13112 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2001 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

[USCG 2001–8920]

Guidelines for Assessing Merchant

Mariners’ Proficiency Through

Demonstrations of Skills for Ratings

Forming Part of an Engineering Watch

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request

for comments.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces

the availability of, and seeks public

comments on, the national performance

measures proposed here for use as

guidelines when mariners demonstrate

their proficiency in skills for ratings

forming part of an engineering watch. A

working group of the Merchant Marine

Personnel Advisory Committee

(MERPAC) developed and

recommended measures for this

proficiency. The Coast Guard has

adapted the measures recommended by

MERPAC.

DATES: Comments and related material

must reach the Docket Management

Facility on or before May 1, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please identify your

comments and related material by the

docket number of this rulemaking

[USCG 2001–8920]. Then, to make sure

they enter the docket just once, submit

them by just one of the following means:

(1) By mail to the Docket Management

Facility, U.S. Department of

Transportation, room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001.

(2) By delivery to room PL–401 on the

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329.

(3) By fax to the Facility at 202–493–

2251.

(4) Electronically through the Web

Site for the Docket Management System

at http://dms.dot.gov.

The Facility maintains the public

docket for this Notice. Comments and

related material received from the

public, as well as documents mentioned

in this Notice, will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room PL–401

on the Plaza level of the Nassif Building,

400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The measures proposed here are

available on the Internet at http://

dms.dot.gov. They are also available

from Mr. Mark Gould, Maritime

Personnel Qualifications Division,

Office of Operating and Environmental

Standards, Commandant (G–MSO–1),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters,

telephone 202–267–0229.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

questions on this Notice or on the

national performance measures

proposed here, write or call Mr. Gould

where indicated under ADDRESSES. For

questions on viewing or submitting

material to the docket, call Ms. Dorothy

Beard, Chief, Dockets, Department of

Transportation, telephone 202–366–

9329.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Action Is the Coast Guard

Taking?

Table A–III/4 of the Code

accompanying the treaty on Standards

of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW),

1978, as amended in 1995, articulates

qualifications for merchant mariners’

attaining the minimum standard of

competence for ratings forming part of

an engineering watch. The Coast Guard

tasked MERPAC with referring to the

Table, modifying and specifying it as it

deemed necessary, and recommending

national performance measures. The

Coast Guard has adapted the measures

recommended by MERPAC and is

proposing them now for use as

guidelines when assessing mariners’

proficiency in skills (manifesting

knowledge, understanding, and

proficiency) for ratings forming part of

an engineering watch.

Here follow the eight skills that a

mariner must demonstrate respecting

ratings forming part of an engineering

watch, with an example of a

Performance Condition, a Performance

Behavior, and three Performance

Standards for one of the eight:

Eight Skills: Engine-room

watchkeeping procedures; Safe working

practices as related to engine-room

operations; Basic environmentalprotection procedures; Use of

appropriate internal-communication

systems; Engine-room alarms and ability

to distinguish among the various alarms,

with special reference to alarms for fireextinguishing gas; Safe operations of

boilers; Escape routes from machinery

spaces; and Familiarity with the

location and use of fire-fighting

equipment in machinery spaces.

The Performance Condition for the

skill entitled, ‘‘Engine-room

watchkeeping procedures’’ is: ‘‘Aboard a

ship, in port or underway, or in an

approved simulator or laboratory, given

proper equipment . . .’’ This calls for,

in the case of this skill, various

Performance Behaviors.

One Performance Behavior for the

same skill is: ‘‘The candidate will

properly relieve the watch.’’ This

behavior calls for three Performance

Standards.

The Performance Standards for the

same behavior are: ‘‘(1) Reports for duty

15 minutes before the hour; (2)

Determines from the off-going watch:

plant operational status, unusual alarms

or conditions during previous watch,

standing orders, maintenance performed

during previous watch, on-going repairs

affecting plant operations, [and]

outstanding safety conditions; [and] (3)

Seeks clarification from the off-going

watch or engineer if information was

not clearly understood.’’

If the mariner properly meets all of

the Performance Standards, he or she

passes the practical demonstration. If he

or she fails to properly carry out any of

the Standards, he or she fails the

demonstration.

Why Is the Coast Guard Taking This

Action?

The Coast Guard is taking this action

to comply with STCW, as amended in

1995 and 1997 and incorporated into

domestic law at 46 CFR Parts 10, 12,

and 15 in 1997 and since. Guidance

from the International Maritime

Organization on shipboard assessments

of proficiency suggests that Parties

develop standards and measures of

performance for practical tests as part of

their programs for training and assessing

seafarers.

How May I Participate in This Action?

You may participate in this action by

submitting comments and related

material on the national performance

measures proposed here. (Although the

Coast Guard does not seek public

comment on the measures

recommended by MERPAC, as distinct

from the measures proposed here, those

measures are available on the Internet at

the Homepage of MERPAC, http://

www.uscg.mil/hq/g-m/advisory/merpac/

merpac.htm.) The measures proposed

here, again, are available on the Internet

at http://dms.dot.gov. They are also

available from Mr. Gould where

indicated under ADDRESSES. If you

submit written comments please

include—

• Your name and address;

• The docket number for this Notice

[USCG 2001–8920];

• The specific section of the

performance measures to which each

comment applies; and

• The reason for each comment.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2001 / Notices 13113

You may mail, deliver, fax, or

electronically submit your comments

and related material to the Docket

Management Facility, using an address

or fax number listed in ADDRESSES.

Please do not submit the same comment

or material more than once. If you mail

or deliver your comments and material,

they must be on 81⁄2-by-11-inch paper,

and the quality of the copy should be

clear enough for copying and scanning.

If you mail your comments and material

and would like to know whether the

Facility received them, please enclose a

stamped, self-addressed postcard or

envelope. The Coast Guard will

consider all comments and material

received during the 60-day comment

period.

Once we have considered all

comments and related material, we will

publish a final version of the national

performance measures for use as

guidelines by the general public.

Individuals and institutions assessing

the competence of mariners may refine

the final version of these measures and

develop innovative alternatives. If you

vary from the final version of these

measures, however, you must submit

your alternative to the National

Maritime Center for approval by the

Coast Guard under 46 CFR 10.303(e)

before you use it as part of an approved

course or training program.

Dated: February 20, 2001.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Director of Standards, Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 01–5115 Filed 3–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Policy Statement Number ANM–99–01]

Improving Flightcrew Awareness

During Autopilot Operation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final policy statement.

SUMMARY: This document announces an

FAA general statement of policy

applicable to the type certification of

transport category airplanes. This

document advises the public, in

particular manufacturers of transport

category airplanes and automatic flight

control (autopilot) systems, that the

FAA, when certifying automatic pilot

installations, intends to evaluate various

items that will improve the flightcrew’s

awareness during autopilot operation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gregg Bartley, Federal Aviation

Administration, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Transport Standards Staff,

Airplane and Flight Crew Interface

Branch, ANM 111, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Renton, WA 98055–4056;

telephone (425) 227–2889; fax (425)

227–1100; e-mail: gregg.bartley@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Recent incidents and accidents that

have occurred worldwide involving

pilot-autopilot interactions have

emphasized to the FAA the need to

reexamine the current certification

policy relative to autopilot issues.

In 1991, the National Transportation

Safety Board (NTSB) began an

investigation of an incident involving a

transport category airplane that

experienced an in-flight upset. When

the airplane was in cruise at flight level

310, the flightcrew noted that the

inertial navigation system ‘‘FAIL’’ lights

had illuminated. When the flightcrew

cross-checked the instrument panel,

they determined that the airplane was in

a steep right-wing-down banking angle.

The flight lost nearly 10,000 feet of

altitude and the airplane approached

supersonic speeds before the pilots

could complete a recovery. The airplane

eventually made a successful landing,

and there were no injuries.

Investigation of the incident revealed,

among other things, that a failure in the

autopilot system could cause an

airplane to roll slowly into a banking

attitude. The roll rate induced from

such a failure of the autopilot system

may be barely perceptible to the

flightcrew; it also may be difficult to

detect without external visual attitude

references or continuous close

monitoring of the flight attitude

instruments.

The NTSB has advised the FAA of its

concern that some autopilot failures can

result in changes in attitude at rates that

may be imperceptible to the flightcrew,

and thus remain undetected until the

airplane reaches significant attitude

deviations.

FAA Evaluation of Flightcrew/Flight

Deck Automation Interfaces

In 1994, the FAA launched a study to

evaluate all flightcrew/flight deck

automation interfaces of current

generation transport category airplanes.

The FAA chartered a Human Factors

Team to conduct the study. Team

members included experts from the

FAA, the European Joint Airworthiness

Authorities (JAA), and academia. The

objective of the study was to look

beyond the label of ‘‘flightcrew error,’’

and examine the contributing factors

from the perspective of design;

flightcrew training and qualifications;

operations; and regulatory processes.

The FAA also tasked the team to

develop recommendations to address

any problems identified.

With regard to autopilot issues, the

Team identified several specific

problematic issues, including:

• Pilot/autopilot interactions that

create hazardous out-of-trim conditions;

• Autopilots that can produce

hazardous speed conditions and may

attempt maneuvers that would not

normally be expected by a pilot; and

• Insufficient wording in the Airplane

Flight Manual regarding the capabilities

and limitations of the autopilot.

Regulatory Initiatives

The FAA has acknowledged the

autopilot issues raised by both the

NTSB and the Human Factors Team,

and has taken steps to address them. For

example, the FAA has tasked the

Aviation Regulation Advisory

Committee (ARAC) to review and

propose harmonized revisions to the

following documents:

• 14 CFR 25.1329 (‘‘Automatic pilot

system’’), which contains FAA’s

standards for certifying automatic pilot

systems on transport category airplanes;

• 14 CFR 25.1335 (‘‘Flight director

systems’’), which contains FAA’s

standards for certifying flight director

systems on transport category airplanes;

and

• Advisory Circular (AC) 25–1329–1A

(‘‘Automatic Pilot Systems Approval,’’

dated July 8, 1968), which describes an

acceptable means by which compliance

with the automatic pilot installation

requirements of § 25.1329 may be

shown.

The work of ARAC currently is in

progress.

Current Certification Standards

In general, the FAA has traditionally

certified automatic pilot systems on

transport category airplanes in

accordance with § 25.1329 on the basis

that:

• The systems are conveniences to

reduce flightcrew workload, and

• The systems do not relieve the

flightcrew of any responsibility for

assuring proper flight path management.

As a result, the autopilot evaluation

criteria contained in AC 25.1329–1A,

are chiefly concerned with the effects of

autopilot failures on the airplane. The

most recent revision to AC 25–7A,

‘‘Flight Test Guide for Certification of

Transport Category Airplanes,’’ also

defines some evaluation criteria for

determining whether the autopilot is

performing its intended function of

relieving the flightcrew of some of their

control functions.