8490 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 28072; Notice No. 95–2]

RIN 2120–AF29

Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to: Revise

and clarify certain requirements of the

Advanced Simulation Plan for part 121

operators to authorize more training and

checking in simulators; clarify the

operating experience requirements for

certain second-in-command pilots

trained and checked in simulators; and

eliminate the requirement that the

minimum of 1 year of employment as an

instructor or check airman be with the

operator of the simulator. This action is

needed to respond to concerns

identified by certain affected certificate

holders in petitions for exemption. It is

intended to alleviate unnecessary

training costs while maintaining an

equivalent level of safety.

DATES: Comments must be received by

March 16, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposal

may be mailed in triplicate or delivered

to: Federal Aviation Administration,

Office of Chief Counsel, Attention:

Rules Docket (AGC–10), Docket No.

28072, 800 Independence Avenue

Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

E. Davis, Project Development Branch,

AFS–240, Air Transportation Division,

Office of Flight Standards, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202)

267–3747.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested persons are invited to

participate in the making of the

proposed rule by submitting such

written data, views, or arguments as

they may desire. Comments relating to

the environmental, energy, federalism,

or economic impact that might result

from adopting the proposals in this

notice are also invited. Substantive

comments should be accompanied by

cost estimates. Comments should

identify the regulatory docket or notice

number and should be submitted in

triplicate to the Rules Docket address

specified above. All comments received

on or before the closing date for

comments specified will be considered

by the Administrator before taking

action on this proposed rulemaking. The

proposal contained in this notice may

be changed in light of comments

received. All comments received will be

available, both before and after the

closing date for comment, in the Rules

Docket for examination by interested

persons. A report summarizing each

substantive public contact with Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA)

personnel concerned with this

rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this notice

must include a pre-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket No. 28072.’’ The postcard will be

date stamped and mailed to the

commenter.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of Public Affairs, Attention: Public

Inquiry Center, APA–430, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267–3484. Communications must

identify the notice number of this

NPRM.

Persons interested in being placed on

the mailing list for future NPRM’s

should request from the above office a

copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Distribution System, which describes

the application procedure.

Background

Terminology

Appendix H to 14 CFR part 121,

‘‘Advanced Simulation Plan,’’ provides

guidelines and a means for achieving

flightcrew training and checking in

advanced airplane simulators. The

three-phase plan provides standards for

a progressive upgrade of airplane

simulators so that the total scope of

flightcrew training can be enhanced.

Appendix H specifically describes the

simulator and visual system

requirements that must be met to obtain

approval to conduct certain training and

checking in the particular type of

simulator (Phase I, II, or III). The term

‘‘phase’’ was used because it was

expected that operators would be

upgrading their simulator inventories in

phases while exercising simulator

privileges commensurate with the phase

of the simulator. The upgrading of

simulators in phases is now essentially

complete and the designation of

‘‘phase’’ for identification of simulator

complexity is no longer descriptive.

Operators no longer begin at a lower

level of qualification and upgrade in

phases. The tendency is to acquire a

given level simulator that best meets

their needs. The agency and the

industry now commonly refer to the

simulators in terms of ‘‘levels.’’ The

levels currently used to describe a

particular simulator compared with the

older phase designations are:

New terminology Old terminology

Level A ...................... Visual.

Level B ...................... Phase I.

Level C ...................... Phase II.

Level D ...................... Phase III.

It is proposed to revise Appendix H

to replace the old terminology with the

new throughout the appendix. The new

terminology will be used throughout

this preamble in discussing other

amendments proposed herein.

Advanced Simulation

Appendix H was developed and

adopted when there were no ‘‘advanced

simulators.’’ Currently, however,

advanced simulators exist which have

permitted virtual duplication of many

aircraft performance characteristics and

systems. As a result, the vast majority of

U.S. airline pilot training is now

conducted in these advanced

simulators. According to industry

members, however, certain limitations

originally incorporated into Appendix H

still require a small, yet relatively

expensive, amount of training to be

completed in the actual airplane.

In light of their highly satisfactory

experience with these simulators, some

industry members believe that a Level C

simulator should be approved for those

flightcrew training and checking

maneuvers that currently are permitted

only in the aircraft or in Level D

simulators. In a petition for exemption

dated October 12, 1992, the Air

Transport Association, on behalf of its

affected member airlines and other

similarly situated airlines, petitioned for

an exemption to provide for initial

training in a Level C simulator. Trans

World Airlines and Tower Airlines

petitioned individually to use a Level C

simulator to conduct limited initial and

upgrade training and checking functions

that would normally be conducted in a

Level D simulator. Agreeing in part with

the petitioners’ supportive information

and, based on its own experience, the

FAA granted some limited relief for

training and checking.

More recently, United Airlines (UAL)

has requested similar but slightly more
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8491

extensive relief than previously granted.

UAL believes that its experience with

advanced simulation, as well as the

FAA’s own experience, more than

adequately justifies expanding the scope

of flightcrew training and checking in a

Level C simulator. In support of its

request, UAL points out that: (1) The

same training curricula and pilot

proficiency standards would apply to a

Level C or Level D simulator; (2) these

curricula can be implemented and

proficiency demonstrated effectively in

a Level C simulator; and (3) daily local

FAA oversight of training and checking

programs will assure that these

curricula and standards remain

sufficient.

UAL further believes that its request

would be in the public interest since it

is universally acknowledged that

simulator training is superior to training

in an actual aircraft and the public is

served best when high quality training

is conducted in the safest and most costeffective manner.

The FAA agrees with much of UAL’s

rationale in its petition; however, after

consideration of the supportive

information, the FAA believes that UAL

is not alone or unique in its request.

Therefore, the FAA has determined that

the appropriate response to the UAL

petition for exemption is to propose a

change to the existing regulations.

Discussion of the Proposal

Authorizing Additional Training and

Checking in a Level C Simulator

All simulators duplicate or simulate

the functions of an airplane to varying

levels of accuracy. The FAA requires

that, for each higher level of simulator,

the simulator duplicate the performance

of the airplane over larger and more

critical portions of the airplane’s

operating envelope. This performance

must be shown by documented

evidence. Level D simulators must

provide the highest level of flight

realism. They must perform as the

airplane performs over the largest

portion of the airplane’s operating

envelope, while providing the most

complete and technically accurate

environment possible. Evidence of this

performance must include certain

sophisticated aerodynamic modeling

that allows more complete replication of

the performance of the airplane.

Level C simulators are designed to

operate over the same portion of the

airplane’s operating envelope as Level D

simulators, and do so under a relatively

sophisticated performance verification

process. Level C simulators, however,

are not required to have sophisticated

aerodynamic modeling factors. Nor do

they undergo the degree of performance

verification that Level D simulators do.

However, based on 13 years of

experience using Level C simulators and

on the rigorous qualification process

and performance standards required for

Level C simulators, the FAA has

determined that they may now be used

for initial qualification and upgrade

training and checking for SIC. Because

of performance differences between

Level C and Level D simulators,

however, the pilots qualified using

Level C simulators should meet certain

prerequisite levels of experience. They

should also be required to have

supervised post qualification

operational experience.

Prior Aeronautical Experience

In Appendix H to part 121, the FAA

proposes to add a new paragraph to the

section entitled ‘‘Level C, Training and

Checking Permitted.’’ It would permit

SIC applicants to obtain initial and

upgrade training and certification

checks in Level C simulators if certain

preconditions are met. The rule would

require that the applicant meet the prior

aeronautical experience requirements

for an ATP certificate and airplane

rating under § 61.155, before beginning

training in a Level C simulator and

before being checked under § 61.157 in

a Level C simulator for an ATP

certificate or rating.

In addition, these SIC initial and

upgrade applicants must fulfill special

operational experience requirements

under proposed new provisions in

§ 121.434(c)(2). Under proposed

§ 121.434(c)(2)(ii), the SIC would have

to obtain line operations experience at

the SIC duty position, supervised by a

check pilot. These pilots will not have

the option, available to other pilots

under § 121.434(c)(2)(i), to fulfill

operating experience requirements by

simply observing another pilot perform

SIC duties. In addition, as part of this

initial operating experience, these pilots

would have to perform a minimum of

four takeoffs and four landings also

under the supervision of a check pilot.

The proposed amendment to

§ 121.434(f) would not allow pilots

trained in a Level C simulator to

substitute takeoffs or landings for

required operating experience. The

proposed rule would continue to allow

other SIC pilots to reduce by 50 percent

the hours of required operating

experience by the substitution of one

additional takeoff and landing for each

hour of flight.

Revising Appendix H to authorize

expanded use of Level C simulators for

additional training and checking would

provide an equivalent or higher level of

safety. Additionally, by not doing this

training and checking in flight in the

actual aircraft, these authorized

programs would provide benefits in

safety, energy conservation, and

efficiency.

Modifying Employment Requirement

The FAA is proposing to remove the

requirement in Appendix H (in

paragraph 3 of the section entitled

‘‘Advanced Simulation Training

Program’’) that each instructor and

check airman have been employed for at

least 1 year by the certificate holder

applying for approval of the program.

The FAA’s intention, in originally

requiring a minimum period of 1-year of

employment with the operator, was to

ensure suitable experience levels for

individuals selected to be instructors

and check airmen. The most

sophisticated simulator can be of little

value without an experienced, welltrained instructor or check airman to

operate it. However, the agency has

concluded that this goal can be achieved

by 1 year of experience serving as an

instructor or check airman with any part

121 operator. The FAA believes that this

amount of instructor experience, in

addition to the training prerequisites for

these individuals in Appendix H, is an

adequate level of preparation for an

instructor or check airman in a Level C

simulator. Modifying the employment

requirement in this way will not

decrease safety. However, it should be

noted that, instructors and check airmen

may participate in more than one

operator’s approved training program;

each operator must provide training for

each instructor and check airman in its

training program. Thus, an instructor or

check airman who instructs for more

than one operator must receive training

in each operator’s program.

Similarly, the FAA is proposing to

revise the section entitled ‘‘Phase II,

Training and Checking Permitted’’ in

Appendix H to provide that pilots

seeking to upgrade to pilot in command

(PIC) do not have to have obtained the

prerequisite SIC experience ‘‘with the

operator,’’ nor have served or be serving

as SIC ‘‘with that operator.’’ Again, the

FAA believes that the level of

experience required by an approved

training program, in addition to the

training prerequisites for these

individuals in Appendix H and

elsewhere under the Federal Aviation

Regulations, establishes an adequate

level of preparation regardless of

employment with any specific operator.
8492 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Clarifying Training and Certification

Check Requirements for Initial and

Upgrading Training for SIC’s Upgrading

to PIC

The FAA is also proposing to revise

paragraph 2 of the section entitled

‘‘Level C, Training and Checking

Permitted,’’ to clearly distinguish

between the prerequisites for initial

versus upgrade training and checking.

To do this, paragraph 2(a) would be

redesignated as paragraph 2 and

paragraph 2(b) as paragraph 3. New

paragraph 3 would be stated so as to

eliminate the need for the flush

paragraph currently at the end of the

section.

Current paragraph 2(a) sets forth the

prerequisites for training and checking

in a Level C simulator for SIC’s

upgrading to PIC in the same

equipment. For example, a pilot serving

as SIC in a Boeing 727 upgrading to PIC

in the same airplane would have to meet

the requirements of this paragraph.

Under new paragraph 2, these

requirements would not change. The

pilot would still have to have previously

qualified as SIC in the equipment, have

at least 500 hours of actual flight time

as SIC in an airplane in the same group,

and be currently serving as SIC in an

airplane in the same group. These

requirements are consistent with the

definition of upgrade training under

Subpart N—Training program. Section

121.400(c)(3) defines ‘‘Upgrade

training’’ as the training required for

crewmembers who have qualified and

served as SIC or flight engineer on a

particular airplane type, before they

serve as PIC or SIC, respectively, on that

airplane.

The requirements of current

paragraph 2(b) must be read in

conjunction with the final paragraph in

the section to determine that it applies

to initial training and checking for SIC’s

upgrading to PIC in an airplane type in

which the pilot has never served as SIC.

This SIC has experience in the same

group of airplanes, but not in the same

airplane to which the pilot wants to

upgrade. For example, a pilot serving as

an SIC in a Boeing 737 initially

upgrading to PIC in a Boeing 727 must

meet the requirements of this paragraph.

New paragraph 3 would not change

this requirement, but would make it

easier for the reader to see that it applies

to initial training and checking. The

pilot would still have to be employed by

an operator, be currently serving as SIC

in an airplane in the same group, have

a minimum of 2500 flight hours as SIC

in airplanes in the same group, and have

served as SIC on at least two airplanes

of the same group. Because proposed

new paragraph 3 would refer to ‘‘initial’’

training, the language in the current last

paragraph is no longer needed to

explain that pilots meeting these

requirements may upgrade to another

airplane in that group in which that

pilot has not previously qualified. The

requirements in new paragraph 3

continue to be consistent with

§ 121.400(c)(1), which defines ‘‘initial

training’’ as the training required for

crewmembers and dispatchers who have

not qualified and served in the same

capacity on another airplane of the same

group.

Modifying Minimum Flight Hour

Requirements

The FAA also is considering whether

to propose revising certain flight hour

experience requirements for initial and

upgrade training and checking in a

Level C simulator. Currently, pilots

upgrading from SIC to PIC in equipment

in which they have previously qualified

as SIC are required to have at least 500

hours of actual flight time while serving

as SIC in an airplane in the same group.

Similarly, pilots who are initially

upgrading from SIC to PIC in other

equipment in which the pilot has not

been previously qualified, must have a

minimum of 2500 hours as SIC in

airplanes of the same group as the

equipment to which they are upgrading.

The flight hour experience

requirements ensure that a pilot has

adequate experience in order to upgrade

to PIC. These values were established,

based on the collective opinions of the

FAA and industry members, when

Appendix H was originally adopted.

Since then, industry members have

argued that the required hours are

excessive. Based on the success of some

industry members who have operated

under exemptions that provided certain

relief of these flight-hour requirements

and other specific requirements for

upgrade training under Subpart N, the

FAA may propose, for example, to

eliminate the 500 flight-hour

requirement and reduce from 2500 to

500 the number of flight hours required

for initial upgrade training and

checking.

The FAA seeks comments and

additional information that may justify

proposing to modify these current flight

hour requirements in a future notice of

proposed rulemaking.

Standardizing Language and

Eliminating Obsolete References

As discussed above, the term ‘‘phase’’

is no longer used to describe the various

simulators referred to in Appendix H.

Accordingly, it is proposed to replace

‘‘phase’’ with ‘‘level’’ wherever it

appears and to use the current

alphabetical designations for the various

levels.

In addition, it is proposed to remove

the section entitled ‘‘Phase IIA Interim

Simulator Upgrade Plan for Part 121

Operators’’ as obsolete. For the same

reason, it is proposed to remove

paragraph 7 of the section entitled

‘‘Advanced Simulation Training

Program’’ which references Phase IIA.

Under Phase IIA, any part 121 operator

could conduct Phase II training for 3

and 1⁄2 years from the date it was

approved for Phase I in a simulator

approved for the landing maneuver

under Phase I. The carrier’s upgrade

plan had to be submitted to the FAA

before July 30, 1981. Thus, these

provisions are no longer effective.

Regulatory Analysis

Executive Order 12866 established the

requirement that, within the extent

permitted by law, a Federal regulatory

action may be undertaken only if the

potential benefits to society for the

regulation outweigh the potential costs

to society. In response to this

requirement, and in accordance with

Department of Transportation policies

and procedures, the FAA has estimated

the anticipated benefits and costs of this

rulemaking action. The FAA has

determined that this proposed rule is

not a ‘‘significant rulemaking action’’, as

defined by Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review). The

anticipated costs and benefits associated

with this proposed rule are summarized

below. (A more detailed discussion of

costs and benefits is contained in the

full regulatory evaluation placed in the

docket for this proposed rule).

Costs

The proposed rule would not improve

any additional costs on either part 121

air carrier operators or the flying public.

The proposed rule would allow certain

training practices that the FAA has

determined to be safe and efficient

methods for training pilots, and it

would clarify other portions of

Appendix H. Thus, the proposal would

not impose any additional costs because

it would permit operators to use the

least costly methods of training while

maintaining an equivalent level of safety

for the flying public. Since current

training practices would be maintained

to current standards under the proposed

rule, there would be no reduction in

aviation safety imposed on the flying

public.

Potential Cost-Relief Benefits

The proposed rule would generate

potential cost savings benefits estimated
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 8493

at $20 million, in 1992 dollars, over the

next 10 years (or $12.4 million,

discounted, using a 7.0 percent rate of

interest). These potential cost savings

benefits would take the form of

increased operational efficiency

(qualitative) and cost savings

(quantitative) to those part 121 operators

engaged in initial simulator training, in

accordance with Appendix H.

The potential cost savings benefits of

the proposed rule represent the

difference between the costs incurred

currently by part 121 air carriers for

initial training and checking of SIC

pilots and the costs that would be

incurred if the proposal were to become

a rule. Currently, certain requirements

for initial training and checking of SIC

pilots that are not performed in a Level

D simulator must be performed in the

aircraft. Under the proposed rule, those

requirements that are performed in the

aircraft in lieu of a Level D simulator

would be performed in a Level C

simulator. The costs of operating the

aircraft for those requirements above the

costs of operating the less expensive

simulator for those same requirements is

the estimated benefit of this proposed

rule.

In an effort to derive a cost-relief

estimate associated with this proposed

rule, several part 121 air carriers were

contacted. These air carriers provided

the agency with estimated aircraft

operating costs per hour, the time

needed to train and check pilots for

those requirements that, under the

present rule, cannot be performed in a

Level C simulator, and the number of

pilots that it expects to train in the next

10 years.

Potential Operational Efficiency

Benefits

The potential benefits of the proposed

rule would be generated in the form of

increased operational efficiency. In the

full regulatory evaluation placed in the

docket, these potential efficiency

benefits are presented qualitatively.

These benefits are difficult to estimate

quantitatively due, at present, to the

lack of available cost information.

Initial 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 government regulations.

The RFA requires government agencies

to determine whether rules will have ‘‘a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities’’

and, in cases where they will, conduct

a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

Accordingly to FAA Order 2100.14A

(Regulatory Flexibility and Guidance), a

substantial number of small entities is

defined as a number which is not less

than eleven and which is more than

one-third of the small entities subject to

a proposed or existing rule. A

significant economic impact on a small

entity is an annualized net compliance

cost which, when adjusted for inflation,

equals or exceeds the significant cost

threshold for the entity type under

review.

The entities that potentially would be

affected by the proposed rule are small

part 121 operators that own, but do not

necessarily operate, nine or fewer

aircraft. As discussed in the cost section

of this evaluation summary, the

proposed rule would not impose any

costs on these operators because it is

cost-relieving in nature. Therefore, the

proposed rule would not impose a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small aircraft

operators.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The proposed rule would have little,

if any, impact on the competitive

posture of either U.S. carriers doing

business in foreign countries or foreign

carriers doing business in the United

States. This assessment is based on the

fact that the proposed rule would not

impose any cost on part 121 operators

because it is cost-relieving in nature.

These operators do not compete directly

with air carriers engaged in foreign

operations (part 129).

Federalism Implications

The regulations proposed 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

12866, it is determined that this

proposal would not have federalism

implications requiring the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

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. The FAA

is not aware of any differences that this

proposal would present if adopted. Any

differences that may be presented in

comments to this proposal, however,

will be taken into consideration.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule contains no

information collection requests

requiring approval of the Office of

Management and Budget pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, and based on the findings in

the Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Determination and the International

Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has

determined that this proposed

regulation is not significant under

Executive Order 12866. In addition, it is

certified that this proposal, if adopted,

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on an

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. This proposal is not

considered significant under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen,

Aviation safety, Safety, Transportation.

The Proposed Rule

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend part 121 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 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 reads as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1354(a), 1355, 1356,

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

1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g) (Revised Pub. L. 97–

449, January 12, 1983).

2. Section 121.434 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (f) to read

as follows:

§ 121.434 Operating experience.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) A second-in-command pilot must

perform the duties of a second in

command as follows:

(i) For a second-in-command pilot

who received training for second-incommand duties for the relevant type

airplane pursuant to any appropriate

provision of this part other than

paragraph 4 of ‘‘Level C Training and

Checking Permitted’’ in Appendix H of

this part, he or she must perform those

duties under the supervision of a check
8494 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

pilot or observe the performance of

those duties on the flight deck.

(ii) For a second-in-command pilot

who received training in a Level C

simulator in accordance with Appendix

H of this part, he or she must perform—

(A) Those duties under the

supervision of a check pilot; and

(B) At least four takeoffs and four

landings as sole manipulator of the

controls under the supervision of a

check pilot.

* * * * *

(f) Except for second-in-command

pilots who were trained for the airplane

type in a Level C simulator in

accordance with Appendix H of this

part, the hours of operating experience

for flight crewmembers may be reduced

to 50 percent of the hours required by

this section by the substitution of one

additional takeoff and landing for each

hour of flight.

* * * * *

3. Appendix H is amended by

replacing the words ‘‘Phase I’’, ‘‘Phase

II’’, and ‘‘Phase III’’ with the words

‘‘Level B’’, ‘‘Level C’’, and ‘‘Level D’’

respectively, wherever they appear; by

replacing the words ‘‘Phase I, II, and III’’

with the words ‘‘Level B, C, and D’’,

wherever they appear; by replacing the

words ‘‘Phase II or III’’ with the words

‘‘Level C or D’’, wherever they appear;

by replacing the words ‘‘Phase I, II, or

III’’ with the words ‘‘Level B, C, or D’’,

wherever they appear; by replacing the

words ‘‘Phase II, IIA, or III’’ with the

words ‘‘Level C or D’’, wherever they

appear; by replacing the word ‘‘phase’’

with the word ‘‘level’’, wherever it

appears; and by replacing the word

‘‘phases’’ with the word ‘‘levels’’

wherever it appears.

4. The section entitled ‘‘Advanced

Simulation Training Program’’ in

Appendix H is amended by removing

paragraph 7 and revising paragraph 3 to

read as follows:

Appendix H to Part 121—Advanced

Simulation Plan

* * * * *

Advanced Simulation Training Program

* * * * *

3. Documentation that each instructor

and check airman has served for at least

1 year in that capacity in a certificate

holder’s approved program or has

served for at least 1 year as a pilot in

command or second in command in an

airplane of the group in which that pilot

is instructing or checking.

* * * * *

5. Appendix H, ‘‘Phase II, Training

and Checking Permitted’’ is amended by

revising paragraph 2. and adding

paragraphs 3. and 4. to read as follows:

* * * * *

Level C—Training and Checking Permitted

1. * * *

2. Upgrade to pilot-in-command training

and the certification check when the pilot—

a. Has previously qualified as second in

command in the equipment to which the

pilot is upgrading;

b. Has at least 500 hours of actual flight

time while serving as second in command in

an airplane of the same group; and

c. Is currently serving as second in

command in an airplane in this same group.

3. Initial pilot-in-command training and

the certification check when the pilot—

a. Is currently serving as second in

command in an airplane of the same group;

b. Has a minimum of 2,500 flight hours as

second in command in an airplane of the

same group; and

c. Has served as second in command on at

least two airplanes of the same group.

4. For all second-in-command pilot

applicants who meet the aeronautical

experience requirements of § 61.155 of this

chapter in the airplane, the initial and

upgrade training and checking required by

this part, and the certification check

requirements of § 61.157 of this chapter.

* * * * *

6. Appendix H, ‘‘Phase IIA, Interim

Simulator Upgrade Plan for Part 121

Operators’’ is removed in its entirety.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 31,

1995.

William J. White,

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 95–3132 Filed 2–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M