots 

to accomplish instrument recency 

experience in ATDs at the same interval 

allowed for FFSs and FTDs. 

1. Definition of Aviation Training 

Device 

The FAA proposed to define ATD as 

a training device, other than a FFS or 

FTD, that has been evaluated, qualified, 

and approved by the Administrator.3

The FAA proposed to add this 

definition to § 61.1 to differentiate ATDs 

from FFSs and FTDs qualified under 

part 60 and to establish that an ATD 

must be evaluated, qualified, and 

approved by the Administrator to be 

used to meet aeronautical experience 

requirements under part 61. 

The FAA received 3 comments on the 

proposed definition of ‘‘aviation 

training device.’’ 

The Society of Aviation and Flight 

Educators (SAFE) concurred with the 

proposal. The Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA), however, 

recommended removing the words 

‘‘evaluated’’ and ‘‘qualified’’ from the 

proposed definition because they are 

redundant with ‘‘approved’’ and 

because the FAA may, at times, only 

need to ‘‘approve’’ a previously 

approved ATD model. 

The FAA is retaining the terms 

‘‘evaluated’’ and ‘‘qualified’’ because the 

evaluation and qualification of an ATD 

are important parts of the approval 

process. An ATD is evaluated and 

qualified before it is approved under 

§ 61.4(c).4 Evaluating and qualifying 

ATDs validates their effectiveness for 

successful training. In response to 

AOPA’s comment regarding previously 

approved ATD models, the FAA finds 

that defining an ATD, in part, as 

‘‘evaluated, qualified, and approved’’ 

will not adversely affect the use of ATD 

models that have been previously 

approved. Unlike FSTD which must be 

individually qualified under part 60, the 

FAA has permitted the use of ATDs that 

have been produced identical to the 

model evaluated, qualified, and 

approved utilizing a standard letter of 

authorization (LOA) for over 12 years. 

After the FAA provides initial approval 

of a specific model, that approval covers 

production of additional identical 

models by the manufacturer. However, 

the FAA reserves the right to re-evaluate 

any ATD used to meet pilot certification 

or experience requirements.5 Additional 

conditions and limitations in the LOAs 

explain that any changes or 

modifications made to the ATD that 

have not been approved in writing by 

the General Aviation and Commercial 

Division may terminate the LOA. 

An individual commenter asked the 

FAA to clarify whether the definition 

eliminates the basic ATD and advanced 

ATD categories described in Advisory 

Circular (AC) 61–136. The individual 

also asked the FAA to update the related 

guidance and advisory materials with 

this clarification. 

The ATD definition does not 

eliminate the qualification of an ATD as 

basic or advanced. The FAA is adding 

a general definition of ATD to § 61.1 to 

differentiate ATDs from FFSs and FTDs 

qualified under part 60 and to establish 

that an ATD must be evaluated, 

qualified, and approved by the 

Administrator. The FAA will continue 

to provide guidance in AC 61–136, as 

amended, to qualify an ATD as basic or 

advanced. Comparatively, the definition 

in part 1 for a FTD does not delineate 

qualification levels.6

The FAA notes that current 

regulations in parts 61 and 141 

expressly differentiate instrument 

training time allowances for ‘‘basic’’ 

verses ‘‘advanced’’ ATDs.7 FAA Order 

8900.1, Volume 11, Chapter 10, Section 

1, Aviation Training Device also 

describes different allowances for basic 

and advanced ATDs. The FAA provides 

an LOA for each training device that 

specifies the level of approval (i.e., basic 

or advanced) for the ATD and the 

allowable credits, thereby mitigating 

any concern about understanding the 

different allowances. 

The FAA is adopting the definition of 

ATD in § 61.1 as proposed. 

In commenting on the ATD definition, 

AOPA noted that the definition of flight 

simulation training device (FSTD) is 

inconsistent between part 1 and part 60. 

AOPA recommended revising the part 1 

definition to conform with the part 60 

definition by adding the word ‘‘full’’ 

before ‘‘flight simulator.’’ 

The FAA is adopting AOPA’s 

recommendation, which is consistent 

with the FAA’s proposal to replace the 

words ‘‘flight simulator’’ with the words 

‘‘full flight simulator’’ wherever they 

appear in the sections the FAA 

determined needed to be revised.8

2. Instructor Requirement When Using a 

Full Flight Simulator, Flight Training 

Device, or Aviation Training Device To 

Complete Instrument Recency 

Experience 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

amend § 61.51(g) by revising paragraph 

(g)(4) and adding a new paragraph (g)(5) 

to allow a pilot to accomplish 

instrument recency experience when 

using a FFS, FTD, or ATD without an 

instructor present, provided a logbook 

or training record is maintained to 

specify the approved training device, 

time, and the content as appropriate.9

Under the proposal, a pilot would still 

have been required to have an instructor 

present when using time in a FFS, FTD, 

or ATD to acquire instrument 

aeronautical experience for a pilot 

certificate or rating. 

The FAA received 27 comments, 9 

from organizations and 18 from 

individuals. The majority of 

commenters overwhelmingly supported 

the proposal noting various benefits, 

including reduced costs for pilots, less 

time commitment, reduced airspace use 

and congestion, increased number of 

instrument current pilots, and increased 

pilot proficiency and safety. Several 

commenters noted how the use of FFSs, 

FTDs, and ATDs enhances training by 

allowing more opportunities to practice 

important skills and experience a 

variety of approaches, conditions, and 

equipment failures. 

As stated in the NPRM,10 because 

instrument recency experience is not 

training, the FAA no longer believes it 

is necessary to have an instructor 

present when instrument recency 

experience is accomplished in an FSTD 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30237 

11FFSs and FTDs are qualified by the National 

Simulator Program under part 60. FFSs and FTDs 

are subsequently approved by a principal 

operations inspector (POI) or training center 

program manager (TCPM) for use in a training 

program. When an FFS or FTD is used outside of 

a training program, an FFS or FTD is not approved 

by the FAA; it is only qualified by the National 

Simulator Program under part 60. Therefore, not all 

FSTDs used to satisfy § 61.51(g)(5) will be 

approved. ATDs are approved by letter of 

authorization from AFS–800, The General Aviation 

and Commercial Division. 

12 14 CFR 61.51(g)(4), 61.65, 61.129. 

13 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(iv). 

14Although recent flight experience is not 

training, the required maneuvers may be 

accomplished as part of a training program. As 

such, the experience may be logged in a training 

record rather than a logbook. 

15 14 CFR 61.51(b) and (g)(5). For ATDs, the type 

and identification of the device will be the 

manufacturer name and model, which is identified 

on the LOA for the ATD approval. All qualified 

FFSs and FTDs will have an FAA identification 

number. 

16The FAA notes that FFSs and FTDs are not 

issued LOAs. Rather, an FFS or FTD is issued a 

Statement of Qualification (SOQ), which will 

contain the FAA identification number. 14 CFR 

60.15(g). The SOQ must be posted in or adjacent to 

the FSTD. 14 CFR 60.9(b)(2). 

17As discussed further in this section, the 

purpose of the instrument recency experience 

requirement is to ensure the pilot maintains his or 

her instrument proficiency by performing and 

logging the required instrument experience. A pilot 

who accomplishes instrument recency experience is 

already instrument-rated. Therefore, the FAA 

expects pilots accomplishing the instrument 

recency experience to already be at an acceptable 

level of proficiency. 

18 14 CFR 61.57(c)(1). 

19 14 CFR 61.59. 

20Sec. 1001 prescribes penalties for falsification 

offenses. 

21FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 11, Ch. 10 Aviation 

Training Device, Sec. 1 Approval, Oversight, and 

Authorized Use Under 14 CFR parts 61 and 141. 

or ATD. The FAA is therefore removing 

the requirement for an authorized 

instructor to be present when a pilot 

accomplishes his or her instrument 

recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or 

ATD, as proposed. The FAA is, 

however, slightly revising the proposed 

rule language by removing the word 

‘‘approved’’ because an FFS or FTD 

used to satisfy § 61.51(g)(5) is qualified, 

not approved, by the National Simulator 

Program under part 60.11 Furthermore, 

§ 61.51(g)(4) retains the requirement for 

an authorized instructor to be present in 

an FSTD or ATD when a pilot is logging 

training time to meet the aeronautical 

experience requirements for a certificate 

or rating.12

As with instrument recency 

experience accomplished in an aircraft, 

§ 61.57(c) requires the pilot to log the 

required tasks in his or her logbook and 

§ 61.51(b) requires certain information 

to be logged, including the type and 

identification of the FSTD or ATD.13

Additionally, § 61.51(g)(5) requires the 

pilot to maintain a logbook or training 

record 14 that specifies the training 

device, time, and content. The FAA 

therefore emphasizes the importance of 

clearly documenting in one’s logbook 

the type and identification of the FFS, 

FTD, or ATD used to maintain recency 

and a detailed record of the specific 

tasks completed.15 For ATDs, the FAA 

recommends retaining a copy of the 

FAA Letter of Authorization (LOA) for 

the ATD used because the LOA contains 

the type and model of the ATD that 

must be documented in the pilot’s 

logbook.16

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA), National Air 

Transportation Association (NATA), 

Redbird, Society of Aviation and Flight 

Educators (SAFE), and four individuals, 

who identified as either pilots or 

instructors, generally commented that 

bringing FFS, FTD, and ATD instrument 

recency requirements in line with the 

requirements when using an actual 

aircraft makes sense. These commenters 

indicated that if a pilot can be trusted 

to log instrument recency in an aircraft 

without an instructor present, then he or 

she should be trusted to do the same in 

an FFS, FTD, or ATD. 

Four commenters expressed concern, 

however, that there is potential for 

falsification of logbook entries by pilots 

if they are not supervised when using an 

FFS, FTD, or ATD to satisfy instrument 

recency requirements. To reduce the 

risk of falsification, one individual 

recommended that FAA require the 

simulator to produce a flight track and 

log all pilot activities and actions during 

the simulator session. The commenter 

recommended that the flight school 

keep this documentation, and the pilot 

retain a copy of this simulator session 

to support the logbook entry to satisfy 

the instrument recency experience 

requirement. 

Because instructor supervision is not 

required when a pilot satisfies the 

instrument recency experience in an 

aircraft,17 similarly, it should not be 

required when a pilot satisfies the same 

instrument recency experience in a FFS, 

FTD, or ATD. A pilot must perform and 

log the required tasks regardless of 

whether the tasks are accomplished in 

an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD.18 As 

several commenters noted, pilots who 

satisfy the instrument recency 

experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD 

should be trusted in the same fashion as 

those pilots who satisfy the 

requirements in an aircraft. While there 

is a potential for falsification in both 

scenarios, the FAA finds that the 

current penalties for falsifying pilot 

logbooks and records, which include 

suspension or revocation of one’s 

airman certificate, are a sufficient 

deterrent to falsifying the logging 

requirements.19 The FAA notes that 

falsifying a logbook entry would also be 

a criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.20

Given the deterrence that is currently in 

place for the falsification of records, the 

FAA finds it unnecessary to require 

instructor supervision when a pilot 

satisfies the instrument recency 

experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD. 

Furthermore, the FAA is not requiring 

the FFS, FTD, or ATD to produce a 

flight track and log pilot activities as 

proof of performing the required tasks 

for maintaining instrument recency; nor 

is the FAA imposing more stringent 

recordkeeping requirements on the 

flight schools who own such FFS, FTD, 

or ATDs or on the pilots who use the 

FFS, FTD, or ATD to maintain 

instrument recency. These suggestions 

are outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

American Flyers and several 

individuals asserted that using an FFS, 

FTD, or ATD to satisfy instrument 

recency requirements, particularly 

without an instructor present, is not 

comparable to operating an aircraft. The 

individual commenters noted that with 

FFSs, FTDs, or ATDs, there is no spatial 

disorientation, nothing truly 

unexpected, no other aircraft, no 

equipment problems, no approach 

changes, no interaction from air traffic 

control, no threat to life, and rules can 

be violated. Two individuals noted that 

an instructor could introduce some of 

these variables in an FSTD or ATD. One 

individual recommended the FAA 

require a flight instructor to introduce 

real-world scenarios in an ATD as part 

of the instrument recency requirements. 

The FAA finds that satisfying 

instrument recency experience 

requirements in an FFS, FTD or ATD is 

as beneficial as satisfying the 

requirements in an aircraft regardless of 

whether an instructor is present. FFSs, 

FTDs, and ATDs are specifically 

designed to allow a person to replicate 

and execute instrument tasks just as 

they would in an aircraft. The FAA 

qualifies FFSs and FTDs under 14 CFR 

part 60, and the FAA evaluates, 

qualifies and approves ATDs under the 

authority provided in 14 CFR 61.4(c) 

using specific standards and criteria 

described in AC 61–136 (as amended) as 

one means of compliance. Additionally, 

the FAA accomplishes on site 

functional evaluations of ATDs 

verifying that they successfully emulate 

instrument tasks accurately.21 The FAA 

further notes that the regulations do not 

require a pilot to experience the 

variables mentioned by the commenters 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30238 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

22 14 CFR 61.57. 

23 14 CFR 61.57(d). 

as part of the required tasks for 

maintaining instrument recency.22 The 

variables identified by the commenters 

consist of conditions and events that are 

more specific to training, a practical 

test, or an instrument proficiency check. 

Several commenters, including the 

Lancair Owners and Builders 

Organization (LOBO), stated that having 

an instructor present in the FSS, FTD or 

ATD improves the pilot’s proficiency. A 

few individuals stated that a pilot may 

need additional training and not realize 

it without an instructor present. 

However, one individual asserted that if 

a pilot has obtained a certificate after 

completing the minimum hours with an 

instructor and remains current, there is 

no requirement for additional training. 

Section 61.57(c) requires a pilot to 

perform and log minimum tasks to 

maintain instrument recency; § 61.57(c) 

does not impose training or proficiency 

requirements. An instrument-rated pilot 

has already demonstrated his or her 

proficiency during a practical test with 

an examiner. The purpose of the 

instrument recency experience 

requirement is to ensure the pilot 

maintains his or her instrument 

proficiency by performing and logging 

the required instrument experience. 

Therefore, the FAA expects pilots 

accomplishing the instrument recency 

experience to already be at an 

acceptable level of proficiency. The 

FAA recommends, however, that a pilot 

seek additional training if he or she is 

uncomfortable with his or her 

performance of the required tasks under 

§ 61.57(c). 

LOBO recommended requiring pilots 

to complete an annual instrument 

proficiency check with an instrument 

flight instructor. 

The FAA requires an instrument 

proficiency check only when a pilot has 

failed to meet the recent instrument 

experience requirements for more than 

six calendar months.23 The 

recommendation to require an 

instrument proficiency check every year 

is beyond the scope of this rulemaking 

and unnecessary if the pilot is 

maintaining his or her instrument 

recency in accordance with the 

regulations. 

Two individuals asserted that there is 

no cost savings when one takes into 

account the cost of a crash, including 

the cost of a human life, property 

damage, and medical treatment for 

survivors. 

For the reasons stated above, the FAA 

disagrees with the assertion that 

removing the requirement for an 

instructor to be present in an FSTD or 

ATD will result in a decrease in safety. 

Pilots may accomplish the required 

tasks under § 61.57(c) in an aircraft in 

actual instrument conditions without an 

instructor present. Allowing pilots to 

accomplish the same tasks in an FSTD 

or ATD without an instructor present 

does not reduce the level of safety. 

LOBO questioned the accuracy of the 

FAA’s estimates of cost savings, noting 

that the FAA may be overestimating the 

number of pilots that use an FFS, FTD, 

or ATD, to maintain instrument recency. 

LOBO claimed that although the 

percentage of pilots who possess 

instrument ratings is quite high, nonscientific polling by AOPA indicates 

many of them are not instrument 

current. LOBO noted that the FAA 

estimated that removing the 

requirement for a flight instructor to be 

present would generate a total savings of 

$10.6 million (present value), or $2.4 

million annually, all other factors 

remaining the same. Given there has 

been no polling of the U.S. pilot 

population for training, experience, etc. 

by the FAA since 1990, LOBO 

questioned the accuracy of these 

estimates. 

The Regulatory Evaluation in the 

NPRM estimated that implementation of 

this rule provision would result in 

present value cost savings of $10.6 

million over a five-year period at a 7 

percent discount rate. Because the FAA 

does not require pilots to report 

instrument experience data and 

capturing such data is difficult if not 

impossible, the FAA made a 

conservative estimate of the cost 

savings. This is a conservative estimate 

because it reflects that a significant 

number of pilots do not maintain 

instrument recency in general. The FAA 

estimated the number of pilots who 

might benefit from this rule provision 

by starting with the total number of 

instrument rated pilots in the United 

States as of June 30, 2015. This was 

305,976 instrument rated pilots. This 

number included airline transport pilots 

(ATPs). However, under § 61.57(e), 

pilots employed by part 119 certificate 

holders conducting operations under 

part 121 or part 135 are excepted from 

the instrument recency experience 

requirement in § 61.57(c). As of June 23, 

2015, the FAA estimated that 104,424 

air carrier pilots were excepted. This left 

201,552 instrument rated pilots that 

could potentially benefit from this rule 

provision. Of these pilots, the FAA 

estimated that only approximately 50 

percent (100,776) were maintaining 

their recency. Of this group, the FAA 

estimated that only 25 percent (25,194) 

used an FFS, FTD, or ATD for recency 

and would potentially benefit from this 

rule provision. At an average instructor 

rate of $24 per hour for an estimated 4 

hours per year, the FAA estimated that 

it would cost about 2.4 million dollars 

per year for 25,194 pilots to complete 

the recency requirement. These 

estimates indicate that only 12.5 percent 

of instrument rated pilots (excluding air 

carrier pilots) would benefit from this 

rule provision. The FAA finds this to be 

a reasonably conservative estimate. 

Furthermore, FAA notes that LOBO 

did not provide any alternative 

estimates, LOBO relied on non-scientific 

polling from AOPA, and LOBO failed to 

provide any substantiated statistics. The 

FAA believes new § 61.51(g)(5) will 

significantly reduce cost to the public. 

As described in the NPRM, the FAA 

believes that new § 61.51(g)(5) will 

likely increase the public’s use of FFSs, 

FTDs or ATDs and notes that the 

majority of comments supported this 

conclusion. Because the FAA is 

adopting § 61.51(g)(4) and (5) as 

proposed and no alternative estimates 

were provided, there will be no change 

to the NPRM methodology used for this 

estimate. 

As a general matter, the FAA notes 

that ATDs allow programming and 

practice of many instrument situations, 

scenarios, and procedures. The current 

capabilities of ATDs, FTDs, and FFSs 

allow an instrument rated pilot to 

program and successfully practice 

simulated low visibility weather 

conditions, multiple approaches in a 

shorter period of time, emergency 

procedures, equipment failures, and 

other various flight scenarios that 

cannot necessarily be accomplished in 

an aircraft safely. Allowing the use of 

ATDs, FTDs and FFSs without the 

requirement (and therefore the cost) of 

having an instructor present can result 

in more pilots being better prepared. 

This benefit could include executing 

flight scenarios they may not normally 

experience when accomplishing 

instrument recency in an aircraft, or in 

locations where they do not normally 

fly, or when practicing emergency 

procedures that are likely too dangerous 

to accomplish in an aircraft. This 

includes the unique capability of 

practicing identical instrument 

approach procedures to an airport the 

pilot may not have otherwise flown to 

before. 

Other than removing the term 

‘‘approved’’ from the proposed rule 

language, as explained above, 

§ 61.51(g)(4) and (5) remain unchanged 

from the proposal. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30239 

24Prior to this final rule, § 61.57(c)(3) required 

persons using an ATD to establish instrument 

experience to complete the required tasks within 

the preceding 2 calendar months. Persons using an 

aircraft, FFS, FTD, or a combination, however, were 

required to establish instrument experience within 

the preceding 6 calendar months. 14 CFR 

61.57(c)(1) and (2). 

25Prior to this final rule, for persons using an 

ATD for maintaining instrument experience, 

§ 61.57(c)(3) required an additional 3 hours of 

instrument experience and two unusual attitude 

recoveries while in a descending, Vne airspeed 

condition and two unusual attitude recoveries 

while in an ascending, stall speed condition. 

26Final Rule, ‘‘Aviation Training Device Credit 

for Pilot Certification,’’ 81 FR 21449 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

27Final Rule, ‘‘Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot 

School Certification,’’ 74 FR 42500, 42516–42517 

(Aug. 21, 2009) (amending § 61.57(c) to allow the 

use of aviation training devices, flight simulators, 

and flight training devices for maintaining 

instrument recent flight experience). 

28 81 FR at 21456 (Apr. 12, 2016). 

29 Id. 

3. Instrument Recency Experience 

Requirements 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

amend § 61.57(c) to allow pilots to 

accomplish instrument experience in 

ATDs at the same 6-month interval 

allowed for FFSs and FTDs.24

Additionally, for pilots who opt to use 

ATDs exclusively to accomplish 

instrument recency experience, the FAA 

proposed to no longer require an 

additional 3 hours of instrument 

experience and additional tasks to 

remain current.25 The FAA also 

proposed to allow completion of 

instrument recency experience in any 

combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or 

ATD. 

Ten commenters, including Redbird, 

American Flyers, and Eagle Sport, 

supported the proposal without change 

noting the anticipated cost savings that 

may encourage pilots to stay current, the 

ability for ATDs to enhance skills and 

improve proficiency, and the simplified 

rule language that will facilitate 

compliance. 

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA) and an individual 

commented that ATDs are much more 

advanced than they were at the time of 

the 2009 final rule, and that with these 

advances, it makes sense to allow the 

use of ATDs to meet instrument recency 

requirements in the same manner as 

with FFSs, FTDs, or aircraft. 

As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA 

believes that the current design and 

technology of ATDs has advanced and 

provides a greater opportunity for the 

advancement of instrument skills and 

improved proficiency, as well as a wider 

range of experiences and scenarios, 

which justifies their increased use in 

§ 61.57(c)(2). This is also reflected in the 

final rule, ‘‘Aviation Training Device 

Credit for Pilot Certification,’’ published 

on April 12, 2016,26 which increased 

the ATD credit allowances for 

instrument rating certification 

requirements. 

AOPA, General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA), 

Society of Aviation and Flight Educators 

(SAFE), and one individual asked the 

FAA to revise the proposed rule 

language to expressly allow a pilot to 

meet the requirements for instrument 

recency experience in any combination 

of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD. 

While the FAA stated in the NPRM 

that a pilot would be permitted to 

complete instrument recency experience 

in any combination of aircraft, FFS, 

FTD, or ATD, the proposed rule would 

not have expressly allowed this. The 

FAA is therefore adding language to 

proposed § 61.57(c)(2) to expressly state 

that a person may complete the 

instrument recency experience in any 

combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or 

ATD. Furthermore, consistent with the 

changes made in § 61.51(g)(5), the FAA 

is removing the word ‘‘approved’’ from 

proposed § 61.57(c)(1) because an FFS 

or FTD used to satisfy § 61.57(c)(1) is 

qualified, not approved, by the National 

Simulator Program under part 60. 

Two individuals opposed the 

provision. One individual believed that 

experience in an ATD cannot replicate 

that of an actual aircraft because 

piloting an aircraft involves many 

unexpected elements and stresses not 

present in an ATD. The other individual 

asserted that the instrument recency 

requirements are bare minimums and do 

not demonstrate proficiency, and that 

requiring more flight time would result 

in fewer accidents. 

The FAA disagrees with requiring a 

pilot to accomplish the instrument 

recency experience in an aircraft. The 

FAA has allowed the instrument 

recency tasks to be accomplished in an 

FFS, FTD, or ATD since 2009.27 The 

FAA did not propose to change the 

allowance of an ATD to satisfy 

instrument recency experience. Rather, 

given the technological advancements 

that have occurred in ATDs since 2009, 

the FAA proposed to align ATD use to 

the 6-month task completion interval 

and the required tasks consistent with 

FSTDs and aircraft. As previously 

explained in section III.A.2. of the 

preamble, ATDs are specifically 

designed to allow a person to replicate 

and execute instrument tasks just as 

they would in an aircraft. Therefore, the 

FAA finds that an ATD adequately 

replicates an aircraft for purposes of 

maintaining instrument recency. 

Section 61.57(c) does not require a pilot 

to experience variables and additional 

stressors that one may experience in an 

aircraft to maintain instrument recency. 

The FAA recognizes the importance of 

familiarity with these conditions and 

events; however, they are more 

attributable to training. An instrumentrated pilot maintaining instrument 

recency under § 61.57(c) has already 

accomplished the required instrument 

training and has already demonstrated 

his or her proficiency during a practical 

test with an examiner. 

Furthermore, the FAA disagrees with 

the comment that requiring more flight 

time in an aircraft will result in fewer 

accidents. The FAA finds that allowing 

a pilot to accomplish instrument 

recency requirements in an ATD or 

FSTD encourages more pilots to remain 

instrument current and provides the 

necessary experience to enable safe 

operation of an aircraft in instrument 

meteorological conditions (IMC). As the 

FAA explained in the final rule, 

‘‘Aviation Training Device Credit for 

Pilot Certification,’’ 28 the FAA believes 

that training in FSTDs and ATDs in 

combination with training in an aircraft 

reinforces the necessary pilot skill to 

rely solely on the flight instruments to 

successfully operate an aircraft in IMC. 

This mitigates any reliance on postural 

senses, sounds, or feelings that can 

otherwise lead to loss of control. The 

FAA further described that training 

devices do not require motion to be 

approved and that training devices 

cannot completely train the pilot to 

ignore certain erroneous sensory 

perceptions, but pilots develop this skill 

during the flight portion of their 

instrument training. Consistent with the 

final rule, ‘‘Aviation Training Device 

Credit for Pilot Certification,’’ 29 the 

FAA believes that instrument 

experience accomplished in ATDs is an 

effective procedural review and 

reinforces the necessary skills to 

properly interpret the aircraft’s flight 

instruments, allowing successful 

operation of an aircraft in IMC. 

The Lancair Owners and Builders 

Organization (LOBO) asserted that the 

FAA did not make a safety case to 

reduce the recency requirements. LOBO 

believed that the NPRM did not explain 

how this proposed provision would 

improve safety, and that to do so, the 

FAA needs more information, which 

was not presented. LOBO claimed the 

FAA should gather data regarding the 

following: How many instrument pilots 

are instrument current; how many pilots 

use an instrument proficiency check to 

maintain recency; how many pilots use 

an FFS, FTD, or ATD to maintain 

instrument recency; how many of those 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30240 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

30The FAA referenced two studies in the final 

rule titled ‘‘Aviation Training Device Credit for 

Pilot Certification,’’ which was published on April 

12, 2016, that supported the use of simulation for 

flight training. 81 FR 21449. See Kearns, Suzanne 

‘‘The Effectiveness of Guided Mental Practice in a 

Computer-Based Single Pilot Resource Management 

(SRM) Training,’’ Ph.D. Dissertation (Capella 

University 2007); Carretta, Thomas R., and Dunlap, 

Ronald D., ‘‘Transfer of Training Effectiveness in 

Flight Simulation: 1986–1997,’’ United States Air 

Force Research Laboratory (1998). 

31Prior to this final rule, a person serving as SIC 

in a part 135 operation could log SIC time only if 

more than one pilot was required under the type 

certification of the aircraft or the regulations under 

which the flight was being conducted. 14 CFR 

61.51(f)(2). 

pilots that use an FFS, FTD, or ATD to 

maintain instrument recency have been 

involved in an aircraft accident while 

flying under instrument flight rules; and 

how many more instrument rated pilots 

would maintain proficiency if the 

proposal were implemented. LOBO 

pointed out that AOPA polling indicates 

the average general aviation pilot is 

flying less than 100 hours per year. 

LOBO indicated that its own data 

indicates their average member is flying 

approximately 50 hours per year in a 

Lancair. Given these statistics, LOBO 

questioned whether instrument 

proficiency is possible for pilots who fly 

so few hours annually. LOBO also 

questioned whether reducing recency 

requirements for low activity instrument 

pilots would affect accident rates. Based 

on all of these comments, LOBO 

recommended the FAA research general 

aviation pilot training and experience, 

including instrument recency training 

methods, to better understand the 

impact on general aviation safety— 

positive or negative—of the NPRM. 

The FAA is aligning the requirements 

for accomplishing instrument 

experience in an ATD with the 

requirements for accomplishing 

instrument experience in an FSTD or 

aircraft. Prior to this final rule, a person 

accomplishing instrument recency 

experience in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or 

a combination, was required to, within 

the preceding 6 months, have 

performed: (1) Six instrument 

approaches; (2) holding procedures and 

tasks; and (3) intercepting and tracking 

courses through the use of navigational 

electronic systems. Persons 

accomplishing instrument recency 

experience exclusively in an ATD, 

however, were required to have 

performed, within the preceding 2 

months, the same tasks and maneuvers 

listed above plus ‘‘two unusual attitude 

recoveries while in a descending Vne

airspeed condition and two unusual 

attitude recoveries while in an 

ascending, stall speed condition’’ and a 

minimum of three hours of instrument 

recency experience. This final rule 

amends § 61.57(c) to allow pilots to 

accomplish instrument experience in 

ATDs by performing the same tasks 

required for FSTDs and aircraft, and at 

the same 6-month interval allowed for 

FSTDs and aircraft. 

While the data sought by LOBO 

would be useful, it does not currently 

exist.30 However, based on the12 years 

of experience the FAA now has 

evaluating and approving ATDs and the 

significant advancements in ATD 

technology, the FAA has no reason to 

believe the rule change would result in 

a decrease in safety. As explained in the 

NPRM, the FAA imposed more stringent 

instrument experience requirements on 

pilots satisfying instrument recency in 

ATDs because, in 2009, ATDs 

represented new technology. The FAA 

finds that significant improvements in 

current ATD technology have made it 

possible to allow pilots to use ATDs for 

instrument recency experience at the 

same frequency and task level as FSTDs. 

The FAA believes this rule change is 

further supported by the recent ATD 

rule published on April 12, 2016, which 

recognized ATD capabilities and 

increased the ATD credit allowances for 

instrument rating certification 

requirements. Furthermore, in 2014, the 

FAA revised AC 61–136A, ‘‘FAA 

Approval of Aviation Training Devices 

and Their Use for Training and 

Experience’’ to include stricter approval 

criteria for ATDs. The FAA also revised 

FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 11, Chapter 

10 ‘‘AVIATION TRAINING DEVICE’’, 

Section 1 ‘‘Approval, Oversight, and 

Authorized Use Under 14 CFR parts 61 

and 141,’’ to improve FAA surveillance 

and oversight for the use of ATDs and 

to otherwise ensure their proper use. 

The stricter approval criteria and 

increased FAA oversight for ATDs 

ensures they are qualified and capable 

for pilots to successfully accomplish the 

instrument tasks described in 

§ 61.57(c)(1). 

In response to LOBO’s concerns about 

the proficiency of low activity 

instrument pilots, as previously stated, 

instrument-rated pilots have already 

demonstrated proficiency during their 

practical test. Instrument proficiency is 

considered ongoing unless one fails to 

maintain instrument recency in the 

previous 12 calendar months. In that 

scenario, one would be required to 

complete an instrument proficiency 

check (IPC) in accordance with 

§ 61.57(d) to exercise instrument rating 

privileges. While instrument-rated 

pilots may have a low number of annual 

flight hours, so long as they are 

complying with the instrument 

experience and instrument proficiency 

check requirements, they may exercise 

their instrument rating privileges. The 

FAA did not propose to change these 

requirements; any change to these 

requirements in this final rule would be 

out of scope. 

Lastly, the FAA does not find that 

aligning the instrument experience 

requirements in an ATD with the 

instrument experience requirements in 

an FSTD or aircraft will result in an 

increased accident rate. Rather, this 

ATD allowance should lower the 

accident rate by allowing pilots to 

regularly practice instrument tasks and 

maneuvers in a hazard free 

environment. The FAA believes that 

new § 61.57(c)(2) will increase the 

opportunities for pilots to maintain 

recency, reduce cost, and generally 

promote maintaining instrument 

recency. 

The Regional Air Cargo Carriers 

Association (RACCA) provided several 

recommendations concerning FTDs, 

including expanding the allowable 

instrument recency experience, training, 

and limited checking elements from FFS 

to include Level 3 and 4 FTDs; allowing 

credit for circling approaches in Level 3 

and 4 FTDs with sophisticated, wideangle visual systems but no motion 

system; and expanding the allowable 

credit in FFSs with the motion system 

turned off. RACCA further 

recommended reviewing current FAA 

FTD and simulator approval protocols 

to make them simpler and less laborintensive for the FAA, operators, and 

contract training providers. 

The FAA is not adopting RACCA’s 

recommendations because they are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

As discussed above, the FAA is 

adding language to the proposed 

provision to make clear that a person 

may complete the instrument 

experience in any combination of an 

aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD. Other than 

this additional language, § 61.57(c)(2) 

remains unchanged from the NPRM. 

B. Second in Command Time in Part 

135 Operations 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

amend § 135.99 by adding paragraph (c) 

to allow a certificate holder to receive 

approval of a second in command (SIC) 

professional development program (SIC 

PDP) via operations specifications (Ops 

Specs) to allow the certificate holder’s 

pilots to log SIC time in operations 

conducted under part 135 in an airplane 

or operation that does not otherwise 

require a SIC.31 As explained in the 

NPRM, the FAA believes that a 

comprehensive SIC PDP will provide 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30241 

32A cockpit voice recorder (CVR) is not required 

for operations conducted under an approved SIC 

PDP. In accordance with § 135.151, no person may 

operate a multiengine, turbine-powered airplane or 

rotorcraft having a passenger seating configuration 

of six or more and for which two pilots are required 

by certification or operating rules unless it is 

equipped with an approved CVR that meets certain 

requirements. However, the FAA notes that an 

operation under an approved SIC PDP is not 

considered an operation for which two pilots are 

required by operating rules. 

33The FAA notes that the airplane is still 

required to comply with the equipment 

requirements of §§ 135.89 and 135.157, as 

applicable. 

opportunities for beneficial flight 

experience that may not otherwise exist 

and also provide increased safety in 

operations for those flights conducted in 

a multicrew environment. The FAA 

proposed requirements in § 135.99(c) for 

certificate holders, airplanes, and 

flightcrew members during operations 

conducted under an approved SIC PDP. 

The FAA also proposed changes to 

certain logging requirements to enable 

the logging of SIC time obtained under 

a SIC PDP. The FAA proposed to revise 

§ 61.159(c)(1) to contain the 

requirements for logging SIC pilot time 

in an operation conducted under part 

135 that does not require an SIC by type 

certification of the aircraft or the 

regulations under which the flight is 

being conducted. The FAA proposed to 

revise the aeronautical experience 

requirements of §§ 61.159 and 61.161 to 

allow a pilot to credit SIC time logged 

under an SIC PDP towards the total time 

as a pilot requirements. The FAA also 

proposed to revise the definition of pilot 

time in § 61.1, the prerequisites for 

practical test in § 61.39(a)(3), and the 

logging requirements of § 61.51(f) to 

reflect the allowance for SICs to log 

flight time in part 135 operations when 

not serving as required flightcrew 

members under the type certificate or 

the regulations. 

Airlines for America (A4A) and two 

individuals supported the proposed SIC 

PDP without change. They noted the 

benefits of mentoring, crew resource 

management training, and the overall 

experience gained by accumulating 

more flight time in a complex 

environment. 

Several commenters suggested 

changes to proposed §§ 135.99, 61.159 

and 61.51, which are discussed below. 

1. Airplane Requirements 

In the NPRM, proposed § 135.99(c)(2) 

would have required the aircraft 

operated under an approved SIC PDP to 

be a multiengine airplane. 

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA), Baron Aviation 

Services, National Air Transportation 

Association (NATA), Regional Air Cargo 

Carriers Association (RACCA), 

Tradewind Aviation, and two 

individuals commented that singleengine turbine-powered airplanes 

should be included for use in an SIC 

PDP. These commenters asserted that 

single-engine turbine-powered airplanes 

are equal to or more complex than 

certain multiengine airplanes. These 

commenters indicated that high 

performance single engine turbopropeller airplanes such as the Pilates 

PC–12, Socata TBM 700, and Cessna 

Caravan can provide more beneficial 

flight experience and training for an SIC 

than other general aviation operations. 

RACCA, Tradewind Aviation, and one 

individual explained that these types of 

airplanes can provide applicable 

experience using ‘‘glass cockpit’’ and 

flight management systems in realworld IFR, weather, cross-country, and 

night flight in an airline-like 

environment. 

Further, AOPA, RACCA, and one 

individual stated the SIC PDP would 

provide opportunities for pilots to gain 

flight hours. As proposed, these flight 

hours could be used toward an airline 

transport pilot (ATP) certificate. 

Increasing the types of aircraft permitted 

to be used for an SIC PDP would 

provide even more opportunities for this 

professional growth. 

In light of these comments, the FAA 

is revising proposed § 135.99(c)(2) to 

allow multiengine airplanes or singleengine turbine-powered airplanes to be 

used in an approved SIC PDP. In Public 

Law 111–216, Congress directed the 

FAA to ensure applicants for an ATP 

certificate have received flight training, 

academic training, or operational 

experience that will prepare the pilot to, 

among other things, function effectively 

in a multi-pilot environment, in adverse 

weather conditions, and during high 

altitude operations, and to adhere to the 

highest professional standards. The 

FAA finds that pilots can obtain the 

operational experience described in 

section 217 of Public Law 111–216 

using either a multiengine airplane or a 

single-engine turbine-powered airplane 

under an approved SIC PDP. The FAA 

is revising proposed § 135.99(c)(2) 

accordingly. 

The FAA is adopting the proposed 

requirement for the airplane to have an 

independent set of controls for the 

second pilot flightcrew member, which 

may not include a throwover control 

wheel. The FAA also notes that the 

equipment and independent 

instrumentation requirements for the 

second pilot in § 135.99(c)(2)(i) through 

(viii) remain unchanged from the 

proposal.32 33

2. Part 135 Flight Instructors 

In the NPRM, proposed § 135.99(c)(4) 

would have required the assigned PIC in 

an operation conducted under an 

approved SIC PDP to be an authorized 

part 135 flight instructor for the 

certificate holder. 

Bemidji Aviation Services, NATA, 

and RACCA did not support proposed 

§ 135.99(c)(4), asserting that there is no 

rationale to support the requirement for 

the PIC to be a qualified part 135 flight 

instructor. Bemidji noted that training 

PICs to be flight instructors would be 

time consuming and of little value 

because a new SIC under an SIC PDP 

will be in need of mentoring and realworld experience, rather than the type 

of training a part 135 flight instructor 

provides. Bemidji further contended 

that this requirement indicates that 

revenue flights are training flights rather 

than operations as a crew. However, 

Bemidji stated it would support certain 

crew pairing requirements. NATA 

believed that this requirement could 

limit operators from implementing a SIC 

PDP. RACCA stated that requiring the 

PIC to be a part 135 flight instructor is 

not necessary; however, initial operating 

experience (OE) under supervision by a 

flight instructor, additional line checks, 

or other intermittent quality assurance 

verifications are appropriate. RACCA 

stated that it appeared the FAA’s intent 

was, from SIC initial qualification until 

the SIC was qualified to serve as PIC in 

part 135, an SIC logging flight time 

under an SIC PDP would be required to 

fly with a PIC who was a part 135 flight 

instructor. RACCA believed that the 

‘‘professional development’’ element of 

the SIC PDP needs to be concentrated in 

the initial training, checking, and OE 

phases and that once the SIC has 

successfully completed that portion, he/ 

she can continue to gain experience 

having completed that part of the 

program except for a possibility of more 

frequent quality assurance checks or 

proficiency checks in operators’ 

programs than otherwise required for 

SICs in part 135. However, RACCA also 

stated the SIC flight time in revenue 

operations under the mentoring and 

supervision of an experienced part 135 

PIC is more directly applicable to 

further career flying than hours in the 

following types of operations, which are 

currently acceptable: VFR flight 

instruction, pipeline patrol, banner 

towing, traffic watch flying, and light 

sport flying. RACCA further asserted 

that because the SIC PDP is restricted to 

less risky cargo operations, this 

requirement only increases complexity 

and cost without any risk mitigation 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30242 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

34RACCA’s comments on this issue were 

submitted as to the regulatory evaluation. However, 

the FAA has included the comments here because 

they are related to the proposal and not specifically 

the cost/benefit analysis. 35Section 135.99(c)(3) contains the requirements 

for a pilot serving as SIC under an approved SIC 

PDP. 

36Section 135.99(c)(4) contains the requirements 

for a pilot assigned to serve as PIC under an 

approved SIC PDP. 

37 49 U.S.C. 44703(h). 

38As further explained in the NPRM, these 

certificate holders—either by regulation or 

deviation—are not required to develop and 

maintain manuals that describe the procedures and 

policies to be used by the flight, ground and 

maintenance personnel. 14 CFR 135.21. 

Additionally, these certificate holders are not 

required to establish and maintain an approved 

pilot training program under § 135.341 or employ 

certain management personnel under § 119.69. 

Because of the limited size and scope of these 

certificate holders’ operations, the FAA does not 

believe that they would provide the environment 

necessary to foster an SIC PDP. 

benefit.34 One individual asserted that a 

low time pilot could benefit under the 

supervision of a seasoned PIC while 

receiving real-world experience in a 

crew environment. 

Upon review of these comments 

submitted by Bemidji, NATA, RACCA, 

and individuals, the FAA has decided to 

withdraw the proposed requirement for 

assigned PICs in a SIC PDP to be 

qualified part 135 flight instructors. 

Under this proposed requirement, every 

operation conducted under an approved 

SIC PDP would have been required to 

have a qualified part 135 flight 

instructor assigned as the PIC. This 

proposed requirement was intended to 

create the appropriate training and 

mentoring environment to enable the 

proposed SIC PDP to support the 

Congressional directive and provide an 

effective method to acquire experience 

for ATP certification. In the NPRM, the 

FAA explained that the experience 

gained from working with and learning 

from a part 135 flight instructor in a 

crew configuration would have 

provided valuable experience. However, 

commenters suggested alternatives to 

the requirement for the PIC to be a part 

135 flight instructor. Upon review of 

these suggestions, the FAA has 

determined that a combination of these 

alternatives will be an equally effective 

method to support the Congressional 

directive while ensuring these SICs are 

gaining valuable experience for ATP 

certification. 

The FAA agrees with Bemidji, 

RACCA, and the individual commenter 

that a new SIC needs mentoring and 

real-world experience.35 The FAA finds 

this objective could be accomplished by 

requiring the assigned PIC to have a 

certain amount of experience and 

mentoring training, rather than 

requiring him or her to meet the full 

training and qualification requirements 

for a part 135 flight instructor. 

In new § 135.99(c)(4)(i) and (ii),36 the 

FAA is including crew pairing 

requirements for flights conducted 

under an SIC PDP. Prior to assignment 

as a PIC in an operation conducted 

under an SIC PDP, the PIC must 

complete mentoring training and have 

minimum experience at that certificate 

holder. The mentoring training must 

include techniques for reinforcing the 

highest standards of technical 

performance, airmanship, and 

professionalism. Part 135 regulations 

require pilots to complete recurrent 

training to ensure that pilots remain 

competent in the performance of their 

assigned duties. The FAA has 

previously recognized that the necessary 

frequency for recurrent training is not 

the same for all subject areas. The FAA 

expects that PICs serving in an approved 

SIC PDP will use mentoring skills 

regularly and consequently these skills 

are less susceptible to degradation. 

Therefore, the FAA has determined that 

recurrent mentoring training must be 

completed at least every 36 calendar 

months. The FAA will include 

recommended topics for mentoring 

training in a new Advisory Circular (AC 

135–43) on obtaining authorization of 

an SIC PDP. 

As indicated by commenters, 

mentoring should be provided by an 

experienced PIC. For mentoring to be 

effective, the FAA believes that the 

mentor (i.e., the PIC) must have a 

minimum level of experience and 

knowledge of the certificate holder’s 

operations. Therefore, prior to 

assignment as a PIC in an operation 

conducted under an SIC PDP, the PIC 

must have been fully qualified to serve 

as a PIC for the certificate holder for at 

least the previous six calendar months. 

The FAA believes that in six months, 

the PIC would have conducted 

numerous flights with various 

environmental and operational factors 

which would have allowed the PIC to 

effectively consolidate his/her 

knowledge and skills of operations at 

that certificate holder. Certificate 

holders should encourage PICs serving 

in an operation conducted under an SIC 

PDP to provide observations and 

comments to be used in the data 

collection and analysis process. 

As proposed in the NPRM, 

§ 135.99(c)(1)(iii) requires the certificate 

holder with an approved SIC PDP to 

establish and maintain a data collection 

and analysis process that will enable the 

certificate holder and the FAA to 

determine whether the professional 

development program is accomplishing 

its objectives. Regarding RACCA’s 

recommendations for initial OE, 

additional line checks, or other 

intermittent quality assurance 

verifications, the FAA agrees these types 

of events could be valuable components 

of an effective data collection and 

analysis process. In addition to the 

recommendations from RACCA, there 

may be other suitable methods to obtain 

relevant data for the data collection and 

analysis process. Therefore, the FAA 

will include RACCA’s recommendations 

in the new Advisory Circular as possible 

data collection methods. The FAA notes 

that the data provided to the FAA by the 

certificate holder may be de-identified. 

The FAA further notes that records used 

for the data collection and analysis 

process will still be subject to record 

requirements, such as the Pilot Records 

Improvement Act of 1996 (PRIA).37

Lastly, contrary to RACCA’s 

statement, the SIC PDP is not restricted 

to cargo-only operations. Except as 

provided in § 135.99(d), any part 135 

operator meeting the requirements of 

§ 135.99(c) may voluntarily choose to 

seek approval of an SIC PDP. Section 

135.99(d) prohibits certificate holders 

who are authorized to operate as a basic 

operator, single PIC operator, or single 

pilot operator from obtaining approval 

to conduct an SIC PDP.38 Section 

135.99(d) remains unchanged from the 

proposal. 

The requirements for certificate 

holders in §§ 135.99(c)(1)(i), (ii), and 

(iii) also remain unchanged from the 

proposal. However, because the FAA is 

withdrawing the proposed requirement 

for assigned PICs to be qualified part 

135 flight instructors, the FAA is also 

withdrawing proposed 

§ 135.99(c)(1)(iv), which would have 

required flight instructor 

standardization meetings. 

The FAA further notes that the 

requirements for persons serving as SIC 

in § 135.99(c)(3)(i) through (iv) remain 

unchanged from the proposal. 

3. Logging Requirements 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

revise § 61.159(c) to set forth the 

requirements for logging SIC pilot time 

in a part 135 operation that does not 

require an SIC by type certification of 

the aircraft or the regulations under 

which the flight is being conducted. 

Proposed § 61.159(c) would have 

allowed a commercial pilot to log SIC 

pilot time toward the hours of total time 

as a pilot required by §§ 61.159(a) and 

61.160, provided the SIC pilot time was 

obtained in part 135 operations 

conducted under a SIC PDP in 

accordance with § 135.99 and the PIC 

certified in the SIC’s logbook that the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30243 

39As proposed, the FAA is revising § 61.159(a)(5) 

to clarify that to credit SIC time toward the 250 

hours of PIC flight time required by paragraph 

(a)(5), the SIC must be a ‘‘required’’ flightcrew 

member performing the duties of PIC while under 

the supervision of a PIC. Under a SIC PDP, the SIC 

is not a required flightcrew member. 

40 14 CFR 135.99(c)(2). 

41The FAA is also revising proposed § 61.51(e)(5) 

and (f)(3) and the definition of ‘‘pilot time’’ in § 61.1 

to reflect this allowance. 

42The FAA is adding new § 61.159(c)(2), which 

requires the flight operation to be conducted in 

accordance with the certificate holder’s operations 

specification for the second-in-command 

professional development program. Consequently, 

proposed paragraph (c)(2) is now paragraph (c)(3), 

and proposed paragraph (c)(3) is now paragraph 

(c)(4). 

SIC pilot time was accomplished under 

§ 61.159(c). The FAA also proposed that 

the SIC pilot time obtained pursuant to 

§ 61.159(c) may not be logged as PIC 

time even if the SIC were the sole 

manipulator of the controls and may not 

be used to meet the aeronautical 

experience requirements in 

§ 61.159(a)(1) through (5) (e.g., crosscountry flight time, night flight time). 

RACCA suggested the FAA allow a 

pilot to use the time logged under a SIC 

PDP toward the more specific flight time 

requirements for ATP certification set 

forth in § 61.159(a)(1) through (5), 

instead of only the 1,500 hours of total 

time as a pilot required by § 61.159(a). 

RACCA asserted that there is little 

quantifiable difference in the value of 

experience between aircraft that require 

a two pilot crew and aircraft authorized 

to utilize a two pilot crew in specific 

circumstances. RACCA further asserted 

that experience obtained by a properly 

trained and checked SIC is more 

directly applicable to IFR complex 

airplane operations and subsequent 

career flying than hours in the following 

types of operations, which are currently 

acceptable: VFR flight instruction, 

pipeline patrol, banner towing, traffic 

watch flying, and light sport flying. 

In response to RACCA’s comments, 

the FAA is revising proposed § 61.159(c) 

to allow pilots to credit time logged 

under a SIC PDP not only for total time 

as a pilot, but also toward the specific 

flight time requirements for ATP 

certification set forth in § 61.159(a)(1) 

through (4) (e.g., cross-country flight 

time, night flight time, flight time in 

class of airplane, and instrument flight 

time). Under the proposal, the time 

logged under a SIC PDP would have 

counted toward the flight time 

requirements to serve as a PIC in part 

135, which are located in § 135.243. 

Section 135.243 categorizes the flight 

time requirements the same as 

§ 61.159(a). Because the SIC time logged 

under the SIC PDP may be used toward 

the total time, cross-country time, 

instrument time, and night time 

requirements of § 135.243, the FAA 

finds that it should also count toward 

the same categories of flight time under 

§ 61.159(a). However, as explained 

below, the FAA maintains that the PIC 

flight time requirements in 

§ 61.159(a)(5), including the PIC crosscountry flight time and PIC night flight 

time, must be met as a required pilot 

flightcrew member.39

As proposed, the FAA maintains in 

the final rule that a SIC logging flight 

time under § 61.159(c) is not permitted 

to log this flight time as PIC time even 

when he or she is the sole manipulator 

of the controls. If the SIC time were to 

count toward the requirements of 

§ 61.159(a)(5), a pilot could meet the 

ATP aeronautical experience 

requirements and transition to a part 

121 SIC position directly from a SIC 

PDP, without serving as a part 135 PIC— 

which was not the FAA’s intent. As 

explained in the NPRM, the FAA 

intended for § 61.159(c) to promote an 

environment in which a pilot’s career 

follows a progression within part 135 

that includes the pilot serving as a PIC 

in part 135 operations before 

transitioning to an SIC position in a part 

121 operation. The FAA finds that 

allowing the SIC time to be used only 

toward the total time as a pilot 

requirements of § 61.159(a) and the 

specific flight time requirements of 

§ 61.159(a)(1) through (4) is consistent 

with the proposal’s objective. A pilot 

may use the time accrued under a SIC 

PDP to meet the time requirements of 

§ 135.243 to serve as a PIC under part 

135; then, as a required flightcrew 

member in part 135, that pilot may 

accrue the required PIC airplane time 

for an ATP certificate before 

transitioning to a part 121 operation. 

Consistent with the changes to 

proposed § 61.159(c), the FAA is also 

revising proposed § 61.161(c) to allow 

pilots to credit time logged under a SIC 

PDP toward both the total time as a pilot 

required by § 61.161(a) and the specific 

flight time requirements for ATP 

certification set forth in § 61.161(a)(1), 

(2), and (4) (e.g., cross-country flight 

time, night flight time, and instrument 

flight time), except for the specific flight 

time that must be obtained in a 

helicopter. 

Upon further review, the FAA has 

decided to also allow SIC flight time to 

be logged during part 91 flight 

operations (e.g., repositioning flights) 

conducted for the certificate holder 

when the operation is conducted in 

accordance with the certificate holder’s 

operations specification for the SIC PDP. 

The FAA has determined that these part 

91 flights share similar characteristics to 

the part 135 flights, such as multi-pilot 

environment, adverse weather 

conditions, and high altitude 

operations. The FAA has determined 

that if the certificate holder conducts 

these part 91 flights in a similar manner 

to its part 135 flights, these part 91 

flights can provide beneficial flight 

experience for the SIC while also 

increasing safety in these part 91 flights. 

Furthermore, to log SIC flight time 

during a part 91 flight operation 

conducted for the certificate holder 

under an approved SIC PDP, the 

requirements of § 135.99(c) must be 

satisfied. Therefore, the aircraft is still 

required to have an independent set of 

controls for the SIC, which may not 

include a throwover control wheel, and 

the minimum necessary equipment and 

independent instrumentation for the 

second pilot.40 These equipment and 

instrumentation requirements ensure 

that the SIC will be actively engaged as 

a pilot flying and pilot monitoring in 

both VFR and IFR conditions while 

conducting an operation under part 91 

for the certificate holder. The flight time 

and duty period limitations and rest 

requirements in subpart F of part 135 

will also still apply. Additionally, the 

pilot serving as PIC in a part 91 flight 

operation under an approved SIC PDP 

must be qualified and trained in 

accordance with § 135.99(c)(4). The 

FAA finds that a pilot may obtain the 

operational experience described in 

section 217 of Public Law 111–216 

during part 91 flights conducted for a 

certificate holder when the operation is 

conducted in accordance with 

§ 135.99(c) and the certificate holder’s 

operations specification for the SIC PDP. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

FAA is revising the proposed 

amendments to §§ 61.159(c) and 

135.99(c) to allow the logging of SIC 

flight time in operations conducted 

under parts 91 and 135,41 provided the 

flight operation is conducted in 

accordance with the certificate holder’s 

operations specification for the SIC 

PDP.42 The FAA notes that to ensure the 

part 91 flights under an SIC PDP are 

conducted in a similar manner to part 

135 flights, the operations specification 

for the SIC PDP will include specific 

requirements for these part 91 flights 

such as use of SOP, operational control, 

and recordkeeping. 

RACCA and AOPA both 

recommended additional revisions to 

proposed § 61.159(c)(1). AOPA asserted 

that the FAA’s proposed change to 

§ 61.159(c)(1) eliminates the ability of a 

required SIC to use logged SIC flight 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30244 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

43The assigned SIC is also required to meet the 

hazardous material training requirements in subpart 

K, if applicable. 

time toward the total time requirement 

for an ATP certificate in § 61.159(a). 

RACCA recommended the FAA revise 

the former language of § 61.159(c)(1)(iii) 

to ensure a required SIC can log flight 

time toward the total time requirements 

for an ATP certificate in § 61.159(a). 

Revisions to proposed § 61.159(c)(1) 

are not needed to allow a required SIC 

to log flight time toward the 

requirements for an ATP certificate in 

§ 61.159(a). Section 61.51(a) establishes 

the requirement for persons to 

document and record training and 

aeronautical experience used to meet 

the requirements for a certificate or 

rating under part 61. Section 61.51(f)(2) 

allows a person to log SIC flight time 

when that person holds the appropriate 

category, class, and instrument rating 

and more than one pilot is required 

under the type certification of the 

aircraft or the regulations under which 

the flight is being conducted. Further, 

§ 61.1(b) defines pilot time as including 

time in which a person serves as a 

required flightcrew member. 

Collectively, these regulations allow 

flight time logged as a required SIC to 

be used toward the aeronautical 

experience requirements for an ATP 

certificate as delineated in § 61.159(a). 

Therefore, the FAA is not revising 

proposed § 61.159(c)(1), as 

recommended by commenters, because 

the former language in § 61.159(c)(1), 

which allowed a person to credit SIC 

flight time toward the total time 

requirements in § 61.159(a), was 

redundant and unnecessary. 

The FAA notes that proposed 

§ 61.159(c) would have contained 

logging requirements for both SICs and 

flight engineers, similar to former 

§ 61.159(c). Upon further reflection, the 

FAA has decided to restructure 

§ 61.159(c), (d) and (e) for clarity. The 

FAA is relocating the flight engineer 

logging requirements, which were 

formerly in § 61.159(c)(2) and (3), to 

§ 61.159(d). Thus, § 61.159(c) will 

contain only the SIC logging 

requirements under the SIC PDP. The 

FAA is redesignating former § 61.159(d) 

as § 61.159(e) and former § 61.159(e) as 

new § 61.159(f). 

In addition to proposed § 61.159(c), 

the FAA proposed to revise the 

definition of ‘‘pilot time’’ in § 61.1 and 

the logging requirements in § 61.51(f) to 

reflect the allowances for SICs to log 

flight time in part 135 operations when 

not serving as required flightcrew 

members under the type certificate or 

regulations. The FAA also proposed to 

revise § 61.39(a)(3) to require a pilot 

who has logged flight time under the 

SIC PDP to present a copy of the records 

required by § 135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) at 

the time of application for the practical 

test. Due to the reorganization of 

proposed § 61.159(c), the FAA is 

referencing § 61.159(c), instead of 

§ 61.159(c)(1), in the definition of ‘‘pilot 

time,’’ and in §§ 61.51(f)(3) and 

61.39(a)(3). Other than updating the 

cross-reference to § 61.159(c), the 

definition of ‘‘pilot time’’ and the 

revisions to §§ 61.51(f) and 61.39(a)(3) 

remain unchanged from the proposal. 

The FAA also proposed to revise the 

logging requirements of § 61.51(e) to 

allow the part 135 flight instructor 

serving as PIC in an operation 

conducted under an approved SIC PDP 

to log all of the flight time as PIC flight 

time even when the PIC is not the sole 

manipulator of the controls. As 

previously explained, the FAA is 

withdrawing the proposed requirement 

that the assigned PIC be a part 135 flight 

instructor. The FAA is therefore revising 

proposed § 61.51(e) to reflect the 

requirements the FAA adopted in 

§ 135.99(c). Accordingly, § 61.51(e)(5) 

now allows a commercial pilot or airline 

transport pilot to log all flight time 

while acting as an assigned PIC of an 

operation conducted in accordance with 

an approved SIC PDP that meets the 

requirements of § 135.99(c). 

4. Miscellaneous Comments on the SIC 

PDP 

RACCA noted that the regulatory 

evaluation accompanying the NPRM 

stated ‘‘This proposal would provide an 

additional option for commercial pilots 

seeking to meet the minimum 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for the ATP certificate while also 

providing a strong foundational 

experience for a developing professional 

pilot. For a commercial pilot to utilize 

this option, an operator would have to 

meet the additional requirements 

proposed in the NPRM. Any operators, 

who chose to do so, would expect their 

benefits to exceed their costs.’’ RACCA 

believed this statement implies an 

additional, optional training 

requirement for the SIC to count flight 

time under the SIC PDP toward the ATP 

experience requirements. RACCA noted 

that there is no requirement for an ATP 

certificate in part 135 cargo-only 

operations and therefore additional 

training for an ATP certificate imposes 

an economic burden by requiring 

training not applicable to the operation 

for which the SIC is being qualified. 

Neither the NPRM, nor the regulatory 

evaluation, proposed to require ATP 

training for an SIC to be able to log flight 

time under an SIC PDP. The statement 

in the regulatory evaluation was 

referencing the proposed new option for 

commercial pilots to log flight time 

under an SIC PDP to meet the minimum 

experience requirements for the ATP 

certificate. The proposed requirements 

for the SIC PDP did not include ATP 

training. A certificate holder is not 

required to have an SIC PDP. The FAA 

emphasizes that an SIC PDP is voluntary 

and would impose no new requirements 

on certificate holders conducting 

operations under part 135 if they choose 

not to seek approval of an SIC PDP. Any 

certificate holders who choose to have 

an SIC PDP would expect the benefits of 

the SIC PDP to exceed their costs of the 

SIC PDP. 

One individual opposed the proposed 

SIC PDP, indicating the proposal was a 

money-making scheme that does not 

consider the negative consequences. 

This individual cited previous negative 

experience with non-required pilots in 

the right seat of the aircraft stating these 

unqualified non-essential pilots caused 

distractions for the PIC. Additionally, 

this commenter did not agree that a nonrequired SIC should be able to log flight 

time equal to the PIC unless the type 

certification requires an SIC. 

Without additional information, the 

FAA cannot address the specific 

circumstances presented by the 

individual commenter. However, the 

SIC PDP requires pilots assigned as a 

non-required SIC to meet the same 

training and qualification requirements 

as a required SIC. More specifically, 

§ 135.99(c)(3) requires the assigned SIC 

to meet the SIC qualifications in 

§ 135.245, the flight time and duty 

period limitations and rest requirements 

in subpart F of part 135, and the 

crewmember testing and training 

requirements for SIC in subparts G and 

H of part 135.43 The FAA notes that 

these requirements remain unchanged 

from the proposal. The FAA concludes 

that any concerns about unqualified 

pilots have been alleviated. 

Additionally, the FAA notes that 

although these non-required SICs will 

be able to log SIC flight time under an 

SIC PDP, there are restrictions. As 

described in the section on logging 

flight time, even if the SIC is the sole 

manipulator of the controls, the SIC 

cannot log PIC time. Additionally, pilots 

who use time logged under an SIC PDP 

to meet the aeronautical experience 

requirements for an ATP certificate will 

have a limitation on their certificate 

indicating that the pilot does not meet 

the PIC aeronautical experience 

requirements of the International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30245 

44NPRM, ‘‘Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training 

Devices; Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot 

Schools; and Other Provisions,’’ 81 FR at 29725. 

45Advisory Circular AC 61–136A, FAA Approval 

of Aviation Training Devices and Their Use for 

Training and Experience, explains that the FAA 

will issue an LOA which will specify the part 61 

or part 141 provision(s) for which the specific ATD 

is approved for use. Further, the AC states that 

pilots may use ATDs in accordance with the LOA 

to meet the aeronautical experience requirements of 

part 61. 

46See Legal Interpretation to Mr. Gerald Naekel 

from Mr. Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel 

(June 18, 1991). 

5. Effective Date and Implementation 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

the amendments to §§ 61.39, 61.51(e) 

and (f), 61.159(a) and (c), 61.161, and 

135.99(c) regarding logging flight time 

as a second in command in part 135 

operations would be made effective 180 

days after publication of any final rule 

associated with the NPRM. In the 

NPRM, the FAA acknowledged that 

these provisions affect part 119 

certificate holders conducting 

operations under part 135 and will take 

more coordination and review by both 

certificate holders and the FAA. 

The FAA recognizes, however, that 

the coordination and review timeframe 

will vary among certificate holders. 

Certain certificate holders’ manuals and 

training programs may already include 

some of the components of an SIC PDP, 

such as SOP for conducting operations 

with a two pilot flightcrew, approved 

SIC training curriculums, and approved 

CRM training for operations with a two 

pilot flightcrew. In these instances, the 

FAA anticipates the development of the 

remaining components of an SIC PDP to 

take less time than for certificate holders 

who must develop all components of an 

SIC PDP. 

Therefore, in the final rule, the 

amendments to §§ 61.39, 61.51(e) and 

(f), 61.159(a) and (c), 61.161, and 

135.99(c) will be effective 150 days after 

publication of this final rule. This 

change in effective date will allow 

certificate holders and pilots to benefit 

from these provisions sooner than 

proposed, provided the certificate 

holder has developed all components of 

an SIC PDP and the certificate holder’s 

principal operations inspector (POI) has 

authorized use of the SIC PDP in the 

certificate holder’s operations 

specifications. The FAA notes that 

review and acceptance or approval of 

the various components of an SIC PDP 

by the certificate holder’s POI is still 

required prior to authorization in the 

operations specifications. As such, 

certificate holders should plan 

accordingly to allow sufficient time for 

FAA acceptance or approval. 

As previously discussed, § 135.99 

allows a certificate holder to obtain 

authorization of an SIC PDP, which will 

be granted via a new operations 

specification (A062). To be eligible for 

approval of a SIC PDP, a certificate 

holder must be authorized to conduct 

IFR operations with a multiengine 

airplane or a single-engine turbinepowered airplane, that meets the 

aircraft, equipment, and 

instrumentation requirements of 

§ 135.99(c)(2). In accordance with 

§§ 135.323 and 135.325, the certificate 

holder must submit a revised training 

program to the POI for approval. The 

revised training and qualification 

program must include (1) curricula for 

SICs that will serve in an SIC PDP, (2) 

curricula for PICs that will serve in an 

SIC PDP to include mentoring training 

and CRM training for two pilot flight 

crew operations, (3) curricula for flight 

instructors that will conduct the 

training of PICs and SICs in an SIC PDP, 

and (4) curricula for check pilots that 

will conduct the checking of PICs and 

SICs in an SIC PDP. In accordance with 

§§ 135.21 and 135.23, the certificate 

holder must also submit a revised 

manual to the POI for acceptance, which 

must include (1) standard operating 

procedures for operations with a two 

pilot flight crew, (2) duties and 

responsibilities of an SIC, and 

procedures to comply with the crew 

pairing requirements of § 135.99. The 

certificate holder must also submit 

procedures for the data collection and 

analysis process required by 

§ 135.99(c)(1)(iii). The POI will review 

the documentation submitted by the 

certificate holder. Once the 

documentation meets the requirements 

for approval or acceptance, as 

applicable, the POI may authorize the 

SIC PDP via a new operations 

specification. The FAA will be issuing 

a new Advisory Circular to provide 

more detailed guidance to certificate 

holders on obtaining authorization of an 

SIC PDP. 

C. Instrument Recency Experience for 

SICs Serving in Part 135 Operations 

Prior to this final rule, § 135.245(a) 

required a person serving as second-incommand (SIC) in a part 135 operation 

conducted under IFR to ‘‘meet the 

recent instrument experience 

requirements of part 61.’’ The FAA 

proposed to remove the reference to part 

61 in § 135.245(a) and move the current 

instrument experience requirements in 

§ 61.57(c)(1) and (2) to new § 135.245(c). 

As explained in the NPRM,44 it is more 

appropriate for the express requirement 

for instrument recency experience to be 

listed in part 135 rather than by 

reference to another rule part. 

The FAA received comments from 

two organizations regarding this 

provision. The Aircraft Owners and 

Pilots Association (AOPA) and General 

Aviation Manufacturers Association 

(GAMA) recommended the FAA revise 

proposed § 135.245(c) to allow a pilot 

serving as SIC in a part 135 operation to 

use a combination of aircraft and FSTD 

to meet the proposed instrument 

recency requirements. 

The FAA did not intend to foreclose 

the option of using a combination of 

aircraft and FSTD to accomplish SIC 

instrument recent experience 

requirements. The FAA is adding 

language to proposed § 135.245(c)(2) to 

clarify that a combination of aircraft and 

FSTD may be used. 

AOPA also recommended that the 

FAA withdraw proposed § 135.245(c) 

and retain the current § 135.245(a) 

language to enable persons serving as 

SIC in a part 135 operation under IFR 

to use ATDs for instrument recency. 

Because § 61.57(c)(3) and (4) allow the 

use of ATDs to satisfy instrument 

recency requirements in part 61, AOPA 

believed the requirements of current 

§ 135.245(a) may be satisfied by the use 

of ATDs. AOPA also believed that, 

rather than eliminating the use of ATDs 

for SICs serving in part 135, the FAA 

should add a limitation to specific 

Letters of Authorization (LOA) if the use 

of a particular ATD is not appropriate. 

As noted in the NPRM, the FAA does 

not permit the use of ATDs to satisfy 

flight training, checking, and recency 

requirements in part 135. In accordance 

with § 61.4, the Administrator may 

approve an ATD for specific purposes. 

The FAA has never issued a LOA 

authorizing an ATD to be used to meet 

the qualification requirement of 

§ 135.245.45 The FAA acknowledges the 

confusion created by referencing part 61 

in § 135.245(a).46 The reference to 

‘‘recent instrument experience 

requirements of part 61’’ in § 135.245 

refers to § 61.57(c)(1) and (2) and (d). 

Therefore, the FAA is clarifying the SIC 

qualification requirements by including 

the express requirements of § 61.57(c)(1) 

and (2) and (d) in § 135.245(c) and (d) 

and by eliminating the reference to part 

61. 

AOPA also recommended that the 

FAA withdraw the proposal in 

§ 135.245(c)(2) for an instructor to be 

present when a part 135 SIC conducts 

instrument recency in a FSTD. AOPA 

noted that, when the FAA modified the 

instrument recency requirements for 

part 61 in 2009, the FAA indicated that 

it did not want to require an instructor 

to be present when using an approved 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30246 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

47Legal Interpretation to Mr. Terrence K. Keller, 

Jr. from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief 

Counsel for Regulations (Aug. 6, 2010). 

48Final Rule, ‘‘Regulatory Review Program: Air 

Taxi Operators and Commercial Operations,’’ 43 FR 

46742 (Oct. 10, 1978). 

49 43 FR at 46773. 

50Consistent with the technical amendment to 

§ 61.57(d), which is explained in section III.L. of 

this preamble, the FAA is not using the term 

‘‘practical test standards’’ in the regulatory text of 

§ 135.245(d). Rather, for the reasons explained in 

section III.L., the FAA is codifying in § 135.245(d) 

the areas of operation required to reestablish 

instrument recency. 

51 14 CFR 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 

141. 

52The MFD may also include additional 

capabilities such as depicting weather, traffic, 

terrain, navigation aids and airport information, but 

these capabilities would not have been necessary to 

meet the proposed definition. 

53 If the FAA were to adopt requirements in the 

definition of TAA, the FAA would not be able to 

grant an exemption from those requirements in the 

training device, but the change was not 

reflected in the regulatory language.47 If 

the FAA’s intent had been 

implemented, AOPA asserted, an 

instructor would not currently need to 

be present for a SIC in a part 135 

operation to maintain instrument 

recency in a FSTD. AOPA stated that 

the FAA has failed to explain why an 

instructor must be present for SICs in a 

part 135 operation, but not for all other 

pilots maintaining compliance with 

part 61. 

The SIC instrument experience 

requirements were added to part 135 on 

October 10, 1978, when the FAA 

published the ‘‘Regulatory Review 

Program: Air Taxi Operators and 

Commercial Operations’’ final rule, 

which substantially revised the 

requirements for operations under part 

135.48 In the final rule, the FAA stated 

that the primary objective was to 

upgrade the level of safety by providing 

passengers traveling on a flight 

conducted under part 135 with a level 

of safety comparable to part 121, 

considering the differences between the 

operations. Further, the FAA stated that 

the final rule upgraded training, testing, 

and proficiency requirements to ensure 

that passengers on aircraft operated 

under part 135 are flown by well 

qualified crewmembers. Specifically, 

the FAA stated that, ‘‘[s]ection 135.245 

not only contributes to raising the level 

of safety in part 135, but also enhances 

crewmember qualifications.’’ 49 The 

FAA’s position has not changed; 

operations under part 135 require a 

higher level of safety than operations 

under part 91 including a higher level 

of crewmember qualifications than 

required under part 61. Consistent with 

the higher level of safety required for 

part 135 operations, the FAA is 

retaining the requirement for an 

instructor to observe the tasks and 

iterations conducted in an FSTD. The 

FAA notes that this requirement has 

been relocated to § 135.245(c)(2)(iii). 

However, the FAA is no longer using 

the term ‘‘authorized instructor’’ as 

proposed in the NPRM. The term 

‘‘authorized instructor’’ is defined in 

§ 61.1; it is not defined in part 135. 

Therefore, for consistency with part 135 

requirements, the FAA is revising 

proposed § 135.245(c)(2)(iii) to clarify 

that the tasks and iterations must be 

observed by a flight instructor qualified 

under § 135.338 or a check pilot 

qualified under § 135.337. 

Upon further consideration, the FAA 

has decided to also include the 

instrument proficiency check (IPC) 

requirements of § 61.57(d) in § 135.245. 

Because a person who fails to satisfy the 

instrument experience requirements of 

§ 61.57(c) for more than six calendar 

months may reestablish instrument 

recency only by completing an IPC in 

accordance with § 61.57(d), the FAA 

finds that the reference to ‘‘recent 

instrument experience requirements of 

part 61’’ in § 135.245 referred to the 

instrument experience requirements of 

§ 61.57(c)(1) and (2) and the IPC 

requirements of § 61.57(d). The FAA 

recognizes that proposed § 135.245 did 

not include the option to reestablish 

instrument recency through an IPC. 

However, the FAA did not intend to 

eliminate this option for SICs in part 

135. The FAA intended only for 

proposed § 135.245 to list the express 

requirements for instrument recency 

rather than reference the requirements 

of another part. Because the express 

requirements for instrument recency 

includes the IPC requirements of 

§ 61.57(d), the FAA is including the IPC 

requirements in new § 135.245(d). 

However, to avoid confusion with 

§ 135.297, which contains separate and 

unique instrument proficiency check 

requirements for PICs, the FAA is not 

using the term ‘‘instrument proficiency 

check’’ in § 135.245(d). Instead, the FAA 

is using the term ‘‘reestablish 

instrument recency’’ for SICs.50

The FAA notes that § 135.245(a) and 

(c)(1) remain unchanged from the 

proposal. 

D. Completion of Commercial Pilot 

Training and Testing in Technically 

Advanced Airplanes 

Prior to this final rule, a pilot seeking 

a commercial pilot certificate with an 

airplane single-engine class rating was 

required to complete 10 hours of 

training in either a complex or turbinepowered airplane.51 In the NPRM, the 

FAA proposed to add a definition of 

technically advanced airplane (TAA) to 

§ 61.1 and amend the training 

requirements to allow a pilot seeking a 

commercial pilot certificate with an 

airplane single-engine class rating to 

complete the 10 hours of training in a 

TAA instead of a complex or turbinepowered airplane. In addition to these 

regulatory changes, the FAA proposed 

to revise the practical test standards for 

commercial pilot applicants and flight 

instructor applicants seeking an 

airplane category single engine class 

rating to allow the use of a TAA on the 

practical tests. 

The FAA received 35 comments on 

these proposed changes. Twenty-seven 

commenters generally supported the 

proposal. LOBO and 6 individuals did 

not support the proposal. One 

individual commenter did not opine, 

but asked for clarification regarding the 

definition of TAA. The following 

sections respond to these comments. 

1. Definition of Technically Advanced 

Airplane 

The FAA proposed to define 

‘‘technically advanced airplane’’ in 

§ 61.1 based on the common and 

essential components of advanced 

avionics systems equipped in an 

airplane, including a primary flight 

display (PFD), a multifunction flight 

display (MFD) and an integrated two 

axis autopilot. The FAA proposed that 

a TAA must include a PFD that is an 

electronic display integrating all of the 

following flight instruments together: 

An airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, 

attitude indicator, heading indicator, 

altimeter, and vertical speed indicator. 

Additionally, the FAA proposed that an 

independent MFD must be installed that 

provides a GPS with moving map 

navigation system and an integrated two 

axis autopilot.52 The proposed 

definition of TAA would have applied 

to permanently-installed equipment. 

GAMA suggested the FAA work with 

industry in refining the definition of 

TAA to ensure that it is appropriately 

flexible to accommodate future 

technologies. 

The FAA recognizes that the proposed 

definition would have been too 

prescriptive. As explained throughout 

this section, the FAA has revised the 

proposed language in response to 

industry’s concerns to make it more 

flexible and accommodating of new 

technologies. Furthermore, the FAA 

recognizes that the definition of TAA 

would have inappropriately embedded 

requirements, which may have inhibited 

future technologies from falling under 

the definition of a TAA.53 The FAA is 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30247 

future because the FAA’s regulations describe an 

exemption as a request for relief from the 

requirements of a regulation. 14 CFR 11.15. 

54The FAA will revise Order 8900.1, Flight 

Standards Information Management System, Vol. 5, 

Chapter 1, Sec. 4, Considerations for the Practical 

Test, 5–85 AIRCRAFT AND EQUIPMENT USED 

DURING PRACTICAL TESTS to describe the 

process for obtaining an authorization that 

designates an aircraft as a TAA in accordance with 

§ 61.129(j). The FAA will also revise AC 61–65 to 

provide guidance on how to submit a request to the 

Administrator to gain approval of an airplane as a 

TAA, if the airplane does not already meet the 

express requirements of § 61.129(j). 

therefore revising the definition of TAA 

in § 61.1 to contain a more general 

description of a TAA. TAA is now 

defined as an airplane equipped with an 

electronically advanced avionics 

system. The FAA is relocating the 

requirements regarding what a TAA 

must contain to § 61.129 by adding new 

paragraph (j). The FAA is also adding 

language to § 61.129(j) to allow the FAA 

to authorize the use of an airplane that 

may not otherwise meet the 

requirements of a TAA. This additional 

language is intended to provide 

flexibility by allowing the FAA to 

accommodate future technologies that 

do not necessarily meet the confines of 

the regulatory requirements for a TAA 

in § 61.129(j).54

AOPA stated that the terms ‘‘Primary 

Flight Display (PFD)’’ and 

‘‘Multifunction Display (MFD),’’ which 

are not defined anywhere, will cause 

confusion. AOPA further noted that the 

same argument applies to removing 

‘‘advanced’’ from ‘‘electronically 

advanced avionics system.’’ The 

addition of ‘‘advanced,’’ without any 

clarification, will generate questions 

over whether a particular system 

qualifies as advanced or not. AOPA 

commented that if a particular airplane 

is equipped with the items in proposed 

paragraphs (i) and (ii), then the airplane 

should be considered equipped as a 

TAA with the appropriate electronic 

avionics system. 

The FAA is retaining the terms 

‘‘Primary Flight Display,’’ 

‘‘Multifunction Display,’’ and 

‘‘advanced’’ in the TAA requirements. 

The FAA disagrees that the terms PFD 

and MFD will cause confusion. These 

terms are currently used and described 

in several FAA publications that are 

recognized by the aviation industry, 

including the Airplane Flying 

Handbook (FAA–H–8083–3B), the 

Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical 

Knowledge (FAA–H–8083–25), the 

Aviation Instructors Handbook (FAA– 

H–8083–9A), the Instrument Flying 

Handbook (FAA–H–8083–15B), and the 

FAA/Industry Training Standards 

(FITS). The Pilot’s Handbook of 

Aeronautical Knowledge defines a PFD 

and MFD in the glossary. PFD is defined 

as ‘‘a display that provides increased 

situational awareness to the pilot by 

replacing the traditional six instruments 

used for instrument flight with an easyto-scan display that provides the 

horizon, airspeed, altitude, vertical 

speed, trend, trim, and rate of turn 

among other key relevant indications.’’ 

MFD is defined as a ‘‘small screen (CRT 

or LCD) in an aircraft that can be used 

to display information to the pilot in 

numerous configurable ways. Often an 

MFD will be used in concert with a 

primary flight display.’’ 

The FAA believes the terms PFD and 

MFD add clarity to the TAA 

requirements by describing and 

prioritizing the display features and 

elements for TAA avionics and their 

respective functions. For example, the 

term PFD is specific to the use of the 

primary flight controls to maintain 

aircraft attitude and positive control. 

The PFD is used by the pilot to execute 

appropriate use of the control stick or 

yoke for pitch and bank, rudder pedals 

for yaw, and throttle for engine power. 

The PFD is designed specific to 

controlling the aircraft attitude and 

altitude relative to the horizon and the 

surface of the earth, especially when 

outside visibility is poor or unavailable. 

The MFD has a different priority; its 

function is secondary to the PFD. The 

MFD is designed for navigational use 

and position awareness information, 

even though it may include some PFD 

features for redundancy. Furthermore, 

the FAA is requiring certain minimum 

display elements for both a PFD and 

MFD, respectively, thereby clarifying 

what will be considered a PFD or MFD. 

As for the term ‘‘advanced,’’ the FAA 

finds it necessary to describe the 

avionics system of a TAA as 

‘‘advanced’’ to differentiate current new 

glass cockpit aircraft designs from older 

aircraft that used six independent 

mechanical dial/analog style flight 

instruments. 

Twin City suggested the FAA clarify 

whether the MFD requirement may be 

satisfied by a split-screen display (e.g., 

Dynon Skyview) or two independent 

screens (e.g., Garmin G500) contained 

within a single physical unit. Twin City 

also asked whether the moving map 

display of common GPS/WAAS 

navigators (e.g., Garmin GTN650/750, 

Avidyne IFD 440/540) would meet the 

MFD requirement. 

Section 61.129(j)(2) requires only the 

minimum elements of a MFD; it does 

not preclude the use of a split-screen 

display or two independent screens 

contained within a single physical unit. 

Therefore, a manufacturer may use a 

split-screen display or two independent 

screens for the PFD and MFD provided 

the displays contain the minimum 

elements required for each. 

Furthermore, in response to Twin City’s 

comment, the FAA is clarifying the 

MFD requirements by first describing 

what the display shows (i.e., a moving 

map) and then describing how the 

display is facilitated (i.e., using GPS 

navigation). Accordingly, § 61.129(j)(2) 

now requires the MFD to include, at a 

minimum, a moving map using GPS 

navigation. The FAA believes this 

revision to the proposed language 

clarifies that a system with a moving 

map display common to GPS/WAAS 

navigators would satisfy the MFD 

requirement. Additionally, the FAA is 

requiring the aircraft position to be 

displayed on the moving map. The FAA 

finds this additional language adds 

clarity to the MFD requirement and 

ensures that existing equipment, such as 

the systems identified by Twin City, 

would satisfy the MFD requirement for 

a TAA. 

Several commenters noted ambiguity 

with requiring the MFD to include an 

‘‘integrated two axis autopilot.’’ Garmin 

noted that the G500 and G600 have 

autopilot mode control and 

annunciations capabilities for select 

autopilots on the PFD, not the MFD 

portion of the display. Therefore, the 

autopilot function itself is provided in 

a separate piece of equipment and not 

included in the MFD. Garmin also noted 

that equipment, such as Garmin’s 

GTN650 and GTN750, could be 

considered an independent additional 

MFD that includes GPS with moving 

map navigation but the autopilot 

function and related mode control and 

annunciations are provided in separate 

pieces of equipment. Twin City 

suggested the FAA remove ‘‘integrated’’ 

from the description of the autopilot, 

allowing the use of independent/ 

aftermarket autopilot systems. 

In response to these comments, the 

FAA did not intend to exclude systems 

that provide autopilot functions 

separate from the MFD. The FAA is 

therefore separating the ‘‘two-axis 

autopilot’’ requirement from the MFD 

requirement. Accordingly, under new 

§ 61.129(j)(3), the two axis autopilot is 

no longer required to be included as 

part of the MFD. This change from what 

was proposed allows the use of 

independent/aftermarket autopilot 

systems. 

Twin City also asked the FAA to 

specify whether the integrated autopilot 

must include GPS roll steering (GPSS). 

Furthermore, Twin City asked whether 

the proposed two-axis requirement 

would have been satisfied by autopilots 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30248 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

55 14 CFR 61.129(j)(4) 

56The FAA notes that any installed equipment 

must meet the appropriate regulatory requirements 

and standards. 

57As previously stated, prior to this final rule, a 

pilot seeking a commercial pilot certificate with an 

airplane single-engine class rating was required to 

complete 10 hours of training in either a complex 

or turbine-powered airplane. 14 CFR 61.129(a)(3)(ii) 

and appendix D to part 141. 

with altitude hold function only, or if 

vertical navigation (altitude preselect, 

glideslope tracking, etc.) is required. 

In response to Twin City’s comments, 

the TAA requirements of § 61.129(j) do 

not require the autopilot to have GPSS. 

However, § 61.129(j) specifies only the 

minimum requirements for a TAA. 

Therefore, an autopilot may have 

additional features, including GPSS. 

The ‘‘two axis’’ requirement refers to the 

lateral and longitudinal axes. The 

autopilot at a minimum must be able to 

track a predetermined GPS course or 

heading selection, and also be able to 

hold a selected altitude. The autopilot is 

not, however, required to control 

vertical navigation other than holding a 

selected altitude. The FAA is revising 

the proposed language for clarity and to 

accommodate future advancements in 

technology. Rather than requiring the 

MFD to have an integrated two axis 

autopilot, the FAA is requiring the TAA 

to have a two axis autopilot integrated 

with the navigation and heading 

guidance system. The FAA believes this 

revision from what was proposed 

clarifies the minimum requirements for 

the two axis autopilot and also allows 

for flexibility in autopilot design and 

installation. 

AOPA, Garmin, and GAMA 

recommended that the FAA not require 

the MFD to be an ‘‘independent 

additional’’ piece of equipment because 

this requirement would preclude a 

single display that features the required 

information of both a PFD and a MFD 

from qualifying as a TAA. 

The FAA agrees that the proposed 

definition of TAA would have been 

unintentionally restrictive and would 

have excluded some qualifying aircraft 

unnecessarily with its use of the phrase 

‘‘independent additional.’’ The 

proposed requirement for an MFD to be 

an independent additional piece of 

equipment was intended to ensure that 

the minimum display elements are 

visible at all times. The FAA is not 

opposed to an aircraft having one 

display or piece of hardware that meets 

the overall definition requirements of 

§ 61.129(j). The FAA is therefore 

removing the phrase ‘‘independent 

additional’’ from the proposed language 

to allow a single piece of equipment or 

single display to satisfy the requirement 

for both a PFD and MFD. However, to 

ensure that both displays are visible at 

the same time, the FAA is requiring the 

display elements for both the PFD and 

MFD (paragraphs (j)(1) and (2)) to be 

continuously visible.55

Garmin noted that the proposed 

phrase ‘‘(MFD) that includes, at a 

minimum, a Global Positioning System 

(GPS) with moving map navigation and 

an integrated two axis autopilot’’ is 

problematic. Garmin explained that the 

MFD portion of the G500 and G600 has 

a moving map that is driven by GPS but 

the GPS is a separate piece of equipment 

and not included in the MFD portion of 

the display. 

In reference to the G500 and G600 

equipment identified by Garmin, the 

FAA understands that the PFD and MFD 

can be driven or supported by other 

pieces of equipment to provide for its 

required functionality. Many of the 

display features for the PFD and MFD 

can be driven by separate pieces of 

equipment that are connected to the 

display. The TAA requirements in no 

way restrict the use of peripheral or 

supporting equipment that enables the 

display functionality described for the 

PFD and MFD in the TAA requirements. 

Therefore, the FAA finds that the G500 

and G600 equipment identified by 

Garmin likely satisfies the requirements 

for an MFD. 

Garmin also commented that the 

phrase ‘‘Global Positioning System 

(GPS) with moving map navigation’’ 

inappropriately mixes ‘‘GPS’’, ‘‘moving 

map’’, and ‘‘navigation’’ functionality. 

Garmin noted that FAA has separate 

TSOs for these functions, including for 

GPS sensors: TSO–C145 (GPS with 

SBAS), TSO–C161 (GPS with GBAS), 

and TSO–C196 (GPS only); for moving 

map: TSO–C165, and for navigation: 

TSO–C146 (standalone navigation 

equipment using GPS/SBAS sensor) and 

TSO–C115d (required navigation 

performance (RNP) equipment using 

multi-sensor inputs). Garmin added that 

it would be better to list these functions 

separately to allow for avionics 

architectures that provide these 

functions in different equipment that 

still supports the concept of a TAA. 

In response to Garmin’s concern with 

the use of the terms GPS, moving map, 

and navigation, the FAA is only 

describing the display functionality 

requirements of the PFD and MFD 

equipment. The FAA is not adopting 

any requirements for the underlying 

architecture or supporting equipment 

that would provide for the display 

functions or capabilities.56 Therefore, 

while there may be different TSOs for 

the various functions of GPS, moving 

map, and navigation resulting in 

separate pieces of underlying 

equipment, this equipment can support 

the MFD requirements so long as the 

MFD includes a moving map that uses 

GPS navigation with the aircraft 

position displayed. 

GAMA commented that the FAA 

should consider whether it is 

appropriate to evaluate designating 

certain rotorcraft as technically 

advanced for certain training and testing 

related initiatives in the future, noting 

several benefits. 

The FAA appreciates GAMA’s 

comments. However, the FAA finds it 

unnecessary to designate a rotorcraft as 

technically advanced at this time 

because there are no regulatory 

requirements to obtain training in a 

technically advanced rotorcraft. 

2. Amendment to Aeronautical 

Experience Requirement for Commercial 

Pilots 

The FAA proposed to amend 

§ 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 

141 to allow a pilot seeking a 

commercial pilot certificate with an 

airplane category single engine class 

rating to complete the 10 hours of 

training in a complex airplane, turbinepowered airplane, or a TAA, or any 

combination of these three airplanes.57

AOPA, American Flyers, Bemidji, 

Eagle Flight Centre, UND, NATA, Twin 

City, and nine individuals, supported 

the proposal, noting that it would 

provide training alternatives to aging 

complex airplanes and reduce costs. 

Several commenters noted that allowing 

TAAs in place of complex airplanes 

would introduce commercial pilot 

candidates to risk management and 

increase pilot proficiency in systems 

management, integration, and use of 

glass cockpit instrumentation, which 

would result in a safer, more valuable 

training experience. Commenters 

explained the costs and maintenance 

issues associated with aging complex 

airplanes, and stated that allowing 

TAAs to be used as a replacement 

would address the lack of availability of 

complex airplanes. Furthermore, several 

commenters believed the proposal 

would enhance safety, while others 

commented that any potential risk to 

safety would be mitigated by the 

requirement in § 61.31(e) that a pilot 

receive training and an endorsement 

from an instructor prior to acting as PIC 

in a complex airplane. 

As commenters noted, there are 

several benefits associated with 

allowing TAAs to be used in place of 

complex airplanes. For these reasons 

and for the reasons explained in the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30249 

58 General Aviation Airplane Shipment Report, 

End-of-Year 2006 (Washington, DC: General 

Aviation Manufacturers Association, 2007) 

indicates that 92 percent of the 2,540 piston 

airplanes delivered during 2006 were equipped 

with glass cockpit electronic flight displays. An 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Air Safety 

Foundation Special Report titled ‘‘Technically 

Advanced Aircraft—Safety and Training’’ states 

‘‘virtually every newly designed transportation 

airplane is a TAA, including Lancair, Cirrus, 

Diamond, and the Adam 500 * * * Many owners 

are retrofitting their classic aircraft to convert them 

to TAA with IFR-certified GPS navigators and 

multifunction displays.’’ 

59Under appendix D to part 141, each approved 

course must include flight training on the approved 

areas of operation listed in section 4, paragraph (d) 

that are appropriate to the aircraft category and 

class rating for which the course applies. For an 

airplane single-engine course, paragraph (d) 

requires training on airport and seaplane base 

operations. Therefore, the FAA finds that the ten 

hours of training in a complex, TAA, or turbinepowered airplane should be appropriate to land or 

sea depending on the rating sought. 

NPRM, the FAA is amending 

§ 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 

141 to allow a pilot seeking a 

commercial pilot certificate with an 

airplane category single engine class 

rating to complete the 10 hours of 

training in a complex airplane, turbinepowered airplane, or a TAA.58

AOPA recommended the FAA revise 

the proposed rule language of 

§ 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D of part 

141 to clarify that the combined use of 

complex, turbine-powered, and 

technically advanced airplanes is 

permitted. 

As evident from the NPRM, the FAA 

intended to allow a pilot seeking a 

commercial pilot certificate with a 

single engine class rating to complete 

the 10 hours of training in any 

combination of complex, turbinepowered, and technically advanced 

airplanes. However, the proposed rule 

language did not reflect this intent. The 

FAA is therefore adding language to 

§ 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 

141 to clarify that any combination of a 

complex airplane, turbine-powered 

airplane, or TAA may be used. For 

consistency, the FAA is also adding 

language to § 61.129(b)(3)(ii) and 

appendix D to part 141 to clarify that a 

pilot seeking a commercial pilot 

certificate with a multiengine class 

rating may complete the 10 hours of 

training using any combination of 

multiengine complex airplanes or 

multiengine turbine-powered airplanes. 

Furthermore, as explained in the 

NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend 

§ 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 

141 to allow an applicant for a 

commercial pilot certificate with a 

single-engine class rating to complete 10 

hours of training in a complex, turbinepowered or technically advanced 

airplane. The FAA explained how 

demonstration of proficiency in an 

airplane that is electronically complex 

will be comparable to the demonstration 

of proficiency in an airplane that is 

mechanically complex. Thus, based on 

the FAA’s proposal, the option to use a 

TAA was intended to apply to all 

commercial pilot applicants for a singleengine class rating regardless of whether 

the applicant was seeking a land or sea 

rating. The FAA recognizes, however, 

that proposed § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) did not 

accurately reflect this intent as it 

applied to commercial pilot applicants 

for single-engine sea ratings. Rather, 

proposed § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) would have 

allowed a commercial pilot applicant 

for a single-engine sea rating to use only 

a complex airplane. Therefore, 

consistent with its intent, the FAA is 

revising proposed § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) to 

allow applicants for a commercial pilot 

certificate with a single-engine class 

rating (including both land and sea) to 

complete the 10 hours of training in a 

complex, turbine-powered, or 

technically advanced airplane, or any 

combination thereof. The FAA is 

specifying in § 61.129(a)(3)(ii), however, 

that the airplane must be appropriate to 

land or sea depending on the rating 

sought, which is consistent with the 

requirement in § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) as it 

existed prior to this final rule. The FAA 

is also adding language to appendix D 

to part 141 to clarify that the airplane 

used to satisfy the 10 hours of training 

in a complex, turbine-powered, or TAA 

must be appropriate to land or sea 

depending on the rating sought.59

Bemidji suggested the FAA add an 

exception to § 61.31(e), which 

prescribes additional training for 

operating complex airplanes, and 

§ 61.31(f), which prescribes additional 

training for operating high-performance 

airplanes, to allow a part 135 flight 

instructor without a current flight 

instructor certificate/flight instructor 

instrument certificate to satisfy the 

training and endorsement requirements 

of paragraphs (e) and (f). Bemidji 

recommended an exception similar to 

§ 61.31(g)(3)(iv), which excepts from the 

training and endorsements requirements 

of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) persons who 

can document satisfactory completion of 

a PIC proficiency check under part 121, 

125, or 135 conducted by the 

Administrator or by an approved pilot 

check airman. Bemidji noted that 

complex airplane training is becoming 

difficult for new pilots to receive in both 

part 61 and part 141 flight school 

environments and that an increasing 

number of part 135 instructors do not 

maintain a current flight instructor 

certificate because it is not required. 

Bemidji added that the current language 

in § 61.31(e) may become an issue in the 

typical flight training environment if the 

complex airplane is no longer needed 

for the commercial certificate, and if 

fixed gear multiengine aircraft become 

more popular in the flight training 

environment. 

The FAA agrees with revising 

§ 61.31(e) and (f) to allow a competency 

check under part 135 to meet the 

requirements for training in complex or 

high performance airplanes. However, 

the FAA is not providing an exception 

for part 121 or 125 operators. The 

change to the commercial pilot training 

requirements to allow use of a TAA 

instead of a complex airplane for the 

airplane single-engine class rating could 

require a part 135 air carrier or operator 

to provide this training to newly 

employed pilots who may not have 

previous experience in complex 

airplanes. The FAA understands 

Bemidji’s comment to indicate that this 

change could also require a part 135 air 

carrier or operator to provide highperformance airplane training to newly 

employed pilots. The FAA infers this 

suggestion from Bemidji’s comment 

because many complex airplanes are 

also high-performance airplanes. As a 

result, many pilots complete complex 

and high-performance training using the 

same airplane. Therefore, since a 

complex airplane is no longer required 

for the commercial certificate with an 

airplane single-engine class rating, it is 

more likely that a newly-employed pilot 

at a part 135 air carrier or operator 

might not have previous experience in 

a high-performance airplane. 

In accordance with § 135.323, a part 

135 air carrier or operator is currently 

required to establish and implement an 

approved training program that ensures 

that each pilot, flight instructor, and 

check pilot is adequately trained to 

perform his or her assigned duties. 

Therefore, a part 135 approved training 

program for an airplane that meets the 

definition of complex or highperformance will include the required 

ground and flight training necessary to 

meet the intent of § 61.31(e)(1)(i) and 

(f)(1)(i), as applicable. All part 135 

pilots are required to complete a 

§ 135.293 competency check every 12 

calendar months. Therefore, the FAA 

agrees with Bemidji that it is 

appropriate to include an exception in 

§ 61.31(e) and (f) for persons who have 

successfully completed a § 135.293 

competency check in a complex or high 

performance airplane, or in an FSTD 

that is representative of a complex or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30250 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

60 In accordance with § 135.341, part 135 air 

carriers or operators with only one pilot employee 

are not required to have an approved training 

program. While these pilots are still required to 

have satisfactorily completed a § 135.293 

competency check every 12 calendar months, the 

FAA finds that they may only be excepted under 

new § 61.31(e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii) if they have 

received ground and flight training under an 

approved training program. 

61To add the exceptions to paragraphs (e)(2) and 

(f)(2), the FAA had to reorganize the paragraphs. 

Accordingly, the exceptions that were provided in 

former paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2) are now in 

paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(i), respectively. The 

new exception for persons who have satisfactorily 

completed a competency check under § 135.293 are 

now in § 61.31(e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii). 62 14 CFR 61.31(e). 

high performance airplane.60 The FAA 

is adding these exceptions to 

§ 61.31(e)(2)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii).61 The FAA 

notes that, in accordance with these 

exceptions, the competency check must 

be documented in the pilot’s logbook or 

training record. Because part 125 

operators are not required to have 

approved training programs, persons 

will not have received the required 

ground and flight training specific to the 

operation of complex and high 

performance airplanes in accordance 

with an approved training program prior 

to completing a part 125 competency 

check. Therefore, the FAA is not 

providing an exception for part 125 

operators. Furthermore, the FAA finds it 

unnecessary to include a part 121 

proficiency check as an exception to 

§ 61.31(e) and (f). Section 121.159 

prohibits certificate holders from 

operating a single-engine airplane under 

part 121. To obtain a commercial 

certificate with an airplane multiengine 

land class rating, § 61.129 requires a 

pilot to have received training in a 

multiengine complex airplane. 

Furthermore, § 121.436 requires pilots 

serving in part 121 operations to hold an 

ATP certificate and an appropriate type 

rating, and § 61.159(a)(3) requires an 

applicant for an ATP certificate with a 

multiengine rating to have 50 hours of 

flight time in a multiengine airplane (of 

which 25 hours may be completed in a 

FFS). As a result, the FAA expects that 

pilots will receive the training and 

endorsements required by § 61.31(e) and 

(f) prior to obtaining employment at a 

part 121 air carrier. 

An individual, who identified himself 

as a pilot, suggested that to mitigate the 

risk of gear up landings for students that 

did not receive training in complex 

airplane it may be appropriate to amend 

the requirements of 14 CFR 61.31(e). 

This individual suggested requiring 

additional experience and/or training 

prior to receiving the complex 

endorsement, rather than keeping the 

requirement under § 61.129(a)(3)(ii) 

with respect to commercial pilot 

certification. 

Similarly, SAFE and one individual 

recommended the FAA require a 

commercial pilot to have at least 10 

hours of PIC time in a complex airplane 

prior to exercising commercial 

privileges in a complex airplane. 

The FAA is not adding additional 

training or experience requirements to 

§ 61.31(e). Adding the option to train in 

a TAA at the commercial pilot level 

does not change the FAA’s safety 

assessment that a person who complies 

with § 61.31(e), which requires training 

and an endorsement from an authorized 

instructor certifying that the person is 

proficient to operate a complex airplane, 

is sufficient. 

LOBO and four individuals, including 

one who identified himself as an 

instructor, opposed the provision, 

asserting that the proposed amendments 

would provide for a commercial pilot 

certificate without experience operating 

the controls of a mechanically complex 

airplane. LOBO stated that as proposed, 

training will result in a pilot who can 

operate TAA, but will know nothing 

about systems and procedures on 

complex airplanes such as controllable 

pitch propellers and retractable landing 

gear systems. LOBO further stated that 

many of these commercial pilots will go 

on to get flight instructor certificates 

and teach in single engine airplanes, 

again without having to demonstrate 

complex system operations. The 

individual, who identified himself as an 

instructor, stated that it is the 

degradation in physical pilot skills that 

has been noticed over time as having 

become problematic to the FAA and 

National Transportation Safety Board. 

This commenter noted the importance 

of demonstrated skill with learning, 

understanding and demonstrating a 

complicated aircraft system in the 

performance of flight duties. Another 

individual noted that the proposal 

would provide the pilot with no 

experience in the flight dynamics 

(changing pitch and drag) when 

operating landing gear, flaps and a 

controllable propeller. 

LOBO and three individuals, one of 

whom identified himself as an 

instructor, noted that a combination of 

complex airplane and TAA for use 

during training and checking would be 

a better choice. Specifically, LOBO 

suggested that commercial pilot 

applicants should have to demonstrate 

proficiency with both glass cockpit 

technology and complex system 

operations, including use of the landing 

gear. 

LOBO and three individuals generally 

noted that current requirements provide 

valuable experience in cockpit 

management procedures and complex 

systems operations, not provided by 

TAA. Specifically, LOBO noted that the 

perception that an FAA checkride in a 

single engine TAA will produce a 

commercial pilot with the same skills as 

one who had to learn complex airplane 

operations is false. One individual 

noted that training in a complex 

airplane provides the proper mindset 

and cockpit management procedures 

needed in order to be successful long 

term pilots. Additionally, one 

individual, identified as an instructor, 

noted that the original purpose of the 

regulation was to ensure pilot 

demonstration and mastery of both the 

technical aspects of the system 

operation and incorporating that 

understanding into the safe and efficient 

operation of the airplane. This 

individual further believed that the FAA 

has lost sight of that purpose in seeking 

to substitute a TAA in place of complex 

or turbine powered airplanes. 

The FAA disagrees with comments 

suggesting that TAA skills are not as 

significant or as necessary as complex 

airplane skills. The FAA does not 

suggest that this is the same skill set 

required for operating a complex 

airplane, but an appropriate experience 

requirement for a commercial pilot 

applicant. This final rule allows the 

combined use of a turbine-powered, 

complex, or TAA for satisfying the 

experience requirements. In fact, most, 

if not all, production aircraft currently 

produced now have glass cockpits 

utilizing advanced LCD displays for 

aircraft control and navigation. These 

advanced flight information systems are 

becoming mainstream equipment in 

both general and commercial aviation 

aircraft operations, and many older 

aircraft are being retrofitted with this 

new instrument glass cockpit 

technology. 

The FAA emphasizes that prior to 

acting as PIC of a complex airplane, a 

commercial pilot (or any other 

certificated pilot) must receive and log 

additional ground and flight training in 

a complex airplane and receive an 

endorsement from an authorized 

instructor certifying that the person is 

proficient to operate a complex 

airplane.62 This final rule does not 

remove or amend that requirement in 

any way. The FAA does not dispute that 

proficiency in a complex airplane is a 

necessary skill for a commercial pilot 

who intends to operate as PIC in such 

airplanes. Authorized flight instructors 

who provide these complex airplane 

endorsements have a responsibility to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30251 

63 14 CFR 61.31(f) and (i). 

64 14 CFR 61.31(e)(1). 

65 In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the cost 

savings benefits allowing the use of TAAs would be 

about $9.7 million or $8 million in present value 

at a 7 percent discount rate. While the commenter 

did not explain where he came up with $1.6 

million, the FAA assumes that the commenter 

divided $8 million by 5 years because the FAA 

estimated the net quantifiable present value benefits 

over a 5 year analysis period. 

66NTSB data available at https://app.ntsb.gov/ 

avdata/ or contact the National Transportation 

Safety Board at 202–314–6000 and ask to be 

transferred to the Safety Research and Statistical 

Analysis Division and request a query of the 

database. 

67 81 FR 29719, May 12, 2016 (and the associated 

regulatory evaluation). 

68The General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association website shows Cessna has not 

produced a piston engine retractable gear airplane 

since 1985 and Piper has produced only 28 piston 

engine airplanes with retractable gear since 2008 

(16 being the Piper Arrow model). Production for 

Beechcraft is also at an all-time low for piston single 

engine airplanes with retractable gear. 

ensure the pilot is proficient and 

competent before providing the 

endorsement. Therefore, pilots will 

continue to be formally trained and 

required to demonstrate competency 

and proficiency in a complex airplane 

prior to receiving an endorsement 

authorizing a pilot to operate and act as 

PIC in a complex airplane.63 The FAA 

further emphasizes that a fixed amount 

of time or experience in an aircraft does 

not guarantee pilot proficiency. Training 

time requirements leading to pilot 

proficiency can vary from one 

individual to another. A flight instructor 

is expected to provide a sufficient 

amount of training time as necessary to 

verify proficiency before providing a 

pilot operating privileges and 

endorsements.64

LOBO and two individuals believed 

that the proposal would increase the 

risk of gear up landings. LOBO asserted 

that the number one cause of all Lancair 

accidents and incidents is failure to 

follow proper procedures. An 

individual explained the need for pilots 

to be trained on operations of retractable 

landing gear and the associated 

emergency procedures. This individual 

emphasized that training in a TAA 

cannot serve as a substitute. 

This final rule does not eliminate the 

requirement for a pilot to receive 

training in complex airplane operations 

prior to acting as PIC of a complex 

airplane. The amendment to 

§ 61.129(a)(3)(ii) allows a pilot to use a 

TAA as an alternative to a complex 

airplane to satisfy the aeronautical 

experience specified in paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii). However, under § 61.31(e), a 

pilot is still required to receive training 

in a complex airplane and an 

endorsement from the authorized 

instructor certifying that the pilot is 

proficient to operate a complex airplane 

prior to acting as PIC of a complex 

airplane. An authorized instructor is 

responsible for providing as much 

training time as necessary to ensure a 

person is proficient before providing a 

complex airplane endorsement. 

Therefore, the FAA does not expect the 

final rule to result in an increase in gear 

up landings. 

LOBO cited a report by Tom Turner 

of the American Bonanza Society that 

noted ‘‘Tracking accident reports 

through other sources, I’ve found that 

nearly 20 percent of all accidents in 

piston-powered, retractable gear 

aeroplanes are gear-up landings. The 

U.S. Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) tells us there is an average of 

three gear-up landings every week in the 

United States.’’ (Turner, 2015). LOBO 

stated that Turner also stated that 

landing gear related mishaps cost the 

insurance industry (and the owners who 

pay premiums) nearly $1 million per 

month in claims or $12 million per year, 

far more than the $1.6 million per year 

in savings proposed by the NPRM.65

The FAA reviewed the gear up 

landing statistics referenced by LOBO 

and has determined, with the assistance 

of the National Transportation Safety 

Board, that the gear up landing statistics 

are significantly less than described, 

representative of mostly private 

operators, and the majority of them not 

engaged in commercial operations. The 

NTSB reported to the FAA that between 

January 2013 and June 2016 there were 

a total of 59 gear-up incidents and 

accidents reported, and all but one was 

operating under part 91 operating 

rules.66 Additionally, of the 59 reports, 

half were private pilots acting as PIC 

and 93% reported no injuries. This 

information suggests that the cost of 

such incidents or accidents is much 

lower and contradicts the LOBO’s 

position and referenced data. This 

would also reduce the insurance costs 

estimates that LOBO references from 

Turner, and suggests that those costs are 

also significantly lower. LOBO failed to 

provide how this third party statistical 

data is captured, substantiated, or 

verified. In the NPRM, the FAA 

determined that the cost savings 

benefits allowing the use of TAA would 

be about $9.7 million or $8 million in 

present value at a 7 percent discount 

rate. This was based on half of all initial 

single engine commercial pilot 

applicants (based on the number of 

certificates issued in previous years) 

using a TAA aircraft for training and on 

the practical test. This also included 

cost savings associated with those who 

would train and use a TAA for the flight 

instructor airplane practical test.67 The 

FAA believes this is a very conservative 

estimate and it is likely that more than 

half will take advantage of using a less 

expensive TAA airplane for the 

commercial pilot experience 

requirement. 

LOBO disagreed with the FAA’s 

position that there are certain challenges 

with availability, maintenance and cost 

of complex airplanes. Specifically, 

LOBO stated that the FAA’s position 

that airplanes with retractable landing 

gear are unavailable for purchase, 

expensive to maintain, and are not 

equipped with glass cockpits, is false. 

LOBO noted that it is aware of at least 

one retractable gear airplane with a 

Garmin G500 cockpit and that there are 

single engine retractable gear airplanes 

suitable for flight training available at 

affordable prices, but did not provide 

any specific data. One individual 

acknowledged the higher maintenance 

costs for complex airplanes, but also 

noted the higher acquisition costs for 

TAAs. This individual explained that 

there is little cost difference to the 

student because the equally high 

maintenance and acquisition costs are 

passed on to the renter. Another 

individual believed that the initial 

acquisition costs for TAAs makes the 

cost of training in TAA far greater than 

in complex airplanes. 

Based on public comment, the GAMA 

shipment database, and discussion with 

large general aviation organizations, the 

current fleet of available complex 

airplanes is decreasing. Many 

commenters describe limited or no 

availability of complex airplanes for 

rent. New production of these types of 

complex airplanes used for initial flight 

training is at an all-time low,68 and 

maintenance costs for many of those 

older complex airplanes is steadily 

increasing. As noted previously, other 

commenters discussed the difficulty of 

obtaining parts and the associated cost. 

Additionally, the FAA never stated that 

complex airplanes do not have glass 

cockpits. The LOBO statement 

describing a new complex airplane with 

a G500 glass cockpit at an affordable 

cost is contradictory to the current 

understanding of the high cost for such 

complex airplanes. Also, the 

commenter’s reference to higher 

acquisition costs for TAA fails to take 

into account that the acquisition cost for 

a retractable gear airplane of the same 

year of production as a TAA aircraft, is 

also equally expensive if not more so 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30252 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

69See www.controller.com (listing the price of a 

2017 C–172 with G1000 equipment (non-complex) 

at $403,295 on June 15, 2017); SkyTech Piper 

Dealer (quoting the price of a 2017 Piper Arrow 

(complex) at $466,880 on June 15, 2017). 

70Final Rule, ‘‘Pilot in Command Proficiency 

Check and Other Changes to the Pilot and Pilot 

School Certification Rules, 76 FR 54095, 54101 

(Aug. 31, 2011). 

71Prior to this final rule, the commercial pilot 

PTS for airplane required a pilot to use a complex 

or turbine-powered airplane for takeoff and landing 

maneuvers and appropriate emergency tasks for the 

initial practical test for a commercial pilot 

certificate with an airplane category. Similarly, the 

flight instructor PTS for airplane required an 

instructor candidate to use a complex airplane for 

the performance of takeoff and landing maneuvers 

as well as appropriate emergency procedures. 

72The FAA is in the process of replacing the 

practical test standards (PTS) with the airman 

certification standards (ACS). 

73Notice N 8900.463, Use of a Complex Airplane 

During a Commercial Pilot or Flight Instructor 

Practical Test (Apr. 24, 2018) (outlining a change 

in policy regarding the testing of applicants for a 

commercial pilot or flight instructor certificate), 

available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/ 

media/Notice/N_8900.463.pdf. The FAA no longer 

requires applicants for a commercial pilot 

certificate with an airplane single-engine rating to 

provide a complex or turbine-powered airplane for 

the associated practical test. Id. 

74The FAA no longer requires applicants for a 

flight instructor certificate with an airplane singleengine rating to provide a complex airplane for the 

practical test. Id. 

than a TAA.69 It may be true that there 

are older less expensive complex 

airplanes available, but again, the 

limited availability, difficulty of 

obtaining parts and the cost associated 

with maintenance and refurbishing 

these older aircraft, makes their use cost 

prohibitive. 

The FAA also received comments on 

ensuring the flight instructor providing 

the training in a complex airplane or 

TAA is qualified to provide the training. 

Specifically, SAFE recommended the 

FAA amend § 61.195 to require a flight 

instructor to have at least 10 hours of 

PIC time in a complex airplane prior to 

giving instruction in a complex airplane 

and at least 10 hours of PIC time in a 

TAA prior to giving instruction in a 

TAA. An individual also recommended 

requiring flight instructors to have 10 

hours of PIC time in a complex airplane. 

The FAA is not requiring a flight 

instructor to obtain a minimum of 10 

hours as PIC in a complex airplane prior 

to instructing in a complex airplane. As 

discussed previously, the FAA finds 

that the current training and 

endorsement requirement to act as PIC 

of a complex airplane as set forth in 

§ 61.31, in conjunction with the flight 

instructor’s demonstrated knowledge of 

the fundamentals of instruction, is 

sufficient to ensure that this type of 

training is provided effectively. 

Furthermore, the ability to provide 

training in a complex airplane without 

having been evaluated on a practical test 

is consistent with other § 61.31 

endorsements, including high 

performance aircraft, tailwheel aircraft, 

and high altitude operations. 

Additionally, the FAA is not requiring 

a flight instructor to obtain 10 hours as 

PIC in a TAA prior to instructing in a 

TAA. The proposal was intended only 

to introduce commercial pilot 

candidates to TAAs. Flight instructors 

are currently permitted to provide flight 

training in airplanes with glass-cockpits 

without having to receive any specific 

amount of training in the aircraft. 

Therefore, allowing a flight instructor to 

provide flight instruction in a TAA 

without first receiving extensive 

training in the TAA will not result in a 

decreased level of safety. Flight 

instructors have the responsibility of 

ensuring their familiarity with an 

aircraft prior to providing flight 

instruction in that aircraft. 

Furthermore, since the NPRM, the 

FAA has determined that the 

requirement in § 61.129(b)(3)(ii) that a 

seaplane have flaps and a controllable 

pitch propeller has not been updated to 

reflect the revised definition of 

‘‘complex airplane’’ in § 61.1. In 2011, 

the FAA amended the definition of 

‘‘complex airplane’’ to include airplanes 

and seaplanes equipped with a full 

authority digital engine control 

(FADEC).70 The FAA is, therefore, 

adding language to § 61.129(b)(3)(ii) to 

accommodate seaplanes equipped with 

a FADEC consistent with the definition 

of complex airplane in § 61.1. 

3. Amendments to Commercial Pilot 

and Flight Instructor Practical Test 

Standards 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

revise the commercial pilot single 

engine airplane practical test standards 

(PTS) to permit the use of a TAA in 

place of a complex or turbine-powered 

airplane during the initial practical 

test.71 The FAA also proposed to revise 

the flight instructor single engine 

airplane PTS to permit the flight 

instructor applicant to use a TAA 

during the initial practical test. 

AOPA supported the proposed 

changes to the commercial pilot and 

flight instructor PTS because they are 

necessary to carry out the proposed 

amendments to § 61.129(c)(3)(ii) and 

appendix D to part 141. 

UND recommended the FAA not 

require an applicant to use a TAA for 

the flight instructor practical test. UND 

described that, according to the flight 

instructor single engine airplane PTS, 

the TAA would be needed for ‘‘takeoff 

and landing maneuvers as well as 

appropriate emergency procedures’’ and 

questioned why a two axis autopilot is 

needed to demonstrate proficiency for 

takeoff and landings in a VFR traffic 

pattern. UND suggested that this PTS 

requirement should be removed from a 

PTS that focuses on VFR maneuvers. 

UND requested the removal of both the 

complex airplane and the TAA airplane 

requirement from the flight instructor 

single engine airplane PTS. 

Upon further review, the FAA 

decided not to revise the commercial 

pilot airman certification standards 

(ACS) and flight instructor PTS to 

include the option to use a TAA during 

the commercial pilot (single-engine 

airplane) or flight instructor (singleengine airplane) practical tests.72

Instead, the FAA removed from the 

commercial pilot ACS the requirement 

to provide a complex or turbine 

powered airplane for the initial practical 

test.73 Additionally, the FAA removed 

from the flight instructor PTS the 

requirement to provide a complex 

airplane for the practical test.74

As explained in the NPRM, there are 

far fewer single engine complex 

airplanes available to meet the ACS 

requirement, and the single engine 

complex airplanes that are available are 

older aircraft that are expensive to 

maintain. Revising the airmen 

certification standards to include the 

option to use a TAA for the commercial 

pilot and flight instructor practical tests 

would have alleviated some of the cost, 

maintenance and production issues 

associated with single engine complex 

airplanes. However, the FAA found that 

removing the ACS requirements to 

furnish a complex or turbine powered 

airplane achieves the same objectives. 

Additionally, the FAA determined that 

removing these ACS/PTS requirements, 

rather than adding the option to use a 

TAA, more significantly reduces costs 

for persons pursuing a commercial pilot 

or flight instructor certificate by 

allowing applicants to utilize less 

expensive airplanes on the practical test 

that are not turbine driven, complex, or 

technically advanced. Furthermore, the 

FAA found that no longer requiring a 

complex airplane to be furnished for the 

initial commercial pilot or flight 

instructor practical test will not result in 

a decreased level of safety. Airplanes 

provided for the practical test will be 

less complex, newer, and not as likely 

to fail due to mechanical and 

maintenance issues associated with 

older single engine complex airplanes. 

Additionally, prior to operating as PIC 

of a complex airplane, a pilot is still 

required to receive flight training and an 

endorsement from an authorized 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30253 

75 14 CFR 61.31(e). 

76 14 CFR 61.45. 

77Section 61.195 sets forth the limitations and 

qualifications for flight instructors. Prior to this 

final rule, under § 61.195(b), an instructor could not 

conduct flight training in any aircraft for which the 

instructor did not hold a pilot certificate and flight 

instructor certificate with the applicable category 

and class ratings for the aircraft in which the 

training was provided. Additionally, under 

§ 61.195(c), a flight instructor who provided 

instrument training for the issuance of an 

instrument rating, a type rating not limited to VFR, 

or the instrument training required for commercial 

pilot and ATP certificates was required to hold an 

instrument rating on his or her pilot certificate and 

flight instructor certificate that was appropriate to 

the category and class of aircraft used for the 

training. 

78FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR INSTRUMENT 

Practical Test Standards for AIRPLANE and 

HELICOPTER, FAA–S–8081–9D with Changes 1 & 

2, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration (July 2010). In ‘‘IX. Area 

of Operation: Emergency Operations,’’ the FAA 

notes that ‘‘[t]he examiner shall omit TASKS C and 

D unless the applicant furnishes a multiengine 

airplane for the practical test, then TASK C or D is 

mandatory.’’ 

79The Flight Instructor Instrument PTS does not 

contain separate tasks for applicants completing the 

practical test in a multiengine helicopter. 

80Section 61.195(c)(2) requires a flight instructor 

conducting instrument training in a multiengine 

airplane to meet the requirements of § 61.195(b), 

which requires the flight instructor to hold the 

applicable category and class rating on his or her 

flight instructor certificate. 

81As the FAA noted in the NPRM, the poweredlift category does not contain any corresponding 

class ratings, on either a pilot certificate or flight 

instructor certificate. 

82Under § 61.1, ‘‘Instrument training’’ means that 

time in which instrument training is received from 

Continued 

instructor certifying his or her 

proficiency in a complex airplane.75

The FAA concluded that any airplane 

may be used to accomplish the tasks 

described in the commercial pilot 

(single-engine) ACS or flight instructor 

(single-engine) PTS, provided that 

aircraft is capable of accomplishing all 

areas of operation required for the 

practical test and is the appropriate 

category and class for the rating 

sought.76 Therefore, the aircraft used for 

the practical test must still meet the 

requirements specified in § 61.45. 

E. Flight Instructors With Instrument 

Ratings Only 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

revise § 61.195(b) and (c) to allow a 

flight instructor who holds only an 

instrument-airplane or instrumenthelicopter rating on his or her flight 

instructor certificate to conduct 

instrument training.77 As proposed, the 

flight instructor and the pilot receiving 

instrument training would both have 

been required to hold category and class 

ratings on their pilot certificates that are 

applicable to the aircraft in which the 

instrument training is accomplished. 

Therefore, under this proposal, the 

flight instructor would no longer have 

been required to hold the appropriate 

category and class ratings in addition to 

the instrument rating on his or her flight 

instructor certificate. 

The FAA received four comments on 

this proposal. Three commenters 

supported the proposed changes to 

§ 61.195(b) and (c); one individual 

opposed them. 

American Flyers stated that if an 

instrument instructor holds the 

appropriate category and class on his or 

her commercial pilot certificate, he or 

she has already demonstrated 

proficiency on the tasks required for the 

commercial practical test. Eagle Sport 

stated that instrument procedures are 

standard across the board and 

instrument instructors should be 

qualified to teach them. One individual 

believed that removing the requirement 

of category and class for instrument 

instructors makes absolute sense and 

instrument flying and the regulations 

are the same no matter what aircraft is 

being flown. 

The FAA recognizes that instrument 

procedures are fundamentally 

consistent within a particular category 

of aircraft and that the same instrument 

flight rules apply in the NAS regardless 

of what aircraft is being flown. 

However, upon further review, the FAA 

has determined that a flight instructor 

who does not possess an airplane 

category multiengine class rating on his 

or her flight instructor certificate has not 

been trained and tested on giving 

instruction in a multiengine airplane, 

specifically instruction on one-engine 

inoperative tasks. The Flight Instructor 

Instrument Practical Test Standards 

(PTS) are not the same for single-engine 

and multiengine airplanes because the 

PTS contains two tasks that are specific 

to multiengine airplanes.78 If an 

applicant is completing the flight 

instructor instrument practical test in a 

multiengine airplane, the standards 

direct the examiner to have the 

applicant perform at least one of the 

following tasks: (1) An engine failure 

during straight-and-level flight and 

turns (Task IX. C); or (2) an instrument 

approach with one engine inoperative 

(Task IX. D).79 Similarly, the Flight 

Instructor Airplane PTS contains 

additional tasks for persons completing 

the practical test in a multiengine 

airplane, including tasks related to 

operating a multiengine airplane with 

one engine inoperative. Therefore, a 

flight instructor who holds an 

instrument rating and an airplane 

category multiengine class rating on his 

or her flight instructor certificate has 

been trained and tested on conducting 

training in a multiengine airplane to 

include one-engine inoperative 

maneuvers and/or approaches. The FAA 

emphasizes that an initial flight 

instructor candidate who completes a 

flight instructor instrument-airplane 

rating practical test in a single engine 

airplane has not been trained and tested 

on providing instruction in a 

multiengine airplane to include these 

one-engine inoperative tasks. 

In the interest of safety, the FAA has 

determined that, in order to provide 

instrument instruction in a multiengine 

airplane competently and safely, the 

flight instructor must have been trained 

and tested on giving instruction in a 

multiengine airplane including 

instruction on one-engine inoperative 

tasks. Any task required for the 

multiengine airplane rating has the 

potential for becoming a single engine 

operation. Verification of flight 

instructor proficiency in teaching 

emergency scenarios such as a loss of an 

engine during multiengine operations 

ensures that flight instructors can 

successfully mitigate such risk and 

safely provide instrument training in 

multiengine airplanes. 

Therefore, the FAA is revising 

proposed § 61.195(c) by adding new 

paragraph (c)(2), which requires a flight 

instructor who possesses an instrument 

rating on his or her flight instructor 

certificate to also possess an airplane 

category multiengine class rating on his 

or her flight instructor certificate when 

conducting instrument training in a 

multiengine airplane.80 Section 

61.195(c)(1) contains the proposed 

requirement, which has been revised to 

apply only to flight instructors giving 

instrument instruction in aircraft other 

than multiengine airplanes. Thus, 

§ 61.195(c)(1) allows an instrument-only 

flight instructor to conduct instrument 

training in an aircraft (other than 

multiengine airplanes) provided the 

instructor and the pilot receiving 

instrument training hold category and 

class ratings on their pilot certificates 

that are applicable to the aircraft in 

which the instrument training is 

accomplished.81

The FAA is also revising § 61.195(e) 

to clarify that a flight instructor may not 

give instrument training in an aircraft 

that requires the PIC to hold a type 

rating unless the flight instructor holds 

a type rating for that aircraft on his or 

her pilot certificate. While this revision 

was not proposed in the NPRM, flight 

instruction includes instrument 

training; 82 therefore, former § 61.195(e) 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30254 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

an authorized instructor under actual or simulated 

conditions. 

83FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR INSTRUMENT 

Practical Test Standards for AIRPLANE and 

HELICOPTER, FAA–S–8081–9D with Changes 1 & 

2, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Aviation Administration (July 2010). 

84 14 CFR 61.65(h) and (i). 

85Prior to this final rule, a flight instructor with 

a sport pilot rating was not allowed to provide 

training on control and maneuvering solely by 

reference to the instruments. However, sport pilot 

applicants are required to receive this training for 

the purpose of solo cross-country requirements in 

an airplane that has a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS. 

14 CFR 61.93(e)(12). Therefore, prior to this final 

rule, sport pilot applicants were required to obtain 

this training from a flight instructor certificated 

under subpart H of part 61. 

86A flight instructor with a sport pilot rating is 

not required to receive this endorsement. The 

endorsement will only be required if the flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating seeks the 

privilege of providing training to sport pilot 

applicants on maneuvering solely by reference to 

the flight instruments. 

87Private pilot applicants have a similar 

requirement under § 61.109(a)(3) that requires 3 

hours of flight training in a single-engine airplane 

on the control and maneuvering of an airplane 

solely by reference to instruments, including 

straight and level flight, constant airspeed climbs 

and descents, turns to a heading, recovery from 

unusual flight altitudes, radio communications, and 

the use of navigation systems/facilities and radar 

services appropriate to instrument flight. 

would have applied to flight instructors 

conducting instrument training under 

paragraph (c). The FAA is revising 

paragraph (e) only for clarity. 

One individual, who is identified as 

a flight instructor, believed that an 

instrument-only flight instructor may 

not possess the skills necessary to 

manipulate the aircraft if the pilot flying 

loses control of the aircraft. The 

commenter further stated that 

instrument-only flight instructors do not 

have to demonstrate stalls or spin 

proficiency on the practical test, and 

described observing many pilots on 

instrument proficiency checks 

incorrectly recovering from an unusual 

attitude training event pushing the 

aircraft closer to a stall/spin scenario. 

For the reasons explained above, the 

FAA agrees that an instrument-only 

flight instructor may not possess the 

skills needed to conduct instrument 

training in a multiengine airplane and is 

revising proposed § 61.195(c) 

accordingly. However, the FAA believes 

that a flight instructor with only an 

instrument-airplane rating or 

instrument-helicopter rating possesses 

the skills necessary to conduct 

instrument training in an aircraft (other 

than a multiengine airplane). The Flight 

Instructor Instrument Airplane and 

Helicopter PTS states that examiners 

shall place special emphasis upon areas 

of aircraft operations considered critical 

to flight safety, including positive 

aircraft control, stall/spin awareness, 

and other areas deemed appropriate to 

any phase of the practical test.83

Additionally, because § 61.195(c)(1) 

requires the flight instructor and the 

pilot receiving the instrument training 

to hold on their pilot certificates the 

appropriate category and class ratings in 

advance of the instrument training, both 

the instructor and the applicant will 

have already been found proficient in 

stall prevention, recognition, and 

recovery for the aircraft in which the 

instrument training will be 

accomplished. 

Furthermore, the FAA is revising and 

restructuring proposed § 61.195(b) for 

clarity. Proposed § 61.195(b)(2) would 

have required the flight instructor to 

hold a pilot certificate with a type 

rating, if appropriate. The FAA finds 

that this language could have been 

interpreted as requiring the flight 

instructor to hold a type rating, which 

was not the FAA’s intent. Prior to this 

final rule, § 61.195(b) required a flight 

instructor to hold a type rating only if 

appropriate. The FAA did not propose 

to change this requirement. Therefore, 

the FAA is revising proposed 

§ 61.195(b) to require the flight 

instructor to hold a flight instructor 

certificate appropriate to category and 

class; to hold a pilot certificate; and to 

meet the requirements of § 61.195(e), if 

applicable. Section 61.195(e) requires a 

flight instructor to hold a type rating on 

his or her pilot certificate if the aircraft 

requires the PIC to hold a type rating. 

The FAA will revise FAA Order 

8900.1 to be consistent with the flight 

instructor privileges and limitations 

associated with this rule. Additionally, 

these instructor privileges and 

limitations described for instrument 

training in an aircraft will also be 

applicable to training credits permitted 

when using an FFS, FTD, or ATD.84

F. Light-Sport Aircraft Pilots and Flight 

Instructors 

1. Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Training 

Privilege 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

add new § 61.412 to authorize a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating to 

provide training on control and 

maneuvering solely by reference to the 

instruments to sport pilot applicants 

receiving flight training for the purpose 

of solo cross-country requirements in an 

airplane that has a Vh greater than 87 

knots CAS.85 Because a flight instructor 

with a sport pilot rating is not evaluated 

on this instructional knowledge, the 

FAA proposed to require a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating to 

receive training and an endorsement 

from a flight instructor certificated 

under subpart H that affirms the flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating has 

been found competent and is qualified 

to provide flight training on tasks and 

maneuvers performed solely by 

reference to the flight instruments.86

Proposed § 61.412(b) would have 

required the flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating to receive a minimum 

of 1 hour of ground training and 3 hours 

of flight training in an airplane with a 

Vh greater than 87 knots CAS or in a FFS 

or FTD that replicates an airplane with 

a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS.87

The FAA also proposed to revise 

§ 61.415 by adding a new paragraph (h) 

to clarify that a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating may not conduct flight 

training on control and maneuvering an 

aircraft solely by reference to the 

instruments in an airplane that has a Vh

greater than 87 knots CAS without 

meeting the requirements in proposed 

§ 61.412. Additionally, the FAA 

proposed to revise § 91.109(c) to permit 

a flight instructor with a sport pilot 

rating who has obtained the 

endorsement proposed in § 61.412 to 

serve as a safety pilot only for the 

purpose of providing flight training on 

control and maneuvering solely by 

reference to the instruments to a sport 

pilot applicant seeking a solo cross 

country endorsement in an airplane 

with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS. 

The FAA received six comments 

regarding this proposal. All commenters 

supported the FAA allowing flight 

instructors with a sport pilot rating to 

provide training to sport pilot 

applicants on control and maneuvering 

solely by reference to the flight 

instruments. However, each commenter 

expressed concern and offered revisions 

to proposed § 61.412. 

AOPA, Chesapeake Sport Pilot (2 

individuals), and one individual 

recommended the FAA except flight 

instructors with a sport pilot rating who 

also hold at least a private pilot 

certificate with a single-engine airplane 

rating from the proposed § 61.412 

training requirement. 

The FAA is not providing an 

exception to the training and 

endorsement requirements of § 61.412 

for flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating who also possess a private pilot 

certificate or higher. As the FAA 

explained in the NPRM, § 61.412(b) 

involves flight training for the purpose 

of giving instruction on control and 

maneuvering solely by reference to the 

instruments. While a person who holds 

at least a private pilot certificate with a 

single-engine airplane rating has 

received three hours of flight training in 

a single-engine airplane on the control 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30255 

88 81 FR at 29734. 

89 14 CFR 61.93(e)(12). 

90Section 61.315 prescribes the privileges and 

limitations of a person who holds a sport pilot 

certificate. Under § 61.315(c), a person who holds 

a sport pilot certificate may not act as PIC of a light 

sport aircraft when the flight or surface visibility is 

less than 3 statute miles, or without visual reference 

to the surface. The FAA notes that receiving flight 

instruction on control and maneuvering solely by 

reference to the flight instruments does not give a 

sport pilot privileges to operate contrary to the 

limitations established in § 61.315(c). 

91Final Rule, ‘‘Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground 

Instructor, and Pilot School Certification Rules,’’ 62 

FR 16220 (Apr. 4, 1997). 

92Legal Interpretation, Letter to Scott Rohlfing 

from Lorelei Peter, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Regulations (Feb 24, 2016); Legal Interpretation, 

Letter to Taylor Grayson from Rebecca B. 

MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Regulations (Jan. 4, 2010); Legal Interpretation, 

Letter to Taylor Grayson from Rebecca B. 

MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Regulations (July 6, 2010). 

93FAA–S–8081–29 SPORT PILOT Practical Test 

Standards for Flight Instructor Pg. 4–13, I. AREA 

OF OPERATION: FUNDAMENTALS OF 

INSTRUCTING. 

and maneuvering of an airplane solely 

by reference to the instruments pursuant 

to § 61.109(a)(3), he or she has not 

received training specific to ‘‘giving 

instruction’’ on control and 

maneuvering solely by reference to the 

instruments. Therefore, the training 

requirements of § 61.412(b) are not 

duplicative to § 61.109(a)(3). 

Eagle Sport LLC commented that 

requiring a flight instructor with a sport 

pilot rating to obtain additional 

instruction and an endorsement in order 

to provide training on control and 

maneuvering solely by reference to the 

flight instruments is needlessly 

cumbersome. One individual 

commenter suggested that an 

endorsement may be sufficient (without 

the need for a specific training time 

requirement). 

The FAA is requiring a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating to 

receive and log a minimum of one hour 

of ground training and three hours of 

flight training, as proposed. As stated in 

the NPRM,88 the basic instrument flight 

training should involve flight training 

for the purpose of giving instruction on 

control and maneuvering solely by 

reference to the flight instruments, 

including straight and level flight, turns, 

descents, climbs, use of radio aids, and 

air traffic control directives.89

Therefore, § 61.412(c) requires a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating to 

receive training for the purpose of 

giving instruction on the tasks specified 

in § 61.93(e)(12), as proposed. The FAA 

believes that a minimum amount of 

training time on the tasks specified in 

§ 61.412(c) and an endorsement 

certifying proficiency in those tasks are 

necessary to ensure that a flight 

instructor with only a sport pilot rating 

has the experience, proficiency, and 

skills necessary to provide his or her 

sport pilot students with the training 

and skills required to safely operate a 

light-sport aircraft solely by reference to 

the flight instruments.90

SAFE agreed that a one-time 

endorsement is appropriate, but asserted 

that the minimum training requirement 

is insufficient. SAFE recommended that 

the flight instructor with a sport pilot 

rating be required to demonstrate all the 

tasks described in the Private Pilot ACS 

Area VIII, Task F. 

The FAA disagrees with SAFE’s 

assertion. The training and subsequent 

endorsement that will be provided to 

the flight instructor with a sport pilot 

rating is not meant to be a practical test 

and should not be treated as such. The 

instructor providing the training can 

make the determination of competency 

without referencing the PTS standards. 

The training and endorsement required 

under § 61.412 is similar in nature to the 

other training and endorsements 

instructors provide, such as for high 

performance, complex, or tailwheel 

airplanes. 

SAFE also stated that it is unclear 

what ‘‘use of radio aids and ATC 

directives’’ means under proposed 

§ 61.412(c). To more clearly define it, 

SAFE suggested referencing the ‘‘Private 

Pilot ACS Area VIII, Task F, Radio 

Communications, Navigation Systems/ 

Facilities, and Radar Services’’ instead. 

Because § 61.412(c) requires the flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating to 

receive an endorsement certifying that 

the instructor is proficient in providing 

the flight training specified in 

§ 61.93(e)(12), the FAA is describing the 

flight training in § 61.412(c) by using 

language that mirrors the language of 

§ 61.93(e)(12). Thus, the language ‘‘use 

of radio aids and ATC directives’’ does 

not introduce a new concept into the 

regulations. It has been used in 14 CFR 

61.93 since 1997.91 Flight instructors 

authorized under subpart H of part 61 

have been conducting the flight training 

required by § 61.93, which includes 

‘‘use of radio aids and ATC directives,’’ 

for over 20 years. The FAA believes the 

phrase ‘‘use of radio aids and ATC 

directives’’ is sufficiently clear. 

SAFE also stated that it is unclear 

what type of instructor would be 

authorized under subpart H. SAFE 

questioned if this should be any flight 

instructor that meets the appropriate 

category and class requirement, an 

instrument flight instructor, or an 

instructor who meets the requirements 

to provide instruction for an initial 

flight instructor certificate applicant. 

SAFE suggested the training be 

provided by an instructor with 

substantial experience who also meets 

the requirements to provide training for 

the initial flight instructor certificate. 

The FAA intended for any flight 

instructor authorized under subpart H to 

provide the requisite training and 

endorsement to a flight instructor with 

a sport pilot rating. However, in its own 

continued review of the NPRM, the FAA 

discovered that the express language of 

§ 61.195(c) would have prohibited an 

instrument-only flight instructor from 

providing flight training on the control 

and maneuvering of an airplane solely 

by reference to the flight instruments. 

As explained in the NPRM, a subpart H 

instructor is instrument rated and 

knowledgeable on the appropriate 

techniques for safely accomplishing 

flight by reference to the flight 

instruments. Because flight training on 

the control and maneuvering of an 

airplane solely by reference to the flight 

instruments is not instrument training, 

it may be provided by a flight instructor 

who does not hold an instrument rating 

on his or her flight instructor 

certificate.92 The FAA, therefore, 

concludes that a flight instructor who 

holds an instrument rating on his or her 

flight instructor certificate that is 

appropriate to the aircraft in which the 

training is provided should also be 

allowed to provide flight training on the 

control and maneuvering of an airplane 

solely by reference to the flight 

instruments. Accordingly, the FAA is 

adding new paragraph (l) to § 61.195 to 

expressly allow an instrument-only 

instructor to provide this training 

notwithstanding § 61.195(c). 

The FAA understands that a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating has 

already demonstrated proficiency in the 

fundamentals of instruction and course 

development. A flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating is evaluated and then 

qualified on the fundamentals of flight 

instruction before receiving a flight 

instructor certificate.93 That same flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating will 

then receive additional training from a 

flight instructor authorized under 

subpart H, specific to giving instruction 

on control and maneuvering solely by 

reference to the instruments. The FAA 

believes this will enable the flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating to 

provide the training under § 61.93(e)(12) 

effectively and safely. 

AOPA recommended the FAA revise 

proposed § 61.412(b) to allow flight 

instructors with a sport pilot rating to 

receive the required three hours of flight 

training in an ATD. AOPA explained 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30256 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

94Certification of Aircraft and Airmen for the 

Operation of Light-Sport Aircraft; Modifications to 

Rules for Sport Pilot, 75 FR 5204 (Feb. 1, 2010). The 

FAA removed the training requirement for student 

pilots seeking a sport pilot certificate to receive 

training in the control and maneuvering of an 

airplane solely by reference to flight instruments 

prior to conducting solo cross-country flight in an 

aircraft other than airplanes with a VH greater than 

87 knots CAS. 75 FR at 5211. 

95 14 CFR 61.315(c). 

96Under § 61.51(h), a person may log training 

time when that person receives training from an 

authorized instructor in an aircraft, FFS, or FTD. A 

sport pilot instructor is not authorized to conduct 

training for a recreational pilot certificate or a 

private pilot certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, 

glider, or lighter-than-air category ratings. 14 CFR 

61.413. Therefore, prior to this final rule, under 

§ 61.51(h), a pilot could not count flight training 

received from a flight instructor with only a sport 

pilot rating (subpart K instructor) towards the 

training requirements for a recreational pilot 

certificate or private pilot certificate with category 

ratings other than powered parachute and weightshift control aircraft. 

97For the airplane category single engine class, 

the FAA proposed to allow 10 hours of sport pilot 

training to be credited toward the 15 hours of 

training required for a recreational pilot certificate 

and toward the 20 hours of training required for the 

private pilot certificate. For the rotorcraft category 

gyroplane class, the FAA proposed to allow 10 

hours of sport pilot training to be credited toward 

the 15 hours of training required for the recreational 

pilot certificate and toward the 20 hours of training 

required for the private pilot certificate. For the 

lighter-than-air category airship class, the FAA 

proposed to allow 12.5 hours of sport pilot training 

to be credited toward the 25 hours of training 

required for the private pilot certificate. For the 

lighter-than-air category balloon class, the FAA 

proposed to allow 5 hours of sport pilot training, 

including 3 training flights with an authorized 

instructor, to be credited toward the 10 hours of 

flight training, including 6 training flights with an 

authorized instructor, required for a private pilot 

certificate. 

98 14 CFR 61.109(a)(4), (d)(3), and (g)(3). The FAA 

notes, however, that a person who applies for a 

private pilot certificate with a lighter-than-air 

category and balloon class rating is required to 

obtain a minimum of 2 hours in preparation for the 

practical test within the preceding 2 calendar 

months from the month of the test. 14 CFR 

61.109(h)(1) and (2). 

that a flight instructor with a sport pilot 

rating who holds an endorsement under 

§ 61.327(b) has already been found 

proficient in an airplane with a Vh

greater than 87 knots CAS. Additionally, 

because the flight instructor with a sport 

pilot rating and the sport pilot student 

will not be rated to fly under IFR, all the 

training to be conducted under 

proposed §§ 61.412 and 61.93(e)(12) 

will be performed under simulated 

instrument meteorological conditions, 

not actual instrument meteorological 

conditions. Lastly, AOPA also stated 

that limitations on the use of certain 

ATDs being used for this type of flight 

training can be imposed by the LOA 

process when the FAA evaluates and 

approves an ATD. 

The FAA recognizes that proposed 

§ 61.412(b) would have allowed the 

three hours of flight training to be 

conducted in an airplane with a Vh

greater than 87 knots CAS, or in a FFS 

or FTD that replicated an airplane with 

a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS. The 

FAA did not intend to preclude the use 

of ATDs under this provision. Because 

ATDs are currently permitted to satisfy 

training requirements for the instrument 

rating and recency, the FAA finds that 

they should also be allowed to satisfy 

the flight training requirements of 

§ 61.412(b). Accordingly, the FAA is 

revising proposed § 61.412(b) to also 

allow the use of ATDs, as AOPA 

recommended. 

AOPA also recommended clarifying 

changes to proposed § 61.412. First, 

AOPA recommended revising the 

proposed rule language to clarify that 

the solo cross-country endorsement is 

not issued pursuant to § 61.93(e)(12). 

Rather, the required flight training 

maneuvers and procedures are listed 

under § 61.93(e)(12). Second, AOPA 

stated that § 61.327 requires two 

different endorsements. AOPA 

recommended referencing § 61.327(b), 

rather than § 61.327 in its entirety, 

because paragraph (b) requires the 

endorsement for sport pilots who want 

to operate a light-sport aircraft that has 

a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS. 

The FAA is revising proposed 

§ 61.412 to clarify that the flight training 

on control and maneuvering an aircraft 

solely by reference to the instruments is 

provided under § 61.93(e)(12), and the 

solo cross-country endorsement is 

issued under § 61.93(c)(1). Additionally, 

the FAA is using the phrase ‘‘student 

pilot seeking a sport pilot certificate,’’ 

rather than the proposed term ‘‘sport 

pilot applicant,’’ because it more 

accurately describes the pilots who 

must obtain the solo-cross country 

endorsement under § 61.93(c)(1). The 

phrase ‘‘student pilot seeking a sport 

pilot certificate’’ is also consistent with 

the terminology that exists in current 

§ 61.93(e)(12). Furthermore, the FAA is 

referencing § 61.327(b) for the reasons 

identified by AOPA. 

Eagle Sport LLC expressed concern 

with requiring student pilots seeking a 

sport pilot certificate to receive training 

on flight solely by reference to the flight 

instruments as part of training for crosscountry flight if operating a light sport 

airplane that has a Vh greater than 87 

knots CAS. 

This requirement has existed since 

February 1, 2010.94 The NPRM did not 

propose any changes to this 

requirement; therefore, Eagle Sport 

LLC’s comments on this provision are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

One commenter recommended the 

FAA add instrument time to the 

requirements for flight instructors with 

a sport pilot rating. The FAA is not 

adopting this recommendation. The 

FAA finds it unnecessary to require a 

flight instructor with a sport pilot rating 

to obtain instrument training because a 

sport pilot may not operate when the 

flight or surface visibility is less than 3 

statute miles, or without visual 

reference to the surface.95

The FAA notes that §§ 61.415 and 

91.109 remain unchanged from the 

NPRM. The FAA also notes that it will 

revise AC 61–65F to include the 

appropriate endorsement language that 

can be used when authorizing a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating. 

2. Credit for Training Obtained as a 

Sport Pilot 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

revise § 61.99 and add new § 61.109(l) to 

allow a portion of the flight training 

received from a sport pilot instructor 

who does not also hold a flight 

instructor certificate issued under the 

requirements in subpart H to be credited 

toward a portion of the flight training 

requirements for a recreational or 

private pilot certificate with airplane, 

rotorcraft, or lighter-than-air 

categories.96 The FAA proposed that 

any training received from a sport pilot 

instructor that would be credited must 

be completed in an aircraft appropriate 

to the category and class rating for the 

recreational or private pilot certificate 

sought.97

As an alternative, the FAA considered 

allowing all training received from a 

sport pilot instructor to be credited by 

an applicant seeking a recreational or 

private pilot certificate. An applicant 

would still be required to obtain a 

minimum of three hours of training in 

preparation for the practical test (within 

the preceding 2 calendar months) from 

a flight instructor under subpart H,98 as 

well as be endorsed by a flight 

instructor under subpart H as being 

prepared for the required practical test. 

The FAA sought public comment, and 

any associated data, on this alternative. 

The FAA received 13 comments on 

this proposal. Twelve commenters 

supported the proposed rule changes; 

one commenter opposed them. 

EAA, AOPA, one individual, and two 

commenters writing on behalf of 

Chesapeake Sport Pilot recommended 

that all the training time received from 

a flight instructor with a sport pilot 

rating be allowed for credit for the 

recreational or private pilot certificate. 

Both EAA and AOPA indicated that the 

same fundamental knowledge is 

required for the sport pilot certificate as 

other pilot certificates, that many of the 

flight training requirements and tasks 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30257 

99 81 FR at 29735. 100 Id. 101 Id. 102Sections 61.99 and 61.109 contain the 

aeronautical experience requirements for 

recreational and private pilot certificates, 

respectively. 

103The FAA is adopting new § 61.412 in this final 

rule. Section 61.412 allows a flight instructor with 

a sport pilot rating to provide flight training under 

§ 61.93(e)(12) on control and maneuvering an 

aircraft solely by reference to the flight instruments 

for the purpose of issuing a solo cross-country 

endorsement under § 61.93(c)(1) to a student pilot 

seeking a sport pilot certificate, provided the flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating holds an 

endorsement required by § 61.327(b), has received 

and logged the required training specified in 

§ 61.412(b) from an authorized instructor, and has 

received a one-time endorsement from a flight 

instructor authorized under subpart H who certifies 

that the person is proficient in providing training 

on control and maneuvering solely by reference to 

the instruments in an airplane with a Vh greater 

than 87 knots CAS. See Section III.E.1. Sport Pilot 

Flight Instructor Training Privilege of this final rule. 

104Sport Pilot Practical Test Standards (FAA–S– 

8081–29 Change 1, 2 and 3). 

105 14 CFR 61.103(f), and Private Pilot 

Certification Standards (FAA–S–ACS–6A Change 

1). 

106Authorized instructor recommendations 

include signing the applicant’s pilot logbook record 

and airman application certifying he or she is 

prepared and qualified for the test. 

107For example, an applicant for a private pilot 

certificate will still be required to receive night 

training and additional cross-country training 

requirements. 14 CFR 61.109. 

are the same, and that the credit limit 

does not provide a safety benefit. AOPA 

stated there are sufficient safeguards in 

place, including subpart H instructor 

training and endorsements, to ensure 

that a sport pilot will be properly 

qualified for the recreational or private 

pilot certificate and to ensure there is 

not a reduction in proficiency or safety. 

EAA and one individual stated that a 

flight instructor with a sport pilot rating 

is equally capable of providing 

instruction on the areas common to the 

sport, recreational, and private pilot 

certificates as a subpart H instructor. 

Several commenters, including EAA, 

noted how the proposal would lower 

the cost and provide a viable path for 

those pursuing higher certificates. One 

individual supported the proposal, 

noting how the current regulations 

imply that a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating is less qualified than 

a subpart H instructor. 

After review of the comments and 

further analysis, the FAA has decided to 

allow all training received from a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating to be 

credited by an applicant seeking a 

recreational or private pilot certificate. 

The FAA recognizes that an applicant 

for a sport pilot certificate must 

complete flight training on many of the 

same areas of operation required for a 

recreational or private pilot certificate.99

Additionally, as explained in the 

NPRM, many of the tasks and 

maneuvers outlined in the practical test 

standards for a sport pilot are the same 

as those outlined in the practical test 

standards for recreational or private 

pilot.100 In fact, these areas of operation 

must be performed to identical 

proficiency standards.101 Therefore, the 

FAA believes that all training received 

as a sport pilot candidate is relative to 

the aeronautical experience required for 

a higher certificate. Accordingly, the 

FAA is not going to limit the sport pilot 

training that may be credited toward a 

higher certificate to a prescriptive 

number of hours. The FAA notes, 

however, that sport pilots applying for 

a higher certificate are still required to 

complete all the requirements for the 

specific certificate or rating sought, 

which includes additional training 

provided by a subpart H instructor and 

successful completion of the knowledge 

test and practical test.102

Additionally, before receiving solo 

cross-country privileges, all student 

pilots pursuing a sport pilot (in 

airplanes with a Vh greater than 87 knots 

calibrated airspeed (KCAS)), 

recreational pilot, or private pilot 

certificate in a single engine airplane 

must receive the training specified in 

§ 61.93(e)(12) that includes control and 

maneuvering solely by reference to 

flight instruments, including straight 

and level flight, turns, descents, climbs, 

use of radio aids, and ATC directives. In 

recognition that these training tasks are 

similar to the ones described in 

§ 61.109(a)(3), which requires ‘‘control 

and maneuvering of an airplane solely 

by reference to instruments, including 

straight and level flight, constant 

airspeed climbs and descents, turns to a 

heading, recovery from unusual flight 

attitudes, radio communications, and 

the use of navigation systems/facilities 

and radar services’’, the FAA will allow 

training tasks described in § 61.93(e)(12) 

provided to a sport pilot candidate by a 

flight instructor with a sport pilot rating, 

to be credited toward the private pilot 

training requirements specified in 

§ 61.109(a)(3). This training credit will 

only be applicable if the training was 

provided by a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating who has received the 

training and endorsement required by 

§ 61.412.103 However, the FAA has 

identified that the requirement for 

training specific to ‘‘recovery from 

unusual attitudes’’ specified in 

§ 61.109(a)(3) must be accomplished by 

a subpart H instructor. Sport pilot 

candidates are not required to receive 

training on recovery from unusual 

attitudes under § 61.93(e)(12). 

Therefore, § 61.412, which allows flight 

instructors with a sport pilot rating to 

provide the flight training under 

§ 61.93(e)(12) provided the training and 

endorsement requirements are satisfied, 

does not require flight instructors with 

a sport pilot rating to receive training 

from a subpart H instructor on recovery 

from unusual attitudes. 

A student pilot seeking a sport pilot 

certificate is not tested on basic 

instrument maneuvers during the sport 

pilot practical test.104 However, the 

holder of a sport pilot certificate who 

seeks a private pilot certificate will be 

required under § 61.109(a)(4) to receive 

3 hours of flight training in a singleengine airplane with a flight instructor 

authorized under subpart H in 

preparation for the private pilot 

practical test. Because a large portion of 

the Private Pilot ACS requires a 

demonstration of basic instrument flight 

maneuvers, a flight instructor under 

subpart H must observe an applicant’s 

proficiency before endorsing the student 

pilot for the private pilot practical 

test.105 As such, even though a sport 

pilot may credit basic instrument flight 

training received from a flight instructor 

with a sport pilot rating toward 

§ 61.109(a)(3), an applicant for a private 

pilot certificate will likely receive as 

part of the training required by 

§ 61.109(a)(4) a substantial amount of 

flight training from a subpart H flight 

instructor on basic instrument flight 

maneuvers, including straight and level 

flight, constant airspeed climbs and 

descents, turns to a heading, recovery 

from unusual flight attitudes, radio 

communications, and the use of 

navigation systems/facilities and radar 

services appropriate to instrument 

flight. Furthermore, a designated pilot 

examiner (DPE) will observe and test the 

private pilot candidate on these basic 

instrument maneuvers according to the 

proficiency standards in the private 

pilot ACS. 

The FAA agrees with AOPA that 

sufficient safeguards are in place to 

prevent any reduction in safety, 

including the additional training and 

recommendations 106 required and 

provided by a subpart H instructor and 

the requirement for the applicant to pass 

a knowledge test and practical test to 

the standards specified for that grade of 

certificate. These safeguards would also 

include any additional training not 

provided by a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating that is explicit to the 

recreational or private pilot 

certificate.107 As previously stated, an 

applicant is also required to receive at 

least 3 hours of training in preparation 

for the practical test (within 2 calendar 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30258 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

108 14 CFR 61.109(a)(4), (d)(3), (g)(3). 

109 81 FR at 29735. 

110 81 FR at 29735. 

111As explained in section III.E.1 of this 

preamble, new § 61.412 authorizes flight instructors 

with sport pilot ratings to provide training on 

control and maneuvering solely by reference to the 

instruments to sport pilot applicants receiving flight 

training for cross-country flight in an airplane that 

has a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS. 

112Section 61.413 prescribes the privileges of a 

flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. 

Section 61.415 prescribes the limits of a flight 

instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating. 

Section 61.315 prescribes the privileges and limits 

of a sport pilot certificate. More specifically, the 

FAA notes that § 61.315(c) prohibits a sport pilot 

from acting as PIC of a light sport aircraft at night, 

and § 61.415(c) prohibits a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating from providing training to operate 

a light sport aircraft in Class B, C, and D airspace, 

at an airport located in Class B, C, or D airspace, 

and to, from, through, or at an airport having an 

operational control tower, unless the instructor has 

the endorsement specified in § 61.325, or is 

otherwise authorized to conduct operations in this 

airspace and at these airports. Therefore, a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating is not authorized 

to provide flight training at night and may not be 

authorized to provide flight training at an airport 

with an operating control tower. 

113 81 FR at 29735. 

114Under § 61.93(e)(2), when a student pilot 

seeking a sport pilot certificate receives training for 

cross-country flight in an airplane that has a Vh

greater than 87 knots CAS, that student pilot must 

receive and log flight training in a single-engine 

airplane on control and maneuvering solely by 

reference to flight instruments, including straight 

and level flight, turns, descents, climbs, use of radio 

aids, and ATC directives. 

115For example, §§ 61.99(a)(2) and 61.109 require 

a person to receive 3 hours of flight training with 

an authorized instructor in the aircraft for the rating 

sought in preparation for the practical test within 

the preceding 2 calendar months. Section 61.109 

also requires 3 hours of night training, 3 hours of 

flight by reference to instruments, operations at an 

airport with an operating control tower, and some 

additional cross-country time requirements. The 

FAA notes that night and instrument time are not 

required for balloon, powered parachute, or weightshift control aircraft at the private pilot certification 

level. 

months preceding the month of 

application) from a flight instructor 

qualified under subpart H.108 This 

includes an endorsement from the flight 

instructor certifying that the applicant 

received training on the applicable areas 

of operation for the certificate sought 

and is prepared for the practical test. 

For the reasons discussed above, the 

FAA is revising § 61.99 and adding new 

paragraph (l) to § 61.109 to allow all 

flight training received from a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating to be 

credited toward the aeronautical 

experience requirements of §§ 61.99 and 

61.109, provided certain conditions are 

met. The FAA notes that proposed 

§ 61.109(l) would have allowed only a 

certain amount of sport pilot training to 

be credited toward the private pilot 

certificate based on the specific aircraft 

category and class rating sought. 

Because the FAA is now allowing all 

sport pilot training to be credited, the 

FAA is revising proposed § 61.109(l) to 

no longer differentiate credit based on 

specific aircraft categories and classes 

and to clarify the conditions under 

which a sport pilot may credit sport 

pilot training toward a private pilot 

certificate. Therefore, new § 61.109(l) 

allows the holder of a sport pilot 

certificate to credit flight training 

received from a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating toward the 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

§ 61.109 if the conditions specified in 

paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) are 

satisfied. 

Section 61.109(l)(1) requires the flight 

training to be accomplished in the same 

category and class of aircraft for which 

the rating is sought. This requirement is 

consistent with the NPRM, which stated 

that any training received from a sport 

pilot instructor that would be credited 

under this rule must be completed in an 

aircraft appropriate to the category and 

class rating for the recreational or 

private pilot certificate sought.109

Section 61.109(l)(2) requires the flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating to be 

authorized to provide the flight training. 

This requirement is consistent with the 

NPRM, which explained that the FAA 

was not proposing to expand the 

privileges of a flight instructor who 

holds only a sport pilot rating,110 other 

than as discussed in section III.E.1 of 

this preamble.111 The FAA emphasizes 

that flight instructors with a sport pilot 

rating are still subject to the privileges 

and limitations of their flight instructor 

certificate.112 Therefore, a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot certificate is 

not authorized to provide flight training 

under subpart H to a recreational or 

private pilot candidate. Lastly, 

paragraph (l)(3) requires the flight 

training to include either: (i) Training 

on areas of operation that are required 

for both a sport pilot certificate and a 

private pilot certificate; or (ii) training 

on the control and maneuvering of an 

airplane solely by reference to the flight 

instruments, provided the training was 

received from a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating who holds an 

endorsement required by § 61.412(c). 

The FAA finds that new paragraph 

(l)(3)(i) is consistent with the NPRM, 

which explained that the FAA was 

proposing to allow sport pilot training 

to be credited toward the flight training 

requirements of a recreational or private 

pilot certificate because of the common 

areas of operation and proficiency 

standards in flight training for sport 

pilots, recreational pilots, and private 

pilots.113 As explained above, the FAA 

is adding new § 61.109(l)(3)(ii) because 

new § 61.412 of this final rule will allow 

sport pilots to receive the training 

specified in § 61.93(e)(12) from flight 

instructors with a sport pilot rating if 

the training and endorsement 

requirements of § 61.412 are met.114

The FAA is revising proposed 

§ 61.99(b) to be consistent with the 

reorganization of proposed § 61.109(l). 

SAFE commented that pilot 

certification under part 61 is based on 

demonstrated performance. Therefore, if 

a sport pilot meets the required 

performance standards, the pilot should 

not have to accomplish additional 

training just because the previous 

training was provided by a subpart K 

instructor. 

The FAA notes that pilot certification 

under part 61 is based on more than 

flight proficiency. An applicant for a 

pilot certificate must meet all the 

applicable aeronautical knowledge, 

flight proficiency, and aeronautical 

experience requirements. Sections 61.99 

and 61.109, which contain the 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for a person who applies for a 

recreational or private pilot certificate, 

respectively, prescribes flight training 

and experience requirements above 

those that are required for a sport pilot 

certificate.115 Therefore, while this 

rulemaking allows a sport pilot to credit 

flight training received from a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating 

toward the flight training requirements 

for a recreational or private pilot 

certificate, that pilot is still required to 

accomplish additional flight training 

and experience requirements that 

exceed those required for a sport pilot 

certificate. These additional 

requirements include additional 

training (e.g. night training), verification 

of proficiency, and a recommendation 

from a flight instructor (qualified under 

subpart H) that the applicant is prepared 

for the practical test for the recreational 

or private pilot certificate. 

One individual suggested that if a 

private pilot candidate can credit time 

in a light sport aircraft, then the FAA 

should allow a sport pilot candidate to 

credit his or her sport pilot training 

toward the private pilot certificate in the 

future. 

This final rule allows an applicant for 

a higher pilot certificate who receives 

flight training from a flight instructor 

with a sport pilot rating, to credit that 

pilot time toward the aeronautical 

experience requirements for a 

recreational or private pilot certificate. 

This can include training accomplished 

in a Light Sport Aircraft (LSA). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30259 

116AC 61–65F Certification: Pilots and Flight and 

Ground Instructors provides recommended 

endorsements and rule references. 

117Section 61.59 governs the falsification, 

reproduction, or alteration of applications, 

certificates, logbooks, reports, or records. 

118The Private Pilot PTS for Airplane was 

cancelled as of June 15, 2016. 

119 In light of GAMA’s comment, however, the 

FAA has decided to update its terminology in 14 

CFR to reflect the transition from the PTS to the 

ACS. For further explanation, see section III.L. of 

this final rule preamble. 

120 14 CFR 61.403(c) 

121 81 FR at 29735. 

122See 14 CFR 61.99(a)(2) and 61.109(a)(4), (b)(4), 

(c)(3), (d)(3), (g)(3). 

123 14 CFR 61.96(b)(5) and 61.103(f). 

124The FAA also notes that, similar to a subpart 

H instructor providing flight training to a 

recreational or private pilot applicant, a flight 

instructor with a sport pilot rating is not required 

to have an instrument rating on his or her flight 

instructor certificate. As noted in several legal 

interpretations, a flight instructor who provides 

flight training on the ‘‘control and maneuvering of 

an airplane solely by reference to the instruments’’ 

is not required to hold an instrument rating on his 

or her flight instructor certificate. Legal 

Interpretation, Letter to Scott Rohlfing from Lorelei 

Peter, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Regulations (Feb. 24, 2016); Legal Interpretation, 

Letter to Taylor Grayson from Rebecca B. 

MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Regulations (Jan. 4, 2010); Legal Interpretation, 

Letter to Taylor Grayson from Rebecca B. 

MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for 

Regulations (July 6, 2010). Under § 61.65(d)(2), ‘‘the 

required instrument time other than instrument 

Continued 

Both EAA and Chesapeake Sport Pilot 

discussed that allowing only partial 

credit would have placed undue burden 

on designated pilot examiners when 

trying to differentiate training provided 

by a subpart K instructor verses a 

subpart H instructor since this time is 

documented as ‘‘dual’’ instruction in a 

person’s logbook. 

Because the FAA is allowing full 

credit for training received as a sport 

pilot applicant, this alleviates concerns 

with differentiating training received 

from a subpart H instructor versus 

training received from a flight instructor 

with a sport pilot rating, when recording 

flight instruction in a person’s logbook. 

Flight instructors provide additional 

details in the applicant’s logbook other 

than just describing dual instruction. A 

subpart H instructor is required to 

provide a recommendation in the pilot 

applicant’s logbook certifying that he or 

she has provided the required 

additional training referencing 

§§ 61.103(f), 61.107(b), and 61.109, for 

the private pilot certificate.116 This 

same flight instructor will certify flight 

training entries, in which he or she was 

the instructor providing the training, in 

the student’s logbook with a signature, 

flight instructor certificate number, and 

expiration date. This allows an 

examiner to verify that the additional 

flight training provided qualifies for the 

higher certificate. 

The FAA notes that currently 

examiners are not required to verify the 

credentials of the recommending 

instructor unless there are extenuating 

circumstances such as ensuring the 

flight instructor meets the requirements 

of § 61.195(h). Section 61.59 provides 

safeguards to ensure that the training 

flight instructors provide is appropriate 

to the certificate or rating for which a 

student is applying.117 Applicants have 

a responsibility to understand and be 

familiar with the qualifications of the 

person providing them training and 

recommendations. The FAA expects 

applicants to provide additional 

scrutiny to their own pilot records 

before providing them to an examiner or 

inspector, who will verify the 

applicant’s experience and 

qualifications. 

GAMA stated that since the 

publication of the proposed rule, the 

FAA replaced the PTS for private and 

sport pilots with the Airman 

Certification Standards (ACS), which 

became effective in June 2016. GAMA 

recommended referencing the ACS 

instead of the PTS to help facilitate the 

proposed changes in this rule. 

The FAA implemented the ACS for 

Private Pilot Airplane on June 15, 2016, 

subsequent to the publication of the 

NPRM. Because the Private Pilot ACS 

for Airplane superseded the Private 

Pilot PTS for Airplane,118 this final rule 

preamble refers to the Private Pilot ACS 

rather than the PTS. However, the FAA 

will continue to refer to the Sport Pilot 

PTS until it is replaced by the 

applicable ACS.119

One individual commenter opposed 

the provision. The commenter stated 

that a sport pilot instructor only has to 

have a private pilot certificate and no 

instrument rating. The commenter 

suggested that a sport pilot instructor 

does not have the appropriate 

experience and background to provide 

‘‘airline discipline,’’ and claimed that 

sport pilot ratings are sought due to a 

non-requirement for a medical 

certificate. The individual claimed the 

‘‘general aviation safety record shows 

the need for rigorous, standardized 

training from the student’s first flight.’’ 

Additionally, this individual asserted 

that the private pilot certificate requires 

20 hours of instruction from an 

authorized instructor who has a vastly 

superior background than a sport pilot 

instructor. 

A flight instructor with a sport pilot 

rating is not required to possess a 

private pilot certificate. He or she is 

required to hold at least a sport pilot 

certificate with the category and class 

ratings or privileges, appropriate to the 

flight instructor certificate held.120 The 

commenter’s reference to ‘‘airline 

discipline’’ is irrelevant since those who 

possess a flight instructor certificate are 

not held to airline standards. Only those 

pursuing an airline transport pilot (ATP) 

certificate with an airplane category and 

multiengine class rating are required by 

regulation to be trained on air carrier 

operations as outlined in § 61.156. 

There is no doubt that a subpart H 

instructor must meet higher experience 

requirements than a flight instructor 

with a sport pilot rating. However, flight 

instructors with a sport pilot rating are 

trained and tested on the same 

fundamentals of instruction as a subpart 

H instructor. Additionally, flight 

instructors with a sport pilot rating 

provide flight training on many of the 

same tasks and maneuvers as subpart H 

instructors because many of the training 

requirements and practical test 

standards for the recreational and 

private pilot certificates are identical to 

those required for the sport pilot 

certificate. For example, as stated in the 

NPRM, ten of the twelve areas of 

operation required in the airplane 

practical test standards for private pilot 

are also listed in the airplane practical 

test standards for sport pilot.121 These 

areas of operation must be performed to 

identical standards. Furthermore, sport 

pilots who pursue a recreational or 

private pilot certificate will still be 

required to receive additional training 

and endorsements from a subpart H 

flight instructor and meet the additional 

experience and proficiency 

requirements for that certificate. For 

example, an applicant for a recreational 

or private pilot certificate will still be 

required to receive a minimum of three 

hours of training within 2 calendar 

months of the practical test from a flight 

instructor certificated under subpart 

H.122 A flight instructor certificated 

under subpart H is still required to 

conduct training on all the areas of 

operation and certify that the applicant 

is prepared for the practical test.123

Thus, only a subpart H flight instructor 

may recommend an applicant for a 

recreational or private pilot practical 

test. 

The fact that a flight instructor with 

a sport pilot rating does not have an 

instrument rating on his or her pilot 

certificate is not relevant because all the 

training that he or she provides must be 

accomplished under visual flight rules. 

This fact is also true for the majority of 

the flight training that a student receives 

in pursuit of a recreational or private 

pilot certificate.124


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30260 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

training does not require the presence of a CFI but 

only the presence of an individual qualified to act 

as a safety pilot or as a pilot in command of an 

operation in actual instrument conditions.’’ Id. 

125The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016, Public 

Law 114–190, Section 2307 (2016); 14 CFR 

61.3(c)(2)(xiii), 61.23(a)(3), 61.101, 61.113(i). See 

also Final Rule, ‘‘Alternative Pilot Physical 

Examination and Education Requirements,’’ 82 FR 

3149 (Jan. 11, 2017). 

126Prior to this final rule, under § 141.5, the 

graduates that completed special curricula courses 

could not be counted when calculating the 80 

percent pass rate required for issuance or renewal 

of a pilot school certificate. 

127 ‘‘Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, 

and Pilot School Certification Rules; Final Rule,’’ 62 

FR 16220 (Apr. 4, 1997); 14 CFR 141.5(d) (1998). 

128After the 2009 final rule and subsequent 

technical amendment, § 141.5(d) stated: ‘‘Has 

established a pass rate of 80 percent or higher on 

the first attempt for all knowledge tests leading to 

a certificate or rating, practical tests leading to a 

certificate or rating, or end-of-course tests for an 

approved training course specified in appendix K 

of this part.’’ ‘‘Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot 

School Certification’’ Technical Amendment, 75 FR 

56857 (Sep. 17, 2010); 14 CFR 141.5(d) (2011). 

129 In 2009, the FAA sought to clarify the 

‘‘quantity of training’’ requirement in § 141.5(d) by 

revising and relocating it to new paragraph (e). 

‘‘Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School 

Certification; Final Rule,’’ 74 FR 42500 (Aug. 21, 

2009). As a result of the 2009 final rule, § 141.5(d) 

contained the ‘‘quality of training’’ requirement and 

§ 141.5(e) contained the ‘‘quantity of training’’ 

requirement. The FAA explained in the preamble 

that the requirement that ‘‘at least 80 percent of 

those persons passed their test on the first attempt 

is not a change from the existing rule. The purpose 

of this change is clarifying the intent of the rule.’’ 

74 FR 42500, 42538. The FAA issued a technical 

amendment in 2010 to clarify § 141.5(d) and to 

reinsert language that was inadvertently removed as 

a result of the 2009 final rule. 75 FR 56857. In the 

technical amendment, the FAA explained that it 

was revising the language of § 141.5(d) to clarify 

that in order to meet the quality of training standard 

for issuance or renewal of a pilot school certificate, 

a pilot school must achieve a combined 80 percent 

pass rate on the first attempt for all: (1) Knowledge 

tests and practical tests leading to a certificate or 

rating, and (2) end-of-course tests for appendix K 

courses. 75 FR 56857. The FAA adopted rule 

language, however, that appeared to be inconsistent 

with its intent given its use of the term ‘‘or’’ instead 

of ‘‘and’’ in § 141.5(d). 14 CFR 141.5(d) (2011). 

130Legal Interpretation to Jared Testa from the 

Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (July 

1, 2011). 

131Prior to this final rule, regulations required a 

person serving as a required flightcrew member of 

a United States civil aircraft to have his or her 

airman certificate in his or her physical possession 

or readily accessible in the aircraft when exercising 

the privileges of that certificate. 14 CFR 61.3(a) and 

63.3(a). The regulations also required a person 

serving as a required flightcrew member to have an 

appropriate medical certificate in his or her 

physical possession or readily accessible in the 

aircraft. 14 CFR 61.3(c) and 63.3(a). 

132 If the flightcrew member’s airman or medical 

certificate remains unavailable after 72 hours, the 

flightcrew member would be required to comply 

with the requirements of § 61.29 or § 63.16, as 

applicable, and request a 60-day temporary 

confirmation document from the Airman 

Certification Branch or the Aeromedical 

Certification Branch until a replacement certificate 

is issued and in the possession of that airman. 

133This would be in lieu of utilizing the FAA 

Airmen Online Services website that can provide 

temporary authority in the form of a fax or email. 

This also would apply to the temporary authority 

for the medical certificate provided by fax from the 

Aeromedical Branch. 

The FAA notes that the commenter’s 

statement about persons seeking sport 

pilot ratings due to the ability to fly 

without a medical certificate is not 

relevant to the FAA’s proposal because 

the proposal was not specific to medical 

certification requirements. Furthermore, 

BasicMed now allows certain pilots to 

operate without a medical certificate, 

provided certain conditions and 

limitations are met.125

G. Pilot School Use of Special Curricula 

Courses for Renewal of Certificate 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

amend § 141.5(d) to allow the FAA to 

issue or renew a pilot school certificate 

to a part 141 pilot school that holds a 

training course approval for special 

curricula courses based on their 

students’ successful completion of endof-course tests for these FAA approved 

courses.126

AOPA supported this proposal noting 

that it could benefit the flight training 

community by encouraging the 

development of more FAA-approved 

courses by part 141 schools and by 

encouraging existing flight schools to 

pursue part 141 certificates. 

SAFE believed the proposed language 

would have significantly changed the 

effect § 141.5(d) has on pilot schools 

requesting approval or renewal of their 

certificates. SAFE asked the FAA to 

reconsider its use of the words ‘‘all’’, 

‘‘or’’, and ‘‘and,’’ and to reword the 

proposed rule to ensure that the 80 

percent or higher pass rate would be 

computed properly. 

After reconsidering its use of the 

words ‘‘all’’ and ‘‘and’’ in the proposed 

rule, the FAA finds that proposed 

§ 141.5(d), which would have required 

an applicant for a pilot school certificate 

to establish at least an 80 percent pass 

rate on the first attempt for all tests 

administered, accurately reflects the 

FAA’s intent. Prior to 2009,127

§ 141.5(d) required at least 80 percent of 

all tests administered to be passed on 

the first attempt. In the 2009 final rule 

and subsequent technical amendment, 

the FAA made changes to § 141.5(d); 128

however, the FAA explained that the 

changes were intended to clarify, not 

alter, the existing rule requirements.129

In a legal interpretation dated July 1, 

2011, the FAA stated that ‘‘the quality 

of training requirement under § 141.5(d) 

is calculated based on the percentage of 

successful first attempts on all 

knowledge tests, practical tests, and 

end-of-course tests for appendix K 

courses.’’ 130 Because the FAA never 

intended to alter the requirement that 

‘‘at least 80 percent of all tests 

administered be passed on the first 

attempt,’’ the FAA finds that proposed 

§ 141.5(d) was accurately worded. 

Section 141.5(d) remains unchanged 

from the NPRM. The FAA expects that 

a pilot school will utilize special 

curricula course graduations when 

applying for or renewing a pilot school 

certificate on or after the effective date 

of this provision, even if those special 

curricula course graduations occurred 

before the effective date of this new rule 

provision. Therefore, effective July 27, 

2018, pilot schools will be able to 

immediately utilize graduates from 

special curricula courses to qualify for 

or renew their pilot school certificates 

as described in § 141.5(d). 

H. Temporary Validation of Flightcrew 

Members’ Certificates by Part 119 

Certificate Holders Conducting 

Operations Under Part 121 or 135 and 

by Fractional Ownership Program 

Managers Conducting Operations Under 

Part 91, Subpart K 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

amend §§ 121.383(c) and 135.95 to 

allow part 119 certificate holders 

conducting operations under part 121 or 

135 to provide their flightcrew members 

a temporary verification document 

(valid for 72 hours) without the need of 

an FAA exemption.131 The FAA also 

proposed to amend §§ 61.3(a) and 

63.3(a) to permit the documents 

provided by certificate holders to be 

carried as an airman certificate or 

medical certificate, as appropriate.132

The FAA proposed that a certificate 

holder would be required to obtain 

approval from the Principal Operations 

Inspector to exercise this privilege. The 

FAA also proposed to establish a 

process to facilitate approval of a 

Certificate Verification Plan via 

Operations Specifications (A063).133

The FAA received five comments 

from organizations and two comments 

from individuals. 

Airlines for America (A4A), National 

Air Transportation Association (NATA), 

and Regional Air Cargo Carriers 

Association (RACCA) recommended the 

FAA clarify what an acceptable form of 

media is for the temporary validation 

document. A4A suggested revising 

proposed § 121.383(c) to clarify that the 

temporary document may be in either 

paper or electronic form. A4A noted 

that this clarification would standardize 

methods of documentation in the 

industry and, as more flight decks go 

paperless, ensure that the airlines have 

the ability to transmit the required 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30261 

134 In accordance with § 1.1 ‘‘United States, in a 

geographical sense, means (1) the States, the District 

of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the possessions, 

including the territorial waters, and (2) the airspace 

of those areas.’’ 

135 81 FR at 29722 and 29748. 

136The FAA also notes that Article 29 of the 

Convention on International Civil Aviation requires 

that every aircraft of a contracting State, engaged in 

international navigation, shall carry in the aircraft 

several documents, including its certificate of 

registration, its certificate of airworthiness, and the 

appropriate licenses for each member of the crew. 

Because temporary verification documents would 

not meet the requirements of the Convention, the 

FAA is only allowing the use of temporary 

verification documents on flights conducted 

entirely within the United States. 

137Aerospace Medicine Safety Information 

System (AMSIS) will permit user(s) to print a valid 

medical certificate. AMSIS is still in development 

and is anticipated to become available in 2020. 

documentation to the pilot in a timely 

manner, thereby reducing stress and 

delays without compromising safety. 

Similarly, NATA believed an electronic 

document would be suitable. 

The FAA finds it unnecessary to 

specify in §§ 121.383(c) and 135.95(b) 

that the temporary verification 

document may be in either paper or 

electronic form. Sections 121.383(c) and 

135.95(b) are intended to provide 

flexibility and allow for advancements 

in technology regarding the method, 

format or media by which the temporary 

document must be provided. The 

operations specification authorizing an 

approved certificate verification plan 

will include the specific method or 

format for each air carrier/operator. 

Accordingly, the FAA is adopting 

§§ 121.383(c) and 135.95(b) as proposed. 

The FAA will be issuing a new 

Advisory Circular (AC 00–70) to provide 

guidance to air carriers/operators on 

obtaining approval of a certificate 

verification plan, including the 

necessary components for various 

methods and formats of issuing the 

temporary document. 

A4A supported proposed 

§§ 121.383(c) and 135.95(b), which 

would have allowed the use of 

temporary validation documents for 

flights conducted ‘‘entirely within the 

United States.’’ Unlike the current 

exemptions that limit the relief to 

‘‘operations conducted entirely within 

the District of Columbia and the 48 

contiguous States of the United States,’’ 

the proposed rule language would have 

allowed persons to use the temporary 

document on flights conducted entirely 

within Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and 

other possessions. 

The FAA is adopting §§ 121.383(c) 

and 135.95(b) as proposed.134 Article 29 

of the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation requires that every aircraft 

engaged in international navigation 

shall carry ‘‘the appropriate licenses for 

each member of the crew.’’ Thus, 

temporary verification documents 

provided by the certificate holder from 

its records will not meet the 

requirements of the Convention. 

One individual suggested the FAA 

change ‘‘domestic operations’’ to 

‘‘operations within the United States’’ to 

avoid confusion with the term 

‘‘domestic operations’’ contained in 14 

CFR part 119, which defines a particular 

type of part 119 operation. 

The term ‘‘domestic operations’’ was 

not proposed in regulatory text. It is 

therefore unnecessary to make any 

changes to the proposed rule language 

in response to the individual’s 

comment. The FAA notes, however, that 

this term was used in Tables 1 and 3 of 

the NPRM,135 which summarized the 

proposed provisions. To avoid any 

confusion, the FAA is not using the 

term ‘‘domestic operations’’ in this final 

rule document. 

AOPA suggested a correction to 

proposed § 63.3(a)(2), which would 

have mistakenly referenced § 63.16(d) 

instead of § 63.16(f). 

Section 63.3(a)(2) now references new 

§ 63.16(f), as AOPA suggested because 

the requirements that were previously 

contained in § 63.16(d) have been 

relocated to new § 63.16(f) and revised. 

One individual asked several 

clarifying questions regarding 

limitations on the use of temporary 

validation documents. This individual 

asked how the program would keep 

track of the number of times a flightcrew 

member loses, destroys, or otherwise 

fails to have their certificates in their 

possession. This individual also asked if 

there was a limit to the number of 

temporary verification documents 

issued to an individual, and if so, how 

those limitations would be enforced. 

Keeping track of how many times a 

crewmember loses their pilot or medical 

certificate, or any limitations regarding 

the number of times a temporary 

verification document can be issued to 

any one individual, can be managed 

appropriately with FAA air carrier 

oversight. In addition, conditions and 

limitations can be specified in an air 

carrier’s certificate verification plan, 

within its operation specifications. 

RACCA and Bemidji Aviation 

Services, Inc. suggested incorporating 

similar allowances for aircraft 

registration and airworthiness 

certificates. 

These comments are outside the scope 

of this rulemaking. The proposal was 

specific to certificates that an airman 

must have in his or her possession to 

exercise his or her privileges. Unlike 

airmen certificates that are carried on a 

person outside of the aircraft, the 

airworthiness and registration 

certificates are typically placed in a 

permanent location within the aircraft 

(usually visible to the operator) and are 

rarely removed from the aircraft.136

AOPA recommended the FAA 

implement an online method to allow 

all pilots and airmen to request and 

obtain a temporary document 

confirming medical certification. This 

comment is also outside the scope of 

this rulemaking. The FAA notes, 

however, that it is addressing AOPA’s 

comment in a separate action.137

The FAA is amending §§ 121.383(c) 

and 135.95 as proposed. Furthermore, as 

a result of the FAA’s own continued 

review of the proposal, the FAA has 

decided to also allow part 91, subpart K, 

program managers to issue temporary 

verification documents to flightcrew 

members who do not have their airman 

or medical certificates in their personal 

possession for a particular flight. The 

FAA did not originally consider 

providing relief to part 91, subpart K, 

program managers only because there 

were no current exemptions granted to 

these program managers. However, 

upon further review, the FAA finds that 

it is appropriate to include part 91, 

subpart K, program managers because of 

the similarity of part 91, subpart K, 

operations compared to part 121 and 

135 operations. Many similarities exist 

between part 91, subpart K, program 

managers and part 135 operators 

providing public air transportation, 

such as: Time, duty, and rest 

requirements, destination airport 

analysis programs, minimum equipment 

lists, recordkeeping, pilot training and 

checking, proving tests, approved 

inspection programs, and drug and 

alcohol misuse and prevention 

programs. In some instances, a part 91, 

subpart K, program manager is also 

certificated under part 119 to conduct 

part 135 operations. 

Specifically, part 91, subpart K, 

fractional ownership programs are 

subject to FAA oversight similar to that 

provided to air carriers (parts 135 and 

121), with the exception of line checks 

and en-route inspections. FAA aviation 

safety inspectors conduct scheduled and 

unscheduled inspections, and 

surveillance of personnel, aircraft, 

records, and other documents to ensure 

compliance with the regulations. Given 

the similarities between parts 91, 

subpart K, 121 and 135, the FAA finds 

it appropriate to also prevent 

cancelation of flights under part 91, 

subpart K, in situations where a pilot 

certificate or medical certificate is valid 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30262 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

138The FAA proposed to redesignate current 

§ 61.3(a)(1)(v) as new § 61.3(a)(1)(vi). Now that the 

FAA is adding new § 61.3(a)(1)(vi) to extend the 

relief to part 91, subpart K operators, this final rule 

redesignates current § 61.3(a)(1)(v) as new 

§ 61.3(a)(1)(vii). 

139 In this final rule, the FAA is adding 

§ 121.383(c) to allow a certificate holder to obtain 

approval to provide a temporary document 

verifying a flightcrew memberr’s airman certificate 

and medical certificate privileges under an 

approved certificate verification plan set forth in 

the certificate holder’s operations specifications. 

140Prior to this final rule, a person renewing his 

or her flight instructor certificate under 

§ 61.197(a)(2)(iv) was required to submit a record 

showing that, within the preceding 12 calendar 

months, the flight instructor passed an official U.S. 

Armed Forces military instructor pilot proficiency 

check. Section 61.199 required the holder of an 

expired flight instructor certificate to reinstate that 

certificate by passing a practical test. 

141As explained in the NPRM, the FAA has 

accepted a flight instructor or examiner proficiency 

check conducted by the military to be equivalent to 

an FAA practical test for the purposes of issuing 

initial flight instructor certificates, adding ratings to 

existing flight instructor certificates, and renewing 

flight instructor certificates. 

but not physically available. Therefore, 

consistent with the amendments to 

§§ 121.383 and 135.95, the FAA is 

revising § 91.1015 by adding new 

paragraph (h), which will allow a 

program manager to obtain approval to 

provide a temporary document verifying 

a flightcrew member’s airman certificate 

and medical certificate privileges under 

an approved certificate verification plan 

set forth in the program manager’s 

management specifications. Consistent 

with the NPRM, the temporary 

verification document will remain a 

short-term solution for a period not to 

exceed 72 hours. The FAA is also 

revising § 61.3(a)(1) by adding new 

paragraph (vi) to permit flightcrew 

members to carry temporary documents 

provided by a program manager only on 

flights conducted for the program 

manager under part 91, subpart K.138

This is consistent with the NPRM, 

which proposed to add new 

§ 61.3(a)(1)(v) to allow flightcrew 

members to carry documents provided 

by a certificate holder only on flights 

conducted for the part 119 certificate 

holder, including ferry flights to 

reposition aircraft. The FAA notes that 

it is adopting § 61.3(a)(1)(v) as proposed. 

The FAA is also adopting the proposed 

revisions to current § 61.3(a)(1)(iv). 

Furthermore, as a result of the FAA’s 

continued review of the proposal, the 

FAA is making several clarifying 

changes to allow for smooth 

implementation of the final rule. 

Because the final rule allows a person 

to use a temporary verification 

document as an airman certificate or 

medical certificate, if certain conditions 

are met, the inspection requirements of 

§§ 61.3(l), 63.3(e), and 121.383(b) would 

have applied to the temporary 

document. However, to avoid any 

confusion, the FAA is revising 

§§ 61.3(l), 63.3(e), and 121.383(b) to 

expressly include the temporary 

verification document in the list of 

documents that must be presented for 

inspection upon request from the 

Administrator. 

Additionally, the FAA is revising 

§ 121.383(a) to clarify that an airman 

engaged in part 121 operations must 

have in his or her possession any 

required appropriate current airman and 

medical certificates or a temporary 

verification document issued in 

accordance with an approved certificate 

verification plan under new 

§ 121.383(c).139 This change from what 

was proposed is consistent with the 

FAA’s proposal to add new 

§ 61.3(a)(1)(v) to allow a person engaged 

in flight operations within the United 

States for a part 119 certificate holder 

authorized to conduct operations under 

part 121, to hold a temporary 

verification document in place of an 

airman or medical certificate. The FAA 

will be issuing a new Advisory Circular 

to provide guidance to certificate 

holders/program managers on obtaining 

approval of a certificate verification 

plan. The FAA will continue to provide 

relief through exemptions until June 27, 

2019 to allow sufficient time for 

certificate holders to obtain authority 

under the regulation from their 

Principal Operations Inspector. 

I. Military Competence for Flight 

Instructors 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

several changes to §§ 61.197 and 61.199 

to accommodate renewal and 

reinstatement of flight instructor 

certificates by military instructors and 

examiners.140 In § 61.197(a)(2)(iv), the 

FAA proposed to expand the 12- 

calendar-month timeframe to 24 

calendar months. The FAA also 

proposed to clarify in § 61.197(a)(2)(iv) 

that a flight instructor would be able to 

renew his or her certificate by providing 

a record demonstrating that, within the 

previous 24 calendar months, the 

instructor passed a military instructor 

pilot proficiency check for a rating that 

the instructor already holds or for a new 

rating. 

In § 61.199, the FAA proposed to 

revise paragraph (a) to permit a military 

instructor pilot to reinstate his or her 

expired flight instructor certificate by 

providing a record showing that, within 

the previous six calendar months, the 

instructor pilot passed a U.S. Armed 

Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

proficiency check for an additional 

military rating.141 Additionally, the 

FAA proposed to add a new § 61.199(c) 

as a temporary provision, which would 

have allowed military instructor pilots 

who obtained their initial flight 

instructor certificate under subpart H to 

reinstate that instructor certificate based 

on military competence rather than by 

completing a practical test. 

The FAA received six comments on 

these proposed amendments. Three 

commenters supported the proposal. 

Two commenters recommended 

changes to the proposed rule language. 

One commenter opposed the proposal. 

The Society of Aviation and Flight 

Educators (SAFE) and Aircraft Owners 

and Pilots Association (AOPA) 

concurred with the proposed 

amendments to § 61.199. AOPA also 

supported the proposed changes to 

§ 61.197. One individual, identifying 

himself as a retired U.S. Air Force 

instructor, supported having military 

credentials recognized by the FAA and 

providing civilian equivalent instructor 

ratings. 

One individual, identifying as a 

military instructor with the National 

Guard Bureau, agreed with changing the 

timeframe in § 61.197(a)(2)(iv) from 12 

calendar months to 24 calendar months. 

However, the commenter suggested that 

the FAA revise the proposed rule 

language to require a record showing 

that, within the preceding 24 months 

from the month of application, the flight 

instructor passed an official U.S. Armed 

Forces military instructor pilot 

proficiency check equivalent to renewal 

requirements as stated in the practical 

test standards (PTS) for the rating 

sought. The commenter believed that 

this would validate an equivalent level 

of flight proficiency. The commenter 

explained that because some U.S. 

Armed Forces have instructors that only 

train specific tasks such as formation 

flying or tactical operations, this type of 

instruction is not an equivalent level of 

flight proficiency as required for the 

renewal of a FAA flight instructor 

certificate. The commenter also 

provided attachments described as 

comparable military instructor pilot 

proficiency checks accomplished on an 

annual basis in the U.S. Army. The 

commenter asserted that these annual 

checks are equivalent to or better than 

what would be necessary for the 

renewal of a flight instructor rating. 

As stated in the NPRM, the FAA 

proposed to clarify in § 61.197(a)(2)(iv) 

that a flight instructor may renew his or 

her certificate by providing a record 

demonstrating that, within the previous 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30263 

142 81 FR at 29740. 

143To be issued a flight instructor certificate with 

the appropriate ratings, § 61.73(g) requires, in part, 

that the person present an official U.S. Armed 

Forces record or order that shows the person 

completed a U.S. Armed Forces’ instructor pilot or 

pilot examiner training course and received an 

aircraft rating qualification as a military instructor 

pilot or pilot examiner that is appropriate to the 

flight instructor rating sought. 14 CFR 

61.73(g)(3)(iii). 

24 calendar months, the instructor 

passed a ‘‘U.S. Armed Forces military 

instructor pilot proficiency check’’ for a 

rating that the instructor already holds 

or for a new rating. As explained in the 

NPRM, the FAA has accepted a flight 

instructor or examiner proficiency 

check conducted by the military to be 

equivalent to an FAA practical test for 

the purposes of issuing initial flight 

instructor certificates and adding ratings 

to existing flight instructor 

certificates.142 Upon further reflection, 

the FAA finds that the renewal 

requirements of § 61.197(a)(2)(iv) should 

be consistent with § 61.73(g), which 

allows a person to apply for and be 

issued an initial flight instructor 

certificate based on official U.S. military 

documentation of being a U.S. military 

instructor pilot or U.S. military pilot 

examiner. Therefore, the FAA is 

revising proposed § 61.197(a)(2)(iv) to 

allow renewal based on either ‘‘an 

official U.S. Armed Forces military 

instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

proficiency check.’’ 

However, the FAA disagrees with 

referencing the PTS within 

§ 61.197(a)(2)(iv) because it would be 

too prescriptive. The military typically 

does not perform all the tasks from the 

PTS or Airman Certification Standards 

(ACS), as appropriate, required for civil 

pilot certification during their military 

instructor pilot proficiency checks. 

Rather, the military typically performs 

tasks or maneuvers that are not outlined 

in the PTS and/or ACS. The FAA 

believes that requiring a record showing 

that, within the preceding 24 months 

from the month of application, the flight 

instructor passed an official U.S. Armed 

Forces military instructor pilot 

proficiency check in an aircraft for 

which the military instructor already 

holds a rating or in an aircraft for an 

additional rating, is sufficient to 

validate a flight instructor’s equivalent 

level of competency. The FAA has long 

recognized and accepted military credit 

without further review. 

The individual commenter further 

asserted that if a military proficiency 

check meets the requirements for flight 

instructor renewal or reinstatement as 

described in the PTS and/or ACS, the 

FAA should modify § 61.73(g)(3)(iv) to 

read: ‘‘An official U.S. Armed Forces 

record or order that shows the person 

passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor 

pilot or pilot examiner proficiency 

check in an aircraft as a military 

instructor pilot or pilot examiner that is 

appropriate to the flight instructor rating 

sought that meets equivalent 

requirements of 14 CFR 61.185.’’ 

Section 61.73(g)(3)(i) already requires 

the applicant to present a knowledge 

test report that shows the person passed 

a knowledge test on the aeronautical 

knowledge areas listed under 

§ 61.185(a). Therefore, the FAA finds it 

unnecessary to revise § 61.73(g)(3)(iv) to 

require the U.S. Armed Forces 

proficiency check to meet requirements 

of § 61.185. 

This commenter also recommended 

the FAA revise proposed § 61.199(a)(3), 

which would have required a military 

instructor to show, within the preceding 

6 calendar months from the date of 

application for reinstatement, the 

person passed a U.S. Armed Forces 

instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

proficiency check for an additional 

military instructor rating. The 

commenter noted that additional 

military ratings are not acquired through 

a ‘‘proficiency check.’’ The commenter, 

therefore, recommended the FAA revise 

paragraph (a)(3) to require a record 

showing that, within the previous six 

calendar months, the instructor passed 

a U.S. Armed Forces instructor pilot or 

pilot examiner qualification program for 

an additional military rating that results 

in an additional rating to be added to 

the airman certificate. The individual 

also recommended the FAA add a new 

paragraph (a)(4) that would allow for 

reinstatement of a flight instructor 

certificate if the instructor can provide 

a record showing that, within the 

previous six calendar months, the 

instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces 

instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

proficiency check equivalent to 

reinstatement requirements as stated in 

the PTS and/or ACS for the rating 

sought. The commenter explained this 

provision would facilitate reinstatement 

of an expired flight instructor certificate 

through a U.S. Armed Forces 

proficiency check that would be 

equivalent to the flight test described in 

the PTS. 

As the commenter pointed out, 

additional military ratings are not 

acquired through a proficiency check. 

Therefore, the FAA is revising proposed 

§ 61.199(a)(3) to more accurately reflect 

the process by which a military 

instructor pilot acquires an additional 

aircraft rating qualification. The FAA is 

also dividing proposed § 61.199(a)(3) 

into two subparagraphs to make the 

reinstatement requirements for a 

military instructor pilot more consistent 

with the reinstatement requirements for 

a civilian holder of an expired flight 

instructor certificate, which are found in 

§ 61.199(a)(1) and (2). 

Accordingly, § 61.199(a)(3)(i) now 

allows reinstatement of an expired flight 

instructor certificate if the military 

instructor pilot can provide a record 

showing that, within the preceding 6 

calendar months from the date of 

application for reinstatement, the pilot 

passed a U.S. Armed Forces instructor 

pilot or pilot examiner proficiency 

check. The FAA finds that a U.S. Armed 

Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

proficiency check is the military 

equivalent of a flight instructor 

certification practical test. Therefore, 

this requirement is consistent with 

§ 61.199(a)(1), which allows 

reinstatement of an expired flight 

instructor certificate if the civilian pilot 

satisfactorily completes a flight 

instructor practical test for one of the 

ratings held on the expired flight 

instructor certificate. 

Additionally, § 61.199(a)(3)(ii) now 

allows reinstatement of an expired flight 

instructor certificate if the military 

instructor pilot can provide a record 

showing that, within the preceding 6 

calendar months from the date of 

application for reinstatement, the pilot 

completed a U.S. Armed Forces 

instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

training course and received an 

additional aircraft rating qualification as 

a military instructor pilot or pilot 

examiner that is appropriate to the flight 

instructor rating sought. The FAA finds 

that this requirement accurately reflects 

the process by which a military 

instructor pilot acquires an additional 

aircraft rating. The FAA is not using the 

terminology ‘‘qualification program,’’ as 

the commenter recommended, because 

it is subject to interpretation. Instead, 

the FAA is using language that is 

consistent with the terminology of 

§ 61.73(g)(3)(iii).143 The FAA notes that 

new § 61.199(a)(3)(ii) is consistent with 

§ 61.199(a)(2), which allows a civilian 

holder of an expired flight instructor 

certificate to reinstate that flight 

instructor certificate by satisfactorily 

completing a flight instructor 

certification practical test for an 

additional rating. 

One individual asserted that military 

instructor pilots who allow their FAA 

flight instructor rating to expire reflect 

a lack of knowledge concerning 14 CFR 

part 61 that is pervasive in the military. 

The FAA disagrees. There are many 

possible scenarios other than ‘‘a lack of 

knowledge’’ that may lead to someone 

letting his or her flight instructor 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30264 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

144 (1) A flight instructor certification practical 

test, as prescribed by § 61.183(h), for one of the 

ratings held on the expired flight instructor 

certificate. 

(2) A flight instructor certification practical test 

for an additional rating. 

145Several operators hold exemptions that permit 

them to conduct pilot training for certification, 

practical tests (for type rating designations) in 

aircraft certificated in the restricted category. 

146 GAMA, Air Tractor, NAAA and Colorado 

Agricultural Aviation Association all cited a recent 

survey conducted by the NAAA which found that 

operators who conduct agricultural operations have 

an average of 2.1 aircraft per operation, and that 

there was an average of 2.0 pilots per operation. 

Texas State Technical College, GAMA, NAAA, 

Farm Air, Curless Flying Service and Colorado 

Agricultural Aviation Association all noted that 

many of these small operators do not have capacity 

to dedicate an aircraft to training. NAAA, Farm Air, 

Curless Flying Service, Colorado Agricultural 

Aviation Association and Queen Bee Air Specialties 

specifically discussed the difficulty of maintaining 

a turbine aircraft and commented that most 

operators rely on third party training providers to 

provide instruction in a dual cockpit aircraft. 

147A record of conversation was placed in the 

docket for each of these meetings. 

certificate expire. In some instances, it 

may be intentional or an individual may 

be subject to events beyond his or her 

control. As such, the commenter’s 

assertion is speculative. The FAA has 

determined that this provision will 

provide an equitable method of renewal 

or reinstatement for a FAA flight 

instructor certificate similar to the 

allowances currently described in 

§ 61.199(a)(1) and (2).144

One individual recommended the 

FAA revise § 61.73 to add military 

navigators and naval flight officers who 

hold a FAA flight instructor certificate 

and who are military flight instructors 

to the list of persons eligible for an 

instrument flight instructor certificate. 

This commenter further asserted that 

there are numerous other military 

aeronautical specialties beyond pilots, 

navigators, and naval flight officers who 

have a skill set that may be valuable to 

the civilian aviation community. The 

commenter recommended that any 

military member that can produce 

documentation of service instructing 

any aviation crew position be exempted 

from the fundamentals of instruction 

written examination for a flight 

instructor certificate in § 61.183(e) or for 

a ground instructor certificate in 

§ 61.213(b). 

The FAA is not adopting these 

recommendations because they are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

Furthermore, the FAA disagrees with 

providing flight instructor equivalency 

for non-pilot instructor positions. 

The FAA is adding new § 61.199(c) as 

proposed. As previously stated, 

§ 61.199(c) will allow military instructor 

pilots who obtained their initial flight 

instructor certificate under subpart H to 

reinstate that flight instructor certificate 

based on military competence rather 

than by completing a practical test. The 

FAA notes that § 61.199(c) is a 

temporary provision that will expire on 

August 26, 2019. The FAA will revise 

FAA Order 8900.1 to provide guidance 

to designees and inspectors on how to 

facilitate instructor military competency 

approvals. 

J. Use of Aircraft Certificated in the 

Restricted Category for Pilot Flight 

Training and Checking 

Section 91.313(a) prohibits a person 

from operating a restricted category 

aircraft for other than the special 

purpose for which it is certificated or in 

any operation other than one necessary 

to accomplish the work activity directly 

associated with the special purpose. 

Under § 91.313(b), operating a restricted 

category civil aircraft to provide flight 

crewmember training in a special 

purpose operation for which the aircraft 

is certificated is an operation for that 

special purpose. The FAA recently 

clarified, however, that flight training 

and testing for certification (e.g., for 

type ratings) in restricted category 

aircraft is not a special purpose 

operation under § 91.313.145 As such, 

these activities cannot be conducted in 

a restricted category aircraft. 

1. Flights Necessary To Accomplish 

Work Activity Directly Associated With 

the Special Purpose 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed in 

§ 91.313(b) to list the following 

operations in restricted category aircraft 

as flights necessary to accomplish the 

work activity directly associated with a 

special purpose operation: 

• Flights conducted for flight 

crewmember training in a special 

purpose operation for which the aircraft 

is certificated provided the flight 

crewmember holds the appropriate 

category, class, and type ratings and is 

employed by the operator to perform the 

appropriate special purpose operation; 

• Flights conducted to satisfy 

proficiency check and recent flight 

experience requirements under part 61 

of this chapter provided the flight 

crewmember holds the appropriate 

category, class, and type ratings and is 

employed by the operator to perform the 

appropriate special purpose operation; 

and 

• Flights conducted to relocate a 

restricted category aircraft for 

maintenance. 

A number of commenters, including 

Queen Bee Air Specialties, Inc., GAMA, 

Air Tractor, and the National 

Agricultural Aviation Association 

(NAAA), noted that the proposed 

regulation would prohibit third-party 

training providers from conducting 

flight crewmember training in a special 

purpose operation. The commenters 

indicated that such a provision would 

eliminate agricultural aviation schools 

and decrease safety. The commenters 

noted that training by experienced 

instructors based on an approved 

curriculum in restricted category aircraft 

under the oversight of FAA inspectors 

enhances safety. The NAAA and the 

Colorado Agricultural Aviation 

Association (CAAA) commented that 

they interpreted the proposal to allow 

agricultural aviation operator 

‘‘sponsored’’ pilots to be able to attend 

third party training facilities. 

GAMA, NAAA, AOPA, and CAAA 

suggested revisions to proposed 

§ 91.313(b) to ensure that training which 

is directly associated with the special 

purpose operation is permitted without 

an employment relationship existing 

between the trainee and the special 

purpose operator.146

Upon review of the extensive 

comments received, including a 

conference call with Air Force 

representatives on December 13, 2016, 

and a face-to-face meeting with 

representatives from the agricultural 

aviation industry during the comment 

period, the FAA agrees that the 

proposed rule language would have 

unnecessarily required all personnel 

receiving flight crewmember training in 

a special purpose operation to be 

employed by the operator providing the 

training.147

Flight crewmember training in a 

special purpose operation has 

historically been conducted by flight 

schools. Appendix K of part 141 for 

pilot schools contains allowances for 

special curriculum courses for 

agricultural and external load 

operations. The FAA did not intend to 

end the longstanding practice of pilot 

schools conducting flight crewmember 

training in a special purpose operation. 

Flight crewmember training in a special 

purpose operation for which the aircraft 

is certificated is currently authorized in 

accordance with § 91.313(b) and was not 

intended to be affected by this 

provision. It was the FAA’s intent only 

to require pilot candidates to be an 

employee of the operator when 

accomplishing training or practical tests 

specific to the requisite type rating, a 

proficiency check, or recent flight 

experience requirements specified 

under part 61. The FAA has revised the 

language proposed in the NPRM to 

remove the employee requirement for 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30265 

148 In the 1965 final rule, the FAA provided 

examples of operations necessary to accomplish the 

work activity directly associated with the special 

purpose operation which included allowing a 

farmer to conduct a flight for the purpose of 

showing which fields should be dusted or 

transportation of an insurance agent, surveyor, or 

inspector to the site of a special purpose operation. 

The FAA would also consider a flight conducted to 

relocate an aircraft to an area of a special purpose 

operation to be an operation necessary to 

accomplish the special purpose operation. 149 14 CFR 21.25(b). 

flight crewmember training in a special 

purpose operation. 

The FAA is retaining the provision 

proposed in § 91.313(b) that allows 

pilots employed by operators 

performing special purpose operations 

to accomplish § 61.58 proficiency 

checks and recent flight experience 

requirements set forth in § 61.57 in the 

course of their employment provided 

the pilots hold the appropriate category, 

class, and type ratings. When a pilot is 

employed to perform a special purpose 

operation, satisfying recent flight 

experience and proficiency check 

requirements is necessary to accomplish 

the work activity directly associated 

with a special purpose operation. When 

a pilot is not employed to perform a 

special purpose operation, these 

operations are neither a special purpose 

operation nor an operation directly 

associated with a special purpose 

operation and, therefore, are not 

permitted under § 91.313(a). 

The FAA is also retaining the 

provision from the NPRM that adds 

relocation flights for maintenance to the 

list of operations considered necessary 

to accomplish the work activity directly 

associated with the special purpose 

operation. 

GAMA, Air Tractor, NAAA, Thrush 

Aircraft, Inc. and CAAA all noted that 

the FAA’s proposal to add this 

provision could suggest that other 

essential types of flights necessary to 

accomplish work directly associated 

with the special purpose, such as 

positioning flights, flights to deliver 

aircraft, and flights to trade shows, are 

excluded from expressly listed 

operations. GAMA stated that these 

flights are clearly within the scope of 

flights necessary to accomplish work 

directly associated with the special 

purpose, but that the industry could 

benefit from explicit recognition that 

§ 91.313(b) does not contain an 

exhaustive list of flights. 

The FAA has modified the final rule 

text to include flights to relocate a 

restricted category aircraft for delivery, 

repositioning, or maintenance to be 

considered as flights necessary to 

accomplish work activity directly 

associated with a special purpose 

operation. This change in the final rule 

permits many of the operations 

described by the commenters, such as 

deliveries from an aircraft manufacturer, 

change in ownership deliveries, 

relocation from one special purpose 

operation to another, or repositioning 

for the special purpose operation. The 

FAA notes that other types of flight 

events not expressly allowed by the 

regulation may be permitted if they are 

necessary to accomplish work activity 

directly associated with the special 

purpose operation.148 Any operation 

that does not meet this standard would 

require an exemption from the 

regulation. 

2. LODAs for Training and Testing for 

Certification 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed in 

§ 91.313(h) to allow operators of 

restricted category aircraft to apply for 

deviation authority for the purpose of 

conducting the following operations in 

restricted category aircraft: 

• Flight training and the practical test 

for issuance of a type rating provided 

the pilot being trained and tested holds 

at least a commercial pilot certificate 

with the appropriate category and class 

ratings for the aircraft type and is 

employed by the operator to perform a 

special purpose operation; and 

• Flights to designate an examiner or 

qualify an FAA inspector in the aircraft 

type and flights necessary to provide 

continuing oversight and evaluation of 

an examiner. 

The FAA emphasized that the 

proposed provision was intended to 

ensure that operators do not establish 

training schools for the sole purpose of 

issuing type ratings using restricted 

category aircraft. As proposed, operators 

would only be granted deviation 

authority under proposed § 91.313(h) to 

conduct this training and testing for 

pilots who are employed by the operator 

and only when a type rating is required 

to complete the special purpose 

operation for which the aircraft was 

certificated and the operator is actively 

engaged in performing. 

A number of commenters opposed the 

proposed provision in § 91.313(h) that 

limited the ability to obtain a LODA to 

an employer providing flight training to 

its employees who perform a special 

purpose operation for that employer. 

Texas State Technical College, GAMA, 

L–3 Communications, and Queen Bee 

all suggested that such a limitation 

would result in a reduction in safety. 

More specifically, Thrush Aircraft, 

Inc. noted that the implication of the 

phrase ‘‘is employed by the operator’’ in 

proposed § 91.313(h)(1)(i) is that an 

employer/employee relationship must 

exist before any training may 

commence. The interpretation of this 

phrase could create the effect of 

‘‘restricting’’ the aircraft from being 

used in agricultural aviation flight 

schools to conduct training of students 

planning to become agricultural pilots, 

by instructors employed by 

manufacturers and their dealers, or 

flight schools to perform pilot checkouts 

and transitional training, such as 

transitions from piston powered to 

turbine powered aircraft and by third 

party training for firefighting or other 

restricted category operations. The U.S. 

Air Force commented that proposed 

§ 91.313(h) would prohibit commercial 

vendors from providing the required 

USAF flight crewmember training; 

therefore, USAF flightcrew would not 

be able to receive training in restricted 

category aircraft. The USAF also 

indicated that removing the 

employment requirement would allow 

training in aircraft where it is not 

practical to obtain a type rating in an 

aircraft with a standard airworthiness 

certificate. Queen Bee stated that the 

proposal limits ability for dealers to 

provide training that is crucial to 

customers for their safety, success and 

comfort. 

As noted previously, the FAA has 

removed the proposed employment 

requirement for flight crewmember 

training in a special purpose operation. 

Third party training providers may 

continue to provide training in special 

purpose operations (e.g. firefighting, 

agricultural operations, and aerial 

advertising) absent an employment 

relationship provided the operation is a 

special purpose operation for which the 

aircraft is certificated.149 The LODA and 

employment requirements described in 

§ 91.319(h)(1)(i) is specific to training 

and testing to obtain a type rating and 

does not impede the special purpose 

flight training identified by Thrush, the 

USAF, and Queen Bee. 

GAMA, L–3 Communications, and 

AOPA all suggested that the FAA revise 

the proposal to permit individuals or 

entities (instead of operators) to apply 

for deviation authority and require that 

the trainee is employed by ‘‘an’’ 

operator to perform a special purpose 

operation instead of ‘‘the’’ operator 

applying to conduct the training in 

proposed § 91.313(h)(1). They noted that 

this would help to ensure that the type 

rating training is required for the special 

purpose operation in which the operator 

is actively engaged but allow flexibility 

if the operator is unable to conduct the 

training itself. GAMA noted, however, 

that this provision still would hinder 

training of pilots trying to enter the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30266 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

150Aero Contractors Ltd., Exemption No. 14396; 

Alaska Air Fuel, Inc., Exemption No. 14205; Sky 

Aviation Corporation, Exemption No. 12449; 

Columbia Helicopters, Exemption No. 11506; 

Airborne Support, Inc., Exemption No. 11470; 

Withrotor Aviation, Inc., Exemption No. 11427; CHI 

Aviation, Exemption No. 11383; Aero-Flite, Inc., 

Exemption No. 11276; Billings Flight Service, 

Exemption No. 11383. 

industry and not yet employed by a 

special purpose operator. 

L–3 Communications noted that 

modifying the proposal so that other 

entities could obtain a LODA would 

allow training of initial cadres of pilots 

by an aircraft manufacturer or by a 

properly certified training school with 

an authorization to conduct restricted 

category training. L–3 Communications 

noted that such a change would still 

achieve the FAA’s goal of limiting the 

training in restricted category aircraft for 

certification to only those pilots who are 

employed to perform a special purpose 

operation. 

GAMA, Air Tractor, Queen Bee, and 

one individual generally noted that 

limiting the training and testing for the 

purpose of achieving a type rating in a 

restricted category aircraft to a pilot’s 

employer will deny access to training 

for pilots that are not currently 

employed in a special purpose 

operation. Additionally, Air Tractor 

noted the possible burden on students, 

who must stay employed to finish flight 

training. GAMA also noted that some 

insurance underwriters may require 

pilots to obtain training that is only 

available through third party training 

providers. Air Tractor, NAAA, CAAA, 

Queen Bee and one individual all noted 

that these types of barriers to training 

will affect the ability to replace an aging 

pilot community. 

As noted in the NPRM, the FAA has 

historically placed operating limitations 

on the use of restricted category aircraft 

because the airworthiness certification 

standards for these aircraft are not 

designed to provide the same level of 

safety that is required for aircraft 

certificated in the standard category. 

The operating limitations set forth in 

§ 91.313 are designed to compensate for 

the different standards and provide the 

necessary level of safety for special 

purpose operations. In the final rule, the 

FAA has retained the employment 

requirement to prevent flight training 

and testing for the purpose of obtaining 

a type rating in restricted category 

aircraft without an explicit employment 

connection to special purpose 

operations. The operation of restricted 

category aircraft has always been 

limited to special purpose operations 

and those operations necessary to 

accomplish the work activity directly 

associated with a special purpose 

operation. Providing flight training and 

testing for certification to a pilot who 

does not perform a special purpose 

operation is not training in a special 

purpose operation and the hope of 

eventual employment in a special 

purpose operation is too attenuated to 

be necessary to accomplish the work 

activity associated with a special 

purpose operation. 

3. Economic Burden 

L–3 Communications, Air Tractor, 

NAAA, CAAA, and Queen Bee generally 

noted that the proposed rule would 

have a significant adverse effect on 

businesses conducting operations with 

restricted category aircraft since nearly 

all of these businesses are small 

businesses. Texas State Technical 

College, L–3 Communications, Air 

Tractor, NAAA and CAAA all noted that 

limiting the training and testing of pilots 

for the purpose of achieving a type 

rating in a restricted category aircraft to 

owners/operators will result in a major 

financial burden to certain entities. 

GAMA, L–3 Communications, Air 

Tractor, Inc., and Queen Bee Air 

Specialties generally noted that many 

agricultural aviation operators lack the 

staff and aircraft to conduct training for 

their employees. Texas State Technical 

College and GAMA both noted that 

many of these small operators do not 

have in-house training staff. Texas State 

specifically noted that the cost of 

providing its own training would be a 

huge burden. Air Tractor commented 

that the FAA should not place more 

burdens on these operators and reduce 

safety by requiring training in restricted 

aircraft to be conducted by the operator 

and requiring the student to be an 

employee of the operator. 

Most of the commenters concerned 

with the employment requirement have 

described training operations in which 

restricted category aircraft are being 

used for flightcrew member training in 

a special purpose operation rather than 

flight training to obtain a type rating. 

The FAA has removed the proposed 

employment requirement for special 

purpose training in the final rule which 

may continue to be conducted without 

obtaining a LODA and without an 

employment relationship. As such, the 

economic burden associated with this 

provision would only affect operators 

who must obtain a LODA to conduct 

flight training for certification. These are 

very limited training operations, and 

they are currently conducted by 

operators using the exemption process. 

The FAA has issued several exemptions 

to facilitate this training.150 In all cases, 

the FAA has required the training to be 

accomplished by the employer as a 

condition of the exemption. If anything 

the provision will be relieving in nature 

to both operators and the FAA by 

eliminating the need for the exemption 

process. As discussed in the NPRM, the 

provision is not intended to allow 

operators to establish training schools 

utilizing restricted category aircraft for 

the purpose of issuing type ratings. 

Queen Bee specifically noted that this 

provision would limit its ability to vet 

pilots for operators that do not have 

two-place, dual control aircraft and/or 

the expertise in training. Queen Bee 

indicated it currently provides this 

training, which would be prohibited 

under the proposed requirements, for 

the U.S. company ARAMCO which 

responds to oil spills in the Red Sea 

with U.S. citizens as pilots. 

L–3 Communications, Air Tractor, 

NAAA, Farm Air, Curless Flying Service 

and CAAA noted the effect on 

manufacturers developing and selling 

new restricted category type designs. 

L–3 Communications, Farm Air and 

Curless Flying Service asserted that the 

proposed rule would limit the ability of 

manufacturers to develop and sell new 

restricted category type design aircraft. 

According to the commenters, 

prospective buyers of new restricted 

category aircraft would not be able to 

receive training for their pilot 

employees. A manufacturer would have 

no incentive to produce a new design 

aircraft providing safety benefits and 

improvements based on new design 

features and technology insertion 

because pilot employees of a 

prospective buyer could not receive 

training. 

Most restricted category aircraft do 

not require a type rating and would be 

unaffected by this provision. 

Additionally, a manufacturer of a new 

large or turbojet powered aircraft could 

seek approval as a standard or transport 

category aircraft and, therefore, avoid 

any such ‘‘type rating’’ training 

limitations. The FAA notes that the 

level of safety for restricted category 

aircraft may be lower than the level of 

safety for standard category aircraft. 

However, the restricted category level of 

certification does not eliminate any type 

certification procedural requirements, 

such as the need to comply with 

continued airworthiness requirements. 

To maintain an equivalent level of 

safety for the public the FAA imposes 

certain operating restrictions for 

restricted category aircraft. This 

provision is specific to facilitate training 

in restricted category aircraft requiring a 

type rating safely, not the promotion of 

restricted category aircraft production 

for public use. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30267 

151N 8900.295 Pilot Training and/or Certification 

Events Conducted in Restricted Category Aircraft 

became effective 05/05/2015. 

4. Operations for Compensation or Hire 

The FAA also proposed a change to 

§ 91.313(c) to ensure that instructors 

providing flight training and designees 

conducting practical tests under a 

LODA may accept compensation for 

these operations. Likewise, the FAA 

proposed to revise § 91.313(d) to permit 

persons to be carried on restricted 

category aircraft if necessary to 

accomplish a flight authorized by LODA 

under paragraph (h). 

AOPA suggested revisions to 

§ 91.313(c) to eliminate confusion by 

breaking each of the operations 

identified into three separate 

subparagraphs and provided specific 

revised rule language. The FAA is 

retaining the language in paragraph (c) 

as it was proposed in the NPRM. The 

FAA merely proposed to add operations 

conducted under a LODA to the existing 

list of operations involving the carriage 

of persons and material that could be 

conducted without violating the general 

rule prohibiting the carriage of persons 

or property on restricted category 

aircraft for compensation or hire. 

5. Exemptions 

GAMA raised concerns about the 

relationship between § 61.31 and 

proposed § 91.313(h). GAMA noted that, 

if applicants requesting exemption from 

§ 61.31 type rating requirements also 

must request exemption from § 91.313 

type rating training through this LODA 

process, they will be subject to an 

employment requirement. GAMA 

suggested that the FAA clarify that 

aircraft operators who hold exemptions 

from a type rating requirement do not 

need to also request exemption from 

§ 91.313(h) per the proposed LODA 

process or revise the LODA process to 

permit third party training as discussed 

previously. 

GAMA also noted that while the 

LODA process seems to provide a path 

for training in restricted category aircraft 

in pursuit of a type rating, they believe 

that this process will be burdensome to 

obtain and maintain. This process will 

be a barrier to a small business in that 

manufacturers that plan on building 

larger restricted category aircraft, that 

may not be exempted from the type 

rating requirement of § 61.31, will have 

a more difficult time getting training for 

pilots. Air Tractor added that it and its 

competitor Thrush Aircraft, Inc. 

manufacture airplanes that, by 

definition, are ‘‘large’’ (greater than 

12,500 lbs. gross weight). These 

airplanes are operated under 

exemptions from § 61.31. Air Tractor 

requested that the FAA consider 

clarifying that large aircraft that are 

exempt from § 61.31 are also exempt 

from the LODA process as proposed in 

the new § 91.313(h). 

Section 91.313 requires an operator to 

obtain a LODA to conduct training and 

testing for the purpose of obtaining a 

type rating in a restricted category 

aircraft. To the extent that some 

operators may hold exemptions that 

enable pilots to operate certain aircraft 

as PIC without a type rating, then 

§ 91.313 would be inapplicable. We 

note, however, that the general 

provision limiting the operation of 

restricted category aircraft to special 

purpose operations and flights 

necessary to accomplish the work 

activity directly associated with a 

special purpose operation remains 

applicable to all operations conducted— 

even operations conducted under these 

exemptions. No operator should utilize 

a restricted category aircraft outside the 

permitted operations in § 91.313. 

6. FAA Interpretation of § 91.313 

Finally, AOPA commented that, for 

the last 50 years, operators of restricted 

category aircraft have been permitted to 

use such aircraft for type rating training, 

type rating practical tests, and PIC 

proficiency checks per §§ 61.31 and 

61.58. AOPA suggested that the FAA 

reversed long-standing precedent in 

2015 when it concluded that this type 

rating training was not permissible 

under § 91.313. AOPA noted that new 

FAA guidance for conducting pilot 

training and/or certification events in a 

restricted category aircraft was then 

outlined in Notice N 8900.295 which 

stated that flights necessary for PICs to 

obtain type rating designations in the 

restricted category aircraft required 

under § 61.31(a) are not permitted by 

the operating limitations in § 91.313.151

AOPA stated that none of the FAA’s 

documentation provides sufficient 

explanation as to the reason for the 

recent change in interpretation of 

current § 91.313(b). AOPA commented 

that the FAA is now proposing to codify 

this new interpretation and implement 

a LODA process. AOPA added that 

conducting type rating training and 

practical tests in restricted category 

aircraft under certain circumstances and 

without a LODA has been an accepted 

practice for at least several decades. 

AOPA recommended that the FAA 

incorporate the operations from 

proposed § 91.313(h)(1) into proposed 

§ 91.313(b). This approach would 

permit, without having to obtain a 

LODA, flight operations in restricted 

category aircraft which are necessary for 

PICs to obtain type rating designations 

in that aircraft, as required under 

§ 61.31(a). AOPA did not believe that 

the LODA approach adds any increased 

level of safety because the FAA has not 

articulated any reason for the recent 

reinterpretation of current § 91.313. 

AOPA also believed that the FAA has 

not explained why the past accepted 

practice should not be codified. 

The FAA Office of the Chief Counsel 

was asked by the Director of the Flight 

Standards Service to provide a legal 

interpretation on the scope of § 91.313 

and whether the regulation permitted 

operators to conduct training and testing 

for certification in restricted category 

aircraft. The Office of the Chief Counsel 

concluded that the rule as written does 

not expressly permit this training and 

testing. As previously noted, the FAA 

has historically placed limitations on 

the use of restricted category aircraft 

because they do not meet the same 

standard as a standard category aircraft. 

When restricted category aircraft are 

used solely for the purpose of providing 

a type rating to a pilot who is not 

engaged in a special purpose operation, 

the operation cannot meet the express 

requirements of § 91.313(a). The 

previous history relative to this type of 

training does not change the identified 

training limitation. Additionally, the 

FAA believes that this type rating 

training and testing needs FAA 

oversight and approval to ensure safe 

operations. Restricted category aircraft 

were never intended or designed to be 

used for FAA pilot training and 

certification. The FAA will retain the 

requirement for an operator to obtain an 

LODA specific to training and testing in 

restricted category aircraft that require a 

type rating when a standard category 

aircraft is not readily available or does 

not exist and only when a pilot will be 

performing a special purpose operation. 

AOPA noted that the FAA proposed 

to implement the changes to § 91.313 

within 180 days of the final rule. AOPA 

further noted that if all of its 

recommendations are adopted, the 

implementation time frame should be 

reduced to 30 days. AOPA suggested 

that the proposed changes would be less 

complex to implement because the 

LODA process is eliminated and less 

coordination within the FAA is 

required. 

The FAA is not eliminating the LODA 

process and will retain the 180-day 

effective date after publication. This 

will allow the FAA and operators time 

to become familiar with the guidance 

and process documents associated with 

the LODA requirements. The FAA has 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30268 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

152Prior to this final rule, certain former military 

aircraft and some experimental aircraft that were 

designed to be flown by one pilot were required 

under § 91.531(a) to have a SIC because they 

qualified as a large airplane. These airplanes were 

not eligible to obtain an LOA under § 91.531(b) 

because they were not type certificated. Under 

§ 91.531(b), the Administrator was allowed only to 

issue LOAs for the operation of an airplane without 

an SIC ‘‘if that airplane is designed for and type 

certificated with only one pilot station.’’ 

153As stated in the NPRM, the FAA also proposed 

to eliminate inconsistencies, redundancies, and 

obsolete provisions in § 91.531, including the 

language found in former paragraph (d). 81 FR at 

29744. The FAA notes that former § 91.531(d), 

which applied to part 91, subpart K aircraft, was 

redundant to § 91.1049(d). Section 91.1049(d) 

states, ‘‘[u]nless otherwise authorized by the 

Administrator, when any program aircraft is flown 

in program operations with passengers onboard, the 

crew must consist of at least two qualified pilots 

employed or contracted by the program manager or 

the fractional owner.’’ 

154Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; 

Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and 

Other Provisions, proposed rule, 81 FR 29720 (May 

12, 2016). 

155Revisions of Airworthiness Standards for 

Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category 

Airplanes, final rule, 81 FR 96572 (Dec. 30, 2016) 

(part 23 final rule). 

156The ACS offers a more comprehensive and 

integrated presentation of standards for the 

knowledge and practical test for an airman 

certificate or rating. 

retained the provision as proposed in 

the NPRM. 

K. Single Pilot Operations of Former 

Military Airplanes and Other Airplanes 

With Special Airworthiness Certificates 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

revise § 91.531 to allow large airplanes, 

including former military aircraft and 

some experimental aircraft, to operate 

without an SIC if they were originally 

designed for single pilot operations.152

The FAA also proposed to reorganize 

§ 91.531 by placing all affirmative 

requirements in paragraph (a) and all 

exceptions thereto in paragraph (b).153

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association (AOPA) expressed concern 

that, if read in isolation, proposed 

§ 91.531(b) could be interpreted as 

providing an exhaustive list of airplanes 

that may be operated without a SIC. 

AOPA stated that this would be a 

detrimental unintended consequence 

because airplanes type certificated for 

one required pilot are not listed in 

proposed § 91.531(b). AOPA 

recommended the FAA clarify that 

proposed § 91.531(b) is not an 

exhaustive list. 

Section 91.531(b) should not be read 

in isolation from the remainder of 

§ 91.531. Section 91.531 prescribes SIC 

requirements under subpart F of part 91. 

Subpart F of part 91 applies to large and 

turbine-powered multiengine airplanes 

and fractional ownership program 

aircraft. Section 91.531(b) should be 

read in context with paragraph (a), 

which expressly states that exceptions 

are provided in paragraph (b). The FAA 

finds that reading § 91.531 in its entirety 

alleviates AOPA’s concern. The FAA is 

adopting § 91.531(b) as proposed. 

AOPA also recommended revising 

proposed § 91.531(b)(3) to state ‘‘large 

airplane or turbojet-powered 

multiengine airplane,’’ rather than 

‘‘large or turbojet-powered multiengine 

airplane,’’ to prevent any confusion as 

to whether the paragraph applied to 

‘‘large airplanes’’ or ‘‘large multiengine 

airplanes.’’ 

The FAA agrees that proposed 

§ 91.531(b)(3) may have caused 

confusion specific to large airplanes. 

The FAA is adopting AOPA’s 

recommendation. 

Additionally, the FAA recognizes that 

§ 91.531 has been amended since the 

FAA published the NPRM on May 12, 

2016.154 Effective August 30, 2017, the 

FAA amended its airworthiness 

standards for normal, utility, acrobatic, 

and commuter category airplanes by 

replacing the current prescriptive design 

requirements of part 23 with 

performance-based airworthiness 

standards.155 As part of the part 23 final 

rule, the FAA replaced the utility, 

acrobatic, and commuter categories in 

part 23 with new airplane certification 

levels. As a result, the FAA amended 

§ 91.531(a)(1) and (3) to incorporate the 

new airplane certification levels to 

ensure airplanes certificated in the 

future under new part 23 airworthiness 

standards would be addressed by 

§ 91.531. In this final rule, the FAA 

finds it unnecessary to expressly 

incorporate the new airplane 

certification levels in the reorganized 

rule language of § 91.531(a) because 

levels 3 and 4 airplanes are already 

covered by § 91.531(a)(1), which 

requires a SIC for any airplane that is 

type certificated for more than one 

required pilot. 

Furthermore, the FAA is relocating 

the exception in proposed 

§ 91.531(a)(2), which excepts from the 

SIC requirement any large airplane that 

is type certificated for single-pilot 

operation, to § 91.531(b)(1). This change 

from what was proposed is consistent 

with the NPRM, which intended to 

place all affirmative requirements in 

paragraph (a) and all exceptions in 

paragraph (b). The FAA notes that, 

rather than providing an exception for 

any large airplane certificated under 

SFAR 41 if that airplane is certificated 

for operation with one pilot, paragraph 

(b)(1) excepts any airplane that is 

certificated for operation with one pilot. 

It is therefore unnecessary to expressly 

reference the new airplane certification 

levels in paragraph (b) because 

§ 91.531(b)(1) will except from the SIC 

requirement any airplane that is 

certificated for single-pilot operation, 

including any airplanes certificated 

under new part 23 and any large 

airplanes certificated under SFAR 41. 

The FAA notes that the remaining 

requirements of § 91.531 remain 

unchanged from the proposal. 

L. Technical Corrections and 

Nomenclature Change 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed a 

technical correction in appendix I to 

part 141, Additional Aircraft Category 

and/or Class Rating Course. In 

paragraph 4.(k), course for an airplane 

additional multiengine class rating, 

subparagraph (2) discussing the 

requirements for the commercial pilot 

certificate, the FAA noted that two 

paragraphs were designated as (k)(2)(iv). 

The FAA proposed to redesignate the 

second paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as paragraph 

(k)(2)(v). The FAA received no 

comments on this correction. The FAA 

is redesignating the second paragraph 

(k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v) as 

proposed. 

Additionally, to reflect the change in 

nomenclature regarding flight 

simulators, the FAA proposed to remove 

the words ‘‘flight simulator’’ wherever 

they appear in the sections the FAA 

determined needed to be revised and 

replace them with the words ‘‘full flight 

simulator.’’ The Society of Aviation and 

Flight Educators agreed with the 

proposed changes of wording to ‘‘full 

flight simulator.’’ The FAA is adopting 

the changes as proposed. The following 

sections are amended to reflect this 

nomenclature change: §§ 61.31, 61.51, 

61.57, 61.109, 61.129, 61.159, 61.161, 

and section 4 of Appendix D to part 141. 

Finally, as discussed in section III.F.2. 

of this preamble, GAMA recommended 

the FAA update its nomenclature to 

reflect the new Airmen Certification 

Standards (ACS). The FAA began 

transitioning from the practical test 

standards (PTS) to the airmen 

certification standards (ACS) on June 

15, 2016. The transition from the PTS to 

the ACS is an ongoing process in which 

the FAA is enhancing the guidance it 

provides to applicants, instructors, and 

evaluators to better prepare applicants 

for knowledge and practical tests.156

In light of GAMA’s comment, the 

FAA recognized that the following 

sections still referenced the practical 

test standards: §§ 61.43, 61.57, 65.59, 

appendix A to part 65, and appendices 

A, B, C and D to part 60. The FAA has 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30269 

157The areas of operation and instrument tasks 

are contained in new § 61.57(d)(1). The FAA notes 

that it is redesignating former § 61.57(d)(1) as new 

§ 61.57(d)(2), and former § 61.57(d)(2) as new 

§ 61.57(d)(3). 

decided to revise these sections to 

reflect the transition to the ACS. 

In § 61.57(d), the FAA is removing the 

reference to the PTS. The FAA 

recognizes that it was inappropriate for 

§ 61.57(d) to state that the areas of 

operation and instrument tasks were 

required in the instrument rating PTS. 

The PTS and ACS do not contain 

regulatory requirements. Therefore, 

rather than referencing the instrument 

rating ACS in § 61.57(d), the FAA is 

codifying in § 61.57(d) the areas of 

operation for an IPC. The FAA finds that 

this revision is not a substantive change 

because the areas of operation and 

instrument tasks required for an IPC 

remain unchanged. Thus, an IPC is still 

driven by the standards for the 

instrument rating practical test.157

In § 61.43(a)(1), the FAA is removing 

the reference to the PTS as unnecessary. 

The FAA is also removing from § 65.59 

the reference to the aircraft dispatcher 

PTS, to be consistent with editorial 

changes made to other regulatory parts 

pertaining to certification of airmen. In 

its place, the FAA is requiring an 

applicant to demonstrate skill in 

applying the areas of knowledge and the 

topics outlined in appendix A of part 65 

to preflight and all phases of flight, 

which must include abnormal and 

emergency procedures. The FAA 

emphasizes that this is not a substantive 

change. The areas of operation in the 

aircraft dispatcher PTS are currently 

based on an aircraft dispatcher’s duties 

as they relate to the various phases of 

flight, including preflight, en route, and 

post-flight, and abnormal and 

emergency situations that could occur. 

Therefore, the practical test will still be 

based on the aircraft dispatcher PTS on 

the items outlined in appendix A of part 

65. Additionally, the aircraft dispatcher 

PTS will continue to provide direction 

to examiners on how to administer a 

practical test. 

Additionally, the FAA is removing 

the references to the practical test 

standards for FAA Publication FAA–S– 

8081 series (Practical Test Standards for 

Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type 

Ratings, Commercial Pilot, and 

Instrument Ratings) in appendices A, B, 

C, and D to part 60. These references are 

replaced with ‘‘FAA Airman Testing 

Standards for the Airline Transport Pilot 

Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial 

Pilot Certificate, and Instrument 

Ratings.’’ 

IV. Discussion of Effective Dates for 

Rule Provisions 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed three 

different effective dates for the various 

proposed amendments. The proposed 

amendments would have been effective 

either 30, 60 or 180 days after the date 

of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register, depending on the type 

and scale of implementation needed for 

persons to begin complying with the 

amended requirements. 

The FAA received no comments on 

the proposed effective dates. The 

following discussion summarizes when 

the various amendments included in 

this final rule will become effective. 

Provisions Effective 30 Days After Date 

of Publication of Final Rule 

The following provisions will be 

effective 30 days after publication of the 

final rule: 

• The revised definition of ‘‘flight 

simulation training device’’ in § 1.1 

• All definitions added to § 61.1 and 

revisions to the definition of ‘‘pilot 

time’’ in § 61.1 regarding the reference 

to FFSs rather than flight simulators 

and the allowance for training 

received or given in an ATD 

• Substantive and clarifying 

amendments to § 61.51(g)(4) and (5) 

regarding instructor requirement 

when using an FFS, FTD, or ATD to 

complete instrument recency 

experience 

• Amendment to § 61.51(h) to include 

ATDs to accommodate the logging of 

training time in an ATD 

• Amendments to § 135.245 regarding 

instrument experience requirements 

• Amendments to § 61.195 regarding 

flight instructors with instrument 

ratings only 

• Amendment to § 61.99 and addition 

of § 61.109(l) regarding credit for 

training obtained as a sport pilot 

• Substantive amendment to § 91.531 

regarding single pilot operations of 

former military airplanes and other 

airplanes with special airworthiness 

certificates and clarifying 

amendments 

• Typographical correction to appendix 

I to part 141 

• Revisions related to the transition 

from the practical test standards to the 

airman certification standards in 

§§ 61.43, 61.57, 65.59, appendix A to 

part 65, and appendices A, B, C and 

D to part 60 

Provisions Effective 60 Days After Date 

of Publication of Final Rule 

The following provisions will be 

effective 60 days after publication of the 

final rule: 

• Substantive amendments to 

§ 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and (j) and appendix 

D to part 141 regarding the 

completion of commercial pilot 

training in technically advanced 

airplanes and clarifying amendments 

to § 61.129(b)(3)(ii) 

• Amendments to §§ 61.412, 61.415(h) 

and 91.109(c) regarding sport pilot 

flight instructor training privilege 

• Amendments to §§ 61.197 and 61.199 

regarding military competence for 

Flight Instructors 

• Amendments to § 61.31 regarding the 

allowance of a § 135.293 pilot-incommand competency check in a 

complex or high-performance airplane 

to meet the training requirements for 

a complex or high-performance 

airplane, respectively 

Provisions Effective 150 Days After Date 

of Publication of Final Rule 

The following provisions will be 

effective 150 days after publication of 

the final rule: 

• Revisions to the definition of ‘‘pilot 

time’’ in § 61.1 regarding the 

allowance of SIC time obtained under 

the SIC PDP in accordance with 

§ 135.99(c) 

• Amendments to § 61.57(c) regarding 

instrument experience requirements 

• Amendments to §§ 61.39, 61.51(e) and 

(f), 61.159(a), (c), and (d)-(f), 61.161, 

and 135.99(c) and (d) regarding 

logging flight time as a second in 

command in part 135 operations 

• Amendment to § 141.5(d) regarding 

pilot school use of special curricula 

courses for renewal of certificate 

Provisions Effective 180 Days After Date 

of Publication of Final Rule 

The following provisions will be 

effective 180 days after publication of 

the final rule: 

• Amendments to §§ 61.3(a) and (l), 

63.3, 63.16, 121.383(a) through (c), 

91.1015 and 135.95 regarding 

temporary validation of flightcrew 

members’ certificates 

• Amendments to § 91.313 regarding 

use of aircraft certificated in the 

restricted category for pilot flight 

training, checking, and testing. 

V. Advisory Circulars and Other 

Guidance Materials 

To further implement this final rule, 

the FAA is revising or creating the 

following Advisory Circulars and FAA 

Orders. 

FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards 

Information Management System, Vol. 

11, Chapter 10, Basic and Advanced 

Aviation Training Device, Sec. 1, 

Approval and Authorized Use under 14 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30270 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR parts 61 and 141 guidance 

concerning ATD’s will be revised. 

FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards 

Information Management System, Vol. 5 

Airmen Certification, Chapter 1 

Direction, Guidance, and Procedures for 

Title 14 CFR parts 121/135 and General 

Aviation, Sec. 1, General Information, 

will be revised adding a new paragraph 

to facilitate application to the General 

Aviation and Commercial Division for 

new technology TAA designation. 

The Commercial Pilot—Airplane ACS 

will be revised to no longer require a 

complex or turbine powered airplane to 

be provided for part of the practical test, 

and the Flight Instructor PTS for 

Airplane will be revised to no longer 

require a complex airplane to be 

provided for part of the practical test. 

AC 135–43: This document will be a 

new AC (Part 135 SIC Professional 

Development Program) that will provide 

part 135 operators guidance on 

receiving FAA approval for training and 

qualifying pilots to act as an SIC and log 

that time for the ATP flight time 

requirements. 

AC 61–65, Certification: Pilots and 

Flight and Ground Instructors will be 

revised to include endorsements and 

guidance pertaining to the sport pilot 

provisions. This will include the 

recommended endorsement for 

qualifying a sport pilot only instructor 

to give basic instrument flight 

instruction to sport pilot candidates 

only. Additional guidance will be 

provided concerning reference to the 

General Aviation and Commercial 

Division, to qualify aircraft as TAA that 

otherwise do not meet the criteria 

defined in the rule definition. 

AC 141–1 Pilot School Certification 

will be revised to reflect the allowance 

to use graduates from special curricula 

courses as a counter for those pilot 

schools obtaining initial or renewal 

pilot school certification. 

AC 00–70: This document will be a 

new AC (Flightcrew Member Certificate 

Verification Plan) that will provide part 

121 air carriers, part 135 air carriers/ 

operators, and part 91, subpart K, 

program managers guidance on 

receiving FAA approval of a certificate 

verification plan to provide a temporary 

document verifying a flightcrew 

member’s airman certificate and 

medical certificate privileges. 

FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards 

Information Management System, Vol. 

5, Airman Certification, Chapter 1, 

Direction, Guidance and Procedures for 

Parts 121/135 and General Aviation, 

Sec. 7, Amendments to Certificates and 

Replacement of Lost Certificates will be 

revised to provide guidance concerning 

temporary documents verifying a 

flightcrew member’s airman certificate 

and medical certificate privileges under 

an approved certificate verification plan 

set forth in the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications/management 

specifications. 

FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards 

Information Management System, Vol. 

5, Airman Certification, Chapter 2, Title 

14 CFR part 61 Certification of Pilots 

and Flight Instructors, Sec. 15, Issue a 

Title 14 CFR part 61 Pilot Certificate 

Based on Military Competence; and 

FAA Order 8900.2, General Aviation 

Airman Designee Handbook, Chapter 7, 

Designated Pilot Examiner Program, 

Sec. 19, Accomplish Designation/Issue 

Certificates as an ACR Employed Solely 

by a FIRC Sponsor, Paragraph 121, 

Flight Instructor Certificate and Ratings 

Issued on the Basis of Military 

Competence by an MCE and MC/FPE, 

and Paragraph 122, Certification of 

Graduates; and Sec. 20, Accomplish 

Designation/Conduct Functions as an 

MCE, FPE, MC/FPE, GIE, and FIRE, 

Paragraphs 123–127, Background, 

General Information for MCE, FPE, and 

MC/FPE Designations, Issuance of a U.S. 

Private Pilot Certificate and Ratings 

Based on Foreign Pilot Licenses, Pilot 

Certificates and Ratings Issued on the 

Basis of Military Competence by an 

MCE and MC/FPE, and Compliance 

with Other Provisions, respectively, 

guidance concerning flight instructor 

certificate renewal via military 

competence will be revised regarding 

the military flight instructor provisions 

included in this final rule. 

VI. Section-By-Section Discussion of the 

Final Rule 

In part 1, definitions and 

abbreviations, in § 1.1, the definition of 

‘‘flight simulation training device’’ is 

revised. 

In part 60, flight simulation training 

device initial and continuing 

qualification and use, appendices A, B, 

C, and D are revised to remove the 

references to the FAA Publication FAA– 

S–8081 series (Practical Test Standards 

for Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, 

Type Ratings, Commercial Pilot, and 

Instrument Ratings) to reflect the 

transition to the airman certification 

standards. These references are replaced 

with ‘‘FAA Airman Testing Standards 

for the Airline Transport Pilot 

Certificate, Type Ratings, Commercial 

Pilot Certificate, and Instrument 

Ratings.’’ 

In part 61, certification: Pilots, flight 

instructors, and ground instructors, in 

§ 61.1, the definition of ‘‘pilot time’’ is 

revised. New definitions are added to 

§ 61.1(b) for ‘‘aviation training device’’ 

and ‘‘technically advanced airplane.’’ 

Section 61.3(a) is revised to permit a 

pilot flightcrew member to carry a 

temporary document as a required pilot 

certificate for operating a civil aircraft of 

the United States. This document must 

be provided under an approved 

certificate verification plan by a part 119 

certificate holder conducting operations 

under part 121 or 135 or a fractional 

ownership program manager conducting 

operations under part 91, subpart K. 

Section 61.3(l) is revised to require the 

temporary document to be presented for 

inspection upon request of certain 

persons. 

Section 61.31 is revised to add an 

exception in § 61.31(e) and (f) to allow 

a § 135.293 pilot-in-command 

competency check completed in a 

complex or high performance airplane 

to meet the training requirements for a 

complex or high performance airplane, 

respectively. 

Section 61.39 is revised to add a 

provision that requires a pilot who has 

logged flight time under the SIC 

professional development program 

requirements of § 61.159(c) to present a 

copy of the records required by 

§ 135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) at the time of 

application for the practical test. 

Section 61.43 is revised to remove the 

reference to the practical test standards 

to reflect the transition to the airman 

certification standards. 

Section 61.51(e) is revised to allow a 

commercial pilot or ATP acting as PIC 

of a part 135 operation to log all of the 

flight time as PIC flight time even when 

the SIC is the sole manipulator of the 

controls under an approved SIC PDP. 

Section 61.51(e) is also revised to 

prohibit an SIC from logging PIC time 

when the SIC is the sole manipulator of 

the controls under an approved SIC 

PDP. Section 61.51(f) is revised to 

reflect the allowance for SICs to log 

flight time in part 135 operations when 

not serving as required flightcrew 

members under the type certificate or 

regulations. Section 61.51(g) is revised 

to allow a pilot to accomplish 

instrument experience when using a 

FFS, FTD, or ATD without an instructor 

present. Section 61.51(h) is revised to 

include ATDs to accommodate the 

logging of training time in an ATD. 

Section 61.57(c) is revised to allow 

pilots to accomplish instrument 

experience in ATDs at the same 6- 

month interval allowed for FFSs and 

FTDs. In addition, the section is revised 

to no longer require pilots, who opt to 

use ATDs for accomplishing instrument 

experience, to complete a specific 

number of additional instrument 

experience hours or additional tasks. 

Finally, § 61.57(d) is being revised to 

remove the reference to the practical test 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30271 

standards and codifying the areas of 

operation and instrument tasks required 

for an IPC. 

Section 61.99 is revised to allow flight 

training received from a flight instructor 

with a sport pilot rating who does not 

also hold a flight instructor certificate 

issued under the requirements in 

subpart H of part 61 to be credited 

toward the flight training and 

aeronautical experience requirements 

for a recreational pilot certificate with 

airplane or rotorcraft categories. 

Section 61.109 is revised by adding 

paragraph (l) to allow flight training 

received from a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating who does not also hold 

a flight instructor certificate issued 

under the requirements in subpart H of 

part 61 to be credited toward the flight 

training and aeronautical experience 

requirements for a private pilot 

certificate with airplane, rotorcraft, or 

lighter-than-air categories. 

Section 61.129(a)(3)(ii) is revised to 

allow a pilot seeking an initial 

commercial pilot certificate with an 

airplane single engine rating to 

complete 10 hours of training, currently 

required in a complex or turbinepowered airplane, to also be completed 

in a TAA or any combination thereof. 

Section 61.129(a)(3)(ii) is also revised to 

include a reference to the requirements 

of paragraph (j) because the FAA is 

relocating the proposed requirements 

regarding what a TAA must contain to 

§ 61.129(j). Coordinated revisions are 

made in § 61.129(b)(3)(ii) for clarity and 

consistency purposes only. 

Section 61.159 is revised to permit 

flight time logged under an approved 

SIC PDP to be used to meet certain flight 

time requirements for an ATP certificate 

with an airplane category rating. 

Section 61.161 is revised to permit 

flight time logged under an approved 

SIC PDP to be used to meet certain flight 

time requirements for an ATP certificate 

with a rotorcraft category and helicopter 

class rating. 

Section 61.195(b) and (c) are revised 

to permit a flight instructor who holds 

only an instrument rating to provide 

instrument training without being 

required to hold aircraft category and 

class ratings on his or her flight 

instructor certificate if both the flight 

instructor and the pilot receiving 

training hold a pilot certificate with the 

appropriate category and class ratings. 

Flight instructors who wish to provide 

instrument training in a multiengine 

airplane must still have that additional 

category and class on their flight 

instructor certificate. 

Section 61.197(a)(2)(iv) is revised to 

allow a military instructor who has 

passed a U.S. Armed Forces military 

instructor pilot proficiency check 

within the 24 calendar months 

preceding the month of application to 

be eligible to renew his or her FAA 

flight instructor certificate based on that 

proficiency check. The section is 

clarified to indicate that a flight 

instructor is able to renew his or her 

certificate by providing a record 

demonstrating that, within the previous 

24 calendar months, the instructor 

passed a military instructor pilot 

proficiency check for a rating that the 

instructor already holds or for a new 

rating. 

Section 61.199 is revised to permit a 

military instructor to reinstate his or her 

flight instructor certificate by providing 

a record showing that, within the 

previous six calendar months, the 

instructor passed a U.S. Armed Forces 

instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

proficiency check for an additional 

military rating or completed a U.S. 

Armed Forces’ instructor pilot or pilot 

examiner training course and received 

an additional aircraft rating 

qualification as a military instructor 

pilot or pilot examiner. Section 

61.199(c) is added as a temporary 

provision to provide a reinstatement 

method for military instructors and 

examiners who allowed their FAA 

instructor certificates to expire before 

the regulations allowed them to add a 

rating based on military instructor 

competence. 

Section 61.412 is added to establish 

training and endorsement requirements 

for those sport pilot flight instructors 

who want to provide training for sportpilot applicants on control and 

maneuvering solely by reference to the 

flight instruments. 

Section 61.415 is revised by adding 

new paragraph (h) to clarify that a sport 

pilot instructor may not conduct flight 

training on control and maneuvering an 

aircraft solely by reference to the 

instruments in an airplane that has a Vh

greater than 87 knots CAS without 

meeting the requirements in § 61.412. 

In part 63, certification: Flight 

crewmembers other than pilots, § 63.3(a) 

is revised to permit a flight engineer 

flightcrew member to carry a temporary 

verification document as an airman 

certificate or medical certificate, as 

appropriate. This document must be 

provided under an approved certificate 

verification plan by a part 119 certificate 

holder conducting operations under part 

121. Section 63.3(e) is revised to require 

the temporary document to be presented 

for inspection upon request of certain 

persons. 

Section 63.16 is revised to update the 

process for replacement of a lost or 

destroyed airman certificate or medical 

certificate and to add a process for 

replacement of a lost or destroyed 

knowledge test report. 

In part 65, certification: Airmen other 

than flight crewmembers, § 65.59 and 

appendix A are revised to update the 

terminology to reflect the transition to 

the airman certification standards. 

In part 91, general operating and flight 

rules, § 91.109(c) is revised to permit a 

sport pilot instructor who has obtained 

the endorsement in § 61.412 to serve as 

a safety pilot only for the purpose of 

providing flight training on control and 

maneuvering solely by reference to the 

instruments to a sport pilot applicant 

seeking a solo endorsement in an 

airplane with a Vh greater than 87 knots 

CAS. 

Section 91.313 is revised to permit 

operators of aircraft certificated in the 

restricted category to operate those 

aircraft for the purpose of providing 

pilot training and testing, to pilots 

employed by the operator to perform the 

special purpose operation, that leads to 

a type rating designation required by 

§ 61.31(a) (and an ATP certificate 

obtained concurrently with a type 

rating). The section is amended to allow 

flights to be conducted in restricted 

category aircraft for the purpose of 

designating examiners and qualifying 

FAA inspectors in the aircraft type and 

conducting oversight and observation of 

designated examiners. 

Section 91.531 is revised to allow 

certain large airplanes that are not typecertificated to be operated without a 

pilot who is designated as SIC, provided 

that those airplanes: (1) Were originally 

designed with only one pilot station; or 

(2) were originally designed with more 

than one pilot station for purposes of 

flight training or for other purposes, but 

were operated by a branch of the United 

States armed forces or the armed forces 

of a foreign contracting State to the 

Convention on International Civil 

Aviation with only one pilot. The 

section is revised to eliminate 

redundancies and reorganized for 

purposes of clarification by placing all 

affirmative requirements for a SIC in 

paragraph (a) and all exceptions thereto 

in paragraph (b). 

Section 91.1015 is revised to permit a 

fractional ownership program manager 

to obtain approval to provide a 

temporary document verifying a 

flightcrew member’s airman certificate 

and medical certificate privileges under 

an approved certificate verification plan 

set forth in the program manager’s 

management specifications. 

In part 121, operating requirements: 

Domestic, flag, and supplemental 

operations, § 121.383(b) is revised to 

require the temporary document to be 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30272 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

presented for inspection upon request of 

the Administrator. Section 121.383(c) is 

revised to permit a certificate holder to 

obtain approval to provide a temporary 

document verifying a flightcrew 

member’s airman certificate and 

medical certificate privileges under an 

approved certificate verification plan set 

forth in the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications. 

In part 135, operating requirements: 

Commuter and on demand operations 

and rules governing persons on board 

such aircraft, § 135.95 is revised to 

permit a certificate holder to obtain 

approval to provide a temporary 

document verifying a flightcrew 

member’s airman certificate and 

medical certificate privileges under an 

approved certificate verification plan set 

forth in the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications. 

Section 135.99 is revised to add 

paragraph (c) to permit a certificate 

holder conducting part 135 operations 

to receive approval of an SIC PDP via 

operations specifications (Ops Specs) in 

order to allow their pilots to log time as 

SICs in an operation that does not 

require an SIC by type certification of 

the aircraft or the regulations under 

which the flight is being conducted. The 

paragraph includes requirements related 

to the certificate holder, aircraft, and 

pilots involved. Section 135.99(d) states 

that certificate holders who have been 

approved to deviate from the 

requirements in § 135.21(a), 

§ 135.341(a), or § 119.69(a) are not 

permitted to obtain approval to conduct 

an SIC PDP. 

Section 135.245 is revised to remove 

the reference to part 61 in § 135.245(a) 

and move the current instrument 

experience requirements in § 61.57(c) 

and (d) to new § 135.245(c) and (d). 

In part 141, pilot schools, § 141.5(d) is 

revised to add an end-of-course test for 

a special curricula course approved 

under § 141.57 to the list of activities a 

pilot school may use for the FAA to 

issue or renew a pilot school certificate. 

Appendix D to part 141, commercial 

pilot certification course, is revised to 

allow commercial pilot certification 

courses to reflect the relief in 

§ 61.129(a)(3)(ii) that permits a pilot 

seeking a commercial pilot certificate 

with an airplane single engine class 

rating to complete the 10 hours of 

training in one, or a combination of, a 

TAA, a complex airplane, or a turbinepowered airplane. 

Appendix I to part 141, additional 

aircraft category and/or class rating 

course, section 4, paragraph (k)(2) is 

revised by redesignating the second 

paragraph (k)(2)(iv) as paragraph 

(k)(2)(v). 

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866, and 

Executive Order 13563, direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

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

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this rule. We 

suggest readers seeking greater detail 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined that this final rule: (1) 

Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is 

not an economically ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as defined in section 

3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will not result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, because this rule provides 

modest cost savings without imposing 

significant costs; (5) will not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States; and (6) 

will not impose an unfunded mandate 

on state, local, or tribal governments, or 

on the private sector by exceeding the 

threshold identified above. These 

analyses are summarized below, and a 

full discussion of the benefits and costs 

is provided in the regulatory evaluation 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Who is potentially affected by this rule? 

This final rule will provide regulatory 

relief and benefits to pilots, student 

pilots, flight instructors, military pilots 

seeking civilian ratings, and pilot 

schools. 

Assumptions 

1. Analysis Time Period—5 Years 

2. Discount Rates—3% and 7% 

3. Analysis Base Dollar Year—2016 

Summary of Cost Savings 

The amendments in this final rule 

reduce or relieve existing burdens on 

the general aviation community and 

part 135 operators. Several of these 

changes result from comments from the 

general aviation community through 

petitions for rulemaking, industry/ 

agency meetings, and requests for legal 

interpretation. The changes include: 

reduction in time and flexibilities in the 

use of ATDs, FTDs, and FFSs; expanded 

opportunities for pilots in part 135 

operations to log flight time; allowed 

alternatives to the complex airplane 

requirement for commercial pilot 

training; and, an allowance for pilots to 

credit some of their sport pilot training 

toward a higher certificate. This final 

rule does not result in additional costs. 

The present value total cost savings 

over the 5-year period of analysis is 

about $93.1 million with an annualized 

cost savings of about $22.7 million at a 

7% discount rate. The following table 

summarizes unquantified and 

monetized cost savings over the 5-year 

period of analysis. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30273 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RULE PROVISIONS

Provision/area of regulatory relief 

Total 5-year cost savings 

(millions of $2016 dollars) * 

2016$ PV at 3% PV at 7% 

Allow a pilot to accomplish instrument recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD without 

an instructor present ................................................................................................................ $12.5 $11.4 $10.3 

Reduction in interval and time for pilots using ATDs .................................................................. 83.1 76.1 68.2 

Allowance to use less expensive basic airplanes for tests instead of more expensive complex 

airplanes ................................................................................................................................... 3.1 2.8 2.6 

Credit for training obtained as a sport pilot * ............................................................................... 14.0 13.3 12.3 

5-Year Total .......................................................................................................................... 113.5 104.0 93.1 

Provisions With Unquantified Minimal Cost Savings 

Second in Command for part 135 operations. 

Instrument recency experience for SICs serving in Part 135 operations. 

Flight instructors with instrument ratings only. 

Sport pilot flight instructor training privilege. 

Include special curricula courses in renewal of pilot school certificate. 

Temporary validation of flightcrew members’ certificates. 

Military competence for flight instructors. 

Restricted category aircraft training and testing allowances. 

Single pilot operations of former military airplanes and other airplanes with special airworthiness certificates. 

* Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

The following table summarizes 

annualized cost savings at a 7% 

discount rate (annualized estaimtes at a 

3% discount rate are almost the same in 

this analysis). The reduction in interval 

and time for pilots using ATDs 

comprises about 75% of the savings of 

this final rule. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS * 

Provision/area of regulatory relief 

Annualized cost 

savings at 7% 

($M) 

Allow a pilot to accomplish instrument recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD without an instructor present .................. $2.5 

Reduction in interval and time for pilots using ATDs .................................................................................................................... 16.6 

Allowance to use TAAs for training and less expensive basic airplanes for tests instead of more expensive complex airplanes ......................................................................................................................................................................................... .6 

Credit for training obtained as a sport pilot ................................................................................................................................... 3.0 

Total ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 22.7 

* Estimates may total due to rounding. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

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

principle of regulatory issuance that 

agencies shall endeavor, consistent with 

the objectives of the rule and of 

applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and 

informational requirements to the scale 

of the businesses, organizations, and 

governmental jurisdictions subject to 

regulation. To achieve this principle, 

agencies are required to solicit and 

consider flexible regulatory proposals 

and to explain the rationale for their 

actions to assure that such proposals are 

given serious consideration.’’ The RFA 

covers a wide range of small entities, 

including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

Agencies must perform a review to 

determine whether a rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. If 

the agency determines that it will, the 

agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis as described in the 

RFA. 

However, if an agency determines that 

a rule is not expected to have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 

the head of the agency may so certify 

and a regulatory flexibility analysis is 

not required. The certification must 

include a statement providing the 

factual basis for this determination, and 

the reasoning should be clear. 

Most of the parties affected by this 

final rule will be small businesses such 

as flight instructors, aviation schools, 

fixed base operators, and small part 135 

air carriers. There are over 1,000 part 

135 air carriers alone. The general lack 

of publicly available financial 

information from these small businesses 

precludes a financial analysis of these 

small businesses. 

This final rule will affect a substantial 

number of small entities. However, this 

final rule will not impose a significant 

impact on those entities because this 

rule provides modest cost savings 

without imposing significant costs. 

Therefore, as provided in section 

605(b), the head of the FAA certifies 

that this final rule will not result in a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, as 

it imposes no new costs. 

C. International Trade Impact 

Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30274 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

158The FAA notes that for one information 

collection, 2120–0593: Certification: Air Carriers 

and Commercial Operators, the FAA provided 

estimates of the number of respondents and the 

total burden. Therefore, the FAA provided adequate 

notice and an opportunity for comment regarding 

the revisions to information collection 2120–0593 

in the NPRM. 81 FR 29749–52. The FAA further 

notes that this information collection was submitted 

to OMB during the comment period for the NPRM. 

OMB filed comment and continued the information 

collection on January 2, 2017. 

159Agency Information Collection Activities: 

Requests for Comments; Clearance of Renewed 

Approval of Information Collection: Pilot SchoolsFAR 141, 83 FR 27820 (Jun. 14, 2018); Agency 

Information Collection Activities: Requests for 

Comments; Clearance of Renewed Approval of 

Information Collection: Certification: Pilots, Flight 

Instructors, and Ground Instructors, 83 FR 27821 

(Jun. 14, 2018); Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of a 

Revision to an Approval of an Existing Information 

Collection: Operating Requirements: Commuter and 

On-Demand Operation, 83 FR 27822 (Jun. 14, 2018). 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such as 

the protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. 

The FAA has assessed the potential 

effect of this final rule and determined 

that it will have only a domestic impact 

and therefore would not create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 

requires each Federal agency to prepare 

a written statement assessing the effects 

of any Federal mandate in a proposed or 

final agency rule that may result in an 

expenditure of $100 million or more (in 

1995 dollars) in any one year by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector; such 

a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently 

uses an inflation-adjusted value of 

$155.0 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This final rule does not contain such 

a mandate. Therefore, the requirements 

of Title II of the Act do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the 

FAA consider the impact of paperwork 

and other information collection 

burdens imposed on the public. 

According to the 1995 amendments to 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, (5 CFR 

1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not 

collect or sponsor the collection of 

information, nor may it impose an 

information collection requirement 

unless it displays a currently valid 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control number. 

In the proposed rule the FAA 

identified three provisions with PRA 

implications that will require amended 

OMB supporting statements: 

• Instrument recency experience 

requirements (information collection 

2120–0021), 

• Second in command for part 135 

operations (information collection 

2120–0021, 2120–0593, 2120–0039), 

• Include special curricula courses in 

renewal of pilot school certificate 

(information collection 2120–0009). 

The FAA did not receive any 

comments regarding its proposed 

revision to any of the listed information 

collections. However, as the FAA was 

developing this final rule, it recognized 

that it had not provided an opportunity 

for meaningful comment regarding the 

proposed revisions to information 

collections 2120–0021, 2120–0039 and 

2120–0009.158 While the FAA had 

described the changes in burden it did 

not provide estimates of the total 

number of respondents affected by some 

of the changes. To ensure transparency 

and a meaningful opportunity for 

comment, the FAA published three 

notices seeking specific comment 

regarding the revisions being made to 

each of these information collections as 

part of this final rule.159 The revisions 

to these information collections will 

follow the notice and comment 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and will be submitted to 

OMB for review and approval. 

The FAA notes that the effective dates 

of the provisions of this final rule with 

information collection revisions have 

been adjusted from the effective dates 

that were proposed to address the 

Paperwork Reduction Act requirements 

for notice and OMB approval. 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified the following 

differences with these proposed 

regulations. 

The FAA notes that, under 

§ 61.159(c), pilots are permitted to log 

second in command flight time in part 

135 operations when a second pilot is 

not required. ICAO standards do not 

recognize the crediting of flight time 

when a pilot is not required by the 

aircraft certification or the operation 

under which the flight is being 

conducted. Accordingly, all pilots who 

log flight time under this provision and 

apply for an ATP certificate would have 

a limitation on the certificate indicating 

that the pilot does not meet the PIC 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

ICAO. This limitation may be removed 

when the pilot presents satisfactory 

evidence that he or she has met the 

ICAO standards. 

Additionally, the FAA is allowing 

part 119 certificate holders conducting 

operations under parts 121 and 135 and 

program managers conducting 

operations under part 91 subpart K to 

issue temporary verification documents 

to flightcrew members who do not have 

their airman certificates or medical 

certificates in their personal possession 

for a particular flight. A temporary 

verification document may be used for 

a period not to exceed 72 hours. Article 

29 of the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation requires that every 

aircraft engaged in international 

navigation shall carry ‘‘the appropriate 

licenses for each member of the crew.’’ 

Accordingly, the FAA is limiting the use 

of temporary verification documents to 

flights conducted entirely within the 

United States. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 5–6.6f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

VIII. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30275 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, and, 

therefore, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes 

international regulatory cooperation to 

meet shared challenges involving 

health, safety, labor, security, 

environmental, and other issues and to 

reduce, eliminate, or prevent 

unnecessary differences in regulatory 

requirements. The FAA has analyzed 

this action under the policies and 

agency responsibilities of Executive 

Order 13609, and has determined that 

this action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This final rule is considered an E.O. 

13771 deregulatory action. Details on 

the estimated cost savings of this final 

rule can be found in the rule’s economic 

analysis. 

IX. Additional Information 

A. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

internet by— 

• Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

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

• Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

• Accessing the Government 

Publishing Office’s web page at http:// 

www.fdsys.gov. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request to the Federal 

Aviation Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or 

by calling (202) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced above. 

B. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 1 

Air transportation. 

14 CFR Part 60 

Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 61 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, 

Teachers. 

14 CFR Part 63 

Aircraft, Airman, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 65 

Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, 

Airmen, Aviation safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, 

Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 135 

Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety. 

14 CFR Part 141 

Airmen, Educational facilities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Schools. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 1—DEFINITIONS AND 

ABBREVIATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44701. 

■ 2. In § 1.1, revise the definition of 

‘‘Flight simulation training device’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 1.1 General definitions. 

* * * * * 

Flight simulation training device 

(FSTD) means a full flight simulator or 

a flight training device. 

* * * * * 

PART 60—FLIGHT SIMULATION 

TRAINING DEVICE INITIAL AND 

CONTINUING QUALIFICATION AND 

USE 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

and 44701; Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 

(49 U.S.C. 44701 note). 

■ 4. In appendix A, revise paragraph 

1.d.(27) to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 60—Qualification 

Performance Standards for Airplane 

Full Flight Simulators 

* * * * * 

1. * * * 

d. * * * 

(27) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the 

Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type 

Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and 

Instrument Ratings. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. In appendix B, revise paragraph 

1.d.(26) to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Part 60—Qualification 

Performance Standards for Airplane 

Flight Training Devices 

* * * * * 

1. * * * 

d. * * * 

(26) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the 

Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type 

Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and 

Instrument Ratings. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. In appendix C, revise paragraph 

1.d.(25) to read as follows: 

Appendix C to Part 60—Qualification 

Performance Standards for Helicopter 

Full Flight Simulators 

* * * * * 

1. * * * 

d. * * * 

(25) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the 

Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type 

Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and 

Instrument Ratings. 

* * * * * 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30276 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 7. In appendix D, revise paragraph 

1.d.(28) to read as follows: 

Appendix D to Part 60—Qualification 

Performance Standards for Helicopter 

Flight Training Devices 

* * * * * 

1. * * * 

d. * * * 

(28) FAA Airman Testing Standards for the 

Airline Transport Pilot Certificate, Type 

Ratings, Commercial Pilot Certificate, and 

Instrument Ratings. 

* * * * * 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

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

44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 44729, 

44903, 45102–45103, 45301–45302; Sec. 

2307 Pub. L. 114–190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 

U.S.C. 44703 note). 

■ 9. Amend § 61.1(b) as follows: 

■ a. Add a definition of ‘‘Aviation 

training device’’ in alphabetical order. 

■ b. Revise the definition of ‘‘Pilot 

time;’’ and, 

■ c. Add a definition of ‘‘Technically 

advanced airplane’’ in alphabetical 

order. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 61.1 Applicability and definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Aviation training device means a 

training device, other than a full flight 

simulator or flight training device, that 

has been evaluated, qualified, and 

approved by the Administrator. 

* * * * * 

Pilot time means that time in which 

a person— 

(i) Serves as a required pilot flight 

crewmember; 

(ii) Receives training from an 

authorized instructor in an aircraft, full 

flight simulator, flight training device, 

or aviation training device; or 

(iii) Gives training as an authorized 

instructor in an aircraft, full flight 

simulator, flight training device, or 

aviation training device. 

* * * * * 

Technically advanced airplane (TAA) 

means an airplane equipped with an 

electronically advanced avionics 

system. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Effective November 26, 2018, in 

§ 61.1(b), amend the definition of ‘‘Pilot 

time’’ by removing the word ‘‘or’’ at the 

end of paragraph (ii), revising paragraph 

(iii), and adding paragraph (iv) to read 

as follows: 

§ 61.1 Applicability and definitions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

Pilot time * * * 

(iii) Gives training as an authorized 

instructor in an aircraft, full flight 

simulator, flight training device, or 

aviation training device; or 

(iv) Serves as second in command in 

operations conducted in accordance 

with § 135.99(c) of this chapter when a 

second pilot is not required under the 

type certification of the aircraft or the 

regulations under which the flight is 

being conducted, provided the 

requirements in § 61.159(c) are satisfied. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Effective December 24, 2018, in 

§ 61.3, revise paragraph (a)(1)(iv), 

redesignate paragraph (a)(1)(v) as 

paragraph (a)(1)(vii), add paragraphs 

(a)(1)(v) and (vi), and revise paragraph 

(l) introductory text to read as follows: 

§ 61.3 Requirement for certificates, 

ratings, and authorizations. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iv) A document conveying temporary 

authority to exercise certificate 

privileges issued by the Airmen 

Certification Branch under § 61.29(e); 

(v) When engaged in a flight operation 

within the United States for a part 119 

certificate holder authorized to conduct 

operations under part 121 or 135 of this 

chapter, a temporary document 

provided by that certificate holder 

under an approved certificate 

verification plan; 

(vi) When engaged in a flight 

operation within the United States for a 

fractional ownership program manager 

authorized to conduct operations under 

part 91, subpart K, of this chapter, a 

temporary document provided by that 

program manager under an approved 

certificate verification plan; or 

* * * * * 

(l) Inspection of certificate. Each 

person who holds an airman certificate, 

temporary document in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(1)(v) or (vi) of this section, 

medical certificate, documents 

establishing alternative medical 

qualification under part 68 of this 

chapter, authorization, or license 

required by this part must present it and 

their photo identification as described 

in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for 

inspection upon a request from: 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 61.31 as follows: 

■ a. Effective July 27, 2018, in 

paragraphs (e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (g)(2) and 

(3), and (h)(1), remove the words ‘‘flight 

simulator’’ and add in their place the 

words ‘‘full flight simulator’’; and 

■ b. Effective August 27, 2018, revise 

paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 61.31 Type rating requirements, 

additional training, and authorization 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) The training and endorsement 

required by paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section is not required if— 

(i) The person has logged flight time 

as pilot in command of a complex 

airplane, or in a full flight simulator or 

flight training device that is 

representative of a complex airplane 

prior to August 4, 1997; or 

(ii) The person has received ground 

and flight training under an approved 

training program and has satisfactorily 

completed a competency check under 

§ 135.293 of this chapter in a complex 

airplane, or in a full flight simulator or 

flight training device that is 

representative of a complex airplane 

which must be documented in the 

pilot’s logbook or training record. 

(f) * * * 

(2) The training and endorsement 

required by paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section is not required if— 

(i) The person has logged flight time 

as pilot in command of a highperformance airplane, or in a full flight 

simulator or flight training device that is 

representative of a high-performance 

airplane prior to August 4, 1997; or 

(ii) The person has received ground 

and flight training under an approved 

training program and has satisfactorily 

completed a competency check under 

§ 135.293 of this chapter in a high 

performance airplane, or in a full flight 

simulator or flight training device that is 

representative of a high performance 

airplane which must be documented in 

the pilot’s logbook or training record. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Effective November 26, 2018, in 

§ 61.39, revise paragraph (a)(3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 61.39 Prerequisites for practical tests. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Have satisfactorily accomplished 

the required training and obtained the 

aeronautical experience prescribed by 

this part for the certificate or rating 

sought, and if applying for the practical 

test with flight time accomplished 

under § 61.159(c), present a copy of the 

records required by § 135.63(a)(4)(vi) 

and (x) of this chapter; 

* * * * * 

■ 14. In § 61.43, revise paragraph (a)(1) 

to read as follows: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30277 

§ 61.43 Practical tests: General 

procedures. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Performing the tasks specified in 

the areas of operation for the airman 

certificate or rating sought; 

* * * * * 

■ 15. Amend § 61.51 as follows: 

■ a. Effective July 27, 2018, in 

paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv), (b)(2)(v), 

(b)(3)(iii) and (iv), (k)(1)(ii), and 

(k)(2)(ii), remove the words ‘‘flight 

simulator’’ and add in their place the 

words ‘‘full flight simulator’’; 

■ b. Effective November 26, 2018, revise 

paragraph (e)(1)(i); 

■ c. Effective November 26, 2018, add 

paragraph (e)(5); 

■ d. Effective November 26, 2018, revise 

paragraphs (f)(1) and (2); 

■ e. Effective November 26, 2018, add 

paragraph (f)(3); 

■ f. Effective July 27, 2018, revise 

paragraph (g)(4); 

■ g. Effective July 27, 2018, add 

paragraph (g)(5); and 

■ h. Effective July 27, 2018, revise 

paragraph (h)(1). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 61.51 Pilot logbooks. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Except when logging flight time 

under § 61.159(c), when the pilot is the 

sole manipulator of the controls of an 

aircraft for which the pilot is rated, or 

has sport pilot privileges for that 

category and class of aircraft, if the 

aircraft class rating is appropriate; 

* * * * * 

(5) A commercial pilot or airline 

transport pilot may log all flight time 

while acting as pilot in command of an 

operation in accordance with § 135.99(c) 

of this chapter if the flight is conducted 

in accordance with an approved secondin-command professional development 

program that meets the requirements of 

§ 135.99(c) of this chapter. 

(f) * * * 

(1) Is qualified in accordance with the 

second-in-command requirements of 

§ 61.55, and occupies a crewmember 

station in an aircraft that requires more 

than one pilot by the aircraft’s type 

certificate; 

(2) Holds the appropriate category, 

class, and instrument rating (if an 

instrument rating is required for the 

flight) for the aircraft being flown, and 

more than one pilot is required under 

the type certification of the aircraft or 

the regulations under which the flight is 

being conducted; or 

(3) Serves as second in command in 

operations conducted in accordance 

with § 135.99(c) of this chapter when a 

second pilot is not required under the 

type certification of the aircraft or the 

regulations under which the flight is 

being conducted, provided the 

requirements in § 61.159(c) are satisfied. 

(g) * * * 

(4) A person may use time in a full 

flight simulator, flight training device, 

or aviation training device for acquiring 

instrument aeronautical experience for a 

pilot certificate or rating provided an 

authorized instructor is present to 

observe that time and signs the person’s 

logbook or training record to verify the 

time and the content of the training 

session. 

(5) A person may use time in a full 

flight simulator, flight training device, 

or aviation training device for satisfying 

instrument recency experience 

requirements provided a logbook or 

training record is maintained to specify 

the training device, time, and the 

content. 

(h) Logging training time. (1) A person 

may log training time when that person 

receives training from an authorized 

instructor in an aircraft, full flight 

simulator, flight training device, or 

aviation training device. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Amend § 61.57 as follows: 

■ a. Effective July 27, 2018, in 

paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(2), (d)(1)(ii), 

(e)(4)(ii)(D), and (g) introductory text, 

remove the words ‘‘flight simulator’’ 

and add in their place the words ‘‘full 

flight simulator’’; 

■ b. Effective July 27, 2018, in paragraph 

(e)(4)(ii)(D), remove the words ‘‘flight 

simulator’s’’ and add in their place the 

words ‘‘full flight simulator’s’’; 

■ c. Effective November 26, 2018, revise 

paragraph (c)(2), remove paragraphs 

(c)(3) through (5), and redesignate 

paragraph (c)(6) as paragraph (c)(3); 

■ d. Effective July 27, 2018, redesignate 

paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) as paragraphs 

(d)(2) and (3), redesignate the 

introductory text of paragraph (d) as 

paragraph (d)(1), and revise newly 

redesignated paragraph (d)(1). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in 

command. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Use of a full flight simulator, flight 

training device, or aviation training 

device for maintaining instrument 

experience. A pilot may accomplish the 

requirements in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section in a full flight simulator, flight 

training device, or aviation training 

device provided the device represents 

the category of aircraft for the 

instrument rating privileges to be 

maintained and the pilot performs the 

tasks and iterations in simulated 

instrument conditions. A person may 

complete the instrument experience in 

any combination of an aircraft, full 

flight simulator, flight training device, 

or aviation training device. 

* * * * * 

(d) Instrument proficiency check. (1) 

Except as provided in paragraph (e) of 

this section, a person who has failed to 

meet the instrument experience 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section for more than six calendar 

months may reestablish instrument 

currency only by completing an 

instrument proficiency check. The 

instrument proficiency check must 

consist of at least the following areas of 

operation: 

(i) Air traffic control clearances and 

procedures; 

(ii) Flight by reference to instruments; 

(iii) Navigation systems; 

(iv) Instrument approach procedures; 

(v) Emergency operations; and 

(vi) Postflight procedures. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Revise § 61.99 to read as follows: 

§ 61.99 Aeronautical experience. 

(a) A person who applies for a 

recreational pilot certificate must 

receive and log at least 30 hours of flight 

time that includes at least— 

(1) 15 hours of flight training from an 

authorized instructor on the areas of 

operation listed in § 61.98 that consists 

of at least: 

(i) Except as provided in § 61.100, 2 

hours of flight training en route to an 

airport that is located more than 25 

nautical miles from the airport where 

the applicant normally trains, which 

includes at least three takeoffs and three 

landings at the airport located more 

than 25 nautical miles from the airport 

where the applicant normally trains; 

and 

(ii) Three hours of flight training with 

an authorized instructor in the aircraft 

for the rating sought in preparation for 

the practical test within the preceding 2 

calendar months from the month of the 

test. 

(2) Three hours of solo flying in the 

aircraft for the rating sought, on the 

areas of operation listed in § 61.98 that 

apply to the aircraft category and class 

rating sought. 

(b) The holder of a sport pilot 

certificate may credit flight training 

received from a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating toward the 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

this section if the following conditions 

are met: 

(1) The flight training was 

accomplished in the same category and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30278 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

class of aircraft for which the rating is 

sought; 

(2) The flight instructor with a sport 

pilot rating was authorized to provide 

the flight training; and 

(3) The flight training included 

training on areas of operation that are 

required for both a sport pilot certificate 

and a recreational pilot certificate. 

■ 18. In § 61.109, amend paragraph (k) 

by removing the words ‘‘flight 

simulator’’ and adding in their place the 

words ‘‘full flight simulator’’ and add 

paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 61.109 Aeronautical experience. 

* * * * * 

(l) Permitted credit for flight training 

received from a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating. The holder of a sport 

pilot certificate may credit flight 

training received from a flight instructor 

with a sport pilot rating toward the 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

this section if the following conditions 

are met: 

(1) The flight training was 

accomplished in the same category and 

class of aircraft for which the rating is 

sought; 

(2) The flight instructor with a sport 

pilot rating was authorized to provide 

the flight training; and 

(3) The flight training included 

either— 

(i) Training on areas of operation that 

are required for both a sport pilot 

certificate and a private pilot certificate; 

or 

(ii) For airplanes with a VH greater 

than 87 knots CAS, training on the 

control and maneuvering of an airplane 

solely by reference to the flight 

instruments, including straight and 

level flight, turns, descents, climbs, use 

of radio aids, and ATC directives, 

provided the training was received from 

a flight instructor with a sport pilot 

rating who holds an endorsement 

required by § 61.412(c). 

■ 19. In § 61.129: 

■ a. Effective August 27, 2018, revise 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii) and (b)(3)(ii); 

■ b. Effective July 27, 2018, in 

paragraphs (c)(3)(i), (d) introductory 

text, (d)(3)(i), and (i), remove the words 

‘‘flight simulator’’ and add in their place 

the words ‘‘full flight simulator’’; and 

■ c. Effective August 27, 2018, add 

paragraph (j). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 61.129 Aeronautical experience. 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) 10 hours of training in a complex 

airplane, a turbine-powered airplane, or 

a technically advanced airplane (TAA) 

that meets the requirements of 

paragraph (j) of this section, or any 

combination thereof. The airplane must 

be appropriate to land or sea for the 

rating sought; 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) 10 hours of training in a 

multiengine complex or turbinepowered airplane; or for an applicant 

seeking a multiengine seaplane rating, 

10 hours of training in a multiengine 

seaplane that has flaps and a 

controllable pitch propeller, including 

seaplanes equipped with an engine 

control system consisting of a digital 

computer and associated accessories for 

controlling the engine and propeller, 

such as a full authority digital engine 

control; 

* * * * * 

(j) Technically advanced airplane. 

Unless otherwise authorized by the 

Administrator, a technically advanced 

airplane must be equipped with an 

electronically advanced avionics system 

that includes the following installed 

components: 

(1) An electronic Primary Flight 

Display (PFD) that includes, at a 

minimum, an airspeed indicator, turn 

coordinator, attitude indicator, heading 

indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed 

indicator; 

(2) An electronic Multifunction 

Display (MFD) that includes, at a 

minimum, a moving map using Global 

Positioning System (GPS) navigation 

with the aircraft position displayed; 

(3) A two axis autopilot integrated 

with the navigation and heading 

guidance system; and 

(4) The display elements described in 

paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section 

must be continuously visible. 

■ 20. In § 61.159: 

■ a. Effective July 27, 2018, amend 

paragraph (a)(4) by removing the words 

‘‘flight simulator’’ and adding in their 

place the words ‘‘full flight simulator’’; 

and 

■ b. Effective November 26, 2018, revise 

the introductory text of paragraphs (a) 

and (a)(5), revise paragraph (c), 

redesignate paragraphs (d) and (e) as 

paragraphs (e) and (f), add new 

paragraph (d), and revise newly 

redesignated paragraphs (e) and (f). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane 

category rating. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs 

(b), (c), and (d) of this section, a person 

who is applying for an airline transport 

pilot certificate with an airplane 

category and class rating must have at 

least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot 

that includes at least: 

* * * * * 

(5) 250 hours of flight time in an 

airplane as a pilot in command, or when 

serving as a required second in 

command flightcrew member 

performing the duties of pilot in 

command while under the supervision 

of a pilot in command, or any 

combination thereof, which includes at 

least— 

* * * * * 

(c) A commercial pilot may log 

second-in-command pilot time toward 

the aeronautical experience 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section and the aeronautical experience 

requirements in § 61.160, provided the 

pilot is employed by a part 119 

certificate holder authorized to conduct 

operations under part 135 of this 

chapter and the second-in-command 

pilot time is obtained in operations 

conducted for the certificate holder 

under part 91 or 135 of this chapter 

when a second pilot is not required 

under the type certification of the 

aircraft or the regulations under which 

the flight is being conducted, and the 

following requirements are met— 

(1) The experience must be 

accomplished as part of a second-incommand professional development 

program approved by the Administrator 

under § 135.99 of this chapter; 

(2) The flight operation must be 

conducted in accordance with the 

certificate holder’s operations 

specification for the second-incommand professional development 

program; 

(3) The pilot in command of the 

operation must certify in the pilot’s 

logbook that the second-in-command 

pilot time was accomplished under this 

section; and 

(4) The pilot time may not be logged 

as pilot-in-command time even when 

the pilot is the sole manipulator of the 

controls and may not be used to meet 

the aeronautical experience 

requirements in paragraph (a)(5) of this 

section. 

(d) A commercial pilot may log the 

following flight engineer flight time 

toward the 1,500 hours of total time as 

a pilot required by paragraph (a) of this 

section and the total time as a pilot 

required by § 61.160: 

(1) Flight-engineer time, provided the 

time— 

(i) Is acquired in an airplane required 

to have a flight engineer by the 

airplane’s flight manual or type 

certificate; 

(ii) Is acquired while engaged in 

operations under part 121 of this 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30279 

chapter for which a flight engineer is 

required; 

(iii) Is acquired while the person is 

participating in a pilot training program 

approved under part 121 of this chapter; 

and 

(iv) Does not exceed more than 1 hour 

for each 3 hours of flight engineer flight 

time for a total credited time of no more 

than 500 hours. 

(2) Flight-engineer time, provided the 

flight time— 

(i) Is acquired as a U.S. Armed Forces’ 

flight engineer crewmember in an 

airplane that requires a flight engineer 

crewmember by the flight manual; 

(ii) Is acquired while the person is 

participating in a flight engineer 

crewmember training program for the 

U.S. Armed Forces; and 

(iii) Does not exceed 1 hour for each 

3 hours of flight engineer flight time for 

a total credited time of no more than 

500 hours. 

(e) An applicant who credits time 

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

section is issued an airline transport 

pilot certificate with the limitation, 

‘‘Holder does not meet the pilot in 

command aeronautical experience 

requirements of ICAO,’’ as prescribed 

under Article 39 of the Convention on 

International Civil Aviation. 

(f) An applicant is entitled to an 

airline transport pilot certificate without 

the ICAO limitation specified under 

paragraph (e) of this section when the 

applicant presents satisfactory evidence 

of having met the ICAO requirements 

under paragraph (e) of this section and 

otherwise meets the aeronautical 

experience requirements of this section. 

■ 21. In § 61.161: 

■ a. Effective July 27, 2018, amend 

paragraph (b) by removing the words 

‘‘flight simulator’’ and adding in their 

place the words ‘‘full flight simulator’’; 

and 

■ b. Effective November 26, 2018, add 

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 61.161 Aeronautical experience: 

Rotorcraft category and helicopter class 

rating. 

* * * * * 

(c) Flight time logged under 

§ 61.159(c) may be counted toward the 

1,200 hours of total time as a pilot 

required by paragraph (a) of this section 

and the flight time requirements of 

paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (4) of this 

section, except for the specific 

helicopter flight time requirements. 

(d) An applicant who credits time 

under paragraph (c) of this section is 

issued an airline transport pilot 

certificate with the limitation, ‘‘Holder 

does not meet the pilot in command 

aeronautical experience requirements of 

ICAO,’’ as prescribed under Article 39 

of the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation. 

(e) An applicant is entitled to an 

airline transport pilot certificate without 

the ICAO limitation specified under 

paragraph (d) of this section when the 

applicant presents satisfactory evidence 

of having met the ICAO requirements 

under paragraph (d) of this section and 

otherwise meets the aeronautical 

experience requirements of this section. 

■ 22. In § 61.195, revise paragraphs (b), 

(c), and (e) and add paragraph (l) to read 

as follows: 

§ 61.195 Flight instructor limitations and 

qualifications. 

* * * * * 

(b) Aircraft ratings. Except as 

provided in paragraph (c) of this 

section, a flight instructor may not 

conduct flight training in any aircraft 

unless the flight instructor: 

(1) Holds a flight instructor certificate 

with the applicable category and class 

rating; 

(2) Holds a pilot certificate with the 

applicable category and class rating; and 

(3) Meets the requirements of 

paragraph (e) of this section, if 

applicable. 

(c) Instrument rating. A flight 

instructor may conduct instrument 

training for the issuance of an 

instrument rating, a type rating not 

limited to VFR, or the instrument 

training required for commercial pilot 

and airline transport pilot certificates if 

the following requirements are met: 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c)(2) of this section, the flight instructor 

must hold an instrument rating 

appropriate to the aircraft used for the 

instrument training on his or her flight 

instructor certificate, and— 

(i) Meet the requirements of paragraph 

(b) of this section; or 

(ii) Hold a commercial pilot certificate 

or airline transport pilot certificate with 

the appropriate category and class 

ratings for the aircraft in which the 

instrument training is conducted 

provided the pilot receiving instrument 

training holds a pilot certificate with 

category and class ratings appropriate to 

the aircraft in which the instrument 

training is being conducted. 

(2) If the flight instructor is 

conducting the instrument training in a 

multiengine airplane, the flight 

instructor must hold an instrument 

rating appropriate to the aircraft used 

for the instrument training on his or her 

flight instructor certificate and meet the 

requirements of paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(e) Training in an aircraft that 

requires a type rating. A flight instructor 

may not give flight instruction, 

including instrument training, in an 

aircraft that requires the pilot in 

command to hold a type rating unless 

the flight instructor holds a type rating 

for that aircraft on his or her pilot 

certificate. 

* * * * * 

(l) Training on control and 

maneuvering an aircraft solely by 

reference to the instruments. A flight 

instructor may conduct flight training 

on control and maneuvering an airplane 

solely by reference to the flight 

instruments, provided the flight 

instructor— 

(1) Holds a flight instructor certificate 

with the applicable category and class 

rating; or 

(2) Holds an instrument rating 

appropriate to the aircraft used for the 

training on his or her flight instructor 

certificate, and holds a commercial pilot 

certificate or airline transport pilot 

certificate with the appropriate category 

and class ratings for the aircraft in 

which the training is conducted 

provided the pilot receiving the training 

holds a pilot certificate with category 

and class ratings appropriate to the 

aircraft in which the training is being 

conducted. 

■ 23. Effective August 27, 2018, in 

§ 61.197, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and 

(c) to read as follows: 

§ 61.197 Renewal requirements for flight 

instructor certification. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) A record showing that, within the 

preceding 24 months from the month of 

application, the flight instructor passed 

an official U.S. Armed Forces military 

instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

proficiency check in an aircraft for 

which the military instructor already 

holds a rating or in an aircraft for an 

additional rating. 

* * * * * 

(c) The practical test required by 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be 

accomplished in a full flight simulator 

or flight training device if the test is 

accomplished pursuant to an approved 

course conducted by a training center 

certificated under part 142 of this 

chapter. 

■ 24. Effective August 27, 2018, in 

§ 61.199, add paragraphs (a)(3), (c) and 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 61.199 Reinstatement requirements of an 

expired flight instructor certificate. 

(a) * * * 

(3) For military instructor pilots, 

provide a record showing that, within 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30280 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

the preceding 6 calendar months from 

the date of application for 

reinstatement, the person— 

(i) Passed a U.S. Armed Forces 

instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

proficiency check; or 

(ii) Completed a U.S. Armed Forces’ 

instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

training course and received an 

additional aircraft rating qualification as 

a military instructor pilot or pilot 

examiner that is appropriate to the flight 

instructor rating sought. 

* * * * * 

(c) Certain military instructors and 

examiners. The holder of an expired 

flight instructor certificate issued prior 

to October 20, 2009, may apply for 

reinstatement of that certificate by 

presenting the following: 

(1) A record showing that, since the 

date the flight instructor certificate was 

issued, the person passed a U.S. Armed 

Forces instructor pilot or pilot examiner 

proficiency check for an additional 

military rating; and 

(2) A knowledge test report that 

shows the person passed a knowledge 

test on the aeronautical knowledge areas 

listed under § 61.185(a) appropriate to 

the flight instructor rating sought and 

the knowledge test was passed within 

the preceding 24 calendar months prior 

to the month of application. 

(d) Expiration date. The requirements 

of paragraph (c) of this section will 

expire on August 26, 2019. 

■ 25. Effective August 27, 2018, add 

§ 61.412 to read as follows: 

§ 61.412 Do I need additional training to 

provide instruction on control and 

maneuvering an airplane solely by 

reference to the instruments in a light-sport 

aircraft based on VH? 

To provide flight training under 

§ 61.93(e)(12) on control and 

maneuvering an airplane solely by 

reference to the flight instruments for 

the purpose of issuing a solo crosscountry endorsement under § 61.93(c)(1) 

to a student pilot seeking a sport pilot 

certificate, a flight instructor with a 

sport pilot rating must: 

(a) Hold an endorsement required by 

§ 61.327(b); 

(b) Receive and log a minimum of 1 

hour of ground training and 3 hours of 

flight training from an authorized 

instructor in an airplane with a VH

greater than 87 knots CAS or in a full 

flight simulator, flight training device, 

or aviation training device that 

replicates an airplane with a VH greater 

than 87 knots CAS; and 

(c) Receive a one-time endorsement in 

his or her logbook from an instructor 

authorized under subpart H of this part 

who certifies that the person is 

proficient in providing training on 

control and maneuvering solely by 

reference to the flight instruments in an 

airplane with a VH greater than 87 knots 

CAS. This flight training must include 

straight and level flight, turns, descents, 

climbs, use of radio navigation aids, and 

ATC directives. 

■ 26. Effective August 27, 2018, in 

§ 61.415, redesignate paragraphs (h) and 

(i) as paragraphs (i) and (j) and add 

paragraph (h) to read as follows: 

§ 61.415 What are the limits of a flight 

instructor certificate with a sport pilot 

rating? 

* * * * * 

(h) You may not provide training on 

the control and maneuvering of an 

aircraft solely by reference to the 

instruments in a light sport airplane 

with a Vh greater than 87 knots CAS 

unless you meet the requirements in 

§ 61.412. 

* * * * * 

PART 63—CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT 

CREWMEMBERS OTHER THAN 

PILOTS 

■ 27. The authority citation for part 63 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

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

45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 28. Effective December 24, 2018, 

revise § 63.3 to read as follows: 

§ 63.3 Certificates and ratings required. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(c) of this section, no person may act as 

a flight engineer of a civil aircraft of U.S. 

registry unless that person has in his or 

her physical possession or readily 

accessible in the aircraft: 

(1) A current flight engineer certificate 

with appropriate ratings issued to that 

person under this part; 

(2) A document conveying temporary 

authority to exercise certificate 

privileges issued by the Airman 

Certification Branch under § 63.16(f); or 

(3) When engaged in a flight operation 

within the United States for a part 119 

certificate holder authorized to conduct 

operations under part 121 of this 

chapter, a temporary document 

provided by that certificate holder 

under an approved certificate 

verification plan. 

(b) A person may act as a flight 

engineer of an aircraft only if that 

person holds a current second-class (or 

higher) medical certificate issued to that 

person under part 67 of this chapter, or 

other documentation acceptable to the 

FAA, that is in that person’s physical 

possession or readily accessible in the 

aircraft. 

(c) When the aircraft is operated 

within a foreign country, a current flight 

engineer certificate issued by the 

country in which the aircraft is 

operated, with evidence of current 

medical qualification for that certificate, 

may be used. Also, in the case of a flight 

engineer certificate issued under 

§ 63.42, evidence of current medical 

qualification accepted for the issue of 

that certificate is used in place of a 

medical certificate. 

(d) No person may act as a flight 

navigator of a civil aircraft of U.S. 

registry unless that person has in his or 

her physical possession a current flight 

navigator certificate issued to him or her 

under this part and a second-class (or 

higher) medical certificate issued to him 

or her under part 67 of this chapter 

within the preceding 12 months. 

However, when the aircraft is operated 

within a foreign country, a current flight 

navigator certificate issued by the 

country in which the aircraft is 

operated, with evidence of current 

medical qualification for that certificate, 

may be used. 

(e) Each person who holds a flight 

engineer or flight navigator certificate, 

medical certificate, or temporary 

document in accordance with paragraph 

(a)(3) of this section shall present it for 

inspection upon the request of the 

Administrator or an authorized 

representative of the National 

Transportation Safety Board, or of any 

Federal, State, or local law enforcement 

officer. 

■ 29. Effective December 24, 2018, 

revise § 63.16 to read as follows: 

§ 63.16 Change of name; replacement of 

lost or destroyed certificate. 

(a) An application for a change of 

name on a certificate issued under this 

part must be accompanied by the 

applicant’s current certificate and the 

marriage license, court order, or other 

document verifying the change. The 

documents are returned to the applicant 

after inspection. 

(b) A request for a replacement of a 

lost or destroyed airman certificate 

issued under this part must be made: 

(1) By letter to the Department of 

Transportation, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Airman Certification 

Branch, Post Office Box 25082, 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125 and must be 

accompanied by a check or money order 

for the appropriate fee payable to the 

FAA; or 

(2) In any other form and manner 

approved by the Administrator 

including a request to Airman Services 

at http://www.faa.gov, and must be 

accompanied by acceptable form of 

payment for the appropriate fee. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30281 

(c) A request for the replacement of a 

lost or destroyed medical certificate 

must be made: 

(1) By letter to the Department of 

Transportation, FAA, Aerospace 

Medical Certification Division, P.O. Box 

26200, Oklahoma City, OK 73125, and 

must be accompanied by a check or 

money order for the appropriate fee 

payable to the FAA; or 

(2) In any other manner and form 

approved by the Administrator and 

must be accompanied by acceptable 

form of payment for the appropriate fee. 

(d) A request for the replacement of a 

lost or destroyed knowledge test report 

must be made: 

(1) By letter to the Department of 

Transportation, FAA, Airmen 

Certification Branch, P.O. Box 25082, 

Oklahoma City, OK 73125, and must be 

accompanied by a check or money order 

for the appropriate fee payable to the 

FAA; or 

(2) In any other manner and form 

approved by the Administrator and 

must be accompanied by acceptable 

form of payment for the appropriate fee. 

(e) The letter requesting replacement 

of a lost or destroyed airman certificate, 

medical certificate, or knowledge test 

report must state: 

(1) The name of the person; 

(2) The permanent mailing address 

(including ZIP code), or if the 

permanent mailing address includes a 

post office box number, then the 

person’s current residential address; 

(3) The certificate holder’s date and 

place of birth; and 

(4) Any information regarding the— 

(i) Grade, number, and date of 

issuance of the airman certificate and 

ratings, if appropriate; 

(ii) Class of medical certificate, the 

place and date of the medical exam, 

name of the Airman Medical Examiner 

(AME), and the circumstances 

concerning the loss of the original 

medical certificate, as appropriate; and 

(iii) Date the knowledge test was 

taken, if appropriate. 

(f) A person who has lost an airman 

certificate, medical certificate, or 

knowledge test report may obtain in a 

form or manner approved by the 

Administrator, a document conveying 

temporary authority to exercise 

certificate privileges from the FAA 

Aeromedical Certification Branch or the 

Airman Certification Branch, as 

appropriate, and the— 

(1) Document may be carried as an 

airman certificate, medical certificate, or 

knowledge test report, as appropriate, 

for a period not to exceed 60 days 

pending the person’s receiving a 

duplicate under paragraph (b), (c), or (d) 

of this section, unless the person has 

been notified that the certificate has 

been suspended or revoked. 

(2) Request for such a document must 

include the date on which a duplicate 

certificate or knowledge test report was 

previously requested. 

PART 65—CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN 

OTHER THAN FLIGHT 

CREWMEMBERS 

■ 30. The authority citation for part 65 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

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

45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 31. Revise § 65.59 to read as follows: 

§ 65.59 Skill requirements. 

An applicant for an aircraft dispatcher 

certificate must pass a practical test 

given by the Administrator, with respect 

to any one type of large aircraft used in 

air carrier operations. To pass the 

practical test for an aircraft dispatcher 

certificate, the applicant must 

demonstrate skill in applying the areas 

of knowledge and topics specified in 

appendix A of this part to preflight and 

all phases of flight, including abnormal 

and emergency procedures. 

■ 32. Revise the introductory text of 

appendix A to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 65—Aircraft 

Dispatcher Courses 

Overview 

This appendix sets forth the areas of 

knowledge necessary to perform dispatcher 

functions. The items listed below indicate 

the minimum set of topics that must be 

covered in a training course for aircraft 

dispatcher certification. The order of 

coverage is at the discretion of the approved 

school. 

* * * * * 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 33. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 

40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 

44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 

44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 

46316, 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 

47528–47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114–190, 130 

Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 

and 29 of the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

■ 34. Effective August 27, 2018, in 

§ 91.109, revise paragraph (c)(1) to read 

as follows: 

§ 91.109 Flight instruction; Simulated 

instrument flight and certain flight tests. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) The other control seat is occupied 

by a safety pilot who possesses at least: 

(i) A private pilot certificate with 

category and class ratings appropriate to 

the aircraft being flown; or 

(ii) For purposes of providing training 

for a solo cross-country endorsement 

under § 61.93 of this chapter, a flight 

instructor certificate with an 

appropriate sport pilot rating and meets 

the requirements of § 61.412 of this 

chapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 35. Effective December 24, 2018, in 

§ 91.313, revise paragraphs (b), (c), and 

(d)(3) and (4) and add paragraphs (d)(5) 

and (h) to read as follows: 

§ 91.313 Restricted category civil aircraft: 

Operating limitations. 

* * * * * 

(b) For the purpose of paragraph (a) of 

this section, the following operations 

are considered necessary to accomplish 

the work activity directly associated 

with a special purpose operation: 

(1) Flights conducted for flight 

crewmember training in a special 

purpose operation for which the aircraft 

is certificated. 

(2) Flights conducted to satisfy 

proficiency check and recent flight 

experience requirements under part 61 

of this chapter provided the flight 

crewmember holds the appropriate 

category, class, and type ratings and is 

employed by the operator to perform the 

appropriate special purpose operation. 

(3) Flights conducted to relocate the 

aircraft for delivery, repositioning, or 

maintenance. 

(c) No person may operate a restricted 

category civil aircraft carrying persons 

or property for compensation or hire. 

For the purposes of this paragraph (c), 

a special purpose operation involving 

the carriage of persons or material 

necessary to accomplish that operation, 

such as crop dusting, seeding, spraying, 

and banner towing (including the 

carrying of required persons or material 

to the location of that operation), an 

operation for the purpose of providing 

flight crewmember training in a special 

purpose operation, and an operation 

conducted under the authority provided 

in paragraph (h) of this section are not 

considered to be the carriage of persons 

or property for compensation or hire. 

(d) * * * 

(3) Performs an essential function in 

connection with a special purpose 

operation for which the aircraft is 

certificated; 

(4) Is necessary to accomplish the 

work activity directly associated with 

that special purpose; or 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30282 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

(5) Is necessary to accomplish an 

operation under paragraph (h) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(h)(1) An operator may apply for 

deviation authority from the provisions 

of paragraph (a) of this section to 

conduct operations for the following 

purposes: 

(i) Flight training and the practical 

test for issuance of a type rating 

provided— 

(A) The pilot being trained and tested 

holds at least a commercial pilot 

certificate with the appropriate category 

and class ratings for the aircraft type; 

(B) The pilot receiving flight training 

is employed by the operator to perform 

a special purpose operation; and 

(C) The flight training is conducted by 

the operator who employs the pilot to 

perform a special purpose operation. 

(ii) Flights to designate an examiner 

or qualify an FAA inspector in the 

aircraft type and flights necessary to 

provide continuing oversight and 

evaluation of an examiner. 

(2) The FAA will issue this deviation 

authority as a letter of deviation 

authority. 

(3) The FAA may cancel or amend a 

letter of deviation authority at any time. 

(4) An applicant must submit a 

request for deviation authority in a form 

and manner acceptable to the 

Administrator at least 60 days before the 

date of intended operations. A request 

for deviation authority must contain a 

complete description of the proposed 

operation and justification that 

establishes a level of safety equivalent to 

that provided under the regulations for 

the deviation requested. 

■ 36. Revise § 91.531 to read as follows: 

§ 91.531 Second in command 

requirements. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, no person may 

operate the following airplanes without 

a pilot designated as second in 

command: 

(1) Any airplane that is type 

certificated for more than one required 

pilot. 

(2) Any large airplane. 

(3) Any commuter category airplane. 

(b) A person may operate the 

following airplanes without a pilot 

designated as second in command: 

(1) Any airplane certificated for 

operation with one pilot. 

(2) A large airplane or turbojetpowered multiengine airplane that 

holds a special airworthiness certificate, 

if: 

(i) The airplane was originally 

designed with only one pilot station; or 

(ii) The airplane was originally 

designed with more than one pilot 

station, but single pilot operations were 

permitted by the airplane flight manual 

or were otherwise permitted by a branch 

of the United States Armed Forces or 

the armed forces of a foreign contracting 

State to the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation. 

(c) No person may designate a pilot to 

serve as second in command, nor may 

any pilot serve as second in command, 

of an airplane required under this 

section to have two pilots unless that 

pilot meets the qualifications for second 

in command prescribed in § 61.55 of 

this chapter. 

■ 37. Effective December 24, 2018, in 

§ 91.1015, add paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 91.1015 Management specifications. 

* * * * * 

(h) A program manager may obtain 

approval to provide a temporary 

document verifying a flightcrew 

member’s airman certificate and 

medical certificate privileges under an 

approved certificate verification plan set 

forth in the program manager’s 

management specifications. A document 

provided by the program manager may 

be carried as an airman certificate or 

medical certificate on flights within the 

United States for up to 72 hours. 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

■ 38. The authority citation for part 121 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 

40113, 40119, 41706, 42301 preceding note 

added by Pub. L. 112–95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 

89, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709– 

44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44729, 

44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. 

2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112–95, 

126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note). 

■ 39. Effective December 24, 2018, in 

§ 121.383, revise paragraphs (a)(2) and 

(b) and add paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 121.383 Airman: Limitations on use of 

services. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Has in his or her possession while 

engaged in operations under this part— 

(i) Any required appropriate current 

airman and medical certificates; or 

(ii) A temporary document issued in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section; and 

* * * * * 

(b) Each airman covered by paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section shall present his or 

her certificates or temporary document 

for inspection upon request of the 

Administrator. 

(c) A certificate holder may obtain 

approval to provide a temporary 

document verifying a flightcrew 

member’s airman certificate and 

medical certificate privileges under an 

approved certificate verification plan set 

forth in the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications. A document 

provided by the certificate holder may 

be carried as an airman certificate or 

medical certificate on flights within the 

United States for up to 72 hours. 

* * * * * 

PART 135—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND 

ON DEMAND OPERATIONS AND 

RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON 

BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT 

■ 40. The authority citation for part 135 

is revised to read as follows: 

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

41706, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709, 44711– 

44713, 44715–44717, 44722, 44730, 45101– 

45105; Pub. L. 112–95, 126 Stat. 58 (49 U.S.C. 

44730). 

■ 41. Effective December 24, 2018, 

revise § 135.95 to read as follows: 

§ 135.95 Airmen: Limitations on use of 

services. 

(a) No certificate holder may use the 

services of any person as an airman 

unless the person performing those 

services— 

(1) Holds an appropriate and current 

airman certificate; and 

(2) Is qualified, under this chapter, for 

the operation for which the person is to 

be used. 

(b) A certificate holder may obtain 

approval to provide a temporary 

document verifying a flightcrew 

member’s airman certificate and 

medical certificate privileges under an 

approved certificate verification plan set 

forth in the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications. A document 

provided by the certificate holder may 

be carried as an airman certificate or 

medical certificate on flights within the 

United States for up to 72 hours. 

■ 42. Effective November 26, 2018, in 

§ 135.99, add paragraphs (c) and (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 135.99 Composition of flight crew. 

* * * * * 

(c) Except as provided in paragraph 

(d) of this section, a certificate holder 

authorized to conduct operations under 

instrument flight rules may receive 

authorization from the Administrator 

through its operations specifications to 

establish a second-in-command 

professional development program. As 

part of that program, a pilot employed 

by the certificate holder may log time as 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 30283 

second in command in operations 

conducted under this part and part 91 

of this chapter that do not require a 

second pilot by type certification of the 

aircraft or the regulation under which 

the flight is being conducted, provided 

the flight operation is conducted in 

accordance with the certificate holder’s 

operations specifications for second-incommand professional development 

program; and— 

(1) The certificate holder: 

(i) Maintains records for each 

assigned second in command consistent 

with the requirements in § 135.63; 

(ii) Provides a copy of the records 

required by § 135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) to 

the assigned second in command upon 

request and within a reasonable time; 

and 

(iii) Establishes and maintains a data 

collection and analysis process that will 

enable the certificate holder and the 

FAA to determine whether the secondin-command professional development 

program is accomplishing its objectives. 

(2) The aircraft is a multiengine 

airplane or a single-engine turbinepowered airplane. The aircraft must 

have an independent set of controls for 

a second pilot flightcrew member, 

which may not include a throwover 

control wheel. The aircraft must also 

have the following equipment and 

independent instrumentation for a 

second pilot: 

(i) An airspeed indicator; 

(ii) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for 

barometric pressure; 

(iii) Gyroscopic bank and pitch 

indicator; 

(iv) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator 

combined with an integral slip-skid 

indicator; 

(v) Gyroscopic direction indicator; 

(vi) For IFR operations, a vertical 

speed indicator; 

(vii) For IFR operations, course 

guidance for en route navigation and 

instrument approaches; and 

(viii) A microphone, transmit switch, 

and headphone or speaker. 

(3) The pilot assigned to serve as 

second in command satisfies the 

following requirements: 

(i) The second in command 

qualifications in § 135.245; 

(ii) The flight time and duty period 

limitations and rest requirements in 

subpart F of this part; 

(iii) The crewmember testing 

requirements for second in command in 

subpart G of this part; and 

(iv) The crewmember training 

requirements for second in command in 

subpart H of this part. 

(4) The pilot assigned to serve as pilot 

in command satisfies the following 

requirements: 

(i) Has been fully qualified to serve as 

a pilot in command for the certificate 

holder for at least the previous 6 

calendar months; and 

(ii) Has completed mentoring training, 

including techniques for reinforcing the 

highest standards of technical 

performance, airmanship and 

professionalism within the preceding 36 

calendar months. 

(d) The following certificate holders 

are not eligible to receive authorization 

for a second-in-command professional 

development program under paragraph 

(c) of this section: 

(1) A certificate holder that uses only 

one pilot in its operations; and 

(2) A certificate holder that has been 

approved to deviate from the 

requirements in § 135.21(a), 

§ 135.341(a), or § 119.69(a) of this 

chapter. 

■ 43. In § 135.245, revise paragraph (a) 

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

as follows. 

§ 135.245 Second in command 

qualifications. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, no certificate holder 

may use any person, nor may any 

person serve, as second in command of 

an aircraft unless that person holds at 

least a commercial pilot certificate with 

appropriate category and class ratings 

and an instrument rating. 

* * * * * 

(c) No certificate holder may use any 

person, nor may any person serve, as 

second in command under IFR unless 

that person meets the following 

instrument experience requirements: 

(1) Use of an airplane or helicopter for 

maintaining instrument experience. 

Within the 6 calendar months preceding 

the month of the flight, that person 

performed and logged at least the 

following tasks and iterations in-flight 

in an airplane or helicopter, as 

appropriate, in actual weather 

conditions, or under simulated 

instrument conditions using a viewlimiting device: 

(i) Six instrument approaches; 

(ii) Holding procedures and tasks; and 

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses 

through the use of navigational 

electronic systems. 

(2) Use of an FSTD for maintaining 

instrument experience. A person may 

accomplish the requirements in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section in an 

approved FSTD, or a combination of 

aircraft and FSTD, provided: 

(i) The FSTD represents the category 

of aircraft for the instrument rating 

privileges to be maintained; 

(ii) The person performs the tasks and 

iterations in simulated instrument 

conditions; and 

(iii) A flight instructor qualified under 

§ 135.338 or a check pilot qualified 

under § 135.337 observes the tasks and 

iterations and signs the person’s logbook 

or training record to verify the time and 

content of the session. 

(d) A second in command who has 

failed to meet the instrument experience 

requirements of paragraph (c) of this 

section for more than six calendar 

months must reestablish instrument 

recency under the supervision of a flight 

instructor qualified under § 135.338 or a 

check pilot qualified under § 135.337. 

To reestablish instrument recency, a 

second in command must complete at 

least the following areas of operation 

required for the instrument rating 

practical test in an aircraft or FSTD that 

represents the category of aircraft for the 

instrument experience requirements to 

be reestablished: 

(1) Air traffic control clearances and 

procedures; 

(2) Flight by reference to instruments; 

(3) Navigation systems; 

(4) Instrument approach procedures; 

(5) Emergency operations; and 

(6) Postflight procedures. 

PART 141—PILOT SCHOOLS 

■ 44. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

45103, 45301–45302. 

■ 45. Effective November 26, 2018, in 

§ 141.5, revise paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.5 Requirements for a pilot school 

certificate. 

* * * * * 

(d) Has established a pass rate of 80 

percent or higher on the first attempt for 

all: 

(1) Knowledge tests leading to a 

certificate or rating; 

(2) Practical tests leading to a 

certificate or rating; 

(3) End-of-course tests for an 

approved training course specified in 

appendix K of this part; and 

(4) End-of-course tests for special 

curricula courses approved under 

§ 141.57. 

* * * * * 

■ 46. Effective August 27, 2018, in 

appendix D to part 141, section 4: 

■ a. Revise paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and 

(b)(2)(ii); and 

■ b. Amend paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and 

(b)(4)(i) by removing the words ‘‘flight 

simulator’’ and adding in their place the 

words ‘‘full flight simulator’’. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2
30284 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

The revisions read as follows: 

Appendix D to Part 141—Commercial 

Pilot Certification Course 

* * * * * 

4. * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Ten hours of training in a complex 

airplane, a turbine-powered airplane, or a 

technically advanced airplane that meets the 

requirements of § 61.129(j) of this chapter, or 

any combination thereof. The airplane must 

be appropriate to land or sea for the rating 

sought; 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) 10 hours of training in a multiengine 

complex or turbine-powered airplane, or any 

combination thereof; 

* * * * * 

Appendix I to Part 141—[Amended] 

■ 47. In appendix I to part 141, section 

4, redesignate the second paragraph 

(k)(2)(iv) as paragraph (k)(2)(v). 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 

44703(a), on June 6, 2018. 

Daniel K. Elwell, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12800 Filed 6–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2