Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations

Federal RegisterJul 15, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61, 121, 135, 141, and 142

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0100; Amdt. Nos. 61-130; 121-365; 135-127; 141-1; 142-9]

RIN 2120-AJ67

Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations

AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action creates new certification and qualification requirements for pilots in air carrier operations. As a result of this action, a second in command (first officer) in domestic, flag, and supplemental operations must now hold an airline transport pilot certificate and an airplane type rating for the aircraft to be flown. An airline transport pilot certificate requires that a pilot be 23 years of age and have 1,500 hours total time as a pilot. Pilots with fewer than 1,500 flight hours may qualify for a restricted privileges airline transport pilot certificate beginning at 21 years of age if they are a military-trained pilot, have a bachelor's degree with an aviation major, or have an associate's degree with an aviation major. The restricted privileges airline transport pilot certificate will also be available to pilots with 1,500 flight hours who are at least 21 years of age. This restricted privileges airline transport pilot certificate allows a pilot to serve as second in command in domestic, flag, and supplemental operations not requiring more than two pilot flightcrew members. This rule also retains the second-class medical certification requirement for a second in command in part 121 operations. Pilots serving as an air carrier pilot in command (captain) must have, in addition to an airline transport pilot certificate, at least 1,000 flight hours in air carrier operations. This rule also adds to the eligibility requirements for an airline transport pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an airline transport pilot certificate obtained concurrently with a type rating. To receive an airline transport pilot certificate with a multiengine class rating a pilot must have 50 hours of multiengine flight experience and must have completed a new FAA-approved Airline Transport Pilot Certification Training Program. This new training program will include academic coursework and training in a flight simulation training device. These requirements will ensure that a pilot has the proper qualifications, training, and experience before entering an air carrier environment as a pilot flightcrew member.

DATES:

Effective Date:

July 15, 2013.

This final rule will be effective immediately upon publication in the

Federal Register

. Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides that publication of a rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, except “for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Consistent with section 553(d)(3), and for reasons discussed in Section III.H.6, the FAA finds good cause exists to publish this final rule with an immediate effective date.

Compliance Date:

Unless otherwise noted in the regulatory text, compliance with the provisions of this rule is required by August 1, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions concerning this final rule contact Barbara Adams, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8166; facsimile (202) 267-5299, email

barbara.adams@faa.gov

For legal questions concerning this final rule contact Anne Moore, Office of the Chief Counsel—International Law, Legislation, and Regulations Division, AGC-240, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3123; facsimile (202) 267-7971, email

anne.moore@faa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216) directed the FAA to conduct a rulemaking to improve the qualifications and training for pilots serving in air carrier operations. Specifically, section 216 of the Act focused on the qualifications of air carrier pilots and directed the FAA to issue a rule that would require all pilots serving in part 121 air carrier operations to hold an ATP certificate by August 2, 2013. Section 217 of the Act directed the FAA to amend 14 CFR part 61 to modify ATP certification requirements to prepare a pilot to function effectively in a multipilot (multicrew) environment, in adverse weather conditions, during high altitude operations, and in an air carrier environment, as well as to adhere to the highest professional standards. Section 217 also directed the FAA to ensure pilots have sufficient flight hours in difficult operational conditions that may be encountered in air carrier operations and stated that the minimum total flight hours to be qualified for an ATP certificate shall be at least 1,500 flight hours. Notwithstanding the stated minimum, the section gave the FAA discretion to allow specific academic training courses to be credited toward the 1,500 total flight hours, provided the academic training courses will enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to comply fully with the flight hour requirement.

In addition to the authority provided in the Act, the FAA has authority under Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 to issue rules on aviation safety. This rulemaking is consistent with the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 447—Safety Regulation. Under § 44703, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations for the issuance of airman certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties related to, the position authorized by the certificate. This rulemaking is intended to ensure that flightcrew members have training and qualifications that will enable them to operate aircraft safely. For these reasons, the regulation is within the scope of our authority and is a reasonable and necessary exercise of our statutory obligations.

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used In This Document

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee

ATP Airline Transport Pilot

ATP CTP Airline Transport Pilot Certification Training Program

FFS Full Flight Simulator

FOQ ARC First Officer Qualifications Aviation Rulemaking Committee

FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device

FTD Flight Training Device

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

PIC Pilot in Command (Captain)

R-ATP Restricted Privileges Airline Transport Pilot

SIC Second in Command (First Officer)

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Final Rule

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

B. FAA Accident Analysis and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations

C. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

E. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

F. Related Actions

III. General Discussion of Public Comments and the Final Rule

A. ATP Certificate for All Pilots Operating Under Part 121 (§ 121.436)

B. Medical Certificate (§ 61.23)

C. Aeronautical Experience Requirement in the Class of Airplane for the ATP Certificate Sought (§ 61.159)

D. ATP Certification Training Program for an Airplane Category Multiengine Class Rating or ATP Certificate Obtained Concurrently with an Airplane Type Rating (§ 61.156)

1. Required Training for an ATP Certificate

2. Training Providers

3. Instructor Requirements

a. Operational Experience

b. Instructor Training

c. Type Rating

d. Subject Matter Experts

4. Training Topics and Hours

a. Academic Topics and Hours

b. FSTD Topics

c. Level of FSTD and Hours

5. FAA Knowledge Test for an ATP Certificate

6. Credit Toward Air Carrier Training Programs

7. Additional Course Requirements

E. ATP Certificate with Restricted Privileges (§ 61.160)

1. Public Law and NPRM

2. General Support for and Opposition to an ATP Certificate with Reduced Hours

3. FOQ ARC Recommendation

4. Military Pilots

5. Graduates with a Bachelor's Degree in an Aviation Major

a. Flight Hour Requirement

b. Institutional Accreditation and “Aviation Degree Programs”

c. Cross Country Time for the R-ATP Certificate

d. The role of the institution of higher education in certifying its students

6. Recommendations for Expanding Eligibility for the R-ATP Certificate

a. Graduates with an Associate's degree in an Aviation Major

b. Transfer students

c. Pilots with 1,500 hours who are not yet 23 years old

d. Other Degree Programs

e. Other Approved Training and Specialized Courses

f. Certified Flight Instructors

7. Summary of FAA Decision

F. Aircraft Type Rating for All Pilots Operating Under Part 121 (§ 121.436)

1. Aircraft Type Rating Requirement for Part 121 SICs

2. Compliance Time

3. Aircraft Type Rating Requirement for SICs Outside of Part 121

G. Minimum of 1,000 Hours in Air Carrier Operations to Serve as PIC in Part 121 Operations (§ 121.436)

1. Air Carrier Experience Requirement

2. Part 135 and Part 91, Subpart K Time

3. Military Time

4. Other Time

H. Miscellaneous Issues

1. Pilot Supply

a. Part 121 Pilot Supply

b. Part 135, 141, and 142 Pilot Supply

c. FAA Response

2. Benefits and Cost

3. Alternative Licensing Structure

4. Accident Effectiveness Ratings

5. Considerations for Offering the ATP CTP

6. Administrative Law Issues

7. Miscellaneous Amendments

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

V. Executive Order Determinations

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

I. Overview of Final Rule

This rulemaking modifies requirements for pilots who fly in part 121 air carrier operations. It changes requirements for all pilots seeking an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an ATP certificate obtained concurrently with an airplane type rating. These new requirements will ensure that all pilots entering air carrier operations have a background of training and experience that will allow them to adapt to a complex, multicrew environment in a variety of operating conditions.

Those most affected by these changes will be pilots applying for an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an ATP certificate concurrently with an airplane type rating. The changed requirements will also affect anyone wanting to serve as pilot in command (PIC) in part 121 air carrier operations and anyone wanting to serve as PIC in part 91 subpart K operations or part 135 operations as defined by § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or § 135.243(a)(1).

Those wanting to serve as second in command (SIC) in part 121 air carrier operations will also be affected by this final rule. Certificate holders approved under parts 121, 135, 141, or 142 will be affected if they choose to offer the ATP Certification Training Program (ATP CTP).

These operations currently require the pilot in command to hold an ATP certificate.

A general summary of the previous pilot certification requirements versus the pilot certification requirements as defined by this final rule is included in the following table.

Table 1—How Previous Requirements Are Changed by This Final Rule

Previous requirements

Requirements in final rule

Scenario: (1) Receive an ATP certificate with an airplane category and multiengine class rating

(1) Be at least 23 years old;

(1) Meet all of the previous requirements;

(2) Hold a commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating;

(2) Prior to taking the ATP knowledge test successfully complete an ATP CTP;

and

(3) Pass the ATP knowledge test and practical test; and

(3) have a minimum of 50 hours in class of airplane.

(4) Have at least 1,500 hours total time as a pilot.

(Ref. §§ 61.153, 61.156 and 61.159)

Scenario: (2) Receive an ATP certificate with restricted privileges (restricted to serving as SIC in part 121 operations—multiengine class rating only)

None.

(1) Be at least 21 years old;

(2) Hold a commercial pilot certificate with instrument rating;

(3) Prior to taking the ATP knowledge test successfully complete an ATP CTP;

(4) Pass the ATP knowledge test and practical test; and

(5) Meet the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.160. A pilot may be eligible if he or she was a military-trained pilot; a graduate of a four-year bachelor degree program with an aviation major; a graduate of a two-year associate degree program with an aviation major; or has 1,500 hours total time as a pilot.

(Ref. §§ 61.153 and 61.160)

Scenario: (3) Serve as an SIC (first officer) in part 121 operations

Hold:

(1) An ATP certificate with appropriate aircraft type rating OR—An ATP certificate with restricted privileges and an appropriate aircraft type rating; and

(1) At least a commercial pilot certificate with an appropriate category and class rating;

(2) An instrument rating; and

(2) At least a second-class medical certificate.

(3) At least a second-class medical certificate.

(Ref. §§ 121.436 and 61.23)

Scenario: (4) Serve as SIC in a flag or supplemental operation requiring three or more pilots

Hold:

(1) An ATP certificate with appropriate aircraft type rating; and

(1) An ATP certificate

with appropriate aircraft type rating; and

(2) A first class medical certificate.

(Ref. §§ 121.436 and 61.23)

Scenario: (5) Serve as PIC in part 121 operations

(1) Have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot;

(1) Meet all of the previous requirements; and

(2) Hold an ATP certificate with appropriate aircraft type rating; and

(3) Hold a first class medical certificate.

(2) Have a minimum of 1,000 flight hours in air carrier operations as an SIC in part 121 operations, a PIC in operations under either § 135.243(a)(1) or § 91.1053(a)(2)(i), or any combination of these.

(Ref. § 121.436)

This requirement takes effect after July 31, 2014.

In this scenario a pilot must hold an ATP certificate issued per the requirements of § 61.159. An ATP certificate issued per the reduced flight hours in § 61.160 is not sufficient.

In addition, military PIC time (up to 500 hours) in a multiengine turbine-powered, fixed-wing airplane in an operation requiring more than one pilot may also be credited towards the 1,000 hours.

The costs and benefits of this rule are best described as three major elements—statutory costs, discretionary cost savings, and additional rule provisions, which sum to the total costs and benefits. While the FAA already requires an ATP certificate with 1,500 hours total time as a pilot minimum for part 121 PICs, the statute requirement that SICs in part 121 operations have an ATP certificate is new and will take effect whether or not the FAA issues a regulation. Thus, the costs associated with the requirement for SICs to have an ATP certificate are attributable to the statute, not to this regulation. The FAA exercised its discretion permitted under the statute and reduced the mandated ATP certificate cost by establishing offsetting academic credits. To ensure the intent of increasing safety, the FAA established additional training provisions in the final rule which are justified by expected accident prevention benefits. Table 2 reflects the costs of the ATP certificate requirement for part 121 SICs as well as the discretionary cost savings. In addition, the table shows the expected costs and benefits of the remaining two primary cost drivers of the rule: the aircraft type rating and the ATP CTP.

Table 2—Statutory Costs and Benefits/ Final Rule Cost Savings, Costs, and Benefits

Statute costs

Total cost

($ mil.)

PVcost

($ mil.)

Part 121 ATP Certificate Requirement

$ 6,374.4

$ 2,213.0

Statute benefits

Total benefit

PV benefit

Part 121 ATP Certificate Requirement

No Identifiable Accident Benefits

Discretionary cost savings

Total cost

savings

($ mil.)

PV cost savings

($ mil.)

Academic Training and Experience Credits

$ <2,309.3>

$ <789.8>

Rule additional provision costs

Total cost

($ mil.)

cost

($ mil.)

ATP CTP and Type Rating Total Costs

$ 312.7

$ 138.7

Rule additional provision benefits

Total benefit

($ mil.)

PV benefit

($ mil.)

All Safety Benefits

$ 576.8

$ 251.7

Present value 7 percent discount rate over 10 years.

Part 121 total safety benefits of $292.5 million are greater than part 121 total costs of $280.4 million. Part 135 total safety benefits of $284.3 million are greater than part 135 total costs of $22.4 million. The FAA does not have a quantitative estimate of benefits for part 91, subpart K. The part 91, subpart K operational rules, to include requiring the PIC of a multiengine airplane to hold an ATP certificate, were modeled after the part 135 on-demand operational rules therefore we believe there is a safety benefit due to the similarity of operations.

Total cost

($ mil.)

cost

($ mil.)

Total Cost of Statute Cost + Cost Savings + Rule Cost

$ 4,377.8

$ 1,561.9

Total benefit

($ mil.)

PV benefit

($ mil.)

Total Benefits from Statute + Rule

$ 576.8

$ 251.7

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

On February 12, 2009, a Colgan Air Bombardier DHC-8-400, operating as Continental Connection flight 3407, was on an instrument approach to the Buffalo-Niagara airport in upstate New York. About 5 nautical miles from the airport, the pilot lost control of the airplane. It crashed into a house in Clarence Center, New York, killing everyone aboard and one person on the ground. This accident focused FAA, NTSB, Congressional, and public attention on multiple aspects of pilot qualifications and air carrier training requirements.

The NTSB's investigation revealed that the pilot had not followed appropriate procedures in handling the aircraft. As the plane leveled at an assigned altitude the captain applied power to increase the airspeed, but the increase in power was insufficient. The airplane's flight displays indicated that its airspeed was slowing, but the flightcrew failed to recognize this. The airspeed continued to decrease, resulting in the stick shaker activating, and warning the pilots of a potential aerodynamic stall (insufficient airflow over the wings). The flightcrew's response to the stall warning system was incorrect and the airplane stalled. The flightcrew subsequently lost control of the aircraft resulting in the accident.

The NTSB's final accident report identified a number of safety issues, including improper handling of the airplane, a failure to adhere to sterile cockpit rules, and questions about the adequacy of flightcrew member training and qualifications. The accident raised questions about whether SICs should be held to the same training and flight hour requirements as PICs, and whether a pilot's overall academic training and quality of flight training were as important as the total number of flight hours. The accident also raised questions about pilot professionalism and whether pilots receive sufficient experience in a multicrew environment.

In early 2010, as a response to the Colgan Air accident, the FAA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) entitled “New Pilot Certification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations” (75 FR 6164 (February 8, 2010)), asking for input on current part 121 pilot eligibility, training, and qualification requirements for SICs. In July 2010, as a result of public response to the ANPRM, the FAA chartered the First Officer Qualification Aviation Rulemaking Committee (FOQ ARC) which was comprised of a cross section of the aviation industry.

In August 2010, before the ARC submitted its final recommendations, President Obama signed into law the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216 (August 1, 2010)) (the “Act”). The Act included several specific provisions for modifying ATP certification requirements to prepare air

carrier pilots to operate more safely. Among those provisions was the requirement that by August 2, 2013, all part 121 flightcrew members hold an ATP certificate. Public Law 111-216, section 216(a)(2)(B)(i). The FAA asked the FOQ ARC to consider the provisions of sections 216 and 217 of the Act in developing its final recommendations. Those recommendations were submitted to the FAA in September 2010.

In addition to the FOQ ARC recommendations, the FAA reviewed recent accidents in parts 121 and 135 to find out whether the certification requirements were sufficient to produce pilots who can enter an air carrier environment and train and perform their duties effectively. The accident reports revealed deficiencies in—

• Training in aircraft manual handling skills,

• stall and upset recognition and recovery,

• high altitude operations,

• pilot monitoring skills,

• effective crew resource management,

• pilot leadership, professionalism, and mentoring skills,

• stabilized approaches, and

• operations in icing conditions.

The FAA considered its accident analysis, the FOQ ARC recommendations, and numerous NTSB Safety Recommendations in developing the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations NPRM (77 FR 12374), which published in the

Federal Register

on February 29, 2012. It proposed to amend the FAA's existing requirements to obtain an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating and raise the qualifications of part 121 pilot flightcrew members.

In developing this final rule, the FAA reviewed the requirements set forth in the Act, reconsidered the FOQ ARC recommendations, conducted a new accident analysis,

reviewed NTSB Safety Recommendations,

and considered the public comments to the NPRM. The provisions of this final rule are consistent with the statutory mandates set forth in the Act. The table below outlines the provisions of sections 216 and 217 of the Act and the parts of the final rule that correspond to them.

As a result of modifications to the ATP Certification Training Program and comments made regarding some of the accidents used for benefits in the NPRM the FAA conducted a new accident analysis.

The FAA has placed a document in the docket for this rulemaking that provides greater detail on which aspects of the final rule—in particular which items in the curriculum for the ATP CTP—respond to specific NTSB recommendations. That supplementary material can be found at

www.regulations.gov,

Docket No. FAA-2010-0100.

Table 3—Provisions of Public Law 111-216 and Corresponding Rule Provisions

Public Law 111-216, The Airline Safety Act, Sections 216 & 217

Final rule

1. All part 121 flightcrew members must hold an ATP certificate by August 2, 2013. (216(c))

1. An SIC in part 121 operations must have one of the following:

• ATP certificate

• ATP certificate with restricted privileges (§§ 61.160, 61.167)

2. To be qualified to receive an ATP certificate, an individual shall have sufficient flight hours, as determined by the Administrator, to enable a pilot to function effectively in an air carrier operational environment; and have received flight training, academic training, or operational experience* * *to function effectively in an air carrier operational environment. (217(b))

Minimum number of flight hours shall be at least 1,500 flight hours. (217(c))

A pilot need not fully comply with the flight hours requirement above provided that the pilot has taken specific academic training courses, beyond those listed below, as determined by the Administrator. (217(d))

2. ATP certificate with restricted privileges (§ 61.160).

3. All part 121 flightcrew members must have an appropriate amount of multi-engine flight experience, as determined by the Administrator. (216(a)(2)(B)(ii))

3. (a) 50 hours of aeronautical experience in class of airplane required for an ATP certificate (§ 61.159);

(b) Aircraft type rating for part 121 SICs (§ 121.436(a)(2)); and

4. To be qualified to receive an ATP certificate an individual shall have received flight training, academic training, or operational experience that will prepare a pilot to:

a. function in a multipilot environment;

b. function in adverse weather conditions (icing);

c. function during high altitude operations;

d. adhere to the highest professional standards; and

e. function in an air carrier operational environment. (217(b)(2)(A)-(E))

The total flight hours should include sufficient flight hours in difficult operational conditions. (217(c)(2))

4. ATP CTP (§§ 61.156, 121.410, 135.336, 141.11, 142.54).

5. Prospective flightcrew members must undergo comprehensive pre-employment screening, including an assessment of the skills, aptitudes, airmanship, and suitability * * * for operating in an air carrier operational environment. (216(a)(2))

5. (a) Revised ATP requirements (ATP CTP, increased minimum total time as a pilot, and increased minimum multiengine time);

(b) Aircraft type rating for the aircraft to be flown in part 121 operations (SIC) (§ 121.436(a)(2)); and

B. FAA Accident Analysis and National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations

Human error, as evidenced in the Colgan Air accident, has been a major factor in many of the commercial airline accidents over the past 10 years. The FAA has identified 31 accidents in part 121 air carrier operations and 27 in part 135 commuter and on-demand operations from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2010 that could have been prevented if the enhanced ATP qualification standards and part 121 requirements required by this final rule had been in effect. Those accidents resulted in 99 fatalities, 28 serious injuries, and 44 minor injuries. A detailed description of this analysis, and how it was conducted, is provided in Section E of the final regulatory evaluation and can also be found in Docket # FAA-2010-0100.

The NTSB investigated these accidents and the changes enacted in this rule address, at least in part, the following NTSB recommendations—

• Train flightcrews to respond to sudden, unusual, or unexpected aircraft upsets (Recommendations A-96-120, A-04-62, A-07-3, and A-09-113);

• 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);

• Enhance training syllabi for operations in high altitude (Recommendations A-07-1 and A-07-2);

• Review training for unusual and emergency situations in transport-category aircraft to make sure pilots are not trained to use the rudder in ways that could result in dangerous situations (Recommendation A-02-2);

• Require procedures and guidance for airport situational awareness (Recommendation A-07-44);

• Ensure that all carriers include criteria for stabilized approach in their flight manuals and training programs (Recommendations A-01-69 and A-08-18);

• Require operators to provide clear guidance to pilots about landing performance calculations (Recommendations A-07-59 and A-08-41);

• Require Crew Resource Management training (Recommendation A-03-52);

• Require operators to verify that their pilot monitoring duties are consistent with AC 120-71A (Recommendation A-10-10);

• Require flight crewmember academic training in leadership, professionalism, and first officer assertiveness (Recommendation A-10-15 and A-11-39);

• Require training in icing conditions (Recommendation A-07-14 and A-11-47);

• Require hypoxia awareness training (Recommendation A-00-110); and

• Require training in crosswinds with gusts (Recommendations A-10-110 and A-10-111).

C. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)

The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Act included provisions to improve airline safety and pilot training. Specifically, section 216, Flight Crewmember Screening and Qualifications, focused on the qualifications of airline pilots operating under part 121. In section 217, Airline Transport Pilot Certification, the FAA was directed to modify the requirements for an ATP certificate to better prepare pilots for operating in an air carrier environment. Both sections of the Act are addressed in this rulemaking.

Section 216 directs the FAA to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to require:

• Part 121 air carriers to develop and implement means and methods for ensuring flightcrew members have proper qualifications and experience;

• All flightcrew members in part 121 air carrier operations to hold an ATP certificate and to have obtained appropriate multiengine flight experience, as determined by the Administrator by August 2, 2013; and

• Prospective flightcrew members to undergo comprehensive pre-employment screening, including an assessment of the skills, aptitudes, airmanship, and suitability, of each applicant for a position as a flightcrew member in terms of functioning effectively in the air carrier's operational environment.

Section 216 requires the FAA to issue an NPRM by January 28, 2011, and a final rule by August 2, 2012. Independent of any rulemaking proceeding by the FAA, this section directs that all flightcrew members in part 121 air carrier operations must hold an ATP certificate, issued under part 61, by August 2, 2013.

Section 217 of the Act requires the FAA to issue a final rule by August 2, 2013, modifying the requirements for an ATP certificate in part 61. The section establishes minimum requirements for an ATP certificate that include:

• Sufficient flight hours, as determined by the Administrator, to enable a pilot to function effectively in an air carrier operational environment;

• Flight training, academic training, or operational experience that will prepare a pilot to function effectively in a multipilot (multicrew) environment, in adverse weather conditions, during high altitude operations, and in an air carrier environment, as well as to adhere to the highest professional standards; and

• Sufficient flight hours, as determined by the Administrator, in difficult operational conditions that may be encountered by an air carrier to enable a pilot to operate safely in such conditions.

Section 217 also directs that the minimum total flight hours to be qualified for an ATP certificate shall be at least 1,500 flight hours. Notwithstanding the stated minimum, the section permits the Administrator to allow specific academic training courses to be credited toward the 1,500 total flight hours, provided the Administrator determines that specific academic training courses will enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to comply fully with the flight hours requirement.

Section 217 also requires the Administrator to consider the recommendations from an expert panel established under section 209(b) of the Act. That section focuses on part 121 and part 135 training programs. A report to Congress and to the NTSB was submitted on September 23, 2011.

D. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

In the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations NPRM (77 FR 12374), the FAA proposed to amend the existing requirements to obtain an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating and raise the qualifications of part 121 pilot flightcrew members. Specifically the NPRM proposed to—

• Require an ATP certificate for all pilots operating under part 121 consistent with the self-enacting provision in section 216 of the Act.

• Establish an aeronautical experience requirement for 50 hours in the class of airplane for the ATP certificate sought.

• Establish a requirement for all pilots operating under part 121 to obtain an aircraft type rating for the aircraft to be flown. An SIC in a part 121 flag or supplemental operation that requires three or more pilots is required by existing regulations to hold an ATP certificate with an aircraft type rating for the aircraft being flown, but SICs in

other part 121 operations are not required to have it.

• Establish a requirement for pilots seeking an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating or an ATP certificate obtained concurrently with an airplane type rating to complete specific training before taking the ATP knowledge test. The proposed requirements would include academic training and training in a flight simulation training device

(FSTD). A draft advisory circular providing additional guidance as to the content of the course and how to obtain FAA-approval was placed in the docket for comment.

A flight simulation training device (FSTD) incorporates both full flight simulators (FFS) and flight training devices (FTD).

• Based on the discretion provided to the Administrator in section 217 of the Act, permit applicants who have completed “specific academic training courses” to obtain an ATP certificate with fewer than the minimum 1,500 hours.

• Allow specific academic coursework to be credited towards the total flight hours required for an ATP certificate. The proposed alternative hour requirements for a restricted privileges ATP certificate were—

○ 750 hours for a military pilot; and

○ 1,000 hours for a graduate of a four-year baccalaureate aviation-degree program who also received a commercial certificate and instrument rating from an affiliated part 141 pilot school.

• Establish a requirement that a pilot must have 1,000 hours in air carrier operations to serve as PIC in part 121 operations.

The NPRM provided for a 60-day comment period, which ended on April 30, 2012. One request for extension to the comment period was received, but the FAA declined to extend given the industry input it had received from the advanced noticed of proposed rulemaking published in February 2010, as well as the input it received from the FOQ ARC. In addition, the statutory deadlines imposed by the Act did not afford the FAA additional time to receive comments. The FAA received nearly 600 comments posted to the docket. Commenters included major air carriers, regional air carriers, part 135 operators, cargo air carriers, associations and industry groups, colleges and universities, training centers, flight schools, pilots, and private citizens.

E. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

Table 4—Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

Issue

NPRM

Final rule

A. R-ATP certificate

1. Eligible pilots:

○ Military-trained;

○ Graduates of a bachelor's degree program with an aviation major;

2. Proposed minimum age is 21 years; and

3. Proposed minimum cross country time for military pilots is 250 hours; proposed minimum cross country time for graduates with a bachelor's degree is 375 hours.

1. Eligible pilots:

○ Military-trained;

○ Graduates of a bachelor's degree program with an aviation major;

○ Graduates of an associate's degree program with an aviation major;

○ Pilots with 1,500 hours total time as a pilot;

2. Minimum age is 21 years; and

3. Minimum cross country time for all eligible pilots is 200 hours.

B. Aviation Degree Program

A pilot eligible for academic credit towards a restricted privileges ATP certificate needs to have:.

1. Graduated from a four-year aviation-related degree program (bachelor's degree with an aviation major); and

2. Obtained their commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating from an affiliated part 141 pilot school.

1. Established criteria to define what coursework must be completed as part of a bachelor's or associate's degree program with an aviation major;

2. Further defined what an associated part 141 school is;

3. Created a process by which colleges and universities can obtain authority from the FAA to certify their graduates for an R-ATP certificate (new advisory circular 61-School); and

4. More clearly defined what a graduate has to present at the time of the practical test to show eligibility for a restricted privileges ATP certificate.

C. ATP CTP

1. Academic training: 24 hours;

2. FSTD training: 16 hours

○ Level C or higher FFS: 8 hours;

○ Level 4 or higher FTD: 8 hours; and

3. Draft advisory circular.

1. Academic training: 30 hours;

2. FSTD training: 10 hours

○ Level C or higher FFS: 6 hours;

○ Level 4 or higher FTD: 4 hours; and

3. Advisory circular 61-ATP.

D. ATP CTP Instructor Requirements

1. Hold an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating;

2. Meet the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.159;

3. Have 2-years of air carrier experience; and

3. Have 2-years of air carrier experience;

4. For training in an FSTD—have an appropriate aircraft type rating which the FSTD represents or have received training in the aircraft type from the certificate holder on those maneuvers they will teach.

4. For training in an FSTD—(a) have an appropriate aircraft type rating which the FSTD represents, (b) have received training in the aircraft type from the certificate holder on those maneuvers they will teach, and (c) received training on data and motion limitations of simulation; and

5. Hold a certified flight instructor certificate or complete training in fundamentals of instruction.

E. Reduction in an air carriers' initial training program for Pilots Who Have Completed the ATP CTP

A principal operations inspector may approve a reduction to an air carrier's initial training program based on material taught by that carrier in the ATP CTP.

A principal operations inspector may approve a reduction to an air carrier's initial training program if the pilot beginning initial training has successfully completed the ATP CTP. The carrier does not have to provide the ATP CTP training to be eligible for a reduction.

F. Medical Certificate

No change proposed to medical requirements in § 61.23. Pilots exercising the privileges of an ATP certificate would be required to hold a first-class medical certificate.

Section 61.23 requires only those pilots exercising the PIC privileges of an ATP certificate and SIC privileges in flag and supplemental operations requiring three or more pilots to hold a first-class medical certificate. An SIC in part 121 may continue to hold a second-class medical certificate.

G. FFS Credit Towards 50 hours of Multiengine Aeronautical Experience

10 hours of FFS time that represents a multiengine airplane.

25 hours of FFS training time that represents a multiengine airplane and is part of an approved training program.

H. Time Eligible for the 1,000 hours of Air Carrier Experience

1. All time in part 121 operations;

2. PIC time in § 135.243(a)(1) operations; and

3. PIC time in § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) operations

1. All time in part 121 operations;

2. PIC time in § 135.243(a)(1) operations;

3. PIC time in § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) operations; and

4. Military PIC time in a multiengine turbine-powered, fixed-wing airplane in an operation requiring more than one pilot—up to 500 hours.

F. Related Actions

The Act led to the establishment of ARCs on additional subjects—

• Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership, and Professional Development (Section 206 of the Act)

• Flight Crewmember Training Hours Requirement Review (Section 209 of the Act)

• Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training (Section 208 of the Act)

• Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training (Section 204 of the Act)

The FAA has reviewed the recommendations provided by these ARCs and has initiated two rulemaking projects as a result: (1) Flight Crewmember Mentoring Leadership, and Professional Development; and (2) Revisions to the Qualification and Performance Standards in Part 60.

In addition, on May 20, 2011, the FAA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) proposing to amend the regulations for crewmember and aircraft dispatcher training programs in domestic, flag, and supplemental operations (76 FR 29336). This SNPRM, which was specifically cited in section 209 of the Act, focused solely on part 121 air carrier training program requirements. The comment period for the SNPRM closed on September 19, 2011.

Congress addressed these related topics within discrete sections of the Act, which has resulted in the related rulemaking projects identified. Drafting proposals on related topics simultaneously can give the appearance of overlapping or duplicative requirements. As the final rules are drafted and published to address the discrete sections of the Act, the FAA will minimize any overlapping or duplicative requirements.

The FAA has made regulatory decisions within this rule based upon the best currently available scientific data and information, and is confident the rule incorporates the best available information regarding the relationship between flight hours and types of training. In the future, however, FAA is likely to gather and analyze additional data in this area; for example, through safety outcomes resulting from this rule, and additional information collections associated with other rulemakings. FAA may also consider additional collections of information, and would notify the public of these collections through separate

Federal Register

Notices promulgated under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Further information collected by FAA could be used to inform future analysis.

Because of the likely availability of such data in the future, the FAA may obtain additional empirical evidence relevant to the precise relationship between flight hours and types of training. For example, Phase III of the Pilot Source Study, explained elsewhere in this preamble, suggests areas for further research. The FAA, consistent with its obligations under Executive Order (E.O.) 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (Jan. 18, 2011), and E.O. 13610 on the retrospective review of regulations, will review this evidence and may make modifications as necessary and appropriate to improve the effectiveness of this regulatory program. The FAA will consider whether such changes would be necessary or appropriate, and therefore whether this rulemaking would represent a good candidate for a formal retrospective review under E.O. 13610.

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

A. ATP Certificate for All Pilots Operating Under Part 121 (§ 121.436)

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed requiring that all SICs in part 121 operations hold an ATP certificate by August 2013. This proposal was meant to be consistent with section 216 of the Act, which mandates that within 3 years of enactment (August 2, 2013), all flightcrew members serving in part 121 operations must hold an ATP certificate. At the time the Act was signed into law, PICs in part 121 air carrier operations as well as SICs of a part 121 flag or supplemental operation requiring three or more pilots were already required to hold ATP certificates. All other SICs in part 121 air carrier operations, however, were not required to hold ATP certificates and were permitted to hold an instrument rating and a commercial pilot certificate with the appropriate category and class rating for the aircraft.

The FAA received more than 200 comments both in support of and in opposition to the ATP certification requirement for part 121 pilots. American Eagle Airlines, Inc., citing a lack of an identified safety benefit, specifically suggested grandfathering all incumbent SICs if they have at least 1,000 hours in the type of aircraft they are flying. American Airlines (AAL) suggested a similar grandfathering provision, but only for pilots who have

been an SIC for at least six years, accrued 1,000 hours in aircraft type as an SIC, and attended recurrent training more than three times.

While the FAA has considered and appreciates all of the comments received, the FAA was not given any discretion to allow pilots serving in part 121 operations to hold any certificate other than an ATP certificate. There is no latitude in the Act to permit a pilot with a commercial pilot certificate who is flying in part 121 today to continue flying beyond the date of this self-enacting provision without having obtained an ATP certificate. Accordingly, the FAA has removed the current certification requirements in § 121.437 and added new §§ 121.435 and 121.436. New § 121.435 contains the existing certification requirements for part 121 pilots; they will be in effect until July 31, 2013. After that date, the requirements of § 121.436 will apply.

B. Medical Certificate (§ 61.23)

Medical certificate requirements are determined by the level of pilot certificate that is required for the operation being conducted. Section 61.23 requires a pilot exercising the privileges of an ATP certificate to hold a first-class medical certificate and a pilot exercising the privileges of a commercial pilot certificate to hold at least a second-class medical certificate.

As a result of the statutory requirement for all pilots in part 121 to hold an ATP certificate, UPS and Spartan College sought clarification regarding whether all SICs in part 121 operations would be required to hold a first-class medical certificate and whether the proposed rule would affect existing SICs who hold only second-class medical certificates.

The FAA did not address medical certification requirements in the NPRM or propose any change to the first-class medical certificate requirement in § 61.23. Without a change, the statutory requirement for all part 121 flightcrew members to hold an ATP certificate would require SICs to hold first-class medical certificates after August 1, 2013.

Requiring a first-class medical certificate for all part 121 SICs could potentially remove qualified and experienced SICs who cannot hold a first-class medical certificate from part 121 air carrier operations. It would also impose additional costs on industry, individual pilots, and the FAA that were not reflected in the initial regulatory evaluation.

Rather than impose new requirements without a corresponding safety benefit, the FAA is modifying § 61.23(a)(1), (a)(2), (d)(1), and (d)(2) in the final rule so pilots in part 121 operations exercising SIC privileges (excluding flag or supplemental operations requiring three or more pilots) may continue to hold only a second-class medical certificate. In this regard, the amendment alleviates any increased cost and removes the possibility of inadvertently disqualifying incumbent SICs from part 121 air carrier operations.

A first-class medical certificate must be renewed every 12 months for pilots under age 40 and every six months for pilots age 40 and over. A second-class medical certificate, on the other hand, must be renewed every 12 months for all pilots regardless of age. If first-class medical certificates are required, SICs who are age 40 and over will be required to renew their medical certificates every six months (as opposed to every 12 months for a second-class medical certificate). In addition, electrocardiography (EKG) testing is specifically required under first class medical certificate standards while EKG testing is used on a case-by-case basis for second class medical certificates. The FAA has reviewed part 121 accident and incident data dating back to 2001 and found no accidents or incidents attributable to an SIC with a medical condition that may have been detected by electrocardiography testing.

C. Aeronautical Experience Requirement in the Class of Airplane for the ATP Certificate Sought (§ 61.159)

Prior to the issuance of this final rule, an applicant for an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating was not required to obtain any additional multiengine flight experience above what is required for a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating. Section 216 of the Act addresses this issue by requiring all pilot flightcrew members serving in part 121 air carrier operations to have appropriate multiengine flight experience, as determined by the Administrator.

One method the FAA used to address the Act's focus on multiengine experience was by proposing a requirement that pilots obtain 50 hours of flight time

in the class of airplane for the ATP certificate sought. The FAA also proposed allowing an applicant to receive credit for up to 10 hours of this flight time in a full flight simulator (FFS) that replicates a multiengine airplane.

The FAA notes that this 50 hours of flight time counts towards the 1,500 hours of total time required for an ATP certificate.

Ninety-three commenters addressed the proposed 50-hour requirement. Fifty-nine commenters, including the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA), Airlines for America (A4A), AAL, Aviation Professional Development, LLC, Cargo Airline Association (CAA), Coalition of Airline Pilots Association (CAPA), Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU), ExpressJet Airlines, Inc. (ExpressJet), Flight Safety International (FSI), Hyannis Air Service, Inc. (Cape Air), National Air Transportation Association (NATA), Purdue University (Purdue), Saint Louis University—Parks College (Parks College), San Jose State University (SJSU), and the U.S. Airline Pilots Association (USAPA) indicated that 50 hours is adequate to be eligible for an ATP certificate.

The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) added that obtaining 50 hours would not be a significant problem in the industry and would establish a minimum number of hours as a base for pilots to build upon. Farmingdale State College (FSC) added that 50 hours is adequate but it is not a good measure of competencies. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) stated that requiring these 50 hours is appropriate if they are used to develop and reinforce core competencies. Aerosim Flight Academy (Aerosim) stated the 50 hours would be “okay” but “too costly and difficult to obtain.” JetBlue Airways Corporation (JetBlue) agreed that 50 hours in the class of airplane is sufficient and pertinent and believes it is representative of quality flight experience.

Four commenters, including FSI, said that there would be no additional burden for those who obtain an ATP certificate. FSI said that most pilot candidates exceed the 50-hour requirement before obtaining an ATP certificate. An individual commenter noted that most pilots would earn this by getting a multiengine instructor rating and instructing students.

Six individual commenters did not object to having such a requirement but stated 50 hours is too high. One of them suggested 25 hours in the class of airplane as an alternative. The Ohio State University (OSU) added that current commercial certificate requirements are sufficient and suggested giving credit towards this requirement through completion of an Advanced Jet Training (AJT) program. Boeing also said that 50 hours is too high and that the structured and focused FSTD training proposed in the ATP certification training program provides any needed additional multiengine experience above that which is minimally required by the commercial pilot certificate. The Regional Air Cargo Carrier Association (RACCA) stated that 50 hours is probably adequate but may be unnecessarily high “presuming the flight time includes adequate training, experience, and motivation by the pilot.”

Three individual commenters noted that 50 hours in class is too low. Two of these commenters recommended 100 hours in class. Ameriflight, LLC (Ameriflight) added that 50 hours of multiengine experience is insufficient for part 121 operations because the remaining 1,450 hours could be in a single-engine airplane. The Allied Pilots Association (APA) recommended 100 hours of flight time in the type of aircraft before a pilot could be eligible for a restricted privileges ATP certificate, because time in the aircraft type makes for a safer pilot.

Thirteen commenters, including, Delta Airlines (Delta), Bemidji Aviation Services, Inc., the Professional Aviation Board of Certification (PABC), Prairie Air Service, Kansas State University—Salina (KSU), and the University Aviation Association (UAA), found the 50-hour requirement unnecessary. Sporty's Academy added that there is no evidence of accident rates to support the requirement. Southern Illinois University—Carbondale (SIU), Western Michigan University (WMU) and CAE, Inc. (CAE) added that the requirement should be competency based. Human Capital Management and Performance, LLC added that time gained in light twin-engine piston aircraft does not prepare pilots for high altitude, swept-wing turbojet operations. The IFL Group believes pilots will get that time in any way possible without a guarantee of receiving specific training, and this may increase the accident rate. The IFL Group also believes there will be an “increase in the number of pilots who make fake flight time entries into their logbooks because of the cost of obtaining the additional multiengine flight time, thus offsetting any safety benefit and increasing FAA cost as a proportion of them are caught and the FAA incurs the cost of revoking their certificates.”

Six commenters, including Purdue, Spartan College, and the University of Dubuque noted the FAA should consider credit for simulation. An individual commenter stated allowance for simulators should be expanded. CAE stated 50% of the hours should be allowed in a level C or D FFS due to the numerous training advantages of that training environment. Based on hiring data and success rates in airline training and line operations, ExpressJet highly recommended that AJT simulation time (in either a level 5 flight training device (FTD) or FFS) be credited towards the 50 hours of multiengine time. JetBlue believes the capabilities and quality of training possible in an advanced simulation device far exceeds those of the actual aircraft and therefore recommends any time in an FFS should be credited towards the 50 hours.

Congress directed the FAA to ensure that all flightcrew members have an appropriate amount of multiengine experience. Since the ATP certificate is the highest level of pilot certificate currently available, the FAA has determined the minimum multiengine experience required to apply for an ATP certificate should exceed the minimum requirements for a commercial pilot certificate. Additional experience in inherently faster and more complex multiengine airplanes establishes a foundation that provides quality experience to prepare a pilot for a professional piloting career. Multiengine flight experience is essential not only for pilots serving in part 121 air carrier operations but for all pilots who apply for an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating. The FAA concedes there are no air carrier accidents that specifically cite a lack of multiengine experience as a probable cause. However, establishing a minimum experience requirement in the class of airplane is consistent with other pilot certificates and supports the requirements of section 216 of the Act, which placed significant emphasis on increased multiengine experience. As proposed, such an hour requirement would have minimal impact on pilots seeking an ATP certificate because the hours will likely be acquired by pilots engaged in other commercial aviation activities such as flight instruction or part 135 operations. This assertion was not disputed by many of the commenters. Additionally, the FAA reviewed the hiring minimums for part 121 air carriers and found most have established hiring minimums for multiengine time which equal or exceed the proposed rule, further minimizing the cost of this provision.

In response to commenters who suggested increasing the minimum hours in class of airplane above 50 hours, the FAA accepts the recommendation of the FOQ ARC. The FAA agrees that time in the class of airplane alone may not prepare a pilot for operating a large swept-wing turbojet at high altitudes nor does it necessarily ensure competency. For that reason there are additional building block requirements in this final rule for obtaining an ATP certificate with a multiengine class rating, such as the ATP certification training program and a practical test to determine a pilot's competency prior to issuance of an ATP certificate. The FAA notes that pilots will seek opportunities to acquire time in the class of airplane, which is no different than current practice. For that reason the FAA disagrees with the IFL Group's assertion that pilots seeking experience in multiengine aircraft will result in an increase in accidents. To the extent that commenters have suggested that, as a result of the multiengine flight time requirement, pilots may be encouraged to falsify their logbooks, the FAA cautions that the regulations (14 CFR 61.59) prohibit the falsification of logbooks.

A majority of the commenters supported the proposed requirement for 50 hours in the class of airplane to obtain an ATP certificate; therefore, the FAA has retained this provision in the final rule. Based on the comments suggesting that the FAA increase the amount of FFS time that may be credited towards the 50 hours, the FAA agrees that the quality of training and experience gained from flying an FFS is valuable and additional time should count. Advanced simulation training devices readily provide additional training opportunities in turbine aircraft utilizing multicrew concepts and may include training in difficult operational conditions beyond that required of existing pilot licensing requirements. The FAA disagrees with commenters that believe all of the multiengine experience could be gained in an FFS. The FAA believes accruing multiengine experience in an airplane is important and would eliminate the possibility of a pilot carrying passengers in a multiengine airplane without previous multiengine airplane experience. Accordingly, the FAA has amended § 61.159 in the final rule. Specifically, § 61.159(a)(3) will permit pilots to credit 25 hours of flight training in an FFS that represents a multiengine airplane toward the 50 hours of flight time in the class of airplane. The 25 hours must be accomplished as part of an FAA approved training course (e.g., part 121 air carrier training program).

The FAA notes that an aviation training device (ATD) or an FTD cannot be substituted for the FFS in order to obtain the credit toward the 50 hours of multiengine flight time.

The FAA has modified section 61.159(a)(5) to permit pilots to credit FSTD time accomplished in approved training programs under parts 121, 135, and 141 toward the aeronautical experience requirements for the ATP certificate. Under the prior rule, only FSTD time accomplished as part of an approved training course in part 142 could be credited.

D. ATP Certification Training Program for an Airplane Category Multiengine Class Rating or ATP Certificate Obtained Concurrently with an Airplane Type Rating (§ 61.156)

In Section 217 of the Act, Congress directed the FAA “to modify requirements for the issuance of an airline transport pilot certificate” to ensure pilots can function effectively in an air carrier/multipilot environment, in adverse weather conditions, during high altitude and icing operations while adhering to the highest professional standards. The public law stated that the FAA could consider academic training, flight training, or operational experience as a means of ensuring pilots have the skills identified in the public law.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require applicants for the ATP knowledge test complete an ATP Certification Training Program (ATP CTP) comprised of academic and FSTD training. The training program, as proposed, focused on the areas set forth in the Act and a majority of the competencies identified in the FOQ ARC report. The FAA included a draft advisory circular (AC) in the docket that provided further detail on the content and the structure of the course.

1. Required Training for an ATP Certificate

The FAA received over 120 comments regarding whether the FAA should require a training course prior to taking the ATP knowledge test. More than 30 commenters, including Delta, A4A, CAPA, CAA, Parks College, and the Families of Continental Flight 3407, generally supported such a training course. An equal number of commenters including the University of Dubuque, Delaware State University (DSU), and numerous individual commenters generally stated such a course is unnecessary. Many commenters addressed specific elements of the proposal and suggested some alternatives which will be addressed later in the document.

IATA stated that the additional training for the ATP certificate is appropriate because the current requirements are inadequate and have become irrelevant. Boeing agreed with the FAA's rationale for the ATP CTP and asserted that pilots who successfully complete the program would have the needed “foundational knowledge to operate as second in command (SIC) in part 121 operations.” AAL echoed Boeing, indicating that the added training would provide valuable experience to future part 121 pilots. The National Air Disaster Alliance Foundation (NADA/F) was also supportive of the proposed course and highlighted the use of a standardized course of training. USAPA supports the additional training maintaining that it is more effective than just having a multiple choice exam. UAA supported pilots completing ground training prior to taking a knowledge test.

Several commenters, including Aerosim, Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU), FSC, and WMU, support additional training but disagree with it being required for the knowledge test. ERAU, KSU, and 20 individual commenters support the additional training being part of a degree program or collegiate flight training program. Spartan College suggested it be part of an overall collegiate curriculum rather than a single course.

Purdue, OSU, and the University of North Dakota (UND) suggested allowing the academic and FSTD portions of the proposed course to be completed at separate times enabling students to complete the academic portion as part of their degree program. The universities added that many of the topics are already covered as part of the degree program and graduates should get credit for the academic portion of the proposed course and therefore only have to complete the FSTD portion at a later time. They also suggested allowing the knowledge test to be completed following the academic portion, which falls more in line with how knowledge areas for other FAA pilot certificates are tested.

ExpressJet supported imbedding the ATP CTP training into an air carrier's initial training program. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) equated the ATP CTP to the AJT course the FOQ ARC recommended for pilots entering part 121 service and therefore disagrees that the ATP CTP should apply to all pilots required to have an ATP certificate. AOPA suggested the FAA “reword the AJT requirement so it is required only of individuals employed by part 121 air carriers, prior to flying in revenue service and not as a prerequisite to all ATP certificates.”

OSU generally agreed with the academic portion of the course but believed the FSTD portion of the course “represents an overwhelming financial burden” to ATP certificate applicants. Many other individual commenters disagreed with imposing additional training requirements on pilots seeking an ATP certificate, in part due to the additional cost. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) stated an ATP applicant has already gone through ample training and this course would just be an extra cost burden and was unlikely to provide any additional safety benefit. GAMA, however, expressed support for the proposed FSTD portion of the training course, indicating that such training can be “extremely beneficial.” NATA believes the course as proposed is too costly. NATA is supportive of modifications to the ATP certification regulations, but indicated the delivery of any new training should be made available through lower cost methods, such as on-line course delivery.

Based on the support for additional training expressed by many of the commenters, the FAA has decided to require academic and FSTD training for the ATP certificate multiengine class rating and the ATP certificate when obtained concurrently with an airplane type rating.

This training, required at the ATP certification level, will address the gap in knowledge between a commercial pilot certificate and the knowledge a pilot should have prior to entering an air carrier environment. In addition, the FAA has decided that the safest and most effective way to ensure that applicants for an ATP certificate have met the requirements of section 217 of the Act is to establish specific training requirements and evaluate the pilot's understanding of those areas of instruction consistent with the regulatory framework for other pilot certificates.

The FAA notes that a pilot is not required to take the ATP CTP for a type rating added to any other pilot certificate. The requirement only applies to pilots obtaining an ATP certificate concurrently with an airplane type rating. In addition, subsequent airplane type ratings added to an ATP certificate that already has a multiengine class rating would not require taking the ATP CTP.

To the extent that several commenters suggested that the coursework in university aviation degree programs already may satisfy the academic training requirements of the ATP CTP, the FAA does not agree. Many colleges and universities teach ground school for other certificates and ratings as part of their academic curriculum that include a general overview of topics for which the collegiate program has comprehensive standalone courses. For example, despite most collegiate programs having a separate aerodynamics course, this topic remains a component of private pilot ground school and is generally reinforced in a concurrent flight training lab. The aerodynamics training for private pilots generally applies to small, single-engine, piston-powered aircraft—the type of airplane most people initially learn to fly. Similarly, the academic portion of the ATP CTP (essentially

ground training for ATP certification) will focus on the aerodynamic principles for large turbine aircraft—the type of aircraft flown in part 121 operations as well as many operations in part 135 and subpart K of part 91. The ATP CTP will then incorporate those concepts learned in the academic portion of the course into practical scenarios during the FSTD training to reinforce the critical concepts of operating at high altitudes and its effects on the airplane and the importance of stall recognition and recovery. The FAA supports colleges and universities with FAA certificated part 141 pilot schools teaching the ATP CTP but as a standalone course, just as they do with ground schools and flight labs for other pilot certificates and ratings.

The FAA also maintains that the academic training requirements cannot be separated from the FSTD training. The FAA has acknowledged the value of structured university aviation degree programs in other parts of this final rule; however, the design of the ATP CTP ensures the knowledge gained in the academic portion of the course is directly applicable to air carrier operations and operating sophisticated, high performance, large, turbine aircraft. The training in the FSTD portion of the course consolidates the academic concepts with scenario-based training, practical applications, demonstrations, and multiengine experience. The course will consolidate many broader topics and focus on its applicability to air carrier-like operations. For many pilots who take the ATP CTP, it will likely be their first exposure to large turbine aircraft and how those aircraft perform at high altitude, how they perform in low energy states, and in adverse weather phenomena, like thunderstorms and icing conditions. Combining the academic training requirements with the FSTD experience is the most effective method to consolidate the learning and deliver the training and experience mandated by the Act.

Additionally, the FAA has determined that students must complete both the academic and FSTD training prior to taking the knowledge test. By separating the academics and flight training, possibly by years since a pilot may wait until he or she is further in a professional career, the learning objectives are less likely to be achieved. In light of that fact, the knowledge test cannot be taken following completion of only the academic portion of the course. The FAA is retaining the requirement that a pilot complete all of the ATP CTP to be eligible to take the knowledge test.

To those commenters that suggested the ATP CTP be incorporated into air carrier initial training because the subjects are already taught or because the training only applies to pilots in part 121 operations, the FAA disagrees. The ATP CTP is the base upon which a pilot must build. The concepts in the course will apply to any pilot who flies a large turbine aircraft regardless of operating rule part and therefore has value to pilots flying outside of part 121. The ATP CTP will cover topics the air carrier is not required to teach. For those general knowledge areas that are currently part of a part 121 initial training program, the FAA has modified subpart N to remove those requirements and reduce ground training for those pilots who have completed the ATP CTP. A pilot in an air carrier training program receives training specific to the air carrier's operation and the specific aircraft that pilot is going to fly. Even if the subjects are offered by an air carrier in initial training, the pilot is focused primarily on learning the company operation and the specific type of aircraft they will fly, not on broader, foundational concepts that the ATP CTP is designed to provide.

The FAA recognizes commenters' concerns regarding the cost of the proposed ATP CTP and considered these costs when establishing the requirements for the course. Section 217 of the Act directed the FAA to modify the requirements for ATP certification to include ensuring that applicants for the ATP certificate have sufficient flight hours in difficult operational conditions “that may be encountered by an air carrier.” The FAA sought input from the FOQ ARC on how to define difficult operational conditions and how a pilot can best obtain experience in those conditions. As indicated it its report, the FOQ ARC “extensively discussed the issue of difficult operating conditions and determined that simulator training is an important tool by which to provide flight experience to the pilot for recognition and appropriate response in the difficult environments experienced by air carriers.” Because of safety concerns, the FOQ ARC did not recommend that pilots be intentionally placed in these difficult conditions in actual aircraft. The FOQ ARC recommended scenario-based training to address difficult operating conditions including thunderstorms, icing, low visibility, maximum crosswinds for takeoff and landing, and contaminated runways.

Generally, pilots from their earliest training are taught to avoid thunderstorms and icing conditions. Even when flying an airplane approved for flight in icing conditions, a pilot is cautioned to minimize time flying in icing conditions. The FAA will not encourage pilots to seek experience in hazardous conditions for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical experience requirements for the ATP certificate required by the Act. The FAA has long recognized that flight simulators and flight training devices provide a safe flight training environment that can reduce the number of training accidents by allowing training for emergency situations, such as fire, total loss of thrust, and systems failures, that cannot be safely conducted in flight. 61 FR 34508 (July 2, 1996). Therefore, the FAA has determined that many of the difficult operational conditions can be most safely demonstrated to students through simulation. Simulation will be discussed in greater detail later in this section.

Although the Act permitted the FAA to consider operational experience as a means of ensuring that a pilot has received adequate flight hours in conditions such as adverse weather, high altitude operations, and an air carrier operational environment, the FAA has determined that it is not appropriate to encourage pilots to seek such conditions in an aircraft. In addition it would be difficult to validate experience in those conditions. Moreover, it would be difficult for pilots to obtain experience in the complex aircraft that would be required to replicate an air carrier operational environment.

Therefore, the FAA has determined that academic and FSTD training, followed by an evaluation through a revised knowledge test that includes the content of the course and subsequent completion of a practical test will meet the requirements of the Act and provide valuable training for the ATP certificate.

2. Training Providers

Due to the FSTD requirement in the ATP CTP, the FAA proposed that the course be conducted only by the following certificate holders who are approved to sponsor an FSTD under 14 CFR part 60: A part 141 pilot school, a part 142 training center, or a part 119 certificate holder authorized to conduct operations under parts 121 or 135.

AOPA was concerned that the FAA “did not consider the negative impact on independent part 61 flight schools, other training providers who conduct ATP certification training or [designated pilot examiners] who currently conduct ATP certificate testing.” NAFI commented the proposal completely excludes “the very broad base of part 61 training providers who have traditionally helped maintain training capacity.” NAFI further stated that part

61 instructors provide a significant amount of training toward professional pilot careers and to eliminate these instructors may reduce overall training capacity and result in a negative economic impact on these training providers. ALPA recommends the proposed “authorized training provider” be clearly defined in the regulations to assure the highest standards and quality of training for ATP applicants. NATA disagreed with part 135 operators being eligible to offer the ATP CTP stating it is impractical for part 135 operators because the required FSTDs are too expensive to acquire and the training must be outsourced. In addition, NATA stated the proposed requirements are a disincentive for part 135 pilots to get an ATP certificate because the proposed training requirements are not all relevant to operations outside of 14 CFR part 121.

The FAA acknowledges that, as a practical matter, pilots preparing for the ATP practical test have sought flight training from certified flight instructors even without explicit regulatory training requirements. Although such training may have covered ground training on the aeronautical knowledge areas in § 61.155, pilots primarily sought flight training in the specific type of aircraft in which they planned to take the ATP practical test. Although fewer pilots may choose to pursue an ATP certificate with a multiengine class rating as a result of the new training requirements, the pilots who seek an ATP certificate outside of an air carrier will continue to seek flight training from certified flight instructors as preparation for the practical test. Additionally, the practical test in many cases will still be given by designated pilot examiners who currently evaluate ATP applicants.

The specified training providers for the ATP CTP were chiefly determined by two factors: (1) The ability to sponsor an FSTD as set forth in 14 CFR part 60; and (2) the structure, systems, and management personnel required to develop, implement and maintain the FAA approved training program. This structure does not typically exist and is not required in part 61 training.

The FAA disagrees with those commenters who suggested part 135 certificate holders should not be eligible to provide this course. Part 135 operators are eligible to sponsor a simulator per the regulations and have approved designated examiners who are authorized to conduct proficiency checks that result in ATP certification. A part 135 certificate holder may choose not to provide the course because its pilots do not require ATP certificates or because it is cost prohibitive to provide to those pilots that do require ATP certificates, but that is not a regulatory decision.

The FAA has determined authorized training providers for the ATP CTP will be limited to certificate holders conducting operations under parts 121 or 135, and pilot schools and training centers certificated under parts 141 or 142, respectively. Each of these certificate holders have defined management structures, FAA approved training programs, and pilot training record retention requirements. Further, each ATP CTP submitted for approval will be reviewed by FAA Headquarters to ensure standardization. The FAA has modified the regulations for parts 121, 135, and 141 to permit those certificate holders to provide the training. Specifically, the FAA has: (1) Added the ATP CTP to the list of pilot school ratings in § 141.11 and to the list of special preparation courses in appendix K of part 141; and (2) established new §§ 121.410 and 135.336 to permit part 121 and part 135 certificate holders to obtain approval to provide the ATP CTP. The applicability provision in part 142 permits those training centers to provide training required by 14 CFR part 61.

3. Instructor Requirements

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that instructors for the ATP CTP must meet the following requirements:

(1) Hold an ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating;

(2) have two years' experience in operations that require an ATP certificate to serve as PIC; and

(3) for those instructors that will provide training in an FSTD, have an appropriate aircraft type rating which the FSTD represents or have received training in the aircraft type from the certificate holder on those maneuvers they will teach.

As set forth in the NPRM, the instructors would also meet the individual requirements associated with the applicable part under which they provide the ATP CTP (unless specifically excepted in the proposed regulatory text) to ensure the quality of instruction.

Northern Michigan College supported the proposed instructor requirements and stated an ATP training course taught by qualified training providers should provide higher quality course content than that provided by a local flight instructor, thereby increasing the chance for improved flight safety.” CAE stated the instructor must have the necessary qualifications and experience requirements to teach the ATP CTP. KSU stated the academic training requirements should be administered by a qualified instructor as part of a collegiate flight education program.

AOPA, UAA, and several individual commenters disagreed with stipulating instructor qualification requirements for the ATP CTP. Boeing recommended removing the two-year experience requirement from the ATP CTP for instructors under 14 CFR parts 121, 135, and 142, and devising an equitable solution for instructors under part 141 to gain line operational experience in order to instruct. Utah Valley University concurred with the requirement for instructors to hold an ATP certificate but was unsupportive of the air carrier experience requirement because very few highly qualified instructor pilots would be interested in low-paying educational positions.

NAFI raised concerns over the apparent prohibition of subject matter experts (SMEs) from teaching in the course, stating “such a limitation could force the hiring of less knowledgeable instructors who have met the requirements for instruction based solely upon the acquisition of Part 121 experience, and not on individual qualifications.”

In the development of the final rule's instructor requirements, the FAA analyzed the existing training requirements for instructors in each rule part authorized to teach the ATP CTP. Whereas each rule part's instructor requirements are designed to meet the needs of the specific part (e.g. airman certification for part 141, simulator instruction for part 142, and air carrier operations for parts 121 and 135), none sufficiently cover all the competencies necessary to deliver the ATP CTP as designed.

Based on this regulatory review and the public comments, the FAA has assembled a specific set of instructor requirements designed to ensure the ATP CTP instructor: (1) Understands fundamental principles of instruction; (2) has the requisite experience to deliver the training topics with sufficient context to air carrier operations; and (3) if teaching in an FSTD, receives training on the limitations of simulation in order to mitigate the possibility of negative learning. Specifically, the FAA created new §§ 121.410, 135.336, and 142.54 and modified § 141.33 to standardize the instructor requirements for the ATP CTP.

a. Operational Experience

The FAA has determined only instructors with air carrier experience may teach the course because only

pilots with experience in part 121, and PIC experience in parts 135 and 91, subpart K—as defined by § 135.243(a)(1) and § 91.1053(a)(2)(i)—can effectively link the academic content of the course to the practical application of that knowledge in an air carrier environment. The concept and structure of the ATP CTP focuses on delivering the academic subjects and applying that knowledge in an FSTD through scenario-based training emphasizing how each subject area specifically relates to large turbine airplanes and air carrier operations.

In order to clarify the position on the operational experience requirement, the FAA proposed that instructors have at least two years of experience as a pilot in command in operations under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or § 135.243(a)(1), or in any operation conducted under 14 CFR part 121. Whereas the experience in part 121 operations is directly applicable, the FAA chose these particular operations in subpart K of part 91 and part 135 because they are air carrier-like operations that require the PIC to hold an ATP certificate. The ability to fly at the ATP certificate level and have demonstrated this proficiency during evaluation is an important regulatory differentiation. Specifically, these pilots will have gained experience as a PIC of a turbojet airplane or an aircraft with seating of 10 or more in operations very closely aligned to part 121 operations.

In addition, requiring air carrier operational experience is consistent with existing instructor requirements. Part 142 training centers are not air carriers, but those part 142 instructors who provide air carrier training must meet operational experience requirements for part 121 and part 135 instructors. The operational experience is necessary to ensure that each subject area specifically relates to transport aircraft and air carrier operations. For that reason, having an instructor with air carrier experience is critical. Further, the FAA believes there are a sufficient number of instructors with the required experience available, many of whom are already employed at likely ATP CTP providers. For example, air carriers that conduct their own training often use their own line pilots for the FSTD training. The FAA recognizes ATP CTP instructors with the requisite experience may require higher pay in comparison to current part 141 instructors and even some part 142 instructors. As a result, the FAA has accounted for a higher hourly wage in its economic analysis of the costs associated with the course.

The FAA also recognizes due to many factors, including air carriers that have terminated operations, employment records to verify air carrier experience may not always be available. The FAA has developed guidance in AC 61-138, Airline Transport Pilot Certification Training Program, which provides a method for a pilot to attest to previous experience.

b. Instructor Training

As part of this final rule, each instructor who provides training for the ATP CTP must receive initial training in the following topics:

• The fundamental principles of the learning process;

• Elements of effective teaching, instruction methods, and techniques;

• Instructor duties, privileges, responsibilities, and limitations;

• Training policies and procedures; and

• Evaluation.

The FAA recognizes that some of these training requirements may be duplicative for holders of a flight instructor certificate that has not expired as well as instructors already qualified under certain rule parts. For example, the fundamentals of instruction are trained and evaluated as part of the practical test standards for receiving a flight instructor certificate under part 61 and as part of the training for instructors under part 142. The fundamentals of instruction are reemphasized for an active flight instructor or through instructor refresher courses and annual training center evaluator/instructor training. As such, with sufficient documentation, the FAA does not believe pilots with current flight instructor certificates or currently qualified part 142 training center personnel need to repeat such training. This accommodation is reflected in the final regulatory text.

With regard to FSTD training the FAA believes well-trained instructors are the best means of ensuring that pilots are receiving effective training through simulation. There are two necessary components for ATP CTP instructors: (1) Training on the use and limitations of simulation; and (2) training on the tasks and maneuvers required in the ATP CTP. With the exception of part 142, no rule part specifically requires this training as a prerequisite to instructing in a simulator. These requirements are especially critical for the delivery of stall training, upset prevention and recovery training, and operations in icing conditions where the risk for negative learning is high.

The final rule ensures that instructors receive initial and recurrent training on the following topics:

The FAA notes that any instructor providing training in an FSTD should receive training on the topics listed. Making such a regulatory adjustment, however, would be outside of the scope of this rulemaking.

• Proper operation of flight simulator and flight training device controls and systems;

• Proper operation of environmental and fault panels;

• Data and motion limitations of simulation;

• Minimum equipment requirements for each curriculum; and

• The tasks and maneuvers that will be demonstrated in the FSTD. The specific training requirements have been added to § 141.33 for those instructors who will provide FSTD training for the ATP CTP. In addition, because part 121 and part 135 instructor requirements for simulator operations and limitations are specific to air carrier training conducted under those parts, the FAA has added this requirement to new §§ 121.410 and 135.336 to ensure that the training across rule parts is consistent with the objectives and requirements of the ATP CTP.

c. Type Rating

The NPRM also proposed the FSTD instructor must either have an appropriate aircraft type rating which the FSTD represents or have received training in the maneuvers they will teach. As noted above, several commenters expressed concern over the potential for negative learning during the FSTD portion of the ATP CTP. As a result the FAA has determined that instructors for the ATP CTP must have a type rating in the airplane that is replicated by the FSTD and receive training on the maneuvers they will teach. Requiring a type rating of instructors is consistent with current regulations for existing air carriers. For the purposes of the ATP CTP, the type rating requirement has been added to new §§ 121.410, 135.336, and 142.54. The requirement for a type rating was not included in part 141 regulatory text because those instructors must already hold a type rating on their pilot certificate in order to conduct training in a type specific aircraft or FSTD.

d. Subject Matter Experts

The FAA has clarified its position on SMEs delivering academic training in the ATP CTP. As identified by commenters, the ATP CTP contains academic subjects for which SMEs might be appropriate. The FAA sees benefit in a SME delivering a

specialized subject such as meteorology, human factors, or flight dispatch. Because the subjects focus on applying knowledge to an air carrier environment, the FAA will allow SMEs to deliver content in the ATP CTP while requiring an instructor with the required air carrier operational experience be present to ensure that the material presented is applied to air carrier operations. The FAA has determined these concepts can only be properly conveyed through an instructor with practical operational experience to meet the objectives of the course.

4. Training Topics and Hours

a. Academic Topics and Hours

The proposed ATP CTP incorporated most of the academic and FSTD competencies identified by the FOQ ARC and also addressed in part numerous NTSB safety recommendations. The proposed program hours for the ATP CTP were based on an assessment of the quantity and complexity of the subject matter. In the NPRM, the FAA was prescriptive for 20 of the 24 proposed academic hours, leaving some discretion to the training providers to determine what subject areas needed additional time. The FAA believed 24 hours of academic training was the minimum amount of time necessary to cover the material and be effective. The FAA further described the academic content in a draft AC that was posted to the docket.

The FAA received more than 80 comments regarding the training topics and training hours for the ATP CTP. Commenters including ALPA, Boeing, and Rocky Mountain College were generally supportive of the topics proposed in the academic portion of the ATP CTP.

Commenters such as A4A, Delta, NTSB, and IATA offered additional academic training topics for the ATP CTP such as human factors, fatigue, error trapping, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS), air law, mentoring, leadership, professional development, decision making, dispatch and flight following. Additional commenters, including NAFI, recommended using the topics presented in the FOQ ARC report. A4A, FedEx Corporation (FedEx), and Parks College recommended additional training hours to teach the material, with total hours ranging between 30 and 50 hours. IATA commented that there should not be a specified number of hours for the ATP CTP, but rather a curriculum should be established and approved by the FAA based on the concept of demonstrated competency for course completion. An individual commenter stated the FAA had not accounted for pre-brief and post-brief time that is generally part of FSTD training.

The FAA concurs with major commenters that additional topics should be added and the training time should increase. Based on the specific topic areas proposed by commenters and the new accident analysis the FAA completed, the FAA reassessed the entire course and expanded the academic portion of the ATP CTP to emphasize certain areas proposed in the NPRM. In particular, the FAA has expanded training on leadership, professional development, CRM, and safety culture. Section § 61.156 requires six hours of training on these topics. Enhancing these training topics in the ATP CTP supports the objectives of Section 206 of the Act by raising the baseline knowledge level of new-hire pilots on these topics; however these provisions do not fully meet the intent of the statute. This will be addressed in the Flight Crewmember Mentoring Leadership, and Professional Development rulemaking project.

Additionally, some subjects, including checklist and MEL/CDL usage and weight and balance, were moved from the FTD portion of the course to the academic portion. The FAA determined these subjects could be taught effectively in the academic portion of the course using alternative devices, if appropriate, that do not require approval under part 60. The expansion of training topics and focus on particular topic areas will remove the 4 hours of discretion to training providers allotted in the NPRM and will increase the total minimum academic program hours from 24 to 30.

As noted by one commenter, the FAA did not account for briefing and debriefing time for FSTD training sessions; a typical component of flight training. The FAA agrees that briefing and debriefing are an important part of flight training because it allows for an explanation of the learning objectives for the training session and the opportunity for the instructor to reinforce the academic topic areas prior to the session and following the training event. As such, the FAA has decided to emphasize briefing and debriefing time before and after each FSTD period in the 61-ATP advisory circular. This additional briefing time (3 hours) will provide a review of the training topics before each FSTD period and tie them directly to the academic portion of the course. Briefing time before and after a flight is not normally a prescriptive time accounted for in the regulations. As such, the FAA has not incorporated this time into the programmatic hours for the ATP CTP in § 61.156; however, the time is accounted for in the economic analysis.

To the extent that commenters recommended that the ATP CTP be competency-based rather than have specific hour requirements, such an approach is not appropriate given the objectives of the ATP CTP. The FAA is very aware of competency-based training and is clearly supportive of its concepts in air carrier training by allowing advanced qualification programs (AQP), which use air carrier-specific data to establish and revise curricula. Training for certification, however, is traditionally and necessarily more prescriptive and based on program hours. Competency-based programs are most effective when the pilot is continually trained and evaluated within the same training program over the course of multiple years like at an air carrier. A pilot typically spends weeks in an air carrier initial training program receiving multiple evaluations prior to the qualification event. Once qualified, the pilot's performance is measured by multiple data sources including line operations. An air carrier's training programs and even its hiring practices can be altered to adjust to inadequacies of its training programs whereas part 61 certification is typically a one-time evaluation of the pilot's skills during a practical test. As such, standardized training requirements are necessary to achieve the level of safety desired. Further, since the training program could be provided across four different rule parts by different certificated air agencies and operators, a structured and approved curriculum combined with mandatory program hours will allow for the consistency desired by the FAA from all providers.

b. FSTD Topics

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed as part of the ATP CTP 16 hours of training in an FSTD qualified under 14 CFR part 60 on topics including low energy states/stalls, upset recovery techniques, adverse weather conditions, aircraft performance, navigation, automation, and CRM. The draft AC that was placed in the docket further defined those subject areas. Because the proposed training was focused on introducing pilots to general concepts affecting all transport category aircraft, the NPRM did not propose that the FSTD training be conducted in a particular aircraft type (non-type specific) as is required for air carrier training. The FAA stated in the AC, however, that the training should take place in an FSTD that

represents an aircraft with a maximum take-off weight of at least 40,000 pounds.

The FAA received nearly 70 comments regarding the appropriateness of requiring FSTD training that is not specific to any aircraft type. Many of the commenters, including AAL, agreed the training course should and can include concepts that are generally universal to transport category aircraft. CAPA noted aircraft performance and high altitude flight environments are universal across the transport category spectrum.

IATA stated the ATP CTP should include training in a non-type specific FSTD because “the intention of the course is the development of core competencies independent of airplane type and applicable to all types of multi-crew transport category airplane operations.” KSU stated training on non-type specific FSTDs would be beneficial and would add significant value to the ATP CTP. The University of Dubuque and SCSU stated training in non-type specific FSTDs reinforces and demonstrates concepts covered academically. A4A agreed with this proposal and stated principles of transport category jet operations do not need to be type specific. Boeing noted the concepts proposed to be trained in FSTDs are among those that have been consistently identified as lacking in recent accidents.

Several commenters, including Ameriflight, FSI, and IFL Group, disagreed with permitting portions of the ATP certification training course in a non-type specific FSTD. The UAA disagreed with any FSTD requirement as part of the ATP CTP and noted the phrase “generally universal to transport category aircraft” causes problems because it is onerous to pilots seeking an ATP certificate for non-transport category aircraft.

NATA opposed the requirement for general instruction in an FSTD because it shifts the cost to pilots with no benefit because the training would be superseded by air carrier initial training.

The FAA received several comments concerning the possibility for negative training when conducting non-type specific training. NATA acknowledged value in additional training for prospective ATP certificate candidates but stated that the ATP CTP will create negative learning situations by forcing pilots into non-applicable training. NATA believes there are many pilots operating turboprop or piston engine aircraft that will be required to accomplish the training in turbine simulators as part of the ATP CTP. NATA and RACCA believe that requiring these pilots to obtain training that does not apply to their experience and operational goals will lead to a negative experience that does not increase safety.

The FAA has concluded the ATP CTP FSTD training topics are necessary to reinforce the academic topics and to address the requirements of the Act. In addition, the FAA agrees with those commenters that believe the FSTD training can be non-type specific and not result in negative learning and therefore has decided to retain the non-type specific training in an FSTD.

First, the FAA reiterates that this framework of academic training and flight training is consistent with that of other pilot certificates. Pilots routinely receive basic certification flight training in one type of aircraft and then move on to fly many other types of aircraft without a negative transfer of learning. The training received in the ATP CTP will also be the last basic certification training a pilot receives. It will address topics not covered at the commercial pilot certificate level and establish a knowledge base that additional aircraft type-specific and air carrier-specific training can build upon when a pilot is trained to fly for an air carrier.

Second, the ATP CTP is designed to teach high-level concepts that are applicable to operating all large transport aircraft. It will increase knowledge through academic introduction to concepts that are generally true across all large aircraft types and then consolidate those same concepts through demonstration and experience in FSTDs. None of the training tasks will require applicants to perform maneuvers to proficiency, but rather experience critical events (stall onset, low energy states, upset prevention and recovery) with continuous instructor explanation and feedback. By combining this training experience with instructor explanation, the academic portion of the course will be effectively consolidated while reducing the possibility of negative transfer of learning for those pilots who may fly different aircraft types than those used in the course.

c. Level of FSTD and Hours

The FAA proposed 16 hours in an FSTD—8 hours in a Level C or D FFS and 8 hours in a Level 4 or higher FTD. The FAA received more than 130 comments regarding the level of the appropriate device but very little comment concerning the appropriate number of hours.

Many commenters, including the Regional Airline Association (RAA), UND, and FIT, stated that a level 4 or 5 FTD would be an appropriate level of FSTD for the entire course as long as it has visual capabilities and a stick shaker/pusher. Cape Air proposed that a level 5 or 6 FTD with realistic visuals would be sufficient for the course. OSU indicated a level 5 or higher device with visuals would be just as effective as a Level C FFS and would result in reduced costs. The commenters added that FTDs are an acceptable and safe alternative to FFSs. AOPA was particularly concerned that the FAA had not considered whether there was an adequate number of available FSTDs in the United States to accommodate the number of ATP applicants who will require training and raised concerns that compliance may be difficult.

ERAU cited various studies in their response that raised concerns regarding the use of motion-based training devices, including the value of using motion-based training devices in upset maneuvers, and disputed the need for simulator training in extended envelopes. One study asserts there are compromises made between cost and fidelity with the goal of getting the highest degree of transfer of training from the simulation device to the real world (Roscoe, 1980). An additional study that was cited by ERAU expanded upon that finding, indicating that FAA-qualified FFSs are unable to accurately portray how an airplane would react outside of the normal flight envelope—often referred to as extended envelope operations (Schroeder & Grant, 2010). ERAU noted the FAA participates in the International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE). ERAU added ICATEE (2012) proposes an approach to examining the issue by first defining training needs and then proposing solutions. The ICATEE solution for training extended envelope flight tasks includes using flight simulation within its limitations. The eight hours of training with motion-based simulation in the ATP CTP will be for tasks in, or near, the extended envelope where the correlation to actual flight conditions is problematic. ERAU concluded its comment with the statement “[n]o motion is preferable to incorrect motion.”

NTSB commented that, because simulators may not be able to accurately portray stalls and upset recovery, the FAA should allow flexibility in determining what level of simulation or automation is appropriate for specific training.

A number of colleges and universities, including Utah Valley University (UVU) and Rocky Mountain College stated the FFS requirement in the ATP CTP creates a significant obstacle for colleges and universities with aviation degree

programs due to the high costs of obtaining and maintaining those devices. Aims Community College, which operates a Level C FFS, was supportive of the proposed minimum FFS level. Commenters, including KSU, SCSU, USAPA, and WMU, stated the approved curriculum should have specified goals and competencies, not required hours.

The FAA concurs with many of the commenters' assertions regarding the ability to utilize FTDs in an effective training program. While an FTD does not provide the sensory input of motion, the fidelity of the aircraft data and replication of the aircraft controls can be very high. These high fidelity devices without motion can offer effective training benefits for tasks that do not require motion inputs to meet the learning objective (e.g., use of automation and navigational instruments and CRM).

Following a review of the comments and a training task analysis consisting of a re-evaluation of the FSTD topics and proposed device level, the FAA has reaffirmed that it is not possible to train all of the topics in an FTD. Therefore, the FAA has retained the requirement for training certain topics in an FFS. A flight training program that combines effective use of Level 4 and higher FTDs and the benefits of Level C or higher FFSs best ensures that the learning objectives will be effectively met. Notwithstanding the decision to retain training in FSTD, the FAA has modified the training hours in the final rule. Based on the task analysis, rather than the 16 hours of FSTD training proposed in the NRPM, the final rule requires 10 hours of training in FSTDs: Six hours in a Level C or higher FFS and four hours in Level 4 or higher FTD.

As previously stated, the FAA has moved some topics that were originally proposed for the FSTD portion of the course to the academic portion. The FAA has matched the remaining flight training objectives from the ATP CTP with the appropriate level of device and determined the “FTD topics” (e.g. flight management systems) could be trained in four hours rather than the eight hours proposed in the NPRM. As a result, the regulatory text of § 61.156 permits up to four hours of the ten hours of FSTD training to be completed in an FTD—which may be conducted in a Level 4 or higher FTD or Level A or higher FFS (with or without motion activated).

In completing the task analysis of the ATP CTP, the FAA also determined that the training that must be completed in a Level C or higher FFS could be accomplished in six hours rather than the eight hours proposed in the NPRM. Many of the maneuvers such as taxi, takeoff, and landing can be conducted only in a Level C or higher FFSs. Neither FTDs nor Level A or B FFSs are evaluated to perform such maneuvers. Additionally, low energy states, stall events, upset prevention and recovery techniques, and adverse weather conditions, including icing, thunderstorms, and crosswinds, require devices with motion cueing to achieve the learning objective. Only Level C or higher FFSs can replicate both the specific aerodynamic characteristics of the aircraft and the sensory perceptions that motion provides, which are necessary to allow the applicant the opportunity to fully grasp the critical concepts of the course. Level C or higher FFSs offer superior training benefits for maneuver-based training that cannot be replicated adequately by an FTD. This determination is based on the 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. In addition, for a pilot's first exposure to critical concepts, such as high altitude handling, low energy states, and aircraft handling in adverse weather conditions, Level C or higher devices are necessary in order for the pilot to achieve the learning envisioned by the Act.

Various studies have shown an increase in pilot performance when pilots use simulators with motion. See Showalter, T.W.; Parris, B.L., “The Effects Of Motion And GSeat 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 maneuver-based tasks must be conducted in a Level C or higher FFSs because the FFSs provide the level of motion cueing necessary to ensure proper response in real flight operations. These simulators most closely represent an aircraft with respect to aerodynamic handling characteristics and possess the motion required to achieve the learning objective of many tasks.

The FAA agrees with ERAU's assertion regarding the limitations of FFS in extended envelope maneuvering and modeling; however, none of the requirements in the ATP CTP involve training in these extended envelopes. The FAA believes the commenter's use of the term extended envelope is referring to theoretical or analytical data used in simulation which may exceed typical manufacturer-captured flight test data. As set forth in AC 61-138, low energy states (slow flight), approach to stalls, and even the upset prevention and recovery training will all be conducted within the manufacturer's supplied and FAA's National Simulator Program validated aerodynamic envelope.

As noted by ERAU, the FAA participates in ICATEE and other research projects in order to develop training tasks within current limitations and research adjusting future simulator modeling where appropriate. The commenter also expresses concerns over the lack of available displacement of hexapod motion platforms that could induce negative transfer training if the training task exceeds the motion capabilities of the device. We concur with this thought but re-emphasize all the training tasks proposed will occur within the validated aerodynamic and simulator motion envelopes. The upset training maneuvers used in the ATP CTP are supported through the research and development of the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid (AURTA) and recently validated by the 2012 Loss of Control Avoidance and Recovery Training (LOCART) ARC. The LOCART ARC was sponsored by the FAA and additionally supported by International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the European Aviation Safety Agency, and Transport Canada to develop recommendations for upset prevention and recovery maneuvers in order to minimize the loss of control inflight accidents worldwide. The AURTA was developed by Airbus, Boeing, and the Flight Safety Foundation; it contains effective upset recovery training tools designed to work within the simulator's designed motion platform. This training is intended to increase a pilot's ability to recognize and avoid situations that

can lead to airplane upsets and improve the pilot's ability to recover control of an airplane that has exceeded the normal flight regime. To further mitigate the possibility of negative transfer of training, the FAA has published AC 120-109, Stall and Stick Pusher Training, comprehensive guidance for the training and checking of stall events. The FAA will publish additional guidance material in AC 61-138 for the academic training portion of the course for the aerodynamics, and upset prevention and recovery topics based on the recommendations of the LOCART ARC. The FAA emphasizes instructor training in all of its guidance material relating to stall and upset, for both the operation of the training device and training in the device's limitations, in order to avoid a student's potential for negative learning.

In the draft AC for the ATP CTP that was placed in the docket when the NPRM published, the FAA stated that in order to replicate the high altitude and low energy handling characteristics desired, the FFS should represent a swept-wing transport category airplane with a maximum gross takeoff weight of 50,000 pounds or greater. The FAA did not propose this standard in the regulatory text. Despite receiving significant comment on the training topics listed in the AC as well as what level of device would be appropriate, the FAA received only one comment—which was supportive—regarding the proposed takeoff weight or wing design of the type of airplane the FFS should represent. As part of the evaluation of the FFS training topics and learning objectives, the FAA reviewed all of the approved FFSs under 14 CFR part 60 including the associated weights of the aircraft they represent. Based on that review, the FAA has determined an FFS representing an aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight of at least 40,000 pounds is necessary to meet the objectives of the ATP CTP.

The weight of the aircraft the simulator represents is an important factor in ensuring handling characteristics of a typical transport aircraft. The 40,000 pound minimum requirement will ensure the device can replicate the lower performance margins and handling qualities inherent in transport category aircraft when being operated near their maximum operating weight at altitudes near their service ceiling. Critical concepts such as high speed slowdowns and approach to stall recoveries, which can take thousands of feet to recover at high altitudes, cannot be achieved in lighter aircraft types with higher thrust-to-weight ratios. The FAA notes that 40,000 pounds generally captures most regional aircraft including larger turboprops like the Bombardier DHC-8-400. To ensure that the objectives of the ATP CTP are met, the FAA has incorporated the weight requirement from the AC into § 61.156. Due to the potential for differing interpretations associated with the terms “swept-wing” or “straight wing,” the FAA has decided to remove that language from the FSTD requirements. The weight requirements described above and listed in the final regulatory language will produce the desired handling qualities sought in order to achieve the objectives of the course.

In response to commenters' concerns over the lack of sufficient number of training devices to deliver the ATP CTP, currently there are 407 FAA-evaluated Level C or higher FFS devices that replicate aircraft with a maximum takeoff weight at or exceeding 40,000 pounds. These devices represent 98% of all Level C and D FFSs that have been approved by the FAA. The FAA has evaluated the average number of ATP certificate applicants per year over the last 10 years (5,500), compared to the number of devices (81 FTDs and 407 FFSs) defined by the rule and recommended for use in the ATP CTP. Being conservative, the FAA assumed that all 10 hours of FSTD training would occur in Level C or higher FFSs. Assuming each FFS is capable of five 4-hour simulator periods per day (allowing for one 4-hour maintenance period per day), the U.S. inventory of these FFSs offers over 700,000 simulator periods. The 5,500 ATP certificate applicants will require 16,500 FFS periods from the U.S. inventory—less than 2% of available simulator time. Use of FTDs in the course will only improve availability. The AC suggests the FTD should replicate multicrew aircraft and be equipped with a flight management system (FMS) and autoflight. Currently, 68% of FAA-evaluated Level 4 or higher FTDs (a total of 81 FTDs) replicate the desired aircraft as defined by AC 61-138. Therefore, the FAA has determined even with moderate usage for non ATP CTP training, there is ample inventory of available FSTD time to accommodate the requirements of the course.

Finally, the FAA has decided to allow for consideration of a deviation from the weight requirement set forth in § 61.156. The FAA established a baseline weight because it believes that having all FFSs representing aircraft weighing 40,000 pounds or more allows for adequate demonstration of the learning objectives described in AC 61-138. The FAA recognizes, however, that there may be FFSs that represent an aircraft weighing less than 40,000 pounds that may be capable of replicating the lower performance margins and handling qualities desired at higher altitudes to meet the learning objectives of the course. If a training provider seeks to use a device that does not meet the weight criteria set forth in § 61.156, it must apply for a deviation. In considering a deviation request, the Air Transportation Division, the National Simulator Program, and the certificate holder's assigned principal inspector or TCPM will work together to determine if the training platform ensures quality, effective training for ATP applicants and provides an equivalent level of safety.

d. FSTD Cost

As reflected in the final regulatory evaluation, the cost to provide the training is estimated to be equivalent across all possible training providers. Although part 121, 135, 141 and 142 certificate holders may sponsor a simulator under part 60, there is no requirement to own a simulator. Many part 121 and part 135 certificate holders currently utilize simulation for training without the ownership and maintenance of the devices. It is common practice for many air carriers to enter into agreements with other carriers and part 142 training centers to lease time in FSTDs. Additionally, there is no requirement to deliver the ATP CTP training program, and each certificate holder must individually determine if providing the course best meets its needs and ability. Although the FAA considered cost when aligning the appropriate device to the training task, meeting the learning objective was the paramount consideration.

5. FAA Knowledge Test for an ATP Certificate

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise the aeronautical knowledge areas in § 61.155 to incorporate the new knowledge areas in the ATP CTP. We noted that such a revision would result in changes to the ATP knowledge test. Commenters such as IATA and the IFL Group believed the current ATP knowledge test is inadequate. Commenters assert the current preparatory products available to applicants of the knowledge test only ensure rapid rote memorization of the material and not knowledge retention. The FAA concurs and has determined academic knowledge gained and evaluated in a classroom setting, reinforced with demonstration and experience in an FSTD, and then validated by a revised written knowledge test gives the applicant the

best chance of knowledge retention. This knowledge will allow the student to perform more effectively upon entering an air carrier environment—the ultimate goal of the Act.

The FAA also proposed to extend the validity period for the knowledge test for an ATP certificate to five years in consideration of the applicant's time and financial commitment to the ATP CTP. The FAA considered the extension appropriate due to the proposed elimination of the ability for air carrier pilots to use expired knowledge tests. The FAA received no comments on this proposal. In the final rule, FAA has retained the five-year validity period for the ATP knowledge test only for those pilots who pass the knowledge test after having completed the ATP CTP—meaning any test passed after July 31, 2014. The FAA has also retained the provision that allows pilots employed by certificate holders in parts 121, 125, or 135 to use expired knowledge tests. As set forth in § 61.39, pilots employed in parts 125 and 135 may use an expired knowledge test if they have completed the ATP CTP and the operator's approved pilot-in-command training or checking program. New hire pilots in part 121 operations may use an expired knowledge test if they have completed the ATP CTP and the operator's initial training program.

These pilots employed by air carriers are subject to additional training and evaluation requirements that will ensure that they have a continued understanding of the general concepts of the ATP CTP. If an applicant outside of an air carrier environment fails to take the practical test within five years of taking the knowledge test, he or she must retake the knowledge test to validate retention of the subject areas of the ATP CTP. The FAA has modified § 61.35 to make clear that a person may not take the knowledge test for the ATP certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating until the person is 18 years of age.

As set forth in § 61.39(b), the knowledge test results for pilots who pass the knowledge test before August 2014—meaning they have not completed the ATP CTP—will expire 24 months after the date the test was passed. These pilots may not use an expired knowledge test to take the practical test even if they are employed by an air carrier.

Finally, as set forth in existing § 61.49, those applicants who fail the knowledge test for the ATP certificate after completing the ATP CTP are required to receive the necessary remedial training from an approved ATP CTP training provider and receive an endorsement before retaking the knowledge test.

6. Credit Toward Air Carrier Training Programs

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the ATP CTP would be a basic certification requirement, not an air carrier training program requirement. This position was consistent with the provision in the Act that directed the FAA to modify the ATP certificate to require the specific training previously discussed in this final rule. The FAA specifically asked commenters whether changes or reductions could be made to a part 121 air carrier training program based on the proposed content of the ATP CTP. There were 27 respondents who indicated that air carriers could either incorporate the ATP CTP into their initial program or reduce initial training hours based on the air carrier providing the ATP CTP. Whereas most of the respondents were favorable to air carriers offering the course, commenters were split on the issue of reducing an air carrier's initial training program as a result of the ATP CTP. FlightSafety and Aerosim supported a reduction of initial training if additional subjects were covered by the ATP CTP. RAA indicated that reductions to air carrier flight training programs based on the proposed content of required ATP CTP would be difficult because the content of the ATP CTP was more generic than air carrier training. A4A stated “a review of initial training should be accomplished” without further explanation for why such a review should occur. Ameriflight claimed there is no legal basis for air carriers to provide part 61 training.

Although part 121 and part 135 operators may elect to offer this training for their pilots, it would remain separate from part 121 and part 135 training requirements. Because the proposed ATP CTP is part of the basic certification requirements for an ATP certificate, air carriers who elect to offer this training would be required to provide the course to their pilots prior to beginning initial training. The FAA proposed that principal operations inspectors may approve a reduction of hours in an air carrier's initial training program based on material taught in the ATP CTP. However, because the ATP CTP requirements are basic certification requirements, these hours could not be reduced based on the contents of an air carrier's initial training program.

The FAA agrees with many commenters that the initial flight training should not be reduced because type-specific and operator-specific training is critical in the development of air carrier pilots. The FAA conducted a review of the ground training required for initial training in part 121, subpart N. The general subjects that are listed in § 121.419(a)(1) contain many of the more basic knowledge requirements now addressed by the ATP CTP.

The FAA has determined that some reductions in initial training for those more generic items listed in § 121.419(a)(1) can occur. However, in place of requiring POI approval for these reductions, as was proposed in the NPRM, the FAA has decided to amend the general subject areas of initial training for those air carrier new hire pilots who have completed the ATP CTP prior to initial training. As these general subjects will now be taught in the ATP CTP, it will raise the baseline knowledge for all new hire pilots entering part 121 operations. This change will allow for more air carrier specific training to occur in initial training while allowing for reductions in the required program hours. The FAA notes that, until August 1, 2016—the date that all knowledge test results completed without completion of the ATP CTP will have expired—air carrier training classes could be comprised of some pilots who have completed the ATP CTP and some pilots who have not completed the course.

With regard to Ameriflight's comment regarding the impropriety of air carriers providing training that results in part 61 certification, the FAA is unclear of the basis of Amerifight's confusion. Regulations have recognized part 61 certification events for ATP certification and type ratings through air carrier training programs for many years.

7. Additional Course Requirements

The FAA has added provisions to new §§ 121.410, 135.336, and 142.54 to ensure that certificate holders maintain certain standards for the ATP CTP. First, there is a provision in the final rule that prevents certificate holders from issuing graduation certificates unless a student has satisfactorily completed all of the training requirements for the ATP CTP. Second, the FAA is requiring certificate holders to establish a mechanism that insures continued evaluation of the ATP CTP to guarantee that training techniques, procedures, and standards are acceptable to the Administrator. These requirements are in addition to the administrative requirements that are already contained in the various rule parts. Because part 141 pilot schools currently have similar requirements for training courses and are required to renew their certificates every two years, no provisions have been added to that part.

E. ATP Certificate With Restricted Privileges (§ 61.160)

1. Public Law and NPRM

Section 217 of the Act mandates that an applicant for an ATP certificate have “at least 1,500 flight hours.” The section gave the FAA discretion to permit applicants to obtain an ATP certificate with fewer than the minimum 1,500 hours if they have completed “specific academic training courses,”

as determined by the Administrator. The Act permitted a reduction only upon a determination by the Administrator that the courses would “enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight hours requirement.”

The Act specified that these training courses must be beyond the additional training required by the Act itself. In other words, the new training mandated by the Act could not be a basis for a reduction in flight hours below 1,500 hours.

Current regulations do not define the term “flight hours;” therefore, the FAA assumes that the 1,500 flight hours referenced in the Act represents the 1,500 hours total time as a pilot currently required by § 61.159.

Based on the discretion afforded to the Administrator in section 217, the FAA proposed a new section, § 61.160,which set forth two alternative flight hour requirements for an ATP certificate with airplane category multiengine class rating based on academic experience. Specifically, the FAA proposed to permit military pilots who have graduated from an Armed Forces undergraduate pilot training school to obtain an ATP certificate with 750 total flight hours and graduates of four-year aviation degree programs with integrated flight training to obtain an ATP certificate with 1,000 total flight hours.

The FAA proposed to limit the privileges of any pilot who obtains an ATP certificate under the aeronautical experience requirements of new § 61.160. As set forth in the NRPM, a pilot holding an ATP certificate with fewer than 1,500 hours (an R-ATP certificate) would not be permitted to act as PIC in part 121 operations or as PIC in operations conducted under § 91.1053 and § 135.243—the only operations under parts 91 and 135 that require the PIC to hold an ATP certificate. A pilot holding an R-ATP certificate would also not be permitted to serve as SIC of an aircraft in flag or supplemental operations that require three or more pilots because, even prior to the statutory requirement, SICs in those operations were required to hold an ATP certificate.

In addition, the FAA proposed to modify the eligibility requirements of § 61.153 to establish a minimum age of 21 years for an R-ATP certificate. The FAA also proposed amending § 61.167 to preclude a pilot who holds an R-ATP certificate from providing instruction under that section.

2. General Support for and Opposition to an ATP Certificate With Reduced Hours

Sixteen commenters, including APA, CAPA, USAPA, and Kestrel Aviation, LLC, (Kestrel) believe reducing the flight hour requirement to be eligible for an ATP certificate should not be allowed. The Families of Continental Flight 3407 stated that they would like to see “every pilot required to have the minimum 1,500 actual flight hours before being eligible for an ATP certificate.” Four New York Congressmen and RACCA opposed a reduction in flight time for everyone except military pilots. Several individual commenters added that completing flight training through a part 141 pilot school or part 142 training center cannot replace flight experience.

CAPA commented that ATP certification is a well-proven system and the 1,500-hour minimum time requirement provides an undeniable basic level of safety and operational proficiency. APA stated: (1) The 1,500 flight hour requirement helps ensure that a mature, experienced aviator will be at the controls; (2) there is no substitute for experience; and (3) the most effective way for pilots to gain essential experience is to fly aircraft. APA noted that, along with total flight hours, ATP certificate requirements include cross country, night, and instrument flight hours that develop pilot skills that cannot be taught in a classroom or properly developed in a simulator. CAPA stated that real-world experience is vital.

NAFI submitted results of a survey it conducted with 427 of its members regarding the proposals and questions presented in the NPRM. A majority of the responders indicated that they did not support an ATP certificate with restricted privileges for pilots with fewer than 1,500 flight hours based on academic training or experience. However, the results of the survey also showed that a significant number of NAFI members (327 respondents) believed that segments of the pilot community other than military pilots and graduates of four-year aviation degree programs should be eligible for an R-ATP certificate.

AmeriFlight commented that the proposed rule will isolate many factions of the industry and funnel students to the cost-prohibitive four-year college flight training programs. AmeriFlight questioned whether the FAA believed that the knowledge gained while attending a four-year postsecondary institution is an adequate replacement for 500 hours of flight time and 175 hours of flight time in cross-country operations. Delta stated that a reduction in hours, training, or experience for pilots exercising the PIC privileges of an ATP certificate is not appropriate based on the statute.

The majority of commenters, including representatives of air carriers, educational institutions, and aviation organizations, were generally supportive of a restricted privileges ATP certificate but recommended alternatives to the proposal and suggested that it be made available to a greater number of pilots.

Fifteen commenters offered opinions and comments on what they referred to as arbitrary hour requirements, including CAA and IATA. A4A stated that flight time alone does not ensure pilot proficiency or professionalism and added that formal education combined with good hiring practices, training, and mentoring will produce the most highly qualified pilots. American Flyers/Nova Southeastern University argued that the FAA should not consider flight hours alone as a satisfactory indicator or piloting ability, judgment, or experience. It stated that the qualification for the R-ATP certificate should be based on a combination of academic training and experience. Several commenters, including AOPA, RACCA, and the University of Dubuque thought the minimum age of 21 for an R-ATP was also arbitrary. One individual commenter added that there was no evidence to suggest age 18 undermined safety.

SAFE stated that academic experience should only be used to reduce flight hours if there is demonstrable evidence to support it. Four commenters, including WMU, and John A. O'Brien Consulting, LLC, agreed that a R-ATP certificate should be permitted based on training or experience.

GAMA argued that there should be no flight hour minimum; rather, the FAA should focus on ensuring the quality of flight training. It added that eligibility for an R-ATP certificate should be determined through evaluation of the quality of the applicant's academic and practical flight training. Three commenters noted that the quality of flight experience was a better indicator of pilot success than only quantity of flight hours. Six commenters contended that the FAA needs to allocate resources to develop a better formula for rating the formal training, education, and experience of candidates for an R-ATP certificate.

The FAA continues to support an ATP certificate with restricted privileges

for pilots who are at least 21 years of age. The majority of commenters asserted that allowing a reduction in flight hours based on academic coursework is safe, appropriate, and meets the intent of Congress. For the commenters who disagree with establishing an ATP certificate with fewer than 1,500 hours, the FAA also maintains that flight experience in an aircraft is an important component in developing the knowledge and skills necessary for a pilot to perform effectively in the air carrier environment. However, by granting the FAA discretion to reduce the required flight hours based on specific academic training, the Act acknowledged that flight time is not necessarily the only component to developing a safe and qualified pilot. The FAA concurs and has determined structured academic training integrated with flight training programs can provide more safety benefit than simply meeting the 1,500 hour flight time requirement alone.

Accordingly, the FAA will permit a pilot to obtain an ATP certificate with restricted privileges and serve as an SIC in part 121 operations. The minimum aeronautical experience requirements and age requirements of an R-ATP certificate will greatly exceed the commercial pilot certificate requirements previously required to serve as SIC in part 121 operations. As discussed in greater detail below, the academic coursework prerequisites for the R-ATP certificate together with the additional flight hour experience and the new training required for ATP certification will result in a pilot who is better prepared to enter an air carrier environment than meeting the 1,500 hour requirement alone.

The FAA emphasizes that pilots who meet these alternative hour requirements will be required to pass the same ATP knowledge test and practical test as pilots who obtain an ATP certificate at 1,500 hours. In addition, in the final rule, the FAA is retaining the limitations on the certificates of pilots who obtain an ATP certificate with the reduced flight hours. These pilots will have the following limitation placed on their certificates: “Restricted in accordance with 14 CFR 61.167” and “Holder does not meet the pilot-in-command aeronautical experience requirements of ICAO.” Pilots who hold ATP certificates with these limitations will not be permitted to act as PIC in any operation that requires an ATP certificate or serve as SIC in flag or supplemental operations that require three or more pilots. The FAA will remove the restriction from the ATP certificate once the pilot provides satisfactory evidence of having met the age requirements in § 61.153(a)(1) and the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.159.

The flight time requirements for an ATP certificate under § 61.159 are not being altered by this rule. Therefore, pilots acting as PIC under part 121, § 135.243(a)(1), and § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) are still required to have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot. Additionally, the age requirement for obtaining an ATP certificate to serve as PIC is not being altered in § 61.153. Pilots must continue to be at least 23 years old to act as PIC in operations that require an ATP certificate or to serve as SIC in flag or supplemental operations requiring three or more pilots. The FAA agrees with many of the commenters that the existing total time requirements for an ATP certificate are appropriate to act as PIC.

The following sections address specific comments about alternative crediting systems, the eligibility of military pilots and graduates of four-year aviation degree programs as proposed in the NPRM, and specific recommendations from commenters regarding expanding eligibility for the R-ATP certificate beyond those proposed in the NPRM.

3. FOQ ARC Recommendation

The FOQ ARC recommended crediting academic training as well as aeronautical experience. The ARC developed a complex system that not only permitted flight-hour credit for a variety of academic training including both two- and four-year aviation degrees but also allowed weighted credit for various flight experience.

Eleven commenters, including NAFI, Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing), NATA, RAA, JetBlue, WMU, Purdue, and FSC suggested that the FAA implement a system of weighted flight hour reductions based on pilot experience. NAFI noted that the Pilot Source Study and the recommendations of the FAA's FOQ ARC should be referenced in any consideration of credit options. Boeing stated that the FAA should credit all manner of training that would better prepare pilots for air carrier operations. Boeing noted that this would include all college aviation programs, approved courses from part 141 and part 142 certificate holders, and all related experience and courses.

The RAA argued that the FAA should adopt the recommendations of the FOQ ARC. It noted the FOQ ARC recommended an aeronautical experience credit system that incorporated many of the individual recommendations identified by other commenters. The RAA contended that the FOQ ARC credit system is the model for establishing the proper level of eligibility and academic credit levels that should be provided for students of worthy programs. Finally, the RAA added that the NPRM fails to recognize the myriad of important providers of academic education and relevant flight experience that should be considered for flight hour reductions. Additional supporters of the FOQ ARC crediting system included A4A, CAA, American Eagle Airlines, Inc., ExpressJet, Aerosim, FedEx, Cape Air, AAL, John O'Brien Consulting, MTSU, Spartan College, and numerous individual commenters.

The National Training Aircraft Symposium (NTAS), which consisted of 80 industry members from academia, air carriers, and flight training providers, recommended a crediting system very similar to the FOQ ARC crediting system with the only difference in the amount of credit allowed for flight instruction. Supporters of the NTAS system included JetBlue, WMU, Purdue University, and FSC.

The FAA has reconsidered the FOQ ARC crediting system and determined that implementation and oversight of such a complex system, or a variation of it, would be too burdensome. Allowing a large number of crediting options creates a much more complicated process for FAA examiners and designees in determining and validating how much credit a pilot can get to be eligible for an R-ATP certificate. In addition, the weighted flight experience concept gives a multiplier effect to hours that were deemed more applicable to air carrier operations and therefore more valuable to a prospective air carrier flightcrew member. While the FAA finds value in the weighted flight experience concept, the Act does not permit giving flight hour credit to certain types of flight experience to reduce the minimum required flight hours for the ATP certificate.

The FAA notes that Section 217 of the Act directed the FAA to ensure that applicants for an ATP certificate had received “flight training, academic training, or operational experience” that would prepare the pilot to function effectively in an air carrier environment. Several paragraphs later in Section 217, Congress gave the Administrator discretion to reduce flight hours for the ATP certificate based on “specific academic training courses.” The FAA has determined that the failure to list operational experience in this provision of the Act does not permit the FAA to reduce flight hours based on operational experience.

Considering phases I and III of the Pilot Source Study, the crediting system proposed by the ARC, and the structured academic coursework a graduate completes for an aviation

degree, the FAA has determined that a reduction in flight hours is appropriate, and we have retained credit for academic training in the final rule. In addition to decisions surrounding the crediting system proposed by the ARC, the FAA also engaged in extensive qualitative evaluation of aviation degree programs and courses, which will be discussed in more detail later in this final rule. This evaluation, coupled with the documentation that will be provided by the aviation programs, will help to ensure that crediting hours are only granted for legitimate aviation program coursework.

4. Military Pilots

Commenters submitted 95 responses regarding the proposal to allow military pilots to obtain an R-ATP certificate with 750 hours of flight time. Eighty-eight commenters agreed a restricted privileges ATP certificate is appropriate for military pilots. Several other individual commenters observed that the military operational environment is different than the air carrier environment, so reductions based on military experience are not justified. CAPA specifically stated there is no empirical evidence that a graduate from a military program has better experience or skill than other airman.

Four New York congressmen and RACCA opposed a reduction in flight time for anyone except military pilots. These commenters acknowledged the highly specialized disciplined screening and training procedures military pilots undergo.

Twenty-eight commenters, including Delta, CAA, and RAA, indicated a 750-hour requirement for former military pilots is too high. Most commenters stated 500 hours is more appropriate. Spartan College stated “the rigor and quality selection process for military pilots linked with highly structured training meets or exceeds the requirements of the NPRM” and added that 500 hours is appropriate for military pilots who operate in a multi-crew environment.

An additional 17 commenters including ERAU, KSU, JetBlue, NAFI, PABC, GAMA, FSC, CAE, NATA, DSU, and a number of individuals agree military pilots should be eligible for a restricted privileges ATP certificate but did not suggest how much experience is appropriate. Three commenters, including Aerosim, stated 750 hours is too low and suggested 1,000 hours instead. Aerosim conducted a survey of over 300 of its part 141 flight training institutions that indicated that 71% of the respondents support a reduction in flight hours for military pilots, with 55% of respondents stating that 750 hours was adequate.

The FAA has determined that permitting military pilots to obtain an R-ATP certificate with fewer than 1,500 hours is appropriate due to the quality and structure of military training. To be accepted into a pilot training program in one of the branches of the military, a person must undergo a rigorous screening process including an assessment of aviation aptitude. Depending on the branch of the military, an applicant for pilot training must hold an associate's degree or a bachelor's degree. Once accepted into a pilot training program, a person is assigned full-time to aviation training.

As an example, the United States Air Force Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) includes four to six weeks of academic and preflight training on aerospace physiology, altitude chamber tests, aircraft systems, aviation weather, mission planning, and navigation. After initial academic and preflight training, the Air Force student pilot undergoes 22 weeks of primary aircraft training before transitioning to a track of advanced aircraft training that continues for another 24 to 28 weeks. During flight training, military pilots continue their academic training through detailed briefings and debriefings of their flight training. An Air Force student pilot is committed to a 12-hour duty day while at SUPT, and his or her flight proficiency is continuously assessed. Additionally, during the flight training phases, an Air Force student pilot participates in flight training every day, either in a simulator or an aircraft.

Similarly, a Navy pilot completes a six-week indoctrination program which includes classes in aerodynamics, air navigation, aviation physiology, and engineering. The Navy pilot next completes primary training in approximately 22 weeks. It includes ground-based academics, FSTDs, and flight training. The Navy pilot then continues to advanced flight training.

Based on the comprehensive and demanding nature of military pilot training, the FAA is adopting the proposed requirement to allow military pilots who have graduated from an Armed Forces flight training program to apply for the ATP practical test after obtaining 750 hours of flight time. To the extent that some commenters have suggested a reduction is not appropriate due to operational differences in military operations, the FAA responds that the completion of military pilot training and the accumulation of 750 flight hours does not automatically result in an R-ATP certificate. Rather, a military pilot will still be required to complete the ATP certification training program in new § 61.156, pass the ATP knowledge test, and pass the ATP practical test or air carrier evaluation that results in the issuance of an ATP certificate. In addition, prior to serving in part 121 operations, military pilots will be required to complete an air carrier's initial training program and pass a proficiency evaluation. Accordingly, a military pilot will be required to demonstrate knowledge of civilian operations.

The FAA has modified § 61.39 to require military pilots applying for the ATP practical test to present the documents listed in § 61.160(a) to substantiate eligibility for an R-ATP certificate. These documents include an official U.S. Armed Forces record that shows that the applicant graduated from a U.S. Armed Forces pilot training school and received a rating qualification as a military pilot. Graduation from a training program designed to qualify a military pilot solely for operation of unmanned aircraft systems will not satisfy the requirement in § 61.160(a). Additionally, the FAA notes that regulations do not currently permit the time acquired while operating an unmanned aircraft system to be logged to meet aeronautical experience requirements for FAA certification.

Although several commenters have suggested the FAA allow a further reduction in flight hours for military pilots, the FAA has received no compelling data to support such a reduction. In addition, the FAA notes that, based on averages provided by the military, an additional reduction would have limited impact on those that could take advantage of this provision. Specifically, the majority of military pilots who complete their service obligations will have acquired the 1,500 hours required for an unrestricted ATP certificate. Army pilots who average approximately 800 hours when they complete their service obligations and pilots who are honorably discharged from the military prior to completing their service obligation would be most likely to benefit from the R-ATP certificate.

5. Graduates With a Bachelor's Degree in an Aviation Major

One hundred and seventy-five commenters supported an R-ATP certificate for applicants with a bachelor's degree with an aviation major. Several academic institutions including the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the American Association of Community

Colleges, UAA, Fox Valley Technical College of Aeronautics, WMU, Aims Community College, ERAU, Hesston College, Purdue, KSU, FSC, Westminster College, UVU, SIU, OSU, MTSU, DSU, Spartan College, Nova Southeastern University, and Florida Institute of Technology were supportive of the flight experience reduction based on academics. In addition, several individual commenters stated that graduates of an aviation degree program should be eligible to obtain an R-ATP certificate because the quality of training received at such schools is superior to that received under part 61.

CAPA commented that there is no empirical evidence that a graduate of an aviation degree program has better experience or skill than an airman who has not. CAPA also stated that, because most pilots cannot afford the “extraordinarily high cost of specialized aviation institutions,” the reduction in flight hours for these graduates is unfair because an applicant with financial resources can “purchase” their qualifications without having to gain flying experience. Moore Air, Inc. stated that permitting pilots from aviation bachelor's degree programs affiliated with part 141 schools discriminates against pilots with fewer economic resources. John A. O'Brien Aviation Consulting, LLC, stated the restricted privileges ATP certificate should not be limited to college graduates from “select universities.” AAL commented that the NPRM encourages pilots to attend a four-year aviation college or university but fails to recognize that such paths are available only to those willing and able to afford such educational paths. AAL acknowledges that higher education and quality training should be encouraged but quality training is also available in places outside accredited four-year aviation colleges.

In support of a reduction based on academic credit, Parks College (Parks) stated that its aviation graduates accomplish approximately 220 “hours of ground and classroom instruction leading to a [commercial pilot certificate] with an instrument rating.” Parks noted that, in addition to this classroom training for pilot certification, its students complete an additional 480 hours (32 credit hours) of academic coursework on topics related to aviation and air carrier operations. UND also provided information demonstrating that graduates of its professional flight curriculum must complete 464 hours of instruction in required aviation coursework that includes courses on human factors, flight physiology, advanced aerodynamics, and aviation weather. These students must also complete ground and flight training toward a commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating.

Based on the fact that the academic coursework completed as part of an aviation major generally exceeds the time a pilot might spend in ground school outside of that environment, the FAA continues to support a reduction of flight hours for graduates with an aviation major from a four-year institution of higher education who complete ground and flight training as part of approved training courses at a part 141 pilot school that is associated with the institution of higher education. Over the course of several years, these graduates complete significant aviation coursework well above the hours of ground training required for commercial pilot certification. In addition, a student's knowledge and flight proficiency are continuously evaluated throughout the degree program.

Notwithstanding the FAA's continued support for a reduction in required flight hours for these applicants, the FAA has refined, clarified, and expanded some elements of the R-ATP certificate as it applies to graduates of degree programs with aviation majors in the final rule. These modifications are discussed in the following sections.

a. Flight Hour Requirement

Notwithstanding general support for a reduction in hours for these pilots, many commenters recommended reducing the hours below the 1,000 hours proposed in the NPRM.

One hundred sixty-five commenters stated that 1,000 hours is too high, including OSU, Aviation Professional Development, LLC (APD), DSU, and the Pilot Career Initiative. AAL and Westminster College stated 1,000 hours is much too high to provide an incentive for pilots to pursue a formal education.

Most commenters responded that a total flight time of 500 to 750 hours is more appropriate for graduates of a four-year aviation degree program. Many commenters, including Delta, ERAU, and Rocky Mountain College cited the Pilot Source Study as evidence that the FAA should allow pilots with fewer than 1,000 hours to be employed by air carriers. The American Aviation Institute (AAI) along with several other commenters suggested the rule be simplified by establishing the 750-hour threshold for an R-ATP certificate to civilian candidates who have graduated from accredited programs including two- and four-year universities, programs designed for university graduates, and other structured academies run by training organizations and by airlines. AAI also recommended the FAA establish requirements for academies to qualify them. Other commenters suggested that the FAA offer an R-ATP certificate to graduates of a four-year collegiate flight program with fewer total flight hours, generally in the range between 500 and 1,000 flight hours.

Ten commenters, including KSU, SJSU, WMU, UVU, Aerosim, ALPA, American Flyers, and Nova Southeastern University believe the proposed 1,000 hours of flight experience is adequate. Approximately 47 percent of NAFI's members indicated that 1,000 hours is too low but did not specify how many of those responding generally oppose an R-ATP certificate.

The FAA has considered the 2010 and 2012 Pilot Source Studies, the FOQ ARC report, and the structured academic coursework in aviation a graduate receives

and has determined that, based on the best currently available information, it is appropriate to retain the minimum 1,000-hour aeronautical experience requirement for graduates of four-year degree program with an aviation major who obtain their commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating from an associated part 141 pilot school. Commenters have not provided compelling evidence to support a further reduction in hours for graduates of these programs. Many commenters referenced the 2010 Pilot Source Study (which indicated that the most successful pilots in initial training, without any consideration of the manner in which they received their aviation training, were those pilots hired with 500-1,000 hours) to justify why they felt the FAA should reduce the hour requirement further.

The FAA notes that the third phase of the Pilot Source Study, which was submitted to the docket, indicated that pilots with 1,001-1,500 total flight hours had more completions in training than any other group, including the group with 500-1,000 total flight hours.

There is further discussion of the FAA's review of academic curriculum later in this document. This review provided additional support to the agency's decision to retain the credit for graduates of aviation degree programs.

A summary of the findings of the 2012 Pilot Source Study was submitted to the rulemaking docket. The FAA considered the results along with additional factors during development of the final rule. A recent journal article discussing the results of the 2012 Pilot Source Study concluded that “flight hours are not a good predictor of performance.” The journal article can be found in the Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, Vol.II, Issue 2 (2013) at:

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jate/vol2/iss2/2/

b. Institutional Accreditation and “Aviation Degree Programs”

The FAA proposed in the NPRM to permit a reduced flight hour requirement for applicants who hold a bachelor's degree with an aviation major obtained from a postsecondary educational institution that satisfies the definition of “accredited” as established by Department of Education in 34 CFR 600.2. The Department of Education maintains a database of accredited postsecondary institutions and programs available at the following Web site:

http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/.

UAA fully supported the proposed requirement that any degree-granting institution qualifying its graduates for reduced flight hours must be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency as defined by the Department of Education in 34 CFR 600.2. UAA contended that this type of accreditation insures the validity of the institution granting the degree and provides the most inclusive form of accreditation possible by which to prepare pilots for the proposed R-ATP certificate. UAA added some of their member institutions hold program-specific accreditation in addition to institutional accreditation, but the majority do not have program accreditation at this time. UAA looked at current, national collegiate flight training and indicated the number of eligible institutions will decrease from over 164 to 29 if program specific accreditation becomes a requirement. UAA noted that two institutions that currently hold program accreditation are phasing out their pilot training programs.

KSU stated that the relationship between the academic institution and the flight training provider signifies a strong commitment to quality pilot education and fosters an environment of professional pilot training. KSU added that Aviation Accreditation Board International (AABI) accreditation and part 141 approval by the FAA provide the needed quality assurances for the quality and integrity of flight training. Purdue added that the same credit should be given to graduates of AABI-accredited flight programs regardless of the part under which the school operates. APD agreed with the proposal to provide an R-ATP certificate but indicated that those R-ATP certificates should be available only for those students attending an AABI-accredited flig

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.