20858 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 27210; Amendment No. 121–

248]

RIN 2120–AD88

Pilot Operating and Experience

Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation

Administration amends its pilot

qualification requirements for air carrier

and commercial operator pilots by

upgrading existing operating experience

requirements, establishing a new kind of

operating experience requirement, and

adding requirements that would reduce

the potential for an inexperienced pilot

in command to be scheduled to fly with

an inexperienced second in command

pilot. The FAA has determined that

recent practices and trends necessitate

revising current pilot qualification

regulations in the interest of safety to

upgrade minimum crew experience and

to require pilots to use newly developed

knowledge and skills in actual line

operations within a short time after

training.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Larry Youngblut, Project

Development Branch (AFS–240), Air

Transportation Division, Flight

Standards Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591;

Telephone (202) 267–8096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The FAA is amending part 121 pilot

qualification requirements. The FAA

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM), Notice No. 93–1,

on the subject (58 FR 15730, March 23,

1993). Most of these amendments are

based on a joint government/industry

task force committee’s recommendation.

Three proposals, on second in command

(SIC) operating experience, FAA

inspector observation of a pilot in

command (PIC), and ‘‘satisfactory’’

completion of operating experience, are

not committee recommendations but are

parallel to the basic committee’s

recommendation. The final amendments

are as follows:

1. The present requirement in

§ 121.434(a), which prohibits a

certificate holder from using any person

‘‘as a required crewmember on an

airplane unless he has completed, on

that type airplane and in that

crewmember position, the operating

experience requirements required,’’ is

revised by inserting the work

‘‘satisfactorily’’ before the word

‘‘completed.’’

2. Operating experience requirements

in § 121.434 are amended to require that

a PIC completing initial or upgrade

training be observed during at least one

flight leg by an FAA inspector in all

cases, not just when the certificate

holder’s training program includes

simulator training.

3. Operating experience requirements

in § 121.434 are amended to require that

an SIC must perform SIC duties under

the supervision of an appropriately

qualified check pilot and to eliminate

the current option allowing an SIC to

observe the performance of the duties

on the flight deck.

4. The hours of operating experience

required in § 121.434 are increased for

PICs transitioning in Group II airplanes,

and reductions in hours are no longer

allowed for PIC initial training in Group

II airplanes or for initial or transition

training for SICs in Group II airplanes.

5. Operating experience requirements

for both PICs and SICs in § 121.434 are

amended to include requiring four

operating cycles (at least two of which

must be flown by the pilot). ‘‘Operating

cycle’’ is defined in the rule as a

complete flight segment consisting of a

takeoff, climb, enroute portion, descent,

and a landing.

6. Operating experience requirements

in § 121.434 are amended to require that

each PIC and SIC acquire 100 hours of

line operating experience for

consolidation of knowledge and skills

within 120 days after completion of an

airman certification practical test or

completion of a proficiency check in the

new airplane. ‘‘Consolidation’’ is

defined as the process by which a

person through practice and practical

experience increases proficiency in

newly acquired knowledge and skills.

‘‘Line operating flight time’’ is defined

as flight time performed in operations

under part 121.

7. A new section on operating

limitations, § 121.438, requires a PIC,

when flying with an SIC who has fewer

than 100 flight hours in the type

airplane being flown, to make all

takeoffs and landings during certain

situations. This new section also

requires that either a PIC or SIC have at

least 75 hours of line operating flight

time for that type airplane in order to be

assigned to the same flight crew. (This

is commonly called ‘‘crew pairing.’’)

History

The FAA determined that these

amendments were necessary because of

airplane accidents and incidents that

had occurred at least in part because of

inexperienced flight crews. An accident

that occurred in Denver in 1987

involved a Continental Airlines

McDonnell Douglas DC–9–14 which

crashed on takeoff. The National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

found that the PIC, though an

experienced pilot, had very little total

flying time in the DC–9 and was not

experienced in supervising first officers.

The SIC, who was flying the aircraft

when it crashed, had little experience in

the DC–9 and had not flown for the

previous 24 days. A second accident

that occurred in New York in 1989

involved a USAir B–737. The NTSB

found that the PIC, though experienced

as an SIC, had only 138 hours as a PIC

in air transport aircraft; the SIC, who

had been recently hired and had just

qualified for B–737 service, was

conducting his first non-supervised line

takeoff in a B–737, and also his first

takeoff after a 39-day non-flying period.

In response to the problem of

inexperienced crews, the FAA issued

Air Carrier Operations Bulletin (ACOB)

8–88–1 (January 21, 1988) and guidance

to FAA field staff (July 19, 1988). The

guidance to field staff requested that

principal operations inspectors (POIs)

review their certificate holders’ policies

on crew pairing and scheduling and

send copies of these policies to FAA

headquarters.

The NTSB recommended (November

3, 1988), based on its investigation of

the Denver accident, that the FAA issue

requirements that establish minimum

experience levels for each PIC and each

SIC that would, in effect, ‘‘prohibit the

pairing on the same flight of pilots who

have less than the minimum experience

in their respective positions.’’

The FAA reviewed accident data,

NTSB recommendations on crew

experience, as well as past and present

practices and trends in the aviation

environment that are affecting crew

experience levels. For example, the

practice of bidding for flight crew

schedules, which is used by air carriers,

results in the most experienced pilots

obtaining the most desirable schedules

and the least experienced pilots

obtaining the least desirable schedules.

Often the least experienced pilots are

assigned to a reserve pool and may have

to wait days or weeks before they

receive a flight assignment. This system

often prevents newly qualified pilots

from using and perfecting their new

flight skills immediately after qualifying
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20859

1This task force was later subsumed by the Air

Transportation Personnel Training and

Qualifications Advisory Committee, established by

FAA Order 1110.115, May 2, 1990, which

committee was subsequently subsumed under the

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

on a new aircraft. It also increases the

likelihood of pairing inexperienced

pilots on the same flight.

Also, in recent years manufacturers

have introduced a greater number of

new aircraft containing more equipment

and systems variations within type.

Pilots must not only learn different

aircraft handling characteristics but they

must also be able to work with a variety

of aircraft equipment such as automated

flight control and flight management

systems.

In response to these concerns about

the experience level of crews, the FAA

requested the Joint Government/

industry Task Force on Flight Crew

Performance, which was established in

1987, to form a committee to develop

recommendations for establishing crew

pairing requirements.1 On September

13, 1990, the committee recommended

requiring all certificate holders

operating under part 121 to provide a

minimum level of experience for pilot

crews. Specifically, the committee

recommended the consolidation

requirements, operating restrictions, and

crew pairing restrictions. The FAA has

incorporated, with some modifications,

those recommendations in this

rulemaking.

Comments Discussion

The FAA received 14 comments on

the proposed rule. These comments

were from air carriers, pilot

organizations, the NTSB, and one

individual. Most of the commenters

voice general support for the rule as a

whole but have suggestions for changes

to specific requirements. The following

is a discussion of general comments and

specific comments on each requirement

in the rule.

General Comments

NTSB says that the proposed rule

effectively responds to its safety

recommendations following two

accidents involving the pairing of

inexperienced pilots (Safety

Recommendations A–88–107 and A–

90–107 and –108).

The Air Transport Association (ATA)

and an individual airline say that the

proposed rule is not justified because

Air Carrier Operations Bulletin 8–88–1

(issued in 1988 and revised in 1991)

effectively provides guidelines in the

scheduling and pairing of pilots as well

as recommended actions for pilots with

low experience levels. ATA says that

the proposed rule would add further,

unjustified restrictions to this ACOB.

The Boeing Company (Boeing)

generally agrees with the proposed rule

but says that the changes do not address

the practice whereby commercial

transport manufacturers’ pilots help air

carriers to introduce new airplane

models into revenue service. Boeing

says that the proposed rule would

prevent manufacturers from providing

this support to air carriers and that this

support is needed for safe initial line

operations when air carriers do not have

pilots with significant experience in

airplane models new to carriers.

FAA Response

While the FAA recognizes that many

air carriers have initiated crew pairing

policies based on the ACOB, the

guidance is not mandatory. The FAA

intended the guidance as an interim

action to be followed by mandatory

rules. The FAA believes that the

seriousness of the situation warrants

rulemaking. Since most air carriers are

already complying with the guidance,

the FAA does not believe the

rulemaking will be an excessive burden

to the industry as a whole.

The FAA does not believe this

rulemaking will interfere with

commercial transport airplane

manufacturers providing pilots to assist

air carriers during the introduction of

new airplane types into revenue service.

The FAA believes that this can be

accomplished within the rule as

proposed and adopted. Sections

121.434(h)(5) and 121.438(b) provide for

the Administrator to issue deviations to

certificate holders from the line

operating experience requirements of

§ 121.434(g) and the crew pairing

limitations of § 121.438(b) if special

circumstances warrant.

Comments on Specific Sections

Section 121.431(b)—Applicability

Currently, § 121.431(b) states that the

airplane groups and definitions

prescribed in § 121.400 apply to subpart

O. The amended paragraph (b) adds

definitions for the terms

‘‘consolidation,’’ ‘‘line operating flight

time,’’ and ‘‘operating cycle.’’

Four comments were received on the

definitions and applicability. One

commenter says that rather than use the

term ‘‘line operating flight time,’’ the

term ‘‘flight time’’ should be used so

that all flight time (not just FAR part

121 flying) is counted towards

consolidation. Two commenters say that

the term ‘‘consolidation’’ is misleading

in the NPRM because it describes a

process by which proficiency is gained

through practice and practical

experience. Since, currently, pilots take

proficiency checks prior to

consolidation, commenters suggest that

a different term be used.

The Air Line Pilots Association

(ALPA) says that the proposed rule

should apply to part 135 operations as

well. According to ALPA, this would be

responsive to NTSB recommendation

A–88–137 which recommends

minimum experience levels for PICs and

SICs in part 135 operations.

FAA Response

The FAA intended that only line

operating flight time, which is flight

time performed in part 121 operations,

be counted towards consolidation. The

purpose of consolidation is to provide

pilots flight experience in line

operations in the airplane type that the

pilot is newly qualified within a

reasonable time after training in order to

consolidate their skills and knowledge.

Other flight time outside of a certificate

holder’s line operations may not

provide the same experience.

As stated in the NPRM, the FAA used

the term ‘‘consolidation,’’ as

recommended by the task force

committee, with some reservation

because the term is used in psychology

books to identify a period of time that

is part of the training/learning process

or that occurs almost immediately after

a training or teaching session. While it

is true that a defined consolidation

period may begin after a pilot has

completed a proficiency check,

proficiency is increased throughout a

pilot’s line operating flying experience

and proficiency checks are conducted

regularly throughout a pilot’s career.

The FAA believes that ‘‘consolidation’’

is an acceptable term for the concept but

to avoid any confusion the definition

has been revised by changing the words

‘‘becomes proficient’’ to ‘‘increases

proficiency.’’

The FAA is not extending these

requirements to part 135 in this

rulemaking since it is beyond the scope

of the notice. However, the FAA has

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking

proposing to require that part 135

certificate holders who conduct

commuter operations with airplanes for

which two pilots are required, or have

a passenger seating configuration of 10

or more seats, train and qualify

crewmembers in accordance with the

requirements of part 121, subparts N

and O. [See Federal Register 59 FR

64272, dated December 13, 1994.]
20860 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii)—Observation

by FAA Inspector (Operating

Experience)

Currently § 121.434(c)(1)(ii) requires

that when a PIC is obtaining operating

experience at least one flight leg that

includes a takeoff and landing must be

observed by an FAA inspector if the

certificate holder’s approved training

program includes simulator training

under § 121.409(c) and if a qualifying

pilot in command is completing initial

or upgrade training specified in

§ 121.424. The revised paragraph deletes

the reference to simulator training in the

certificate holder’s approved training

program. The FAA inspector

observation requirement will, therefore,

apply to all PICs obtaining operating

experience if they are completing initial

or upgrade training.

Five comments were received on this

issue. Two commenters point out that

the original purpose of requiring FAA

inspector observation was to validate

simulator training. Since the onset of

the advanced simulation program (FAR

Appendix H) tens of thousands of pilots

have been successfully trained using

advanced simulation. According to

commenters, in view of the excellent

experience with advanced simulation,

the requirement for FAA observation

should now be dropped, not expanded.

Adding to this requirement would not

enhance safety and would be

administratively and financially

burdensome. These commenters, as well

as three others, say that there is a

shortage of available, qualified FAA

inspectors and this requirement will

cause scheduling programs if personal

observation of flight legs by an FAA

inspector is required. The result will be

costly delays in an airline’s ability to

use newly qualified PICs. One

commenter points out that even under

the current system, carriers face

significant and expensive delays

awaiting the availability of an FAA

inspector and that the proposal would

exacerbate this problem.

ATA, United, and the Regional

Airline Association (RAA) recommend

that this proposal be eliminated. ATA

points out that if the proposal is

implemented, the observation could

take place on a pilot’s first line trip and

could be administered by an inspector

who is not qualified on the aircraft

being flown.

Three commenters, including

American Airlines and RAA,

recommend that Designated Examiners

and Aircrew Program Designees be

allowed to observe the flight leg when

FAA inspector schedules are not

compatible and completion of the

operating experience would be delayed.

FAA Response

The initial observation requirement

was implemented to provide an

opportunity for the FAA to observe a

pilot in performance of his or her duties

before the pilot completes initial

operating experience if the certificate

holder’s training program included

simulator training. Since almost all

certificate holder training programs

under part 121 now include simulator

training, deleting the reference to

simulator training does not significantly

affect the current practices of certificate

holders or the FAA. The FAA finds that

the initial purpose of the observation

requirement is still valid: to provide the

FAA an opportunity to observe the PIC

before he or she assumes unsupervised

operations in an airplane; to validate the

certificate holder’s training program;

and to provide the FAA with a quality

control mechanism for evaluating the

certificate holder’s designated check

pilot program.

The FAA finds that allowing

Designated Examiners or Aircrew

Program Designees to substitute for FAA

inspectors would not satisfy the purpose

of this observation as described above.

Section 121.434(c)(2)—SIC Supervised

Operating Experience

Current § 121.434(c)(2) requires that

an SIC pilot perform the duties of an SIC

under the supervision of a check pilot

or observe the performance of the duties

on the flight deck. The revision

eliminates the option to observe. The

revised rule requires that an SIC pilot

acquire operating experience by

performing actual SIC duties (and not

simply by observing another SIC) under

the supervision of a qualified check

pilot.

Two comments were received on this

requirement. Both commenters agree

with the proposal and say that it would

ensure that newly trained SICs

immediately begin consolidating newly

developed skills by actually performing

line operations and flying the airplane.

Both commenters point out that the

current system of gaining credit toward

operating experience by passively

observing another SIC is ineffective and

does not promote proficiency. In

addition, NTSB says that the proposal is

responsive to NTSB recommendation

A–88–138 which was issued after a

Continental Airlines accident in Denver

in November 1987.

Section 121.434(c)(3)—Hours of

Operating Experience and Operating

Cycles

The current rule requires specific

numbers of hours of operating

experience for all pilots for initial and

transition training in Group I and II

airplanes as follows: (1) For initial

training: 15 hours in Group I

reciprocating powered airplanes, 20

hours in Group I turbopropeller

airplanes, and 25 hours in Group II

airplanes; (2) For transition training: 10

hours in Group I reciprocating powered

airplanes, 12 hours in Group I

turbopropeller powered airplanes, and

15 hours for Group II airplanes. The

amended rule changes transition

training hours for Group II to 25 hours

for PICs; 15 hours continues to apply for

SICs. The amended rule also requires

that operating experience include at

least 4 operating cycles (at least 2 as the

pilot flying the airplane).

Three comments were received on

this issue. Two of the comments overlap

with reduction requirements of revised

§ 121.434(f)(1) and will be discussed in

that section of this preamble.

ALPA supports the proposed rule’s

requirement that the pilot receiving the

supervised operating experience be the

pilot flying the aircraft in at least two

operating cycles. ALPA agrees that this

will ensure that qualifying pilots obtain

experience in all critical phases of a

flight operation (takeoff, climb, en route

portion, descent, and landing) and

provide safeguards against meeting

supervised operating hours without

completing all aspects of a cycle (as in

long range flights).

Section 121.434(f)—Reduction of

Operating Experience Hours

The current rule allows the hours

required in § 121.434(c)(3), among other

sections, to be reduced up to 50 percent

for all pilots by substituting one

additional takeoff and landing for each

hour of flight. The amended rule

continues to allow the reduction for

Group I airplanes for initial and

transition operating experience and for

Group II airplanes for PIC transitional

operating experience. The amended rule

would not allow PICs meeting initial

training operating experience

requirements in Group II airplanes or

SICs meeting either initial or transition

training operating experience in Group

II airplanes to reduce the number of

required hours of operating experience

in these type airplanes.

Two comments were received on this

issue, plus two that were submitted as

comments on the number of hours

required but are discussed here since
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20861

they pertain to reducing the required

hours. Two commenters state that since

the rule requires at least 4 operating

cycles (at least 2 as the pilot flying),

then PICs and SICs should be allowed

to reduce the operating experience time

by one hour for each takeoff and landing

following the two operating cycles that

are required. These commenters also say

that the reduction should apply to

initial, upgrade, and transition

categories.

United Airlines says that ‘‘hour

requirements for transition training PICs

should be reducible for cycles for Group

II airplanes just as is proposed for Group

I airplanes’’ and that ‘‘if transition

training SICs in Group II airplanes also

had a 25 hour requirement instead of 15

hours, that time should also be

reducible for cycles.’’

RAA says that the proposed rule

‘‘appears to limit the reduction option

in Group I airplanes to transition only’’

and that this option should also apply

to initial and upgrade training.

ALPA agrees with the proposal

because it would ‘‘eliminate the

capability to reduce the required hours

of supervised operating experience

according to the number of takeoffs and

landings for all pilots except those

transitioning as pilot in command’’ and

that ‘‘this will allow an additional

amount of time for pilots to become

comfortable in their operating seat in

their operational environment while

under supervision.’’

FAA Response

The proposed and final rule state that

flight crewmembers may substitute one

additional takeoff and landing for each

hour of flight up to a maximum

reduction of 50 percent (with the

exceptions described above). The FAA

intends that after completing the four

required cycles, a pilot may achieve a

reduction in required flight hours for

each additional takeoff and landing.

This is intended to ensure that pilots

obtain adequate hours of line flight

experience while still recognizing that

short flights, with frequent takeoffs and

landings, may provide experience equal

to longer flights.

The change that will not allow a

reduction for PICs meeting initial

operating experience is necessary

because of the importance of PICs

gaining additional experience operating

an aircraft’s sophisticated automated

equipment during initial operating

experience. Both the increase in hours

in this category and not allowing any

reduction in hours reflect the need for

thorough experience in operating the

different equipment installed in the

airplane. Likewise the reduction for

SICs in Group II airplanes has been

eliminated because SICs have more

responsibilities in the more

sophisticated aircraft that have twoperson cockpits.

The reduction continues to apply to

all pilots in Group I airplanes.

Although the FAA has made no

substantive changes to the rule language

in the NPRM, paragraph (f) has been

rewritten to make the intent clearer.

Section 121.434(g)—Consolidation

This new rule requires that PICs and

SICs acquire at least 100 hours of line

operating flight time for consolidation of

knowledge and skills within 120 days

after satisfactory completion of a type

rating practical test or an initial

proficiency check. In the NPRM, the

FAA specifically requested comments

on the feasibility and adequacy of the

120-day period. The committee

recommended that consolidation consist

of 100 hours of line operating flight time

and that if the 100 hours was not

completed in 120 days, an airman must

receive additional training before

extending the consolidation period.

Seven comments were received on

this requirement. Three commenters say

that the 75-hour threshold used for crew

pairing (121.438(b)) should also be used

for consolidation rather than 100 hours.

These commenters say that 75 hours

would be sufficient as a minimum

number of flight hours within the 120

days to ensure that the newly-acquired

piloting skills are not lost once training

and testing have ended. In addition,

using 75 hours would simplify tracking

and recordkeeping requirements

associated with both consolidation and

crew pairing. Finally, RAA comments

that using a 75-hour requirement is

further supported because this was the

number originally used in the Task

Force recommendation.

ALPA recommends that the

consolidation period be reduced to 100

days or that refresher training be

required. This would ensure the newly

trained pilot a timely completion of

consolidation with as little interruption

as possible.

ALPA also responds to the FAA’s

projection that 10 percent of

crewmembers would not be able to

complete consolidation in the required

time by saying that airlines should be

able to allow crewmembers in

consolidation to get the required flight

time. ALPA states that during a pilot’s

consolidation period, instead of being

assigned to reserve status, airlines

should be able to schedule these

crewmembers on a regular basis without

any additional costs being incurred.

Further, ALPA says that if an airline

displaces a line holding pilot to let a

reserve pilot fly, there should be no net

cost increase because pilots assigned to

reserve status are guaranteed monthly

minimum pay by the airline regardless

of how many hours they fly.

Two commenters, United Airlines and

ATA, say that in certain short range

operations, consolidation will occur

long before the 100 hour requirement is

met because of the cycles flown. ATA

says that the experience gained by pilots

involved in short haul operations from

multiple departures and takeoffs should

be recognized by the FAA. These

commenters therefore recommend a

reduction of required consolidation line

operating flight time at a rate of one

hour for one cycle to a maximum of 50

percent reduction in hours.

RAA says that the proposed rule does

not ensure that the clock (to complete

consolidation) would begin at the same

time for individual pilots. RAA says that

it is possible that a PIC and SIC who

were checked the same day in the

simulator and completed their checks

the same day in the aircraft would not

have the same time remaining to

complete the 100 hours of experience.

Thus, RAA recommends that the phrase

‘‘Any part of ’’ be removed from

§ 121.434(g)(1).

Alaska Airlines says that the

consolidation requirement would have a

great economic impact on air carriers

because senior pilots would be

displaced by junior pilots needing to

complete consolidation requirements.

Alaska adds that labor unions might not

be willing to ‘‘forgo the seniority

benefits assured within their agreements

without first demanding compensation

for those affected by the loss of their

seniority rights.’’

FAA Response

There is no reduction in consolidation

hours allowed for the number of takeoffs

and landings. While operating

experience hours may be reduced in

accordance with revised § 121.434(f),

consolidation hours may not be

reduced. As stated in the NPRM

preamble, the crew pairing committee

concluded and the FAA agrees that it is

important for a pilot who has qualified

in an airplane to have an opportunity to

consolidate the newly developed

piloting skills and procedural

knowledge through substantial line

operating experience in the airplane

within a reasonably short time after

completing training and satisfactorily

demonstrating proficiency. Pilots who

have satisfactorily completed training

and demonstrated proficiency in an

airplane and who do not soon thereafter

consolidate the newly acquired
20862 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

knowledge and skills in actual line

operations may lose proficiency in the

newly acquired knowledge and skills.

The FAA recognizes that the 120-day

consolidation period may not start at the

same time for every pilot since it either

begins after the satisfactory completion

of a § 121.441 proficiency check or after

the satisfactory completion of any part

of the flight maneuvers and procedures

portion of either an airline transport

pilot certificate with type rating

practical test or an additional type

rating practical test. The purpose in

stating the rule this way with respect to

a practical test is to ensure that a pilot

certificate rating program will not be

extended to the point that a loss of

knowledge and skills would occur. By

requiring the consolidation period to

begin at the completion of any portion

of the program, the carrier has an

incentive to complete the pilot’s rating

program within a reasonable period.

The FAA recognizes that the

consolidation requirement may affect

crew scheduling. How much it will

affect scheduling depends on the way

carriers are now scheduling pilots who

have recently acquired a type rating.

The FAA recognizes that there may be

some incremental increase in costs to

comply with this final rule. However

given that carriers have 120 days to

complete the consolidation period for

its pilots, and that a 30-day extension is

available in certain circumstances, with

careful scheduling, this consolidation

can be accomplished without an

excessive burden. It is in the interests of

the air carrier, the pilots, and the public

that these pilots obtain experience in

the airplane within a reasonable time

after being qualified.

In response to Alaska Airlines, the

FAA notes that although senior pilots

may require compensation, reserve

pilots normally are paid on a fixed base

salary; thus, the total cost of

remuneration for both pilots should be

the same.

In response to RAA, the FAA has no

knowledge of a Task Force

recommendation that included a 75-

hour consolidation period.

A 100-day consolidation period

suggested by ALPA would be beyond

the scope of this rulemaking. In

addition, the FAA notes that this

suggestion was not part of ALPA’s

minority opinion filed with the Task

Force recommendations.

Section 121.434(h)—Exceptions (Pilots

Who Have Completed Line Operating

Flight Time as an SIC on a Particular

Type Airplane)

In the NPRM paragraph (h)(1) said

that pilots who have qualified and

served as second in command on a

particular type airplane (before the

effective date of the rule) are not

required to complete line operating

flight time for consolidation as pilot in

command. Similarly, paragraph (h)(2)

said that pilots who have completed

line operating flight time for

consolidation of knowledge and skills

while serving as second in command on

a particular type airplane (after the

effective date) are not required to meet

consolidation requirements on the same

type airplane.

The one comment received on these

requirements does not agree with the

proposal. ALPA says that the knowledge

and skills required of PICs and SICs

differ, and that there may also be

substantial differences between aircraft

even though they have common type

ratings. ALPA also comments that there

could be a considerable lapse of time

between flying as SIC and PIC with

another aircraft flown in between. Thus,

ALPA believes that all crewmembers

should go through the consolidation

process.

FAA Response

The exception permitted by

§ 121.434(h) addresses upgrade training,

specifically, upgrading from SIC to PIC

in the same airplane type. It does not

include upgrading from flight engineer

to SIC in the same type airplane. By

definition, upgrade training is that

training required for crewmembers who

have qualified and served on a

particular type airplane before they can

serve in another duty position on the

same type airplane. In other words, the

upgrading pilot would by definition be

familiar with that airplane, and the FAA

believes that the operational experience

requirement along with previous

experience on that type airplane

adequately addresses consolidation.

The FAA has determined that the

language in proposed § 121.434(h)(1)

unintentionally limited the

grandfathering of current pilots to SICs

who may upgrade to PIC at some future

point. The FAA intended that all PICs

and SICs who have qualified for their

positions before the effective date of the

final rule would not need to complete

consolidation. The rule language has

been changed to reflect this intent.

Section 121.434(h)(3)—Refresher

Training

New paragraph (h)(3) requires a pilot

who flies another airplane type before

completing the required 100 hours of

line operating flight time to complete

refresher training in the airplane for

which the pilot has newly qualified.

The NPRM states that training must be

conducted by a qualified check pilot.

Four comments were received on this

requirement. One commenter says that

the proposal is not necessary, but if it

is kept, then it should also include

restrictions from flying other types of

aircraft including military reserve

aircraft.

Alaska Airlines says that the term

‘‘refresher training’’ is vague and could

result in inconsistent requirements that

were minimal in some cases and

stringent in others. Alaska points out

that ‘‘re-qualification programs’’ are

designed to provide students with

training to reacquaint them with an

aircraft type from which they have been

absent for a specific period of time, such

as extended military leaves. Alaska says

that the proposed rule, in contrast,

would deal with students who are

current with no appreciable lapses in

exposure to the equipment type they

would be trained on. This commenter

adds that its own re-qualification

training program does not require

additional flight training for those

absent less than 90 days.

United Airlines and ATA say that

refresher training should not require a

check airman and that it should be

conducted by a qualified flight

instructor. Thus, the proposed rule

should be modified accordingly.

FAA Response

The amount of refresher training

depends on the extent of the lapse and

what skills and knowledge have been

lost during the lapse. As the FAA stated

in the NPRM preamble, each certificate

holder must develop training objectives

for refresher training for each make and

model airplane used in part 121

operations. Refresher training should

ensure that pilots have retained, or are

allowed to regain, the level or

proficiency needed to serve in part 121

operations. This qualification training

should focus on, among other things,

procedural knowledge regarding the

operation of the aircraft (e.g.,

programming the aircraft’s flight

management system) and other critical

skills such as engine inoperative

approaches and missed approaches.

Refresher training may consist of special

purpose operational training or an

airplane flight training period when a

flight simulator or flight training device

is unavailable. Special purpose

operational training is described in AC

120–35b, ‘‘Line Operational

Simulations: Line-Oriented Flight

Training, Special Purpose Operational

Training, and Line Operational

Evaluation.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20863

The FAA agrees with the comment

that refresher training could be

conducted by a check pilot or qualified

flight instructor and has changed this

final rule accordingly.

The requirement specifies types of

aircraft operated by the part 121

certificate holder; it does not include

military reserve aircraft or any other

aircraft not operated under part 121.

Section 121.434(h)(4)—Extension of

Consolidation Period From 120 to 150

Days

New paragraph (h)(4) allows the

consolidation period to be extended

from 120 days to 150 days if the pilot

satisfactorily completes refresher

training or a check pilot determines that

the pilot has retained an adequate level

of proficiency after observing the pilot

in a supervised line operating flight.

Four comments were received on this

requirement. Alaska Airlines does not

believe that any limit on the

consolidation period will affect safety or

proficiency. As long as a student is

determined to be continually proficient

through reevaluation by a qualified

check pilot, there is no need to limit the

length of the consolidation period.

Another commenter recommends that

the consolidation period be extendable

to 180 days, not 150 days.

RAA recommends that carriers have

the option of selecting a five-month

period for consolidation, rather than 120

days, because most carriers observe a

monthly cycle. If consolidation were to

start at the beginning of a month,

carriers would be limited in the number

of flying assignments they could make

to new PICs and SICs. RAA states that

as many as 25 or 30 days could be lost

under this circumstance and that a fivemonth option would give carriers a

greater ability to make assignments to

achieve the consolidation objective.

NTSB believes that the 120-day

consolidation period is feasible under

virtually all circumstances but also

supports an extension to 150 days if the

required 100 hours of operating flight

time cannot be completed in 120 days.

However, NTSB stresses that such

extensions should be approved only

under extenuating circumstances and in

strict compliance with the additional

requirements of the proposed rule as a

whole. Otherwise, the intended

consolidation and stabilization of a

pilot’s newly acquired knowledge and

skills would be compromised.

FAA Response

The FAA has determined that

extending the consolidation period

beyond 150 days is not in the interest

of consolidating a newly trained pilot’s

skills and knowledge. Once training and

checking are completed, the pilot needs

to practice recently learned skills in line

operations in order to master the skills.

The FAA finds that 180 days would

be too long to achieve 100 hours of

consolidation.

The problem raised by RAA is a

scheduling problem; requiring 100

hours of line operating flight time

within a 120-day period should not

present a problem that cannot be

managed since the average pilot flies

approximately 60–70 hours per month.

The FAA recognizes that

consolidation of skills within 120 days

is preferable to an extension; however,

for those instances, for any reason,

when a pilot has had less than 100

hours in 120 days, it does not seem

reasonable to require that the pilot

repeat the entire qualification program.

A refresher training course should be

sufficient to compensate for the lapsed

time.

Section 121.434(h)(5)—Deviations From

Consolidation Requirements

New paragraph (h)(5) allows the

Administrator to authorize deviations

from consolidation requirements when:

(1) A new certificate holder does not

employ any pilots who have met the

consolidation requirements, or (2) a

certificate holder is adding new

airplanes to its fleet, or (3) a certificate

holder is reassigning pilots to a new

domicile where they will be operating a

different aircraft type.

One comment was received on this

requirement. Boeing recommends

specific language changes to this

paragraph so that it would apply to

manufacturers as well as to certificate

holders and to training programs as well

as to certificate holders’ operations

specifications. Boeing states that

without these changes the rule will

‘‘prevent manufacturers from providing

the level of support for initial line

operations that is required for a safe

operation when an air carrier does not

have pilots with a significant experience

base in an airplane new to the carrier.’’

FAA Response

Paragraph (h)(5)(ii) provides that, as

one of the circumstances for being

eligible for a deviation, a certificate

holder adds to its fleet a type airplane

not before proven for use in its

operations. If a manufacturer provides

pilots for the certificate holder’s

operations and these pilots do not meet

the requirements of paragraph (g), the

certificate holder would apply for the

deviation. Since manufacturers are not

part 121 certificate holders, they cannot

apply for the deviation.

Section 121.438(a)—Operating

Limitations—Takeoffs and Landings

The new rule requires PICs (other

than check airmen), when paired with

SICs with less than 100 hours of line

operational flight time in that type

airplane, to make all takeoffs and

landings at special airports or under

certain conditions.

Two comments on the general nature

of the requirement were received.

Alaska Airlines says that takeoff and

landing decisions should be made by

the PIC and be based on the conditions

present during the operation. In some

cases, the SIC may have more hours in

the type airplane than the PIC and

would be more experienced in takeoffs

and landings in that type airplane. The

proposed rule could, therefore,

compromise safety.

ALPA agrees with the intent of the

proposed rule and supports PICs making

takeoffs and landings in cases where

SICs have minimal flight hours in the

type of airplane being flown. However,

ALPA believes that the PIC should have

more latitude in making takeoff and

landing decisions. For example, in cases

of many short flights and poor weather

conditions, it could become very

fatiguing for the PIC to make every

takeoff and landing; in cases such as

these, it may be more appropriate for the

SIC to make a takeoff or landing.

United Airlines and ATA believe that

the proposed rule on special airports is

too restrictive and that PICs should have

discretion in making this decision on a

case-by-case basis determined by

operational considerations. United says

that certain operations at some special

airports are ‘‘entirely unremarkable’’

and that PICs should be given the ability

to allow SICs to land at such airports.

On a similar note, ATA says that in

cases where a crew must fly several

turnarounds to another special airport

in a single day’s flying, the PIC should

be given the option of allowing the SIC

to complete a takeoff and landing.

RAA and another commenter say that

proposed § 121.438(a)(2)(vii) would

provide an acceptable alternative to the

special airports requirement; it would

give PICs the prerogative to permit or

deny SICs to land or takeoff at a special

airport (or for any other conditions).

Alaska Airlines says that the proposed

rule would restrict its operations by

preventing new first officers from

making landings in 30 percent of

Alaska’s airports and 100 percent of

Russia’s airports. This would also

adversely affect the training process

because pilots would be restricted from

gaining experience at special airports

while their ‘‘procedural awareness is at
20864 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

its highest level.’’ This would detract

from the preparation already given the

pilot and have a negative impact on

safety.

Alaska Airlines states that

§ 121.438(a)(2)(iii) is too restrictive.

Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) requires a PIC to

make the takeoff and landing if the

runway has water, snow, slush, or

similar conditions that may adversely

affect airplane performance. Alaska

Airlines says that this limitation would

force the airlines’s PICs to make all

landings during the months between

September and April or May. This

commenter says that proposed

§ 121.438(a)(2)(iv) which sets forth

operating limitations based on the level

of braking action on runways would

adequately cover the issue of poor

runway conditions. Alaska Airlines also

points out that the task force originally

recommended that ‘‘runway braking

action of less than ‘good’ be the limiting

factor in determining when a PIC must

make the landing.’’

FAA Response

If the SIC has more than 100 hours in

the type airplane, the restrictions do not

apply. The rule will not restrict SICs

from gaining experience at special

airports or under certain adverse

conditions after they have 100 hours of

experience in the type airplane;

however, the rule will restrict SICs from

gaining that experience within the first

100 hours under circumstances that

could compromise safety.

The FAA has determined that

requiring PICs to make takeoffs and

landings at special airports even though

the assigned SIC may have more

operational experience in the aircraft is

consistent with the operational

responsibilities of the PIC. The PIC, by

designation, is always in control of the

aircraft. If a PIC is too fatigued to make

a takeoff or landing, the PIC should not

be on duty.

Section 121.438(b)—75-hour Limit

(Pairing Limitations)

This new rule requires that either a

PIC or SIC have at least 75 hours of line

operating flight time for that type

airplane in order to be assigned to the

same flightcrew. In the NPRM preamble

the FAA specifically requested

comments on whether the 75-hour limit

should be increased to 100 hours as

recommended by ALPA. The FAA also

requested comments on how this

requirement should be applied. The

FAA explained in the NPRM preamble

that the committee recommendation

applies these crew pairing restrictions

only to PICs and SICs who are

qualifying for those positions for the

first time in the airplane, i.e., initial

PICs and SICs. The committee

recommendation does not apply the

restrictions if a pilot is upgrading from

SIC to PIC on the same airplane type or

is transitioning from one airplane type

to another. Under the committee

recommendation, a new PIC in a

particular type airplane with only 25

hours of operating experience in that

airplane could be paired with an SIC

who has transitioned from another

airplane type and who has only 15

hours of operating experience in the

airplane type. This is in contrast to the

ALPA recommendation that the

restrictions also apply to transitioning

pilots.

The FAA proposed in the NPRM that

the 75-hour minimum crew pairing

restrictions also apply to transitioning

pilots.

The rule also provides for authorizing

deviations (in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(b)(3)) when: (1) A new certificate

holder does not employ any pilots who

meet the minimum requirements of this

paragraph; (2) an existing certificate

holder adds to its fleet a type airplane

not before proven for use in its

operations; or (3) an existing certificate

holder establishes a new domicile to

which it assigns pilots who will be

required to become qualified on the

airplanes operated from that domicile.

Eleven comments were received on

this subject. Five of these commenters,

including United, RAA, and ATA,

believe that the 75-hour requirement is

sufficient and that it should not be

increased to 100 hours as

recommended. Supporters of the

proposed rule say that any additional

hours would increase the burden on air

carriers and complicate the crew

scheduling process by extending the

number of months necessary to

complete the required number of hours.

RAA says that any of the three

components of the entire proposed rule

(consolidation, operating limitations,

and crew pairing) would achieve what

the FAA is seeking since none of these

constraints currently exist; thus,

additional hourly requirements related

to crew pairing are unnecessary. Finally,

United, ATA, and RAA say that 75

hours may be an arbitrary number but

that it will achieve the FAA’s objective

without being overly burdensome.

Three commenters are against the 75-

hour requirement and recommend using

a 100 hour-requirement. ALPA says that

these hours should apply to crew

position and airplane type and that the

hours should begin after supervised

operating experience. ALPA also states

that previous time in another crew

position in the same airplane type

should not be counted in the 100 hours.

ALPA concludes that 100 hours would

more realistically allow a crewmember

to become comfortable in the aircraft

without concerns for the experience

level of other crewmembers.

Similarly, the NTSB believes that 75

hours is insufficient for a crewmember

to become comfortable and experienced

enough with the airplane type to safely

handle a problem if one arises. NTSB

recommends that an initial PIC and

initial SIC each have at least 100 hours

in their respective positions on the

airplane in which they have most

recently qualified.

The International Federation of Air

Line Pilots’ Associations believes that

the 75 hour requirement should be

increased to at least 100 hours postsupervision time for PICs and SICs on

airplane type.

Alaska Airlines Expresses concern

that 75 hours seems arbitrary and asks

whether lengthening the period would

improve safety. This commenter further

says that ‘‘the longer the period of the

pairing restriction, the greater the

number of reserve pilots that will be

required in order to insure sufficient

pilots are available to staff every

possible pairing.’’

Horizon Air supports the 75 hour

requirement but recommends that if it is

issued as a final rule, the consolidation

requirement in § 121.434(g) be dropped.

Horizon estimates that up to 20 percent

of its pilots would not complete their

consolidation in the requisite time,

resulting in refresher training which

would be very costly.

Five commenters address the issue of

including transitioning pilots in the

proposed crew pairing requirement.

United Airlines does not object to the

requirement applying to all pilots,

including transitioning and upgrading

pilots although it currently applies

pairing restrictions only to initial

training pilots.

Similarly, the NTSB believes that

crew pairing restrictions (of 100 hours)

should apply to upgrading and

transitioning pilots. NTSB says that

including upgrading pilots would

provide PICs with additional seasoning

experience before being paired with an

inexperienced SIC; and that including

transitioning pilots would ensure that

they receive the operating experience

they need in the newer glass cockpit,

automated airplanes before being paired

with an inexperienced PIC or SIC.

RAA does not support the inclusion

of transitioning pilots and says that ‘‘the

event which have been used as a basis

for issuing this rule have involved only

crewmembers following initial training

for their position.’’ RAA adds that
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20865

transition training is currently

successful for hundreds of thousands of

pilots and that this should be reason

enough to exclude them from the

proposed rule.

Alaska Airlines is against the

inclusion of transitioning pilots in the

proposed rule because they believe that

a transitioning pilot is very experienced

in an employer’s routes and procedures.

Because of this overall experience,

transitioning to a new airplane type is

not that difficult and should not be

subject to any crew pairing limitations.

Two commenters address the

proposed rule’s deviation authority.

AMR Eagle, Inc. says that deviation

authority should be designed so that

carriers can adjust crew pairing

guidelines to the complexity of the

operation while insuring schedule

reliability and safety. AMR recommends

that an additional condition be allowed

for deviation authority: Operations

during the day, VMC where no critical

flight conditions are expected.

RAA says that the conditions for

deviation authority presented in

§§ 121.438 (b)(1) through (b)(3) are too

limiting and recommends that a fourth

paragraph be added which states: ‘‘The

certificate holder identifies

circumstances not covered in (1), (2) or

(3) which are acceptable to the

Administrator in granting a deviation to

these requirements.’’

Finally, Boeing requests that the

deviation applicability be extended to

manufacturers.

FAA Response

The FAA believes that the increased

level of safety attained in this final rule

is accomplished through the

combination of its requirements (i.e.,

strengthening initial operating

experience requirements, requiring a

100-hour knowledge and skill

consolidation period for both SICs

upgrading to PIC and PICs transitioning

to new or different types of airplanes;

requiring PICs, when paired with SICs

with fewer than 100 hours of pilot flight

time in that aircraft type, to make all

takeoffs and landings under certain

conditions; and the 75-hour pilot

pairing restriction) rather than any one

single requirement.

Requiring 75 hours of pilot experience

in the type aircraft being flown for

either the PIC or the SIC provides an

additional level of crew qualification

experience. By including transitioning

pilots in this rule the FAA establishes

that the most important aspect of pilot

pairing is total pilot flight experience in

the airplane rather than requiring seatspecific experience. Also, rather than

experience in the air carrier’s

procedures or route structure, the

purpose of this pairing restriction is to

ensure a minimum number of hours of

combined pilot experience in that

specific type aircraft.

The FAA believes that total pilot crew

experience required to meet the 75-hour

pilot pairing restriction as proposed and

adopted in this rule, in combination

with the other requirements contained

in this rule and the various pilot

training and checking requirements

contained in subpart N of part 121,

accomplish the FAA’s objective of

increased safety while not being overly

burdensome on the affected certificate

holders.

As stated in § 121.438(b), the

Administrator may authorize, upon

application by the certificate holder,

deviations from the pairing requirement

that would allow certificate holders to

use aircraft manufacturers’ pilots to

assist in the introduction of new aircraft

types into the certificate holder’s fleet

under certain conditions.

Effective Date

The FAA proposed a 30-day period

after issuance of the final rule for

carriers to plan and implement a system

for scheduling flight crews to meet the

new requirements. However, the FAA,

in the NPRM, recognized that 30 days

may be insufficient and invited

comments on a realistic effective date.

Five comments were received on the

date. Four commenters say that 30 days

is inadequate and recommend a 120-day

period. RAA says that the complexity of

training programs and crew scheduling

warrant additional time to implement

changes. ATA says that revisions in

crew scheduling software, personnel

training, and policy manuals would

require a minimum of 120 days. United

Airlines recommends a 90-day period

between issuance of the final rule and

its effective date.

FAA Response

The FAA agrees that a 30-day

effective date would not allow enough

time for certificate holders to comply

with the requirements of this rule. The

final rule is effective 120 days after the

date of publication in the Federal

Register.

Response to Comments

Northwest Airlines states that the

FAA assumed that including

transitioning pilots in the NPRM added

no cost to airlines. It presents data

showing its costs would amount to $3.7

million for transitional pilots and

$380,000 for initial pilots. Northwest’s

additional costs come from scheduling

constraints and from union

requirements to pay a previously

scheduled pilot who is displaced by a

pilot in training.

FAA Response

The FAA estimated the cost of not

pairing two inexperienced pilots,

transitional or initial, would be the

expense of developing an enhanced

scheduling computer program. The FAA

estimated the cost of developing this

program to be $92,000. The FAA

contends that through more efficient

scheduling via enhanced scheduling

software, the industry can avoid paying

for displaced pilots.

Alaska Airlines states that it would

face higher costs to meet qualification

requirements because of its older fleet.

It argues that additional training in a

simulator or in an aircraft (where

modern simulation is unavailable)

would require that ‘‘operators have

earlier vintage visual or phase I

simulators for their older aircraft types.

This will automatically create higher

costs to fulfill these requirements.’’

FAA Response

The NPRM did not require a different

training level for older fleets. Obtaining

the additional operating experience and

consolidation time should not vary

significantly from company to company.

However, the FAA did not account for

each airline’s cost structure when

costing the proposed rule. The analysis

assumed an average cost. If Alaska

Airlines had significantly higher

training costs, it incurred these costs not

as a result of the NPRM, but from other

corporate business decisions.

The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA)

states that the FAA did not present the

assumptions it used to estimate costs.

Also, ALPA believes that airlines could

minimize costs through efficient

scheduling.

FAA Response

The FAA included a list of

assumptions it used to estimate the

costs of the NPRM in an appendix in

detailed regulatory evaluation. The FAA

agrees with ALPA that airlines can

reduce the cost of the NPRM through

efficient scheduling.

Miscellaneous Comments

ATA comments that the objectives of

the proposed rule are identical to those

contained in FAR 121.652 (High

Minimums). ATA says that this rule is

obsolete and that if the proposed rule is

implemented, then § 121.652 should be

rescinded.
20866 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

FAA Response

Rescinding § 121.652 is beyond the

scope of this rulemaking. The FAA does

not consider § 121.652 to be obsolete but

rather finds that the requirements of that

section are necessary.

Editorial Changes

In addition to the changes described

above for § 121.434, two editorial

changes have been made to improve the

organization of the section: (1) The flush

paragraph that currently appears after

paragraph (b)(3) has been incorporated

into new paragraph (a)(3); and (2) the

flush paragraph that currently appears

after paragraph (f) has been designated

as paragraph (i) to appear after new

paragraph (h).

In § 121.434(c)(2), a second in

command pilot must perform the duties

of a second in command under the

supervision of an appropriately trained

check pilot. In the NPRM, both in the

preamble and in the rule language, the

FAA used the term ‘‘pilot check

airman’’ and should have used the term

‘‘check pilot’’ as it is presently stated in

the rule. A check pilot is a subset of

check airman; a check flight engineer is

also a subset of check airman.

Consequently, the more accurate and

precise term for the person supervising

a SIC’s IOE is ‘‘check pilot.’’ Thus, the

FAA retains the terminology of ‘‘check

pilot’’ in this final rule. The FAA

considers this a minor, editorial change.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Proposed changes to Federal

regulations must undergo several

economic analyses. First, Executive

Order 12866 directs 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 requires agencies to analyze the

economic effect of regulatory changes

on small entities. Third, the Office of

Management and Budget directs

agencies to assess the effect of

regulatory changes on international

trade. In conducting these analyses, the

FAA has determined that this rule: (1)

Would generate benefits that justify its

costs and is not ‘‘a significant regulatory

action’’ as defined in the Executive

Order; (2) is significant as defined in

Department of Transportation’s

Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3)

would not have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities;

and (4) would not constitute a barrier to

international trade. These analyses,

available in the docket, are summarized

below.

Costs

The FAA estimates the net cost of the

final rule over the next 10 years to be

approximately $45.2 million, with a

present value of $31.3 million (7 percent

discount, 1993 dollars). This cost

estimate includes the additional

expense of a check pilot’s time to

supervise additional PIC transition

training; the expense of consolidating an

operating experience of additional flight

time training for SICs and PICs; and of

a computerized system to assist in

pairing newly qualified pilots with

experienced pilots.

Operating Experience and Operating

Cycles for SIC Candidates

In the regulatory evaluation for the

NPRM, the FAA estimated a present

value cost of $42.5 million to certificate

holders to provide a check airman to

supervise the operating experience for

SIC candidates, who currently are

allowed to sit in the jump seat and

observe the performance of SIC duties to

gain initial operating experience (IOE).

This cost was based on the following

assumptions:

(1) The highest level of check airman

(check pilot—all checks) was required

to supervise the SIC candidate’s IOE;

(2) This level of check airman would

be paid at a much higher rate than a PIC;

and

(3) A previously scheduled PIC and

SIC would be displaced by the check

airman and the SIC candidate, and these

displaced pilots would be compensated

for not flying the trip.

For the final rule, the FAA has

clarified that the level of ‘‘check

airman’’ required is not the highest

designation level of check airman who

can administer all checks, but is instead

a lower level most commonly called

‘‘check pilot.’’ This line check pilot,

(designated as Line Check Pilot-All

Seats) is also a check airman, but only

to a level which at minimum will allow

supervision of IOE with an SIC

candidate. This level of check pilot is

normally much more numerous within

a carrier’s pilot population than the

check airman originally envisioned, and

these pilots normally fly the line as

PICs. They receive no additional pay for

their status as check pilots, and the

difference is best likened to that

between a flight instructor and an FAA

designated examiner in general aviation.

Since the FAA has clarified that the

check pilot supervising the SIC

candidate can be a line or regular PIC

with the check pilot designation, the

original assumptions no longer hold.

The FAA has revised these assumptions

as follows:

(1) Operators are only required to

provide a check pilot who is designated

to the minimum level necessary to

supervise IOE;

(2) There is a greater availability of

check pilots designated to a sufficient

level to supervise IOE than the

previously estimated higher level

‘‘check airmen-all checks’’;

(3) There is little if any difference in

salary between a PIC and a PIC ‘‘check

pilot’’; and

(4) A previously scheduled PIC and

SIC would not be displaced by the

check pilot and the SIC candidate

because normal scheduling can pair

these two pilots without displacing

other pilots.

The additional operating experience

requirements for SIC candidates impose

an additional constraint on how

operators schedule their pilots. Some of

the costs of these constraints can be

alleviated by making adjustments in the

pilot scheduling system. Costs related to

changing the scheduling system are

discussed later in this regulatory

evaluation. (See the section on

Developing Computer Programming.)

Other potential costs that cannot be

alleviated by changes in the scheduling

system have not been quantified

because they are difficult to estimate.

However, the FAA contends that based

on the above set of assumptions, those

costs will be considerably smaller than

the $42.5 million estimated in the

regulatory evaluation for the NPRM.

Operating Experience and Operating

Cycles for PIC Candidates

The final rule will increase the

number of hours of observed supervised

operating experience for transitioning

PICs in Group II airplanes and will add

operating cycle requirements for both

initial and transitional PICs in both

Group I and Group II airplanes. The

current requirement for transitioning

PICs in Group II airplanes is 15 hours

of operating experience; the new

requirement will increase the hours to

25. The potential cost of this

requirement will be the cost to provide

a check pilot to observe the PIC

candidate for the additional 10 hours.

The FAA estimates that there will be

3,119 transition PICs in Group II

airplanes in 1994 assuming that 10

percent of the PICs in Group II airplanes

require transition training each year.

The cost of this section to air carriers

will be to provide a check pilot for the

10 additional hours of supervised

operating experience for these

transitioning PICs. Check pilots in

Group II airplanes are compensated at

$127 per hour. The cost of compliance

in 1994, therefore, would be $4 million.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20867

Over the years 1994–2003, the

requirement that transitioning PIC

candidates of Group II airplanes receive

an additional 10 hours of supervised

operating experience will cost $45.6

million, with a present value of $31.5

million.

Section 121.434(f) of the existing rule

allows air carriers to reduce the number

of hours of required PIC operating

experience by 50 percent by substituting

an additional takeoff and landing for

each hour of flight. The hours of

operating experience for PICs who meet

transition training requirements may be

reduced by one hour per landing.

Although the final rule increases the

number of hours of operating experience

for transitioning PICs, the allowance for

landings in this provision results in a

smaller increase in the costs of the

additional operating experience hours.

The FAA estimates that the savings will

be 10 percent of the incremental costs

of additional PIC transitional operating

experience requirements in Group II

airplanes. Over the years 1994 to 2003,

the cost savings will be $4.6 million,

with a present value of $3.2 million.

The final rule will prohibit the

reduction of the required number of

operating experience hours for initial

Group II PICs. The FAA estimates that

under the current rule, the hourly

requirements could be reduced by 10

percent by the allowance of one hour

per landing and takeoff. Because the

final rule removes this allowance,

however, it will add the expense of a

check pilot for those hours currently

reduced. The FAA estimates that the

additional cost of prohibiting a

reduction of operating experience hours

for initial Group II PICs in 1994 equals

$99,000 (312 pilots × 25 hrs. × $127/hr.

× 10%). Over the next 10 years, the total

cost will be $1.1 million, with a present

value of $789,000. When this cost is

added to the other costs of complying

with the new PIC operating experience

requirements over the next 10 years, the

total cost will be $42.1 (45.6¥4.6+1.1)

million, with a present value of $29

million.

Consolidation of Learning and Skills

Section 121.434(g) of the final rule

will require candidate PICs and SICs to

acquire 100 hours of line operating

experience for consolidation of

knowledge and skills within 120 days

after the completion of one of the

following requirements:

—An airline transport pilot certificate

with type rating practical test;

—An additional type rating practical

test; or

—A proficiency check for those pilots

who already possess a type rating in

that particular aircraft.

The final rule will also require that if

a pilot who is consolidating his or her

skills performs any flight time in

another type of airplane operated by the

certificate holder before completing the

100 hours, that pilot will have to

successfully complete refresher training

before returning to the new airplane

type. This refresher training will have to

be conducted by a qualified instructor

or check pilot. If the pilot did not

complete the required 100 hours of line

operating flight time, the certificate

holder could extend the 120-day period

to 150 days. In this instance, however,

the pilot could be subject to refresher

training if a check pilot determined that

the pilot had not retained an adequate

level of proficiency in the new airplane

type.

Section 121.438(a) of the final rule

will prohibit SICs who have less than

100 flight hours in the airplane being

flown from making takeoffs and

landings, unless the PIC is a check pilot,

when certain adverse weather and/or

runway conditions exist or when the

PIC determined that it was prudent to

exercise his or her prerogative and make

the takeoff or the landing. This

restriction will not significantly

interfere with the consolidation of

learning and skills requirements for

SICs, who should be able to acquire 100

hours of operating experience within

the 120 days. Therefore, there are no

costs associated with this restriction.

The current bidding systems that most

air carriers use have resulted in some

newly type-rated or proficiency-checked

pilots being placed on reserve for the

airplanes in which they have recently

received practical tests and/or

proficiency checks. Thus, these newly

rated pilots may not have the

opportunity to consolidate their skills.

The Joint Government/Industry Task

Force on Flight Crew Performance

included a consolidation requirement

among their recommendations to the

FAA. The FAA finds, therefore, that the

current bidding systems could be

modified to ensure that affected pilots

could consolidate their skills within a

120-day period. To the extent that they

fail to do so, there would be additional

costs of compliance. The FAA estimates

that with current flight times of about 75

hours per month, 90 percent of the

affected pilots would consolidate their

skills within the 120 days, and all of

them would complete consolidation

within 150 days. The costs of

compliance associated with the 10

percent who could not complete

consolidation within 120 days can be

separated into two categories: (1) The

cost of a supervised line observation

flight conducted by a check pilot; or (2)

the cost of refresher training.

Supervised Line Observation

A supervised line observation flight

for a pilot is conducted if the pilot is

going to take longer than 120 days to

complete the 100 hours of operating

experience. This flight is estimated to

take an average of 2 hours. The cost that

this requirement will impose will be the

cost of providing a check pilot for those

2 hours. For SIC candidates, the check

pilot can serve as PIC. Since there is

little if any wage differential between

PICs and check pilots, little if any

additional cost will be imposed by this

requirement. For PIC candidates, the

check pilot will act as SIC for that

supervised observation flight. This

would impose an additional cost since

check pilots earn more than SICs. The

difference in wage between a PIC check

pilot and an SIC ranges from $62/hour

for Group II pilots and $15/hour for

Group I pilots. The total cost of this

requirement over the next 10 years is

$508,200 dollars with a present value of

$351,000.

Refresher Training

If a pilot who is consolidating his or

her skills performs any flight time in

another type of airplane operated by the

certificate holder before completing the

120 hours, he or she will have to

successfully complete refresher training

before returning to the new airplane

type. The FAA estimates that half of the

PICs and SICs who do not consolidate

their skills will require some refresher

training. Air carriers have modules that

they use to teach different aspects of a

training program. The FAA expects that

operators will use these modules to

provide pilots the additional training in

those areas that the check airmen find

them to be deficient. The cost of

compliance for the requirement for

refresher training, therefore, would be

the cost of instructors for those PICs and

SICs. The FAA estimates that the

refresher training will take an average of

three hours and that Group II airplane

instructors will be compensated at $127

per hour and Group I instructors at $55

per hour. In 1994, this cost will amount

to $218,000. Over the years 1994 to

2003, the costs will total $2.5 million,

with a present value of $1.7 million.

Developing Computer Programming

Section 121.438(b) states that ‘‘no

person may conduct operations . . .

unless, for that type airplane, either the

PIC or the SIC has at least 75 hours of
20868 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

line operating flight time, either as PIC

or SIC.’’ The cost of implementing crew

pairing guidelines would be that of

developing software for a scheduling

program to pair newly-qualified pilots

with experienced pilots. To estimate

this cost, the FAA surveyed part 121

Principal Operations Inspectors (POIs)

to learn how many carriers currently

have internal crew pairing guidelines

that will be in compliance with the

requirement. Numbers of pilots,

airplanes, and airplane types were

obtained from FAPA’s Pilot Directory of

Employers.

Based on the make-up of the airline

pilot population, the FAA contends that

it should not be difficult to pair a newly

qualified pilot with one that already has

the required operating experience. For

instance, the number of pilots that need

operational experience is relatively

small compared to the number of

experienced pilots. The FAA estimates

that approximately 13 percent of pilots

employed by major airlines, 7 percent

employed by national airlines, and 38

percent employed by regional airlines

are currently subject to crew pairing

restrictions. In addition, many airlines

operate only a few different types of

airplanes. Among the majors, where

there are an average of 14 pilots per

airplane, there are 620 pilots per type of

airplane. Among the national air

carriers, there are 10 pilots per airplane

and an average of 45 pilots per type.

Finally, among the regional air carriers,

there are 7 pilots per airplane and 76

pilots per type.

The crew pairing requirement could

be implemented at a minimal cost to

those air carriers that currently do not

have crew pairing guidelines. This is

because of the large number of pilots per

airplane type and because of the number

of air carriers that already have

established crew pairing guidelines in

the absence of this regulation. The cost

of implementing crew pairing

restrictions would be that of developing

a software program to pair newlyqualified pilots with experienced pilots.

The FAA estimates that this

development will take one programmer

one week to modify existing software

programs and write the necessary

documentation at a cost of $1,300.

Based on the survey of POIs, the FAA

estimates that 76 air carriers will have

to develop a computer program for crew

pairing. Thus, the one-time cost of this

requirement will be $98,800

($1,300×76).

Benefits

The final rule will help to prevent

accidents that result from the pairing of

under-experienced pilots or in which

in-type flight skill and knowledge are

not consolidated. The FAA has

identified two accidents over the past 10

years in which the NTSB determined

that the inexperience of the pilots was

the probable cause. Of the 145

passengers that were on board these the

two airplanes, 30 (20.7 percent) were

killed and 31 (21.4 percent) were

seriously injured. Both airplanes were

destroyed. The airplane in the New

York accident also caused damage to a

pier and to the approach lighting at

LaGuardia Airport.

The benefits of the final rule will be,

in part, the number of casualties that it

will help to prevent over the next 10

years. To estimate the potential fatal and

serious injuries over the next 10 years,

the FAA calculated the proportion of

passengers killed or seriously injured in

such accidents and applied those

proportions to the expected average

enplacement levels over the next 10

years. The FAA estimates that from

1994 to 2003, the average air carrier

airplane will have 183 seats and will

carry, on average, 128 people on

board—121 passengers and 7 crew

members. If this ‘‘average’’ airplane

were to be involved in an accident

similar to the ones in Denver and New

York, the FAA estimates the casualty

rate of the ‘‘average’’ accident would

approach that of the Denver and New

York accidents. Thus, the number of

fatalities would be 26 (128×.207) and

the number of serious inquires would be

27 (128×.214).

The FAA uses a value of $2.6 million

to estimate the benefit value of

preventing a fatality and $500,000 to

prevent a serious injury. Thus, the value

of preventing the estimated number of

fatalities and serious injuries will be

$67.6 million (26×$2.6 million) and

$13.5 million (27×$500,000)

respectively. Added to these amounts

are the average replacement value of an

air carrier airplane, $11 million, and the

value of a major NTSB investigation,

$433,500. This brings the total value of

preventing one crew-pairing related

accident over the next 10 years to $92.5

million ($67.6 million + $13.5 million +

$11.0 million + $433,500).

Based on the number of air carrier

operations and the number of accidents

that have occurred over the past 10

years, the FAA projects that over the

next 10 years, in absence of this final

rule, another two accidents could occur.

The benefits of preventing both of those

accidents is $185 million, with a present

value of $130 million.

How much of these benefits can be

attributed to this final rule is not

certain. However, since pilot error and

crew inexperience were the probable

causes of the Denver and New York

accidents, the FAA estimates that the

final rule will prevent at least one of the

future accidents. Thus, the present

value benefits of this final rule will be

$65 million ($130 million/2).

Benefit-Cost Comparison

The present value cost of the final

rule to require several new and

modified operating experience

requirements for PICs and SICs will be

$33.4 million over the next 10 years.

The present value benefit of the final

rule by preventing one accident over the

next ten years will $65 million. Thus,

the FAA has determined that the final

rule is cost-beneficial.

Final Regulatory Flexibility

Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(RFA) was enacted by Congress to

ensure that small entities are not

unnecessarily and disproportionately

burdened by Federal regulations. The

RFA requires agencies to review rules

which may have ‘‘ a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.’’

The FAA has adopted criteria and

guidelines for rulemaking officials to

apply when determining whether a

proposed or existing rule has any

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Based on these criteria, a small air

carrier is one that owns 9 or fewer

aircraft and a substantial number of

carriers is one that is not less than 11

or which is more than one-third of

affected small entities.

The FAA has determined that

approximately 35 air carriers operating

under part 121 could be considered

small entities. Based on the FAA’s

criteria and guidelines, a significant

regulatory cost impact to these air

carriers ranges from $4,300 for an

unscheduled carrier to $61,600 for a

scheduled carrier to $110,100 for

scheduled carriers whose entire fleet

has a seating capacity of more than 60.

These values are annualized costs and

are expressed in 1993 dollars. Typically,

there are about 11 pilots per aircraft for

carriers operating Group II airplanes and

6 pilots per aircraft for carriers operating

Group I airplanes. Approximately half

of these pilots act as PICs, while the

other half act as SICs.

For a small scheduled carrier having

a fleet seating capacity of more than 60

seats, owning 9 group II airplanes, and

employing 99 pilots, the FAA estimates

that 5 PICs would need 10 hours of

additional transition operating

experience at a cost of $6,350

(5×10×$127/hr). Small entities will no
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20869

longer be able to take advantage of

reducing the required number of

experience hours by exchanging one

hour of supervised operating experience

for one landing and takeoff. Thus, for

the 5 PIC candidates, this will result in

a cost of $1,600 (5×25 hours×10%×$127/

hr). Two PICs would not complete their

consolidation within the 120-day period

and require a supervised line

observation flight by a check pilot at a

cost of $248 (2×2 hours×$62/hr); one

pilot would require refresher training at

a cost of $381 (1×3 hours×$127). The

costs of compliance to these carriers

will be $8,600, which is less than the

$110,100 threshold cost for a significant

impact under the regulatory flexibility

guidelines described above. Thus, the

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of these small entities.

Using the same methodology to

estimate the cost for a small entity

owning 9 turboprop airplanes and

employing 54 pilots, 2 PICs would need

10 hours of additional transition

operating experience at a cost of $1,100

(2×10×$55/hr). These pilots would also

not be able to reduce the number of

hours of supervised operating

experience at a cost of $275 (2×25

hours×10%×$55/hr). One pilot would

not complete consolidation of their

learning within 120 days and require a

line observation flight at a cost of $30

(1×2 hrs×$15), and 1 pilot needing

refresher training at a cost of $165 (1×3

hrs×$55). The FAA estimates that the

total cost to a small turboprop-owned

air carrier will be $1,570 per year,

which is less than the $61,600 threshold

for a scheduled air carrier operating

planes with less than 60 seats. Thus, the

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of these small entities.

Finally, a small entity owning 9

reciprocating engine airplanes and

employing 54 pilots, 2 PICs would need

10 hours of additional transition

operating experience at a cost of $1,100

(2 × 10 × $55/hr). These pilots would

also not be able to reduce the number

of hours of supervised operating

experience at a cost of $275 (2 × 25

hours × 10% × $55/hr). One pilot would

not complete consolidation of their

learning within 120 days and require a

line observation flight at a cost of $30

(1 × 2 hrs × $15), and 1 pilot needing

refresher training at a cost of $165 (1 ×

3 hrs × $55). The FAA estimates that the

total cost to a small turboprop-owned

air carrier will be $1,570 per year,

which is less than the $4,300 for small

unscheduled carriers. Thus, the rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of these

small entities.

International Trade Impact

The final rule will have little impact

on international trade. U.S. air carriers

operating in international markets

would incur some additional costs,

primarily for supervised operating

experience requirements, whereas

foreign air carriers operating in the same

markets will not be affected by the final

rule. If the cost of the final rule (i.e.,

$33.4 million over the next 10 years)

were borne entirely by U.S. carriers

serving international markets, the cost

would still represent a negligible

amount of the international passenger

revenues compared to the $280 billion

forecast to be collected between 1993

and 2002.

International Civil Aviation

Organization and Joint Aviation

Regulations

In keeping with U.S. obligations

under the Convention on International

Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to

comply with ICAO Standards and

Recommended Practices (SARP) to the

maximum extent practicable. For this

final rule, the FAA reviewed the SARP

of Annex 6, applicable to pilot training

for commercial air transportation

operations. The FAA has determined

that these amendments would not

present any differences. The SARP are

more general than the FAR, with much

of the pilot training to be determined by

the State of the Operator.

In reviewing the JAR, the FAA finds

that regulations exist that are similar to

this final rule, though they are less

specific. JAR–OPS 1.945 addresses

Conversion Training and Checking.

Paragraph (e) of that section states

‘‘Once a conversion course has been

started a crew member shall not

undertake flying duties on another type

or variant until the course is completed

or terminated.’’

Federalism Implications

The regulations herein would not

have substantial direct effects on the

states, on the relationship between the

national government and the states, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this regulation will

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, and based on the findings in

the Regulatory Flexibility Determination

and the International Trade Impact

Analysis, the FAA has determined that

this regulation is a significant regulatory

action under Executive Order 12866. In

addition, the FAA certifies that this

regulation will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. This regulation is

considered significant under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979). A final

regulatory evaluation of the regulation,

including a Regulatory Flexibility

Determination and Trade Impact

Analysis, has been placed in the docket.

A copy may be obtained by contacting

the person identified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

Air safety, Air transportation,

Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Narcotics,

Safety, and Transportation.

The Amendment

The Federal Aviation Administration

amends part 121 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR 121) as follows:

PART 121—CERTIFICATION AND

OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND

SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND

COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF

LARGE AIRCRAFT

1. The authority citation for part 121

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1355,

1356, 1357, 1401, 1421–1430, 1472, 1485,

and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

2. Section 121.431(b) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 121.431 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) For the purpose of this subpart, the

airplane groups and terms and

definitions prescribed in § 121.400 and

the following definitions apply:

Consolidation is the process by which

a person through practice and practical

experience increases proficiency in

newly acquired knowledge and skills.

Line operating flight time is flight

time performed in operations under this

part.

Operating cycle is a complete flight

segment consisting of a takeoff, climb,

enroute portion, descent, and a landing.

3. Section 121.434 is amended by

revising the heading; removing the flush

paragraph at the end of paragraph (b);

removing the words ‘‘the certificate

holder’s approved training program

includes a course of training in an

airplane simulator under § 121.409(c)
20870 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

and’’ in paragraph (c)(1)(ii); revising the

introductory text of paragraphs (a), (b),

and (c); revising paragraphs (b)(2), (c)(2),

(c)(3) introductory text, (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)

(ii), and (f); designating the flush

paragraph following paragraph (f) as

paragraph (i); and adding new

paragraphs (a)(3), (g) and (h) to read as

follows:

§ 121.434 Operating experience, operating

cycles, and consolidation of knowledge and

skills.

(a) No certificate holder may use a

person nor may any person serve as a

required crewmember of an airplane

unless the person has satisfactorily

completed, on that type airplane and in

that crewmember position, the operating

experience, operating cycles, and the

line operating flight time for

consolidation of knowledge and skills,

required by this section, except as

follows:

* * * * *

(3) 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.

* * * * *

(b) In acquiring the operating

experience, operating cycles, and line

operating flight time for consolidation of

knowledge and skills, crewmembers

must comply with the following:

* * * * *

(2) The operating experience,

operating cycles, and line operating

flight time for consolidation of

knowledge and skills must be acquired

after satisfactory completion of the

appropriate ground and flight training

for the particular airplane type and

crewmember position.

* * * * *

(c) Pilot crewmembers must acquire

operating experience and operating

cycles as follows:

* * * * *

(2) A second in command pilot must

perform the duties of a second in

command under the supervision of an

appropriately qualified check pilot.

(3) The hours of operating experience

and operating cycles for all pilots are as

follows:

(i) For initial training, 15 hours in

Group I reciprocating powered

airplanes, 20 hours in Group I

turbopropeller powered airplanes, and

25 hours in Group II airplanes.

Operating experience in both airplane

groups must include at least 4 operating

cycles (at least 2 as the pilot flying the

airplane).

(ii) For transition training, except as

provided in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this

section, 10 hours in Group I

reciprocating powered airplanes, 12

hours in Group I turbopropeller

powered airplanes, 25 hours for pilots

in command in Group II airplanes, and

15 hours for second in command pilots

in Group II airplanes. Operating

experience in both airplane groups must

include at least 4 operating cycles (at

least 2 as the pilot flying the airplane).

* * * * *

(f) Flight crewmembers may substitute

one additional takeoff and landing for

each hour of flight to meet the operating

experience requirements of this section,

up to a maximum reduction of 50% of

flight hours, except those in Group II

initial training, and second in command

pilots in Group II transition training.

Notwithstanding the reductions in

programmed hours permitted under

§§ 121.405 and 121.409, the hours of

operating experience for flight

crewmembers are not subject to

reduction other than as provided in this

paragraph and paragraph (e) of this

section.

(g) Except as provided in paragraph

(h) of this section, pilot in command

and second in command crewmembers

must each acquire at least 100 hours of

line operating flight time for

consolidation of knowledge and skills

(including operating experience

required under paragraph (c) of this

section) within 120 days after the

satisfactory completion of:

(1) Any part of the flight maneuvers

and procedures portion of either an

airline transport pilot certificate with

type rating practical test or an

additional type rating practical test, or

(2) A § 121.441 proficiency check.

(h) The following exceptions apply to

the consolidation requirement of

paragraph (g) of this section:

(1) Pilots who have qualified and

served as pilot in command or second

in command on a particular type

airplane in operations under this part

before August 25, 1995 are not required

to complete line operating flight time for

consolidation of knowledge and skills.

(2) Pilots who have completed the

line operating flight time requirement

for consolidation of knowledge and

skills while serving as second in

command on a particular type airplane

in operations under this part after

August 25, 1995 are not required to

repeat the line operating flight time

before serving as pilot in command on

the same type airplane.

(3) If, before completing the required

100 hours of line operating flight time,

a pilot serves as a pilot in another

airplane type operated by the certificate

holder, the pilot may not serve as a pilot

in the airplane for which the pilot has

newly qualified unless the pilot

satifactorily completes refresher training

as provided in the certificate holder’s

approved training program and that

training is conducted by an

appropriately qualified instructor or

check pilot.

(4) If the required 100 hours of line

operating flight time are not completed

within 120 days, the certificate holder

may extend the 120-day period to no

more than 150 days if—

(i) The pilot continues to meet all

other applicable requirements of subpart

O of this part; and

(ii) On or before the 120th day the

pilot satisfactorily completes refresher

training conducted by an appropriately

qualified instructor or check pilot as

provided in the certificate holder’s

approved training program, or a check

pilot determines that the pilot has

retained an adequate level of

proficiency after observing that pilot in

a supervised line operating flight.

(5) The Administrator, upon

application by the certificate holder,

may authorize deviations from the

requirements of paragraph (g) of this

section, by an appropriate amendment

to the operations specifications, to the

extent warranted by any of the following

circumstances:

(i) A newly certificated certificate

holder does not employ any pilots who

meet the minimum requirements of

paragraph (g) of this section.

(ii) An existing certificate holder adds

to its fleet an airplane type not before

proven for use in its operations.

(iii) A certificate holder establishes a

new domicile to which it assigns pilots

who will be required to become

qualified on the airplanes operated from

that domicile.

* * * * *

4. Section 121.438 is added to subpart

O to read as follows:

§ 121.438 Pilot operating limitations and

pairing requirements.

(a) If the second in command has

fewer than 100 hours of flight time as

second in command in operations under

this part in the type airplane being

flown, and the pilot in command is not

an appropriately qualified check pilot,

the pilot in command must make all

takeoffs and landings in the following

situations:

(1) At special airports designated by

the Administrator or at special airports

designated by the certificate holder; and

(2) In any of the following conditions:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 81 / Thursday, April 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20871

(i) The prevailing visibility value in

the latest weather report for the airport

is at or below 3⁄4 mile.

(ii) The runway visual range for the

runway to be used is at or below 4,000

feet.

(iii) The runway to be used has water,

snow, slush or similar conditions that

may adversely affect airplane

performance.

(iv) The braking action on the runway

to be used is reported to be less than

‘‘good’’.

(v) The crosswind component for the

runway to be used is in excess of 15

knots.

(vi) Windshear is reported in the

vicinity of the airport.

(vii) Any other condition in which the

PIC determines it to be prudent to

exercise the PIC’s prerogative.

(b) No person may conduct operations

under this part unless, for that type

airplane, either the pilot in command or

the second in command has at least 75

hours of line operating flight time,

either as pilot in command or second in

command. The Administrator may,

upon application by the certificate

holder, authorize deviations from the

requirements of this paragraph (b) by an

appropriate amendment to the

operations specifications in any of the

following circumstances:

(1) A newly certificated certificate

holder does not employ any pilots who

meet the minimum requirements of this

paragraph.

(2) An existing certificate holder adds

to its fleet a type airplane not before

proven for use in its operations.

(3) An existing certificate holder

establishes a new domicile to which it

assigns pilots who will be required to

become qualified on the airplanes

operated from that domicile.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 21,

1995.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–10282 Filed 4–26–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M