# Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2011-10554 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** May 20, 2011 - **Citation:** 76 FR 29336 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 65, 119, 121, 135, 142 [Docket No. FAA-2008-0677; Notice No. 08-07A] RIN 2120-AJ00 Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM). SUMMARY: On January 12, 2009, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on qualification, service, and use of crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers. Because of the complexity of the issues and the concerns raised by commenters, the FAA is issuing this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA proposes to amend the regulations for crewmember and aircraft dispatcher training programs in domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. The proposed regulations enhance traditional training programs by requiring the use of flight simulation training devices for flightcrew members and including additional training and evaluation requirements for all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers in areas that are critical to safety. The proposal also reorganizes and revises the qualification, training, and evaluation requirements. The proposed changes are intended to contribute significantly to reducing aviation accidents. DATES: Send your comments on or before July 19, 2011. ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-0677 using any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically. • Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251. For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc. ). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For flightcrew member information contact James K. Sheppard, e-mail: james.k.sheppard@faa.gov; for flight attendant information contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, e-mail: Nancy.l.Claussen@faa.gov; and for aircraft dispatcher information contact Leo D. Hollis, e-mail: Leo.d.Hollis@faa.gov; Air Transportation Division (AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8166. For legal questions, contact Anne Bechdolt, Office of Chief Counsel (AGC-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; e-mail: Anne.Bechdolt@faa.gov; telephone 202-267-3073. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents. Authority for This Rulemaking The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security. In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216) specifically directed the FAA to issue a final rule with respect to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1280). Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background A. Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) B. Summary of Comments C. Need for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) D. General Overview of SNPRM E. Basis for the Rulemaking F. Impact of SNPRM on AQP Operators G. Transition From Current Training Program Requirements (§§ 121.1202 and 121.1402) III. Discussion of Significant Issues in SNPRM A. Flightcrew Member Job Performance Training (Appendices Q and R) 1. Job Performance Task Requirements and Definitions 2. Pilot Monitoring Requirements (§ 121.1213) 3. Frequency of Training and Evaluation for Recurrent Tasks 4. Proposed Baseline and Minimum Programmed Hours (§ 121.1335) 5. Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Requirements (Including Level of FSTD) (§ 121.1345, Table 3B of the Pilot and Flight Engineer QPS) B. Reduction in Programmed Hours and Modification of Training Program Based on Operation of Related Aircraft C. Require Certificated Aircraft Dispatchers for Supplemental Operations D. Establish Deviation Authority To Allow Contract Aircraft Dispatcher Services (§ 121.1411) E. Clarify Training Requirements for Other Operations Personnel (§ 121.1475) F. Requalification Requirements for Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers 1. Flightcrew Member Requalification (§ 121.1239) 2. Flight Attendant Requalification (§ 121.1309) 3. Aircraft Dispatcher Requalification (§ 121.1419) IV. General Issues for Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers A. Training Program: Approval and Amendment Process (§§ 121.1337 and 121.1437) B. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Manuals and Manual Procedures (§§ 121.133, 121.134, 121.135, and 121.540) C. Distance Learning D. Training Program: General—Crewmember Records (§§ 121.1331 and 121.1431) E. Training Program: Curriculum by Aircraft Type and Curriculum By Aircraft Type and Operation (§§ 121.1333 and 121.1433) F. Training Program: Administering Training and Evaluation (§§ 121.1341 and 121.1439) G. Continuous Analysis Process (CAP) (§§ 121.1355 and 121.1441) H. Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (§ 121.9) I. English Language Requirement (§§ 121.1209 and 121.1407) J. Crewmember and Dispatcher Record (§§ 121.683 and 121.684) K. Management and Technical Personnel Required for Operations Conducted Under Part 121 of This Chapter (§ 119.65) L. Applicability (§§ 121.1201 and 121.1401) M. Training Program: Contract Training Requirements (§ 121.1339) N. Curriculum Category Requirements: Check Pilot, Check Flight Engineer, or Check Flight Attendant Initial, Transition, and Recurrent Academic Training (§ 121.1381) O. Training Program: Academic Evaluation (§ 121.1343) P. Training Program: Training Equipment Other Than Flight Simulation Training Devices (§ 121.1351) Q. Curriculum Category Requirements: Crewmember New Hire (§ 121.1363) R. Initial Cadre for Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers (§§ 121.1257, 121.1323, and 121.1425) 1. Check Airman Initial Cadre (§ 121.1257) 2. Check Flight Attendant Initial Cadre (§ 121.1323) 3. Check Dispatcher Initial Cadre (§ 121.1425) V. Other Issues by Specialty A. Flightcrew Member B. Flight Attendant C. Aircraft Dispatcher VI. Impact Statements I. Executive Summary On January 12, 2009, the FAA published an NPRM addressing qualification, service, and use of crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers as part of the Administrator's Call to Action and FAA's continuing efforts to reduce fatal accidents in which human error was a major contributing cause. The proposed changes focused on reducing human error and improving performance among flightcrew members, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers. The NPRM proposed regulations to enhance traditional training programs by requiring the use of Flight Simulation Training Devices (FSTD) for flightcrew members and including additional training and evaluation requirements for all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers in areas that are critical to safety. These areas included: • Ensuring that flightcrew members are trained and evaluated in a complete flight crew environment; • Requiring special hazard training for flightcrew members that addresses loss of control and controlled flight into terrain (CFIT); and • Requiring additional training and practice in the use of crew resource management (CRM) skills. Further, flight attendants would be required to complete “hands-on” performance drills using emergency equipment and procedures every 12 months, training and experience requirements for check dispatchers and dispatcher instructors would be standardized and all certificate holders would be required to develop a continuous analysis process (CAP) to identify and correct deficiencies in their training programs. The FAA received approximately 150 comments in response to the NPRM (with approximately 3,000 pages of detailed comments). Many commenters asserted that the FAA understated the impact of the NPRM on air carriers conducting training under an approved Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) and underestimated the number of FSTD periods required to meet flightcrew member training and evaluation requirements. In response to these comments, the FAA developed a report to validate FAA cost estimates in the NPRM and SNPRM regarding: (1) The number of simulator sessions, hours, and tasks required to accomplish proposed flightcrew member training and evaluation requirements for both AQP and non-AQP air carriers; and (2) the minimal impact of the proposed rule on carriers training under an AQP in accordance with the provisions in part 121, subpart Y. 1 1 “Flightcrew Member Training and Qualification Review and Analysis Technical Report,” April 5, 2010 (FAA Technical Report). Building on the foundation set in the NPRM and review of the comments submitted, the FAA is issuing this SNPRM to address several key issues that were not addressed in the NPRM and to clarify several other issues raised in the comments. These issues include: • Allowing modification of training program requirements for flightcrew members based on an air carrier's operation of aircraft with similar flight handling characteristics; • Requiring certificated aircraft dispatchers for certificate holders conducting supplemental operations; • Establishing deviation authority to allow contract aircraft dispatchers; and • Establishing training requirements for other operations personnel ( e.g., ground operations and management personnel). In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Act) was enacted on August 1, 2010. See Public Law 111-216, §§ 208, 209. Under the Act, Congress has directed the FAA to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive ground (academic) training and flight (job performance) training in the recognition and avoidance of stalls, and recovery from stall, and recognition and avoidance of upset of an aircraft, as well as the proper techniques to recover from upset. The Act also requires the development of remedial training programs for flightcrew members who have demonstrated performance deficiencies or experienced failures in the training environment. This SNPRM integrates these new requirements with the original NPRM and lays out a process by which significant safety benefits can be achieved. This SNPRM does this through a focus on the requirements of the Act, an effort to address or partially address 28 NTSB recommendations, and adjustments to the original NPRM based upon public comment. The result is a vision for enhanced certificate holder training that builds on the strengths in the current regulations and guidance and defines a path for making that training more effective. The key features of the SNPRM include: • Enhancing training programs by requiring the use of flight simulation training devices (FSTD) for flight crewmembers; • Addressing National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations regarding crewmember training; • Realigning the recurrent training and evaluation interval to 9 months for both pilots in command (PICs) and second in command (SICs) that results in an equivalent level of training for both. SICs would now receive twice the amount of FSTD time over a 36 month training cycle as they receive today; • Focusing on the value of training and evaluation in a complete flightcrew environment through this realignment, which would increase the likelihood that PICs and SICs who need recurrent training would train together; • Providing a clear definition of the tasks required to train and evaluate pilots in part 121 operations during the 36-month recurrent training cycle while maintaining flexibility for the certificate holder; • Clarifying the minimal impact on certificate holders training under an Advanced Qualification Program (AQP). The FAA estimated cost of this proposed rule over the 10-year analysis interval is $391.9 million, $199.1 million at a seven percent present value, and $290.3 million at a three percent present value. The estimated potential quantified safety benefits over the 10-year analysis interval is $445.1 million, $222.9 million at a seven percent present value, and $327.5 million at a three percent present value. The following table shows the benefit and cost results. EP20MY11.000 In addition, the following tables show a comparison of crewmember and aircraft dispatcher training hours. Comparison of Current and Proposed Recurrent Job Performance Training Hours for PICs and SICs Over a 36-Month Training Cycle Current rule PIC (hours) SIC (hours) SNPRM PIC (hours) SIC (hours) 6 months 4 4 6 6 12 months 4 ″ 18 months 4 4 6 6 24 months 4 ″ 6 6 30 months 4 4 6 6 36 months 4 ″ 24 12 24 24 EP20MY11.001 II. Background A. Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) On January 12, 2009, the FAA published an NPRM (74 FR 1280), proposing to amend the regulations for crewmember and aircraft dispatcher training programs in domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. The primary purpose of the NPRM was to establish new requirements for traditional air carrier training programs to ensure that safety-critical training and evaluation is provided. The secondary purpose of the NPRM was to reorganize, simplify and recodify all rule language relating to crewmember and aircraft dispatcher qualification and training requirements in subparts N, O, and P of part 121, into subparts BB and CC of part 121. The proposed changes sought to make a significant contribution to the FAA's accident reduction goal by improving performance and reducing human error among flightcrew members, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers. These changes included: • Training and evaluating flightcrew members in a complete flight crew environment; • Requiring Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) to be administered to flightcrew members in a full flight simulator (FFS) during recurrent training; • Requiring the use of qualified FSTD for training and evaluating flightcrew members; • Requiring special hazard training for flightcrew members, such as loss of control and CFIT; and • Requiring additional training and practice in the use of CRM skills; • Requiring flight attendants to complete “hands on” performance drills every 12 months using emergency equipment and procedures; • Requiring trained and qualified flight attendant ground instructors and evaluators; • Standardizing the training and experience requirements for check dispatchers and dispatcher instructors; • Implementing supervised operating experience (SOE) requirements for aircraft dispatchers; • Establishing requalification training and evaluation for crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers; • Requiring a CAP for certificate holders. In addition to these requirements, the FAA also proposed to reformat existing subparts N, O, and P, into subparts BB and CC. Subpart BB addresses the qualification standards and training and evaluation requirements for flightcrew members and flight attendants currently in subparts N, O, and P, as well as appendices E, F, and H. Subpart CC addresses the qualification standards and training and evaluation requirements for aircraft dispatchers and other operations personnel currently in subparts N and P. The FAA also proposed to establish four Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) Appendices: Pilots, appendix Q; Flight Engineers, appendix R; Flight Attendants, appendix S; and Aircraft Dispatchers, appendix T. These appendices contained the minimum training and evaluation standards as well as procedures for crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers to become qualified and maintain qualification. In each QPS appendix, the material was separated into two sections: “QPS Requirements,” which were regulatory and in addition to the requirements in part 121, and “QPS Information,” which contained advisory material and explained methods of compliance with the regulatory requirements of subparts BB and CC, as well as the QPS requirements sections. As proposed in the NPRM, each training program curriculum would consist of categories of training (referred to as curriculum categories in the SNPRM) related to the individual's level of qualification experience. These categories of training addressed first time qualification for a certificate holder, first time qualification in type, configuration differences within type or series, maintaining and regaining qualification, and changes in operation. These categories of training included new hire, initial, transition, conversion (full and core), upgrade (full and core), emergency, differences, recurrent, requalification, and special. For these curriculum categories, the NPRM established minimum programmed hours and specific task requirements for both academic and job performance training and evaluation. Academic training and evaluation, commonly referred to as ground training, provides students with the required knowledge and cognitive skills necessary to perform the tasks required for the crewmember duty position or training or evaluation duty position. This training may be completed in either a classroom setting or through distance learning. 2 Job performance training and evaluation provides students with the practical, hands-on experience of integrating knowledge and skills and learning the related motor skills necessary to perform the job. The FAA also proposed revising manual requirements and requiring separate approvals of the flightcrew member, flight attendant, and aircraft dispatcher operating manuals. 2 The FAA has defined distance learning in FAA guidance as “learning that is accomplished by any training method not including an instructor and a gathering of trainees collocated in a traditional classroom”. The comment period for the NPRM was originally scheduled to close on May 12, 2009. In response to requests, the FAA issued a notice (74 FR 17910, April 20, 2009) extending the comment period until August 10, 2009. B. Summary of Comments The FAA received approximately 150 comments in response to the NPRM (with approximately 3,000 pages of detailed comments). The issues raised by commenters are discussed in more detail later in this document under the heading “Discussion of Significant Issues.” Commenters included industry organizations, unions, individual airlines, aircraft manufacturers, the NTSB, and individual members of the public. Many commenters, including Air Transport Association of America (ATA), Regional Airline Association (RAA), and individual airlines, raised the following general concerns with the NPRM: • The FAA understated the impact of the NPRM on air carriers conducting training under an approved AQP. • The FAA underestimated the number of FSTD periods required to meet flightcrew member training and evaluation requirements. • The FAA did not adequately consider the impact of requiring a full crew for flightcrew member training and evaluation. Several unions representing pilots and flight attendants, and a professional organization representing dispatchers, generally supported most of the NPRM, although all submitted specific recommendations for change or clarification. In addition, the NTSB generally supported the NPRM. In its comments, the NTSB listed 13 open safety recommendations related to crewmember training and included an explanation of whether the NPRM addressed each of them. 3 3 NTSB recommendations A-95-124, A-96-120, A-07-44, A-08-16, and A-08-17 also include operations conducted under part 135 or operations conducted under part 91, subpart K. Although the NPRM and SNPRM address NTSB recommendations for part 121 operators, the NPRM and SNPRM would not address these recommendations for part 135 operations or part 91, subpart K operations. C. Need for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) Upon review of the comments, the FAA identified the following major issues that were not adequately addressed in the NPRM: the impact of the proposed rule on air carriers conducting training under an approved AQP; modification of training program requirements for flightcrew members based on an air carrier's operation of aircraft with similar flight handling characteristics; certificated aircraft dispatchers for certificate holders conducting supplemental operations; deviation authority to allow contract aircraft dispatchers; and training requirements for other operations personnel. Furthermore, the FAA determined that additional data and clarification was necessary regarding the development of the minimum programmed hours for curriculum categories and flightcrew member job performance task requirements for the initial and recurrent curriculum categories', the proposed frequency for conducting training; the level of FSTD required to meet the proposed training program requirements', and the interim requirements for air carriers transitioning from the requirements of subparts N, O, and P to the requirements of subparts BB and CC. In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 was enacted on August 1, 2010. See Public Law 111-216, §§ 208, 209. Under this Act, Congress has mandated that the FAA issue a final rule with respect to this proposal within 14 months after the date of the enactment of the Act. Congress also has required the FAA to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive ground training and flight training in the recognition and avoidance of stalls, and recovery from stall, and recognition and avoidance of upset of an aircraft, as well as the proper techniques to recover from upset. The Act also prescribes the development of remedial training programs for flightcrew members who have demonstrated performance deficiencies or experienced failures in the training environment. The FAA has included these requirements in the SNPRM. The FAA is providing the public an opportunity to comment on these additional requirements, as well as other changes from the NPRM. Because of the substantive changes and reorganization of the NPRM, the FAA is publishing the rulemaking proposal in its entirety in this SNPRM. These changes are discussed below. To facilitate review, the FAA has provided a distribution and derivation table in the docket, listing the current rule requirements, the sections as proposed in the NPRM, and where those requirements appear in the SNPRM. D. General Overview of SNPRM This section provides a summary of the SNPRM and offers further explanation for the need for the proposed safety improvements. It also clarifies the impact of the proposal on air carriers conducting training under an approved AQP, as well as the interim requirements for operators transitioning from the training program requirements of existing subparts N, O and P to subparts BB and CC. The FAA has retained the structure of the rule as proposed in the NPRM, with minor changes. Each air carrier that currently trains under the requirements of subparts N, O, and P rather than through an approved AQP would be required to have an approved training program that meets the standards set forth in subparts BB and CC. As discussed later in this document, based on the FAA's analysis of six existing AQP carriers, on average, an AQP carrier may expect to add 5-6 flightcrew member training or evaluation tasks to its curriculum, assuming the carrier has not obtained approval of alternative means of compliance for the proposed tasks in subpart BB that are not currently addressed. The requirements for qualification, service and use of pilots, flight engineers, and flight attendants (including the training program requirements for each population) are set forth in subpart BB and appendices Q, R, and S. The requirements for the qualification, service, and use of aircraft dispatchers (including the training program requirements) and the training requirements for other operations personnel, are set forth in subpart CC and appendix T. The training program must include the task requirements that pertain to each certificate holder's particular operations for academic and job performance training and evaluation for the following curriculum categories: new hire, initial, transition, conversion, upgrade, emergency, differences, recurrent, requalification, and special. The task requirements for each air carrier would vary depending on the air carrier's particular operations. The academic and job performance training and evaluation tasks for these curriculum categories are set forth in the QPS appendix specific to each population. In addition to the curriculum categories, each training program must also include the personnel, facilities, equipment, and other resources used to meet the training requirements, as further outlined in subparts BB and CC. In the SNPRM, the FAA made one significant format change regarding the QPS appendices. Several commenters stated that including guidance information with the regulatory requirements made it difficult to determine which provisions in the appendices were required. To eliminate this confusion, the FAA has removed all of the non-regulatory informational sections from the QPS appendices and placed this guidance material in the following draft advisory circulars (ACs): Aircraft Dispatcher Training and Evaluation, Flight Attendant Training and Evaluation, and Flightcrew Member Training and Evaluation. In addition, the FAA also revised AC 120-53A, Guidance for Conducting and Use of Flight Standardization Board Evaluations, to address the new process set forth in the SNPRM for certificate holders seeking modification of their training programs based on operation of aircraft with similar flight handling characteristics, or as otherwise referred to in the SNPRM, related aircraft. These draft ACs are available for review in the docket. E. Basis for the Rulemaking The safety need for this rulemaking is based on a review of accidents involving U.S. certificate holders required to train under part 121, NTSB recommendations regarding training requirements, and the resulting need to codify existing recommended practices contained in FAA guidance material that represent current industry practices. The FAA received several comments regarding the basis for the NPRM and this section provides additional clarification. As discussed in the NPRM, the leading causes of fatal accidents for U.S. air carriers over the last 20 years have been loss of control and CFIT. Human error was also a major factor in many of the accidents during this time period. This was most recently evidenced in the Colgan Air crash that occurred on February 12, 2009, when the pilot lost control of the aircraft after failing to follow appropriate procedures, resulting in the death of 45 passengers, two flight attendants, both pilots, and an individual on the ground. This rulemaking is necessary to address the training inadequacies the FAA identified in its accident analysis, as well as the multiple NTSB recommendations resulting from these accidents. In the NPRM, the FAA identified 169 accidents that occurred from 1985 to 2004 that could have been mitigated if the proposed enhanced training requirements had been in effect at the time of those accidents. Several commenters raised questions regarding whether this accident analysis included air carriers training under an approved AQP or accidents that had already been accounted for by other rulemaking actions. As a result of these comments, the FAA conducted a new accident analysis for the SNPRM. In this analysis, the FAA identified 178 accidents that occurred between 1988 and 2009 that were the result of inadequate training, incomplete operating manuals, and inadequate training standards and operating procedures. These accidents resulted in 492 fatalities, 196 serious injuries, and 615 minor injuries. This accident analysis does not include accidents by operators training under an approved AQP, or any accident that occurred while an air carrier was operating under the requirements of part 135. A detailed description of this analysis, and how it was conducted, is provided in section III.B.2 of the regulatory evaluation that is available for review in the docket. The NTSB investigation reports of these accidents revealed, among other issues, the following areas of training inadequacies: Recovery from stall, active pilot monitoring skills, effective CRM, CFIT, operations in icing conditions, contaminated runways, upset recovery and recognition, and special hazards training. The NTSB often noted that these issues were compounded further by incomplete manuals and inadequate standards and operating procedures. These accidents resulted in the NTSB issuing several recommendations for training program requirements. The changes proposed in the NPRM and SNPRM incorporate the applicable sections relevant to training from the following NTSB recommendations: • Crewmember Resource Management (CRM) training (Recommendations A-88-71 and A-94-96); • Flight attendant training (Recommendations A-92-67, A-92-70, A-92-71, A-92-74, and A-92-77); • Traffic Collision and Avoidance System Resolution Advisory (TCAS RA) training (Recommendation A-93-46); • Use of simulators to conduct LOFT (Recommendations A-94-191 through 194); • Training of flightcrews to respond to sudden, unusual or unexpected aircraft upsets (Recommendation A-96-120); • Training of crewmembers to respond to in-flight fires (Recommendations A-01-83 through A-01-85); • Aircraft pressurization on the ground while the ground air conditioning source is supplying conditioned (cooled or heated) air to the cabin (Recommendation A-07-96); • Monitoring of exit availability on the ground after a significant event to help expedite and emergency evacuation (Recommendation A-09-26); • Communication and coordination between Flight Crewmembers and Flight Attendants regarding emergency and unusual situations (Recommendation A-09-27); • Pilot monitoring duties (Recommendation A-10-10); • Requirements for flightcrew member academic training regarding leadership (Recommendations A-10-13, A-10-14, and A-10-15); • Pilot recordkeeping requirements regarding training performance (Recommendations A-10-17 and A-10-18); • Develop and implement procedures to establish airspeed reference (Recommendation A-10-21); and • Develop and conduct stall recovery training and provide stick pusher familiarization training for pilots of stick-pusher equipped aircraft (Recommendations A-10-22 and A-10-23). In the SNPRM, the FAA has included several provisions to respond directly to these NTSB recommendations. For example, the FAA has required training on certain new tasks for flightcrew member and flight attendant job performance and academic training. In addition, the FAA has enhanced the CRM training requirements, including leadership and command training for flightcrew members and requiring CRM training in initial, upgrade, and recurrent for flightcrew members. In addition to addressing the problems revealed in the FAA's accident analysis and NTSB recommendations, this rulemaking is also necessary to codify existing guidance material now contained in FAA Order 8900.1 (Sept. 13, 2007). 4 This Order is available for review at http://fsims.avs.faa.gov/fsims/fsims.nsf. This order contains the primary guidance for FAA inspectors conducting oversight of air carriers. In drafting the proposed requirements for the NPRM and SNPRM, especially with regard to the minimum programmed hour requirements for curriculum categories, the FAA reviewed the sections in the Order pertaining to training and proposed to codify some of these recommended practices for all air carriers. 4 This guidance material was previously contained in FAA Orders 8400 and was consolidated into FAA Order 8900.1. F. Impact of SNPRM on AQP Operators This rulemaking principally affects air carriers training in accordance with the provisions of current subparts N, O, and P. Rather than train under the standards in subparts N, O, and P, an air carrier may elect to train under an approved AQP established in accordance with the provisions in subpart Y of part 121. AQP is an alternative method for developing training and testing materials for pilots, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers based on instructional systems design, advanced simulation equipment, and comprehensive data analysis to continuously validate curriculums. The NPRM and the SNPRM contain a number of AQP-based requirements, such as crew-oriented, scenario-based training, and mandated use of FSTDs. As noted in the NPRM, however, the FAA believed that current AQP training programs already met the safety improvements that were proposed in the NPRM, and thus air carriers training under an approved AQP would not be affected by the proposed rule. For this reason, the FAA originally estimated that the proposed revisions to subpart N and O would have minimal to no impact on air carriers currently operating under an approved AQP curriculum. Upon review of the NPRM, some commenters suggested that the FAA require AQP for everyone, while others suggested that the proposed revisions to the training requirements would require significant revision to their approved AQP. Although the FAA considers AQP to be an effective voluntary alternative for compliance with minimum training and qualification requirements, the FAA does not believe that it is appropriate to require all air carriers to train under AQP. As stated in the AQP final rule, the FAA recognized, and continues to recognize, that AQP may not be appropriate for every certificate holder. The AQP is a voluntary program established to allow a greater degree of regulatory flexibility in the approval of innovative training programs. Based on a documented analysis of operational requirements, a certificate holder under AQP may propose to depart from the traditional practices with respect to what, how, when, and where training and testing is conducted. Detailed AQP documentation requirements, data collection, and analysis provide the FAA and the operator with the tools necessary to adequately monitor and administer an AQP. See 70 FR 54810, 54811 (Sept. 16, 2005). The FAA recognizes that some air carriers may not wish to incur the costs associated with an AQP. Such costs include additional personnel and management infrastructure to develop and facilitate the required data collection, analysis and application required under AQP. Furthermore, some air carriers may prefer the structured requirements of a traditional program to the analytically-driven AQP training program. Other air carriers that use contract training facilities may not find AQP to be a suitable alternative to traditional training requirements. The FAA also acknowledges that to get the most benefit from AQP data collection, a stable work force and route structure is necessary. Therefore, for those air carriers that have a higher turnover in their pilot ranks or conduct supplemental operations where the routes may vary, AQP may not be appropriate. Accordingly, in the SNPRM, the FAA is not proposing to require all certificate holders to operate under the AQP requirements in subpart Y of part 121. To determine the impact of the proposed rule on operators training under an approved AQP, the FAA conducted an analysis of six air carriers that are representative of those currently operating under an approved AQP. See FAA Technical Report, Sec.III, p. 12, App. B. The purpose of the analysis was to identify where the existing AQP pilot flight training curriculums for the representative fleets and operators (a) complied with the NPRM requirement, (b) had AQP-approved alternatives in place, or (c) did not address the NPRM requirement. For this analysis, the FAA used the criteria presently employed for AQP approvals. In addition to examining AQP curriculum content against the NPRM, the average AQP planned hours for each of the target curriculums were compared to the time required to accomplish the current requirements under part 121 appendices E and F and the time required to accomplish the proposed requirements under the NPRM. The FAA then examined the six carriers' programs to determine the time differences between the current AQP curriculums and the tasks proposed in the NPRM that were not currently addressed in those curriculums. Although the FAA recognizes that AQP carriers may propose alternative means of compliance for those tasks, for the purposes of this analysis, the FAA did not make any assumptions regarding any alternative proposals for those NPRM tasks not currently addressed in existing AQPs. The average amount of time required for accomplishing this analysis for each air carrier was 30 hours per fleet. For the results of these analyses, see Table 6 in the FAA Technical Report. Tables for all six AQP carriers are included in appendix B of the FAA Technical Report and summarized in Table 8. The tables in appendix B and the excerpt in Table 7 show the tasks in the proposed rule that presently have no approved AQP alternative method of compliance. Based on the FAA's analysis of six existing AQP carriers, on average, an AQP carrier may expect to add 5-6 tasks to its curriculum, assuming the carrier has not obtained approval of alternative means of compliance for the proposed tasks in subpart BB that are not currently addressed. Based on an estimate that each task may take anywhere from 2 to 10 minutes to complete, a certificate holder conducting training under an AQP may be required to add anywhere from 10-60 minutes of training to its current program. Some of the tasks that may be added by an individual certificate holder training under AQP may not require evaluation ( e.g., during both initial and recurrent curriculum categories the task “slow flight” is incorporated for training but is not subject to evaluation,) and some of the added tasks are incorporated within an existing and over-arching task ( e.g., “use of airport diagrams” or “acquire appropriate clearance before crossing or entering active runways” are already covered under the existing task of “taxi”). The FAA maintains its position in the NPRM that any additional task(s) that may be required of certificate holders training under the AQP would have a minimal, if any, impact on the length of the certificate holder's current approved AQP. In the SNPRM, the FAA has added language in § 121.1202(e) to clarify the impact of the proposal on certificate holders with an approved AQP or those certificate holders applying for approval of an AQP. Certificate holders who have an approved AQP curriculum under subpart Y or have applied for approval of a training program under subpart Y before the effective date of the final rule would be required to submit the Qualification Standards Document required for AQP under 14 CFR 121.909(b)(4). In the SNPRM, proposed § 121.1202(e) would require the certificate holder to indicate in the Qualification Standards Document the specific provisions of subparts BB and CC that would be replaced by the AQP curriculum. The certificate holder would be required to provide a justification and a continuing process approved by the FAA to show how the AQP curriculum would provide an equivalent level of safety for the requirements in subparts BB and CC. The certificate holder would be required to submit the Qualification Standards Document no later than 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. G. Transition From Current Training Program Requirements (§§ 121.1202 and 121.1402) To help transition non-AQP air carriers from the current regulations to the revised requirements for qualification, service, and use of crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers, the FAA proposed in the NPRM to continue the current regulations under subparts N, O, and P, for 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. The effective date of the final rule is 120 days after publication in the Federal Register . Certificate holders who have an approved training program before the effective date of the final rule or have submitted a training program for approval before the effective date of the final rule may comply with existing regulations, subparts BB and CC, or both. The proposed rule permits simultaneous compliance to allow the certificate holder to continue using its approved programs while transitioning to the new requirements. The FAA has maintained these provisions in the SNPRM. On the date the current regulations expire, all certificate holders who are not conducting training under an approved AQP, and all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers who are not trained under an approved AQP, must be in compliance with the requirements of subparts BB and CC of part 121. Therefore, it will be necessary for certificate holders to begin training under subparts BB and CC in sufficient time to ensure that all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers are trained, qualified, and meet the applicable look back provisions of subparts BB and CC before the expiration of the current regulations. Proposed § 121.1202 and § 121.1402 would require certificate holders to submit a transition plan that specifies the transition completion date, which must be before the expiration of the current regulations. For example, during the transition period, the air carrier may decide to train all newly-hired crewmembers in accordance with the proposed rules, while continuing to train existing crewmembers under the current requirements. Individual crewmembers would be required to be fully in compliance with the requirements of the existing regulations or with the proposed regulations. Another example would be when a certificate holder submits a training program for a new aircraft type after the effective date of the rule. The training program developed for this new aircraft type must be in compliance with and approved under proposed subparts BB and CC. However, the certificate holder would be allowed to continue conducting training and evaluation on aircraft in its existing fleet in accordance with the regulations in subparts N, O, and P within the 5-year transition period. A carrier could not “cherry pick” between the two sets of regulations for individual employees. Setting the effective date for 120 days after publication of the final rule and allowing use of the existing regulations for 5 years after this period provides existing certificate holders and the FAA time to smoothly transition to the new requirements. By using this approach, certificate holders seeking FAA approval for a new training program would not have to develop one training program to comply with the old regulations, and then develop another training program to comply with the new regulations. The SNPRM, like the NPRM, proposes that if a new training program is submitted for approval after the rule's effective date, the training program must meet the requirements of subparts BB and CC, as applicable. The FAA does not intend that non-significant modifications that may be proposed to a current training program under the existing regulations would require the certificate holder to initiate development of a training program to comply with subpart BB or CC any earlier than they had planned in accordance with their current business plan. The FAA has included a grandfather provision in proposed subpart BB to allow persons qualified for a crewmember duty position under the current rules to meet the requirements of the proposed rule without having to repeat certain categories of training they have already completed under the current rules. Proposed subpart CC contains a similar grandfather provision for aircraft dispatchers. For example, currently-qualified crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers would not have to repeat basic qualification, new hire, or initial curriculum categories, as applicable. During the transition, § 121.1202(d) states “the lesser qualification requirements apply for that duty position for that operation.” If one crewmember hasn't yet been transitioned to subpart BB and one has, when they are working together on an aircraft, the “lesser” operational requirement may be met. For example, current § 121.455 requires the PIC to have had additional training before the crew lands at a “special airport” but the SNPRM requires both pilots to have had additional training before they land at a “special airport.” If the SIC was still being trained under the current requirements, the SIC would not have the additional training required under the SNPRM, but the airplane could land because the “lesser” operational requirement would be met. The NPRM did not specify when certificate holders must comply with proposed requirements that are outside subparts N, O, and P of part 121. A commenter noted that the time frames specified in §§ 121.400, 121.431, and 121.1202 apply only to subparts N and O of part 121, which do not contain the manual requirements. In the SNPRM, the FAA has clarified the dates of compliance for § 119.65, § 119.67, § 119.69, § 119.71, § 121.9, § 121.125, § 121.126, § 121.133, § 121.134, § 121.135, § 121.136, § 121.392, § 121.465, § 121.536, § 121.537, § 121.540, § 121.683, § 121.684, § 121.689, § 121.690, § 121.711, and § 121.805. III. Discussion of Significant Issues in SNPRM This section provides clarification of major areas of concern raised by commenters, introduces new requirements, and explains the significant revisions of requirements proposed in the NPRM. During the comment period, the FAA received several requests for clarification of the job performance training for flightcrew members, with specific regard to the training and evaluation task requirements and definitions in the NPRM, pilot monitoring skills, minimum programmed hours, frequency of training, availability of simulators as a result of the increased frequency, and the level of FSTD required to complete training. On April 7, 2009, the FAA held a public meeting to provide clarification. During the public meeting, participants from industry questioned the basis for the proposal and requested additional data to support the proposed changes. In the comments received after the public meeting, ATA and individual airlines requested additional information regarding the projected costs of the proposed requirements and how the tasks, based on the task definitions, could be accomplished within the proposed programmed hours. After the close of the comment period, the FAA determined it was necessary to gather additional data regarding (1) the number of simulator sessions, hours, and tasks required to accomplish the proposed flightcrew member training and evaluation requirements for both AQP and non-AQP air carriers; and (2) the impact of the proposed rule on carriers training under an AQP, as set forth in part 121, subpart Y. While the FAA primarily developed the FAA Technical Report to validate the cost and impact of the proposed training and evaluation requirements in the NPRM, throughout the process of developing the FAA Technical Report, the FAA determined that it was necessary to revise and clarify the training and evaluation requirements in the SNPRM. The FAA also held a meeting on December 8, 2009, with ATA and several member airlines to clarify the comments received during the comment period. A summary of this meeting is available for review in the docket. The following provides clarification of the job performance training and evaluation for flightcrew members. A. Flightcrew Member Job Performance Training (Appendices Q and R) 1. Job Performance Task Requirements and Definitions The flightcrew member tasks that must be performed during job performance training and evaluation for the various curriculum categories are set forth in Table 3A of appendices Q and R of the NPRM and SNPRM. In the NPRM, the FAA also provided corresponding definitions for the tasks that provided additional instruction for completion of these tasks. Several commenters questioned the basis for the tasks, the frequency for accomplishing the tasks during recurrent training and evaluation, and how, based on the definitions, the tasks could be accomplished within the proposed minimum programmed hours for the curriculum categories. Upon review of the comments and based on the discussion on December 8, 2009, the FAA, as part of the FAA Technical Report, conducted a comparison analysis of initial and recurrent curriculum categories task requirements for the current requirements and those proposed in Table 3A of appendix Q of the NPRM and SNPRM. The FAA focused on these two curriculum categories because (1) the initial curriculum category contains the largest number of tasks for any curriculum category under both the current rule and the proposed revisions, and (2) the recurrent curriculum category under the NPRM and SNPRM contains the largest cost because each flightcrew member is required to complete task requirements every 9 months. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require 8 hours of training and evaluation for pilots in recurrent job performance training. However, based on the results of the FAA's Technical Report, the FAA believes that all of the recurrent training and evaluation task requirements can be completed in less than the 8 hours set forth in the NPRM. The Actual Simulator Trial conducted as part of the FAA Technical Report demonstrated that the required tasks for a recurrent evaluation could be completed in 3 hours and 29 minutes. With all of the required “every nine month” tasks 5 having been completed during the recurrent evaluation, the FAA believes the requirements for the LOFT session could be accomplished in under 3 hours. In addition, during those recurrent training cycles that include an FFS course of instruction instead of an evaluation, depending on the number of required “every nine month” tasks accomplished during the FFS course of instruction, the FAA believes the LOFT also could be accomplished in 3 hours. 5 See table 3A in appendix Q and appendix R. In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the minimum programmed hours for recurrent training from 8 hours (as proposed in the NPRM) to 6 hours. The FAA has not made a similar change to the programmed hours in the other curriculum categories (initial, transition, and upgrade) because flightcrew members who are newly hired or not yet qualified on the type of aircraft may require more repetition of the assigned tasks to become proficient. As identified in the FAA Technical Report, initial training under the current provisions of subparts N and O require training on 62 job performance tasks for pilots in command (PICs) and 56 job performance tasks for seconds in command (SICs). The NPRM proposed a total of 125 job performance tasks for PIC and SIC initial training. In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the abnormal and emergency procedures tasks, which now results in a total of 94 required tasks for initial training. These 94 job performance tasks are based on a recodification of existing requirements in appendix E and H of part 121, NTSB recommendations, and standard industry practices. The FAA determined the standard industry practices by reviewing existing AQP training programs and non-AQP training programs. See FAA Technical Report, Table 2, p. 7. A detailed review of these training programs is provided in Appendices A and B of the FAA Technical Report. The FAA recognizes that some of the confusion regarding the proposed task requirements was a result of the proposed task definitions in attachment 4 of the Pilot and Flight Engineer QPS appendices. For example, for the task “unannunciated abnormal procedures,” some commenters interpreted the corresponding task definition as requiring training on all unannunciated abnormal procedures. For some aircraft, this might require training on 58 different procedures. This is not what the FAA intended. The proposed definition was intended to allow a certificate holder to select a representative sample to ensure adequate exposure to these unannunciated abnormal procedures. To clarify the intent, the FAA has removed the flightcrew member task definitions and deleted attachment 4 of appendices Q and R. The flightcrew member task definitions serve as more of a guide to certificate holders in tailoring the tasks in Table 3A to the certificate holder's unique operations and are more appropriate as guidance material in the draft Flightcrew Member AC. As a result of deleting all of attachment 4, however, some tasks in Table 3A required further specification and others required consolidation. As a result of this consolidation and reorganization, the FAA has adjusted the number of overall tasks from the current rule to the SNPRM in both initial and recurrent training and evaluation as follows: (1) From 62 tasks for PICs and 56 tasks for SICs to 94 tasks for each in initial training; (2) from 34 tasks for PICs and 32 tasks for SICs to 54 tasks for each in initial evaluation; (3) from 36 tasks for PICs and 35 tasks for SICs to approximately 52 tasks (assuming equal distribution of those tasks that are required every 36 months) for each 9-month recurrent cycle that does not contain a recurrent evaluation and approximately 12 tasks (assuming equal distribution) for each recurrent cycle that contains a recurrent evaluation; and (4) 34 tasks for PICs and 32 tasks for SICs to 54 tasks for each in recurrent evaluation. See FAA Technical Report, Sec. III, Comparison of Current Rule, NPRM and SNPRM, Table 2, p. 7 (Apr. 5, 2010). The FAA clarified, modified, and added tasks for all curriculum categories to ensure that pilots develop the necessary skills to properly and safely perform routine functions. These include landing on contaminated runways, landing from a non-precision approach, and performing visual approaches and landings without the aid of electronic or other glide path information. In addition, the FAA consolidated line environments, addressed in section 13 of Table 3A of the NPRM, into other sections of Table 3A of the SNPRM to specifically require maneuvers in a particular environment. These revisions were necessary to eliminate confusion regarding the required tasks in Table 3A. The following provides a detailed explanation for the development of some of the significant proposed task requirements, as well as the task requirements prescribed by Public Law 111-216. In developing the tasks in Table 3A, the FAA recognized that loss of control is a major factor in aviation accidents involving a fatality. The FAA's proposal to revise requirements for recovery from approach to stall training in the NPRM would have addressed some of the causal factors in accidents where loss of control was identified. While the tasks currently required under appendices E and F for “recoveries from approaches to stall” remain a viable part of the training syllabus, the SNPRM now describes a requirement to have pilots newly qualifying on an airplane perform recoveries from a complete stall. There are three scenarios in which stalls generally occur: clean configuration (table 3A, task 5.2.1), takeoff and maneuvering configuration (table 3A, task 5.2.2), and landing configuration (table 3A, task 5.2.3). Under the proposed tasks, the flightcrew member would be required to complete two recoveries from stall for each scenario for initial and transition training, and one recovery from stall in each scenario for conversion, upgrade, and all phases of requalification training. For recurrent training and all evaluations, the flightcrew member would be required to complete one recovery from stall from one of the three scenarios. For flightcrew members operating aircraft equipped with stick-pusher, the recoveries from stall must be completed by going through stick-pusher release, regardless of the scenario selected. In addition to the job performance training for recovery from stall, the FAA also has proposed academic training. Under Table 2A, section (d)(10), air carriers will be required to provide training for special hazards, which includes recovery from a stall in the three scenarios. These proposed changes are supported by the NTSB final report (NTSB/AAR-10/01) on the Colgan Air accident of February 12, 2009, and respond to the training requirements in Public Law 111-216, § 208(a)(1)(A) (Aug. 1, 2010). The FAA also added tasks to ensure flightcrew members understand the performance and handling qualities of the aircraft they are flying. This would ensure that they are prepared to deal with situations such as “jet upsets,” “CFIT,” and “icing conditions.” Accordingly, in the SNPRM the FAA added the following tasks to the requirements in Table 3A of the Pilot QPS: task 5.6 “Upset Recognition and Recovery,” for initial and recurrent training and evaluation; task 5.14 “CFIT/Terrain Avoidance,” for initial and recurrent training and evaluation; and task 5.15 “Structural Icing when Airborne,” for initial and recurrent training only. The FAA also added task 5.1 “slow flight,” for initial training, with recurrent training required every 36 months, to provide pilots with an understanding of the performance of the airplane and a “hands-on” exposure to the way the airplane handles at airspeeds that are just above the approach to stall warning. In addition, the FAA is also requiring academic training for these subjects. See Table 2A, (d)(1)-(11). The task requirement, “taxi,” is a current requirement in appendix E of part 121 and, as such, is included in training programs for flightcrew members. Upon review of several accidents, including accidents in August 2006 (NTSB/AAR-07/05, NTSB Recommendation A-07-44) and August 2005 (NTSB Event ID CHI05LA238), the FAA determined that it was necessary to expand this task to include 3 sub-tasks for taxi, which would be treated as separate tasks that must be completed. In the SNPRM, to comply with the task requirement “taxi,” a flightcrew member would be required to complete the sub-tasks “Use of airport diagram (surface movement chart),” “Appropriate clearance before crossing or entering active runways,” and “Observation of all surface movement guidance control markings and lighting.” See AC 120-74A, Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135 Flightcrew Procedures During Taxi Operations and Safety Alert for Operators 06013 and 07003. Although some certificate holders may already address this task requirement at this level of specificity, the FAA has determined that this task must be targeted by all certificate holders to ensure that flightcrew members use available cues and aids to identify the airplane's location on the airport surface during taxi and verify that the airplane is on the correct runway before takeoff. The FAA does not believe the training time required for the accomplishment of these sub-tasks for “taxi” would take any longer than the time required to complete the currently required “taxi” task. See FAA Technical Report, Table 2, p. 7, n. 9. In the SNPRM, the FAA added bounced landing recovery training to the initial training tasks. The FAA is also proposing in the SNPRM that bounced landing recovery training be conducted at least once every 36 months in recurrent training. This task teaches pilots identification of and procedures for bounced landing recovery. The FAA determined this requirement is necessary based on FAA review of accidents that occurred in September 2004 and July 1997. See NTSB Event ID DCA04MA082 (Sept. 19, 2004); NTSB Report AAR-00/02 (July 31, 1997). The NTSB found the probable cause of the September 2004 accident was due to the pilot's over-rotation during a go-around maneuver that was initiated because of a bounced landing. This task requirement also would respond to NTSB recommendations issued after the July 1997 accident (NTSB Rec. A-00-93 and A-00-94), which requested that the FAA develop a training tool and provide a syllabus for simulator training on the execution of stabilized approaches and techniques for avoiding overcontrol and premature derotation during bounced landings. In the SNPRM, the FAA also added task requirements to Table 3A of the flightcrew member QPS appendices for approved low altitude windshear flight training to encompass requirements currently in § 121.409(d). Addressing these tasks in initial and recurrent evaluation would ensure that pilots have developed the necessary skills to recover from a windshear encounter. The FAA determined these requirements were necessary based on a review of an accident that occurred in April 1993, in which the flightcrew failed to recognize, or recognized too late, an inadvertent encounter with an un-announced windshear on final approach. See NTSB Event ID: DEN93FA047. Questions from commenters regarding the pilot job performance tasks and definitions also extend to flight engineers. Table 3A in appendix R for flight engineers also now incorporates the same format and essentially the same tasks as required for pilots. Understanding that the flight engineer is part of the full crew concept that the original NPRM established, training under this concept would require the flight engineer to be exposed to essentially the same tasks as the pilots. However, in this exposure, the flight engineer would have differing responsibilities and performance requirements for each such task than the pilots. Because of this difference, it may appear initially that revised Table 3A in the Flight Engineer QPS describes a dramatic increase in the number of tasks for flight engineer training, but the overall tasks and frequencies for flight engineers remain essentially unchanged from the NPRM. As a result of the FAA accident analysis, further consideration of NTSB recommendations, as well as industry comments regarding the complex nature of the number of requirements and frequency for accomplishing the tasks, the FAA has proposed to increase the frequency of some tasks, reduce the frequency of other tasks, and minimally change the total number of tasks to be addressed in Table 3A. To accomplish this, the FAA has clarified how the training tasks are to be accomplished and has described how to supplement the recurrent curriculum category (specifically the proficiency check requirements) by focusing on the training requirements. This clarification is set forth in the FAA Technical Report, which provides one method of developing a recurrent training and evaluation program that would meet the proposed requirements in the SNPRM. See the FAA Technical Report, Sec. V, p. 18-20, App. C. The FAA continues to propose additional simulator requirements to provide for additional training through the conduct of LOFT and FFS courses of instruction for both pilots and flight engineers. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that an FSTD course of instruction could be conducted in an FFS or Flight Training Device (FTD). Upon further review, the FAA has determined that the tasks proposed in Table 3C of the Pilot QPS could not be accomplished effectively in an FTD. The FAA concluded that the tasks required for an FSTD course of instruction could only be conducted in an FFS. In the SNPRM, the FAA is requiring that the course of instruction be conducted only in an FFS. Therefore, in the SNPRM the FAA has replaced FSTD course of instruction with FFS course of instruction. 2. Pilot Monitoring Requirements (§ 121.1213) Another area of confusion surrounding the flightcrew member job performance task requirements concerned the proposed requirement for evaluating pilot monitoring skills. Several individual airlines commented that the pilot monitoring task would require all of the tasks in Table 3A of the Pilot QPS to be performed twice, once as the pilot flying, and once as the pilot monitoring the operation. This is not the case. The current regulations do not explicitly address pilot monitoring skills. Historically, however, the FAA has commonly referred to this individual as the pilot not flying, and the duties of this individual are currently included in the manual required by § 121.133. Individuals serving as the pilot not flying currently receive training in LOFT and other training scenarios. In 2003, the FAA revised guidance addressing procedures for the pilot not flying, and the term “pilot not flying” was replaced with the term “pilot monitoring.” See AC 120-71A, Standard Operating Procedures for Flight Deck Crewmembers, (February 27, 2003). The NPRM proposed to codify the use of the term “pilot monitoring” to reflect the activities conducted by the pilot who is not actually flying the aircraft or the FSTD. The purpose of using the term “pilot monitoring” is to convey that the pilot monitoring is actively engaged in the safe operation of the aircraft and as such should be trained and evaluated in performing active monitoring skills. In the NPRM and SNPRM, the FAA has not changed the current duties and responsibilities of the pilot monitoring. The FAA has for the first time proposed requiring the evaluation of active pilot monitoring skills. These proposed changes are further supported by the NTSB final report (NTSB/AAR-10/01) on the Colgan Air accident of February 12, 2009. In the report, the NTSB concluded that “the monitoring errors made by the accident flight crew demonstrate the continuing need for specific pilot training on active monitoring skills.” NTSB Rec. AAR-10/01, at p. 94 (Feb. 2, 2010). To meet this requirement, however, the FAA did not intend that each individual task be accomplished twice by each flightcrew member. Because a full crew would be required during training and evaluation, during the accomplishment of any task there would always be a pilot flying and a pilot monitoring, where both are being observed by a check airman (pilot) or flight instructor, which is consistent with AC 120-71A. The NPRM and SNPRM would only require that both pilots be evaluated for the skill they are performing during each task, whether it is a flying skill or a monitoring skill. 3. Frequency of Training and Evaluation for Recurrent Tasks In addition to the questions regarding the Tasks in Table 3A, several commenters questioned the frequency with which the Tasks would be required to be accomplished during recurrent training and evaluation. Recurrent training and evaluation comprises a large portion of an air carrier's training program. Under the NPRM and SNPRM, flightcrew members would be required to complete the assigned recurrent tasks during two simulator sessions every 9 months over the course of a 36-month cycle for the recurrent curriculum category. In the NPRM, the FAA designed Table 3A to require that specific tasks be completed during 9-month, 18-month, and 36-month cycle for recurrent training and evaluation. An unintended consequence of this design was that some tasks appeared to be required during every recurrent training and evaluation simulator period. The FAA did not intend this result for some of the tasks. To clarify the FAA's intent, in the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the frequency for accomplishing the tasks during training and evaluation in Table 3A in appendix Q. The FAA has changed the column titles for recurrent training and evaluation from “Every 9 months,” “Every 18 months,” and “Every 36 months,” to “Every 9 months,” and “At least once every 36 months.” Accordingly, if there is an “x” in the “every 9 months” column, that task must be accomplished once during every 9-month cycle. The FAA notes that recurrent evaluation is required every other 9-month cycle. Therefore, a cycle may encompass either two training events, or a training event and an evaluation event. If a task is designated to be completed “every 9 months,” that task may be completed in either training session but is not required to be completed in both. However, if the cycle includes an evaluation session and there is an “x” in the proficiency check column for that task, the task must be accomplished in the evaluation session. The task can be done again in the training session but is not required to be done in the training session for that 9-month cycle. If there is an “x” in the “At least once every 36 months” column, that task must be accomplished at least once over the 36-month recurrent training and evaluation period. This revision is necessary to provide certificate holders with an opportunity to use simulator time to target critical training tasks unique to their operations. 4. Proposed Baseline and Minimum Programmed Hours (§ 121.1335) In the NPRM, the FAA proposed minimum programmed hours for new hire, initial, full conversion, core conversion, transition, full upgrade, core upgrade and recurrent curriculum categories. As proposed, programmed hours for requalification and differences would be determined by the Administrator, and for the special curriculum category, the hours would be developed by the certificate holder and approved by the Administrator. The programmed hours were based on a review of guidance in FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 19, Sec. 6, para. 3-1230 (Sept. 13, 2007), and the proposed task requirements that would need to be accomplished during the programmed hours. The proposed task requirements resulted in an increase in minimum and baseline programmed hours from the hours noted in the FAA guidance material. The FAA notes that in the NPRM and SNPRM, when a certificate holder initially submits a training program for approval, § 121.1335 states it must have the baseline programmed hours. After a training program has final approval, § 121.1335 allows for a reduction to the minimum hours as specified in the QPSs. Continental generally commented that the curriculum category programmed hours for job performance flight training for flightcrew members in the NPRM do not reflect the actual time it would take to accomplish the job performance tasks in Table 3A. In the SNPRM, these baseline and minimum programmed job performance hours are set forth in Table 1A of the appendix Q in the SNPRM and are as follows: Initial, 36 hours; conversion, 20 hours; transition; 24 hours; upgrade, 20 hours; recurrent, 6 hours every 9 months; requalification, 6 hours for phase I, 20 hours for phase II, and 24 hours for phase III; and the minimum hours for differences training are determined by the FAA. These programmed hours are based on FAA guidance in FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 19, Sec. 6, para. 3-1230 (Sept. 13, 2007) and review of the proposed required tasks in Table 3A. As discussed earlier, the FAA conducted a technical analysis of the time required to accomplish the training and evaluation tasks contained in the current rule, the NPRM, and the SNPRM for initial and recurrent curriculum categories. In this analysis, the FAA concluded that the programmed hours proposed in the NPRM were appropriate. (See FAA Technical Report, Sec. III., Tables 3, 6, pp. 9-11.) Therefore, in the SNPRM the FAA has retained the programmed hours specified in Table 1A of appendix Q, attachment 1, of the Pilot QPS. In regard to initial training and evaluation, the FAA has clarified that the initial job performance training consisting of 36 hours must be conducted independently of the initial evaluation. There is no specified time requirement for the initial evaluation because the time necessary to complete the evaluation is dependent on the tasks that must be accomplished during the evaluation. Because of the addition of the LOFT requirement and the additional tasks in Table 3A, the time necessary to complete initial flight training increased from 20 hours under the current rule to 36 hours in the SNPRM. Furthermore, for requalification programmed hours for flightcrew members, the NPRM did not provide specific hours. In the SNPRM, the FAA has proposed specific programmed hours for the requalification curriculum category. The programmed hours proposed for phases I, II, and III of requalification are based on the programmed hours proposed for recurrent, conversion, and transition curriculum categories respectively. These phases of requalification are appropriate because they provide a graduated increase in training based on the amount of time the individual has been unqualified and thus would ensure that the crewmember is proficient and qualified to serve. In addition, the FAA removed the task requirements described in attachment 4 of the QPS in the NPRM to avoid confusion concerning the definition, number, and frequency of tasks required for initial and recurrent curriculum categories. The FAA believes, based on the analysis in the FAA Technical Report, that the tasks can be performed at the frequency established in Table 3A of appendix Q within the minimum programmed hours set forth in Table 1A of appendix Q. Midwest, American, FedEx, ATA, and UPS commented that programmed hours apply to specific training categories ( e.g., initial, transition) and that programmed hours in each training category can apply to more than one duty position simultaneously, such as when the PIC is completing pilot monitoring tasks and the SIC is completing pilot flying tasks. The commenters questioned whether this practice would be an acceptable means of compliance with the task requirements. To clarify that some task requirements can be accomplished simultaneously by the PIC and SIC, in the SNPRM the FAA has revised Table 3A in the Pilot QPS to identify those tasks that are performed by the PIC and SIC as a crew. These tasks are flight deck inspection, navigation system setup, pushback and powerback, taxi, pre take-off procedures, deicing before takeoff, after landing, contaminated runway operations, traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS), structural icing airborne, and extended operations (ETOPS) Procedures. Based on the increased frequency and the proposed increase in recurrent training and evaluation, many commenters raised concerns regarding the number of simulator periods that would be required to accomplish the job performance tasks for recurrent training and evaluation. The commenters estimated that it would take 22 simulator periods over the course of the 36-month recurrent training and evaluation timeframe to complete all of the required tasks. Although the commenters stated that the task requirements for recurrent training and evaluation in the NPRM would require 22 simulator periods over a 36-month recurrent cycle, during the Actual Simulator Trial discussed in the FAA Technical Report, the PIC and SIC were able to complete 76 of the potential 82 tasks that were proposed in the NPRM for a recurrent evaluation within 3 hours and 29 minutes. See FAA Technical Report, Sec. V, pp 17-20; App C. In addition to the 76 tasks, the PIC completed six more tasks and the SIC completed 5 more tasks within the same simulator session. These additional tasks included: an additional approach to stall procedure; upset recognition and recovery; windshear encounter at takeoff; CFIT avoidance; rejected landing; and additional instrument arrival (PIC only). In the SNPRM, the FAA has proposed to require that these tasks, except for the additional recovery from approach to stall, be accomplished during a recurrent evaluation. As the Actual Simulator Trial demonstrated, all of these tasks were completed in 3 hours and 29 minutes (including a 12-minute break), well within the 4-hour simulator period that is normally allotted to complete a proficiency check. See id. The remaining required recurrent training tasks could be completed during the remaining 31 minutes of simulator time and the additional LOFT or FFS course of instruction simulator session. Using conservative estimates regarding the usage of available simulators, the FAA believes there is an adequate number of simulators and simulator hours available to meet the requirements of the SNPRM. See FAA Technical Report, Sec. V, pp 29-32. The FAA has also conducted an evaluation of the simulator period requirements necessary to complete the remaining tasks identified for recurrent training and evaluation. In Table 3A of appendix Q in the SNPRM, there are a maximum of 54 tasks that would be required during each recurrent evaluation. In addition, there are a maximum of 43 tasks that would be required every 9 months during recurrent training. Attachment 3 of appendix Q in the SNPRM indicates, however, that, when a task is required to be completed “every 9 months,” this requirement is satisfied by the task being completed during the proficiency check during the 9-month cycle when a proficiency check is conducted. Therefore, for example, during the 9- and 27-month cycles, 40 of the 43 tasks required every 9 months would be completed during the required proficiency check. As such, these tasks would not need to be repeated during the accompanying LOFT or FFS course of instruction. When a proficiency check is not conducted, the 43 tasks in the “every 9 months column” must be completed during the two simulator training sessions (LOFT and FFS course of instruction). In addition to these requirements, there are 33 tasks in Table 3A that must be completed “at least once every 36 months.” If the 33 tasks are equally distributed across 36 months (8 simulator sessions), there would be approximately 8 tasks added to each 9-month recurrent cycle (or approximately 4 tasks per simulator session). See FAA Technical Report, Table 16, p. 28. During the Actual Simulator Trial, pilots were able to complete 87 tasks using only 3 hours and 29 minutes. They were able to reduce the simulator time they used by integrating tasks when the combination was a logical occurrence. The FAA also notes that for initial training, the tasks must be completed over a minimum of 36 hours of flight training. For those operators who have established simulator periods of 4 hours duration, to accomplish the training tasks within the 36-hour minimum requirement, nine simulator periods of training would be required (including one simulator period for a LOFT) and one simulator period for the evaluation would be required, for a total of 10 simulator periods. See FAA Technical Report, Sec. III, Table 1, p. 6 (Programmed Hours). 5. Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Requirements (Including Level of FSTD) (§ 121.1345, Table 3B of the Pilot and Flight Engineer QPS) The NPRM proposed, in § 121.1345, to require that all pilot, flight engineer, check pilot, check flight engineer, flight instructor, flight engineer instructor, and Aircrew Program Designee (APD) job performance training and evaluation be completed in a qualified FSTD approved by the carrier's Principal Operations Inspector (POI). However, § 121.1345(b) allowed a certificate holder to request a deviation from the requirement to use FSTDs for training and evaluation, and § 121.1229(a) would permit the use of aircraft for compliance with recency of experience requirements. This is a significant change in current requirements, which only prescribe use of an FSTD for windshear training under § 121.409(d). Current appendix H of part 121 permits air carriers to use simulators for varying amounts of the required training, testing, and checking. Appendix H is a voluntary alternative to training and checking in the airplane. None of the commenters opposed the requirement to complete all job performance training and evaluation in a qualified FSTD that is approved by the POI. In fact, Continental acknowledged that air carriers “are already substantially in compliance” with this proposed requirement. Boeing asserted that there may be times when simulators are not available, yet training and checking needs to be accomplished. Boeing questioned, therefore, whether the proposed rule would allow for training in airplanes. It stated that in these limited situations, training could be accomplished safely in an airplane. The FAA believes it is important to require the use of FSTDs for training. Using FSTDs allows for in-depth training, including the practice of critical emergency procedures, in a safer environment. This proposed requirement also addresses NTSB Recommendations A-94-191 through 194, which state that “training and checking in flight simulators, whether conducted under Part 121 or 135, should be the standard, not the exception.” Furthermore, the FAA has long recognized that the use of simulation in flight training provides an opportunity to train, practice, and demonstrate proficiency in a safe, controlled environment. Returning to the airplane for the training or evaluation of all skill sets has several disadvantages, including significant accident risk, higher costs for insurance and fuel, additional atmospheric pollution, and airport traffic saturation. The FAA emphasizes that the skill sets that are used in simulation must be the same skill sets that would be used when operating the airplane. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that use of simulation must be required for flight training. However, to accommodate the limited circumstance where the only option available is to conduct flight training in an airplane because there is no FSTD available for that airplane or there are not enough FSTDs for the airplane, the FAA has proposed to allow a deviation from the requirement to use FSTDs. In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised § 121.1345(a) to draw attention to the deviation authority in paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) proposes an alternative training program for using an airplane instead of an FSTD or using an airplane in combination with an FSTD, including methods of achieving an acceptable level of safety. RAA was concerned about the time limit for applying for the deviation from the use of FSTDs. The FAA notes that paragraph (b)(1) only establishes a time limit for requesting deviations for certificate holders who have an approved program or have submitted a training program for approval before the effective date of the final rule. Under paragraph (b)(2) there is no time limit on requesting deviations as part of a request for approval of an initial cadre program. The FAA does not intend that the deviation provide a loophole for certificate holders who want to continue training and evaluating in airplanes. Rather, the deviation is designed to accommodate those certificate holders who use airplanes for which there are no FSTDs available ( e.g. DC-6) or who, for extraordinary reasons, do not have access to an FSTD for the aircraft type they operate. FAA believes that options provided under paragraph (b) are appropriate and these requirements have not been changed in the SNPRM. American recommended allowing FSTDs to be used for LOFT rather than requiring an FFS. In the SNPRM, the FAA has retained the requirement that the qualification and recurrent LOFT must be conducted in an FFS because the FAA believes that motion is a necessary element of LOFT. A level A FFS 6 is the first level of FSTD for which a motion system is required. Requiring LOFT in an FFS is consistent with recommendations in AC 120-35C, Line Operational Simulations: Line Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line Operational Evaluation (Sept. 27, 2004). However, in the SNPRM, the FAA has modified Table 3B (Table 3C in the NPRM) to broaden the level of FFS allowed to be used for LOFT. In the NPRM, certificate holders would not have been permitted to use a level A or B FFS for qualification LOFT, or a level A FFS for recurrent LOFT. In the SNPRM, for both qualification and recurrent LOFT, a level A, B, C, or D FFS may be used. Upon review of the task requirements, the FAA determined that, although an FFS was necessary for LOFT, it was unnecessarily restrictive to limit qualification LOFT to levels C or D FFS and to limit recurrent LOFT to levels B, C, or D FFS. As such, the SNPRM proposes to allow the tasks for qualification and recurrent LOFT to be accomplished in levels A, B, C, or D FFSs. 6 FFS levels become more sophisticated as they move up the alphabet. Accordingly, a level B simulator is more complex than a level A simulator. The FAA's determination that an FFS must be used for LOFT is based on the universally recognized conclusion that while both visual and vestibular systems are directly impacted by simulation, the element of these systems that is critical to satisfactory training is motion on-set (or acceleration) cueing. Various studies have shown an increase in pilot performance when they use simulators with motion. See Showalter, T.W.; Parris, B.L., “The Effects Of Motion And G-Seat Cues On Pilot Simulator Performance Of Three Piloting Tasks,” Ames Research Center, Jan 1, 1980 (indicating 40% improvement on yaw performance and Roll performance, engine out on takeoff with use of motion simulators); Parris, B.L.; Cook, A.M., “Effects of visual and motion simulation cueing systems on pilot performance during takeoffs with engine failures,” Ames Research Center, Dec 1, 1978; Hosman, R.J. A.W., & van der Vaart, J.C. “Effects of vestibular and visual motion perception on task performance,” (1981); Heintzman, Richard J. “Determination of Force Cueing Requirements for Tactical Combat Flight Training Devices,” Training Systems Product Group Aeronautical Systems Center Air Force Materiel Command Wright Patterson AFB, February 1997; Gebman, J.R.; Stanley, W.L.; Barbour, A.A.; Berg, R.T.; Birkler, J.L., “Assessing the Benefits and Costs of Motion for C-17 Flight Simulators,” Department of The Air Force, Washington, DC, June 1986. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that LOFT must be conducted in a level A, B, C, or D FFS because the FFS provides the level of motion cueing necessary to ensure proper response in real flight line operations. American also questioned the emphasis on level D FFS in Table 3C “Minimum FSTD Required for Credit,” noting that many of the tasks could be appropriately accomplished in a level C FFS. American suggested revising Table 3C to lower the requirements to accommodate the use of level C FFS. To ensure effective training and evaluation, a pilot needs to experience a certain level of visual and motion cues that accurately replicate the aircraft. Level D FFSs have more accurate sound, visual, and data capabilities than level C FFSs. However, the FAA recognizes if a pilot meets certain experience requirements, a level C FFS can provide effective training and evaluation. In the SNPRM, the FAA has maintained the requirements in the NPRM regarding the use of level C and D simulators in Table 3 B (Table 3 C in the NPRM). However, the FAA has also permitted the use of level C FFSs in certain circumstances. Where a Level D FFS is indicated in Table 3B, a level C FFS may be used to complete the training and proficiency test if the pilot meets specified experience requirements. The FAA believes there are a sufficient number of FFSs available for use by air carriers to meet the proposed requirements of the SNPRM. A detailed discussion of the current availability of FSTDs for use in training and evaluation is available for review in the FAA Technical Report. See FAA Technical Report, sec. V.C., p, 29. As discussed previously, the FAA believes that in light of current flight simulation technology, job performance training must be conducted in the specified level of FFS to ensure that the pilot is trained and evaluated in an environment that accurately replicates the actual aircraft. The FAA, however, is aware that this flight simulation technology is rapidly changing. Therefore, the FAA requests comment on whether the deviation authority proposed in § 121.1345(b) should be expanded to permit certificate holders to apply for a deviation that would allow them to conduct training or evaluation in other FSTDs, provided the certificate holder could demonstrate that training or evaluation in the other FSTDs would provide an equivalent level of safety to the training, evaluation, or qualification provided in the level of device as specified in the QPS. B. Reduction in Programmed Hours and Modification of Training Program Based on Operation of Related Aircraft Current § 121.405(d) and (g) allow for a reduction in programmed hours, subjects, and tasks based on training aids, devices, methods, and procedures listed in the certificate holder's curriculum that increase the quality and effectiveness of the teaching-learning process and the certificate holder's operations, and that address the complexity of the make, model, and series of the aircraft used. One tool that is used in determining whether a reduction in programmed hours may be appropriate for a certificate holder is outlined in AC 120-53A, Guidance for Conducting and Use of Flight Standardization Board Evaluations. When requested by industry, the FAA, through the FAA Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG), has undertaken an analysis of new and derivative aircraft and their associated systems regarding recommendations for training, checking, recency of experience, and operating experience applications. The FAA uses these analyses to develop consistent and practical recommendations for use in developing training, checking, currency, recent experience and certification programs for pilots of transport category aircraft. These recommendations are documented in Flight Standardization Board (FSB) reports for each aircraft and may be used by a certificate holder to develop its training program curriculum. The NPRM did not include these allowances for modification of programmed hours, subjects, and tasks, nor did it incorporate the guidance material in AC 120-53A. The FAA received two comments on this issue. Boeing and Airbus commented that the NPRM did not allow for modification of programmed hours, subjects, and tasks. They noted that the NPRM incorporated neither the modifications currently allowed under § 121.405(d) and (g), nor the AEG responsibilities regarding recommendations for training, checking, recency of experience, and operating experience applications. The FAA recognizes that due to differences in instrumentation and installed equipment, the skills and knowledge required to operate two aircraft of the same make and model can differ. The range of differences between variations of a basic aircraft model may be very wide or very narrow, given the introduction of computerized guidance systems, electronic instrument displays, and two crewmember flightcrews. Crewmembers trained on one variant of an aircraft may require additional training to safely and efficiently operate other variants of that aircraft. In 1989, FAA established FSBs to begin analyzing the differences in variants of existing aircraft during certification. These analyses are published in a Master Differences Program Requirements (MDPR) document in each FSB report. The MDPR document contains differences and differences training requirements for each variation of aircraft type. An operator preparing a training program may review the MDPR, determine the differences between the aircraft, and develop a training program, subject to FAA approval, that addresses these differences. In certain circumstances, the differences between each variant may be so significant that additional training may be necessary. However, in other cases, technologies in modern aircraft systems and displays may allow different type certificated aircraft to have common flight deck and systems designs, such that minimal differences training may be warranted. In these situations, the FSB has recommended credits for similarities between aircraft, provided the necessary and critical levels of training, checking, currency, and recent experience are maintained. For example, the Boeing 737 family of aircraft, whose variations have encompassed all models from the B-737-100 to the current B-737-NG family, is an example of one “type” of aircraft having diverse configurations and technologies incorporated in the same type certificate. In this case, the FAA has established the minimum differences to maintain an equivalent level of safety by managing the training, checking, currency, and recent experience requirements across this fleet of aircraft. On the other hand, the FAA has determined that it may be appropriate to allow credit based on commonality of systems design and handling characteristics for the Airbus family of aircraft (A320/330/340/380). With the rapid advancement in modern technologies, both in manufacturing techniques and systems design and application, the industry has incorporated products and processes that have redefined the relationships between and within aircraft fleets. For example, the technological development of flight guidance computers has produced “fly-by-wire” control laws embedded in computer software that increasingly determine and control the handling or flight characteristics of an aircraft. The use of such technology can produce aircraft of differing models and aerodynamic airframes, whose handling or flight characteristics are similar. To address these “relationships” among different type certificated aircraft, the FAA proposes adding a new definition for “related aircraft” that applies specifically to flightcrew members in part 121, subpart BB. Related aircraft means any two or more aircraft of the same make for which the FAA has determined that the flight handling characteristics and operating systems of the aircraft are so similar that it may be appropriate to give credit for some of the training, testing, checking, recency of experience, or operating experience conducted in one of the aircraft for the training, testing, checking, recency of experience, or operating experience that would be required for the other aircraft. These credits must be authorized by the FAA. Based on the FAA's experience with evaluating aircraft similarities and dissimilarities regarding training, evaluation, and operations, the FAA is proposing to allow certificate holders to seek related aircraft designation. The process for seeking related aircraft designation is outlined in proposed § 121.1206. Having such a designation may allow certificate holders to take advantage of any similarities that may exist between aircraft in its fleet and make modifications to their training programs, as set forth in § 121.1215, or seek a deviation from the recency and qualification requirements as set forth in § 121.1230. Before a certificate holder may take advantage of the allowances in proposed §§ 121.1215 and 121.1230, it must submit an application for related aircraft designation and obtain approval of that application. The application must be submitted to the Division Manager of the Air Transportation Division of Flight Standards Service through the FAA office responsible for approval of the certificate holder's operations specifications. In creating the related aircraft designation, the FAA recognizes that the range of differences between variations of a basic aircraft model may be very wide or very narrow given the introduction of computerized guidance systems, electronic instrument displays, and two crewmember flightcrews. Crewmembers trained on one variant of an aircraft would likely require additional training to safely and efficiently operate other variants of that aircraft. Consistent with current practice, provided a flightcrew member is able to demonstrate proficiency and complete the training and evaluation requirements set forth in the certificate holder's approved training program, the FAA has not established a limit on the number of aircraft type, or series within a type, that a flightcrew member may be qualified to serve. C. Require Certificated Aircraft Dispatchers for Supplemental Operations In the NPRM, the FAA proposed qualification and training program requirements for all aircraft dispatchers serving in domestic and flag operations, but was silent with regard to supplemental operations. Currently, §§ 121.125 and 121.127 require certificate holders conducting supplemental operations to maintain a flight following center. Supplemental operators are not required to use certificated aircraft dispatchers but may use operations personnel, commonly referred to as flight followers. The certificate holder must be able to show these individuals are able to perform the function of operational control of the aircraft and other job functions as required. The NPRM did not include training requirements for these flight followers. Midwest and Transport Workers Union (TWU) recommended that the FAA require certificated aircraft dispatchers for supplemental operations in order to achieve one level of safety in part 121 operations. Airline Dispatchers Federation (ADF), TWU, Southwest TWU Local 550, and three individuals also suggested that the FAA include training requirements for flight followers in supplemental operations. The Crewmember/Dispatcher Qualification Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) 7 dispatcher working group recommended eliminating the release and operational control rules for supplemental operations and requiring certificated aircraft dispatchers for all operations conducted under part 121. See Recommendation Document “Elimination of Part 121 Supplemental Release and Operational Control Rules” Docket entry FAA-2008-0677-049.1. 7 The FAA established the ARC on May 3, 2004, as a forum for the FAA and the aviation community to discuss crewmember and aircraft dispatcher qualification and training. Under the current provisions, training for flight followers is generally stated in § 119.65(d). This regulation requires that anyone in a position to exercise control of operations must be “qualified through training, experience, and expertise,” to the extent of their responsibilities and have a full understanding with respect to the operation. The FAA notes that as of September 30, 2009, there were 32 supplemental operators. Of these 32 operators, 21 operators employ only certificated aircraft dispatchers to perform flight following services and 8 employ some FAA certificated dispatchers as flight followers, Only three operators do not employ any FAA certificated dispatchers as flight followers. Of the 32 operators, 31 use flight followers located in the United States. These 31 operators employ 332 flight followers, 300 of which are certificated aircraft dispatchers, and 3 more who are presently in the process of obtaining an aircraft dispatcher certificate. A majority of supplemental operators already use aircraft dispatchers as flight followers, recognizing FAA-certificated aircraft dispatchers provide a higher level of safety than non-certificated flight followers. Because flight followers may perform the function of operational control for the Director of Operations without a formal training program, it is necessary to ensure these individuals are qualified and trained to perform this function. The provisions in the SNPRM that would require aircraft dispatchers in supplemental operations are consistent with other FAA initiatives that serve to establish a single level of safety for all commercial airlines. Furthermore, adding these requirements for flight followers would also conform to ICAO Annex 6 section 4.2.1.3 regarding training for people designated with operational control responsibilities. 8 8 ICAO Annex 6 was approved and became effective in November 2006, after the ARC had completed its work. Accordingly, the FAA proposes in this SNPRM to require flight followers to be FAA-certificated aircraft dispatchers, trained and qualified under proposed subpart CC. This action is further supported by the following accident history. On December 28, 2001, a Boeing 747 cargo airplane operated by a part 121 Supplemental Operator had a tail strike on departure from Anchorage, Alaska. The NTSB found prior to departure that the crew failed to account for the weight of the additional fuel and inadvertently used the same performance cards that were used for the previous landing. The NTSB found the probable cause of the accident was inadequate preflight planning/preparation and failure to calculate aircraft weight and balance by the flight crew (NTSB Event ID ANC02LA008). The FAA believes this accident could have been mitigated if the pilots had been required to share joint responsibility with a certificated aircraft dispatcher involved in the preflight planning of this operation. Based on this analysis and in response to comments, the FAA proposes to amend §§ 121.125 and 121.127 to require personnel performing flight following services to meet the qualification and training standards set forth in subpart CC. For the purposes of these new requirements dispatch release and flight release have the same meaning. As a result of requiring certificated aircraft dispatchers in supplemental operations, the FAA recognizes that the shared responsibility of operational control between the PIC and the certificated aircraft dispatcher increases the safety of the flight. With this added layer of safety, the FAA believes it is appropriate to allow supplemental carriers to file domestic flight plans with no alternate airport, under the provisions of § 121.619, as is currently allowed for part 121 domestic operations. This would result in a fuel savings for the supplemental operators because current regulations for supplemental operators require an alternate airport for all of their operations. Therefore, the FAA has included new § 121.536 to allow supplemental operators to comply with domestic alternate airport requirements in § 121.619 when they meet the requirements of §§ 121.125 and 121.127. D. Establish Deviation Authority To Allow Contract Aircraft Dispatcher Dervices (§ 121.1411) In the NPRM, the FAA proposed a new requirement that aircraft dispatchers be employees of the certificate holder. The NPRM would have continued the current FAA policy of prohibiting the use of contract dispatchers. While current regulations do not address the use of contract dispatchers, on March 29, 1984, the FAA issued information to domestic and flag air carriers on “operational responsibilities and use of dispatchers who are not in the employ of the certificate holder,” which stated that “to permit the dispatchers operational control functions and responsibilities to be fulfilled by a person who is not an employee of the certificate holder would, in effect, permit a portion of the certificate holder's operational control responsibilities to be fulfilled by a party other than the certificate holder which is contrary to §§ 121.533(a) and 121.535(a).” This policy thus prohibited the use of contract aircraft dispatchers based on concerns that sharing dispatch services between carriers, by contract or some other arrangement, clouds which carrier really controls the dispatchers and whether the air carrier that uses the dispatch services and dispatchers from the other air carrier really has full operational control of its flights. A September 1988 letter from Robert L. Goodrich, Acting Director, Flight Standards Service, to Marshall S. Filler, attorney for Eastern, also discussed the sharing or contracting of aircraft dispatchers. In closing, Mr. Goodrich concluded permitting contract aircraft dispatchers would be a change in existing policy that would necessitate public notice and comment. He stated further that the FAA would be reluctant to adopt such a radically new policy unilaterally without benefit of comment from interested parties. On November 30, 2000, the New England Deputy Regional Counsel restated the long standing policy against permitting contract dispatchers to Boston-Maine Airways (BM). See Letter to Boston-Maine Airways, from FAA Regional Counsel (New England) (Nov. 30, 2000) (copy available in the docket). The FAA did permit the sharing of aircraft dispatch services in certain limited conditions in Alaska (SFAR 80) from 1997 until March 12, 2001. In establishing the SFAR, the FAA recognized its long-standing policy that each certificate holder subject to § 121.395 have aircraft dispatchers that are employed exclusively by that certificate holder. However, small operations located in remote areas in Alaska had difficulty attracting qualified, certificated aircraft dispatchers to work and live in those areas. Accordingly, the FAA issued the SFAR for a 4-year period to allow these operators, upon authorization by the Administrator, to contract dispatch services, with the expectation that adequate communications facilities would become available in all parts of Alaska and other areas within that time. 62 FR 13255 (Mar. 19, 1997). This SFAR was not renewed and, in fact, terminated on March 12, 2001. In addition to the exception provided for certificate holders in Alaska from 1997 to 2001, current certificate holders conducting supplemental operations are allowed to contract flight following services, provided the certificate holder continues to be responsible for operational control of each flight. See § 121.125(b). The FAA received three comments on this issue. Jeppesen suggested that the employment requirement be removed because the positions of aircraft dispatcher, check dispatcher, and dispatch program designee could be filled by contract employees who could provide an equivalent or higher level of safety as provided by an employee of the certificate holder. TWU International and Southwest TWU 550 supported the employment requirement proposed in the NPRM. Upon review of the comments and further analysis, the FAA is retaining the employment requirement in this SNPRM. The FAA recognizes, however, that supplemental air carriers have been able to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety using contract flight following services as when using only employee flight followers. Based on this experience, the FAA believes that domestic and flag operators may also be able to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety by using contract dispatch services. Accordingly, the SNPRM proposes to allow a deviation from the employment requirement provided that the certificate holder can demonstrate that operational control is maintained. Advances in communications, weather analysis and dissemination, and flight tracking software have improved the operational control capabilities of the aircraft dispatcher. The consolidation of aircraft dispatchers in a centralized location could, under certain conditions, provide availability of experienced aircraft dispatcher personnel. The FAA reiterates that, in using contract aircraft dispatchers, certificate holders must maintain operational control. Accordingly, the FAA has included in the SNPRM deviation authority language in § 121.1411 to allow the use of contract aircraft dispatchers. The proposed deviation to § 121.1411 would place strict conditions and requirements on the certificate holder regarding the issuance of operations specifications that outline operational control. These provisions include: (1) That the certificate holder has at least one certificated aircraft dispatcher who is an employee of the certificate holder and is responsible for managing policies, procedures, training, and qualifications of the contract aircraft dispatchers; (2) that the certificate holder demonstrates an ability to maintain operational control and comply with all requirements of this part; and (3) that the Administrator may, at any time, terminate any grant of deviation authority that allows the use of contract dispatch services. Furthermore, this deviation authority is not based on the size of the certificate holder's operation. Rather, the certificate holder must demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety would be achieved and there would not be an adverse effect on safety as a result of using contract aircraft dispatchers. The FAA also recognizes that the proposed requirements in the SNPRM do not prohibit an aircraft dispatcher from engaging in dispatcher employment for more than one certificate holder. To ensure that aircraft dispatchers are in compliance with the duty time limitations in part 121, the FAA is proposing to amend § 121.465(b) to place responsibility for compliance with duty time limitations on both the certificate holder and the aircraft dispatcher, consistent with the requirements applicable to flightcrew members. This requirement would become effective 120 days after publication of the final rule. The FAA is also amending § 121.711 to extend the communication record requirements to include supplemental operations and clarify the contents of the record required for each en route radio contact between the certificate holder and its pilots. En route for the purposes of communication recording requirements commences at the time the aircraft has pushed back from the gate at the origin station and ends when it arrives at the gate at its destination. In a recent legal interpretation, the FAA determined that, at a minimum, the following information must be contained in the record to comply with the requirements of § 121.711: The date and time of the contact; the flight number; aircraft registration number; approximate position of the aircraft during the contact; call sign; and narrative of the contact. See Legal Interpretation to John S. Duncan, Division Manager, Air Transportation Division, FAA Flight Standards Service, from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (Feb. 2, 2010). The FAA is proposing to add these recordkeeping requirements to § 121.711, effective 120 days from the publication of the final rule. E. Clarify Training Requirements for Other Operations Personnel (§ 121.1475) Current subpart N prescribes the requirements applicable to each certificate holder for establishing and maintaining a training program for crewmembers, aircraft dispatchers, and “other operations personnel.” 14 CFR 121.400(a). However, subpart N does not define who these personnel are, nor does it prescribe any actual training requirements for these personnel. Therefore, the FAA proposed in the NPRM to remove the reference to “other operations personnel.” During the FAA's review of comments regarding training for flight followers, the FAA determined that the requirement for the training of other operations personnel was removed in error. Currently, certificate holders are required to prepare and keep current a manual that flight, ground operations and management personnel may use in conducting operations under part 121. See 14 CFR 121.133, 121.135. That manual must include instructions and information necessary to allow these personnel to perform their duties and responsibilities with a high degree of safety. The requirement for training of “other operations personnel” as outlined in § 121.400(a) is intended to ensure these flight, ground operations, and management personnel receive training regarding their duties and responsibilities as outlined in the manual required under §§ 121.133 and 121.135. To ensure these personnel continue to receive training regarding their safety-related responsibilities and duties as specified in the manual, the FAA has revised proposed §§ 121.1401 and 121.1403 and added § 121.1475 to include training for ground operations and management personnel. The FAA currently tracks this training under the Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) and has determined that it is not necessary to establish specific training program requirements for these individuals other than requiring training on their safety-related duties and responsibilities as outlined in the certificate holder's manual. Approval of this training is not required, but the training must be acceptable to the Administrator. F. Requalification for Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers The current provisions in subparts N, O, and P do not specifically identify how a crewmember or aircraft dispatcher becomes unqualified or how the crewmember can become requalified. Many air carriers have modified their training programs under § 121.401 to include a requalification curriculum, based on existing guidance in FAA Order 8900.1. See FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 19, Sect. 11, para. 3-1361-1369 (flightcrew members); FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 23, Sect. 1, para. 3-1727-1729 (flight attendants); FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 22, Sect. 5, para. 3-1701 (aircraft dispatchers). Without this curriculum, crewmembers and dispatchers who did not complete recurrent training within the required timeframe would be required to complete initial academic and job performance training in order to become requalified. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to codify existing guidance material in FAA Order 8900.1 that permits certificate holders to develop requalification curriculums for crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers. The requalification phases were based on the number of months the person had been unqualified and the number of months since the person last served in a crewmember duty position for the aircraft type. 1. Flightcrew Member Requalification (§ 121.1239) In the NPRM, the FAA did not propose to establish minimum programmed hours for requalification for flightcrew members. Rather, the FAA proposed that these hours would be determined by the Administrator. In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the requalification requirements to clarify the phases of requalification and establish minimum and baseline programmed hours for each phase of requalification. Under the proposed requirements, phase I requalification is triggered if it has been less than 9 months since the end of the flightcrew member's base month; phase II requalification is triggered if it has been 9 months or more, but less than 27 months since the end of the person's base month; and phase III requalification is triggered if it has been 27 months or more since the end of the person's base month. The phases require increasing training requirements depending on the amount of time the crewmember has been unqualified. The programmed hours for phase I requirements are based on recurrent requirements; phase II programmed hour requirements are based on conversion requirements; and phase III programmed hour requirements are based on transition requirements. 9 The phase III requalification requirements are the most extensive because the amount of time that the person has been unqualified is relatively long, and the flightcrew member has lost more proficiency. 9 Conversion is a curriculum category used to qualify a flightcrew member when that person has qualified and served in that crewmember position on the same aircraft type for another certificate holder conducting operations under this part. Transition is a curriculum category used to qualify a flightcrew member when that person has qualified and served in that crewmember position on another aircraft in the same group. In determining the appropriate phases and minimum programmed hours for requalification, the FAA reviewed existing requalification programs for 22 non-AQP air carriers. These requalification programs provided a wide range of phases for requalification based on the time for which pilots had been unqualified. These phases varied from less than 3 months to more than 60 months. Some airlines had only two phases of requalification while others had as many as seven phases. The various phases generally settled into the following four ranges: 0-12 months; 12-36 months; 36-60 months; and more than 60 months. These four divisions also had a wide variety of approved academic training hours and job performance training hours assigned to regain qualification. These approved time requirements ranged from 4 hours of academic training and 2 hours of flight training, to completion of initial training with respect to equipment qualification (120 hours of academic training and 6 to 10 simulator sessions of job performance training.) See FAA Technical Report, appendix F. Based on the wide variance in current requalification programs as evidenced in appendix F in the FAA Technical Report, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to establish a uniform standard for requalification programs. In order to reduce administrative burden and not require additional development of content for requalification, the FAA proposes requiring that flightcrew members who enter phase I requalification complete the recurrent academic and job performance training and evaluation to become qualified. For flightcrew members entering phase II requalification, flightcrew members would be required to complete the academic and job performance training and evaluation for conversion to become qualified; and flightcrew members entering phase III requalification would be required to complete the academic and job performance training and evaluation requirements for transition to become qualified. Thus, the minimum programmed hours for the phases of requalification in Table 1A mirror the minimum programmed hours for these curriculum categories. These phases and hours reflect an appropriate graduated increase in training and evaluation based on the amount of time the flightcrew member has been unqualified. To ensure standardization, the FAA also removed language in § 121.1239 stating that the Administrator would determine programmed hours and revised Table 1A of the QPS documents to provide these specific programmed hours. In addition, ATA, American, and Southwest suggested that the certificate holder should control scheduling the beginning date for requalification training. They stated that there might be some circumstances, beyond the control of the certificate holder, which may result in training not being completed within the 9-month time frame. In such cases, the commenters asserted that as long as the training occurs within the 30-day window, continuity of training would be maintained. Commenters also stated that any time requalification training is conducted, the flightcrew member's base month should be changed to align with current industry practice. The FAA wants to ensure consistency regarding the requalification training requirements based on the length of time a flightcrew member has been unq [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2011-10554. Public record. Not legal advice.