30726 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 28072; Amdt. No. 121–258]

RIN 2120–AF29

Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule: Updates the

terminology used to describe simulators;

eliminates the requirement that the

minimum of 1 year of employment as an

instructor or check airman be with the

operator of the simulator; and

authorizes the use of Level C simulators

for initial and upgrade training and

checking for second-in-command (SIC)

duties. This action responds 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1996.

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:

Availability of Final Rules

Any person may obtain a copy of this

final rule by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration, Office

of Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling

(202) 267–9677. Communications must

identify the notice number of this final

rule.

Persons interested in being placed on

the mailing list for future rules should

request from the above office a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A which

describes the application procedure.

Background

Appendix H to Title 14 Code of

Federal Regulations (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).

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 Level C

simulators should be approved for those

flightcrew training and checking

maneuvers that currently are permitted

only in the aircraft or in Level D

simulators. (The differences between

Level C and Level D simulators are

discussed in more detail below.) 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

(United) has requested similar but

slightly more extensive relief than

previously granted. United believes that

its experience with advanced

simulation, as well as the FAA’s own

experience, more than adequately

justifies expending the scope of

flightcrew training and checking in a

Level C simulator. In support of its

request, United 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.

United 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

United’s rationale in its petition;

however, after consideration of the

supportive information, the FAA

believes that United is not alone or

unique in its request. Therefore, the

FAA has determined that the

appropriate response to the United

petition for exemption is to change the

existing regulations. On February 14,

1995, the FAA published a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (60 FR

8490) in which it proposed to revise and

clarify certain requirements of part 121,

appendix H. The FAA received nine

comments on its proposal. The

commenters included the Air Transport

Association (ATA), Simuflite, the

Regional Airline Association (RAA), the

Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), the

Federal Express Corporation (FedEx),

United, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc.

(ASA), American Airlines (American),

and an individual whose affiliation was

not revealed. ALPA and the individual

were the only commenters who were

not generally supportive of the proposal

and made several recommendations.

Other commenters expressed general

support with minor modifications. All

comments are discussed below under

‘‘Discussion of the Final Rule.’’

Discussion of the Final Rule

Terminology

Simulators historically have been

referred to in terms of ‘‘phases’’ 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

simulators in terms of ‘‘levels.’’ The

FAA received two comments, from

Simulflite and United, on this proposal

to modify existing appendix H

terminology. Both commenters

supported the FAA’s proposal to replace

the term ‘‘phase’’ with the term ‘‘level.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 30727

This rule, therefore, revises appendix

H, as discussed below, to replace the old

terminology with the new throughout

the appendix. The new terminology will

be used throughout this preamble in

discussing other amendments to this

rule.

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.

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 currently

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.

The FAA proposed that Level C

simulators may 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

FAA proposed that pilots qualified

using Level C simulators meet certain

prerequisite levels of experience.

Further, the FAA proposed that these

pilots be required to have supervised

post-qualification operational

experience.

Several commenters discussed the

various capabilities of Level C and D

simulators. The opinions of the various

commenters on this issue are

paraphrased as follows:

ATA: There is no evidence to show

that a Level D simulator makes any

difference in the training and

qualification of pilots when compared

to the training available in a Level C

simulator. There is no difference in

flight dynamic performance between

Level C and D simulators. Level C can

be treated as Level D for all training and

checking functions.

FedEx: The only perceptible

difference between a Level C and D

simulator is that a Level D simulator has

a daylight visual system. A Level C

simulator is capable of providing the

same quality of training as a Level D

simulator. The pilot must pass the same

flight test standards on all required

maneuvers in either Level C or Level D

simulators. A 1984 study concluded that

a simulator, less sophisticated than a

Level C simulator, will support a large

majority of the events needed for ATP

certification. Moreover, this study also

concluded that for an ATP or type rating

for students with a commercial rating

(1,500 hours of flight) no requirement

exists for a daylight visual system.

United: The continued efforts to

justify uses for a Level D simulator are

simply not supported by airline training

experience. Level C simulators are

completely adequate for all training and

checking. Level D simulators cost more

to buy and maintain. The aerodynamic

models and performance of Level C and

D simulators are identical. The real

differences between Level C and Level

D simulators are the availability of

daylight visual scenes, some special

effects, and objective tuning of sound

and motion cues.

ASA: A Level C simulator should be

allowed for full training and checking

for initial SIC. The FAA also should

allow partial credit for Level B under

appendix H. The only significant

difference is the visual system, which,

except for circle-to-land maneuvers is

not a factor. Level 5, 6, and 7 Flight

Training Devices should be allowed

credit under appendix H. This would

allow a combination of flight training

devices and Level B or C training.

American: A Level D simulator has an

extremely limited training value

advantage over a Level C simulator.

With the recent technological advances

in visual systems, a Level C simulator

could be more valuable from a training

perspective than some Level D

simulators. The Level C simulator with

the wide visual system is superior to the

Level D simulator with the conventional

monitor optics display in meeting

training objectives.

ALPA: If a Level C simulator can be

substituted for a Level D simulator, then

how is training enhanced and safety

maintained? Level D simulators provide

airframe icing effects and realistic

airport lighting. They also provide

airframe buffet and visual scenes such

as landing illusions, overwater

approaches, and rising terrain on the

approach path.

Individual: Simulators are not all that

they should be—visual cues, inflight

dynamics, landing maneuvers, and total

environment experiences have yet to be

fully developed with current simulator

technology.

FAA response: The discussion of the

differences between Level C and Level

D simulator programs includes

consideration for the performance

standards of each and how each level of

qualification may be applied to training

and checking. Application of a specific

qualification level depends in turn on

student experience levels and the

overall curriculum. The FAA still

believes, as industry did when appendix

H was implemented, that lower

experience levels require more accurate

flight dynamic simulation and training

in a wide variety of special effects such

as weather and runway contaminants.

The Level D simulator performance

standards exceed Level C in special

effects to include daylight visual scenes

and more accurate testing for flight

dynamics, motion, and sound. It has

always been FAA’s intent that the

special effects required of each

qualification level be used in the

curriculum for initial and upgrade pilot

qualification.

The FAA understands ALPA’s

concern that the special effects (to

include daylight visual scenes) required

of Level D simulators currently are not

being exercised in contemporary

training programs as originally

intended. These effects are one of the

key elements required for the different

experience levels acceptable for use in

Levels C and D.

One commenter, ASA, suggested that

appendix H should ‘‘allow partial credit

for Level B,’’ and that ‘‘Levels 5, 6, and

7 Flight Training Devices should be

credited under appendix H.’’ The FAA

believes that items 1. and 2. of the

‘‘Advanced Simulation Training

Program’’ provide the latitude to

integrate Level A, B, C, and D simulators

with other simulators and training

devices to maximize the total training,

checking, and certification functions.

The 1984 FAA study referenced by

FedEx assumed that the ATP/Type

rating applicant met the experience

requirements for an ATP as provided

under § 61.155. While this is a higher

experience level than that required of an

SI for part 121 operations, it speaks

directly to the application of the
30728 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

performance differences between Level

C and Level D simulators and the

related PIC and SIC qualifications and

certification credits. For example, SIC

applicants that do not meet § 61.155

experience may qualify in a Level D

simulator, while those applicants that

do meet this experience may qualify in

a Level C simulator.

The FAA believes that further studies

are needed to explore the entire issue of

‘‘out-of-the-window’’ visual cue

requirements relative to the current and

projected state of the art. A research

requirement for this study has been

established. Industry participation is

planned and judged essential to the

success of this research.

The FAA agrees with the commenters

who have indicated that the

aerodynamic performance of Level D

has been generally accepted as the

industry standard for all advanced

simulators including Level C. Therefore,

the FAA accepts that the aerodynamic

performance of some (late model) Level

C simulators may be identical to Level

D simulators. Level C simulators that

meet Level D aerodynamic performance

standards provide training benefits in

some areas equal to Level D simulators.

However, the use of Level D

aerodynamics is not required of Level C,

and Level C simulators are not tested

and qualified to Level D aerodynamic

standards.

Given 13 years of experience using

Level C simulators, and the rigorous

qualification process and performance

standards required for Level C

simulators, the FAA adopts its proposal

to allow Level C simulators to be used

for initial qualification and upgrade

training and checking for SIC.

Prior Aeronautical Experience

The FAA proposed to add a new

paragraph 4 to the proposed section

entitled ‘‘Level C, Training and

Checking Permitted.’’ Under this

proposal, the FAA would permit SIC

applicants to obtain initial and upgrade

training and certification checks in

Level C simulators if certain

preconditions are met. This new

paragraph, as proposed, 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.

Simuflite expressed uncertainty

regarding the lack of any requirement

for recency of experience and no

restrictions on prerequisite experience

for SIC applicants who meet the

aeronautical experience requirements of

§ 61.155 in ‘‘the’’ airplane. According to

Simuflite, the proposal should have

stipulated that the applicants possess

the experience requirements of § 61.155

in ‘‘an’’ airplane of equivalent class. As

for the proposed revisions to the

operating experience provisions,

Simuflite agreed that operating

experience should be acquired

performing the duties of the respective

crew position under the supervision of

a check pilot and regardless of whether

the training was done in a Level C or D

simulator. However, according to

Simuflite, the provision to make

operating experience requirements more

stringent for the SIC who received

training in a Level C infers that there is

some belief that the training may be

insufficient and inferior.

In regard to § 121.434(f), RAA

recommended that the FAA eliminate

from the final rule the proposed

restriction which would not permit SIC

pilots trained in a Level C simulator to

reduce the hours of initial operating

experience by up to 50 percent by the

substitution of one additional takeoff

and landing for each hour of flight.

FedEx stated that it could only agree

that SIC’s should have to meet the flight

experience requirements of § 61.155, if

qualifying in a Level C simulator, if an

ATP certificate is involved. If the FAA

is going to require SIC’s to meet the

requirements of § 61.155, then it should

require all pilots qualifying as SIC’s to

meet those requirements, regardless of

the method used to qualify the

individual. According to FedEx, there

probably are not many part 121 SIC’s

who do not meet the requirements of

§ 61.155. Further, FedEx did not agree

that § 121.434(c)(2) should be tied to all

pilots trained in a Level C simulator. For

FedEx, if an SIC needs supervised

operating experience, then it should be

made applicable to all SIC’s, regardless

of how they were qualified.

United supported a requirement for

SIC operating experience to be gained in

the SIC duty position, supervised by a

check pilot. However, United did not

support the proposed requirement that

the operating experience consist of at

least four takeoffs and four landings as

the sole manipulator of the controls.

According to United, experience with

‘‘pilot not flying’’ duties is as important

as ‘‘pilot flying’’ duties. In this regard,

United concurred with ATA’s opinion

on rewording § 121.434(c)(2)(ii)(B).

United further noted that the question of

whether or not to amend § 121.434(f) in

this proposal (Notice 95–2) differed

from FAA’s earlier proposal to amend

that same section in Notice 93–1.

American commented that, since

some training in the flight training

segment may actually begin in either a

flight training device or Levels A or B

simulators to accomplish events

permitted under part 121, appendix E,

the third sentence of the preamble

discussion under the heading ‘‘Prior

Aeronautical Experience’’ should have

been worded as follows: ‘‘The rule

would require * * * under § 61.155,

before beginning the flight training

segment of a training program that uses

a Level C simulator to accomplish the

inflight training items under part 121,

appendix E and the part 61, appendix A

check for the ATP certificate or rating

under § 61.157.’’ Like United, American

concurred with ATA’s suggested

rewording of § 121.434(c)(2)(ii)(B).

FAA Response: Regarding

amendments to § 121.434, the FAA

agrees with the commenters and has

determined that these proposed

amendments need not be retained. The

FAA, in its deliberations and review of

comments, agrees with United which

pointed out that the questions on

whether or not to amend § 121.434(f)

was contradictory to an earlier FAA

proposal. Some commenters also stated

that the proposal to require four takeoffs

and four landings for the SIC as sole

manipulator of the controls was

excessive and did not address pilot-notflying duties. The FAA has decided that

the changes made to § 121.434 in the

final rule entitled ‘‘Pilot Operating and

Experience Requirements’’ (60 FR

20858, April 27, 1995) satisfies these

issues raised by commenters and

adequately addresses the safety

concerns of the FAA. Therefore, the

FAA will not propose additional

amendment to § 121.434.

Regarding the proposed change to

require an SIC to meet the flight

experience requirements of § 61.155, the

FAA has determined that Level D

simulators, used in an approved

appendix H training program that may

use the prescribed special effects for the

250-hour commercial, instrument-rated

pilot, constitute the minimum

acceptable level for initial and upgrade

SIC qualification in part 121 today.

Using a Level C simulator for training

the 1500-hour ATP applicant is equal to

or better than using a Level D similator

for training the 250-hour commercial,

instrument-rated pilot. The FAA

believes that experience requirements

are a vital part of qualification, as well

as any required certification within

qualification. Therefore, it is

appropriate to require § 61.155

experience for SIC qualification and

training and paragraph 4 under

proposed ‘‘Level C, Training and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 30729

Checking Permitted’’ is adopted as

proposed.

Modifying Employment Requirement

This final rule will 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 proposed 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.

Commenters generally supported the

FAA’s proposal to remove certain

employment restrictions. However, ATA

suggested deleting paragraph 3 of the

Advanced Simulation Plan entirely or, if

not possible, modifying paragraph 3 to

make clear that anyone who has 1 year

of experience—namely with the

military, a manufacturer, or a foreign

airline—is qualified.

RAA commented that previous

experience should not be limited to

airplanes of the same group. According

to RAA, the FAA should require 1 year

as PIC or instructor pilot, to include

military time. Further, RAA indicated

that pilots should have a type rating and

should have completed an air carrier

approved training program.

FedEx commented that the proposal

should be modified to include flight

instructors with experience in airplanes

of the same group who gained

experience in the military, with airframe

manufacturers, and/or with training

centers.

United supported the FAA’s proposal

to delete the requirement for

employment ‘‘by the certificate holder’’

under existing paragraph 3 of

‘‘Advanced Simulation Training

Program’’ because this relief has already

been offered through exemptions issued

to United and to ATA. It also supported

the FAA’s proposal to delete the words

‘‘with the operator’’ for PIC initial or

upgrade training, under existing

paragraphs 2(a) (ii) and (iii) of ‘‘Phase II

Training and Checking Permitted.’’

United concurred with other

commenters that equivalent military

experience should be allowed.

ASA indicated that appendix H

should allow established operators to

introduce new aircraft with instructors

currently employed without waiting 1

year to gain in-type experience.

American echoed the exemption

experience mentioned by United and

further stated that this experience has

proven that training received by a pilot

who has already served as SIC on a large

jet aircraft provides an equivalent

transfer of learning.

ALPA was opposed to the proposal

indicating that it only addresses the

issue of airplane knowledge and

qualification but not familiarity with

company policies and operating

procedures.

FAA response: the FAA has carefully

reviewed commenters’ opinions

concerning its proposal to amend the 1-

year employment requirement for

instructors and check airmen in part

121, appendix H and in certain

exemptions. The commenters generally

concurred that safety considerations

should not be based on employment

status but rather on prior in-flight

experience in the group of airplanes in

which the pilot is instructing or

checking. By amending the employment

provisions of appendix H, the FAA’s

intent is to honor all experience gained

as an instructor or evaluator in group.

This would include experience under

part 121, part 135, corporate, and

military operations.

Further, in response to United’s

comment, the FAA adopts its proposal

to delete the words ‘‘by the certificate

holder’’ from paragraph 3 of ‘‘Advanced

Simulation Training Program’’ and to

delete the words ‘‘with the operator’’

from paragraphs 2(a) (ii) and (iii) of

‘‘Phase II Training and Checking

Permitted.’’

The FAA understands ALPA’s

concern that instructors and check

airmen should be familiar with

‘‘company policies and operating

procedures.’’ However, as previously

stated, the FAA believes that the student

entry level of experience required by an

approved training program, in addition

to the training prerequisites for these

individuals in appendix H, and

elsewhere under part 121, establishes an

adequate level of preparation.

Clarifying Training and Certification

Check Requirements for Initial and

Upgrading Training for SIC’s Upgrading

to PIC

Under the proposed section entitled

‘‘Level C, Training and Checking

Permitted,’’ the FAA proposed to

redesignate paragraph 2(a) as paragraph

2 and paragraph 2(b) as paragraph 3 to

clearly distinguish between the

prerequisites for initial versus upgrade

training and checking. This paragraph

restructuring was proposed in order 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, as proposed,

these requirements would not change.

The pilot would still have to have

previously qualified as SIC in the

equipment, be currently serving as SIC

in an airplane in the same group, and

have at least 500 hours of actual flight

time 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
30730 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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, as proposed, 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 served as SIC

on at least two airplanes of the same

group, and have a minimum of 2500

flight hours as SIC in airplanes in 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.

The FAA received two comments on

its proposed clarifications to initial and

upgrade training requirements for SICs

under paragraphs (2) and (3) of the

section entitled ‘‘Level C, Training and

Checking Permitted.’’ (Comments

received on current flight-hour

requirements are discussed below under

‘‘Modifying Current Flight-Hour

Requirements.’’)

ATA requested that paragraph 2(c) be

reworded as follows: ‘‘Is currently

serving as second in command in an

airplane in the same group as the type

airplane to which the pilot is

upgrading.’’ It further requested that

proposed paragraph 3(c), which would

require a pilot to have served as SIC on

at least two airplanes of the same group,

be deleted.

American concurred with ATA’s

requested modification of paragraph 2(c)

and ATA’s suggestion to delete

proposed paragraph 3(c). American

further proposed, however, adding a

new paragraph 5 to address PIC’s

seeking an additional type rating on an

ATP within the same group without

meeting flying time experience

requirements.

FAA Response: The FAA does not

agree that removing the requirement in

proposed paragraph 3(c) for a PIC initial

applicant to have ‘‘served as SIC on at

least two airplanes of the same group’’

will yield an adequate level of safety.

Removing this paragraph would allow

an SIC flying hour credits outside of

part 121 operations.

American’s comment that additional

language be added to allow PIC’s to seek

an additional type rating on an ATP

within the same group without meeting

flying time experience requirements

may have merit. Although it would be

beyond the scope of the proposal to add

a new paragraph 5, as American

proposes, the FAA believes that the new

PIC upgrade language as adopted in

paragraph 2 responds directly to this

concern.

Modifying Current Minimum FlightHour Experience Requirements

In crafting its proposal, the FAA

contemplated 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 indicated in the NPRM preamble

that it may propose, at some future date,

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.

In its preamble, the FAA requested

comments and additional information

that may justify proposing to modify

these current flight hour requirements

in a future rulemaking. These comments

are discussed below.

ATA proposed that the FAA eliminate

the requirement for an SIC to have 500

flight hours in an airplane in the same

group and reduce from 2500 to 500 the

number of flight hours required for

initial upgrade training and checking.

ATA recommended that the 500-hour

requirement apply to any pilot initially

upgrading to PIC regardless of whether

the qualification was based on the use

of a Level C simulator. If this is not

done, the perception will remain,

according to ATA, that training and

checking in a Level C simulator is

inferior to other methods of pilot

qualification.

FedEx concurred with ATA.

United commented that there need be

no prerequisites for SIC or PIC training

or checking in Level C simulators, either

initial, upgrade, transition, or recurrent

in an airline training program.

American indicated that it is has

successfully exercised an ATA

exemption provision which allows the

upgrading PIC, who is previously

qualified in the equipment, to train and

check in a Level C simulator. Under this

exemption there is no requirement for

the SIC to possess 500 hours flying time

with the operator as an SIC. Further this

exemption allows the initial PIC

candidate, not previously qualified in

the equipment, to possess only 500

hours flying time with the operator as

an SIC instead of 2500 hours in two

different airplanes of the same group.

ALPA did not agree with the current

regulations that allow a pilot to receive

initial training exclusively in a Level D

simulator without experience

prerequisites. According to ALPA, with

the possibility of low-time pilots and ab

initio candidates being placed in large

aircraft in the near future, training needs

to be enhanced, and not reduced in

quality.

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates

the invited comments on reducing

current minimum flight-hour

requirements.

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, the FAA proposed to

replace ‘‘phase’’ with ‘‘level’’ wherever

it appears and to use the current

alphabetical designations for the various

levels.

In addition, the FAA proposed to

remove the section entitled ‘‘Phase IIA

Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for part

121 Operators’’ as obsolete. For the

same reason, it proposed to remove
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 30731

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.

United supported changing the

terminology and also deleting all

reference to ‘‘Phase IIA.’’ According to

United, these changes certainly are

appropriate and are supported.

The proposed removal of the obsolete

sections is adopted as proposed.

Additional Comments

The FAA received some comments

that are general in nature and that do

not specifically reference the proposed

amendments.

For example, United proposed

deleting the word ‘‘Plan’’ from the title

of appendix H since it is no longer, and

has not been for many years, a plan.

Simuflite recommended that it would

seem reasonable to place simulator and

training device requirements in a

separate regulatory structure, since it is

clear that all segments of the aviation

training industry may exercise the

permitted simulation training and

checking. Simulator standards should

stand alone in a rule addressing the use

of simulation equipment as appropriate

to operations conducted under those

rules. The proposed changes should be

expanded to clarify that the same

training and checking authority in Level

C simulators be extended to those part

135 operators who will not be required

to comply with subparts N and O of part

121.

ALPA would like to see an additional

simulator category, perhaps Level E,

which would be a Level D with all

aircraft devices such as Traffic Collision

Avoidance System, weather radar,

Global Positioning Warning System,

terrain presentations, and more realistic

air traffic control communications. This

would add an additional level of reality

to pilot training.

FAA response: The FAA appreciates

all of above comments and believes that

they may have merit. In particular, the

FAA agrees that there is room for

upgrading simulation standards to

include special equipment operations

such as weather radar and TCAS

(integrated where appropriate), and

realistic air-to-ground communications

(ATC, Weather, Company, etc.). These

comments cannot be incorporated into

this final rule, however, because they do

not address proposals that have been

published for public comment and are

therefore outside the scope of the

proposal.

In addition, ATA commented that the

comment period should have been

longer than 30 days to allow for more

precise comments and economic

analysis.

FAA Response: In allotting the 30-day

comment period, the FAA was

responding to the large number of

requests for relief from the aviation

industry. The FAA considered it to be

in the best interest of safety and the

public to expedite the regulation by

every means possible. The FAA did not

violate any requirements of the

Administrative Procedures Act, which

does not require specific comment

periods for rulemaking.

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

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 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

rule.)

Costs

The rule does not impose any

additional costs on either part 121 air

carrier operators or the flying public.

The rule allows certain training

practices that the FAA has determined

to be safe and efficient methods for

training pilots, and it clarifies other

portions of appendix H. Thus, the rule

does not impose any additional costs

because it permits operators to use the

least costly methods of training while

maintaining an equivalent level of safety

for the flying public. Since current

training practices could be maintained

to current standards under the rule,

there is no reduction in aviation safety

imposed on the flying public.

Potential Cost-Relief Benefits

The rule generates potential cost

savings benefits estimated at $21.6

million, in 1992 dollars, over the next

10 years (or $13.3 million, discounted,

using a 7.0 percent rate of interest).

These potential cost savings benefits

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 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 incurred from the proposal

becoming 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

rule, those requirements that are

performed in the aircraft in lieu of a

Level D simulator can 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 rule.

In an effort to derive a cost-relief

estimate associated with this 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 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.

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.

According to FAA Order 2100.14A

(Regulatory Flexibility and Guidance), a

substantial number of small entities is
30732 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

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 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 rule

would not impose any costs on these

operators because it is cost-relieving in

nature. Therefore, the rule would not

impose a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small aircraft

operators.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The 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 rule would not impose any cost on

part 121 operators because it is costrelieving in nature. These operators do

not compete directly with air carriers

engaged in foreign operations (part 129).

Federalism Implications

The regulations contained 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 rule

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, and did not receive any

comments indicating any differences

that this rule will present.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information

collection requests requiring approval of

the Office of Management and Budget

pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507 (d)).

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 not significant under

Executive Order 12866. In addition, it is

certified that this rule 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 rule 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, Federal Aviation

Administration.

The Rule

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

amends 14 CFR part 121 as follows:

PART 121—OPERATING

REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG,

AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 121

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119,

44101, 44701–44702, 44705, 44709–44711,

44713, 44716–44717, 44722, 44901, 44903–

44904, 44912, 46105.

2. 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’’.

3. 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.

* * * * *

4. Appendix H, ‘‘Phase II, Training

and Checking Permitted’’ is amended by

revising the title and paragraph 2 and by

adding paragraphs 3 and 4 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.

5. Appendix H, ‘‘Phase IIA, Interim

Simulator Upgrade Plan for Part 121

Operators’’ is removed in its entirety.

Issued in Washington, DC., on May 30,

1996.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–14082 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M