Vol. 78 Tuesday, 

No. 218 November 12, 2013 

Part III 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers; 

Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67800 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No.: FAA–2008–0677; Amdt. No. 

121–366] 

RIN 2120–AJ00 

Qualification, Service, and Use of 

Crewmembers and Aircraft 

Dispatchers 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the 

training requirements for pilots in air 

carrier operations. The regulations 

enhance air carrier pilot training 

programs by emphasizing the 

development of pilots’ manual handling 

skills and adding safety-critical tasks 

such as recovery from stall and upset. 

The final rule also requires enhanced 

runway safety training and pilot 

monitoring training to be incorporated 

into existing requirements for scenariobased flight training and requires air 

carriers to implement remedial training 

programs for pilots. The FAA expects 

these changes to contribute to a 

reduction in aviation accidents. 

Additionally, the final rule revises 

recordkeeping requirements for 

communications between the flightcrew 

and dispatch; ensures that personnel 

identified as flight attendants have 

completed flight attendant training and 

qualification requirements; provides 

civil enforcement authority for making 

fraudulent statements; and, provides a 

number of conforming and technical 

changes to existing air carrier 

crewmember training and qualification 

requirements. The final rule also 

includes provisions that provide 

opportunities for air carriers to modify 

training program requirements for 

flightcrew members when the air carrier 

operates multiple aircraft types with 

similar design and flight handling 

characteristics. 

DATES: Effective March 12, 2014. 

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: For 

general questions contact Nancy Lauck 

Claussen, email: Nancy.l.Claussen@

faa.gov; for flightcrew member 

questions, contact Robert Burke, email: 

Robert.Burke@faa.gov; Air 

Transportation Division (AFS–200), 

Flight Standards Service, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8166. For legal questions, contact 

Sara Mikolop, email: Sara.Mikolop@

faa.gov or Bonnie Dragotto, email: 

Bonnie.Dragotto@faa.gov; Office of 

Chief Counsel (AGC–200), Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Authority for This Rulemaking 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules on 

aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 

United States Code (U.S.C.). This 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 

which vests final authority in the 

Administrator for carrying out all 

functions, powers, and duties of the 

administration relating to the 

promulgation of regulations and rules, 

and 44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promulgate regulations 

and minimum standards for other 

practices, methods, and procedures 

necessary for safety in air commerce and 

national security. 

Also, the Airline Safety and Federal 

Aviation Administration Extension Act 

of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–216) specifically 

required the FAA to conduct 

rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew 

members receive ground training and 

flight training in recognizing and 

avoiding stalls, recovering from stalls, 

and recognizing and avoiding upset of 

an aircraft, as well as the proper 

techniques to recover from upset of an 

aircraft. Public Law 111–216 also 

directed the FAA to require air carriers 

to develop remedial training programs 

for flightcrew members who have 

demonstrated performance deficiencies 

or experienced failures in the training 

environment. In addition, Public Law 

111–216 directed the FAA to issue a 

final rule with respect to the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published 

in the Federal Register on January 12, 

2009 (74 FR 1280). 

List of Acronyms 

To assist the reader, the following is 

a list of acronyms used in this final rule: 

AC Advisory Circular 

AOA Angle of Attack 

AQP Advanced Qualification Program 

ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

ATP Airline Transport Pilot 

AURTA Airplane Upset Recovery Training 

Aid 

CAB Civil Aeronautics Board 

CAP Continuous Analysis Process 

CAST Commercial Aviation Safety Team 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRM Crew Resource Management 

CTP Certification Training Program 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FCOM Flightcrew Operating Manual 

FDR Flight Data Recorder 

FFS Full Flight Simulator 

FSB Flight Standardization Board 

FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device 

FTD Flight Training Device 

IAS Indicated Airspeed 

ICAO International Civil Aviation 

Organization 

ICATEE International Committee for 

Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes 

INFO Information for Operators 

IOS Instructor Operating Station 

LOC–I Loss of Control In-Flight 

LOFT Line Oriented Flight Training 

MDR Master Differences Requirements 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PIC Pilot in Command 

POI Principal Operations Inspector 

PRIA Pilot Records Improvement Act 

PTS Practical Test Standards 

SAFO Safety Alert for Operators 

SIC Second in Command 

SMS Safety Management System 

SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

B. Related Actions 

C. National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) Recommendations 

D. Sections 208 and 209 of Public Law 

111–216 

E. Summary of NPRM and SNPRM 

F. Differences Between SNPRM and Final 

Rule 

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final 

Rule 

A. General 

B. Compliance with Final Rule 

Requirements 

C. Applicability of Final Rule and Impact 

of Final Rule on Operators with 

Advanced Qualification Program 

Curriculums 

D. Fraud and Falsification 

E. Personnel Identified as Flight 

Attendants 

F. Approval of Airplane Simulators and 

Training Devices 

G. Approval of Training Equipment Other 

Than Flight Simulation Training Devices 

H. Pilot Monitoring Duties and Training 

I. Flight Instructor (Simulator) and Check 

Airmen (Simulator) Training 

J. Remedial Training Programs 

K. Related Aircraft Differences Training 

L. Extended Envelope Flight Training 

M. Extended Envelope Ground Training 

N. Communication Records for Domestic 

and Flag Operations 

O. Runway Safety 

P. Crosswind Maneuvers Including Wind 

Gusts 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67801 

1The ARC recommendations are available at 

Regulations.gov, FAA–2008–0677–0049. 

2The rulemakings required by Public Law 111– 

216 include § 203, FAA pilot records database; 

§ 206, Flight crewmember mentoring, professional 

development, and leadership training; § 215, Safety 

management systems; § 216, Flight crew member 

screening and qualifications; and § 217, Airline 

transport pilot certification. These rulemaking 

projects are in various stages of development, and 

updates on the status of these rulemakings can be 

found on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

(DOT) Report on DOT Significant Rulemakings, 

available at http://www.dot.gov/regulations/reporton-significant-rulemakings. 

Q. Miscellaneous 

R. SNPRM Economic Comments 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

VI. How to Obtain Additional Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

I. Overview of Final Rule 

On May 3, 2004, the FAA established 

the Crewmember/Dispatcher 

Qualification Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (ARC) as a forum for the 

FAA and the aviation community to 

discuss crewmember and aircraft 

dispatcher qualification and training. 

The ARC submitted recommendations 

to the Associate Administrator for 

Aviation Safety in April 2005.1 These 

recommendations focused on changes to 

the regulatory requirements, the 

development of qualification 

performance standards (QPS) 

appendices specific to the qualification, 

training and evaluation of crewmembers 

(i.e. pilots, flight engineers, and flight 

attendants) and aircraft dispatchers, and 

reorganization of the existing 

regulations for traditional air carrier 

training programs, found in subparts N 

and O of part 121. 

Based on the ARC’s 

recommendations, the FAA proposed a 

comprehensive reorganization and 

revision to crewmember and aircraft 

dispatcher qualification, training, and 

evaluation requirements in a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published 

January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1280). 

On February 12, 2009, shortly after 

publication of the NPRM, a Colgan Air, 

Inc. Bombardier DHC–8–400, operating 

as Continental Connection flight 3407, 

crashed into a residence in Clarence 

Center, New York, about 5 nautical 

miles northeast of the airport resulting 

in the death of everyone on board and 

one person on the ground. The National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

determined that the probable cause of 

this accident was the pilot in 

command’s (PIC) inappropriate 

response to the activation of the stick 

shaker, which led to an aerodynamic 

stall. 

The Airline Safety and Federal 

Aviation Administration Extension Act 

of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–216), enacted 

August 1, 2010, included a number of 

requirements to form ARCs and conduct 

rulemaking related to the results of the 

NTSB investigation of the Colgan Air 

accident. For example, in § 208 of 

Public Law 111–216, Congress directed 

the FAA to conduct rulemaking to 

ensure that all flightcrew members 

receive ground training and flight 

training in recognizing and avoiding 

stalls, recovering from stalls, and 

recognizing and avoiding upset of an 

aircraft, as well as the proper techniques 

to recover from upset. Public Law 111– 

216 also directed the FAA to conduct 

rulemaking to ensure air carriers 

develop remedial training programs for 

flightcrew members who have 

demonstrated performance deficiencies 

or experienced failures in the training 

environment. In addition, Public Law 

111–216 included a number of related 

requirements for rulemaking.2

In light of the statutory mandate to 

conduct rulemaking related to stall and 

upset prevention and recovery training, 

as well as significant comments on the 

NPRM and the need to obtain additional 

data and clarify the proposal, the FAA 

published a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on May 

20, 2011 (76 FR 29336). The SNPRM 

included pilot training requirements 

intended to mitigate the causal factors 

related to pilot training identified by the 

NTSB in its investigation and report on 

the 2009 Colgan Air accident. 

The FAA recognizes the critical safety 

roles and contributions of all 

crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers 

in today’s integrated operating 

environment. The agency has taken 

steps in addition to this final rule to 

ensure that crewmember and aircraft 

dispatcher training reflects that 

integrated operating environment. 

Since the publication of the SNPRM, 

however, there have been several 

changes within the aviation industry. 

These changes have resulted from work 

by the FAA and air carriers to 

implement the related rulemakings and 

guidance required by Public Law 111– 

216. Specifically, recent changes to the 

Airline Transport Pilot certification 

requirements for first officers (second in 

command pilots) have raised the 

baseline knowledge and skill set of 

pilots entering air carrier operations. 

In addition, while the agency finalizes 

the proposed rulemaking that will 

require part 121 operators to implement 

safety management systems (SMS), 

many air carriers have already begun to 

develop SMSs, which will assist air 

carriers in identifying risks unique to 

their own operating environments 

(including air carrier training programs), 

and establishing mitigations to address 

those risks. Implementation of the 

initiatives identified in the FAA’s 2009 

Call to Action to Enhance Airline Safety 

has also impacted the training 

environment. 

As a result of these changes, the FAA 

believes it is necessary to consider the 

cumulative effects of these efforts across 

the aviation industry before additional 

regulations are imposed. Accordingly, at 

this time, the agency has decided to 

finalize certain provisions of the 

proposal that enhance pilot training for 

rare, but high-risk scenarios, and that 

provide the greatest safety benefit. The 

time required in order to publish a final 

rule that contained the comprehensive 

revisions and reorganization of existing 

training program requirements as 

proposed in the SNPRM would result in 

unacceptable delay in light of the risk 

presented by these scenarios. 

The FAA will continue to assess the 

need for the comprehensive revisions 

and reorganization of pilot, flight 

engineer, flight attendant and dispatcher 

qualification and training requirements 

proposed in the NPRM and SNPRM as 

it evaluates the cumulative effectiveness 

of these various efforts outlined above. 

If this assessment indicates that 

additional action is warranted, the FAA 

will engage stakeholders on these 

important issues and work to develop 

additional safety measures as 

appropriate. 

This final rule adds training 

requirements for pilots that target the 

prevention of and recovery from stall 

and upset conditions, recovery from 

bounced landings, enhanced runway 

safety training, and enhanced training 

on crosswind takeoffs and landings with 

gusts. Stall and upset prevention require 

pilot skill in manual handling 

maneuvers and procedures. Therefore, 

the manual handling maneuvers most 

critical to stall and upset prevention 

(i.e., slow flight, loss of reliable 

airspeed, and manually controlled 

departure and arrival) are included in 

the final rule as part of the agency’s 

overall stall and upset mitigation 

strategy. These maneuvers are identified 

in the final rule within the ‘‘extended 

envelope’’ training provision. 

Further, the final rule requires air 

carriers to establish remedial training 

and tracking programs for pilots with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67802 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

performance deficiencies or multiple 

failures; includes additional training for 

instructors and check airmen who 

conduct training or checking in a flight 

simulation training device (FSTD); and 

incorporates pilot monitoring training 

into existing requirements for scenariobased flight training. The final rule also 

provides for efficiencies in training 

flightcrew members who operate 

multiple aircraft types with similar 

design and flight handling 

characteristics. In addition, the rule 

finalizes other discrete SNPRM 

proposals, such as ensuring that 

personnel identified as flight attendants 

have completed flight attendant training 

and qualification requirements; 

requiring approval of training 

equipment; revising record keeping 

requirements for communication 

records between the flight crew and 

dispatch personnel; establishing civil 

enforcement authority for making 

fraudulent or intentionally false 

statements; and other technical and 

conforming changes. 

Table 1, Summary of Final Rule 

Provisions, provides additional detail 

regarding the final rule provisions 

incorporated into existing subparts of 

part 121. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE PROVISIONS

Final rule provision 3 Description of provision Timeline for compliance 4

Fraud and falsification (§ 121.9) ....................... Although currently prohibited by criminal statute, this section authorizes the FAA to take 

certificate action or assess a civil penalty 

against a person for making a fraudulent or 

intentionally false statement.

Compliance is required on the effective date 

of the final rule.

Personnel identified as flight attendants 

(§ 121.392).

Prohibits part 121 operators from identifying 

persons as flight attendants if those persons have not completed flight attendant 

training and qualification.

Compliance is required on the effective date 

of the final rule.

Approval of flight simulation training devices 

(§ 121.407).

Conforms the requirements for the evaluation, qualification, and maintenance of flight 

simulation training devices used in part 121 

to existing part 60 requirements.

Compliance is required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.

Training equipment other than flight simulation 

training devices approved under part 60 

(§§ 121.408, 121.403(b)(2)).

Ensures that all equipment used in approved 

training programs adequately replicates the 

equipment that will be used on an aircraft.

Compliance is required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.

Pilot monitoring (§§ 121.409, 121.544, appendix H).Requires training on pilot monitoring to be incorporated into existing requirements for 

scenario-based training and establishes an 

operational requirement that flightcrew 

members follow air carrier procedures regarding pilot monitoring. The pilot not flying 

must monitor the aircraft operation.

Compliance is required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.

Training for instructors and check airmen who 

serve in FSTDs (§§ 121.413, 121.414).

Requires check airmen and flight instructors 

who conduct training or checking in FSTDs 

to complete initial, transition, and recurrent 

training on the operation of the FSTD and 

the device’s limitations.

Compliance is required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.

Remedial training program (§§ 121.415(h) and 

121.415(i)).

Implements Congressional direction to require part 121 operators to identify and correct pilot training deficiencies through remedial training programs.Compliance is required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.

Proficiency checks for PICs 

(§ 121.441(a)(1)(ii)).

Amends current provision to require PICs 

who fly more than one aircraft type to receive a proficiency check in each aircraft 

type flown.

Compliance is required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.

Related aircraft differences training 

(§§ 121.400, 121.418, 121.434, 121.439, 

121.441).

Allows air carriers to modify training program 

requirements for flightcrew members when 

the air carrier operates aircraft with similar 

flight handling characteristics.

Since the related aircraft provisions provide 

relief to operators, compliance is permitted 

on the effective date of the final rule.

Extended envelope flight training maneuvers 

and procedures (§§ 121.407(e), 121.423, 

121.424, 121.427(d)(1)(i), 121.433(e), appendix E).

Requires pilot flight training on the following 

maneuvers and procedures: 

• Upset recovery maneuvers ..................

• Manually controlled slow flight .............

• Manually controlled loss of reliable airspeed.

Compliance is required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.

• Manually controlled instrument arrivals 

and departures.

• Recovery from stall and stick pusher 

activation, if aircraft equipped.

• Recovery from bounced landing.

This training is required in a full flight simulator (FFS) during all qualification and recurrent training and will require additional 

time to complete.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67803 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE PROVISIONS—Continued 

Final rule provision 3 Description of provision Timeline for compliance 4

Extended envelope ground training subjects 

(§§ 121.419(a)(2), 121.427).

Requires pilots to complete ground training 

during qualification and recurrent training 

on stall prevention and recovery and upset 

prevention and recovery. This training adds 

2 hours to qualification ground training and 

30 minutes to recurrent ground training.

Compliance is required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.

Communication records for domestic and flag 

operations (§ 121.711).

Codifies details of content for records of communication between aircraft dispatchers 

and flight crew previously described in a 

legal interpretation.

Compliance is required on the effective date 

of the final rule.

Runway safety maneuvers and procedures 

(Appendices E and F).

Expands existing taxi and pre-takeoff requirements.Compliance is required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.

Crosswind maneuvers including wind gusts 

(Appendices E and F).

Expands existing requirement for training on 

crosswind maneuvers to include gusts.

Compliance is required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.

3Table 1 does not include all technical or editorial amendments. 

4All final rule provisions are effective 120 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER. However, certain provisions have an extended 

timeline for compliance consistent with the proposal in the NPRM and SNPRM. The FAA encourages early compliance and will work with all operators to ensure compliance with the final rule training provisions is achieved as soon as practicable but no later than 5 years after the effective 

date of the final rule. 

Table 2 shows the FAA’s estimate for 

the base case costs, including the low 

and high cost range, in 2012 dollars. 

Table 2 also shows the estimated 

potential quantified safety benefits 

using a 22-year historical accident 

analysis. The FAA conducted a 

sensitivity analysis to explore the effect 

of reducing the historical analysis 

period from 22 years to 10 years in 

response to comments disputing the use 

of a 22-year time frame. Using a shorter 

historical analysis period, the estimated 

benefits of this final rule increase by 

approximately 17 percent. This analysis 

can be found in Appendix 14 of the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, which is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

Table 2—Total Benefits and Costs (2012 

$ Millions) From 2019 to 2028 

II. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

The agency has identified 11 aircraft 

accidents over a 22-year interval 

(between 1988 and 2009), including the 

2009 Colgan accident, that may have 

been prevented or mitigated by the 

training requirements in this final rule. 

This final rule also responds to several 

requirements in Public Law 111–216 

and addresses seven National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

recommendations. 

Several of the accidents that the FAA 

has determined could have been 

mitigated by the pilot training 

requirements in the final rule involved 

rare, but high-risk in-flight events. For 

example, on February 12, 2009, a Colgan 

Air, Inc., Bombardier DHC–8–400, 

operating as Continental Connection 

flight 3407, was on an instrument 

approach to Buffalo-Niagara 

International Airport, Buffalo, New 

York, when it crashed into a residence 

in Clarence Center, New York, about 5 

nautical miles northeast of the airport 

resulting in the death of everyone 

aboard and one person on the ground. 

The NTSB determined that the probable 

cause of this accident was the pilot in 

command’s (PIC) inappropriate 

response to the activation of the stick 

shaker, which led to an aerodynamic 

stall from which the airplane did not 

recover. The PIC’s response was 

inappropriate because he pulled back on 

the control column rather than pushing 

it forward to reduce the angle of attack. 

As a result, the airplane’s pitch 

increased and its airspeed decreased, 

resulting in the stall. A contributing 

factor relevant to this rulemaking was 

both pilots’ failure to monitor airspeed 

via their primary flight display and thus 

their failure to recognize the impending 

stick shaker onset as airspeed fell and 

pitch increased. The NTSB noted that 

the ‘‘failure of both pilots to detect this 

situation was the result of a significant 

breakdown in their monitoring 

responsibilities and workload 

management.’’ The PIC’s poor response 

suggests he was surprised by activation 

of the stick shaker. Had the flightcrew 

been required to complete the extended 

envelope training provisions required 

by this final rule, this accident would 

likely have been mitigated. 

Prior to the Colgan Air accident, on 

November 12, 2001 American Airlines 

flight 587 crashed in a residential area 

of Belle Harbor, New York. The airplane 

accident occurred shortly after takeoff 

from John F. Kennedy International 

Airport, Jamaica, New York. All 260 

people aboard the airplane and 5 people 

on the ground were killed, and the 

airplane was destroyed by impact forces 

and a postcrash fire. The NTSB found 

the probable cause of this accident to be 

the in-flight separation of the vertical 

stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond 

ultimate design caused by the second in 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER12NO13.160</GPH>
67804 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

command’s (SIC) unnecessary and 

excessive rudder pedal inputs. The 

rudder input was a reaction to wake 

turbulence. 

Characteristics of the Airbus A300– 

600 rudder system design and elements 

of the American Airlines Advanced 

Aircraft Maneuvering Program also 

contributed to the incorrect rudder 

pedal inputs. The NTSB found that the 

American Airlines Advanced Aircraft 

Maneuvering Program excessive bank 

angle simulator exercise could have 

caused the SIC to have an unrealistic 

and exaggerated view of the effects of 

wake turbulence; erroneously associate 

wake turbulence encounters with the 

need for aggressive roll upset recovery 

techniques; and develop control 

strategies that would produce a much 

different, and potentially surprising and 

confusing, response if performed during 

flight. 

The provisions adding upset 

prevention and recovery training in this 

final rule (§§ 121.419 and 121.423) may 

have mitigated this accident because the 

training delivers recovery strategies 

which focus on primary control inputs 

and early intervention strategies. 

Further, the provisions that require 

pilots to complete upset prevention and 

recovery training in a full flight 

simulator (FFS) (§ 121.423) with an 

instructor who has been trained on the 

specific motion and data limitations of 

the FFS (§ 121.414) would mitigate the 

possibility of delivering negative 

training in simulation. 

In another in-flight accident on 

September 8, 1994, USAir (now US 

Airways) flight 427, a Boeing 737–3B7 

(737–300), N513AU, crashed while 

maneuvering to land at Pittsburgh 

International Airport, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania. Flight 427 was operating 

as a scheduled domestic passenger flight 

from Chicago-O’Hare International 

Airport, Chicago, Illinois, to Pittsburgh. 

The flightcrew did not report any 

problems with the airplane and radar 

data indicates that the closest other 

traffic was about 4.5 miles and 1,500 

feet vertically separated from flight 427 

at the time of the accident. About 6 

miles northwest of the destination 

airport, the airplane entered an 

uncontrolled descent and impacted 

terrain near Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. 

All 132 people on board were killed, 

and the airplane was destroyed by 

impact forces and fire. The NTSB 

determined that the probable cause of 

the accident was a loss of control of the 

airplane resulting from the movement of 

the rudder surface to its limit. The 

rudder surface most likely deflected to 

its limit in a direction opposite to that 

commanded by the pilots as a result of 

a failed main rudder power control unit 

(PCU). The FAA has determined that the 

provisions regarding upset prevention 

and recovery training in this final rule 

may have prevented or mitigated this 

accident. 

Also, on December 20, 2008, 

Continental Airlines flight 1404, a 

Boeing 737–500, N18611, departed the 

left side of runway 34R during takeoff 

from Denver International Airport, 

Denver, Colorado. At the time of the 

accident, visual meteorological 

conditions prevailed, with strong and 

gusty winds out of the west. The NTSB 

reported that, as the airplane crossed 

uneven terrain before coming to a stop 

it became airborne, resulting in a jarring 

impact when it regained contact with 

the ground. A postcrash fire ensued and 

the airplane was substantially damaged. 

The PIC and 5 of the 110 passengers 

were seriously injured; the SIC, 2 cabin 

crewmembers, and 38 passengers 

sustained minor injuries. 

The NTSB accident report revealed 

that before starting the takeoff roll the 

PIC verbally repeated the wind speed 

and direction; however, during the 

takeoff roll the PIC inconsistently 

applied cross wind correction. The 

NTSB found that the probable cause of 

the accident was the PIC’s ceased 

rudder input, which was needed to 

maintain directional control of the 

airplane, about 4 seconds before the 

excursion, when the airplane 

encountered a strong and gusty 

crosswind that exceeded the PIC’s 

training and experience. The FAA has 

determined that the expansion of 

existing requirements for training on 

crosswind maneuvers to include wind 

gusts in this final rule may have 

prevented or mitigated this accident. 

The final rule also addresses 

preventable runway safety accidents 

and incidents that have occurred on a 

more frequent basis. For example, on 

August 27, 2006, Comair flight 5191, a 

Bombardier CL–600–2B19, crashed 

during takeoff from Blue Grass Airport, 

Lexington, Kentucky, resulting in the 

death of the PIC, a flight attendant, and 

47 passengers. The SIC also received 

serious injuries. The flight crew was 

instructed to take off from runway 22 

but instead proceeded to take off from 

runway 26, which was much shorter. 

The airplane ran off the end of the 

runway and crashed into the airport 

perimeter fence, trees, and terrain. The 

airplane was destroyed by impact forces 

and postcrash fire. The NTSB 

determined that the probable cause of 

this accident was the flightcrew 

members’ failure to use available cues 

and aids to identify the airplane’s 

location on the airport surface during 

taxi and their failure to cross-check and 

verify that the airplane was on the 

correct runway before takeoff. The 

enhanced runway safety training 

provisions in this final rule would likely 

have mitigated this accident. 

B. Related Actions 

1. FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012 (Pub. L. 111–216) 

Public Law 111–216 contained a 

number of related requirements for 

rulemaking, resulting in the following 

rulemaking initiatives: Pilot 

Certification and Qualification 

Requirements for Air Carrier 

Operations; Safety Management 

Systems; Flight Crewmember 

Mentoring, Leadership and Professional 

Development; and Pilot Records 

Database. The rule related to pilot 

certification was recently published and 

the remaining initiatives are in various 

stages of development. Further, the 

agency determined that amendments to 

FSTD qualification and evaluation 

standards in part 60 are needed to 

support the provisions in this final rule. 

On July 15, 2013, the FAA published 

the final rule on Pilot Certification and 

Qualification Requirements for Air 

Carrier operations (78 FR 42324) (Pilot 

Certification rule). This final rule 

creates new certification and 

qualification requirements for pilots in 

air carrier operations including 

operations conducted under part 121. 

As a result of this action, a second in 

command pilot (first officer) in 

domestic, flag, and supplemental 

operations must now hold an airline 

transport pilot (ATP) certificate and an 

airplane type rating for the aircraft to be 

flown. Further, the Pilot Certification 

rule adds to the training and experience 

requirements for an ATP certificate with 

an airplane category multiengine class 

rating or an ATP certificate obtained 

concurrently with an airplane type 

rating. To receive an ATP certificate 

with a multiengine class rating, a pilot 

must have 50 hours of multiengine 

flight experience and must have 

completed a new FAA-approved ATP 

Certification Training Program (CTP). 

This new training program will include 

academic coursework and training in an 

FSTD. The Pilot Certification rule raises 

the experience requirement and the 

baseline knowledge for incoming part 

121 pilots in that it provides 

foundational knowledge on many topics 

including aerodynamics, meteorology, 

air carrier operations, leadership/

professional development, and crew 

resource management (CRM). 

On November 5, 2010, the FAA 

published an NPRM that proposes to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67805 

5As provided in Appendix Q, Table 2A, of the 

SNPRM the agency proposed academic training on 

PIC authority, PIC responsibility, leadership and 

command, and conflict resolution every 18 months 

at an introductory level for SICs and a refresher 

level for PICs. 

6Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) 

Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and 

Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks, RIN 2120– 

AK08. 

require each part 121 operator to 

develop and implement a safety 

management system (SMS) to improve 

the safety of its aviation-related 

activities (75 FR 68224). The SMS 

NPRM proposed to require part 121 

operators to develop systematic 

procedures, practices, and policies for 

the management of safety risk for all of 

its aviation systems. While crewmember 

and dispatcher training programs 

constitute aviation systems and as such 

must be addressed within the certificate 

holder’s SMS, the requirements in this 

final rule do not duplicate the SMS 

proposal. For example, the remedial 

training requirements in this final rule 

may serve as an element of a robust 

SMS and provide specific solutions to 

identified pilot performance 

deficiencies, thereby complementing the 

SMS requirements for continuous 

monitoring, analysis, and corrective 

action. 

In addition, the agency has initiated a 

separate rulemaking to implement the 

requirements of § 206 of Public Law 

111–216 related to flight crewmember 

mentoring, leadership and professional 

development. The action is necessary to 

ensure that air carriers establish or 

modify training programs to address 

mentoring, leadership, and professional 

development of flight crewmembers in 

part 121 operations. Although the 

agency proposed certain academic 

training related to § 206(a)(1)(D)—(E) in 

the SNPRM preceding this final rule, the 

agency is not proceeding with those 

elements of the proposal in this final 

rule. These issues will be considered in 

the Flight Crewmember Mentoring, 

Leadership, and Professional 

Development rulemaking project (RIN 

2120–AJ87).5

Also, the FAA has initiated a separate 

rulemaking project to define simulator 

fidelity requirements for several new 

and modified training tasks mandated 

for air carrier training programs by 

Public Law 111–216 (Part 60 

rulemaking).6 This rulemaking would 

amend part 60 to establish new or 

updated FSTD technical evaluation 

standards for training tasks such as full 

stall training, airborne icing training, 

and upset recognition and recovery 

training. Furthermore, this rulemaking 

would improve the minimum FSTD 

evaluation requirements for crosswinds 

with gusts (takeoff/landing) and 

bounced landing recovery methods in 

response to NTSB and Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC) 

recommendations. The rulemaking will 

help ensure simulator fidelity when 

conducting various flight training tasks. 

In addition, to address the 

requirements of § 203 of Public Law 

111–216, the FAA has initiated a 

rulemaking project (RIN 2120–AK31) to 

develop a pilot records database and 

phase out the requirements of the Pilot 

Records Improvement Act (PRIA) found 

at 49 U.S.C. 44703(h). Although the 

FAA, in the SNPRM, had proposed to 

conform § 121.683 (proposed as 

§ 121.684) to the PRIA provisions, the 

FAA will consider these requirements 

in the pilot records database rulemaking 

to avoid confusion and possible 

redundancy. Thus, the FAA has not 

included proposed § 121.684 in the final 

rule. 

In connection with these rulemaking 

initiatives and this final rule, Public 

Law 111–216 also required the FAA to 

establish several ARCs and several Task 

Forces to further examine existing 

training program requirements and 

develop recommendations for 

improvements. The FAA chartered the 

Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training 

ARC; the Training Hours Requirement 

Review ARC; and the Stick Pusher and 

Adverse Weather Event Training ARC 

(the 208 ARC) to respond to the 

directives in Public Law 111–216. 

The 208 ARC also worked to develop 

effective upset prevention and recovery 

training methodologies. Subsequently, 

the International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO), the European 

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and the 

FAA decided to combine efforts to 

identify and establish an acceptable 

approach to eliminating such 

occurrences. ICAO sponsored seven 

meetings in 2012 during which Civil 

Aviation Authorities and subject matter 

experts were encouraged to participate 

in focused discussions. Also, as a 

number of initiatives were underway 

simultaneously that sought to reduce 

the number of loss of control in-flight 

(LOC–I) events, ICAO brought many of 

the groups involved with these efforts 

into the ensuing discussions under what 

became known as the loss of control 

avoidance and recovery training 

(LOCART) initiative. 

The ARCs have presented their 

recommendations to the FAA. The 

reports from the following ARCs have 

been placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking: 

• Air Carrier Safety and Pilot 

Training ARC 

• Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather 

Event Training ARC 

• Training Hours Requirement 

Review ARC 

The agency notes that many of the 

new requirements in this final rule are 

consistent with ARC recommendations, 

including pilot monitoring 

requirements; enhanced simulator 

instructor training; upset prevention 

and recovery training; manual handling 

training; and remedial training 

requirements. 

Finally, the FAA recognizes that 

drafting proposals on related topics 

simultaneously can give the appearance 

of overlapping or duplicative 

requirements. As we have done in this 

rule and in prior rulemakings issued to 

address the discrete sections of Public 

Law 111–216, the FAA will continue to 

minimize any overlapping or 

duplicative requirements. 

2. FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) 

On February 14, 2012, following the 

publication of the SNPRM, the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

(Pub. L. 112–95) added certain flight 

attendant requirements similar to those 

included in the SNPRM, such as English 

language proficiency and training on 

various aspects of flight attendant 

response to passenger intoxication. 

Specifically, § 304 of Public Law 112–95 

(49 U.S.C. 44728) requires flight 

attendants to be proficient in English 

and identifies certain English language 

competencies that must be 

demonstrated. In current part 61, 

English language proficiency is an 

eligibility requirement for all pilot 

certificates. In current part 63, English 

language proficiency is an eligibility 

requirement for a flight engineer 

certificate. The statutory mandate 

therefore ensures that all crewmember 

communication complies with crew 

resource management objectives. 

Compliance with § 304 has been 

required since the statute was enacted. 

The FAA has published an INFO for air 

carriers to use when complying with the 

statutory requirement. This INFO can be 

accessed at http://www.faa.gov/other_

visit/aviation_industry/airline_

operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/. 

Additionally, § 309 of Public Law 

112–95 (49 U.S.C. 44734) requires each 

air carrier to provide flight attendants 

with training on providing alcohol to 

passengers, recognizing intoxicated 

passengers, and dealing with disruptive 

passengers. Section 309 also requires air 

carriers to provide flight attendants with 

situational training on the proper 

method for dealing with intoxicated 

passengers. Currently, under 14 CFR 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67806 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

7 Due to airline mergers and bankruptcies, there 

are fewer total air carriers (83 as of February 2013) 

operating under part 121. 

8http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/

document.information/documentID/1020244 

121.421, operators are already required 

to provide flight attendants with 

training on how to handle passengers 

whose conduct might jeopardize safety. 

To assist operators with meeting the 

specific statutory mandate in § 309, the 

FAA has published an INFO regarding 

compliance with the statutory 

requirement. This INFO can be accessed 

at http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/

aviation_industry/airline_operators/

airline_safety/info/all_infos/. 

3. Related Agency Initiatives 

In the time since the Colgan accident 

in 2009, the FAA has put forth several 

initiatives that support improved pilot 

training in part 121 operations. These 

initiatives, along with the requirements 

in the final rule, are intended to reduce 

the number of aviation accidents. 

One major initiative was the FAA Call 

to Action to Enhance Airline Safety, 

which began in June of 2009. (The 

report ‘‘Answering the Call to Action on 

Airline Safety and Pilot Training’’ will 

be placed in the docket for this 

rulemaking). The Call to Action 

included a number of key initiatives 

including a two-part focused review of 

air carrier flightcrew member training, 

qualification, and management 

practices. First, the FAA assessed the 

capability of air carriers to identify, 

track, and manage low-time flightcrew 

members and those who have failed 

evaluations or have demonstrated a 

repetitive need for additional training. 

Second, the FAA conducted additional 

inspections to revalidate that the air 

carriers’ training and qualification 

programs met regulatory standards. 

As part of the Call to Action, in 2009 

the FAA inspected 85 air carriers to 

determine if they had systems to 

provide remedial training for pilots.7

The FAA did not inspect carriers who 

train pilots under an Advanced 

Qualification Program (AQP) because 

AQP includes such a system. When the 

inspections began in June of 2009, not 

all air carriers had developed remedial 

training programs. However, by January 

2010, after the completion of the 

inspections, all air carriers had some 

part of a remedial training system. 

Also, on August 6, 2012, the FAA 

published Advisory Circular (AC) 120– 

109, Stall and Stick Pusher Training 

which was developed based on a review 

of recommended practices developed by 

major airplane manufacturers, labor 

organizations, air carriers, training 

organizations, simulator manufacturers, 

and industry representative 

organizations.8 This AC identified best 

practices and guidance for training, 

testing, and checking for pilots to ensure 

correct and consistent responses to 

unexpected stall warnings and stick 

pusher activations. This AC also 

included guidance regarding the 

development of stall and stick pusher 

event training. 

Additional FAA actions to address 

pilot training requirements include the 

following: 

• Information for Operators (INFO) 

09007 Pilot Training and Checking— 

Pneumatic Deicing Boot Equipped 

Airplanes recommends that operators 

enhance pilot training and checking to 

ensure safe operations in icing 

conditions. All INFOs can be accessed 

at http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/

aviation_industry/airline_operators/

airline_safety/info/all_infos/ 

• Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 

09015 Training for Landing on 

Contaminated Runways highlights FAA 

guidance regarding training and 

procedures for landing on contaminated 

runways. All SAFOs can be accessed at 

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_

industry/airline_operators/airline_

safety/safo 

• INFO 10002 Agency Best Practices 

consolidates guidance and resources 

that can be used by operators to improve 

pilot training. 

• SAFO 10006 Inflight Icing 

Operations and Training 

Recommendations includes 

recommendations regarding Pilot and 

Dispatcher training to address severe 

icing conditions associated with 

freezing rain and freezing drizzle. 

• INFO 10010 Enhanced Upset 

Recovery Training highlights the 

availability of the Airplane Upset 

Recovery and Training Aid that all 

operators can use to develop an effective 

upset recovery training module. 

• SAFO 13002 Manual Flight 

Operations recommends that in this age 

of aircraft automation, training and 

flight operations should emphasize 

manual handling when appropriate to 

ensure pilots retain the ability to 

manually fly the airplane. 

C. National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) Recommendations 

This final rule addresses the following 

NTSB recommendations for certificate 

holders operating under Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 

part 121: 

• A–96–120. Require 14 CFR part 121 

and 135 operators to provide training to 

flightcrews in the recognition of and 

recovery from unusual attitudes and 

upset maneuvers, including upsets that 

occur while the aircraft is being 

controlled by automatic flight control 

systems, and unusual attitudes that 

result from flight control malfunctions 

and uncommanded flight control 

surface movements. 

• A–05–14. Require all 14 CFR part 

121 air carrier operators to establish 

programs for flightcrew members who 

have demonstrated performance 

deficiencies or experienced failures in 

the training environment that would 

require a review of their whole 

performance history at the company and 

administer additional oversight and 

training to ensure that performance 

deficiencies are addressed and 

corrected. 

• A–05–30. Require all 14 CFR part 

121 and 135 air carriers to incorporate 

bounced landing recovery techniques in 

their flight manuals and to teach these 

techniques during initial and recurrent 

training. 

• A–07–44. Require that all 14 CFR 

part 91K, 121, and 135 operators 

establish procedures requiring all 

crewmembers on the flight deck to 

positively confirm and cross-check the 

airplane’s location at the assigned 

departure runway before crossing the 

hold short line for takeoff. This required 

guidance should be consistent with the 

guidance in AC 120–74A and SAFO 

06013 and 07003. 

• A–10–22. Require 14 CFR part 121, 

135, and 91K operators and 14 CFR part 

142 training centers to develop and 

conduct training that incorporates stalls 

that are fully developed; are 

unexpected; involve autopilot 

disengagement; and include airplanespecific features, such as a reference 

speeds switch. 

• A–10–23. Require all 14 CFR part 

121, 135, and 91K operators of stick 

pusher-equipped aircraft to provide 

their pilots with pusher familiarization 

simulator training. 

• A–10–111. Require 14 CFR part 

121, 135, and 91K operators to 

incorporate the realistic, gusty 

crosswind profiles developed as a result 

of Safety Recommendation A–10–110 

into their pilot simulator training 

programs. 

In the analysis for the final rule, the 

FAA identified 11 accidents involving 

part 121 operations, resulting in 

fatalities or injuries that occurred 

between 1988 and 2009 that may have 

been prevented or mitigated if the 

proposed enhanced training 

requirements had been in effect at the 

time of those accidents. Causal factors 

that contributed to these accidents 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67807 

9The FAA notes that § 201 of Public Law 111– 

216 states that ‘‘[t]he term ‘flight crewmember’ has 

the meaning given the term ‘flightcrew member’ in 

part 1 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.’’ Part 

1 defines ‘‘flightcrew member’’ as ‘‘a pilot, flight 

engineer, or flight navigator assigned to duty in an 

aircraft during flight time.’’ Because flight engineers 

and flight navigators do not manipulate the aircraft 

controls and flight navigators are no longer used in 

part 121 operations, the FAA assumes that Congress 

did not intend to require these flightcrew members 

to complete training on recovery from full stall and 

upset. Further, because no accidents have been 

attributed to flight engineer performance and the 

agency has not identified any issues related to flight 

engineer training, the remedial training 

requirements in the final rule apply to pilots only. 

included inadequate pilot training 

regarding recovery from stall, upset 

recovery, runway safety, bounced 

landings, crosswind takeoffs with gusts, 

and pilot monitoring. These accidents 

resulted in 601 fatalities, 48 serious 

injuries, and 137 minor injuries. A 

detailed description of this accident 

analysis, and how it was conducted, is 

provided in the benefits section of the 

regulatory evaluation for this final rule. 

D. Sections 208 and 209 of Public Law 

111–216 

This final rule responds to Public Law 

111–216, sections 208 and 209. Under 

Public Law 111–216, Congress directed 

the FAA to conduct rulemaking to 

ensure that all flightcrew members 

receive ground training and flight 

training in recognizing and avoiding 

stalls, recovering from stalls, and 

recognizing and avoiding upset of an 

aircraft, as well as the proper techniques 

to recover from upset; directed the FAA 

to conduct rulemaking to ensure air 

carriers develop remedial training 

programs for flightcrew members who 

have demonstrated performance 

deficiencies or experienced failures in 

the training environment; and directed 

the FAA to issue a final rule with 

respect to the NPRM.9

E. Summary of NPRM and SNPRM 

On January 12, 2009, the FAA 

published an NPRM (74 FR 1280), 

proposing major changes to the 

requirements for crewmember and 

aircraft dispatcher training programs in 

domestic, flag, and supplemental 

operations. The primary purpose of the 

NPRM was to establish new 

requirements for traditional air carrier 

training programs to enhance 

crewmember and aircraft dispatcher 

training. The NPRM proposed a 

significant reorganization of training 

and qualification requirements as new 

subparts to be added to part 121. 

Upon review of the comments to the 

NPRM, the FAA identified several 

issues that were not adequately 

addressed in the NPRM. Furthermore, 

the FAA determined that additional 

data and clarification were necessary. 

Because of the substantive changes and 

reorganization of the NPRM, on May 20, 

2011 the FAA published the rulemaking 

proposal in its entirety in an SNPRM (76 

FR 29336). 

F. Differences Between SNPRM and 

Final Rule 

In the SNPRM, the agency included 

the NPRM proposals to reorganize and 

revise crewmember and aircraft 

dispatcher qualification, training, and 

evaluation requirements in existing 

subparts N and O of part 121. This 

reorganization would have resulted in 

the creation of two new subparts within 

part 121. 

The agency has decided to finalize 

provisions proposed in the SNPRM that 

enhance pilot training for rare but high 

risk scenarios and provide the greatest 

safety benefit. The final rule also 

includes other discrete provisions 

proposed in the SNPRM and described 

in Table 1. As discussed in the 

Overview section of this preamble, the 

remaining proposals in the SNPRM 

require further deliberation. These 

remaining proposals include the 

following: 

• The operational requirements 

pertaining to crewmembers and aircraft 

dispatchers, except for § 121.9 (Fraud 

and falsification), § 121.392 (Personnel 

identified as flight attendants) and 

§ 121.711 (Communication records), 

which are reflected in Table 3 below. 

• The reorganization and 

restructuring of crewmember and 

aircraft dispatcher training and 

qualification in proposed subparts BB 

and CC, including the crewmember and 

aircraft dispatcher qualification 

performance standards in proposed 

Appendices Q, R, S and T (except as 

specifically noted in Table 3 below). 

Thus, the FAA may pursue additional 

rulemaking in the future to address the 

more comprehensive changes proposed 

in the NPRM and SNPRM. 

The agency has incorporated the final 

rule provisions into existing subparts of 

part 121 rather than creating new 

subparts within part 121. Table 3 

identifies the SNPRM source for each of 

the final rule provisions. 

TABLE 3—SNPRM SOURCE OF PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN FINAL RULE

Description of final rule provision Final rule provision SNPRM provision 

Fraud and falsification ....................................... § 121.9 .............................................................. § 121.9. 

Personnel identified as flight attendants ........... § 121.392 .......................................................... § 121.392.

Approval of FSTDs ............................................ § 121.407 .......................................................... § 121.1345. 

Training equipment other than FSTDs approved under part 60.§§ 121.408, 121.403(b)(2) ................................ §§ 121.1331, 121.1351. 

Pilot monitoring .................................................. §§ 121.409, 121.544, appendix H .................... §§ 121.1213, 121.1353. 

Training for instructors and check airmen who 

serve in FSTDs.

§§ 121.413, 121.414 ......................................... §§ 121.1377, 121.1381. 

Remedial training ............................................... § 121.415(h) and § 121.415(i) .......................... § 121.1355(a)(4), (a)(5) and (b). 

Proficiency checks for PICs ............................... § 121.441(a)(1)(ii) ............................................. § 121.1223. 

Related aircraft differences training ................... §§ 121.400, 121.418, 121.434, 121.439, 

121.441.

§§ 121.1205, 121.1206, 121.1215, 121.1230. 

Extended envelope ground training subjects .... §§ 121.419(a)(2), 121.427 ................................ Appendix Q, Attachment 2, Table 2A. 

Extended envelope training maneuvers and 

procedures (Including requirements to train 

in an FFS).

§§ 121.407(e), 121.423, 121.424, 

121.427(d)(1)(i), 121.433(e), appendix E.

Appendix Q, Attachment 3, Tables 3A and 3B. 

Communication records for domestic and flag 

operations.

§ 121.711 .......................................................... § 121.711. 

Runway safety maneuvers and procedures ...... Appendix E, Flight Training Requirements: 

I(c), I(d).

Appendix Q, Attachment 3, Table 3A. 

Appendix F, Proficiency Check Requirements: 

I(c), I(d).

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67808 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3—SNPRM SOURCE OF PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN FINAL RULE—Continued 

Description of final rule provision Final rule provision SNPRM provision 

Crosswind maneuvers including wind gusts ..... Appendix E, Flight Training Requirements: 

II(c), IV(d).

Appendix Q, Attachment 3, Table 3A. 

Appendix F, Proficiency Check Requirements: 

II (c), V(c).

III. Discussion of Public Comments and 

Final Rule 

A. General 

The FAA received approximately 130 

comments in response to the SNPRM. 

Commenters included air carriers, labor 

organizations, trade associations, 

training organizations, one aircraft 

manufacturer, Families of Continental 

Flight 3407, the NTSB, and individuals. 

Air carrier and trade associations 

commented that the SNPRM was overly 

prescriptive; the FAA underestimated 

costs and overestimated benefits; and 

the FAA underestimated the effect of 

the proposal on air carriers that use an 

AQP for training. Labor organizations’ 

comments included concerns regarding 

the proposed integration of lower 

fidelity and non-motion simulators for 

pilot training; the standards by which 

CRM competencies would be integrated 

into job performance training and 

evaluated; and the proposed 

recordkeeping requirements. An aircraft 

manufacturer supported the related 

aircraft initiatives included in the 

SNPRM. The NTSB and Families of 

Continental Flight 3407 were generally 

supportive of the SNPRM but raised 

concerns regarding the efficacy of the 

remedial training proposal further 

discussed in section III. (Discussion of 

Public Comments and Final Rule) J. 

(Remedial Training Programs) of this 

preamble. 

The agency received several 

comments on the proposed flight 

attendant and aircraft dispatcher 

training requirements. Labor 

organizations generally supported the 

proposed training and qualification 

requirements, but air carriers asserted 

some provisions, such as the proposals 

regarding requalification requirements 

and check flight attendant and check 

dispatcher training and qualification, 

were unnecessary and would place an 

undue burden on operators. 

As part of the FAA’s effort to move 

forward with a rule that finalizes 

specific statutorily mandated 

requirements and provisions proposed 

in the SNPRM that enhance pilot 

training and provide the greatest safety 

benefit, but require time to implement, 

the final rule does not include the flight 

attendant and aircraft dispatcher 

training requirements proposed in the 

SNPRM. In the discussion that follows, 

the FAA has addressed those comments 

related to the provisions included in 

this final rule. 

B. Compliance With Final Rule 

Requirements 

In the SNPRM, the agency proposed 

an effective date for the final rule of 120 

days after publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register. However, for 

the crewmember and aircraft dispatcher 

training and qualification revisions in 

proposed subparts BB and CC, the 

agency proposed to allow air carriers to 

come into compliance with the 

requirements no later than 5 years after 

the effective date of the final rule. As 

explained in the SNPRM, setting the 

effective date for 120 days after 

publication of the final rule and 

allowing use of the existing regulations 

for 5 years would provide existing 

certificate holders and the FAA time to 

smoothly transition to the new 

requirements. 

Consistent with the proposal, all 

provisions in this final rule will become 

effective 120 days after publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register. In 

the final rule, compliance is required on 

the effective date unless the regulatory 

text for a particular provision indicates 

the alternate date for compliance of 5 

years after the effective date. Although 

the final rule allows air carriers up to 5 

years to come into compliance, the FAA 

encourages air carriers to comply with 

these provisions as early as possible to 

maximize the safety benefits that this 

rule will achieve. 

In the final rule, the agency modified 

the compliance date for certain 

provisions as follows: 

• The final rule eliminates the 5-year 

compliance date for the provisions 

regarding related aircraft (§ 121.418) 

because these amendments provide 

voluntary alternatives to certain 

requirements of subparts N and O. 

• The final rule eliminates the 5-year 

compliance date for the provision 

regarding the prohibition on fraud and 

falsification (§ 121.9) because all 

persons subject to the final rule 

prohibitions on fraud and falsification 

are currently prohibited from 

committing fraud and falsification by 

criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001. 

• The final rule eliminates the 5-year 

compliance date for the provision 

regarding personnel identified as flight 

attendants (§ 121.392) because this 

requirement imposes a minimal burden 

on air carriers. 

Consistent with the SNPRM, the final 

rule requires compliance with the 

agency proposals regarding dispatch 

communication records upon the rule’s 

effective date. The applicable date on 

which compliance is required for each 

substantive final rule provision is 

summarized in Table 1 of this preamble. 

The FAA recognizes that some air 

carriers may have implemented a 

number of the new training 

requirements in the final rule but the 

agency has determined that maintaining 

a 5-year compliance period as proposed 

in the NPRM and SNPRM continues to 

be appropriate for the training-related 

initiatives because it may not be feasible 

for most part 121 operators to achieve 

compliance by the effective date of the 

final rule. 

To accomplish many of the new 

safety-critical flight training provisions, 

the FFSs in which the training must be 

completed must be updated. As 

discussed previously, the FAA has 

initiated the Part 60 rulemaking to 

develop the standards for updating 

these simulators to ensure the extended 

envelope training provided for in this 

final rule is conducted in a realistic, 

accurate training environment. The FAA 

believes the 5-year compliance period 

for these provisions will provide 

sufficient time for completion of that 

rulemaking project and the actual 

updates to the FFSs that would be 

required by that rulemaking. The FAA 

will continue to evaluate the time 

necessary for compliance with the 

training requirements set forth in this 

final rule based on the updates that are 

necessary for the FFSs and will seek 

public comment on this issue in the Part 

60 rulemaking. In addition, based on the 

comments received to the SNPRM, the 

FAA recognizes that some operators 

may already have the technology and 

simulation knowledge necessary to 

incorporate these training requirements 

into their approved training programs. 

The FAA encourages these operators to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67809 

initiate compliance with this rule as 

soon as practicable. To help facilitate 

these efforts, operators should contact 

the FAA’s National Simulator Program 

to obtain the relevant guidance material 

on evaluating the FSTDs used to 

provide extended envelope training. 

The FAA recognizes the public 

benefit associated with early 

implementation of the new safetycritical training requirements. The FAA 

will work with all operators to ensure 

compliance with the final rule training 

provisions is achieved as soon as 

possible but no later than 5 years after 

the effective date of the final rule. As 

originally proposed, we anticipated that 

air carriers would complete holistic 

changes to their training programs at 

one time. Upon further reflection and 

based on the revisions to the final rule 

and the simulator updates discussed 

earlier, we note that individual air 

carriers may submit proposed training 

program revisions for approval at any 

point after the effective date. The agency 

will work with each air carrier to meet 

their implementation needs. 

C. Applicability of Final Rule 

Requirements and Impact of Final Rule 

on Operators with Advanced 

Qualification Program Curriculums 

Air carriers that conduct operations 

under part 121 may train and qualify 

crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers 

in accordance with the provisions of 

current subparts N, O, and P. 

Alternatively, air carriers may train and 

qualify crewmembers and aircraft 

dispatchers under an AQP in 

accordance with the provisions of 

subpart Y. 

Subpart Y does not contain training 

and evaluation requirements, per se. 

However, an AQP developed in 

accordance with subpart Y allows air 

carriers to use alternative methods for 

training and evaluating pilots, flight 

engineers, flight attendants, and aircraft 

dispatchers based on instructional 

systems design, advanced simulation 

equipment, and comprehensive data 

analysis to continuously validate 

curriculums. 

In accordance with § 121.909, to 

obtain approval of an AQP, an air carrier 

must develop a Qualification Standards 

Document that specifies which 

requirements of parts 61, 63, 65, 121 

(including subparts N, O, and P), or 135, 

as applicable, will be replaced by the 

AQP curriculum. Each requirement 

contained in part 61, 63, 65, 121, or 135 

that is not specifically addressed in an 

approved AQP curriculum continues to 

apply to the certificate holder. 

The SNPRM principally affected part 

121 operators that train and qualify 

crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers 

in accordance with the provisions of 

current subparts N, O, and P. However, 

commenters generally noted that the 

FAA underestimated the impact of the 

proposed requirements on AQP carriers. 

Additionally, some commenters noted 

that AQP should be mandated as the 

sole training method to be used by all 

certificate holders conducting part 121 

operations. 

First, as previously discussed, AQP 

provides for an alternate method of 

compliance with the standards provided 

by parts 61, 63, 65, 121 (including 

subparts N and O), or 135, as applicable. 

This means that even if the agency 

mandated AQP for all part 121 

operators, the agency would have to 

provide standards from which to create 

the compliance methods in an AQP. 

These standards would change as the 

technology used in training tools 

evolves and as the FAA learns more 

about factors contributing to accidents 

and effective training methodology. 

Further, the final rule includes training 

requirements that are mandated by 

statute (i.e., upset and stall prevention 

and recovery). Without a revision to the 

traditional training requirements in this 

final rule, the FAA would not be able 

to require these maneuvers and 

procedures for pilots as part of pilot 

AQP curriculums. 

Second, commenters including 

Continental, American, USAirways, 

JetBlue, Delta, and ASTAR, stated that 

the agency did not fully consider all of 

the direct and indirect effects that the 

proposal would have on part 121 

operators that currently conduct 

training under an AQP. The agency has 

reviewed its final rule cost analysis to 

determine whether carriers that 

currently train flightcrew members 

under an AQP would incur additional 

costs not previously considered. Upon 

further review of existing pilot AQPs 

and the final rule requirements, the 

agency has determined the new ground 

and flight training requirements in the 

final rule are generally not addressed by 

existing pilot AQPs. Therefore, in the 

final rule regulatory evaluation, the 

agency has revised its cost analysis and 

determined that it is appropriate to 

attribute costs to the additional ground 

and flight training requirements for all 

pilots who train under subparts N and 

O as well as those who train under an 

AQP. 

Applicable requirements of part 121 

that are not specifically addressed in the 

certificate holder’s AQP continue to 

apply to the certificate holder and to the 

individuals being trained and qualified 

by the certificate holder. See 

§ 121.903(b). This final rule differs from 

the SNPRM in that it does not alter the 

training and qualification principles 

established in subparts N and O, but 

rather adds discrete new pilot training 

subjects, procedures and maneuvers. 

Accordingly, an operator that uses AQP 

to train flightcrew members must 

submit a revised Qualification 

Standards Document if that operator 

seeks to address these additional ground 

training subjects and flight training 

procedures and maneuvers through 

alternative methods in accordance with 

subpart Y. 

Third, in response to comments that 

AQP should be mandated for all part 

121 operators, the FAA maintains its 

position as stated in the SNPRM. 

Although the FAA considers AQP to be 

an effective voluntary alternative for 

compliance with minimum training and 

qualification requirements, the FAA 

does not believe that it is appropriate to 

require all air carriers to train under 

AQP. The FAA recognizes that AQP 

may not be appropriate for every 

certificate holder. The AQP is a 

voluntary program established to allow 

a greater degree of regulatory flexibility 

in the approval of innovative training 

programs. Based on a documented 

analysis of operational requirements, a 

certificate holder under AQP may 

propose to depart from the traditional 

practices with respect to what, how, 

when, and where training and testing is 

conducted. Detailed AQP 

documentation requirements, data 

collection, and analysis provide the 

FAA and the operator with the tools 

necessary to adequately monitor and 

administer an AQP. See 70 FR 54810, 

54811 (Sept. 16, 2005). 

The FAA further recognizes that some 

air carriers may not wish to incur the 

costs associated with an AQP. Such 

costs include additional personnel and 

management infrastructure to develop 

and facilitate the required data 

collection, analysis, and application 

required under AQP. Furthermore, some 

air carriers may prefer the structured 

requirements of a traditional program to 

the analytically-driven AQP training 

program. Other air carriers that use 

contract training facilities may not find 

AQP to be a suitable alternative to 

traditional training requirements. 

Accordingly, the final rule does not 

require all certificate holders to train 

under the AQP requirements in subpart 

Y of part 121. This determination is 

consistent with the recommendations 

provided by the Training Hours 

Requirement Review ARC findings. See 

Training Hours Requirement Review 

ARC Report. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67810 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

10 18 U.S.C. 1001 is a criminal statute prohibiting 

fraud and intentional falsification in matters within 

the jurisdiction of the executive branch. This 

regulation will allow the agency to pursue civil 

enforcement in instances in which a person has 

committed fraud or falsification. 

D. Fraud and Falsification 

In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed 

adding § 121.9, a new general 

requirement that would prohibit a 

person from making intentionally false 

or fraudulent statements on an 

application, record, or report required 

by part 121. The SNPRM also specified 

the consequences of making incorrect 

and intentionally false or fraudulent 

statements. Although the language 

would be added to part 121 for the first 

time, it is not a new concept in FAA 

regulations. Similar language already 

appears in 14 CFR 61.59 and 67.403, 

and was recently added to part 139 

subpart B at § 139.115. Moreover, 18 

U.S.C. 1001 currently prohibits fraud 

and intentional falsification in matters 

within the jurisdiction of the executive 

branch. 

The FAA proposed adding the 

requirement to part 121 to emphasize 

the importance of truthful statements, 

especially with regard to training and 

checking of crewmembers and aircraft 

dispatchers. The FAA considers the 

making of intentionally false or 

fraudulent statements a serious offense. 

Falsification has a serious effect on the 

integrity of the records on which the 

FAA’s safety oversight depends. If the 

reliability of these records is 

undermined, the FAA’s ability to 

promote aviation safety is compromised. 

Airbus requested clarification 

regarding to whom the proposed 

sanctions would apply. Continental 

supports the prohibition of fraudulent 

or intentionally false statements, but 

commented that the assignment of 

responsibility and potential sanctions go 

too far. For example, it is Continental’s 

understanding that the proposal adopts 

a strict liability standard for a part 121 

operator by imposing denial of a 

training program application or removal 

of a training program approval for 

infractions. Continental further 

commented that the FAA should hold a 

carrier responsible for fraudulent or 

intentionally false statements only when 

it can prove carrier approval or 

endorsement of such actions; individual 

employee or contractor actions should 

not be automatically attributed to a 

carrier. They conclude that penalties 

against carrier training programs should 

only be levied when FAA can prove 

carrier approval of such actions. In 

addition, Continental stated that the 

proposal to impose penalties for 

incorrect statements or entries is 

inconsistent with FAA enforcement 

policy, because Order 2150.3B, FAA 

Enforcement and Compliance Program, 

and case law recognize that not all acts 

warrant enforcement action, especially 

unintended acts. Continental notes that 

the introduction of penalties for 

incorrect statements or entries, which 

may have been made inadvertently, will 

serve no deterrent purpose and 

recommends eliminating paragraph (c) 

of proposed § 121.9. 

The agency agrees with comments 

that not all certificate holder actions 

necessarily warrant the strictest agency 

response and clarifies that § 121.9 does 

not set forth a strict liability standard. 

Section 121.9 identifies the potential 

consequences for intentional 

falsification or fraud. However, the 

potential sanctions set forth in 

§ 121.9(b) are limited to cases of 

intentional falsification or fraud that 

violate § 121.9(a). As discussed in the 

following paragraph, proposed 

§ 121.9(c) regarding consequences for 

making incorrect statements has not 

been included in the final rule. 

Further, in response to comments that 

§ 121.9 is inconsistent with agency 

guidance, the agency responds that the 

addition of § 121.9 does not alter the 

agency’s policy in Order 2150.3B 

regarding the factors it considers in 

assessing whether to pursue 

enforcement action, the type of 

enforcement action (i.e. administrative, 

legal, etc.) to pursue, and the nature of 

the sanction that will be pursued, if any. 

In fact, § 121.9(b)(3)–(4) of the proposal 

recognize that a more flexible response 

by the agency may be warranted in 

certain circumstances. Not all action 

taken as a result of a regulatory violation 

is punitive as is the case with the 

proposal to deny an application or 

approval of a training program upon the 

discovery of incorrect training-related 

information upon which the agency 

relied. Rather, as is the case today, the 

agency may withdraw an approved 

training program to assess the safety and 

effectiveness of the program based on 

accurate information. Therefore, 

proposed paragraph (c) is not necessary 

and has not been included in the final 

rule. 

In response to commenters’ concerns 

that certificate holders may be held 

liable for the actions of any person 

under § 121.9 as proposed, the 

regulatory language of § 121.9(b) applies 

to certificate holders as well as any 

person acting on behalf of a certificate 

holder who commits an act prohibited 

by § 121.9(a). Commenters’ concerns 

regarding liability for the acts of their 

employees have been addressed by case 

law. Part 119 certificate holders are 

ultimately responsible for compliance 

with the duties required to satisfy part 

121 requirements and are expected to 

oversee the conduct of persons they 

employ. If a certificate holder could be 

considered liable only upon proof that 

it was at fault independently, it would 

have an incentive to minimize oversight 

of persons it employs. 

Currently, 18 U.S.C. 1001 prohibits 

fraud and falsification in matters within 

the jurisdiction of the executive branch. 

Accordingly, there is no cost or 

additional burden to the certificate 

holder to comply with this provision, 

and there is no reason to delay 

compliance with this section by 5 

years.10 In the final rule, this provision 

will become effective 120 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

E. Personnel Identified as Flight 

Attendants 

In existing § 121.391, the FAA 

requires flight attendants on an aircraft 

operated under part 121 when the 

agency determines that the presence of 

a flight attendant is required to ensure 

the safety of the aircraft and its 

occupants. When such a determination 

has been made, the agency also 

identifies the minimum number of flight 

attendants required. However, a 

certificate holder may choose to provide 

a flight attendant when one is not 

required or a certificate holder may 

choose to provide additional flight 

attendants in excess of the required 

minimum number of flight attendants. 

Historically, there has been an 

inconsistent application of the rules 

regarding training and qualification 

requirements for these flight attendants 

who are not required to be on the 

aircraft. In part 121, the agency requires 

flight attendants to complete training 

that will enable them to perform safetyrelated functions in a normal operating 

environment as well as to increase 

passenger and crewmember 

survivability in an accident. However, 

the identification of any crewmember as 

a flight attendant implies that the 

crewmember is fully qualified to 

perform all safety-related flight 

attendant duties and responsibilities 

upon which other crewmembers or 

passengers may rely. 

Accordingly, in § 121.392 of the 

SNPRM and the final rule, the agency 

requires any person identified by the 

certificate holder as a flight attendant on 

an aircraft in operations under part 121 

to have completed the part 121 flight 

attendant training and qualification 

requirements. This requirement applies 

whether or not the person serves as a 

required crewmember. The agency 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67811 

11The agency notes that the terms ‘‘visual 

simulator’’ and ‘‘airplane simulator’’ as used 

throughout part 121, are currently referred to as 

‘‘full flight simulators’’ in part 60. A ‘‘training 

device’’ or ‘‘flight training device,’’ as used 

throughout part 121 are currently referred to as 

‘‘flight training devices’’ in part 60. A ‘‘non-visual 

simulator’’ or a ‘‘simulator without a visual system’’ 

is a motion simulator without a visual presentation. 

These types of devices have either been retired or 

upgraded to FFSs with the installation of visual 

displays. 

12Although this comment was made in 

connection with the use of an FSTD to maintain 

pilot recent experience requirements, it is generally 

applicable to a number of other conforming 

references to part 60 throughout the SNPRM. 

further clarifies that certificate holders 

must identify a person serving as a 

crewmember who has not yet completed 

all flight attendant training and 

qualification requirements to serve as a 

required crewmember on a particular 

aircraft, such as a person who is gaining 

the aircraft operating experience 

required by § 121.434(e), as a qualifying 

flight attendant. Air carriers may 

determine how they want to identify 

these individuals to passengers, as 

appropriate for their operation. Some 

possible methods would be to 

differentiate their uniform from that of 

fully qualified flight attendants, identify 

flight attendants in training as 

‘‘trainees’’ via nametags or to make an 

announcement to passengers before the 

aircraft pushes back from the gate. 

The FAA did not receive any 

comments on this section as proposed 

in the SNPRM. Proposed § 121.392 

appears in the final rule with a modified 

compliance date as discussed in section 

III.B. of this preamble. 

F. Approval of Airplane Simulators and 

Training Devices 

Currently, existing § 121.407 requires 

a certificate holder to obtain the 

agency’s approval for the use of airplane 

simulators and other training devices in 

a training program approved under part 

121.11 In the NPRM (§ 121.1347) and in 

the SNPRM (§ 121.1345), the agency 

proposed to require each FSTD used in 

a part 121 training program to be 

qualified and maintained in accordance 

with 14 CFR part 60—Flight Simulation 

Training Device Initial and Continuing 

Qualification and Use, and approved by 

the Administrator for use in training or 

evaluating the particular flight training 

maneuver or procedure. This proposal 

aligned the existing requirements for 

approval of airplane simulators and 

other training devices in a part 121 

training program with the requirements 

regarding the evaluation, qualification, 

and maintenance of FSTDs added to 

title 14 in 2006. The part 60 FSTD 

requirements currently apply to all 

persons using or applying to use an 

FSTD to meet any requirement of title 

14, chapter 1, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Department of 

Transportation, including the training 

and qualification requirements of 

subparts N and O. See 14 CFR 60.1(b). 

Southwest, American, USAirways, 

Continental, FedEx, and a number of 

other commenters questioned how the 

proposal would affect devices qualified 

in accordance with ACs that predate 

part 60. These commenters 

recommended a blanket statement on 

simulation and various types of 

simulator qualification that states an 

FFS could be either qualified under part 

60 or grandfathered into regulation by 

§ 60.17 although not actually qualified 

under part 60.12

This final rule does not modify the 

existing part 60 requirements for the 

evaluation, maintenance, and 

qualification of FSTDs. In the final rule, 

the agency clarifies that § 60.17 will 

continue to address previously qualified 

devices that may be used in part 121 

training programs. 

Through modifications to existing 

§ 121.407, the final rule incorporates the 

proposal to conform part 121 

requirements regarding the use of 

FSTDs in approved training programs 

with the existing part 60 requirements 

that already apply to the use of FSTDs 

in part 121 training programs. 

G. Approval of Training Equipment 

Other Than Flight Simulation Training 

Devices 

Current regulations do not provide 

specific requirements for training 

equipment other than FSTDs, but the 

regulations generally require training 

equipment to be adequate. To ensure 

that all equipment used in approved 

training programs is adequate for the 

particular task for which it is used, in 

§ 121.1351 of the NPRM and SNPRM, 

the FAA proposed requirements for 

training equipment other than FSTDs. 

The FAA has retained this provision as 

§ 121.408 of the final rule. Section 

121.408 states that the FAA must 

approve training equipment (e.g. cockpit 

procedures trainers, door/exit trainers, 

water survival equipment, etc.) used to 

functionally replicate aircraft equipment 

required to be used as part of the 

approved training program. 

In the SNPRM, the agency explained 

that this provision would apply to 

training equipment including, but not 

limited to, portable emergency 

equipment, including life vests and fire 

extinguishers, aircraft exit trainers, and 

equipment for overwater operations. In 

response to comments to the NPRM that 

the proposed requirements in 

§ 121.1351 were overly broad and open 

to interpretation, the agency restated the 

purpose of this requirement in the 

SNPRM was focused on ensuring that 

crewmembers receive training on 

emergency equipment that replicates the 

actual equipment they would use in 

emergency situations in aircraft 

operations. The proposed requirements 

in § 121.1351 appear in § 121.408 of the 

final rule with the clarifications 

described in the following paragraphs. 

In response to the SNPRM, American, 

the Air Transport Association of 

America, Inc. (ATA) (now known as 

Airlines for America), USAirways, 

Continental, ASTAR, FedEx, and 

Southwest requested more specificity 

about the types of training equipment 

that would be covered under this 

section. American, ATA, USAirways, 

Continental, ASTAR, and FedEx further 

stated that it would be difficult to 

comply with the provision that requires 

the training equipment to replicate the 

form, fit, function, and weight, as 

appropriate, of the aircraft equipment, 

because much of the data, which must 

come from the manufacturers, is not 

part of the information currently 

provided by the manufacturers. 

In the final rule, the FAA maintains 

the existing requirements in 

§ 121.403(b)(2) that all training devices 

mockups, systems trainers, procedures 

trainers and other training aids be listed 

in the air carrier’s approved training 

program. The final rule also includes a 

new provision, proposed in the SNPRM, 

which clarifies the FAA’s intent 

regarding the criteria that must be met 

by this training equipment. This 

provision requires that training 

equipment used to accomplish the 

training requirements of this part meet 

the form, fit, function, and weight, as 

appropriate, of the actual equipment 

that crewmembers will be using during 

normal and/or emergency aircraft 

operations. In addition, the equipment 

must replicate the normal operation 

(and abnormal and emergency 

operation, if appropriate) of the aircraft 

equipment including the required force, 

actions and travel of the aircraft 

equipment and variations in aircraft 

equipment operated by the certificate 

holder, if applicable. It must also 

replicate the operation of the aircraft 

equipment under adverse conditions, if 

appropriate. 

The FAA has qualified the 

requirement with ‘‘as appropriate’’ to 

allow for flexibility in cases where 

manufacturer’s data is not available or it 

is impracticable or unnecessary to meet 

this requirement. The FAA clarifies that 

the requirements in section § 121.408 

apply to training equipment used to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67812 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

accomplish job performance 

requirements only where replication of 

the actual equipment used in operations 

is key to the learning objectives of the 

drill. Further, certain criteria do not 

affect the efficacy of training equipment 

as a training tool. For example, the 

weight of the entire door trainer would 

not have to match the weight of that size 

section of an actual aircraft fuselage, but 

the weight of the door/window that the 

crewmember is opening would have to 

replicate the weight of the actual exit on 

an aircraft in order to prepare a 

crewmember adequately to react in an 

emergency. The key objective of this 

requirement is that the training 

equipment reflects the equipment that 

would be used by the crewmember in 

normal and/or emergency aircraft 

operations in order to accomplish the 

learning objectives of the drill. 

Additionally some commenters noted 

that the FAA has not required the 

official approval of training equipment 

outside of the National Simulator 

Program or part 60. In response, the 

FAA clarifies that existing 

§ 121.403(b)(2) already requires that all 

training device mockups, systems 

trainers, procedures trainers, and other 

training aids be listed in the air carrier’s 

approved training program. The 

requirements of § 121.408 simply clarify 

the functional attributes and 

requirements that must be met by this 

training equipment. 

Commenters (American, ATA, 

USAirways, Continental, ASTAR, FedEx 

and Southwest) have assumed that this 

provision would apply to door and 

window trainers, but question whether 

it would also include unique slat/flap 

handle trainers, intruder resistant 

cockpit door latch trainers, and many 

other cockpit or cabin items for which 

a hands-on trainer would be beneficial, 

but not necessarily required. 

The FAA agrees that it is important to 

clarify what training equipment must 

meet the requirements of § 121.408. In 

the final rule, the FAA has amended 

§ 121.408(b) to require that the 

provisions of this section apply to 

training equipment used to meet the 

training requirements of this subpart. 

This includes portable emergency 

equipment (e.g. fire extinguishers, 

portable oxygen bottles, and protective 

breathing equipment), aircraft exit 

trainers, equipment for overwater 

operations, and other equipment used to 

meet hands on training requirements. 

The agency notes that air carriers may 

find it useful to create hands on training 

opportunities for crewmembers to 

enhance training in a certain area, even 

when hands on performance training is 

not required by regulation. When a 

device (e.g. unique slat/flap handle 

trainers, intruder resistant cockpit door 

latch trainers, and many other cockpit 

or cabin items) is not required by the 

training requirements of this subpart, 

the functional attributes and 

requirements for the equipment of 

§ 121.408 do not apply. However, the 

device must still be listed in the air 

carrier’s approved training program, 

under the requirements of § 121.403, 

and contribute to training objectives. 

Southwest also asserts that the 

requirement proposed in § 121.1351(d) 

that all training equipment must have a 

method of documenting discrepancies 

in close proximity, precludes the use of 

technology to maintain an electronic log 

book for discrepancies unless a 

recording device is located in close 

proximity to each piece of equipment. 

Southwest proposed changing ‘‘close 

proximity’’ to ‘‘within the training 

facility.’’ 

The FAA agrees with the commenter 

and in the final rule has amended the 

requirements of § 121.408(d) to only 

require a method for documenting 

discrepancies for all training equipment. 

This provision will allow the greatest 

flexibility for air carriers to develop, and 

submit for approval, a method that 

works effectively in their particular 

training environment. 

H. Pilot Monitoring Duties and Training 

Existing regulations do not explicitly 

address development of pilot 

monitoring skills. However, pilot 

monitoring duties are currently 

included in the operating manual 

required by § 121.133. Therefore, the 

FAA expects that they are incorporated 

in air carrier standard operating 

procedures. 

Historically, the FAA has referred to 

the individual completing pilot 

monitoring duties as the pilot not flying. 

In FAA AC 120–71A, Standard 

Operating Procedures for Flight Deck 

Crewmembers, the agency provides 

guidance regarding a means to 

incorporate standard operating 

procedures for the pilot not flying and 

pilot flying duties into the operating 

manual. The FAA amended this AC in 

2003. In one notable change, the agency 

replaced the term ‘‘pilot not flying’’ 

with the term ‘‘pilot monitoring’’ to 

convey that the pilot not flying should 

be actively engaged in the safe operation 

of the aircraft and as such, should be 

trained and evaluated in performing 

active pilot monitoring skills. 

In § 121.1213 of the NPRM and 

SNPRM, the agency proposed to codify 

the use of the term ‘‘pilot monitoring’’ 

to reflect the activities conducted by the 

pilot who is seated at the controls, but 

not flying the aircraft or the FSTD. The 

agency further proposed to require a 

pilot to accomplish pilot monitoring 

duties in accordance with the operating 

manual. The proposals did not change 

the current duties and responsibilities of 

the pilots at the controls. 

The Air Line Pilots Association, 

International (ALPA) supported the use 

of the term ‘‘pilot monitoring,’’ as 

incorporated in the NPRM and SNPRM, 

as it better describes the function of the 

pilot who is not actually controlling the 

aircraft. Southwest, Fed Ex, Continental, 

American, ATA, and USAirways 

commented that the agency should 

include a definition of ‘‘pilot 

monitoring’’ in the final rule to clarify 

the term. The agency is not persuaded 

by commenters that a definition of 

‘‘pilot monitoring’’ is required. In the 

final rule, § 121.544 of subpart T 

includes the proposed description of the 

pilot who must complete pilot 

monitoring duties with sufficient detail 

such that an additional definition is not 

necessary. 

In § 121.1213 of the SNPRM, the 

agency’s proposal combined operational 

and training requirements for the pilot 

monitoring. Southwest, Continental, 

ASTAR, American, ATA, USAirways, 

and FedEx commented that the agency 

should remove language in the proposal 

that would require pilots to accomplish 

pilot monitoring duties in accordance 

with the operating manual while at the 

controls of an FSTD during training. 

These commenters stated that there may 

be times when a pilot is instructed to 

behave in a way other than specified by 

the operating manual to complete a 

training objective (e.g., incapacitated 

pilot, get into upset event for training 

purposes, check pilot training, etc.). 

In response to comments, the agency 

clarifies that training requirements must 

be based on operating manual contents 

and standard operating procedures so 

that pilots can receive comprehensive 

training on the procedures that must be 

followed during operations. However, 

the agency recognizes that it may not 

always be feasible or practical to 

maintain consistency with the operating 

manual for the ‘‘set up’’ of certain 

maneuvers and procedures in a training 

environment. Therefore, the final rule 

addresses pilot monitoring duties and 

training in separate provisions. Section 

121.544 of the final rule provides pilot 

monitoring duties and § 121.409 and 

appendix H provide pilot monitoring 

training. 

The agency’s determination regarding 

the need for training on pilot monitoring 

is supported by the NTSB final report 

on the Colgan accident. In the NTSB 

final report on this accident, the NTSB 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67813 

stated, ‘‘The flight crewmembers failed 

to monitor the airplane’s pitch attitude, 

power, and especially its airspeed and 

failed to notice, as part of their 

monitoring responsibilities, the rising 

low-speed cue on the IAS display. 

Multiple strategies can be used to 

protect against catastrophic outcomes 

resulting from these and other 

monitoring failures, including flight 

crew training, flight deck procedures, 

and low-airspeed alert systems . . .’’ 

The NTSB concluded that ‘‘the 

monitoring errors made by the accident 

flight crew demonstrate the continuing 

need for specific pilot training on active 

monitoring skills.’’ See NTSB Rep. 

AAR–10/01, at p. 94. 

In the SNPRM, the agency proposed 

to require pilots to serve as pilot 

monitoring during Line Oriented Flight 

Training (LOFT) to facilitate 

opportunities for pilots to practice and 

demonstrate proficiency in pilot 

monitoring skills and workload 

management under the supervision of a 

flight instructor or check airman. The 

final rule includes requirements for part 

121 operators to provide opportunities 

for pilot monitoring training during 

LOFT. 

Currently, the agency requires LOFT, 

a scenario-based training event with 

minimal check pilot or flight instructor 

interruption, for all pilots who complete 

training in an advanced simulation 

training program. In accordance with 

appendix H, LOFT must consist of two 

representative flights for each pilot. In 

addition, air carriers may substitute 

LOFT that meets the requirements of 

§ 121.409, for the recurrent proficiency 

check requirement specified in 

§ 121.441. Further information regarding 

LOFT can be found in AC 120–35C, 

which provides guidelines for the 

design and implementation of LOFT. 

In § 121.1353 of the SNPRM, the 

agency proposed to add specificity to 

existing LOFT requirements by 

requiring each pilot to serve as pilot 

flying and pilot monitoring any time a 

part 121 operator uses LOFT in a 

training curriculum. Similar to existing 

LOFT requirements in appendix H, the 

agency proposed that LOFT must 

consist of two operating cycles. 

However, the SNPRM defined 

‘‘operating cycle’’ as a gate-to-gate 

operation. Further, the agency proposed 

that one of the required operating cycles 

would be a ‘‘pilot flying cycle’’ and one 

cycle would be a ‘‘pilot monitoring 

cycle.’’ 

Southwest, ASTAR, American, ATA, 

USAirways, Continental, UPS, and 

FedEx, stated that the two operating 

cycles that must be completed during 

LOFT should not be required to include 

two full gate-to-gate (taxi-in and taxiout) scenarios. These comments were 

provided in response to the proposal for 

two operating cycles for all LOFT and 

with particular concern regarding 

recurrent LOFT. These commenters 

state two gate-to-gate operating cycles 

would reduce the effectiveness of LOFT 

due to more time and emphasis on 

ground operations and less on flight 

operations. 

Further ASTAR, American, ATA, 

USAirways, Continental, UPS, and 

FedEx stated that, for those carriers 

engaged in long haul, international 

flights, the requirement to design LOFT 

with two operating cycles representative 

of the certificate holder’s operation will 

be challenging. Commenters 

recommend that for purposes of a LOFT, 

‘‘Operating Cycle’’ should be defined to 

include only takeoff, climb, en route, 

descent and landing. 

The FAA concurs with commenters 

that two gate-to-gate operating cycles are 

unnecessary for the reasons cited by 

commenters. In response to carriers’ 

concerns regarding the effect of 

requiring two operating cycles for 

LOFT, the agency clarifies that LOFT is 

intended to be representative of a 

certificate holder’s operation, not a 

replication of the flight. As described in 

FAA AC 120–35C Line Operational 

Simulation: Line Oriented Flight 

Training, Special Purpose Operational 

Training, Line Operational Evaluation, 

LOFT is conducted as a line operation 

and allows for no interruption by the 

instructor during the session except for 

a non-disruptive acceleration of 

uneventful en route segments. 

Accordingly, the crew completing LOFT 

must complete one taxi-out and one 

taxi-in during the 4-hours required for 

LOFT in current § 121.409. Additional 

segments need only consist of takeoff, 

climb, en route, descent, and landing. 

Commenters state that the proposed 

requirement for two operating cycles 

during which a pilot serves exclusively 

as pilot monitoring or pilot flying was 

not representative of actual line 

operations. This proposal would force 

crews into predetermined pilot flying 

and pilot monitoring roles irrespective 

of actual line operations in order to 

meet the regulatory requirements. 

The agency agrees with comments 

that the LOFT training should be 

representative of actual line operations. 

During typical line operations, a pilot 

may not serve exclusively as either the 

pilot flying or the pilot monitoring. 

Therefore, the final rule does not require 

exclusive pilot monitoring and flying 

cycles during LOFT. Instead, the final 

rule requires pilots who must complete 

LOFT in accordance with appendix H or 

who complete LOFT as an alternative to 

the proficiency check requirement 

specified in § 121.441, to complete two 

representative flight segments and to 

serve as pilot monitoring for a period of 

time during the LOFT. This change 

ensures pilots will have an opportunity 

to practice pilot monitoring under the 

supervision of a flight instructor or 

check airman while maintaining a 

representative scenario-based training 

environment. 

In addition, in the SNPRM, the agency 

proposed to require part 121 operators 

to evaluate active pilot monitoring 

skills. American, ATA, USAirways, 

Continental, and ASTAR commented 

that the proposed evaluation 

requirements § 121.1213 will require the 

development of new pilot monitoring 

standards, and grading and data 

collection methods making the 

requirement burdensome. 

Based on review of the comments and 

the proposal, the agency clarifies that 

pilot monitoring is most appropriately 

assessed in the LOFT environment 

which is intended to represent a normal 

operation. Therefore, it would not be 

appropriate to require monitoring as a 

discrete training and evaluation item. 

The final rule requirement to include 

pilot monitoring during LOFT does not 

place any additional simulator time 

burden on operators who use advanced 

simulation training programs to train 

their pilots or substitute LOFT for 

recurrent proficiency check 

requirements because the requirement 

can be met during the ordinary course 

of any LOFT that is currently part of a 

part 121 operator’s training program. 

However there may be some burden due 

to the need to amend an air carrier’s 

training program. This burden has been 

reflected in the information collection 

requirements that are discussed in the 

Paperwork Reduction Act discussion in 

Section IV of the preamble. The FAA 

has included this requirement in the 

final rule as amendments to paragraph 

6 in appendix H and § 121.409. 

I. Flight Instructor (Simulator) and 

Check Airmen (Simulator) Training 

Existing §§ 121.413 and 121.414 

require flight instructors and check 

airmen to complete initial and transition 

ground and flight training. The ground 

training focuses on instruction and 

evaluation methods, procedures, and 

techniques. Sections 121.413 and 

121.414 do not currently require ground 

training on the specific operation and 

limitations of the simulator or training 

device. 

However, appendix H to part 121 

requires certificate holders to provide 

enhanced instruction for flight 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67814 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

instructors and check airmen that serve 

in advanced simulation training 

programs. Flight instructors and check 

airman who serve in a part 121 

advanced simulation training program 

must complete the training required by 

§§ 121.413 and 121.414, as applicable, 

as well as annual training identified in 

appendix H that includes simulator 

operation, limitations, and minimum 

equipment required for each course of 

training. 

In §§ 121.1377 and 121.1381 of the 

SNPRM, the agency proposed 

requirements for all flight instructors 

and all check airmen who serve in 

FSTDs to complete ground training on 

FSTD use, operation, and limitations 

based on existing appendix H annual 

training requirements. To coincide with 

the SNPRM proposal for flightcrew 

member recurrent training, the agency 

proposed an 18 month interval for 

recurrent flight instructor and check 

airman training. 

Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) 

expressed specific concern about the 

qualifications of instructors conducting 

training in upset recognition and 

recovery. APS stated that the delivery of 

upset recognition and recovery training 

by instructors who have not first been 

provided with such information 

themselves and qualified in the delivery 

of information and techniques in this 

area has a high probability of 

propagating incorrect or unsafe 

information and techniques. APS 

recommended that the FAA require 

instructors to receive training and be 

specifically qualified to deliver training 

in the area of upset recognition and 

recovery. 

The FAA agrees with this 

commenter’s concerns regarding the 

importance of instructor training for 

upset recovery training. Similar 

concerns were raised by the 208 ARC, 

which identified the lack of instructor 

knowledge, qualification, and 

standardization as a major hazard for 

the delivery of upset recovery training. 

In the final rule, the FAA has 

determined that instructor and check 

airman training must not only contain 

initial and recurrent training for 

maneuvers, concepts and techniques but 

must also include training on both the 

data and motion limitations of the 

FSTD. Accordingly, the agency added 

these enhanced training requirements 

for flight instructors and check airmen 

to current §§ 121.413 and 121.414. 

Further, the FAA has established the 

recurrent interval for flight instructor 

and check airmen training at 12 months 

to coincide with appendix H recurrent 

training that flight instructors and check 

airmen who conduct training or 

checking in FSTDs must complete. 

Training on the limitations of the 

specific FSTD will enable instructors 

and check airmen to provide upset 

recovery training consistent with the 

capabilities and performance of the 

specific aircraft type. This 

comprehensive instructor training will 

not only increase instructor 

standardization and the quality of upset 

recovery training, but also reduce the 

risk of negative training which could 

easily occur with an untrained 

instructor. These enhanced instructor 

and check airmen training requirements 

are consistent with recommendations of 

the 208 ARC. Current training for check 

airmen and instructors is extensive and 

the FAA has determined that these new 

final rule requirements can be integrated 

into the part 121 certificate holder’s 

current curriculum for check airmen 

and instructor training. 

Commenters including Continental 

and American stated that the proposed 

check airmen recurrent training 

requirements in the SNPRM would 

result in additional cost to air carriers. 

The FAA has revised the projected 

benefits and costs based on the specific 

provisions that are adopted in this final 

rule. The final rule recurrent training 

requirements for flight instructors and 

check airmen who serve in FSTDs can 

be accomplished within the instructor 

and check airman requirements in 

existing appendix H. Therefore, costs 

are limited to those costs that may 

accrue from the revision to existing 

manuals and training courseware. This 

burden has been reflected in the 

information collection requirements that 

are discussed in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act discussion in Section IV 

of the preamble. 

J. Remedial Training Programs 

In § 208(a)(2) of Public Law 111–216, 

Congress directed the Administrator to 

conduct a rulemaking to require part 

121 operators to establish remedial 

training programs for flightcrew 

members who have demonstrated 

performance deficiencies or experienced 

failures in the training environment. See 

footnote 2. This statutory requirement 

for rulemaking is consistent with NTSB 

recommendation A–05–14 and existing 

FAA guidance regarding pilot remedial 

training. 

The Congressional direction is similar 

to NTSB recommendation A–05–14, 

issued following the Federal Express 

flight 647 accident in Memphis, 

Tennessee on December 18, 2003. See 

NTSB/AAR–05/01. The NTSB’s review 

of Federal Express’s pilot training 

procedures and oversight at the time of 

the accident revealed that Federal 

Express’s pilot training program focused 

on a pilot’s performance on the day of 

the check with little or no review of that 

pilot’s performance on checks months 

or years earlier. In January 2004, as a 

result of a series of operational 

accidents and incidents, Federal 

Express implemented an enhanced 

oversight program to identify and track 

pilots who have demonstrated 

performance deficiencies or failures in 

the training environment. The NTSB’s 

report on the accident concluded that a 

similar proactive program would 

provide safety benefits for other part 121 

operators. Accordingly, in 

recommendation A–05–14, the NTSB 

recommended that the FAA require all 

part 121 operators to establish programs 

for flightcrew members who 

demonstrated performance deficiencies 

or experienced failures in the training 

environment that would require a 

review of their whole performance 

history at the company and administer 

additional oversight and training to 

ensure that performance deficiencies are 

addressed and corrected. The NTSB 

reiterated recommendation A–05–14 in 

the Colgan Air flight 3407 accident 

report (NTSB/AAR–10/01) after the 

investigation revealed that the pilot 

demonstrated continued weaknesses in 

basic aircraft control and attitude 

instrument flying during multiple 

evaluations within a 3-year period. 

On October 27, 2006, the agency 

issued SAFO 06015, ‘‘Remedial 

Training for Part 121 Pilots.’’ Consistent 

with NTSB recommendation A–05–14, 

in this SAFO, the agency recommended 

a process to identify pilots with 

persistent performance deficiencies or 

who have experienced multiple failures 

in training and checking. The agency 

explained that the process should 

accomplish three objectives: (1) Review 

the entire performance history of any 

pilot in question; (2) provide additional 

remedial training as necessary; and (3) 

provide additional oversight by the 

certificate holder to ensure that 

performance deficiencies are effectively 

addressed and corrected. Following the 

Administrator’s Call to Action to 

Enhance Airline Safety, in January 2010, 

the agency confirmed that all part 121 

operators had implemented remedial 

training consistent with the objectives of 

SAFO 06015. See FAA Fact Sheet, 

January 27, 2010. 

In the SNPRM, the agency explained 

that the statutory requirement for the 

development of remedial training 

programs for flightcrew members who 

have demonstrated performance 

deficiencies or experienced failures in 

the training environment was included 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67815 

13After further review of the SNPRM, in the final 

rule remedial training requirements, the agency has 

replaced the term, ‘‘monitoring’’ with the term, 

‘‘tracking.’’ The agency made this substitution 

because the term ‘‘monitoring’’ was inconsistent 

with existing guidance and to avoid confusion with 

‘‘pilot monitoring’’ duties described elsewhere in 

the final rule. 

as part of the continuous analysis 

process (CAP) proposed in § 121.1355. 

See 76 FR 29336, 29340 (May 20, 2011). 

In the SNPRM, the FAA revised the 

CAP process to include more detailed 

requirements to ensure that all part 121 

operators regularly analyze flightcrew 

member training and checking and that 

any deficiencies in flightcrew member 

performance or operation of the training 

program are identified and corrected. 

See 76 FR at 29361. The agency further 

proposed to require part 121 operators 

to monitor flightcrew members who 

completed remedial training. See 76 FR 

at 29361. 

Commenters, including the Regional 

Airline Association (RAA), questioned 

whether the proposed CAP was 

generally duplicative of activities that 

would be required in accordance with a 

certificate holder’s SMS. Specifically, 

RAA commented that the CAP proposal 

unnecessarily duplicates activities that 

more appropriately fall within the 

purview of an airline SMS. RAA 

suggested that, rather than maintaining 

CAP and SMS as ‘‘separate silos’’ for 

analyzing a certificate holder’s training 

program, the agency withdraw proposed 

§§ 121.1355 (applicable to 

crewmembers) and 121.1441 (applicable 

to aircraft dispatchers) and incorporate 

the CAP into the agency’s proposed 

SMS rule. 

The agency agrees that elements of the 

proposed CAP were similar to the 

proposed SMS requirements. 

Accordingly, in the final rule, the 

agency has only retained the pilotspecific remedial training components 

of the proposed CAP that complement 

the proposed SMS requirements. The 

agency clarifies that the analysis process 

element of the remedial training 

program requirement may serve as a 

component of a robust SMS. 

1. Analysis Process 

Section 121.415(h) of the final rule 

retains the SNPRM proposal that each 

approved training program must include 

a process for the regular analysis of 

individual pilot training and checking 

performance to identify pilots with 

performance deficiencies during 

training and checking or multiple 

failures during checking. The agency 

recommends that air carriers analyze an 

individual pilot’s performance after 

completion of any qualification 

curriculum or recurrent training/

checking event. To meet the intent of a 

regular analysis, the agency expects an 

air carrier to analyze an individual 

pilot’s performance at least annually. 

The agency expects this analysis to 

include a review of the pilot’s 

performance during all training and 

checking with the air carrier to identify 

performance deficiencies or multiple 

failures. 

2. Remedial Training and Tracking 

The purpose of remedial training and 

tracking is to ensure that the failures or 

identified performance deficiencies are 

addressed and corrected. Therefore, 

effective remedial training must be 

tailored to the individual pilot. Possible 

methods of remedial training include, 

but are not limited to, one-on-one 

training with an instructor, repeat of 

ground or flight training modules, 

additional LOFT, or a combination of 

methods. The remedial training 

requirements in the final rule are 

consistent with the Air Carrier Safety 

and Pilot Training ARC 

recommendations, which called for 

implementing structured remedial 

training programs, while retaining 

flexibility for air carriers to tailor 

tracking to the individual pilot. 

Section 121.415(i) of the final rule 

requires the approved training program 

to include methods for remedial training 

and tracking 13 of pilots that have been 

identified during the analysis process 

required under 121.415(h). 

In § 121.1335(b) of the SNPRM, the 

agency proposed to require that the air 

carrier monitor (identified as tracking in 

the final rule) an individual who has 

completed remedial training until the 

individual satisfactorily completes the 

following recurrent training session to 

ensure the crewmember’s competent 

performance during this period. ATA, 

American, USAirways, Continental, 

FedEx, and Southwest commented that 

the duration of the monitoring 

(identified as tracking in the final rule) 

of an individual who completed 

remedial training was unclear. 

After further review of the SNPRM 

and consideration of the comments, the 

agency has determined that the 

certificate holder must have the 

flexibility to establish the duration of 

pilot tracking. Pilot tracking is an 

element of the remedial training process 

to manage pilots with performance 

deficiencies or multiple failures to 

ensure that the performance deficiencies 

or failures are effectively corrected. The 

agency expects air carriers to conduct 

additional observation of pilot 

performance following completion of 

remedial training to determine whether 

the pilot has mastered the maneuver(s), 

procedure(s) or subject area(s), in which 

he or she has previously demonstrated 

weakness. Possible methods of tracking 

include, but are not limited to, 

additional PIC line checks, SIC line 

checks or observations, additional 

proficiency checks, additional flight 

training, or a combination of these 

methods. Given the potential range of 

identified areas of weakness, the 

individual pilot performance during 

remedial training and tracking and the 

frequency of opportunities to 

continuously demonstrate proficiency 

in those areas, the agency determined 

that the necessary time frame for 

tracking these pilots’ performance will 

vary. The agency expects certificate 

holders to continue to track a pilot until 

the performance deficiencies or failures 

are effectively corrected. The agency 

also expects each certificate holder’s 

approved training program to include 

specific indicators used to determine 

that the pilot has mastered the 

maneuver(s), procedure(s), or subject 

area(s) in which the pilot has previously 

demonstrated weakness. 

The agency clarifies that tracking is 

separate from required recurrent 

training and checking. Regardless of any 

additional training or checking that a 

pilot completes during tracking, 

recurrent training and checking is still 

required at the intervals specified in 

part 121. A pilot’s due month for 

recurrent training or checking may not 

be changed based on completion of any 

additional training or checking required 

by the certificate holder’s remedial 

training and tracking program. 

The NTSB and Families of 

Continental Flight 3407 commented that 

once a pilot completes a ‘‘checkride’’ 

there will be no further tracking of this 

individual even if he or she 

subsequently experiences difficulty 

performing a maneuver, similar to the 

scenario identified during the 

investigation of the Colgan accident. 

The requirement for additional tracking 

of pilot performance is not the only 

opportunity for a certificate holder to 

consider a pilot’s overall training and 

checking performance. As previously 

discussed, the final rule includes the 

requirement for regular analysis of 

individual pilot training and checking 

performance. If a pilot completes 

tracking and subsequently demonstrates 

weakness again, this pilot would again 

be identified during the analysis 

process. Then, this pilot would again be 

required to complete remedial training 

and tracking in accordance with the 

certificate holder’s approved training 

program. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67816 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

14As discussed in section II.B.1. of this preamble, 

the FAA has initiated a rulemaking project (RIN 

2120–AK31) to develop a pilot records database and 

phase out the requirements of the PRIA found at 49 

U.S.C. 44703(h) and will consider the requirements 

of § 121.683 in the pilot records database 

rulemaking. 

Families of Continental Flight 3407 

commented that enhanced 

recordkeeping requirements are 

necessary for a complete assessment of 

a pilot’s performance. The agency 

believes that existing air carrier training 

and checking recordkeeping practices 

provide sufficient information for 

operators to successfully implement the 

remedial training program requirements 

in the final rule. In addition, § 121.683 

requires operators to maintain records to 

demonstrate pilot compliance with the 

training and qualification requirements 

of subparts N and O.14 Records 

regarding an individual’s performance 

in the training or checking environment 

are of the type that could be used to 

satisfy the requirements of 

§ 121.683(a)(1). Accordingly, these 

records should be currently available for 

operator use in implementing an 

effective remedial training program 

including the regular analysis of pilot 

training and checking performance. 

K. Related Aircraft Differences Training 

Under existing regulations, flightcrew 

members must complete the training, 

checking, and qualification 

requirements for each aircraft type they 

operate. In addition, due to differences 

in instrumentation and installed 

equipment, the skills and knowledge 

required to operate aircraft of the same 

type may be different. Therefore, 

crewmembers trained on one variant of 

an aircraft type may require additional 

training to safely and efficiently operate 

other variants of that aircraft type. This 

additional training is identified in 

existing regulations as differences 

training. 

The FAA, through Flight 

Standardization Boards (FSB), provides 

analysis of the differences between the 

variations of existing aircraft types 

during certification. The analyses are 

published in a Master Differences 

Requirements (MDR) document in each 

FSB report. Under existing regulations, 

an operator preparing a training 

program must review the MDR, 

determine the differences between the 

variants of the aircraft type, and develop 

a training program, subject to FAA 

approval, that addresses these 

differences. 

With the rapid advancement in 

modern technologies, both in 

manufacturing techniques and systems 

design and application, industry now 

incorporates products and processes 

that have redefined the relationships 

between and within aircraft types. For 

example, the technological development 

of flight guidance computers has 

produced ‘‘fly-by-wire’’ control laws 

embedded in computer software that 

increasingly determine and control the 

handling or flight characteristics of an 

aircraft. The use of such technology can 

produce aircraft types of differing 

models and aerodynamic airframes, 

with similar handling or flight 

characteristics. In addition, modern 

aircraft systems and displays may allow 

different type certificated aircraft to 

have common flight deck and systems 

designs, such that minimal differences 

training may be warranted. 

Given this technological 

advancement, when requested by 

industry, the FSB will analyze and 

compare aircraft with different type 

certificates and their associated systems. 

Through this analysis, the FSB may 

recommend training reduction for 

identified similarities between aircraft 

types. These recommendations are 

documented in FSB reports for each 

aircraft and have been used by 

certificate holders to develop training 

program curriculums. 

In the SNPRM, the agency proposed 

to extend the differences training 

concept to aircraft with different type 

certificates. This proposal would not 

change existing requirements pertaining 

to differences training for variants of a 

single aircraft type. 

To address the relationships among 

aircraft with different type certificates, 

in the SNPRM, the FAA proposed to 

add to part 121 a definition for ‘‘related 

aircraft’’ for use exclusively in the 

context of flightcrew member training, 

checking, and qualification. Related 

aircraft refers to two or more aircraft of 

the same make (with either the same or 

different type certificates) that have 

been demonstrated and determined by 

the Administrator to have commonality 

to the extent that flightcrew member 

training, checking, recent experience, 

operating experience, operating cycles, 

and line operating flight time for 

consolidation of knowledge and skills 

may be reduced while still meeting the 

training and qualification requirements 

for service on the other aircraft. This 

definition is consistent with the related 

aircraft definition in AC 120–53A— 

Guidance for Conducting and Use of 

Flight Standardization Board 

Evaluations. The agency has provided 

an update to this advisory circular (AC 

120–53B) in the docket for this final 

rule. 

Based on the FAA’s experience with 

evaluating aircraft similarities in the 

training, checking and operations 

contexts, in § 121.1206 of the SNPRM, 

the FAA proposed to allow certificate 

holders to seek related aircraft 

designation for aircraft with different 

type certification for use in part 121 

training program development. Having 

such a designation would allow 

certificate holders to take advantage of 

any similarities that may exist between 

different aircraft types in its operation. 

Certificate holders could develop a 

related aircraft differences training 

program (inclusive of training and 

checking), make modifications to 

existing training programs, or seek a 

deviation from the SNPRM’s proposed 

recency, operating experience and 

consolidation requirements. 

In the final rule, the agency has added 

the proposal for related aircraft 

differences training to § 121.418 and has 

retained the proposed deviation 

authority with modifications. Further, 

consistent with § 121.1223 of the 

SNPRM, § 121.441(a)(1)(ii) of the final 

rule requires a PIC to complete a 

proficiency check in each aircraft type 

in which the PIC is to serve. Compliance 

with this provision will be required 5 

years after the effective date of the final 

rule. 

A certificate holder may seek a 

deviation to allow credit for related 

aircraft operating experience and 

consolidation, recency of experience 

and proficiency checking through a 

deviation request submitted in 

accordance with §§ 121.434, 121.439, 

and 121.441 respectively. 

Currently, in accordance with 

§ 121.433(d), a PIC who serves on more 

than one aircraft type must complete 

either recurrent flight training or a 

proficiency check on each aircraft type. 

To ensure PICs operating multiple 

aircraft types (whether designated as 

related or not designated as related) 

maintain proficiency on each aircraft 

type, the FAA has carried forward the 

proposal from the SNPRM to require a 

proficiency check on each aircraft type 

in which a PIC serves. 

The recurrent frequency for a PIC 

proficiency check in this final rule 

aligns with the existing recurrent 

checking frequency of 12 months. The 

agency does not believe this 

requirement results in any additional 

burden or cost to a certificate holder. 

Section 121.433(d) currently requires a 

PIC to satisfactorily complete either 

recurrent flight training or a proficiency 

check on each aircraft type in which a 

PIC serves within the preceding 12 

calendar months. Therefore, this 

amendment to § 121.441 does not 

require any additional time in an FSTD 

during flightcrew member recurrent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67817 

training. Additionally, the FAA expects 

that any training program updates 

needed to reflect this change are 

minimal and are subsumed in the 

paperwork costs for the collective 

amendments made to the recurrent 

training provisions. 

However, the final rule does allow a 

certificate holder to seek a deviation 

from this requirement for aircraft that 

are designated related. In accordance 

with § 121.441(f), a certificate holder 

may apply for a deviation that would 

allow reduced frequency and/or 

reduced content of the designated 

related aircraft proficiency check for 

PICs. Although the final rule does not 

amend the existing requirements 

applicable to SICs in § 121.441(a)(2), the 

deviation authority added to 

§ 121.441(f) also permits a certificate 

holder to seek a deviation from the 

proficiency check requirements 

applicable to SICs for designated related 

aircraft. 

The agency notes that, consistent with 

current practice, the FAA has not 

established a limit on the number of 

aircraft types, or variants within a type, 

on which a flightcrew member may be 

qualified to serve provided a flightcrew 

member is able to demonstrate 

proficiency and complete the training 

and checking requirements set forth in 

the certificate holder’s approved 

training program. 

Airbus supported the proposal to 

allow certificate holders to modify their 

pilot training programs based on FSB 

related aircraft designation. However, 

FedEx, Southwest, Continental, ASTAR, 

American, ATA, and USAirways 

questioned the necessity for the 

designation of related aircraft because 

existing FSB reports already define the 

relationship between aircraft. 

Commenters further asserted that they 

should not be required by regulation to 

seek approval from the FAA for related 

aircraft designation a second time 

outside the FSB process. 

The agency clarifies that neither the 

proposal nor the final rule make any 

substantive changes to the process by 

which FSB analysis of aircraft with the 

same or different type certificates is 

currently conducted. Currently, part 121 

requires differences training for variants 

of aircraft with the same type 

certification, but it does not specifically 

address a differences training concept 

for aircraft with different type 

certification. Thus, the agency 

determined codification of the related 

aircraft policy in AC 120–53A is 

necessary. 

ASTAR, Continental, American, ATA, 

USAirways, and Southwest asked the 

agency to clarify the proposed recurrent 

training requirements for flightcrew 

members qualified on related aircraft 

that required an alternating sequence of 

flight training and checking for each 

related aircraft type. 

Upon further review of the proposal, 

the agency has determined that the 

concept currently in place for recurrent 

differences training and recurrent 

evaluations should apply to training on 

aircraft designated as related. In the 

final rule, flightcrew member recurrent 

training must include all required 

ground training, flight training and 

checking and crewmember emergency 

training on a ‘‘base aircraft.’’ For an 

aircraft designated as related to the base 

aircraft, each flightcrew member must 

be trained or trained and checked on the 

differences as described in the FSB 

report. 

ATA, USAirways, FedEx, Continental, 

ASTAR, Southwest, and American 

expressed confusion regarding the use 

of the term ‘‘classification of related 

aircraft’’ as proposed in the SNPRM 

provision that would allow part 121 

operators to seek deviations from 

operating experience, consolidation, 

and recent experience requirements. 

These commenters also stated that there 

is no clear guidance on acceptable 

reasons for the agency to authorize a 

deviation from operating experience, 

consolidation and recent experience 

based on related aircraft designation. 

In response to commenters’ concerns 

regarding the term ‘‘classification of 

related aircraft,’’ the agency has 

amended the final rule deviation 

language to refer to ‘‘designation of 

related aircraft’’ for clarity and 

consistency. Regarding commenters’ 

concerns about the basis for authorizing 

deviations from operating experience, 

consolidation and recent experience, the 

agency will evaluate a deviation request 

based on the recommendations in the 

FSB report. Additionally, the agency 

notes that under existing requirements 

and in the final rule, separate operating 

experience, operating cycles, and line 

operating flight time for consolidation of 

knowledge and skills are not required 

for variations within the same type 

airplane. See 14 CFR 121.434(a). 

ATA, USAirways, FedEx, Continental, 

ASTAR, Southwest, and American 

noted that the deviations are now 

required to be approved by the FAA 

Director of Flight Standards. These 

commenters suggest that the deviation 

authority should remain at the principal 

operations inspector (POI) level, 

asserting that a POI who is familiar with 

the airline’s operation, experience 

levels, and training programs is critical 

to making a well-founded decision 

regarding a deviation. 

The agency generally agrees with 

commenters that POIs are the most 

familiar with the operation, experience 

levels and training programs of the 

certificate holder they oversee. 

However, upon further review of the 

proposal, the agency has determined 

that it is more appropriate to address the 

Administrator’s delegation of authority 

for specific functions associated with 

related aircraft designations and 

deviations in guidance material. 

Accordingly, the final rule reflects this 

change. 

The agency emphasizes that the 

related aircraft provisions do not create 

a requirement for an operator to seek 

designation of related aircraft. A part 

121 operator’s determination whether to 

pursue a related aircraft designation or 

develop related aircraft differences 

training is voluntary. The alternative to 

related aircraft differences training is for 

the part 121 operator to develop 

comprehensive training programs for 

any new aircraft type as is currently 

required. 

L. Extended Envelope Flight Training 

Currently, the agency does not require 

ground or flight training on recovery 

from aerodynamic (full) stall or upset 

conditions. In § 208 of Public Law 111– 

216, enacted August 1, 2010, Congress 

directed the FAA to require part 121 

operators to provide flightcrew members 

with ground and flight training on the 

recognition and avoidance of stalls and 

upsets as well as full stall and upset 

recovery maneuvers. Public Law 111– 

216 also directed the agency to 

implement the recommendations of the 

expert panel convened to report on 

methods to increase flightcrew member 

familiarity with and response to stick 

pusher systems and adverse weather 

events. 

Public Law 111–216 followed the 

Colgan accident in which the flight crew 

incorrectly responded to both a stall 

warning and a stick pusher activation 

resulting in an aerodynamic stall. 

Additional improper response to the 

stalled condition precipitated an upset 

condition from which the flight crew 

did not recover, resulting in the death 

of everyone on board as well as one 

person on the ground and a catastrophic 

loss of the aircraft. 

In the SNPRM, the agency proposed 

to require flightcrew members to receive 

flight training on upset recognition and 

recovery, as well as recovery from full 

stall and stick pusher activations. The 

SNPRM also proposed to require pilot 

ground training on recognition and 

recovery from stall and upset. 

As required by Public Law 111–216, 

the final rule includes stall and upset 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67818 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

15The programmed hours identified in § 121.424 

refer to ‘‘inflight’’ training. As defined in 121.401, 

‘‘inflight’’ refers to maneuvers, procedures or 

functions that must be conducted in the airplane. 

Extended envelope training does not fall within this 

definition because this training must be completed 

in a FFS. Therefore, the pilot inflight training 

programmed hours have not been amended to 

account for the additional time required for these 

new training requirements. 

16The agency considers stall prevention training 

and approach to stall training as synonymous. As 

such, the FAA is not requiring certificate holders 

to adopt this new nomenclature in any 

documentation. However, the FAA will revise AC 

120–109 and make other conforming changes to 

adopt this terminology in future rulemakings and 

guidance. 

17The agency notes that currently, line-oriented 

simulator training (also referred to as line oriented 

flight training or LOFT) may be substituted for 

alternating SIC recurrent training which may 

exclude stall prevention (approach to stall) training. 

See §§ 121.409 and 121.441. For this reason, the 

final rule ensures that stall prevention training must 

be conducted every 12 months even if a part 121 

training program substitutes LOFT for alternating 

SIC recurrent training. 

ground and flight training. Consistent 

with Public Law 111–216 and the 208 

ARC recommendations, the agency has 

determined that the greatest safety 

benefit can be achieved by adjusting the 

focus of the training requirements to 

‘‘avoid’’ or prevent the upset or stall. 

Accordingly, the final rule promotes 

pilot manual handling skill 

development to prevent stall and upsets, 

coupled with training which allows 

pilots to quickly recover from developed 

stalls and upsets. The final rule also 

includes the proposed requirement for 

flight training on recovery from bounced 

landings. 

In the final rule, the agency identifies 

the stall and upset prevention and 

recovery maneuvers and procedures as 

‘‘extended envelope training.’’ The term 

‘‘extended envelope training’’ refers to 

maneuvers and procedures conducted 

in a FSTD that may extend beyond the 

limits where typical FSTD performance 

and handling qualities have been 

validated with heavy reliance on flight 

data to represent the actual aircraft. In 

instances when obtaining such flight 

data is hazardous or impractical, 

engineering predictive methods and 

subject-matter-expert assessment are 

used to represent the aircraft adequately 

in the simulator. 

The final rule extended envelope 

flight training maneuvers and 

procedures are required in qualification 

curriculums as proposed in the SNPRM, 

as well as in recurrent curriculums. The 

time required to complete the extended 

envelope training is in addition to 

existing programmed hour requirements 

for inflight training.15

In the SNPRM, the agency proposed 

to require all pilots in part 121 

operations to complete recurrent 

training for the extended envelope flight 

training tasks at either 9 month or 36 

month intervals. The agency also 

proposed to require all pilots to 

complete recurrent training or 

evaluation on approach to stall in at 

least one configuration (clean, takeoff or 

maneuvering, or landing) every 9 

months. A number of commenters 

raised concern generally regarding the 

totality of required recurrent training 

proposed in the SNPRM. However, 

commenters did not provide specific 

objections to the proposed training or 

evaluation frequency for approach to 

stall or the extended envelope flight 

training tasks. 

In the final rule, the agency replaces 

the term ‘‘approach to stall’’ with ‘‘stall 

prevention training.’’ 16 This change 

does not alter the substantive 

requirements of existing approach to 

stall training. The FAA has adopted this 

terminology change in concert with 

ICAO and as a result of the FAA/ICAO/ 

EASA joint initiative to study the 

contributing factors of loss of control 

inflight, internationally recognized as 

the LOCART initiative. 

The FAA has determined that the 

term ‘‘stall prevention training’’ more 

accurately describes the training 

objective intended by the existing 

‘‘approach to stall’’ maneuvers. This 

terminology change also draws a clearer 

distinction from the full stall recovery 

training introduced in this final rule. As 

described in AC 120–109, pilots should 

continue to be trained that the primary 

response at the first indication of a stall 

is to reduce the angle of attack. 

The recurrent frequency for stall 

prevention (approach to stall) training 

and evaluation and the extended 

envelope maneuvers training in this 

final rule aligns with the existing 

recurrent training and evaluation 

frequency of 6 months for PICs and 12 

months for SICs. The extended envelope 

maneuvers training focuses on manual 

handling skills for proper response to 

development of slow flight, stall 

prevention and loss of reliable airspeed. 

Accordingly, in the final rule, the 

agency has increased the frequency for 

these manual handling maneuvers from 

the proposed rule and decreased the 

frequency of recurrent training proposed 

for stall and upset recovery from the 

proposed rule to target resources to the 

areas in which the greatest safety benefit 

can be achieved. As a result, and in 

order to encourage a cohesive training 

approach, the agency has determined 

that every 24 months, upset and stall 

recovery should be trained together with 

the manual handling skill development. 

The agency further notes that this 

frequency is consistent with the 208 

ARC recommendation that upset 

recovery should be trained no less 

frequently than every 36 months. 

Additionally, in furtherance of stall 

prevention, the agency ensures that the 

existing requirement to train or evaluate 

approach to stall every 12 months is 

maintained even if a part 121 operator 

substitutes line-oriented simulator 

training or LOFT for alternating SIC 

recurrent training. Training and 

checking on stall prevention (approach 

to stall) provides the greatest benefit in 

that proficiency in this area provides the 

highest likelihood that the pilot will be 

able to avoid the onset of stall or 

upset.17

Also, in the final rule, the agency is 

furthering the training concepts 

developed in the Pilot Certification rule. 

The requirements in both this final rule 

and the Pilot Certification rule use 

academic training to develop 

foundational knowledge and then 

consolidate that knowledge with FSTD 

training and experience. Together, these 

final rules require certificate holders to 

effectively provide a building block 

approach to learning for pilots. 

Developing the broad concepts of 

aerodynamics in the ATP CTP to the 

type specific aerodynamic concepts now 

required in an air carrier’s training 

program, serves as an effective method 

to deliver the training mandated by 

Public Law 111–216 and recommended 

by the 208 ARC. 

Enhanced academic knowledge, 

emphasis on prevention training, and 

the recommended recovery techniques 

developed by the Original Equipment 

Manufacturer (OEM) constitute a 

complete training solution. The agency 

expects that if this solution is properly 

delivered, it will have a significant 

effect on the LOC–I statistics. 

1. Upset Prevention and Recovery 

Existing regulations do not 

specifically require pilots to receive 

flight training on upset prevention and 

recovery. The Colgan Air flight 3407 

and American Airlines flight 587 

accidents reinforced the need for this 

training because each involved sudden 

or unexpected aircraft upset. 

In the NPRM, the agency proposed to 

require flight training for upset 

recognition and recovery during every 

qualification curriculum and during 

recurrent training. In the SNPRM, the 

agency added a requirement for pilots to 

be evaluated on this task. 

Upset prevention: The greatest safety 

benefit can be achieved if an upset 

condition is prevented through proper 

pilot intervention. Although the agency 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67819 

supports training pilots on recovery 

skills for a developed upset, the 

probability of recovery from the upset 

condition decreases with the magnitude 

of the divergence from the desired flight 

path. Accordingly, the final rule 

extended envelope flight training 

includes both training on manual 

handling skills to enhance a pilot’s 

ability to prevent upset, as well as 

training to recover from an upset 

condition. Each of these concepts is 

derived from recommendations received 

from the 208 ARC. 

The purpose of requiring manual 

handling skills is to ensure correct pilot 

control inputs to avoid undesired 

flightpath deviations. Manual handling 

skills are essential to the prevention of 

stall and upset because they allow a 

pilot to master the aircraft’s flight path 

without the use of total automation. 

Development and maintenance of these 

skills are necessary to keep pilots 

engaged in the operation of the aircraft 

and more easily allow them to become 

re-engaged if an abnormal problem 

arises which prohibits automation or 

typical flight path guidance. Thus, the 

final rule maintains the SNPRM 

proposal to require, as part of the 

extended envelope flight training, 

manual handling training throughout all 

phases of flight to better develop a 

pilot’s core manual handling skills and 

consolidate the principles of airplane 

energy management. 

Pilots must know the common errors 

to avoid and why they occur, as well as 

the importance of cross-checking and 

verifying inputs and communication 

and coordination between pilots. It is 

also critical for pilots to know how the 

airplane responds to inputs across all 

flight regimes (e.g., high and low 

altitudes, airspeeds, and energy states). 

Accordingly, the training 

requirements in the final rule include 

manually flown arrival and departure, 

slow flight, and flight with loss of 

reliable airspeed. The agency expects 

that training on these maneuvers and 

procedures will provide pilots with the 

manual handling skills necessary to 

prevent undesired flight path 

divergence. 

Manually controlled arrival and 

departure: In the SNPRM, the agency 

proposed to require pilots to complete 

training on manually controlled 

departure and arrival. The agency did 

not receive any comments on the 

proposal to train these maneuvers. 

Existing appendices E and F of part 

121 currently require area departure and 

area arrival for both training and 

checking, but these maneuvers need not 

be performed manually. Modern aircraft 

are commonly operated using autoflight 

systems (e.g., autopilot or autothrottle/

autothrust). Autoflight systems are 

useful tools for pilots and have 

improved safety and workload 

management, and thus enabled more 

precise operations. However, 

continuous use of autoflight systems 

could lead to degradation of the pilot’s 

ability to quickly recover the aircraft 

from an undesired state. Therefore, the 

agency has retained the provisions 

regarding manually controlled arrival 

and departure in the final rule. 

Slow flight: In the SNPRM, the agency 

proposed to require ‘‘slow flight’’ 

training during qualification and 

recurrent training to provide pilots with 

an understanding of the performance of 

the airplane and ‘‘hands-on’’ exposure 

to the way the airplane handles at 

airspeeds that are just above the stall 

warning. Similarly, the 208 ARC 

recommended slow flight as a task 

which can develop a pilot’s manual 

handling skill. 

ALPA and an individual supported 

the proposed addition of slow flight to 

pilot training curriculums. However, 

ALPA expressed concern regarding the 

target speeds specified for slow flight in 

the draft advisory circular published 

with the SNPRM (AC 120–FCMT), 

which are set as those between the onset 

of stall warning and aerodynamic stall. 

ALPA believes that the airspeed for 

slow flight should be established by the 

manufacturer (such as Vref) and be near 

the onset of stall warning indication, but 

fast enough that stall warnings would 

rarely, if ever, be activated. ALPA 

further states that requiring slow flight 

practice at speeds that require pilots to 

continuously fly while ignoring 

impending stall indications would 

result in negative training and could 

cause pilots to become desensitized by 

the approach to stall warnings. 

The FAA agrees that encountering 

continuous stall warnings during slow 

flight practice without initiating an 

immediate stall recovery procedure 

would result in negative training. The 

target speed for slow flight must be 

below the speeds that are normal and 

appropriate for the various 

configurations, but targeted to avoid 

stall warning devices. Further, the FAA 

concurs with the use of Vref for the 

configuration which should allow for 

the necessary experience in low speed/ 

low energy handling characteristics 

with sufficient margins to avoid stall 

warning/stall onset with proper 

airspeed control. The agency will revise 

draft guidance contained in AC 120– 

FCMT on slow flight accordingly. 

Loss of reliable airspeed: Finally, 

practice and experience with the 

recognition of and appropriate response 

to a system malfunction that results in 

loss of reliable airspeed is essential to 

minimizing the risk of stall and upset. 

Failure or erroneous display of critical 

flight information, such as airspeed, can 

lead to an upset if loss of energy is not 

quickly recognized and aircraft control 

is not maintained. As such, loss of 

reliable airspeed has been included in 

the final rule extended envelope 

training requirements. 

The training of an airspeed indication 

system malfunction is critical for a 

pilot’s understanding of type specific 

failure modes. Additionally, cascading 

failure of other dependent systems 

provides a training environment, which 

allows a pilot to practice manually 

handling an aircraft with varying 

degrees of automation and capabilities 

that may be present during upset. In 

many instances, the loss of reliable 

airspeed results in an aircraft which 

must be flown primarily by relying on 

pitch and power. Further, these 

maneuvers require an understanding of 

the aerodynamic qualities of large 

transport category aircraft. Therefore, 

this training requirement covers a broad 

spectrum of conditions that could be 

encountered during the period in which 

the upset could be prevented as well as 

during recovery. The training is also 

consistent with 208 ARC 

recommendations regarding pilot 

awareness of how system malfunctions 

affect their specific aircraft and the 

recommendation to provide more 

manual handling skill training with 

emphasis on the aircraft’s pitch and 

power relationship. 

Checking extended envelope flight 

training maneuvers: In the SNPRM, the 

agency proposed to require evaluation 

of two components of the extended 

envelope training—recovery from full 

stall and upset. Atlas Air recommended 

against any evaluation of upset recovery 

or any other maneuvers and procedures 

in this area. This commenter stated that 

the requirement to evaluate upset 

recognition and recovery skills will not 

improve pilot response and will likely 

have a negative unintended 

consequence that will far outweigh any 

perceived benefit of evaluating the 

maneuver. 

Upon further review of the proposal 

and comments, the agency has removed 

the requirement to evaluate upset 

recovery from the final rule because the 

agency agrees that a successful recovery 

is somewhat difficult to quantify due to 

the multitude of variables involved. 

This final rule increases the academic 

knowledge of pilots, requires increased 

instructor training to deliver these 

concepts, develops pilot’s manual 

handling skills which aid in upset 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67820 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

18http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_

industry/airline_operators/training/media/AP_

UpsetRecovery_Book.pdf 

19http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/

Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-109.pdf 

20 In the NPRM Upset Recognition and Recovery 

is described as follows: 

6.5 Task: Upset Recognition and Recovery 

(d) Reference the most current version of the 

Industry’s Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid. 

An aircraft upset is almost universally described as 

exceeding one or more of the following: 

(1) Pitch attitude greater than 25° nose up. 

(2) Pitch attitude greater than 10° nose down. 

(3) Bank angle greater than 45°or within these 

parameters, but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for 

the conditions. 

prevention, and trains the pilots in 

proper recovery techniques. Achieving 

the learning objective defined in the 

recovery maneuvers is paramount. 

Evaluation and approval of upset 

training programs: Commenters also 

raised concerns regarding upset 

training. APS recommended that the 

FAA produce guidance for the 

evaluation and approval of programs of 

instruction in upset recognition and 

recovery that includes stipulations for 

appropriate content, methodology, and 

delivery of training. 

The FAA concurs with the 

commenter’s recommendation and will 

provide operators and training providers 

with sufficient and comprehensive 

guidance on the academic content, 

validated maneuvers, and appropriate 

cautions for the delivery of upset 

prevention and recovery training. In 

developing guidance, the agency has 

considered the recommendations of the 

208 ARC on many aspects of training 

upset prevention and recovery in FSTD, 

including the scope and objective of 

conducting this training in an FSTD; the 

training device requirements; the 

instructor requirements; the academic 

training elements required before 

beginning upset prevention and 

recovery training in an FSTD; the flight 

training elements required including 

slow flight and manual handling 

training; and, the completion criteria for 

upset prevention and recovery training 

in an FSTD. In making its 

recommendations, the 208 ARC 

considered information provided by 

experts on LOC–I causal factors and 

reviewed previous guidance such as the 

Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid 

(AURTA) produced by Airbus/Boeing 

and endorsed by the Flight Safety 

Foundation. The FAA has included e a 

copy of the ARC recommendations in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

Data and qualification of FSTDs: 

FlightSafety commented that most data 

packages do not contain the information 

and data necessary to model a FFS to 

accomplish the required upset 

recognition and recovery training. 

FlightSafety further commented that a 

mandate to train a recovery technique to 

use for a specific aircraft type without 

OEM data and/or FAA approved 

procedures would not improve training 

or safety. APS raised the same concern 

based in part on the expectation that 

extreme pitch and roll angles would 

necessarily be part of upset recognition 

and recovery training. 

The FAA shares the commenter’s 

concerns on the use of validated aircraft 

data and addresses this concern later in 

this section of the preamble. However, 

the agency disagrees with the assertion 

that upset recovery training must 

contain extreme pitch and roll angles. 

The FAA sought recommendations on 

this issue from the 208 ARC. The 208 

ARC reviewed the work completed by 

such groups as the developers of the 

AURTA, the Industry/FAA Stall Work 

Group, and the International Committee 

for Aviation Training in Extended 

Envelopes (ICATEE). The 208 ARC 

validated much of the previous work 

done by each of these groups and used 

the AURTA Revision 2 18 and the FAA 

AC 120–109 19 as the basis of their 

recommendations. The ARC 

recommended the FAA use these two 

documents as source documents for the 

development of advisory material for 

upset prevention and recovery training. 

Further, an airplane OEM group was 

also established within the 208 ARC to 

develop recommended standard OEM 

guidance for the recovery from nosehigh/nose-low upsets. Airbus, ATR, 

Boeing, Bombardier, and Embraer 

developed the upset prevention and 

recovery template contained in the 

advisory material published with this 

final rule. 

The FAA is satisfied the upset 

recovery techniques developed in 

conjunction with this final rule are 

appropriate. Each maneuver and 

associated recovery was developed by 

OEMs and has been validated to remain 

in both the data and motion limitations 

of a Level C or Level D FFS if conducted 

properly. The FAA also stresses that the 

increased instructor and check airmen 

training will allow instructors and 

check airmen to recognize any 

excursions outside of the data or motion 

capabilities of the device and debrief 

pilots on any such event. 

Expand ‘‘Upset’’ definition: Calspan 

recommends the following expanded 

definition of upset: ‘‘An aircraft upset is 

further defined as an airplane 

unintentionally exceeding the 

parameters normally experienced in line 

operations or an event that alters the 

normal response of the airplane to pilot 

input such that the pilot must adopt an 

alternate control strategy to sustain or 

regain controlled flight.’’ 

Calspan commented that the 

definition of upset used in the NPRM 

does not capture how the precipitating 

event may impact the pilot’s ability to 

control the aircraft. A number of 

accidents have occurred where a control 

failure or disturbance significantly 

altered the normal response of the 

airplane to pilot input such that 

conventional control strategies proved 

to be inadequate. Calspan further 

commented that the NPRM cited 

numerous NTSB recommendations 

developed from accidents that resulted 

in extreme upset conditions precipitated 

by an underlying control system issue. 

Calspan stated that these accidents were 

in fact controllable had the crew 

executed proper alternate control 

responses, but without upset recovery 

training they did not possess the 

knowledge and skill necessary to safely 

recover. 

The FAA agrees that alternate control 

strategies are a component of a welldeveloped upset prevention and 

recovery training program. In guidance 

material developed for upset prevention 

and recovery, the agency will discuss 

the advantages and cautions for using 

alternate control strategies when 

primary control responses are not 

effective. However, the FAA disagrees 

with the commenter’s assertion that 

most cited upset accidents were a result 

of control system issues. In the most 

recent accidents such as Colgan Air 

flight 3407, American Airlines flight 587 

and USAir flight 427, the NTSB 

identified improper pilot response as a 

contributing factor. 

Further, the FAA is not persuaded 

that the description of upset should be 

changed as recommended by the 

commenter. The agency continues to 

recognize the description of upset 

proposed in the NPRM. This description 

is also consistent with the AURTA and 

the 208 ARC recommendations.20

2. Stall Prevention and Recovery 

In the SNPRM, the agency proposed 

to require pilots to train on recovery 

from full stall. Further, the agency 

proposed to require that, for pilots 

operating aircraft equipped with stickpusher, stall recovery training must be 

completed by going through stick 

pusher release. Although the agency did 

not receive any comments objecting to 

the proposed requirement to train 

recovery from full stall in general, the 

agency did receive a number of 

technical comments regarding this 

proposed flight training. For example, 

ALPA commented that ICATEE has 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67821 

concluded that there is a need and a 

benefit for training pilots to the full 

aerodynamic stall because aircraft 

behavior in a full aerodynamic stall is 

very different from the aircraft behavior 

in an approach to stall condition. 

However, ALPA cautioned that the 

ICATEE recommendation for full-stall 

training should be put into place only 

if the aerodynamic model of the aircraft 

in the FFS is representative of a full 

aerodynamic stall in flight; the 

instructor pilot is given enhanced 

training in upset recovery training; and 

the FFS has feedback capability to assist 

the instructor and pilots in ensuring the 

stall training is conducted and 

evaluated properly. The agency agrees 

with ALPA’s comments and addresses 

these comments throughout the 

preamble. The separate part 60 

rulemaking initiative previously noted 

is also responsive to the issues raised by 

ALPA. 

One recovery procedure: ALPA 

commented that the FAA-Industry Stall/ 

Stick Pusher Work Group concluded 

that successful recovery from an 

impending stall and a full aerodynamic 

stall, require the same procedure. ALPA 

supports an approach in which pilots 

are trained to treat an ‘‘approach to 

stall’’ the same way as a ‘‘full stall.’’ 

Further, ALPA commented that this 

would simplify pilot recognition and 

response to an impending stall and 

allows for a single pilot conditioned 

response (i.e., one recovery procedure) 

to both approach to stall warning and 

full aerodynamic stall. 

The agency agrees with the comments 

regarding one procedure for recovery 

from an impending stall and full 

aerodynamic stall. In AC 120–109, Stall 

and Stick Pusher Training, the agency 

stresses that pilot training should 

emphasize treating an ‘‘approach to 

stall’’ the same as a ‘‘full stall.’’ This 

common recovery procedure is also 

consistent with the recommendations 

from the 208 ARC for stall prevention 

and recovery. 

Stall training methods and 

evaluation: FlightSafety commented 

that, in practice, a pilot should initiate 

a stall recovery at the first indication of 

a stall or at least at the stick shaker 

warning. However, in the SNPRM, the 

agency proposed to require stick pusher 

training that would give a pilot the 

experience of allowing an aircraft to go 

through early warning signs of stall, 

including stick shaker, so that they 

experience stick pusher. Thus, 

FlightSafety believes the requirement as 

proposed will not enhance safety. 

Further, FlightSafety recommends 

conducting stick pusher recovery as a 

demonstration, with training emphasis 

placed on recovery well before stick 

pusher activation. 

Similarly, while ALPA agrees with 

industry experts that full-aerodynamic 

stall training and recovery should be 

demonstrated as a ‘‘train to proficiency 

maneuver,’’ ALPA states that fullaerodynamic stall should not be an 

evaluated item. ALPA states that only 

stall recoveries initiated at the first sign 

of the stall should be evaluated. ALPA 

recommends that the final rule 

incorporate the recommendations from 

the FAA-Industry Stall/Stick Pusher 

Work Group by maintaining the training 

requirement as a demonstration 

maneuver but removing the requirement 

to evaluate full stalls and stalls to stick 

pusher activation. 

The FAA agrees with the FlightSafety 

and ALPA comments regarding 

evaluation and traditional training 

methods for recovery from full stall and 

stick pusher release. As discussed 

earlier, given that recovery procedures 

for approach to stall and full stall are 

the same, to avoid the potential for 

negative training that might occur by 

having pilots avoid early warning signs 

of stall, the FAA is not requiring 

evaluation of recovery from full stall. 

In § 121.423, added to subpart N by 

this final rule, the agency has revised 

the recovery from full stall and stick 

pusher activation tasks. In the final rule, 

recovery from full stall and stick pusher 

activation are instructor-guided handson experience tasks only. This training 

will emphasize the recovery by the pilot 

incorporating the same angle of attack 

(AOA) principles from the stall 

prevention (approach to stall) training. 

Accordingly, in the final rule, neither 

full stall nor stick pusher is evaluated 

during a proficiency check. 

Further, just as with upset training, 

the FAA has focused training on 

maneuvers that develop a flightcrew 

member’s skill of preventing stalls. The 

FAA will continue to emphasize 

training and checking of prompt 

recovery at the first indication of a stall. 

Approaches to stalls (stall prevention 

training) are critical maneuvers which 

gauge a pilot’s understanding and early 

response to stall indications including 

stall warning; as such the final rule 

maintains existing requirements for 

evaluation of this task. 

High altitude approach to stall 

maneuver: ALPA recommends splitting 

the proposed requirement to complete 

training on stalls in a ‘‘clean 

configuration’’ into two separate tasks: 

one for high altitude and one for low 

altitude because high altitude stalls 

have unique issues that should be 

separately trained. Although the FAA 

agrees with the comment regarding 

differences between high altitude stalls 

and low altitude stalls, in the final rule, 

the agency continues to require recovery 

from approach to stall as it exists in 

current appendices E and F (i.e., 

requiring training in at least takeoff, 

clean and landing configuration). The 

agency does not specify the scenarios 

for stall prevention (approach to stall) in 

order to provide part 121 operators with 

the flexibility needed to develop a 

training methodology most appropriate 

for their operation. 

However, in AC 120–109, the FAA 

recommends that air carriers 

incorporate high altitude stall 

prevention training into their training 

programs. This AC also recommends 

training on the differences between low 

altitude and high altitude stall 

prevention and appendix 2 of the AC 

includes a sample training scenario of a 

clean configuration high altitude 

approach to stall. 

Manufacturer stall recovery 

procedures: ALPA notes that the 

SNPRM did not consider that 

manufacturers are developing and 

publishing stall recovery procedures for 

each specific aircraft. ALPA 

recommends that the final rule and stall 

recovery guidance recognize this 

development by including language to 

ensure that the pilot correctly executes 

the manufacturer-recommended stall 

recovery procedure in the Flightcrew 

Operating Manual (FCOM) and returns 

the aircraft to a safe flying condition. 

The agency agrees with ALPA and in 

AC 120–109 emphasizes that the 

manufacturer’s recommended stall 

recovery procedure takes precedence 

over the generic recovery template. 

Recovery and training criteria: ALPA 

commented that stall recovery training 

and evaluation criteria should not 

mandate a predetermined altitude or 

emphasize a ‘‘minimum loss of 

altitude.’’ Similarly, Atlas Air stated 

that it has difficulty with overemphasis 

on ‘‘minimizing altitude loss’’ for 

approach to stall training. 

In response to commenters’ concerns 

regarding stall recovery training and 

evaluation criteria, the agency notes that 

it has recently issued a number of 

information and guidance documents to 

assist air carriers with properly and 

consistently evaluating pilots’ recovery 

from approach to stall. The agency 

initially issued SAFO 10012, Possible 

Misinterpretation of the Practical Test 

Standards (PTS) Language ‘‘Minimal 

Loss of Altitude,’’ to clarify the intent of 

the requirement for ‘‘minimal loss of 

altitude’’ during evaluation of recovery 

from approach to stalls. Then, in August 

2012, the agency published AC 120– 

109, Stall and Stick Pusher Training, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67822 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

emphasizing that the primary goal of 

testing or checking recovery from 

approach to stall is to evaluate a pilot’s 

immediate recognition and response, 

which should be an immediate 

reduction of AOA. Additionally, the 

agency has revised the approach to stall 

evaluation criteria in the ATP PTS. The 

ATP PTS revision eliminates the 

language referring to ‘‘minimum loss of 

altitude,’’ emphasizes reduction of AOA 

over maintaining altitude, and also 

recommends that one of the three 

required approach to stalls should be 

accomplished while the autopilot is 

engaged. 

3. Recovery From Bounced Landing 

In the SNPRM, the agency proposed 

to add training on recovery from 

bounced landing to initial and transition 

curriculums. The agency also proposed 

to require that pilots complete recovery 

from bounced landing in recurrent 

training. The agency determined that 

the appropriate recurrent training 

interval for this task was 36 months 

based on the agency’s balancing of the 

potential risk with the frequency of such 

an event. 

The FAA determined that training on 

recovery from bounced landing is 

necessary based on FAA review of 

accident history including FedEx flight 

859. On September 14, 2004, a Boeing 

McDonnell Douglas MD–11F operating 

as FedEx flight 859 experienced a tail 

strike during a go-around maneuver 

from Memphis International Airport. 

Neither of the two flightcrew members 

was injured. In its investigation of this 

accident, the NTSB found the probable 

cause was the pilot’s over-rotation 

during a go-around maneuver initiated 

because of a bounced landing. See 

NTSB Event ID DCA04MA082. 

Upon further review of the accident 

history related to bounced landings, and 

comments submitted by the NTSB, the 

agency agrees with the NTSB that the 

bounced landing proposal is responsive 

to NTSB recommendation A–05–30 

issued following the American Eagle 

flight 5401 accident in San Juan, Puerto 

Rico. On May 9, 2004, American Eagle 

flight 5401 skipped on initial contact 

with the runway. Then, after the initial 

touchdown, the PIC took control of the 

airplane. Flight data recorder (FDR) data 

indicated that after taking control, the 

PIC made several abrupt changes in 

pitch and power, which led to two 

bounces before the airplane crashed at 

Luis Mun ̃ oz Marin International 

Airport. The PIC was seriously injured; 

the SIC, 2 flight attendants, and 16 of 

the 22 passengers received minor 

injuries. The NTSB concluded that 

company guidance on bounced landing 

recovery techniques would have 

increased the possibility that the PIC 

could have recovered from the bounced 

landings or handled the airplane more 

appropriately by executing a go-around. 

The NTSB recommended that the FAA 

take action to require all part 121 and 

part 135 operators to incorporate 

bounced landing recovery techniques in 

their flight manuals and to teach these 

techniques during initial and recurrent 

training. 

On June 9, 2006, the FAA issued 

SAFO 06005, Bounced Landing 

Training for certificate holders operating 

under Title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) parts 121 and 135. 

This SAFO recommends that each part 

121 or 135 operator check to see that 

bounced landing recovery techniques 

are included in the manuals used by 

their pilots and in their initial ground 

training for each of the airplane types 

that the operator flies. The SAFO also 

recommends that those same techniques 

are reinforced by briefings and 

debriefings during flight training, 

supervised operating experience, and 

line checks. The SAFO includes 

instructions on how to develop bounced 

landing recovery techniques if not 

already addressed by the operator. 

In 2009, the FAA enlisted the 

assistance of the ATA and the RAA to 

poll part 121 and 135 member carriers 

to find out if they incorporated recovery 

from bounced landing into their training 

program as SAFO 06005 suggests. Both 

organizations reported 100 percent 

implementation of the SAFO’s 

recommendations. 

The final rule requirements for flight 

training in an FFS on recovery from 

bounced landing supplements the 

ground training recommended by SAFO 

06005. The agency has included the 

proposal for bounced landing training in 

the final rule subject to the modification 

described in the following discussion. 

In the final rule, the FAA has 

determined that recovery from bounced 

landing must be trained during all 

qualification training curriculums, 

including upgrade. The agency notes 

that any maneuver or procedure that is 

trained in recurrent must be covered in 

the pilot’s qualification training because 

the pilot’s base month for recurrent is 

reset upon the completion of the 

qualification curriculum. If an upgrade 

curriculum does not also include all 

maneuvers and procedures required by 

the recurrent curriculum, then the 

recurrent interval for a maneuver or 

procedure may be extended. 

FlightSafety questioned how training 

would be developed for an aircraft that 

does not have written procedures for 

recovery from bounced landings and 

whether the FAA developed a training 

tool and syllabus for simulator training. 

FlightSafety further commented that if 

the agency has developed a training tool 

and syllabus for simulator training, it 

would question the data that forms the 

basis for the tool. 

In the draft Flightcrew Member AC 

(AC 120–FCMT) published for comment 

with the SNPRM, the agency developed 

generic procedures and performance 

expectations for recovery from a 

bounced landing, including techniques 

for avoiding overcontrol and premature 

derotation during bounced landings. 

These procedures were based on a 

review of the accidents and extensive 

FAA and industry experience with these 

accidents and incidents. However, the 

FAA expects that the recommendations 

of the aircraft OEM to take precedence 

regarding procedures that may differ 

from any published FAA guidance. 

4. Use of Full Flight Simulators for 

Extended Envelope Flight Training 

Currently, air carriers may voluntarily 

use simulators for varying amounts of 

the training and checking required by 

subparts N and O. The agency requires 

an airplane simulator for windshear 

training only. See § 121.409(d). 

However, the FAA has long recognized 

that the use of simulation in flight 

training provides an opportunity to 

train, practice, and demonstrate 

proficiency in a safe, controlled 

environment. 

In the SNPRM, the agency proposed 

to require all flight training and 

evaluation to be completed in an FSTD. 

This requirement included a range of 

FSTDs from Level 4 flight training 

devices (FTDs) through Level D FFSs 

depending on the maneuver or 

procedure. For the extended envelope 

maneuvers and procedures, the agency 

proposed to allow the use of FFSs 

ranging from Level A to Level D. 

For certain maneuvers required in 

part 121 pilot training, such as the 

maneuvers included in the extended 

envelope training requirements, motion 

provides cues that may affect pilot 

control strategies and subsequently, 

vehicle performance. Motion serves as 

an essential element of a task when, in 

order to complete the task, the 

flightcrew member must make continual 

adjustments based on any number of 

sensory inputs. Accordingly, for those 

training tasks where motion is critical to 

achieving the training objective, such as 

‘‘recovery from stall,’’ an FFS is 

essential to successful training 

outcomes. 

Although commenters generally 

supported the agency’s proposal to 

require FSTDs for all flight training and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67823 

21 International Civil Aviation Organization 

(ICAO) Document 9625 addresses the use of Flight 

Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs). The methods, 

procedures and testing standards contained in this 

manual are the result of the experience and 

expertise provided by National Aviation Authorities 

(NAA), aeroplane and FSTD operators and 

manufacturers. Document 9625 may be obtained 

from ICAO at www.icao.int. 

evaluation, some air carriers such as 

Continental, United, and JetBlue were 

generally critical of the agency’s 

reliance on FFSs, noting that effective 

training programs currently in place use 

a combination of FFSs and FTDs to 

deliver training. Other commenters such 

as the International Association of 

Machinists and Aerospace Workers 

(IAMAW) and the Transport Workers 

Union of America (TWU), ALPA, and 

APS stated that only the highest levels 

of FSTDs should be used to deliver 

training citing concerns including the 

risk for negative training. APS 

commented specifically that operators 

should be required to use the highest 

level of device available to train upset 

recognition and recovery because, 

considering the high consequence 

nature of aircraft upset events, every 

effort should be made to provide pilots 

with the greatest fidelity possible in 

order to learn the skills necessary for 

prevention and recovery from a LOC–I 

situation. 

The agency has not included the 

proposal to require all flightcrew 

member training to be completed in an 

FSTD although currently, most 

operators use FSTDs in pilot training 

programs. The final rule does, however, 

require the extended envelope training 

required in § 121.423 to be completed in 

a FFS. The agency addresses the APS 

comments regarding the use of the 

highest level of device available for 

training upset events in the discussion 

on the requirement for Level C FFSs. 

Level C FFS: In the final rule, the 

agency continues to require the 

extended envelope flight training 

maneuvers and procedures to be 

completed in an FFS. However, the final 

rule requires a minimum of a Level C 

FFS because these devices provide the 

highest level of aerodynamic modeling, 

visual fidelity and motion cueing to 

replicate the aircraft for motion based 

pilot training. The requirement to use a 

Level C or higher FFS is consistent with 

current appendix H requirements for 

Advanced Simulation Programs that do 

not permit Level B devices except in 

limited circumstances. Further, the 3- 

degree-of-freedom motion cues provided 

by Level A and B devices do not provide 

the level of fidelity required to meet the 

training objectives of the extended 

envelope flight training maneuvers and 

procedures as compared to the 6-degreeof-freedom requirements for Level C and 

higher devices. 

In response to comments suggesting 

that the highest level of device is 

required for training in a simulated 

environment, the FAA has determined 

that the current distinction in 

capabilities between a Level C and Level 

D FFS is negligible for the extended 

envelope training included in this final 

rule. The primary difference that exists 

today between a Level C and a Level D 

FFS is the evaluation of vibration and 

sound. Level D evaluation involves 

objective criteria while Level C 

evaluation of vibration and sound is 

subjective. 

Deviation Authority: Although the 

final rule applies the requirement to 

train in an FFS to a limited number of 

tasks, the agency has considered 

comments on the FSTD deviation 

authority proposed in the SNPRM as 

they relate to the final rule 

requirements. In the SNPRM, the agency 

proposed a means by which certificate 

holders could seek a deviation from the 

requirements to complete all flight 

training in an FSTD. The proposed 

deviation authority contemplated the 

use of an aircraft as an alternate training 

platform. 

ASTAR commented on the SNPRM 

deviation authority, stating that the 

FSTD requirements in the SNPRM did 

not recognize that some operators fly 

older aircraft for which the level of 

simulator required exists in limited 

numbers or does not exist at all. The 

National Air Carrier Association, Atlas 

Air, and six individuals commented on 

deviation authority generally, opposing 

a deviation authority that allows 

training in lower level devices than 

those specified for each flight training 

task in the SNPRM. 

The agency agrees that the challenges 

identified by ASTAR may arise with 

respect to the requirement to use a Level 

C or higher FFS for extended envelope 

flight training, although currently over 

95% of FAA-evaluated FFS devices that 

replicate part 121 aircraft are either a 

Level C or higher FFS. Therefore, in 

those limited instances in which a Level 

C or higher FFS does not exist (e.g., 

certain older fleets such as the Convair 

580) or for extraordinary reasons, access 

to a Level C or higher FFS is limited, a 

carrier may apply for FAA consideration 

of a deviation in accordance with the 

process described in § 121.423(e) of the 

final rule. Conducting extended 

envelope flight training inflight presents 

significant safety risks. Therefore, the 

extended envelope maneuvers and 

procedures must be trained in a 

controlled simulated environment or 

through another means by which the 

learning objectives can be achieved. 

Training in Other Devices: Two 

training providers, ETC and Calspan, 

commented that current capabilities of 

existing FSTDs are limited in their 

ability to fully train crewmembers in the 

competencies needed to prevent and 

recover from LOC–I events because they 

cannot replicate the stressors that will 

be present. These commenters and APS 

suggested using alternate training 

resources (e.g., in-flight simulation 

aircraft or a continuous-g motion 

platform) in conjunction with FSTD and 

academic training. Calspan commented 

that academic training should be 

augmented with both an in-flight 

simulator and ground-based FFS 

training. 

The agency intends for the extended 

envelope training to include ground 

training and flight training in a FFS. At 

this time the agency does not have 

sufficient information by which to 

determine the safety and effectiveness of 

the alternate training devices proposed 

by commenters. Enhanced academic 

knowledge, emphasis on prevention 

training and the recommended recovery 

techniques developed by the OEM 

constitutes a complete training solution. 

The agency has determined that if this 

solution is implemented properly, it 

will have a significant effect on the 

LOC–I statistics. 

Consistency with International Civil 

Aviation Organization (ICAO) 9625: 

United, Continental, and USAirways 

stated that the FSTD requirements 

proposed in the SNPRM are inconsistent 

with some of the more progressive 

concepts in contained in ICAO 

Document 9625 which seeks to align 

simulator standards and training tasks 

on a global basis. It is designed to 

address all levels of pilot training and 

licensing, which is outside of the scope 

of the SNPRM.21 Although the final rule 

does not contain many of the maneuvers 

contemplated by the SNPRM, the 

remaining maneuvers and FSTD 

requirements are consistent with the 

standards contained in the ICAO 

Document 9625. 

Device Qualification: ALPA, 

FlightSafety, and Families of 

Continental Flight 3407 commented that 

existing FFSs lack the data package 

containing the information required to 

create the aerodynamic model necessary 

to accomplish full stall and upset 

recovery training. ALPA further 

commented that modifications to part 

60 are also necessary for existing FSTDs 

to address bounced landings, as well as 

tasks such as icing, microburst and 

windshear, so as to avoid negative 

training in these areas. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67824 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

APS stated that there are Instructor 

Operating Station (IOS) capabilities that 

could enhance training in upset 

recognition and recovery. APS 

recommends that an FSTD specification 

be created for the qualification of newly 

manufactured devices which calls for 

information to be provided to the 

instructor indicating whether or not the 

FSTD is being operated within the valid 

training envelope for that device. 

The FAA agrees with commenters that 

modifications to part 60 are necessary to 

train the extended envelope flight 

training tasks, but such modifications 

are outside of the scope of this 

rulemaking. Imposing new FSTD 

evaluation requirements will require 

revisions to the qualifications standards 

in part 60 (for newly qualified FSTDs) 

or an FSTD Directive (for previously 

qualified FSTDs). Accordingly, the FAA 

has initiated rulemaking to address the 

necessary changes to part 60 which will 

be needed to deliver the FFS fidelity 

and IOS tools needed to effectively 

deliver many of the extended envelope 

training tasks. Amendments to part 60 

qualification standards for extended 

envelope training and the IOS panel 

upgrades are also responsive to the 

recommendations for simulation 

improvements from the 208 ARC. 

The FAA believes that the 5 year 

compliance period in this rule provides 

an ample amount of time for an FSTD 

sponsor to conduct any necessary 

modifications as may be required by 

amendments to part 60 to ensure the 

FSTD validation limits are sufficient to 

conduct the required training tasks. 

M. Extended Envelope Ground Training 

Currently, the agency does not require 

specific ground training on stall or upset 

recovery concepts. As stated above, 

§ 208 of Public Law 111–206 directed 

the FAA to require part 121 operators to 

provide flightcrew members with 

ground and flight training on the 

recognition and avoidance of 

aerodynamic stalls and upsets as well as 

aerodynamic stall and upset recovery 

maneuvers. The agency proposed to 

require training on these two ground 

training subjects in the SNPRM (Table 

2A in attachment 2 of appendix Q). The 

agency did not receive any comments 

on this proposal. 

The final rule includes training on 

stall prevention and recovery as well as 

upset prevention and recovery. In the 

final rule, the agency identifies upset 

ground training as upset prevention and 

recovery. The modification focuses the 

training requirements on knowledge to 

create awareness and the ability to 

prevent an occurrence of upset, rather 

than focusing solely on training after the 

upset has already occurred and recovery 

is necessary. Prevention serves to avoid 

incidents and includes any pilot action 

to avoid a divergence from a desired 

airplane state prior to entering an upset 

event. Recovery training serves to 

reduce accidents as a result of an 

unavoidable upset event. Accordingly, 

recovery refers to pilot actions that 

return an airplane that is diverging in 

altitude, airspeed, or attitude to a 

desired state. This change to ground 

training is consistent with the 

recommendations of the 208 ARC, 

convened by the FAA as required by 

§ 208 of Public Law 111–216. 

In the final rule the agency included 

ground training on full stalls and upset 

as additions to current § 121.419, Pilots 

and flight engineers: Initial, transition, 

and upgrade ground training. Section 

121.427 requires that the subjects 

covered in § 121.419 are covered in 

recurrent training as well. Due to the 

addition of these subjects, the agency 

has adjusted the existing required 

programmed hours for initial and 

recurrent ground training. The agency 

has determined that 2 additional hours 

are required for initial training and 30 

additional minutes are required for 

recurrent training, based on a review of 

the content required for training these 

subjects and the agency’s experience 

evaluating and approving training 

programs. 

N. Communication Records for 

Domestic and Flag Operations 

Under the current regulations, 

§ 121.711 requires certificate holders 

conducting domestic or flag operations 

to record all en route radio contacts 

between the certificate holder and its 

pilots and to keep the record for at least 

30 days. Existing § 121.711 recodified 

14 CFR 40.512, which provided that 

‘‘[e]ach air carrier shall maintain, and 

retain for a period of 30 days, records 

of radio contacts by or with pilots en 

route.’’ The rationale behind this rule, 

as stated in the preamble to the NPRM 

that proposed § 40.512, was to ‘‘enable 

the [Civil Aeronautics] Board and the 

Administrator to discharge fully their 

respective accident investigation and 

safety regulatory responsibilities.’’ See 

23 FR 7721, 7723 (October 7, 1958). 

The FAA issued a legal interpretation 

of this section setting forth the 

minimum content that must be included 

in a § 121.711 communication record, 

including: the date and time of the 

contact; the flight number; aircraft 

registration number; approximate 

position of the aircraft during the 

contact; call sign; and narrative of the 

contact. See Legal Interpretation to John 

S. Duncan, Division Manager, Air 

Transportation Division, FAA Flight 

Standards Service, from Rebecca B. 

MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel, 

Regulations Division (Feb. 2, 2010), a 

copy of which is included in the docket 

for this rulemaking 

In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed 

revisions to § 121.711 to clarify the 

contents of the record required for each 

en route radio contact between the 

certificate holder and its pilots, based 

on the agency’s February 2010 legal 

interpretation. The agency also 

proposed to extend the record 

requirement in § 121.711 to 

supplemental operations. In the 

SNPRM, the FAA proposed that these 

additional recordkeeping requirements 

be effective 120 days from the 

publication of the final rule. 

The FAA received comments on the 

proposed revisions to § 121.711 from 

Continental, USAirways, Southwest, 

American, ATA, FedEx, ASTAR, and 

one individual. Commenters stated that 

the time frame for implementation is too 

short because it requires carriers to 

incorporate new functionality into 

existing software systems, and the 

agency did not identify a safety benefit 

that would result from this new 

requirement. The commenters asserted 

that this requirement does not enhance 

safety or increase efficiency, but 

increases complexity and cost for 

operators, with no positive cost/benefit. 

Based on the foregoing, Continental, 

USAirways, Southwest, ATA, FedEx, 

and American recommend striking this 

proposal from the SNPRM. 

As discussed in the background 

section of the preamble, the FAA has 

determined it is necessary to move 

forward at this time with a final rule 

that contains certain discrete provisions 

proposed in the SNPRM. As a result, 

this final rule does not change the 

operational control requirements for 

supplemental operations. Since the final 

rule does not provide for supplemental 

operators to share in operational 

control, it would be incongruous to 

impose the requirements of § 121.711 to 

communications in supplemental 

operations. Therefore, the 

communication record requirements in 

§ 121.711 will not be extended to 

supplemental operations as part of this 

final rule. 

In the final rule, the FAA has retained 

the proposed changes to § 121.711 as 

they apply to domestic and flag 

operators. As set forth previously, the 

agency has interpreted the current 

provision of the regulations as requiring 

certain minimum details regarding the 

contact between a certificate holder and 

its pilots. The approach in the SNPRM 

has merely codified the agency’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67825 

interpretation of the level of detail 

required to comply with existing 

regulations. Accordingly, in the final 

rule, the agency has retained the 120- 

day timeline for compliance with this 

provision because the final rule no 

longer extends the § 121.711 

recordkeeping requirement to 

supplemental operations. 

The communication record 

requirements in § 121.711 apply to 

communications that take place while 

an aircraft is ‘‘en route’’ to its 

destination. In the SNPRM preamble, 

the agency clarified that in this specific 

context, an aircraft is considered to be 

‘‘en route’’ from the time the aircraft 

pushes back from the departing gate 

until the aircraft reaches the arrival gate 

at its destination. See 76 FR 29336, 

29352 (May 20, 2011). One individual 

commenter noted that the agency’s 

interpretation of ‘‘en route’’ in this 

context was inconsistent with a legal 

interpretation previously issued by the 

FAA and suggested that § 121.711 be 

revised to clearly state that 

communication records are required 

from the time the aircraft has pushed 

back from the origin gate until the time 

it arrives at the destination gate. See 

Legal Interpretation to Mr. Charles 

Lewis from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant 

Chief Counsel, Regulations Division 

(April 17, 1997); see also, Legal 

Interpretation to Ansel McAllaster, 

Manager, Flight Standards Division 

from John H. Cassidy, Assistant Chief 

Counsel, Regulations Division 

(September 21, 1988), copies of which 

are included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

The FAA agrees with the commenter 

that clarification is necessary given the 

context in which the term ‘‘en route’’ is 

primarily used in existing regulations 

and the conflicting intent of the 

SNPRM. Therefore, the final rule revises 

§ 121.711 to reflect the meaning of ‘‘en 

route’’ in this context, consistent with 

the meaning asserted in the SNPRM 

preamble. 

The same individual further suggested 

removing the word ‘‘radio’’ from current 

§ 121.711 ‘‘if the intent is for the 

certificate holder to maintain records of 

all contact from pushback at origin to 

arrival at destination gate.’’ As the 

commenter points out, if a pilot 

communicates with dispatch via a 

means of communication other than 

radio, a record may not be required 

under current § 121.711. The agency 

agrees with this commenter. Since the 

meaning of en route in the context of 

§ 121.711 includes time when the 

aircraft is on the ground, the potential 

exists for non-radio communications to 

occur between dispatch and the 

flightcrew. Such a result would be 

contrary to the clear intent of the 

SNPRM and the original premise of 

§ 121.711, which was to ensure that 

appropriate records of all en route 

communications between aircraft 

dispatchers and the flightcrew are 

created and maintained. Moreover, it 

would be inconsistent with the 

provisions of current § 121.99. 

Sections 121.711 and 121.99 were 

added to part 121 in the same 

rulemaking and both provisions were 

recodifications from the Civil 

Aeronautics Board (CAB) regulations. 

See 29 FR 19186, 19195, and 19228 

(Dec. 31, 1964). Section 121.99 

describes the type of communication 

system each certificate holder is 

required to have for purposes of 

communications in domestic and flag 

operations. Although these provisions 

are not currently cross-referenced, they 

are closely intertwined because the 

requirements of § 121.711 contemplate 

the type of communication system that 

is required in § 121.99. 

In 2007, § 121.99 was revised to 

change the previous requirement for a 

‘‘two-way radio communication system 

. . .’’ to a requirement of a ‘‘two-way 

communication system under normal 

operating conditions.’’ See 72 FR 31662, 

31668 (Jun. 7, 2007). This revision, 

removing the word ‘‘radio,’’ was made 

in recognition that advancements in 

technology have provided for other 

communication methods for contacting 

an aircraft other than radio. The agency 

explained the revision in the preamble 

to the NPRM stating that ‘‘these changes 

would make the regulation more flexible 

for modern means of communication 

and would allow for future changes in 

technology.’’ See 67 FR 77326, 77333– 

34 (Dec. 17, 2002). To ensure that 

§ 121.711 is not rendered meaningless 

by the use of non-radio communication 

technology, the FAA has removed the 

word ‘‘radio’’ from § 121.711 in the final 

rule and included a cross-reference to 

§ 121.99. 

O. Runway Safety 

Currently, the maneuvers ‘‘taxi’’ and 

‘‘pre-takeoff checks’’ appear in 

appendices E and F and are required 

training and evaluation maneuvers. 

Upon review of accident and runway 

incursion history, the FAA determined 

that it was necessary to include 

additional procedures within ‘‘taxi’’ and 

‘‘pre-takeoff checks’’ to reduce the 

causal factors that led to accidents and 

runway incursions. 

For example, on August 27, 2006, 

Comair flight 5191 crashed during 

takeoff from Blue Grass Airport in 

Lexington, Kentucky. See NTSB/AAR– 

07/05. The flight crew was instructed to 

take off from runway 22 but instead 

lined up the airplane on runway 26 and 

began the takeoff roll. The airplane ran 

off the end of the runway and impacted 

the airport perimeter fence, trees, and 

terrain. The PIC, flight attendant, and 47 

passengers were killed, and the SIC 

received serious injuries. The airplane 

was destroyed by impact forces and 

postcrash fire. 

Existing agency guidance and 

advisory material identify procedures 

that part 121 operators should use to 

enhance runway safety. See AC 120– 

74B, Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135 

Flightcrew Procedures During Taxi 

Operations; SAFO 06013 Flight Crew 

Techniques and Procedures That 

Enhance Pre-takeoff and Takeoff Safety; 

and SAFO 07003, Confirming the 

Takeoff Runway. The taxi and pretakeoff procedures proposed in the 

SNPRM and included in the final rule 

are consistent with this guidance and 

advisory material. 

In the SNPRM, the agency proposed 

to include three additional procedures 

during the execution of the ‘‘taxi’’ 

maneuver. The agency proposed that, to 

comply with the maneuver requirement, 

‘‘taxi,’’ a flightcrew member must 

complete the procedures ‘‘Use of airport 

diagram (surface movement chart),’’ 

‘‘Appropriate clearance before crossing 

or entering active runways,’’ and 

‘‘Observation of all surface movement 

guidance control markings and 

lighting.’’ Although some certificate 

holders may already train and evaluate 

taxi at this level of specificity, the FAA 

has determined that this maneuver must 

be targeted by all certificate holders to 

ensure that flightcrew members 

consistently use available cues and aids 

to identify the airplane’s location on the 

airport surface during taxi and verify 

proper clearances before crossing or 

entering active runways. 

Further, in response to the accident 

involving Comair flight 5191 and NTSB 

recommendation A–07–044, the FAA 

determined it was necessary to add pretakeoff procedures, ‘‘receipt of takeoff 

clearance’’ and ‘‘confirmation of aircraft 

location and FMS entry for departure 

runway prior to crossing hold short line 

for takeoff.’’ The purpose of these 

procedures is to positively confirm and 

cross check the airplane’s location at the 

assigned departure runway before 

crossing the hold-short line for takeoff. 

The final rule incorporates the 

proposals in the SNPRM for airport 

runway safety training into existing taxi 

and pre-takeoff checks requirements in 

appendices E and F of part 121. The 

FAA has determined that the training 

and evaluation time required to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67826 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

complete these taxi and pre-takeoff 

procedures would not take any longer 

than the time currently required to 

complete those maneuvers because the 

procedures are incorporated into the 

existing taxi and pre-takeoff maneuver 

requirements. 

In incorporating the final rule runway 

safety requirements into appendices E 

and F, the agency has eliminated the 

option to complete pre-takeoff 

procedures in a non-visual simulator. 

Flightcrew members use visual cues, 

signs, and markings to confirm the 

aircraft’s location prior to crossing the 

hold short line for takeoff. Accordingly, 

if an operator chooses to train and 

evaluate pre-takeoff procedures in a 

simulator instead of inflight, a simulator 

with a visual system must be used. The 

agency does not believe this change 

causes any additional cost to operators 

since there are currently no non-visual 

simulators qualified by the FAA’s 

National Simulator Program. 

P. Crosswind Maneuvers Including 

Wind Gusts 

Existing training requirements for a 

PIC and SIC include the requirement to 

perform multiple takeoffs and landings 

until the PIC or SIC achieves 

proficiency. Currently, as part of the 

required training and evaluation of 

takeoffs and landings, flightcrew 

members must successfully complete 

crosswind maneuvers, as set forth in 

appendices E and F to part 121. 

In the NPRM, the proposed 

Qualification Performance Standards for 

pilots specifically provided that while 

performing landings during training, 

pilots must demonstrate the ability to 

‘‘apply gust and wind factors and take 

into account meteorological phenomena 

. . .’’. See 74 FR 1280, 1366 (Jan. 12, 

2009). This requirement was 

inadvertently left out of the SNPRM, but 

remains consistent with the SNPRM’s 

incorporation of existing crosswind 

training into the proposed training 

requirements for flightcrew members. 

In its comments on the SNPRM, the 

NTSB stated that this rulemaking 

should include the requirements to train 

high gusty crosswinds. The agency 

agrees that wind gust maneuvers are a 

critical component of crosswind takeoffs 

and landings and that the training 

requirement should clearly reflect the 

incorporation of this variable into 

crosswind takeoff and landing training. 

The final rule clarifies that crosswind 

training for flightcrew members in 

takeoff and landing maneuvers includes 

training on maneuvers necessary to 

respond to wind gusts. Wind gusts are 

a key variable of crosswind training 

given that a pilot must be able to rapidly 

respond to changes in speed and 

direction of winds to maintain the 

correct flight path to the runway. 

Moreover, crosswind training that 

includes the wind gust variable will 

improve training in areas identified as 

probable causes of accidents by the 

NTSB, including the accident involving 

Continental Airlines flight 1404. The 

NTSB determined that the probable 

cause of this accident was the PICs 

‘‘cessation of rudder input, which was 

needed to maintain directional control 

of the airplane, about 4 seconds before 

the excursion, when the airplane 

encountered a strong and gusty 

crosswind that exceeded the captain’s 

training and experience.’’ In connection 

with this accident, the NTSB issued a 

number of safety recommendations 

including A–10–111, which advised the 

FAA to require part 121, 135, and 91K 

operators to incorporate realistic, gusty 

crosswind profiles into their pilot 

simulator training programs. 

In the final rule, the FAA has 

amended appendices E and F to include 

the requirement for training and 

evaluation in crosswind takeoff and 

crosswind landing with gusts. The FAA 

has determined that this level of 

specificity is necessary to ensure that all 

flightcrew members have the necessary 

skills for takeoff and landing in gusty 

winds. It is likely that many certificate 

holders already train and evaluate 

crosswind takeoffs and landings with 

gusty winds included as a variable of 

the training. However, the agency 

recognizes that not all FFSs are capable 

of replicating gusts and is reviewing 

simulator capabilities as part of a 

separate rulemaking. Moreover, since 

crosswind takeoff and landing are 

already required and gusty winds are 

merely one variable of this current 

requirement, the agency does not 

believe any additional time is necessary 

to train and evaluate crosswind takeoffs 

and landings with gusts. 

Q. Miscellaneous 

The final rule includes a number of 

miscellaneous editorial and clarifying 

changes. These changes remedy 

typographical errors, redundancies and 

provisions that are no longer applicable 

within the regulatory text. 

In those instances in which the 

agency must provide approval or 

authorization, for consistency, the final 

rule refers only to the Administrator. 

The Administrator’s delegation of 

authority for specific functions is 

appropriately addressed in guidance 

material. 

Finally, the agency has removed flight 

navigator training requirements from 

subpart N. Flight navigators are no 

longer required on aircraft used in part 

121 operations. Also, consistent with 

the SNPRM, the agency replaced the 

terms proficiency check and 

competency check in § 121.413(a)(2) 

with checks and supervision of 

operating experience, to more accurately 

reflect check airman functions in part 

121 operations. 

R. SNPRM Economic Comments 

In March 2010, the FAA conducted a 

preliminary regulatory evaluation to 

estimate the costs and benefits of the 

provisions proposed in the SNPRM. The 

agency received several comments on 

the SNPRM regulatory evaluation from 

air carriers, labor organizations and 

trade associations. This section provides 

a summary of issues raised by 

commenters on the SNPRM regulatory 

evaluation and the FAA’s response. 

1. Benefit Analysis 

ATA, Continental, and United noted 

the benefit methodology developed for 

the SNPRM regulatory evaluation differs 

significantly from the original 

methodology used in the NPRM 

regulatory evaluation. 

The FAA refined the SNRPM 

regulatory evaluation benefit analysis 

based on public comments to the NPRM 

analysis. For example, in the SNPRM 

benefit analysis, the FAA limited 

historical accidents to those associated 

with airlines that did not have an 

existing AQP for pilot training. The 

agency made this change based on 

comments stating it was inconsistent for 

the FAA to determine that the 

provisions in the NPRM would have 

minimal cost impact on AQP operators 

while claiming monetary benefits for 

preventing or mitigating accidents that 

involved carriers using AQP for 

training. Further, consistent with NPRM 

comments, the FAA discounted the 

benefits in the same way costs were 

discounted. 

The agency has determined it is 

necessary to move forward at this time 

with a final rule to address certain 

provisions proposed in the SNPRM that 

enhance pilot training for rare but high 

risk scenarios and provide the greatest 

safety benefit. Therefore, the 

methodology used in the regulatory 

evaluation for the final rule differs 

somewhat from the SNPRM. 

The final rule regulatory evaluation 

benefits analysis uses the same 

methodology as that used in the SNPRM 

analysis in terms of using the 

Commercial Aviation Safety Team 

(CAST) approach to select and score 

each accident, and discounting benefits 

and costs. However, after further review 

of the proposal and existing AQPs, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67827 

22NTSB Aviation Statistical Reports, Table 2. 

Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB 

Classification, 1992 through 2011, for U.S. Air 

Carriers Operating Under 14 CFR 121, http://

www.ntsb.gov/data/table2_2012.html, (visited. 

March 14, 2013). 

23http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_

a004_a-4, March 4, 2013. 

FAA has determined that the training 

standards required in the final rule will 

result in new training for all pilots who 

complete training under subparts N and 

O as well as those who complete 

training under AQP. 

Thus, the agency has estimated the 

benefits and costs of the final rule 

requirements on all part 121 operators, 

including those training pilots under an 

AQP. In addition, the final rule benefit 

analysis adds benefits from accidents 

involving air carriers that trained pilots 

under an AQP at the time of the 

accident if the accident could have been 

prevented or mitigated by the 

requirements in the final rule. The cost 

analysis for the final rule also calculates 

costs for carriers that use AQP to train 

pilots based on new training 

requirements for all pilots and not just 

traditionally trained pilots. 

Several commenters raised concerns 

about the accident avoidance safety 

benefit analysis in which the FAA 

estimated the potential benefits of the 

SNPRM by attempting to calculate the 

number and cost of future accidents that 

would be prevented if this proposal 

were adopted. Continental and 

Southwest assert the methodology the 

FAA used assumed that past accident 

history from the chosen time period 

would be an accurate reflection of future 

accidents. The commenters contend that 

the accident rate per departure has been 

decreasing over the past 60 years and 

therefore the FAA methodology is 

flawed. 

First, although part 121 accidents 

have generally decreased over the past 

20 years, major and serious accidents 

still occur. The NTSB’s records on 

Accidents and Accident Rates show that 

from 2001 to 2010, 26 major accidents, 

19 serious accidents, 160 accidents with 

injuries, and 209 accidents with aircraft 

damage occurred.22

Second, OMB guidance directs the 

FAA to monetize quantitative estimates 

by using sound and defensible 

procedures to monetize benefits and 

costs. The FAA used the willingness-topay approach to assume that past 

accident history would be an accurate 

reflection of reducing the risk of future 

airplane accident fatalities. This 

approach is transparent, reproducible 

and follows OMB guidance. OMB states 

the willingness-to-pay approach is the 

best methodology to use if reduction in 

fatality risk is monetized, and the 

monetized value of small changes in 

fatality risk can be measured by the 

‘‘value of statistical life’’ (VSL).23

The FAA estimated total damages for 

the accidents identified in the SNPRM 

regulatory evaluation based on 

assumptions identified in the benefits 

analysis. ATA commented that accident 

investigation costs were assigned based 

on the agency conducting the 

investigation and that it is unclear how 

the FAA identified which type of cost 

applied to each accident. 

The FAA calculated investigation 

costs based on the results of a study 

completed in 2003 and 2004 to provide 

the FAA with critical values the agency 

uses in costs analyses. The results of the 

study can be found in a report 

‘‘Economic Values for FAA Investment 

and Regulatory Decisions, A Guide’’ at 

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_

policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/

media/050404%20Critical%20Values%

20Dec%2031%20Report%2007

Jan05.pdf. The benefit analysis added 

the weighted averages of investigation 

costs (in 2002 dollars) for an NTSB 

investigation, an FAA investigation and 

a private investigation from Table 8–2 of 

the study to estimate the total per 

accident investigation cost savings. 

Since Table 8–2 was in 2002 dollars, 

using a GDP deflator, we escalated the 

results of Table 8–2 to 2012 dollars. In 

addition, the FAA used Department of 

Transportation guidance to estimate 

accident costs found at http://

www.dot.gov/policy/transportationpolicy/treatment-economic-valuestatistical-life. The SNPRM regulatory 

evaluation documented this report as a 

data source for accident costs. 

ATA, Continental, and Delta 

commented that the SNPRM regulatory 

evaluation contains no description of 

the criteria the FAA used to determine 

which accidents were relevant or how 

the criteria were applied. 

The process the FAA used to 

determine which accidents were 

relevant to the proposal is described in 

Section II.B.2. Accident Population and 

Scoring on page 7 of the SNPRM 

regulatory evaluation. To determine 

which accidents were relevant to the 

accident avoidance benefit analysis, the 

FAA initially reviewed accident data for 

U.S. certificate holders required to train 

under parts 121 and 121/135 from 1988 

through 2009. The agency considered 

accidents that occurred during this 22- 

year period because this period includes 

accidents with open NTSB 

recommendations. The agency then 

selected accidents in which the NTSB 

identified areas of inadequate training 

as either the probable cause or a 

contributing factor to the accident. The 

accidents included for consideration in 

the analysis were those for which the 

FAA developed a regulatory change 

proposed in the SNPRM that could have 

mitigated each accident. Finally, the 

agency eliminated from consideration 

accidents that occurred by operators 

with an AQP training program and 

while the carrier was operating under 

part 135. 

The importance of training varies for 

each of the accidents. Therefore, the 

FAA rated each accident by evaluating 

the effectiveness of the proposed rule 

against each accident using the scoring 

process in CAST. All of the accidents 

with published final NTSB reports were 

scored against the CAST safety 

enhancements. The agency used the 

NTSB recommendations along with 

narratives, probable cause, contributing 

factors and other pertinent data to score 

the accidents. 

American, ATA, Continental, 

Southwest, and United believe the 

accident analysis should only include 

accidents from the past 10 years because 

of the dramatic decline in accident rates 

over the past 20 years. ATA and United 

contend the FAA should exclude pilotrelated accidents from carriers who are 

now out of business, have merged with 

other carriers, or involve more than one 

airline. 

For the benefits analysis, the FAA 

analyzed the causal factors, as 

determined by the NTSB, for past 

accidents that occurred in part 121 

operations. As discussed earlier in this 

preamble, the first accident with 

pertinent accident causal factors was 

Delta flight 1141. Although the accident 

rate has declined in the last 10 years, 

accident causal factors identified by the 

NTSB during the 22-year historical 

benefit analysis period are still relevant 

and need to be addressed. Also, 

accidents by carriers who are out of 

business, have merged with other 

carries, or involve more than one airline 

could have been mitigated if this 

proposal had been in effect when the 

accident occurred. Therefore these 

accidents were included in the benefits 

analysis because (1) the accident 

occurred while the pilot was training 

under a part 121 traditional training 

program, and (2) new US certificated 

operators entering part 121 service and 

training under a traditional training 

program would benefit from the 

additional training requirement 

proposed in the SNPRM. 

American, ASTAR, ATA, Continental, 

Delta, Southwest, and USAir contend 

the FAA has failed to give adequate 

credit for accident rate reduction 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67828 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

24http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/

aviation_forecast_2010/agenda/media/GAF%20Jim

%20Higgins%20and%20Kent%20Love.pdf. The 

University of North Dakota estimates that 2.12% of 

pilots have retired annually along with forecasting 

2.94% pilot attrition (loss of medical, loss of 

certificate, career transfer) from 2009 to 2024. We 

rounded to three digits. 

25FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2013–2033. Table 30: 

Active Pilots by Type of Certificate, Airline 

Transport, 2012–2033. http://www.faa.gov/about/

office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_

forecasts/aerospace_forecasts/2013-2033/ Accessed 

March 2013. 

resulting from existing training program 

enhancements and technological 

advancements that have been 

incorporated over the last 20 years, 

including the following: Terrain 

Avoidance Warning System (TAWS); 

Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) 

standard operating procedures; CFIT 

avoidance, vertical angles; CFIT 

prevention training; Visual Glide Slope 

Indicators (VGSI) requirements 

implemented; Area Navigation (RNAV) 

3D and Required Navigation 

Performance (RNP) approach 

procedures; Flight Operation Quality 

Assurance (FOQA) and Aviation Safety 

Action Program (ASAP); loss of control 

prevention, policies, systems and 

training; and runway incursion 

prevention policies, systems and 

training. Taking these enhancements 

into account, the commenters assert the 

FAA economic analysis overstates the 

potential benefit/cost savings purported 

to be achieved by implementation of the 

proposed rule. 

Even with these existing programs, 

the NTSB shows that major and serious 

accidents still occur. The final rule 

requirements include higher training 

standards and specific tasks which 

improve pilot training program’s 

content and application that will reduce 

human error among crewmembers, 

particularly in hazardous or emergency 

situations. 

Southwest disagrees with the FAA’s 

analysis of NTSB recommendations 

relevant to training and accidents that 

could have been mitigated if the 

proposed training requirements had 

been in effect at the time of the accident. 

The SNPRM cited 28 NTSB 

recommendations relevant to training 

programs that were issued as a result of 

178 accidents, which occurred between 

1988 and 2009. Southwest reviewed the 

28 NTSB recommendations and stated 

‘‘the FAA speculates that no more than 

4 accidents were associated with pilot 

inflight actions.’’ Additionally, 

Southwest noted the NTSB did not 

identify inadequate training as the 

probable cause of these four accidents. 

Therefore, Southwest disagrees with the 

FAA’s conclusion that these pilot 

inflight accidents could have been 

mitigated if the proposed training 

requirements had been in effect at the 

time of the accident. 

As part of the decision to move 

forward with certain provisions 

proposed in the SNPRM that enhance 

pilot training for rare but high risk 

scenarios and other discrete provisions, 

the agency has conducted a new 

analysis and determined the final rule 

addresses the seven NTSB 

recommendations identified in the 

background section of this preamble. 

Moreover, the FAA clarifies that 

relevant NTSB recommendations were 

used to establish the proposed training 

requirements. These recommendations 

served as one of the components of the 

analysis used to establish the mitigation 

effect on discrete accidents. The 

approach taken to establish an 

effectiveness ratio (mitigation for each 

accident) for the training requirements 

included an analysis of each accident in 

the context of the CAST scoring process. 

2. Cost Analysis 

ATA, Continental, ASTAR, and 

United contend the SNPRM regulatory 

evaluation fails to provide 

documentation of the underlying 

assumptions of the cost estimates. 

The FAA documented the sources for 

its information in the assumption 

sections, tables and footnotes of the 

SNPRM regulatory evaluation. The 

methodologies employed in the analysis 

were discussed in the sections 

preceding the tables showing total costs. 

ATA and United stated the projected 

growth in affected crew population 

levels of initial/new hire training in the 

SNPRM regulatory evaluation was based 

on the net increase in total crew 

population but ignores training 

necessary to replace retiring crew. 

United also stated that, retirements 

alone are expected to be 5 percent 

annually throughout the benefit period 

and thus the FAA underestimated the 

pilot attrition rate in the SNPRM 

regulatory evaluation. As a result of 

underestimating the attrition rate, 

United asserts that we have 

underestimated the training costs that 

will result from retirements. United 

contends one retirement would generate 

at least two initial courses. 

The FAA crew population forecast 

accounts for the replacement of a retired 

crewmember in the turnover percentage. 

Although United projected a 5 percent 

retirement rate for their pilots, the FAA 

maintains its assumption that 5 percent 

of the total number of pilots would 

leave an operator through attrition 

(including loss of medical certificate, 

loss of airman certificate, career transfer, 

or retirement). This assumption is based 

on objective data presented in a 

University of North Dakota study.24 The 

FAA disagrees with United’s assertion 

that for every crewmember who retires, 

two courses of initial training would be 

required. The agency assumed that for 

each pilot lost through attrition, one 

pilot will complete initial training. For 

any additional training, the agency 

considered transition training and 

upgrade training and accounted for 

those training costs in the final rule 

regulatory evaluation. 

Based on the FAA Aerospace 

Forecasts 2013–2023, we expect the 

total number of part 121 pilots to 

increase by 0.4 percent annually.25

Applying BLS labor wage data, the FAA 

has determined that the training costs 

due to attrition and growth will range 

from $51.6M to $69.1M. 

ATA stated the FAA’s determination 

of the net impact on annual training 

hours appears to be based on the 

minimum programmed hour 

requirements rather than on the actual 

number of training hours necessary to 

complete the required training tasks. 

In preparing the cost estimate for the 

SNPRM regulatory evaluation, the FAA 

identified the proposed programmed 

hour requirements and calculated the 

incremental costs that the proposed 

programmed hours would add over the 

current regulatory requirements. If 

operators voluntarily exceed the 

training standard proposed in the 

SNPRM, then there was no additional 

compliance cost estimated in the FAA 

cost analysis. 

ALPA, American, Continental, 

JetBlue, Southwest, United, UPS, and 

USAir stated the FAA underestimated 

the time it takes to complete flight 

training tasks proposed in the SNPRM. 

On October 26, 2009 the FAA 

conducted a simulator trial to determine 

the time required to complete the 

proposed recurrent proficiency check 

requirements. The agency collected data 

on the time it took to complete the 

recurrent proficiency check tasks 

proposed in the NPRM and then used 

this data to estimate the time required 

to complete the proficiency check 

requirements proposed in the SNPRM. 

See http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2008-0677- 

0177. In preparing the cost estimate for 

the SNPRM regulatory evaluation, the 

FAA used the data from the simulator 

trial to determine the additional training 

hours required by the proposal and 

calculated the incremental costs, over 

the current regulations, the proposed 

requirements would add. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67829 

26Recognition of, and recovery from, full stall and 

demonstration of stick pusher activation were not 

completed during the second simulator trial. 

Therefore, the agency considered the time for 

recognition of, and recovery from, approach to 

stall—clean configuration, collected during the first 

simulator trial. The agency expects the time for 

each of these two maneuvers to be similar to the 

time for recognition of, and recovery from, 

approach to stall because full stall and stick pusher 

are further developed stages of an approach to stall. 

27The FAA has amended the Technical Report to 

add the 2012 simulator trial data in new appendix 

G. The agency has placed the revised Technical 

Report in the public docket for this rulemaking. 

On June 19, 2012, the FAA conducted 

a second simulator trial to determine the 

time required to complete the additional 

final rule maneuvers and procedures in 

each curriculum. During the second 

simulator trial, the agency observed two 

FAA pilots perform the extended 

envelope flight training requirements in 

an Airbus 330 Level D simulator.26 The 

FAA pilots serving as the PIC and SIC 

both held ATP certificates and were 

current and qualified to operate the 

Airbus 330. All required checklists and 

procedures were completed in their 

entirety for each maneuver and 

procedure. In addition, all required Air 

Traffic Control (ATC) instructions and 

clearances were provided. 

The data collected during this 

simulator trial provides the estimated 

simulator time required to meet the 

extended envelope flight training 

requirements in the final rule. The FAA 

has reviewed both simulator trials and 

revised the cost estimates for the 

training tasks required by the final 

rule.27

ATA, Continental, United, and USAIR 

noted the FAA calculates simulator 

costs at an hourly rate instead of the 

industry-standard 4-hour blocks for the 

purpose of keeping the cost of the 

proposed rule low. These commenters 

also stated the simulator hour projection 

for the SNPRM regulatory evaluation 

does not consider collective bargaining 

agreements that may further limit 

training hours per day. 

The SNPRM regulatory evaluation 

calculated simulator costs at an hourly 

rate instead of 4-hour blocks. Industry is 

not tied to the 4-hour simulator training 

blocks. With the 5-year compliance date 

in the final rule for simulator training 

tasks, air carriers have the ability to 

revise their internal processes or renegotiate contracts with simulator 

training providers. In addition, the FAA 

believes that bargaining agreements can 

be adjusted before the 5 year 

compliance date. Therefore these costs 

are not attributed to the rule. The final 

rule includes extended envelope 

training that must be completed in an 

FFS. The agency estimates that the time 

required to complete this training ranges 

from 90 to 135 minutes for initial 

training, 60 to 90 minutes for transition 

training, 45 to 60 minutes for upgrade 

training, and 30 to 45 minutes for 

recurrent training. 

Continental contends the associated 

costs for legacy mainframe computer 

programming related to the proposed 

requirement for evaluating and 

recording line check performance in 

proposed § 121.1233(d) were not 

accounted for in the SNPRM regulatory 

evaluation. Continental also states the 

requirements proposed in the SNPRM 

would add significantly to the 

recordkeeping system requirement. 

The agency notes programmers in 

major companies, such as Continental, 

are typically on staff. Staff programmers 

typically cover software updates and 

maintenance. The FAA has reviewed 

the paperwork requirements for the new 

final rule provisions and has revised the 

regulatory evaluation accordingly. Upon 

further review of the SNPRM regulatory 

evaluation, the agency identified 

paperwork costs that were inadvertently 

omitted. For the final rule regulatory 

evaluation, the FAA has further 

reviewed the potential costs of 

implementing the final rule 

requirements and captured additional 

detail. For example, the paperwork costs 

now fully address the review and 

development of training programs, 

courseware and manuals. 

ATA, Continental, JetBlue, and USAir 

assert the SNPRM regulatory evaluation 

did not include non-paperwork costs for 

program development, and maintenance 

including high capital and management 

costs necessary to modify or replace 

training equipment, reconfigure training 

facilities, or re-program and maintain 

software systems. 

The agency included costs in the 

SNPRM regulatory evaluation for 

maintenance, including high capital and 

management costs, necessary to modify 

or replace training equipment, 

reconfigure training facilities, or reprogram and maintain software systems 

with a simulator or ground cost hourly 

rental expense. 

For the final rule, the FAA 

determined that the average simulator 

rental fee is $500 per hour plus the cost 

of an instructor for consistency with the 

FAA’s ‘‘Pilot Certification and 

Qualification Requirements for Air 

Carrier Operations’’ final rule. The FAA 

believes the hourly rental price 

accurately reflects the cost of capital 

and includes costs for maintenance, 

capital, management, reconfiguring 

training facilities, and reprogramming. 

The FAA received several comments 

from air carriers stating the agency 

underestimated the cost of a number of 

SNPRM provisions, including: 

Operating manual changes; the 

continuous analysis process; 

crewmember and aircraft dispatcher 

requalification; flightcrew member 

recurrent training; relief pilot recent 

experience; PIC line checks; training 

with a complete flightcrew; flight 

attendant operating experience; check 

flight attendant requirements; aircraft 

dispatcher qualification and recurrent 

training; and, check dispatcher training. 

At this time, the agency is proceeding 

with a final rule to address certain 

provisions proposed in the SNPRM that 

enhance pilot training for rare but high 

risk scenarios, provide the greatest 

safety benefit, and require time to 

implement, as well as certain other 

discrete proposals. This final rule does 

not include the provisions identified by 

commenters as having underestimated 

costs. If a subsequent final rule includes 

the provisions cited by commenters, the 

agency will review the costs identified 

in the SNPRM and determine whether 

reassessment of these costs is necessary. 

3. General Cost-Benefit Analysis 

ATA asserted that the FAA failed to 

correctly match the timing of the 

benefits and costs in the SNPRM 

regulatory evaluation and asserted that 

the incurrence of implementation costs 

would necessarily precede any benefits 

that might occur by at least two years. 

The FAA initiated the benefits and 

costs of the analysis at the compliance 

date of the final rule. The compliance 

date proposed in the SNPRM was 2016, 

or 5 years after the proposed effective 

date of the final rule. In the SNPRM 

regulatory evaluation, the agency 

determined the timing of both the 

benefits and costs would start in 2016 

and end in 2025. 

In the SNPRM, the agency proposed 

an effective date for the final rule of 120 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. The agency further proposed 

to require compliance with certain 

amendments to part 121 on the effective 

date and to delay compliance with other 

amendments requiring time to 

implement, to 5 years after the effective 

date. However, in the SNPRM regulatory 

evaluation, the agency assumed the 

timing of both the benefits and costs for 

all provisions would start in 2016 to 

account for a compliance date of 5 years 

after the proposed effective date of the 

final rule, and end in 2025. 

The agency agrees that some 

implementation costs may be incurred 

prior to when the full benefits of the 

final rule are realized. For the final rule, 

safety benefits are realized beginning in 

2019, when compliance is required with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67830 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

the new pilot training maneuvers and 

procedures. However, the agency 

assumes paperwork costs associated 

with the training provisions for 

instructors and check airmen who serve 

in FSTDs will begin the year before the 

compliance date in preparation to meet 

the final rule requirements. For the 

paperwork costs associated with the 

remaining final rule provisions, the 

agency assumes new paperwork costs 

start to accrue on the date that 

compliance is required. These timelines 

are reflected in the table that appears in 

the Paperwork Reduction Act 

discussion in the Regulatory Notices 

and Analyses section of this preamble 

(Section IV). Greater detail regarding the 

paperwork burden can be found in the 

Summary of Estimated Paperwork Costs 

by Objective Grouping section of the 

final rule regulatory evaluation. 

4. Economic Impact to Operators 

Training under AQP 

The FAA received several comments 

from air carriers concerned that the 

agency failed to include costs to air 

carriers with pilots who train under an 

AQP in its economic analysis of the 

SNPRM. 

In the economic analysis of the 

SNPRM, the agency determined the 

proposals in the SNPRM would have a 

minimal impact on carriers that train 

pilots using an AQP. Therefore, the 

SNPRM regulatory evaluation included 

only certain paperwork costs for these 

carriers. 

Following further review of existing 

AQP curriculums and the final rule 

pilot training requirements, the agency 

has determined that the majority of new 

pilot training maneuvers and 

procedures are not incorporated into 

existing AQPs used to train pilots. 

Therefore, the FAA has estimated the 

cost of the new requirements on all part 

121 operators, including those who train 

under AQP. 

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

Regulatory Evaluation 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 and 

Executive Order 13563 direct that each 

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. 

Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires 

agencies to analyze the economic 

impact of regulatory changes on small 

entities. Third, the Trade Agreements 

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

from setting standards that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. In 

developing U.S. standards, this Trade 

Act requires agencies to consider 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis of 

U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

This portion of the preamble 

summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the 

economic impacts of this final rule. We 

suggest readers seeking greater detail 

read the full regulatory evaluation, a 

copy of which we have placed in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In conducting these analyses, FAA 

has determined 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 

‘‘significant’’ as defined in the U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) 

will have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities; (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. 

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule 

The following table shows the FAA’s 

estimate for the base case costs, 

including the low and high cost range, 

in 2012 dollars. This table also shows 

our estimated potential quantified safety 

benefits using a 22-year historical 

accident analysis period. 

Total Benefits and Costs (2012 $ 

Millions) From 2019 to 2028 

For the benefits analysis, the FAA 

analyzed the causal factors, as 

determined by the NTSB, for past 

accidents that occurred in part 121 

operations. The objective of the analysis 

was to determine if an accident could 

have been prevented or mitigated by the 

training provisions in the final rule. In 

1988, Delta flight 1141 crashed shortly 

after lifting off from the runway at the 

Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport 

(DCA88MA072). In its final report, the 

NTSB determined that one causal factor 

for the accident was ‘‘The captain and 

first officer’s inadequate cockpit 

discipline which resulted in the 

flightcrew’s attempt to take off without 

wing flaps and slats properly 

configured.’’ 

As a result of the accident 

investigation, the NTSB made 

recommendations to the FAA that 

emphasized the importance of training 

and manual procedures regarding ‘‘the 

roles of each flight crewmember in 

visually confirming the accomplishment 

of all operating checklist items,’’ as well 

as the ‘‘verification of flap position 

during stall recognition and recovery 

procedures.’’ 

The FAA determined that the pilot 

monitoring training and operational 

provisions may have prevented or 

mitigated this accident. The pilot 

monitoring training will provide pilots 

an opportunity to practice monitoring 

skills in an environment that closely 

simulates real line operations. The 

operational requirements will require 

flightcrew members to follow air carrier 

procedures regarding pilot monitoring. 

Together, these provisions establish an 

active requirement for the pilot not 

flying the aircraft to remain engaged 

throughout the flight by monitoring the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER12NO13.161</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67831 

28 ‘‘Revised Departmental Guidance 2013: 

Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and 

Injuries in Preparing Economic Analysis.’’ available 

at http://www.dot.gov/regulations/economic-valuesused-in-analysis. 

pilot flying, as well as the position of 

the aircraft, the flight instruments, the 

configuration of the aircraft, etc. The 

provisions will ensure that the pilot 

monitoring is prepared to notify the 

pilot flying of any anomalies or to 

assume the flying responsibilities if 

necessary. If these requirements had 

been in place at the time of this 

accident, the pilot monitoring may have 

identified the incorrect configuration 

and notified the pilot flying prior to 

takeoff. 

Therefore, the FAA initiated the 

historical accident interval for the 

benefits analysis with this accident in 

1988. The FAA concluded the accident 

interval in 2009 with the Colgan 

accident because, at this time, the NTSB 

still has not finalized its reports on the 

major accidents (that may be pertinent 

to this training rule) that occurred in 

2010 and 2011. This is why the FAA 

uses the same 22 year accident interval 

(1988–2009) for the benefits analysis in 

the final rule as in the SNPRM. 

The FAA identified 10 additional 

major accidents with casual factors 

identified by the NTSB that are 

addressed by the provisions in the final 

rule that occurred during this 22 year 

accident interval. The FAA cited these 

accidents in the benefits analysis based 

on pertinent accident causal factors, 

regardless of whether or not there were 

open NTSB recommendations 

associated with those accidents. 

The FAA notes, however, that it 

conducted a sensitivity analysis to 

explore the effect of reducing the 

historical accident analysis period from 

the 22 years to 10 years in response to 

comments disputing the use of a 22-year 

time frame. Appendix 14 of the 

regulatory evaluation shows that using a 

shorter historical accident analysis 

period increases the estimated benefits 

of the final rule by approximately 17 

percent. 

Who is potentially affected by this rule? 

This final rulemaking will increase 

costs to operators of transport category 

airplanes operating under 14 CFR part 

121 by requiring improved pilot 

training, as well as by requiring 

accompanying revisions to their training 

manuals and related training materials. 

Assumptions 

The benefit and cost analysis for the 

regulatory evaluation is based on the 

following factors/assumptions: 

• The analysis is conducted in 

constant dollars with 2012 as the base 

year. 

• The estimates of costs and benefits 

reported in this evaluation include both 

2012 dollar values and present values. 

Benefits and costs are calculated in 

present values using both 3 percent and 

7 percent discount rates as prescribed 

by OMB in Circular A–4. 

• This final rule will be published in 

late 2013. 

• This final rule will become effective 

in 2014, 120 days after its publication. 

Compliance is required on the effective 

date (120 days) for a few of the 

provisions, including for example all 

technical amendments, §§ 121.9 

(falsification), 121.392 (identification of 

personnel as flight attendants), and 

121.711 (communication records). 

Compliance with the remaining 

substantive provisions is required 

within 5 years after the effective date. 

• Although some incidental costs are 

expected to occur prior to 2019, the 

primary analysis period for costs and 

benefits extends for 10 years, from 2019 

through 2028. This period was selected 

because annual costs and benefits will 

have reached a steady state by 2019. 

• Safety benefits will be realized 

beginning in 2019, when compliance is 

required with the new training 

provisions in the final rule. 

• Past accident history from 1988 to 

2009 (22 years) is an appropriate basis 

on which to forecast the likely future 

occurrence of the types of accidents that 

the training and other provisions of this 

rule will help to prevent. The full 

regulatory evaluation provides a 

detailed justification for the selection of 

the 22 year analysis period, as well as 

a sensitivity analysis that explores the 

effect of reducing the historical analysis 

period from the 22 year period to 10 

years. The Accident Population and 

Scoring section in the full final rule 

regulatory evaluation gives more details 

on the use of accident history in this 

analysis. 

Changes From the SNPRM to the Final 

Rule Regulatory Evaluation 

Based on public comments and 

further agency review of the proposal, 

the FAA made the following changes to 

the regulatory evaluation for the final 

rule: 

• Re-estimated costs and benefits to 

correspond directly to the provisions of 

this final rule. The final rule focuses on 

enhancements to pilot training for rare, 

but high-risk scenarios. 

• Assumed that the final rule will 

affect all Advanced Qualification 

Program (AQP) and non-AQP trained 

pilots in command, second in 

command, check pilots, and flight 

instructors by adding simulator and 

ground school time to their current 

training curriculum. 

• Accounted for paperwork costs 

documenting the required revisions to 

operators listed in Appendix 9 of the 

regulatory evaluation. 

• Updated the value of averted 

fatalities, injuries, accident investigation 

and medical costs based on current DOT 

guidance.28

• Updated the hourly wages and 

benefits for aircraft crew members with 

current hourly wages from the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). 

• Removed airfare, hotel, and per 

diem travel costs from the cost estimates 

because the FAA believes operators will 

be able to complete the new final rule 

training requirements within their 

current initial, upgrade, transition, or 

recurrent simulator and ground school 

training days. The FAA conducted a 

sensitivity analysis on the costs of the 

final rule adding an additional day of 

travel. The results of the sensitivity 

analysis are shown in Appendix 10 of 

the regulatory evaluation. Even with the 

cost of an extra day of travel, the 

benefits of the final rule still exceed the 

costs. 

• Conducted a new accident analysis 

that took into account the mitigations of 

other rulemakings for the same 

accidents in determining the probability 

of effectiveness for this final rule. 

• Assumed that the ‘‘Flight 

Simulation Training Devices 

Qualification Standards For Extended 

Envelope and Adverse Weather Event 

Training Tasks’’ rulemaking (RIN 2120– 

AK08) is in place by the time 

compliance is required with the new 

pilot training requirements because 

amendments to FSTD qualification and 

evaluation standards in part 60 are 

needed to support the new full flight 

simulator training requirements in this 

final rule. In addition, the agency 

recognizes that the final rule on Pilot 

Certification and Qualification 

Requirements for Air Carrier Operations 

will be in place at the time that 

compliance is required with the pilot 

training requirements in this final rule. 

• Included a table in Appendix 13 of 

the regulatory evaluation comparing the 

probability of effectiveness ratings of the 

overlapping accidents from the 

Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest 

Requirements final rule, the Pilot 

Certification and Qualification 

Requirements for Air Carrier Operations 

final rule and this final rule. 

• Updated employment growth rates 

for pilots based on current FAA 

forecasts and actual February 2013 

employment statistics for operators 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67832 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

29 Distance learning allows pilots to train out of 

the classroom (such as at home). 

30FAA Order 8900.1, Vol.3, Ch. 19, Sec. 5, Para. 

3–1209 (July 15, 2013). The FAA notes that pilot 

ground school training requirements include handson emergency equipment training (current 

§ 121.417(c) requires that every 24 months, pilots 

must perform hands-on drills on aircraft emergency 

equipment) that may not be accomplished via 

distance learning. These costs are not included in 

this cost analysis because those hands-on drills are 

currently required. 

listed in Appendix 9 of the regulatory 

evaluation. 

• Updated the hourly simulator costs 

from the $550 estimate used in the 

SNPRM to $500 for the final rule based 

on updated FAA Flight Standards 

Service (AFS) data. This revised cost 

maintains consistency with analysis 

from the Pilot Certification and 

Qualification Requirements for Air 

Carrier Operations final rule published 

on July 15, 2013 (78 FR 42324). 

• Conducted a sensitivity analysis on 

the hourly simulator rental rate using 

the $550 rate from the SNPRM. The 

agency estimated $323.1 million for the 

total costs using the $550 hourly rate. 

The total benefits, as shown in the table 

above, exceed the costs for the $550 

hourly simulator rental rate. 

• Initiated the ‘‘Flight Simulation 

Training Device Qualification Standards 

for Extended Envelope and Adverse 

Weather Event Training Tasks’’ 

rulemaking to amend 14 CFR part 60 to 

require the additional programming and 

upgrades to simulators, which will be 

needed to comply with extended 

envelope training required by the final 

rule. The FAA estimates that the $500 

hourly simulator rental rate assumed in 

this analysis includes all upgrades 

expected to be required by the Flight 

Simulation Training Device rulemaking. 

As an alternative, the agency also 

conducted a sensitivity analysis using 

$600 for an hourly simulator rental rate. 

The agency estimated $332.4 million for 

the total costs with the $600 hourly rate. 

The total benefits as shown in the table 

above also exceed the costs for the $600 

hourly simulator rental rate. 

• Conducted a sensitivity analysis to 

explore the effect of reducing the 

historical analysis period from the 22 

year period to 10 years in response to 

comments disputing the use of a 22-year 

time frame for accidents. Appendix 14 

of the final rule regulatory evaluation 

shows that using the 10-year period, the 

estimated benefits of this final rule 

increase by approximately 17 percent. 

The full regulatory evaluation provides 

a detailed justification for the selection 

of the 22 year analysis period. 

• Changed the pilot ground school 

distance learning 29 percentage from the 

80 percent estimate used in the SNPRM 

to 100 percent, because the FAA allows 

100 percent of ground training to be 

accomplished via distance learning.30

Benefits of This Rule 

Phased-in potential benefits will 

accrue from the additional training 

requirements, and these are estimated in 

the table above. As prescribed by OMB 

in Circular A–4, we discounted the 2012 

$ benefits to their present values using 

a seven and three percent annual rate. 

The final rule will also generate 

qualitative benefits. The final rule 

addresses safety issues identified during 

two recent FAA ‘‘Call to Action’’ 

initiatives including improvement of 

runway safety by requiring training in 

critical runway safety issues, responds 

to seven National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) safety recommendations, 

and addresses the requirements in the 

Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Extension Act of 2010. 

Costs of This Rule 

The FAA estimates the range of costs 

to air carriers in the table above. As 

prescribed by OMB in Circular A–4, we 

discounted the 2012 $ to their present 

values using a seven and three percent 

annual rate. 

Alternatives Considered 

The FAA considered multiple 

alternatives to the final rule. Three of 

the alternatives that were considered 

would have provided relief from some 

of the rule’s provisions to small entities, 

while one alternative considered 

accepting all of the provisions of the 

SNPRM. A discussion of these 

alternatives can be found in the final 

regulatory flexibility analysis. 

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. 

The FAA believes that this final rule 

will result in a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The purpose of this analysis is 

to provide the reasoning underlying the 

FAA determination. 

Section 604 of the Act requires 

agencies to prepare and make available 

for public comment a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing 

the impact of final rules on small 

entities. Section 604(a) of the Act 

specifies the content of a FRFA. 

Each FRFA must contain: 

• A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule; 

• A statement of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a statement of the 

assessment of the agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

• The response of the agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments; 

• A description of and an estimate of 

the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 

• A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

• A description of the steps the 

agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

Statement of the Need for, and 

Objectives of, the Rule 

The primary purpose and objectives 

of the final rule are to ensure that 

training and evaluation is provided for 

crewmembers by establishing new 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67833 

31 13 CFR 121.201, Size Standards Used to Define 

Small Business Concerns, Sector 48–49 

Transportation, Subsector 481 Air Transportation. 

32The National Vital Information Subsystem 

(NVIS) is a Flight Standard Service database that 

contains the general information about operators, 

including the number of pilots. 

requirements for part 121 commercial 

air carrier training programs, as 

mandated by Public Law 111–216. The 

changes seek to make a significant 

contribution to the FAA’s accident 

reduction goal by directly addressing 

the safety goals from two recent FAA 

‘‘Call to Action’’ initiatives including 

improvement of runway safety by 

requiring training in critical runway 

safety issues. The requirements of the 

final rule also implement numerous 

safety recommendations from the NTSB. 

Statement of the Significant Issues 

Raised by Public Comments 

There were no significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis. 

Agency Response to Comments Filed by 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

There were no comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration in response to 

the proposed rule. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements of the Rule 

As described in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act summary in this 

preamble, the agency expects only 

minimal new training documentation, 

reporting and record-keeping 

compliance requirements to result from 

this final rule. Every operator (including 

small businesses and businesses with 

greater than 1500 employees) will incur 

a paperwork burden as described in 

Paperwork Reduction Act discussion in 

this preamble. 

Costs for the labor entailed in meeting 

these documentation, reporting, and 

record-keeping requirements constitute 

a burden under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, and these costs are 

accounted for in the final rule regulatory 

evaluation. The types of professional 

skills necessary for preparation of the 

report or record include both technical 

writers and flight instructors. 

Under section 604 of the Act, the FAA 

must determine an estimate of the 

classes of small entities which will be 

subject to the requirement. This 

determination is typically based on 

small entity size and cost thresholds 

that determine whether an entity meets 

the definition of ‘‘small,’’ and these 

thresholds vary depending on the 

affected industry. 

Using the size standards from the 

Small Business Administration for Air 

Transportation and Aircraft 

Manufacturing, the FAA defined 

companies as small entities if they have 

fewer than 1,500 employees.31

Small Entities Affected 

This final rule will be published in 

2013 and become effective in 2014. 

Operators affected by this final rule will 

be required to comply with a majority 

of the final rule requirements 5 years 

after the effective date. The FAA does 

not know if an operator will still be in 

business or will still remain a small 

business entity by the 2019 compliance 

date applicable to the majority of the 

provisions. Therefore, the FAA will use 

current U.S. operator’s employment and 

annual revenue in order to determine 

the number of operators this final rule 

affect. 

To determine the economic impact of 

this final rule on small-business 

operators the agency began by 

identifying the affected firms, gathering 

operational data, and establishing the 

compliance cost impact. The FAA 

obtained a list of U.S. operators, who are 

affected by the final rule, from the FAA 

Flight Standards Service National Vital 

Information Subsystem (NVIS) 

database.32 Using information provided 

by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation Form 41 filings and the 

World Aviation Directory & Aerospace 

Database (WAD) the agency obtained 

company revenue and employment for 

many of the operators. 

We determined that 83 operators 

would be affected by the final rule. Of 

these 83 operators, there are 49 that 

reported annual employment and 

operating revenue data. Of the 49 air 

carriers that reported annual 

employment data, 22 air carriers are 

below the SBA size standard of 1,500 

employees for a small business. Due to 

the sparse amount of publicly available 

data on internal company financial and 

employment statistics for small entities, 

it is not feasible to identify how many 

of the remaining carriers that did not 

report employment data would also 

qualify as small businesses, so it is not 

possible to estimate the total population 

of small entities that are likely to be 

affected by this rulemaking. However, 

based on the publically available data, 

the FAA assumes that this rule will 

have an impact on a substantial number 

of small entities. 

To assess the final rule’s cost impact 

to small business operators, the FAA 

determined the amount of additional 

time this rulemaking will add to their 

current training activities. 

The FAA uses the average hourly 

wage (including benefits) of flight-crew 

members as a basis to estimate costs for 

additional training time. The FAA does 

not expect that the additional training 

requirements will result in higher travel 

costs, because the final rule adds only 

a small amount of training time, which 

we believe can be absorbed within 

operators’ current training schedules. In 

order to estimate the impact on small 

entities, we sum the incremental costs 

of this rulemaking, and use that estimate 

to calculate an average cost per flight 

crew member. We then use that average 

to estimate the total cost burden on 

carriers that we identify as meeting the 

above definition of small entities. 

Specifically, we estimate each 

operator’s total compliance cost by 

multiplying our estimate of the average 

cost per flight crew member by the 

number of flight-crew members for each 

of the 22 air carriers that meet the SBA 

size standard for a small business of 

1,500 employees. In estimating the 

average cost per flight-crew member, we 

use the high cost from the range of costs 

estimated in the final rule, in order to 

provide a conservative estimate. We 

then measure the economic impact on 

small entities by dividing the estimated 

compliance cost for each of the 22 small 

entities by its annual revenue, and 

expressing the result as a percentage. 

The FAA estimates that costs for 

complying with this final rule will 

exceed one percent of annual revenue 

for 2 of the sample of 22 operators 

identified as small entities. On the basis 

of these estimates, we conclude that this 

final rule will have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Agency Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities 

In the following Analysis of 

Alternatives section, the FAA 

considered three alternatives to 

minimize the significant economic 

impact on small entities consistent with 

the stated objectives of applicable 

statutes. The Analysis of Alternatives 

section also includes statements of the 

factual, policy, and legal reasons for 

selecting the final rule and why each 

one of the alternatives to the rule, 

considered by the agency, which affect 

the impact on small entities, was 

rejected. 

Analysis of Alternatives 

The FAA proposed alternatives to the 

SNPRM for small carriers and 

considered the proposed alternatives as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67834 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

it developed the final rule. A discussion 

of the final rule alternatives follows. 

Alternative 1–12 month recurrent 

training cycle for small entities. 

Currently, PICs (captains) train every 

6 months and SICs (first officers) train 

every 12 months. The FAA considered 

extending the recurrent training cycle 

for PICs working for small entities to 12 

months to coincide with existing SIC 

recurrent training cycles. This would 

result in cost savings for small entities. 

However, a reduction in the training 

frequency for PICs to a 12-month cycle 

would be contrary to the purpose of this 

rulemaking, which is to improve safety. 

As a consequence, FAA determined that 

this alternative was unacceptable. 

Alternative 2—Excluding certain 

small entities. 

In the SNPRM, the FAA considered 

exempting certain operators from 

compliance with the rule simply 

because they are small entities; 

however, small entities had experienced 

past accidents that the agency believes 

could be mitigated or prevented by this 

rule. Thus exempting small entities 

entirely form the rule would be contrary 

to our policy of ensuring a single high 

level of safety in all part 121 operations. 

Thus, the FAA did not find this 

alternative to be acceptable. 

Alternative 3—Extending the final 

compliance date to 7 years for small 

entities. 

Extending the final compliance date 

from 5 years to 7 years for small entities 

reduces the costs to small entities over 

the analysis interval. Under this 

alternative, the FAA expects that the 

projected cost of the final rule would 

not be significant for some of the 22 

operators studied. 

In the final rule, the FAA requires 

improvements that would reduce 

human error among crewmembers, 

particularly in situations that present 

special hazards. Because these 

requirements would address problems 

that are faced by all part 121 air carriers, 

regardless of their size, excluding 

certain operators simply because they 

are small entities would again be 

contrary to FAA’s policy of ensuring 

one high level of safety in all part 121 

operations. Thus, the FAA also found 

this alternative to be unacceptable. 

Alternative 4—The SNPRM 

This agency considered moving 

forward with a final rule including all 

of the provisions of the rule proposed in 

the SNPRM. Industry commented that 

the rule language was unclear and did 

not estimate all of the proposal’s costs. 

Instead of modifying the SNPRM, the 

FAA elected to adopt a final rule that 

included those provisions that provide 

the greatest safety benefit. Thus, the 

FAA did not accept this alternative. 

International Trade Impact Assessment 

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 

(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. 

L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the United States. 

Pursuant to these Acts, the 

establishment of standards is not 

considered an unnecessary obstacle to 

the foreign commerce of the United 

States, so long as the standard has a 

legitimate domestic objective, such the 

protection of safety, and does not 

operate in a manner that excludes 

imports that meet this objective. The 

statute also requires consideration of 

international standards and, where 

appropriate, that they be the basis for 

U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed 

the potential effect of this final rule and 

determined that the final rule ensures 

the safety of the American public and 

does not exclude foreign operators that 

meet this objective. As a result, this rule 

is not considered as creating an 

unnecessary obstacle to foreign 

commerce. 

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 

$143.1 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. 

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. 

This final rule will impose the 

following information collection 

requirements. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

these information collection 

amendments to OMB for its review. The 

Office of Management and Budget has 

assigned OMB Control Number 2120– 

0739 to this collection, and upon 

publication of this rule, the package will 

be available on reginfo.gov. 

Summary: This final rule revises the 

training requirements for pilots in air 

carrier operations. The regulations 

enhance air carrier pilot training 

programs by emphasizing the 

development of pilots’ manual handling 

skills and adding safety-critical tasks 

such as recovery from stall and upset. 

The final rule also requires enhanced 

runway safety training, training on pilot 

monitoring to be incorporated into 

existing requirements for scenario-based 

flight training and requires air carriers 

to implement remedial training 

programs for pilots. The FAA expects 

these changes to contribute to a 

reduction in aviation accidents. 

Public comments: The requirements 

in the final rule were proposed in a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking, published in the Federal 

Register on January 12, 2009, vol. 74, 

no. 7, pages 1280–1453, and the public 

was encouraged to comment. 

Commenters to the proposed rule 

noted that the provisions specifically 

addressing preparation, approval and 

contents of crewmember and dispatcher 

manuals would generally result in 

significant time and cost to revise 

current manuals. Commenters also 

noted that proposed requirements 

regarding collection and retention of 

crewmember and dispatcher records 

were excessive and unnecessary. 

Commenters further noted that 

paperwork required by the proposed 

requirements for approval and 

amendment of crewmember and 

dispatcher training programs were 

burdensome for both air carriers and 

FAA personnel. Commenters also 

identified programming costs related to 

SNPRM provisions (e.g. new training 

intervals, new evaluation intervals and 

new designations for check personnel) 

and claimed that while these costs 

would be substantial, they were not 

included in the agency’s cost analysis. 

The FAA has not adopted these 

proposed requirements in this final rule. 

The final rule contains discrete 

additional training and evaluation 

requirements (e.g. prevention and 

recovery from stall, prevention and 

recovery of upset, recovery from 

bounced landing and training in manual 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67835 

handling skills). The FAA did not 

receive any comments regarding 

recording or recordkeeping 

requirements for these proposed 

provisions that are being adopted in the 

final rule. 

Purpose: This project is in direct 

support of the Department of 

Transportation’s Strategic Plan— 

Strategic Goal—SAFETY; i.e., to 

promote the public health and safety by 

working toward the elimination of 

transportation-related deaths and 

injuries. This final rule also responds to 

Public Law 111–216, sections 208 and 

209. Under Public Law 111–216, 

Congress directed the FAA to conduct 

rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew 

members receive ground training and 

flight training in recognizing and 

avoiding stalls, recovering from stalls, 

and recognizing and avoiding upset of 

an aircraft, as well as the proper 

techniques to recover from upset. Public 

Law 111–216 also directed the FAA to 

ensure air carriers develop remedial 

training programs for flightcrew 

members who have demonstrated 

performance deficiencies or experienced 

failures in the training environment. 

The FAA will use the information it 

collects and reviews to ensure 

compliance and adherence to 

regulations and, where necessary, to 

take enforcement action on violators of 

the regulations. 

Respondents (including number of): 

The FAA estimates there are 83 

certificate holders who would be 

required to provide information in 

accordance with the final rule. The 

respondents to this proposed 

information requirement are certificate 

holders using the training requirements 

in 14 CFR part 121. 

Frequency: The FAA estimates 

certificate holders will have a one-time 

information collection, then may collect 

or report information occasionally 

thereafter. 

Annual Burden Estimate: 

The FAA estimates the total one time 

paperwork costs for the final rule will 

be about $8.2 million. 

International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

1. In keeping with U.S. obligations 

under the Convention on International 

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to 

conform to International Civil Aviation 

Organization (ICAO) Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no differences with 

these proposed regulations. 

2. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

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. 

Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

See the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ 

discussion in the ‘‘Regulatory Notices 

and Analyses’’ section elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this final rule 

under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency determined that this action will 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, or the relationship between 

the Federal Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, and, therefore, 

does not have Federalism implications. 

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final rule 

under Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

agency has determined that it is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

VI. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

Internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

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


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER12NO13.162</GPH>
67836 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267–9680. 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

Comments received may be viewed by 

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

following the online instructions to 

search the docket number for this 

action. Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of the FAA’s dockets 

by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires FAA to comply with 

small entity requests for information or 

advice about compliance with statutes 

and regulations within its jurisdiction. 

A small entity with questions regarding 

this document, may contact its local 

FAA official, or the person listed under 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

heading at the beginning of the 

preamble. To find out more about 

SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121 

Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety, Transportation. 

The Amendment 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, amend part 121 of title 14 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 121—OPERATING 

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, 

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 

■ 1. The authority for part 121 is revised 

to read as follows: 

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

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

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

46105; Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 

U.S.C. 44701 note). 

■ 2. Add § 121.9 to read as follows: 

§ 121.9 Fraud and falsification. 

(a) No person may make, or cause to 

be made, any of the following: 

(1) A fraudulent or intentionally false 

statement in any application or any 

amendment thereto, or in any other 

record or test result required by this 

part. 

(2) A fraudulent or intentionally false 

statement in, or a known omission from, 

any record or report that is kept, made, 

or used to show compliance with this 

part, or to exercise any privileges under 

this chapter. 

(b) The commission by any person of 

any act prohibited under paragraph (a) 

of this section is a basis for any one or 

any combination of the following: 

(1) A civil penalty. 

(2) Suspension or revocation of any 

certificate held by that person that was 

issued under this chapter. 

(3) The denial of an application for 

any approval under this part. 

(4) The removal of any approval 

under this part. 

■ 3. Add § 121.392 to read as follows: 

§ 121.392 Personnel identified as flight 

attendants. 

(a) Any person identified by the 

certificate holder as a flight attendant on 

an aircraft in operations under this part 

must be trained and qualified in 

accordance with subparts N and O of 

this part. This includes: 

(1) Flight attendants provided by the 

certificate holder in excess of the 

number required by § 121.391(a); and 

(2) Flight attendants provided by the 

certificate holder when flight attendants 

are not required by § 121.391(a). 

(b) A qualifying flight attendant who 

is receiving operating experience on an 

aircraft in operations under subpart O of 

this part must be identified to 

passengers as a qualifying flight 

attendant. 

■ 4. Amend § 121.400 by adding 

paragraphs (c)(9) through (11) to read as 

follows: 

§ 121.400 Applicability and terms used. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(9) Related aircraft. Any two or more 

aircraft of the same make with either the 

same or different type certificates that 

have been demonstrated and 

determined by the Administrator to 

have commonality to the extent that 

credit between those aircraft may be 

applied for flightcrew member training, 

checking, recent experience, operating 

experience, operating cycles, and line 

operating flight time for consolidation of 

knowledge and skills. 

(10) Related aircraft differences 

training. The flightcrew member 

training required for aircraft with 

different type certificates that have been 

designated as related by the 

Administrator. 

(11) Base aircraft. An aircraft 

identified by a certificate holder for use 

as a reference to compare differences 

with another aircraft. 

■ 5. Amend § 121.403 by revising 

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

§ 121.403 Training program: Curriculum. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) A list of all the training device 

mockups, systems trainers, procedures 

trainers, or other training aids that the 

certificate holder will use. No later than 

March 12, 2019, a list of all the training 

equipment approved under § 121.408 as 

well as other training aids that the 

certificate holder will use. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 121.407 as follows: 

■ A. Revise paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ B. Revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), 

(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2), and (a)(3); and 

■ C. Add paragraph (e). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 121.407 Training program: Approval of 

airplane simulators and other training 

devices. 

(a) Each airplane simulator and other 

training device used to satisfy a training 

requirement of this part in an approved 

training program, must meet all of the 

following requirements: 

(1) Be specifically approved by the 

Administrator for— 

(i) Use in the certificate holder’s 

approved training program; 

(ii) * * * 

(iii) The particular maneuver, 

procedure, or flightcrew member 

function involved. 

(2) Maintain the performance, 

function, and other characteristics that 

are required for qualification in 

accordance with part 60 of this chapter 

or a previously qualified device, as 

permitted in accordance with § 60.17 of 

this chapter. 

(3) Be modified in accordance with 

part 60 of this chapter to conform with 

any modification to the airplane being 

simulated that results in changes to 

performance, function, or other 

characteristics required for 

qualification. 

* * * * * 

(e) An airplane simulator approved 

under this section must be used instead 

of the airplane to satisfy the pilot flight 

training requirements prescribed in the 

extended envelope training set forth in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67837 

§ 121.423 of this part. Compliance with 

this paragraph is required no later than 

March 12, 2019. 

■ 7. Add § 121.408 to read as follows: 

§ 121.408 Training equipment other than 

flight simulation training devices. 

(a) The Administrator must approve 

training equipment used in a training 

program approved under this part and 

that functionally replicates aircraft 

equipment for the certificate holder and 

the crewmember duty or procedure. 

Training equipment does not include 

FSTDs qualified under part 60 of this 

chapter. 

(b) The certificate holder must 

demonstrate that the training equipment 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section, used to meet the training 

requirements of this subpart, meets all 

of the following: 

(1) The form, fit, function, and weight, 

as appropriate, of the aircraft 

equipment. 

(2) Replicates the normal operation 

(and abnormal and emergency 

operation, if appropriate) of the aircraft 

equipment including the following: 

(i) The required force, actions and 

travel of the aircraft equipment. 

(ii) Variations in aircraft equipment 

operated by the certificate holder, if 

applicable. 

(3) Replicates the operation of the 

aircraft equipment under adverse 

conditions, if appropriate. 

(c) Training equipment must be 

modified to ensure that it maintains the 

performance and function of the aircraft 

type or aircraft equipment replicated. 

(d) All training equipment must have 

a record of discrepancies. The 

documenting system must be readily 

available for review by each instructor, 

check airman or supervisor, prior to 

conducting training or checking with 

that equipment. 

(1) Each instructor, check airman or 

supervisor conducting training or 

checking, and each person conducting 

an inspection of the equipment who 

discovers a discrepancy, including any 

missing, malfunctioning or inoperative 

components, must record a description 

of that discrepancy and the date that the 

discrepancy was identified. 

(2) All corrections to discrepancies 

must be recorded when the corrections 

are made. This record must include the 

date of the correction. 

(3) A record of a discrepancy must be 

maintained for at least 60 days. 

(e) No person may use, allow the use 

of, or offer the use of training equipment 

with a missing, malfunctioning, or 

inoperative component to meet the 

crewmember training or checking 

requirements of this chapter for tasks 

that require the use of the correctly 

operating component. 

(f) Compliance with this section is 

required no later than March 12, 2019. 

■ 8. Amend § 121.409 as follows: 

■ A. Remove the semicolon at the end 

of paragraph (b)(1) and add a period in 

its place; 

■ B. Revise paragraph (b)(2); 

■ C. Remove paragraph (b)(3); and 

■ D. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as 

paragraph (b)(3). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 121.409 Training courses using airplane 

simulators and other training devices. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Provides training in at least the 

following: 

(i) The procedures and maneuvers set 

forth in appendix F to this part; or 

(ii) Line-oriented flight training 

(LOFT) that— 

(A) Before March 12, 2019, 

(1) Utilizes a complete flight crew; 

(2) Includes at least the maneuvers 

and procedures (abnormal and 

emergency) that may be expected in line 

operations; and 

(3) Is representative of the flight 

segment appropriate to the operations 

being conducted by the certificate 

holder. 

(B) Beginning on March 12, 2019— 

(1) Utilizes a complete flight crew; 

(2) Includes at least the maneuvers 

and procedures (abnormal and 

emergency) that may be expected in line 

operations; 

(3) Includes scenario-based or 

maneuver-based stall prevention 

training before, during or after the LOFT 

scenario for each pilot; 

(4) Is representative of two flight 

segments appropriate to the operations 

being conducted by the certificate 

holder; and 

(5) Provides an opportunity to 

demonstrate workload management and 

pilot monitoring skills. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 121.411 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (6) and 

(c)(1) through (3) to read as follows: 

§ 121.411 Qualifications: Check airmen 

(airplane) and check airmen (simulator). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Holds the airman certificates and 

ratings required to serve as a pilot in 

command or flight engineer, as 

applicable, in operations under this 

part; 

(2) Has satisfactorily completed the 

appropriate training phases for the 

airplane, including recurrent training, 

that are required to serve as a pilot in 

command or flight engineer, as 

applicable, in operations under this 

part; 

(3) Has satisfactorily completed the 

appropriate proficiency or flight checks 

that are required to serve as a pilot in 

command or flight engineer, as 

applicable, in operations under this 

part; 

* * * * * 

(6) Has satisfied the recency of 

experience requirements of § 121.439 of 

this part, as applicable; and 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Holds the airman certificates and 

ratings, except medical certificate, 

required to serve as a pilot in command 

or a flight engineer, as applicable, in 

operations under this part; 

(2) Has satisfactorily completed the 

appropriate training phases for the 

airplane, including recurrent training, 

that are required to serve as a pilot in 

command or flight engineer, as 

applicable, in operations under this 

part; 

(3) Has satisfactorily completed the 

appropriate proficiency or flight checks 

that are required to serve as a pilot in 

command or flight engineer, as 

applicable, in operations under this 

part; 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 121.412 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (b)(5) 

and (6) and (c)(1) through (3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 121.412 Qualifications: Flight instructors 

(airplane) and flight instructors (simulator). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Holds the airman certificates and 

rating required to serve as a pilot in 

command or flight engineer, as 

applicable, in operations under this 

part; 

(2) Has satisfactorily completed the 

appropriate training phases for the 

airplane, including recurrent training, 

that are required to serve as a pilot in 

command or flight engineer, as 

applicable, in operations under this 

part; 

(3) Has satisfactorily completed the 

appropriate proficiency or flight checks 

that are required to serve as a pilot in 

command or flight engineer, as 

applicable, in operations under this 

part; 

* * * * * 

(5) Holds at least a Class III medical 

certificate unless serving as a required 

crewmember, in which case holds a 

Class I or a Class II medical certificate 

as appropriate; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67838 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Has satisfied the recency of 

experience requirements of § 121.439 of 

this part, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Holds the airman certificates and 

ratings, except medical certificate, 

required to serve as a pilot in command 

or flight engineer, as applicable, in 

operations under this part; 

(2) Has satisfactorily completed the 

appropriate training phases for the 

airplane, including recurrent training, 

that are required to serve as a pilot in 

command or flight engineer, as 

applicable, in operations under this 

part; 

(3) Has satisfactorily completed the 

appropriate proficiency or flight checks 

that are required to serve as a pilot in 

command or flight engineer, as 

applicable, in operations under this 

part; and 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 121.413 as follows: 

■ A. Revise the section heading; 

■ B. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (d), (e) 

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

introductory text; and 

■ C. Add paragraphs (c)(7), (h), and (i). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 121.413 Initial, transition and recurrent 

training and checking requirements: Check 

airmen (airplane), check airmen (simulator). 

(a) * * * 

(2) Within the preceding 24 calendar 

months that person satisfactorily 

conducts a check or supervises 

operating experience under the 

observation of an FAA inspector or an 

aircrew designated examiner employed 

by the operator. The observation check 

may be accomplished in part or in full 

in an airplane, in a flight simulator, or 

in a flight training device. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(7) For check airmen who conduct 

training or checking in a flight simulator 

or a flight training device, the following 

subjects specific to the device(s) for the 

airplane type: 

(i) Proper operation of the controls 

and systems; 

(ii) Proper operation of environmental 

and fault panels; 

(iii) Data and motion limitations of 

simulation; and 

(iv) The minimum airplane simulator 

equipment required by this part or part 

60 of this chapter, for each maneuver 

and procedure completed in a flight 

simulator or a flight training device. 

(d) The transition ground training for 

check airmen must include the 

following: 

(1) The approved methods, 

procedures, and limitations for 

performing the required normal, 

abnormal, and emergency procedures 

applicable to the airplane to which the 

check airman is transitioning. 

(2) For check airmen who conduct 

training or checking in a flight simulator 

or a flight training device, the following 

subjects specific to the device(s) for the 

airplane type to which the check airman 

is transitioning: 

(i) Proper operation of the controls 

and systems; 

(ii) Proper operation of environmental 

and fault panels; 

(iii) Data and motion limitations of 

simulation; and 

(iv) The minimum airplane simulator 

equipment required by this part or part 

60 of this chapter, for each maneuver 

and procedure completed in a flight 

simulator or a flight training device. 

(e) The initial and transition flight 

training for check airmen (airplane) 

must include the following: 

* * * * * 

(4) For flight engineer check airmen 

(airplane), training to ensure 

competence to perform assigned duties. 

* * * * * 

(g) The initial and transition flight 

training for check airmen who conduct 

training or checking in a flight simulator 

or a flight training device must include 

the following: 

* * * * * 

(h) Recurrent ground training for 

check airmen who conduct training or 

checking in a flight simulator or a flight 

training device must be completed every 

12 calendar months and must include 

the subjects required in paragraph (c)(7) 

of this section. 

(i) Compliance with paragraphs (c)(7), 

(d)(2), and (h) of this section is required 

no later than March 12, 2019. 

■ 12. Amend § 121.414 as follows: 

■ A. Revise the section heading; 

■ B. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (d), (e) 

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

introductory text; and 

■ C. Add paragraphs (c)(8), (h), and (i). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 121.414 Initial, transition and recurrent 

training and checking requirements: flight 

instructors (airplane), flight instructors 

(simulator). 

(a) * * * 

(2) Within the preceding 24 calendar 

months, that person satisfactorily 

conducts instruction under the 

observation of an FAA inspector, an 

operator check airman, or an aircrew 

designated examiner employed by the 

operator. The observation check may be 

accomplished in part or in full in an 

airplane, in a flight simulator, or in a 

flight training device. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(8) For flight instructors who conduct 

training in a flight simulator or a flight 

training device, the following subjects 

specific to the device(s) for the airplane 

type: 

(i) Proper operation of the controls 

and systems; 

(ii) Proper operation of environmental 

and fault panels; 

(iii) Data and motion limitations of 

simulation; and 

(iv) The minimum airplane simulator 

equipment required by this part or part 

60 of this chapter, for each maneuver 

and procedure completed in a flight 

simulator or a flight training device. 

(d) The transition ground training for 

flight instructors must include the 

following: 

(1) The approved methods, 

procedures, and limitations for 

performing the required normal, 

abnormal, and emergency procedures 

applicable to the airplane to which the 

flight instructor is transitioning. 

(2) For flight instructors who conduct 

training in a flight simulator or a flight 

training device, the following subjects 

specific to the device(s) for the airplane 

type to which the flight instructor is 

transitioning: 

(i) Proper operation of the controls 

and systems; 

(ii) Proper operation of environmental 

and fault panels; 

(iii) Data and motion limitations of 

simulation; and 

(iv) The minimum airplane simulator 

equipment required by this part or part 

60 of this chapter, for each maneuver 

and procedure completed in a flight 

simulator or a flight training device. 

(e) The initial and transition flight 

training for flight instructors (airplane) 

must include the following: 

* * * * * 

(4) For flight engineer instructors 

(airplane), inflight training to ensure 

competence to perform assigned duties. 

* * * * * 

(g) The initial and transition flight 

training for flight instructors who 

conduct training in a flight simulator or 

a flight training device must include the 

following: 

* * * * * 

(h) Recurrent flight instructor ground 

training for flight instructors who 

conduct training in a flight simulator or 

a flight training device must be 

completed every 12 calendar months 

and must include the subjects required 

in paragraph (c)(8) of this section. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67839 

(i) Compliance with paragraphs (c)(8), 

(d)(2), and (h) of this section is required 

no later than March 12, 2019. 

■ 13. Amend § 121.415 as follows: 

■ A. Revise section heading; 

■ B. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the 

reference to ‘‘§§ 121.419 through 

121.422’’ and add in its place 

‘‘§§ 121.419, 121.421 and 121.422’’; 

■ C. In paragraph (b), remove the 

reference to ‘‘121.426’’ and add in its 

place ‘‘121.425’’; 

■ D. In paragraph (d), remove the 

reference to ‘‘§ 121.418’’ and add in its 

place ‘‘§ 121.418(a)’’ and remove the 

word ‘‘his’’ and add in its place ‘‘their’’; 

■ E. In paragraph (f), remove the 

reference to ‘‘§§ 121.419 through 

121.425’’ and add in its place 

‘‘§§ 121.419, 121.421, 121.422, 121.424, 

and 121.425’’; and 

■ F. Add paragraphs (h), (i), and (j). 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 121.415 Crewmember and dispatcher 

training program requirements. 

* * * * * 

(h) Each training program must 

include a process to provide for the 

regular analysis of individual pilot 

performance to identify pilots with 

performance deficiencies during 

training and checking and multiple 

failures during checking. 

(i) Each training program must 

include methods for remedial training 

and tracking of pilots identified in the 

analysis performed in accordance with 

paragraph (h) of this section. 

(j) Compliance with paragraphs (h) 

and (i) of this section is required no 

later than March 12, 2019. 

■ 14. Amend § 121.418 as follows: 

■ A. Revise section heading; 

■ B. Redesignate paragraphs (a) 

introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) and 

the undesignated paragraph, as 

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), 

(a)(1)(iii), and (a)(2) respectively; 

■ C. Add a subject heading to paragraph 

(a); and 

■ D. Add paragraphs (b) and (c). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 121.418 Differences training and related 

aircraft differences training. 

(a) Differences training. 

* * * * * 

(b) Related aircraft differences 

training. (1) In order to seek approval of 

related aircraft differences training for 

flightcrew members, a certificate holder 

must submit a request for related aircraft 

designation to the Administrator, and 

obtain approval of that request. 

(2) If the Administrator determines 

under paragraph (b)(1) of this section 

that a certificate holder is operating 

related aircraft, the certificate holder 

may submit to the Administrator a 

request for approval of a training 

program that includes related aircraft 

differences training. 

(3) A request for approval of a training 

program that includes related aircraft 

differences training must include at 

least the following: 

(i) Each appropriate subject required 

for the ground training for the related 

aircraft. 

(ii) Each appropriate maneuver or 

procedure required for the flight 

training and crewmember emergency 

training for the related aircraft. 

(iii) The number of programmed 

hours of ground training, flight training 

and crewmember emergency training 

necessary based on review of the related 

aircraft and the duty position. 

(c) Approved related aircraft 

differences training. Approved related 

aircraft differences training for 

flightcrew members may be included in 

initial, transition, upgrade and recurrent 

training for the base aircraft. If the 

certificate holder’s approved training 

program includes related aircraft 

differences training in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section, the 

training required by §§ 121.419, 

121.424, 121.425, and 121.427, as 

applicable to flightcrew members, may 

be modified for the related aircraft. 

■ 15. Amend § 121.419 as follows: 

■ A. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(ix); 

■ B. In paragraph (a)(2)(x), remove 

‘‘and’’ following the semi-colon; 

■ C. Redesignate paragraph (a)(2)(xi) as 

(a)(2)(xiii); and 

■ D. Add new paragraph (a)(2)(xi) and 

paragraphs (a)(2)(xii) and (e). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 121.419 Pilots and flight engineers: 

Initial, transition, and upgrade ground 

training. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ix) Other instructions as necessary to 

ensure pilot and flight engineer 

competence. 

(2) * * * 

(xi) For pilots, stall prevention and 

recovery in clean configuration, takeoff 

and maneuvering configuration, and 

landing configuration. 

(xii) For pilots, upset prevention and 

recovery; and 

(xiii) The approved Airplane Flight 

Manual. 

* * * * * 

(e) Compliance and pilot programmed 

hours. (1) Compliance with the 

requirements identified in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(xi) and (a)(2)(xii) of this section is 

required no later than March 12, 2019. 

(2) Beginning March 12, 2019, initial 

programmed hours applicable to pilots 

as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

this section must include 2 additional 

hours. 

§ 121.420 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 16. Remove and reserve § 121.420. 

■ 17. Add § 121.423 to read as follows: 

§ 121.423 Pilot: Extended Envelope 

Training. 

(a) Each certificate holder must 

include in its approved training 

program, the extended envelope training 

set forth in this section with respect to 

each airplane type for each pilot. The 

extended envelope training required by 

this section must be performed in a 

Level C or higher full flight simulator, 

approved by the Administrator in 

accordance with § 121.407 of this part. 

(b) Extended envelope training must 

include the following maneuvers and 

procedures: 

(1) Manually controlled slow flight; 

(2) Manually controlled loss of 

reliable airspeed; 

(3) Manually controlled instrument 

departure and arrival; 

(4) Upset recovery maneuvers; and 

(5) Recovery from bounced landing. 

(c) Extended envelope training must 

include instructor-guided hands on 

experience of recovery from full stall 

and stick pusher activation, if equipped. 

(d) Recurrent training: Within 24 

calendar months preceding service as a 

pilot, each person must satisfactorily 

complete the extended envelope 

training described in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (4) and (c) of this section. 

Within 36 calendar months preceding 

service as a pilot, each person must 

satisfactorily complete the extended 

envelope training described in 

paragraph (b)(5) of this section. 

(e) Deviation from use of Level C or 

higher full flight simulator: 

(1) A certificate holder may submit a 

request to the Administrator for 

approval of a deviation from the 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section to conduct the extended 

envelope training using an alternative 

method to meet the learning objectives 

of this section. 

(2) A request for deviation from 

paragraph (a) of this section must 

include the following information: 

(i) A simulator availability 

assessment, including hours by specific 

simulator and location of the simulator, 

and a simulator shortfall analysis that 

includes the training that cannot be 

completed in a Level C or higher full 

flight simulator; and 

(ii) Alternative methods for achieving 

the learning objectives of this section. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67840 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(3) A certificate holder may request an 

extension of a deviation issued under 

this section. 

(4) Deviations or extensions to 

deviations will be issued for a period 

not to exceed 12 months. 

(f) Compliance with this section is 

required no later than March 12, 2019. 

For the recurrent training required in 

paragraph (d) of this section, each pilot 

qualified to serve as second in 

command or pilot in command in 

operations under this part on March 12, 

2019 must complete the recurrent 

extended envelope training within 12 

calendar months after March 12, 2019. 

■ 18. Amend § 121.424 as follows: 

■ A. Revise paragraph (a); 

■ B. Revise paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ C. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the 

word ‘‘and’’ following the semi-colon; 

■ D. Redesignate paragraph (b)(2) as 

(b)(3); 

■ E. Add new paragraph (b)(2); 

■ F. In paragraph (c), remove the 

reference to ‘‘paragraph (a)’’ and add in 

its place ‘‘paragraph (a)(1);’’ and 

■ G. Add paragraph (e). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 121.424 Pilots: Initial, transition, and 

upgrade flight training. 

(a) Initial, transition, and upgrade 

training for pilots must include the 

following: 

(1) Flight training and practice in the 

maneuvers and procedures set forth in 

the certificate holder’s approved lowaltitude windshear flight training 

program and in appendix E to this part, 

as applicable; and 

(2) Extended envelope training set 

forth in § 121.423. 

(b) The training required by paragraph 

(a) of this section must be performed 

inflight except— 

* * * * * 

(2) That the extended envelope 

training required by § 121.423 must be 

performed in a Level C or higher full 

flight simulator unless the 

Administrator has issued to the 

certificate holder a deviation in 

accordance with § 121.423(e); and 

* * * * * 

(e) Compliance with paragraphs (a)(2) 

and (b)(2) of this section is required no 

later than March 12, 2019. 

§ 121.426 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 19. Remove and reserve § 121.426. 

■ 20. Amend § 121.427 as follows: 

■ A. Revise paragraph (b)(4); 

■ B. Remove paragraph (c)(2); 

■ C. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3) and 

(4) as paragraphs (c)(2) and (3), 

respectively; 

■ D. Revise paragraph (d)(1); 

■ E. Remove paragraph (d)(3); and 

■ F. Add paragraph (e). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 121.427 Recurrent training. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) CRM and DRM training. For 

flightcrew members, CRM training or 

portions thereof may be accomplished 

during an approved simulator line 

operational flight training (LOFT) 

session. The recurrent CRM or DRM 

training requirements do not apply until 

a person has completed the applicable 

initial CRM or DRM training required by 

§§ 121.419, 121.421, or 121.422. 

* * * * * 

(d) Recurrent flight training for 

flightcrew members must include at 

least the following: 

(1) For pilots— 

(i) Extended envelope training as 

required by § 121.423 of this part; and 

(ii) Flight training in an approved 

simulator in maneuvers and procedures 

set forth in the certificate holder’s 

approved low-altitude windshear flight 

training program and flight training in 

maneuvers and procedures set forth in 

appendix F to this part, or in a flight 

training program approved by the 

Administrator, except as follows— 

(A) The number of programmed 

inflight hours is not specified; and 

(B) Satisfactory completion of a 

proficiency check may be substituted for 

recurrent flight training as permitted in 

§ 121.433(c) and (e) of this part. 

* * * * * 

(e) Compliance and pilot programmed 

hours: 

(1) Compliance with the requirements 

identified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) of this 

section is required no later than March 

12, 2019. 

(2) After March 12, 2019, recurrent 

programmed hours applicable to pilots 

as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section must include 30 additional 

minutes. 

§ 121.432 [Amended] 

■ 21. Amend § 121.432 as follows: 

■ A. Remove paragraphs (b)(2) and (3); 

■ B. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(4) and 

(5) as paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) 

respectively; 

■ C. Remove paragraphs (c) and (d); and 

■ D. Designate the undesignated 

paragraph as paragraph (c). 

■ 22. Amend § 121.433 as follows: 

■ A. Remove ‘‘he’’ and add in its place 

‘‘the person’’ each time it appears in the 

section; and 

■ B. Revise paragraphs (d) and (e). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 121.433 Training required. 

* * * * * 

(d) For each airplane in which a pilot 

serves as pilot in command, the person 

must satisfactorily complete either 

recurrent flight training or a proficiency 

check within the preceding 12 calendar 

months. The requirement in this 

paragraph expires on March 12, 2019. 

After that date, the requirement in 

§ 121.441(a)(1)(ii) of this part applies. 

(e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(2) 

and (d) of this section, a proficiency 

check as provided in § 121.441 of this 

part may not be substituted for the 

extended envelope training required by 

§ 121.423 or training in those maneuvers 

and procedures set forth in a certificate 

holder’s approved low-altitude 

windshear flight training program when 

that program is included in a recurrent 

flight training course as required by 

§ 121.409(d) of this part. 

■ 23. Amend § 121.434 as follows: 

■ A. Add paragraph (a)(4); and, 

■ B. In paragraph (b)(1), remove ‘‘he’’ 

and add in its place ‘‘the person’’; 

■ C. Remove the last sentence of 

paragraph (f); and 

■ D. Revise paragraph (i). 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 121.434 Operating experience, operating 

cycles, and consolidation of knowledge and 

skills. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Deviation based upon designation 

of related aircraft in accordance with 

§ 121.418(b). 

(i) The Administrator may authorize a 

deviation from the operating experience, 

operating cycles, and line operating 

flight time for consolidation of 

knowledge and skills required by this 

section based upon a designation of 

related aircraft in accordance with 

§ 121.418(b) of this part and a 

determination that the certificate holder 

can demonstrate an equivalent level of 

safety. 

(ii) A request for deviation from the 

operating experience, operating cycles, 

and line operating flight time for 

consolidation of knowledge and skills 

required by this section based upon a 

designation of related aircraft must be 

submitted to the Administrator. The 

request must include the following: 

(A) Identification of aircraft operated 

by the certificate holder designated as 

related aircraft. 

(B) Hours of operating experience and 

number of operating cycles necessary 

based on review of the related aircraft, 

the operation, and the duty position. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67841 

(C) Consolidation hours necessary 

based on review of the related aircraft, 

the operation, and the duty position. 

(iii) The administrator may, at any 

time, terminate a grant of deviation 

authority issued under this paragraph 

(a)(4). 

* * * * * 

(i) Notwithstanding the reductions in 

programmed hours permitted under 

§§ 121.405 and 121.409 of subpart N of 

this part, the hours of operating 

experience for crewmembers are not 

subject to reduction other than as 

provided in accordance with a deviation 

authorized under paragraph (a) of this 

section or as provided in paragraphs (e) 

and (f) of this section. 

§ 121.435 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 24. Remove and reserve § 121.435. 

■ 25. Amend § 121.439 by adding 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 121.439 Pilot qualification: Recent 

experience. 

* * * * * 

(f) Deviation authority based upon 

designation of related aircraft in 

accordance with § 121.418(b). 

(1) The Administrator may authorize 

a deviation from the requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section based upon 

a designation of related aircraft in 

accordance with § 121.418(b) of this part 

and a determination that the certificate 

holder can demonstrate an equivalent 

level of safety. 

(2) A request for deviation from 

paragraph (a) of this section must be 

submitted to the Administrator. The 

request must include the following: 

(i) Identification of aircraft operated 

by the certificate holder designated as 

related aircraft. 

(ii) The number of takeoffs, landings, 

maneuvers, and procedures necessary to 

maintain or reestablish recency based 

on review of the related aircraft, the 

operation, and the duty position. 

(3) The administrator may, at any 

time, terminate a grant of deviation 

authority issued under this paragraph 

(f). 

■ 26. Amend § 121.441 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraph 

(f) to read as follows: 

§ 121.441 Proficiency checks. 

(a) * * * 

(1) For a pilot in command— 

(i) Before March 12, 2019, 

(A) A proficiency check within the 

preceding 12 calendar months and, 

(B) In addition, within the preceding 

6 calendar months, either a proficiency 

check or the approved simulator course 

of training. 

(ii) Beginning on March 12, 2019, 

(A) A proficiency check within the 

preceding 12 calendar months in the 

aircraft type in which the person is to 

serve and, 

(B) In addition, within the preceding 

6 calendar months, either a proficiency 

check or the approved simulator course 

of training. 

* * * * * 

(f) Deviation authority based upon 

designation of related aircraft in 

accordance with § 121.418(b) of this 

part. 

(1) The Administrator may authorize 

a deviation from the proficiency check 

requirements of paragraphs (a) and 

(b)(1) of this section based upon a 

designation of related aircraft in 

accordance with § 121.418(b) of this part 

and a determination that the certificate 

holder can demonstrate an equivalent 

level of safety. 

(2) A request for deviation from 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of this section 

must be submitted to the Administrator. 

The request must include the following: 

(i) Identification of aircraft operated 

by the certificate holder designated as 

related aircraft. 

(ii) For recurrent proficiency checks, 

the frequency of the related aircraft 

proficiency check and the maneuvers 

and procedures to be included in the 

related aircraft proficiency check based 

on review of the related aircraft, the 

operation, and the duty position. 

(iii) For qualification proficiency 

checks, the maneuvers and procedures 

to be included in the related aircraft 

proficiency check based on review of 

the related aircraft, the operation, and 

the duty position. 

(3) The administrator may, at any 

time, terminate a grant of deviation 

authority issued under this paragraph 

(f). 

■ 27. Add § 121.544 to read as follows: 

§ 121.544 Pilot monitoring. 

Each pilot who is seated at the pilot 

controls of the aircraft, while not flying 

the aircraft, must accomplish pilot 

monitoring duties as appropriate in 

accordance with the certificate holder’s 

procedures contained in the manual 

required by § 121.133 of this part. 

Compliance with this section is required 

no later than March 12, 2019. 

■ 28. Revise § 121.711 to read as 

follows: 

§ 121.711 Communication records: 

Domestic and flag operations. 

(a) Each certificate holder conducting 

domestic or flag operations must record 

each en route communication between 

the certificate holder and its pilots using 

a communication system as required by 

§ 121.99 of this part. 

(b) For purposes of this section the 

term en route means from the time the 

aircraft pushes back from the departing 

gate until the time the aircraft reaches 

the arrival gate at its destination. 

(c) The record required in paragraph 

(a) of this section must contain at least 

the following information: 

(1) The date and time of the contact; 

(2) The flight number; 

(3) Aircraft registration number; 

(4) Approximate position of the 

aircraft during the contact; 

(5) Call sign; and 

(6) Narrative of the contact. 

(d) The record required in paragraph 

(a) of this section must be kept for at 

least 30 days. 

■ 29. Amend appendix E: 

■ A. By revising the first paragraph; 

■ B. In the Table entitled ‘‘Flight 

Training Requirements’’: 

■ i. Redesignate entry I(c) as I(c)(1) and 

revise text of I(c)(1); 

■ ii. Add new entry I(c)(2); 

■ iii. Redesignate entry I(d) as I(d)(1) 

and revise text of (I)(d)(1); 

■ iv. Add new entry I(d)(2); 

■ v. Redesignate entry II(c) as II(c)(1); 

■ vi. Add new entry II(c)(2); 

■ vii. In entry III(e) replace the word 

‘‘runway’’ with ‘‘runaway’’; 

■ viii. Revise entry III(i); 

■ ix. Redesignate entry IV(d) as IV(d)(1); 

and 

■ x. Add new entry IV(d)(2). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix E to Part 121—Flight 

Training Requirements. 

The maneuvers and procedures required by 

§ 121.424 of this part for pilot initial, 

transition, and upgrade flight training are set 

forth in the certificate holder’s approved lowaltitude windshear flight training program, 

§ 121.423 extended envelope training, and in 

this appendix. All required maneuvers and 

procedures must be performed inflight except 

that windshear and extended envelope 

training maneuvers and procedures must be 

performed in an airplane simulator in which 

the maneuvers and procedures are 

specifically authorized to be accomplished. 

Certain other maneuvers and procedures may 

be performed in an airplane simulator with 

a visual system (visual simulator), an 

airplane simulator without a visual system 

(nonvisual simulator), a training device, or a 

static airplane as indicated by the 

appropriate symbol in the respective column 

opposite the maneuver or procedure. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67842 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER12NO13.163</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67843 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER12NO13.164</GPH>
67844 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 30. In appendix F, amend the entries 

in the Table as follows: 

■ A. Remove the reference in entry I(b) 

to § 121.424(d)(2) and add in its place a 

reference to § 121.424(d)(1)(ii); 

■ B. Redesignate entry I(c) as I(c)(1) and 

revise it; 

■ C. Add entry I(c)(2); 

■ D. Redesignate entry I(d) as I(d)(1) and 

hyphenate the words power-plant in 

I(d)(1); 

■ E. Add entry I(d)(2); 

■ F. Redesignate entry II(c) as II(c)(1) 

and revise it; 

■ G. Add entry II(c)(2); 

■ H. Amend entry III(c)(4) by removing 

the second sentence; 

■ I. Revise entry IV(b) and the first 

floating paragraph that follows; 

■ J. Amend entry V introductory text by 

removing the last sentence in the first 

paragraph; 

■ K. Redesignate entry V(c) as V(c)(1); 

and 

■ L. Add entry V(c)(2). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER12NO13.165</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67845 

Maneuvers/procedures 

Required Permitted 

Simulated 

instrument 

conditions 

Inflight Visual 

simulator 

Nonvisual 

simulator 

Training 

device 

Waiver provisions of 

§ 121.441(d) 

*******

I Preflight— 

*******

(c)(1) Taxiing. Before March 12, 2019, this maneuver includes taxiing (in the case of a second in 

command proficiency check to the extent practical from the second in command crew position), 

sailing, or docking procedures in compliance with 

instructions issued by the appropriate traffic control authority or by the person conducting the 

checks ................................................................... .................... B .................... .................... .................... ............................

(c)(2) Taxiing. Beginning March 12, 2019, this maneuver includes the following: (i) Taxiing (in the 

case of a second in command proficiency check 

to the extent practical from the second in command crew position), sailing, or docking procedures in compliance with instructions issued by 

the appropriate traffic control authority or by the 

person conducting the checks. (ii) Use of airport 

diagram (surface movement chart). (iii) Obtaining 

appropriate clearance before crossing or entering 

active runways. (iv) Observation of all surface 

movement guidance control markings and lighting .......................................................................... .................... B .................... .................... .................... ............................

*******

(d)(2) Beginning March 12, 2019, pre-takeoff procedures that include power-plant checks, receipt of 

takeoff clearance and confirmation of aircraft location, and FMS entry (if appropriate), for departure runway prior to crossing hold short line for 

takeoff .................................................................... .................... .................... B .................... .................... ............................

II Takeoff— 

*******

(c)(1) Crosswind. Before March 12, 2019, one 

crosswind takeoff, if practicable, under the existing meteorological, airport, and traffic conditions .................... B * .................... .................... .................... ............................

(c)(2) Beginning March 12, 2019, one crosswind 

takeoff with gusts, if practicable, under the existing meteorological, airport, and traffic conditions .................... B * .................... .................... .................... ............................

*******

IV. Inflight Maneuvers 

*******

(b) Stall Prevention. For the purpose of this maneuver the approved recovery procedure must be initiated at the first indication of an impending stall 

(buffet, stick shaker, aural warning). Except as 

provided below there must be at least three stall 

prevention recoveries as follows: .......................... B .................... .................... B .................... B * 

(1) One in the takeoff configuration (except 

where the airplane uses only a zero-flap 

takeoff configuration). 

(2) One in a clean configuration. 

(3) One in a landing configuration. 

At the discretion of the person conducting the 

check, one stall prevention recovery must be performed in one of the above configurations while 

in a turn with the bank angle between 15° and 

30°. Two out of the three stall prevention recoveries required by this paragraph may be waived 

* * *. 

*******

V Landings and Approaches to Landings— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

67846 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Maneuvers/procedures 

Required Permitted 

Simulated 

instrument 

conditions 

Inflight Visual 

simulator 

Nonvisual 

simulator 

Training 

device 

Waiver provisions of 

§ 121.441(d) 

Notwithstanding the authorizations for combining 

and waiving maneuvers and for the use of a simulator, at least two actual landings (one to a full 

stop) must be made for all pilot-in-command and 

initial second-in-command proficiency checks. 

Landings and approaches to landings must include 

the types listed below, but more than one type 

may be combined where appropriate. 

* * * * * * * 

(c)(2) Beginning March 12, 2019, crosswind landing 

with gusts, if practical under existing meteorological, airport, and traffic conditions ......................... .................... B * .................... .................... .................... ............................

* * * * * * * 

■ 31. Amend appendix H by adding a 

sentence to the end of paragraph (6) in 

the section titled Advanced Simulation 

Training Program; and add paragraph 

(5) to the section titled Level C Training 

and Checking Permitted to read as 

follows: 

Appendix H to Part 121—Advanced 

Simulation 

* * * * * 

Advanced Simulation Training Program 

* * * * * 

6. * * * After March 12, 2019, the LOFT 

must provide an opportunity for the pilot to 

demonstrate workload management and pilot 

monitoring skills. 

* * * * * 

Level C 

Training and Checking Permitted 

* * * * * 

5. For all pilots, the extended envelope 

training required by § 121.423 of this part. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

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

44701(a) and Secs. 208 and 209 of Public 

Law 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 

44701 note), on November 5, 2013. 

Michael P. Huerta, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2013–26845 Filed 11–6–13; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3