Pilot Operating and Experience Requirements

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration amends its pilot

qualification requirements for air carrier and commercial operator

pilots by upgrading existing operating experience requirements,

establishing a new kind of operating experience requirement, and adding

requirements that would reduce the potential for an inexperienced pilot

in command to be scheduled to fly with an inexperienced second in

command pilot. The FAA has determined that recent practices and trends

necessitate revising current pilot qualification regulations in the

interest of safety to upgrade minimum crew experience and to require

pilots to use newly developed knowledge and skills in actual line

operations within a short time after training.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Larry Youngblut, Project Development Branch (AFS-240), Air

Transportation Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591;

Telephone (202) 267-8096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The FAA is amending part 121 pilot qualification requirements. The

FAA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Notice No. 93-1,

on the subject (58 FR 15730, March 23, 1993). Most of these amendments

are based on a joint government/industry task force committee's

recommendation. Three proposals, on second in command (SIC) operating

experience, FAA inspector observation of a pilot in command (PIC), and

``satisfactory'' completion of operating experience, are not committee

recommendations but are parallel to the basic committee's

recommendation. The final amendments are as follows:

1. The present requirement in Sec. 121.434(a), which prohibits a

certificate holder from using any person ``as a required crewmember on

an airplane unless he has completed, on that type airplane and in that

crewmember position, the operating experience requirements required,''

is revised by inserting the work ``satisfactorily'' before the word

``completed.''

2. Operating experience requirements in Sec. 121.434 are amended to

require that a PIC completing initial or upgrade training be observed

during at least one flight leg by an FAA inspector in all cases, not

just when the certificate holder's training program includes simulator

training.

3. Operating experience requirements in Sec. 121.434 are amended to

require that an SIC must perform SIC duties under the supervision of an

appropriately qualified check pilot and to eliminate the current option

allowing an SIC to observe the performance of the duties on the flight

deck.

4. The hours of operating experience required in Sec. 121.434 are

increased for PICs transitioning in Group II airplanes, and reductions

in hours are no longer allowed for PIC initial training in Group II

airplanes or for initial or transition training for SICs in Group II

airplanes.

5. Operating experience requirements for both PICs and SICs in

Sec. 121.434 are amended to include requiring four operating cycles (at

least two of which must be flown by the pilot). ``Operating cycle'' is

defined in the rule as a complete flight segment consisting of a

takeoff, climb, enroute portion, descent, and a landing.

6. Operating experience requirements in Sec. 121.434 are amended to

require that each PIC and SIC acquire 100 hours of line operating

experience for consolidation of knowledge and skills within 120 days

after completion of an airman certification practical test or

completion of a proficiency check in the new airplane.

``Consolidation'' is defined as the process by which a person through

practice and practical experience increases proficiency in newly

acquired knowledge and skills. ``Line operating flight time'' is

defined as flight time performed in operations under part 121.

7. A new section on operating limitations, Sec. 121.438, requires a

PIC, when flying with an SIC who has fewer than 100 flight hours in the

type airplane being flown, to make all takeoffs and landings during

certain situations. This new section also requires that either a PIC or

SIC have at least 75 hours of line operating flight time for that type

airplane in order to be assigned to the same flight crew. (This is

commonly called ``crew pairing.'')

History

The FAA determined that these amendments were necessary because of

airplane accidents and incidents that had occurred at least in part

because of inexperienced flight crews. An accident that occurred in

Denver in 1987 involved a Continental Airlines McDonnell Douglas DC-9-

14 which crashed on takeoff. The National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) found that the PIC, though an experienced pilot, had very little

total flying time in the DC-9 and was not experienced in supervising

first officers. The SIC, who was flying the aircraft when it crashed,

had little experience in the DC-9 and had not flown for the previous 24

days. A second accident that occurred in New York in 1989 involved a

USAir B-737. The NTSB found that the PIC, though experienced as an SIC,

had only 138 hours as a PIC in air transport aircraft; the SIC, who had

been recently hired and had just qualified for B-737 service, was

conducting his first non-supervised line takeoff in a B-737, and also

his first takeoff after a 39-day non-flying period.

In response to the problem of inexperienced crews, the FAA issued

Air Carrier Operations Bulletin (ACOB) 8-88-1 (January 21, 1988) and

guidance to FAA field staff (July 19, 1988). The guidance to field

staff requested that principal operations inspectors (POIs) review

their certificate holders' policies on crew pairing and scheduling and

send copies of these policies to FAA headquarters.

The NTSB recommended (November 3, 1988), based on its investigation

of the Denver accident, that the FAA issue requirements that establish

minimum experience levels for each PIC and each SIC that would, in

effect, ``prohibit the pairing on the same flight of pilots who have

less than the minimum experience in their respective positions.''

The FAA reviewed accident data, NTSB recommendations on crew

experience, as well as past and present practices and trends in the

aviation environment that are affecting crew experience levels. For

example, the practice of bidding for flight crew schedules, which is

used by air carriers, results in the most experienced pilots obtaining

the most desirable schedules and the least experienced pilots obtaining

the least desirable schedules. Often the least experienced pilots are

assigned to a reserve pool and may have to wait days or weeks before

they receive a flight assignment. This system often prevents newly

qualified pilots from using and perfecting their new flight skills

immediately after qualifying [[Page 20859]] on a new aircraft. It also

increases the likelihood of pairing inexperienced pilots on the same

flight.

Also, in recent years manufacturers have introduced a greater

number of new aircraft containing more equipment and systems variations

within type. Pilots must not only learn different aircraft handling

characteristics but they must also be able to work with a variety of

aircraft equipment such as automated flight control and flight

management systems.

In response to these concerns about the experience level of crews,

the FAA requested the Joint Government/industry Task Force on Flight

Crew Performance, which was established in 1987, to form a committee to

develop recommendations for establishing crew pairing requirements.\1\

On September 13, 1990, the committee recommended requiring all

certificate holders operating under part 121 to provide a minimum level

of experience for pilot crews. Specifically, the committee recommended

the consolidation requirements, operating restrictions, and crew

pairing restrictions. The FAA has incorporated, with some

modifications, those recommendations in this rulemaking.

\1\This task force was later subsumed by the Air Transportation

Personnel Training and Qualifications Advisory Committee,

established by FAA Order 1110.115, May 2, 1990, which committee was

subsequently subsumed under the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Discussion

The FAA received 14 comments on the proposed rule. These comments

were from air carriers, pilot organizations, the NTSB, and one

individual. Most of the commenters voice general support for the rule

as a whole but have suggestions for changes to specific requirements.

The following is a discussion of general comments and specific comments

on each requirement in the rule.

General Comments

NTSB says that the proposed rule effectively responds to its safety

recommendations following two accidents involving the pairing of

inexperienced pilots (Safety Recommendations A-88-107 and A-90-107 and

-108).

The Air Transport Association (ATA) and an individual airline say

that the proposed rule is not justified because Air Carrier Operations

Bulletin 8-88-1 (issued in 1988 and revised in 1991) effectively

provides guidelines in the scheduling and pairing of pilots as well as

recommended actions for pilots with low experience levels. ATA says

that the proposed rule would add further, unjustified restrictions to

this ACOB.

The Boeing Company (Boeing) generally agrees with the proposed rule

but says that the changes do not address the practice whereby

commercial transport manufacturers' pilots help air carriers to

introduce new airplane models into revenue service. Boeing says that

the proposed rule would prevent manufacturers from providing this

support to air carriers and that this support is needed for safe

initial line operations when air carriers do not have pilots with

significant experience in airplane models new to carriers.

FAA Response

While the FAA recognizes that many air carriers have initiated crew

pairing policies based on the ACOB, the guidance is not mandatory. The

FAA intended the guidance as an interim action to be followed by

mandatory rules. The FAA believes that the seriousness of the situation

warrants rulemaking. Since most air carriers are already complying with

the guidance, the FAA does not believe the rulemaking will be an

excessive burden to the industry as a whole.

The FAA does not believe this rulemaking will interfere with

commercial transport airplane manufacturers providing pilots to assist

air carriers during the introduction of new airplane types into revenue

service. The FAA believes that this can be accomplished within the rule

as proposed and adopted. Sections 121.434(h)(5) and 121.438(b) provide

for the Administrator to issue deviations to certificate holders from

the line operating experience requirements of Sec. 121.434(g) and the

crew pairing limitations of Sec. 121.438(b) if special circumstances

warrant.

Comments on Specific Sections

Section 121.431(b)--Applicability

Currently, Sec. 121.431(b) states that the airplane groups and

definitions prescribed in Sec. 121.400 apply to subpart O. The amended

paragraph (b) adds definitions for the terms ``consolidation,'' ``line

operating flight time,'' and ``operating cycle.''

Four comments were received on the definitions and applicability.

One commenter says that rather than use the term ``line operating

flight time,'' the term ``flight time'' should be used so that all

flight time (not just FAR part 121 flying) is counted towards

consolidation. Two commenters say that the term ``consolidation'' is

misleading in the NPRM because it describes a process by which

proficiency is gained through practice and practical experience. Since,

currently, pilots take proficiency checks prior to consolidation,

commenters suggest that a different term be used.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) says that the proposed rule

should apply to part 135 operations as well. According to ALPA, this

would be responsive to NTSB recommendation A-88-137 which recommends

minimum experience levels for PICs and SICs in part 135 operations.

FAA Response

The FAA intended that only line operating flight time, which is

flight time performed in part 121 operations, be counted towards

consolidation. The purpose of consolidation is to provide pilots flight

experience in line operations in the airplane type that the pilot is

newly qualified within a reasonable time after training in order to

consolidate their skills and knowledge. Other flight time outside of a

certificate holder's line operations may not provide the same

experience.

As stated in the NPRM, the FAA used the term ``consolidation,'' as

recommended by the task force committee, with some reservation because

the term is used in psychology books to identify a period of time that

is part of the training/learning process or that occurs almost

immediately after a training or teaching session. While it is true that

a defined consolidation period may begin after a pilot has completed a

proficiency check, proficiency is increased throughout a pilot's line

operating flying experience and proficiency checks are conducted

regularly throughout a pilot's career. The FAA believes that

``consolidation'' is an acceptable term for the concept but to avoid

any confusion the definition has been revised by changing the words

``becomes proficient'' to ``increases proficiency.''

The FAA is not extending these requirements to part 135 in this

rulemaking since it is beyond the scope of the notice. However, the FAA

has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to require that

part 135 certificate holders who conduct commuter operations with

airplanes for which two pilots are required, or have a passenger

seating configuration of 10 or more seats, train and qualify

crewmembers in accordance with the requirements of part 121, subparts N

and O. [See Federal Register 59 FR 64272, dated December 13,

1994.] [[Page 20860]]

Section 121.434(c)(1)(ii)--Observation by FAA Inspector (Operating

Experience)

Currently Sec. 121.434(c)(1)(ii) requires that when a PIC is

obtaining operating experience at least one flight leg that includes a

takeoff and landing must be observed by an FAA inspector if the

certificate holder's approved training program includes simulator

training under Sec. 121.409(c) and if a qualifying pilot in command is

completing initial or upgrade training specified in Sec. 121.424. The

revised paragraph deletes the reference to simulator training in the

certificate holder's approved training program. The FAA inspector

observation requirement will, therefore, apply to all PICs obtaining

operating experience if they are completing initial or upgrade

training.

Five comments were received on this issue. Two commenters point out

that the original purpose of requiring FAA inspector observation was to

validate simulator training. Since the onset of the advanced simulation

program (FAR Appendix H) tens of thousands of pilots have been

successfully trained using advanced simulation. According to

commenters, in view of the excellent experience with advanced

simulation, the requirement for FAA observation should now be dropped,

not expanded. Adding to this requirement would not enhance safety and

would be administratively and financially burdensome. These commenters,

as well as three others, say that there is a shortage of available,

qualified FAA inspectors and this requirement will cause scheduling

programs if personal observation of flight legs by an FAA inspector is

required. The result will be costly delays in an airline's ability to

use newly qualified PICs. One commenter points out that even under the

current system, carriers face significant and expensive delays awaiting

the availability of an FAA inspector and that the proposal would

exacerbate this problem.

ATA, United, and the Regional Airline Association (RAA) recommend

that this proposal be eliminated. ATA points out that if the proposal

is implemented, the observation could take place on a pilot's first

line trip and could be administered by an inspector who is not

qualified on the aircraft being flown.

Three commenters, including American Airlines and RAA, recommend

that Designated Examiners and Aircrew Program Designees be allowed to

observe the flight leg when FAA inspector schedules are not compatible

and completion of the operating experience would be delayed.

FAA Response

The initial observation requirement was implemented to provide an

opportunity for the FAA to observe a pilot in performance of his or her

duties before the pilot completes initial operating experience if the

certificate holder's training program included simulator training.

Since almost all certificate holder training programs under part 121

now include simulator training, deleting the reference to simulator

training does not significantly affect the current practices of

certificate holders or the FAA. The FAA finds that the initial purpose

of the observation requirement is still valid: to provide the FAA an

opportunity to observe the PIC before he or she assumes unsupervised

operations in an airplane; to validate the certificate holder's

training program; and to provide the FAA with a quality control

mechanism for evaluating the certificate holder's designated check

pilot program.

The FAA finds that allowing Designated Examiners or Aircrew Program

Designees to substitute for FAA inspectors would not satisfy the

purpose of this observation as described above.

Section 121.434(c)(2)--SIC Supervised Operating Experience

Current Sec. 121.434(c)(2) requires that an SIC pilot perform the

duties of an SIC under the supervision of a check pilot or observe the

performance of the duties on the flight deck. The revision eliminates

the option to observe. The revised rule requires that an SIC pilot

acquire operating experience by performing actual SIC duties (and not

simply by observing another SIC) under the supervision of a qualified

check pilot.

Two comments were received on this requirement. Both commenters

agree with the proposal and say that it would ensure that newly trained

SICs immediately begin consolidating newly developed skills by actually

performing line operations and flying the airplane. Both commenters

point out that the current system of gaining credit toward operating

experience by passively observing another SIC is ineffective and does

not promote proficiency. In addition, NTSB says that the proposal is

responsive to NTSB recommendation A-88-138 which was issued after a

Continental Airlines accident in Denver in November 1987.

Section 121.434(c)(3)--Hours of Operating Experience and Operating

Cycles

The current rule requires specific numbers of hours of operating

experience for all pilots for initial and transition training in Group

I and II airplanes as follows: (1) For initial training: 15 hours in

Group I reciprocating powered airplanes, 20 hours in Group I

turbopropeller airplanes, and 25 hours in Group II airplanes; (2) For

transition training: 10 hours in Group I reciprocating powered

airplanes, 12 hours in Group I turbopropeller powered airplanes, and 15

hours for Group II airplanes. The amended rule changes transition

training hours for Group II to 25 hours for PICs; 15 hours continues to

apply for SICs. The amended rule also requires that operating

experience include at least 4 operating cycles (at least 2 as the pilot

flying the airplane).

Three comments were received on this issue. Two of the comments

overlap with reduction requirements of revised Sec. 121.434(f)(1) and

will be discussed in that section of this preamble.

ALPA supports the proposed rule's requirement that the pilot

receiving the supervised operating experience be the pilot flying the

aircraft in at least two operating cycles. ALPA agrees that this will

ensure that qualifying pilots obtain experience in all critical phases

of a flight operation (takeoff, climb, en route portion, descent, and

landing) and provide safeguards against meeting supervised operating

hours without completing all aspects of a cycle (as in long range

flights).

Section 121.434(f)--Reduction of Operating Experience Hours

The current rule allows the hours required in Sec. 121.434(c)(3),

among other sections, to be reduced up to 50 percent for all pilots by

substituting one additional takeoff and landing for each hour of

flight. The amended rule continues to allow the reduction for Group I

airplanes for initial and transition operating experience and for Group

II airplanes for PIC transitional operating experience. The amended

rule would not allow PICs meeting initial training operating experience

requirements in Group II airplanes or SICs meeting either initial or

transition training operating experience in Group II airplanes to

reduce the number of required hours of operating experience in these

type airplanes.

Two comments were received on this issue, plus two that were

submitted as comments on the number of hours required but are discussed

here since [[Page 20861]] they pertain to reducing the required hours.

Two commenters state that since the rule requires at least 4 operating

cycles (at least 2 as the pilot flying), then PICs and SICs should be

allowed to reduce the operating experience time by one hour for each

takeoff and landing following the two operating cycles that are

required. These commenters also say that the reduction should apply to

initial, upgrade, and transition categories.

United Airlines says that ``hour requirements for transition

training PICs should be reducible for cycles for Group II airplanes

just as is proposed for Group I airplanes'' and that ``if transition

training SICs in Group II airplanes also had a 25 hour requirement

instead of 15 hours, that time should also be reducible for cycles.''

RAA says that the proposed rule ``appears to limit the reduction

option in Group I airplanes to transition only'' and that this option

should also apply to initial and upgrade training.

ALPA agrees with the proposal because it would ``eliminate the

capability to reduce the required hours of supervised operating

experience according to the number of takeoffs and landings for all

pilots except those transitioning as pilot in command'' and that ``this

will allow an additional amount of time for pilots to become

comfortable in their operating seat in their operational environment

while under supervision.''

FAA Response

The proposed and final rule state that flight crewmembers may

substitute one additional takeoff and landing for each hour of flight

up to a maximum reduction of 50 percent (with the exceptions described

above). The FAA intends that after completing the four required cycles,

a pilot may achieve a reduction in required flight hours for each

additional takeoff and landing. This is intended to ensure that pilots

obtain adequate hours of line flight experience while still recognizing

that short flights, with frequent takeoffs and landings, may provide

experience equal to longer flights.

The change that will not allow a reduction for PICs meeting initial

operating experience is necessary because of the importance of PICs

gaining additional experience operating an aircraft's sophisticated

automated equipment during initial operating experience. Both the

increase in hours in this category and not allowing any reduction in

hours reflect the need for thorough experience in operating the

different equipment installed in the airplane. Likewise the reduction

for SICs in Group II airplanes has been eliminated because SICs have

more responsibilities in the more sophisticated aircraft that have two-

person cockpits.

The reduction continues to apply to all pilots in Group I

airplanes.

Although the FAA has made no substantive changes to the rule

language in the NPRM, paragraph (f) has been rewritten to make the

intent clearer.

Section 121.434(g)--Consolidation

This new rule requires that PICs and SICs acquire at least 100

hours of line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and

skills within 120 days after satisfactory completion of a type rating

practical test or an initial proficiency check. In the NPRM, the FAA

specifically requested comments on the feasibility and adequacy of the

120-day period. The committee recommended that consolidation consist of

100 hours of line operating flight time and that if the 100 hours was

not completed in 120 days, an airman must receive additional training

before extending the consolidation period.

Seven comments were received on this requirement. Three commenters

say that the 75-hour threshold used for crew pairing (121.438(b))

should also be used for consolidation rather than 100 hours. These

commenters say that 75 hours would be sufficient as a minimum number of

flight hours within the 120 days to ensure that the newly-acquired

piloting skills are not lost once training and testing have ended. In

addition, using 75 hours would simplify tracking and recordkeeping

requirements associated with both consolidation and crew pairing.

Finally, RAA comments that using a 75-hour requirement is further

supported because this was the number originally used in the Task Force

recommendation.

ALPA recommends that the consolidation period be reduced to 100

days or that refresher training be required. This would ensure the

newly trained pilot a timely completion of consolidation with as little

interruption as possible.

ALPA also responds to the FAA's projection that 10 percent of

crewmembers would not be able to complete consolidation in the required

time by saying that airlines should be able to allow crewmembers in

consolidation to get the required flight time. ALPA states that during

a pilot's consolidation period, instead of being assigned to reserve

status, airlines should be able to schedule these crewmembers on a

regular basis without any additional costs being incurred. Further,

ALPA says that if an airline displaces a line holding pilot to let a

reserve pilot fly, there should be no net cost increase because pilots

assigned to reserve status are guaranteed monthly minimum pay by the

airline regardless of how many hours they fly.

Two commenters, United Airlines and ATA, say that in certain short

range operations, consolidation will occur long before the 100 hour

requirement is met because of the cycles flown. ATA says that the

experience gained by pilots involved in short haul operations from

multiple departures and takeoffs should be recognized by the FAA. These

commenters therefore recommend a reduction of required consolidation

line operating flight time at a rate of one hour for one cycle to a

maximum of 50 percent reduction in hours.

RAA says that the proposed rule does not ensure that the clock (to

complete consolidation) would begin at the same time for individual

pilots. RAA says that it is possible that a PIC and SIC who were

checked the same day in the simulator and completed their checks the

same day in the aircraft would not have the same time remaining to

complete the 100 hours of experience. Thus, RAA recommends that the

phrase ``Any part of '' be removed from Sec. 121.434(g)(1).

Alaska Airlines says that the consolidation requirement would have

a great economic impact on air carriers because senior pilots would be

displaced by junior pilots needing to complete consolidation

requirements. Alaska adds that labor unions might not be willing to

``forgo the seniority benefits assured within their agreements without

first demanding compensation for those affected by the loss of their

seniority rights.''

FAA Response

There is no reduction in consolidation hours allowed for the number

of takeoffs and landings. While operating experience hours may be

reduced in accordance with revised Sec. 121.434(f), consolidation hours

may not be reduced. As stated in the NPRM preamble, the crew pairing

committee concluded and the FAA agrees that it is important for a pilot

who has qualified in an airplane to have an opportunity to consolidate

the newly developed piloting skills and procedural knowledge through

substantial line operating experience in the airplane within a

reasonably short time after completing training and satisfactorily

demonstrating proficiency. Pilots who have satisfactorily completed

training and demonstrated proficiency in an airplane and who do not

soon thereafter consolidate the newly acquired [[Page 20862]] knowledge

and skills in actual line operations may lose proficiency in the newly

acquired knowledge and skills.

The FAA recognizes that the 120-day consolidation period may not

start at the same time for every pilot since it either begins after the

satisfactory completion of a Sec. 121.441 proficiency check or after

the satisfactory completion of any part of the flight maneuvers and

procedures portion of either an airline transport pilot certificate

with type rating practical test or an additional type rating practical

test. The purpose in stating the rule this way with respect to a

practical test is to ensure that a pilot certificate rating program

will not be extended to the point that a loss of knowledge and skills

would occur. By requiring the consolidation period to begin at the

completion of any portion of the program, the carrier has an incentive

to complete the pilot's rating program within a reasonable period.

The FAA recognizes that the consolidation requirement may affect

crew scheduling. How much it will affect scheduling depends on the way

carriers are now scheduling pilots who have recently acquired a type

rating. The FAA recognizes that there may be some incremental increase

in costs to comply with this final rule. However given that carriers

have 120 days to complete the consolidation period for its pilots, and

that a 30-day extension is available in certain circumstances, with

careful scheduling, this consolidation can be accomplished without an

excessive burden. It is in the interests of the air carrier, the

pilots, and the public that these pilots obtain experience in the

airplane within a reasonable time after being qualified.

In response to Alaska Airlines, the FAA notes that although senior

pilots may require compensation, reserve pilots normally are paid on a

fixed base salary; thus, the total cost of remuneration for both pilots

should be the same.

In response to RAA, the FAA has no knowledge of a Task Force

recommendation that included a 75-hour consolidation period.

A 100-day consolidation period suggested by ALPA would be beyond

the scope of this rulemaking. In addition, the FAA notes that this

suggestion was not part of ALPA's minority opinion filed with the Task

Force recommendations.

Section 121.434(h)--Exceptions (Pilots Who Have Completed Line

Operating Flight Time as an SIC on a Particular Type Airplane)

In the NPRM paragraph (h)(1) said that pilots who have qualified

and served as second in command on a particular type airplane (before

the effective date of the rule) are not required to complete line

operating flight time for consolidation as pilot in command. Similarly,

paragraph (h)(2) said that pilots who have completed line operating

flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills while serving as

second in command on a particular type airplane (after the effective

date) are not required to meet consolidation requirements on the same

type airplane.

The one comment received on these requirements does not agree with

the proposal. ALPA says that the knowledge and skills required of PICs

and SICs differ, and that there may also be substantial differences

between aircraft even though they have common type ratings. ALPA also

comments that there could be a considerable lapse of time between

flying as SIC and PIC with another aircraft flown in between. Thus,

ALPA believes that all crewmembers should go through the consolidation

process.

FAA Response

The exception permitted by Sec. 121.434(h) addresses upgrade

training, specifically, upgrading from SIC to PIC in the same airplane

type. It does not include upgrading from flight engineer to SIC in the

same type airplane. By definition, upgrade training is that training

required for crewmembers who have qualified and served on a particular

type airplane before they can serve in another duty position on the

same type airplane. In other words, the upgrading pilot would by

definition be familiar with that airplane, and the FAA believes that

the operational experience requirement along with previous experience

on that type airplane adequately addresses consolidation.

The FAA has determined that the language in proposed

Sec. 121.434(h)(1) unintentionally limited the grandfathering of

current pilots to SICs who may upgrade to PIC at some future point. The

FAA intended that all PICs and SICs who have qualified for their

positions before the effective date of the final rule would not need to

complete consolidation. The rule language has been changed to reflect

this intent.

Section 121.434(h)(3)--Refresher Training

New paragraph (h)(3) requires a pilot who flies another airplane

type before completing the required 100 hours of line operating flight

time to complete refresher training in the airplane for which the pilot

has newly qualified. The NPRM states that training must be conducted by

a qualified check pilot.

Four comments were received on this requirement. One commenter says

that the proposal is not necessary, but if it is kept, then it should

also include restrictions from flying other types of aircraft including

military reserve aircraft.

Alaska Airlines says that the term ``refresher training'' is vague

and could result in inconsistent requirements that were minimal in some

cases and stringent in others. Alaska points out that ``re-

qualification programs'' are designed to provide students with training

to reacquaint them with an aircraft type from which they have been

absent for a specific period of time, such as extended military leaves.

Alaska says that the proposed rule, in contrast, would deal with

students who are current with no appreciable lapses in exposure to the

equipment type they would be trained on. This commenter adds that its

own re-qualification training program does not require additional

flight training for those absent less than 90 days.

United Airlines and ATA say that refresher training should not

require a check airman and that it should be conducted by a qualified

flight instructor. Thus, the proposed rule should be modified

accordingly.

FAA Response

The amount of refresher training depends on the extent of the lapse

and what skills and knowledge have been lost during the lapse. As the

FAA stated in the NPRM preamble, each certificate holder must develop

training objectives for refresher training for each make and model

airplane used in part 121 operations. Refresher training should ensure

that pilots have retained, or are allowed to regain, the level or

proficiency needed to serve in part 121 operations. This qualification

training should focus on, among other things, procedural knowledge

regarding the operation of the aircraft (e.g., programming the

aircraft's flight management system) and other critical skills such as

engine inoperative approaches and missed approaches. Refresher training

may consist of special purpose operational training or an airplane

flight training period when a flight simulator or flight training

device is unavailable. Special purpose operational training is

described in AC 120-35b, ``Line Operational Simulations: Line-Oriented

Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, and Line

Operational Evaluation.''

[[Page 20863]]

The FAA agrees with the comment that refresher training could be

conducted by a check pilot or qualified flight instructor and has

changed this final rule accordingly.

The requirement specifies types of aircraft operated by the part

121 certificate holder; it does not include military reserve aircraft

or any other aircraft not operated under part 121.

Section 121.434(h)(4)--Extension of Consolidation Period From 120 to

150 Days

New paragraph (h)(4) allows the consolidation period to be extended

from 120 days to 150 days if the pilot satisfactorily completes

refresher training or a check pilot determines that the pilot has

retained an adequate level of proficiency after observing the pilot in

a supervised line operating flight.

Four comments were received on this requirement. Alaska Airlines

does not believe that any limit on the consolidation period will affect

safety or proficiency. As long as a student is determined to be

continually proficient through reevaluation by a qualified check pilot,

there is no need to limit the length of the consolidation period.

Another commenter recommends that the consolidation period be

extendable to 180 days, not 150 days.

RAA recommends that carriers have the option of selecting a five-

month period for consolidation, rather than 120 days, because most

carriers observe a monthly cycle. If consolidation were to start at the

beginning of a month, carriers would be limited in the number of flying

assignments they could make to new PICs and SICs. RAA states that as

many as 25 or 30 days could be lost under this circumstance and that a

five-month option would give carriers a greater ability to make

assignments to achieve the consolidation objective.

NTSB believes that the 120-day consolidation period is feasible

under virtually all circumstances but also supports an extension to 150

days if the required 100 hours of operating flight time cannot be

completed in 120 days. However, NTSB stresses that such extensions

should be approved only under extenuating circumstances and in strict

compliance with the additional requirements of the proposed rule as a

whole. Otherwise, the intended consolidation and stabilization of a

pilot's newly acquired knowledge and skills would be compromised.

FAA Response

The FAA has determined that extending the consolidation period

beyond 150 days is not in the interest of consolidating a newly trained

pilot's skills and knowledge. Once training and checking are completed,

the pilot needs to practice recently learned skills in line operations

in order to master the skills.

The FAA finds that 180 days would be too long to achieve 100 hours

of consolidation.

The problem raised by RAA is a scheduling problem; requiring 100

hours of line operating flight time within a 120-day period should not

present a problem that cannot be managed since the average pilot flies

approximately 60-70 hours per month.

The FAA recognizes that consolidation of skills within 120 days is

preferable to an extension; however, for those instances, for any

reason, when a pilot has had less than 100 hours in 120 days, it does

not seem reasonable to require that the pilot repeat the entire

qualification program. A refresher training course should be sufficient

to compensate for the lapsed time.

Section 121.434(h)(5)--Deviations From Consolidation Requirements

New paragraph (h)(5) allows the Administrator to authorize

deviations from consolidation requirements when: (1) A new certificate

holder does not employ any pilots who have met the consolidation

requirements, or (2) a certificate holder is adding new airplanes to

its fleet, or (3) a certificate holder is reassigning pilots to a new

domicile where they will be operating a different aircraft type.

One comment was received on this requirement. Boeing recommends

specific language changes to this paragraph so that it would apply to

manufacturers as well as to certificate holders and to training

programs as well as to certificate holders' operations specifications.

Boeing states that without these changes the rule will ``prevent

manufacturers from providing the level of support for initial line

operations that is required for a safe operation when an air carrier

does not have pilots with a significant experience base in an airplane

new to the carrier.''

FAA Response

Paragraph (h)(5)(ii) provides that, as one of the circumstances for

being eligible for a deviation, a certificate holder adds to its fleet

a type airplane not before proven for use in its operations. If a

manufacturer provides pilots for the certificate holder's operations

and these pilots do not meet the requirements of paragraph (g), the

certificate holder would apply for the deviation. Since manufacturers

are not part 121 certificate holders, they cannot apply for the

deviation.

Section 121.438(a)--Operating Limitations--Takeoffs and Landings

The new rule requires PICs (other than check airmen), when paired

with SICs with less than 100 hours of line operational flight time in

that type airplane, to make all takeoffs and landings at special

airports or under certain conditions.

Two comments on the general nature of the requirement were

received. Alaska Airlines says that takeoff and landing decisions

should be made by the PIC and be based on the conditions present during

the operation. In some cases, the SIC may have more hours in the type

airplane than the PIC and would be more experienced in takeoffs and

landings in that type airplane. The proposed rule could, therefore,

compromise safety.

ALPA agrees with the intent of the proposed rule and supports PICs

making takeoffs and landings in cases where SICs have minimal flight

hours in the type of airplane being flown. However, ALPA believes that

the PIC should have more latitude in making takeoff and landing

decisions. For example, in cases of many short flights and poor weather

conditions, it could become very fatiguing for the PIC to make every

takeoff and landing; in cases such as these, it may be more appropriate

for the SIC to make a takeoff or landing.

United Airlines and ATA believe that the proposed rule on special

airports is too restrictive and that PICs should have discretion in

making this decision on a case-by-case basis determined by operational

considerations. United says that certain operations at some special

airports are ``entirely unremarkable'' and that PICs should be given

the ability to allow SICs to land at such airports. On a similar note,

ATA says that in cases where a crew must fly several turnarounds to

another special airport in a single day's flying, the PIC should be

given the option of allowing the SIC to complete a takeoff and landing.

RAA and another commenter say that proposed Sec. 121.438(a)(2)(vii)

would provide an acceptable alternative to the special airports

requirement; it would give PICs the prerogative to permit or deny SICs

to land or takeoff at a special airport (or for any other conditions).

Alaska Airlines says that the proposed rule would restrict its

operations by preventing new first officers from making landings in 30

percent of Alaska's airports and 100 percent of Russia's airports. This

would also adversely affect the training process because pilots would

be restricted from gaining experience at special airports while their

``procedural awareness is at [[Page 20864]] its highest level.'' This

would detract from the preparation already given the pilot and have a

negative impact on safety.

Alaska Airlines states that Sec. 121.438(a)(2)(iii) is too

restrictive. Paragraph (a)(2)(iii) requires a PIC to make the takeoff

and landing if the runway has water, snow, slush, or similar conditions

that may adversely affect airplane performance. Alaska Airlines says

that this limitation would force the airlines's PICs to make all

landings during the months between September and April or May. This

commenter says that proposed Sec. 121.438(a)(2)(iv) which sets forth

operating limitations based on the level of braking action on runways

would adequately cover the issue of poor runway conditions. Alaska

Airlines also points out that the task force originally recommended

that ``runway braking action of less than `good' be the limiting factor

in determining when a PIC must make the landing.''

FAA Response

If the SIC has more than 100 hours in the type airplane, the

restrictions do not apply. The rule will not restrict SICs from gaining

experience at special airports or under certain adverse conditions

after they have 100 hours of experience in the type airplane; however,

the rule will restrict SICs from gaining that experience within the

first 100 hours under circumstances that could compromise safety.

The FAA has determined that requiring PICs to make takeoffs and

landings at special airports even though the assigned SIC may have more

operational experience in the aircraft is consistent with the

operational responsibilities of the PIC. The PIC, by designation, is

always in control of the aircraft. If a PIC is too fatigued to make a

takeoff or landing, the PIC should not be on duty.

Section 121.438(b)--75-hour Limit (Pairing Limitations)

This new rule requires that either a PIC or SIC have at least 75

hours of line operating flight time for that type airplane in order to

be assigned to the same flightcrew. In the NPRM preamble the FAA

specifically requested comments on whether the 75-hour limit should be

increased to 100 hours as recommended by ALPA. The FAA also requested

comments on how this requirement should be applied. The FAA explained

in the NPRM preamble that the committee recommendation applies these

crew pairing restrictions only to PICs and SICs who are qualifying for

those positions for the first time in the airplane, i.e., initial PICs

and SICs. The committee recommendation does not apply the restrictions

if a pilot is upgrading from SIC to PIC on the same airplane type or is

transitioning from one airplane type to another. Under the committee

recommendation, a new PIC in a particular type airplane with only 25

hours of operating experience in that airplane could be paired with an

SIC who has transitioned from another airplane type and who has only 15

hours of operating experience in the airplane type. This is in contrast

to the ALPA recommendation that the restrictions also apply to

transitioning pilots.

The FAA proposed in the NPRM that the 75-hour minimum crew pairing

restrictions also apply to transitioning pilots.

The rule also provides for authorizing deviations (in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (b)(3)) when: (1) A new certificate holder does not

employ any pilots who meet the minimum requirements of this paragraph;

(2) an existing certificate holder adds to its fleet a type airplane

not before proven for use in its operations; or (3) an existing

certificate holder establishes a new domicile to which it assigns

pilots who will be required to become qualified on the airplanes

operated from that domicile.

Eleven comments were received on this subject. Five of these

commenters, including United, RAA, and ATA, believe that the 75-hour

requirement is sufficient and that it should not be increased to 100

hours as recommended. Supporters of the proposed rule say that any

additional hours would increase the burden on air carriers and

complicate the crew scheduling process by extending the number of

months necessary to complete the required number of hours. RAA says

that any of the three components of the entire proposed rule

(consolidation, operating limitations, and crew pairing) would achieve

what the FAA is seeking since none of these constraints currently

exist; thus, additional hourly requirements related to crew pairing are

unnecessary. Finally, United, ATA, and RAA say that 75 hours may be an

arbitrary number but that it will achieve the FAA's objective without

being overly burdensome.

Three commenters are against the 75-hour requirement and recommend

using a 100 hour-requirement. ALPA says that these hours should apply

to crew position and airplane type and that the hours should begin

after supervised operating experience. ALPA also states that previous

time in another crew position in the same airplane type should not be

counted in the 100 hours. ALPA concludes that 100 hours would more

realistically allow a crewmember to become comfortable in the aircraft

without concerns for the experience level of other crewmembers.

Similarly, the NTSB believes that 75 hours is insufficient for a

crewmember to become comfortable and experienced enough with the

airplane type to safely handle a problem if one arises. NTSB recommends

that an initial PIC and initial SIC each have at least 100 hours in

their respective positions on the airplane in which they have most

recently qualified.

The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations

believes that the 75 hour requirement should be increased to at least

100 hours post-supervision time for PICs and SICs on airplane type.

Alaska Airlines Expresses concern that 75 hours seems arbitrary and

asks whether lengthening the period would improve safety. This

commenter further says that ``the longer the period of the pairing

restriction, the greater the number of reserve pilots that will be

required in order to insure sufficient pilots are available to staff

every possible pairing.''

Horizon Air supports the 75 hour requirement but recommends that if

it is issued as a final rule, the consolidation requirement in

Sec. 121.434(g) be dropped. Horizon estimates that up to 20 percent of

its pilots would not complete their consolidation in the requisite

time, resulting in refresher training which would be very costly.

Five commenters address the issue of including transitioning pilots

in the proposed crew pairing requirement. United Airlines does not

object to the requirement applying to all pilots, including

transitioning and upgrading pilots although it currently applies

pairing restrictions only to initial training pilots.

Similarly, the NTSB believes that crew pairing restrictions (of 100

hours) should apply to upgrading and transitioning pilots. NTSB says

that including upgrading pilots would provide PICs with additional

seasoning experience before being paired with an inexperienced SIC; and

that including transitioning pilots would ensure that they receive the

operating experience they need in the newer glass cockpit, automated

airplanes before being paired with an inexperienced PIC or SIC.

RAA does not support the inclusion of transitioning pilots and says

that ``the event which have been used as a basis for issuing this rule

have involved only crewmembers following initial training for their

position.'' RAA adds that [[Page 20865]] transition training is

currently successful for hundreds of thousands of pilots and that this

should be reason enough to exclude them from the proposed rule.

Alaska Airlines is against the inclusion of transitioning pilots in

the proposed rule because they believe that a transitioning pilot is

very experienced in an employer's routes and procedures. Because of

this overall experience, transitioning to a new airplane type is not

that difficult and should not be subject to any crew pairing

limitations.

Two commenters address the proposed rule's deviation authority. AMR

Eagle, Inc. says that deviation authority should be designed so that

carriers can adjust crew pairing guidelines to the complexity of the

operation while insuring schedule reliability and safety. AMR

recommends that an additional condition be allowed for deviation

authority: Operations during the day, VMC where no critical flight

conditions are expected.

RAA says that the conditions for deviation authority presented in

Secs. 121.438 (b)(1) through (b)(3) are too limiting and recommends

that a fourth paragraph be added which states: ``The certificate holder

identifies circumstances not covered in (1), (2) or (3) which are

acceptable to the Administrator in granting a deviation to these

requirements.''

Finally, Boeing requests that the deviation applicability be

extended to manufacturers.

FAA Response

The FAA believes that the increased level of safety attained in

this final rule is accomplished through the combination of its

requirements (i.e., strengthening initial operating experience

requirements, requiring a 100-hour knowledge and skill consolidation

period for both SICs upgrading to PIC and PICs transitioning to new or

different types of airplanes; requiring PICs, when paired with SICs

with fewer than 100 hours of pilot flight time in that aircraft type,

to make all takeoffs and landings under certain conditions; and the 75-

hour pilot pairing restriction) rather than any one single requirement.

Requiring 75 hours of pilot experience in the type aircraft being

flown for either the PIC or the SIC provides an additional level of

crew qualification experience. By including transitioning pilots in

this rule the FAA establishes that the most important aspect of pilot

pairing is total pilot flight experience in the airplane rather than

requiring seat-specific experience. Also, rather than experience in the

air carrier's procedures or route structure, the purpose of this

pairing restriction is to ensure a minimum number of hours of combined

pilot experience in that specific type aircraft.

The FAA believes that total pilot crew experience required to meet

the 75-hour pilot pairing restriction as proposed and adopted in this

rule, in combination with the other requirements contained in this rule

and the various pilot training and checking requirements contained in

subpart N of part 121, accomplish the FAA's objective of increased

safety while not being overly burdensome on the affected certificate

holders.

As stated in Sec. 121.438(b), the Administrator may authorize, upon

application by the certificate holder, deviations from the pairing

requirement that would allow certificate holders to use aircraft

manufacturers' pilots to assist in the introduction of new aircraft

types into the certificate holder's fleet under certain conditions.

Effective Date

The FAA proposed a 30-day period after issuance of the final rule

for carriers to plan and implement a system for scheduling flight crews

to meet the new requirements. However, the FAA, in the NPRM, recognized

that 30 days may be insufficient and invited comments on a realistic

effective date.

Five comments were received on the date. Four commenters say that

30 days is inadequate and recommend a 120-day period. RAA says that the

complexity of training programs and crew scheduling warrant additional

time to implement changes. ATA says that revisions in crew scheduling

software, personnel training, and policy manuals would require a

minimum of 120 days. United Airlines recommends a 90-day period between

issuance of the final rule and its effective date.

FAA Response

The FAA agrees that a 30-day effective date would not allow enough

time for certificate holders to comply with the requirements of this

rule. The final rule is effective 120 days after the date of

publication in the Federal Register.

Response to Comments

Northwest Airlines states that the FAA assumed that including

transitioning pilots in the NPRM added no cost to airlines. It presents

data showing its costs would amount to $3.7 million for transitional

pilots and $380,000 for initial pilots. Northwest's additional costs

come from scheduling constraints and from union requirements to pay a

previously scheduled pilot who is displaced by a pilot in training.

FAA Response

The FAA estimated the cost of not pairing two inexperienced pilots,

transitional or initial, would be the expense of developing an enhanced

scheduling computer program. The FAA estimated the cost of developing

this program to be $92,000. The FAA contends that through more

efficient scheduling via enhanced scheduling software, the industry can

avoid paying for displaced pilots.

Alaska Airlines states that it would face higher costs to meet

qualification requirements because of its older fleet. It argues that

additional training in a simulator or in an aircraft (where modern

simulation is unavailable) would require that ``operators have earlier

vintage visual or phase I simulators for their older aircraft types.

This will automatically create higher costs to fulfill these

requirements.''

FAA Response

The NPRM did not require a different training level for older

fleets. Obtaining the additional operating experience and consolidation

time should not vary significantly from company to company. However,

the FAA did not account for each airline's cost structure when costing

the proposed rule. The analysis assumed an average cost. If Alaska

Airlines had significantly higher training costs, it incurred these

costs not as a result of the NPRM, but from other corporate business

decisions.

The Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) states that the FAA did not

present the assumptions it used to estimate costs. Also, ALPA believes

that airlines could minimize costs through efficient scheduling.

FAA Response

The FAA included a list of assumptions it used to estimate the

costs of the NPRM in an appendix in detailed regulatory evaluation. The

FAA agrees with ALPA that airlines can reduce the cost of the NPRM

through efficient scheduling.

Miscellaneous Comments

ATA comments that the objectives of the proposed rule are identical

to those contained in FAR 121.652 (High Minimums). ATA says that this

rule is obsolete and that if the proposed rule is implemented, then

Sec. 121.652 should be rescinded. [[Page 20866]]

FAA Response

Rescinding Sec. 121.652 is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The

FAA does not consider Sec. 121.652 to be obsolete but rather finds that

the requirements of that section are necessary.

Editorial Changes

In addition to the changes described above for Sec. 121.434, two

editorial changes have been made to improve the organization of the

section: (1) The flush paragraph that currently appears after paragraph

(b)(3) has been incorporated into new paragraph (a)(3); and (2) the

flush paragraph that currently appears after paragraph (f) has been

designated as paragraph (i) to appear after new paragraph (h).

In Sec. 121.434(c)(2), a second in command pilot must perform the

duties of a second in command under the supervision of an appropriately

trained check pilot. In the NPRM, both in the preamble and in the rule

language, the FAA used the term ``pilot check airman'' and should have

used the term ``check pilot'' as it is presently stated in the rule. A

check pilot is a subset of check airman; a check flight engineer is

also a subset of check airman. Consequently, the more accurate and

precise term for the person supervising a SIC's IOE is ``check pilot.''

Thus, the FAA retains the terminology of ``check pilot'' in this final

rule. The FAA considers this a minor, editorial change.

Regulatory Evaluation Summary

Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several

economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each

Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned

determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its

costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies

to analyze the economic effect of regulatory changes on small entities.

Third, the Office of Management and Budget directs agencies to assess

the effect of regulatory changes on international trade. In conducting

these analyses, the FAA has determined that this rule: (1) Would

generate benefits that justify its costs and is not ``a significant

regulatory action'' as defined in the Executive Order; (2) is

significant as defined in Department of Transportation's Regulatory

Policies and Procedures; (3) would not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities; and (4) would not constitute a

barrier to international trade. These analyses, available in the

docket, are summarized below.

Costs

The FAA estimates the net cost of the final rule over the next 10

years to be approximately $45.2 million, with a present value of $31.3

million (7 percent discount, 1993 dollars). This cost estimate includes

the additional expense of a check pilot's time to supervise additional

PIC transition training; the expense of consolidating an operating

experience of additional flight time training for SICs and PICs; and of

a computerized system to assist in pairing newly qualified pilots with

experienced pilots.

Operating Experience and Operating Cycles for SIC Candidates

In the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM, the FAA estimated a

present value cost of $42.5 million to certificate holders to provide a

check airman to supervise the operating experience for SIC candidates,

who currently are allowed to sit in the jump seat and observe the

performance of SIC duties to gain initial operating experience (IOE).

This cost was based on the following assumptions:

(1) The highest level of check airman (check pilot--all checks) was

required to supervise the SIC candidate's IOE;

(2) This level of check airman would be paid at a much higher rate

than a PIC; and

(3) A previously scheduled PIC and SIC would be displaced by the

check airman and the SIC candidate, and these displaced pilots would be

compensated for not flying the trip.

For the final rule, the FAA has clarified that the level of ``check

airman'' required is not the highest designation level of check airman

who can administer all checks, but is instead a lower level most

commonly called ``check pilot.'' This line check pilot, (designated as

Line Check Pilot-All Seats) is also a check airman, but only to a level

which at minimum will allow supervision of IOE with an SIC candidate.

This level of check pilot is normally much more numerous within a

carrier's pilot population than the check airman originally envisioned,

and these pilots normally fly the line as PICs. They receive no

additional pay for their status as check pilots, and the difference is

best likened to that between a flight instructor and an FAA designated

examiner in general aviation.

Since the FAA has clarified that the check pilot supervising the

SIC candidate can be a line or regular PIC with the check pilot

designation, the original assumptions no longer hold. The FAA has

revised these assumptions as follows:

(1) Operators are only required to provide a check pilot who is

designated to the minimum level necessary to supervise IOE;

(2) There is a greater availability of check pilots designated to a

sufficient level to supervise IOE than the previously estimated higher

level ``check airmen-all checks'';

(3) There is little if any difference in salary between a PIC and a

PIC ``check pilot''; and

(4) A previously scheduled PIC and SIC would not be displaced by

the check pilot and the SIC candidate because normal scheduling can

pair these two pilots without displacing other pilots.

The additional operating experience requirements for SIC candidates

impose an additional constraint on how operators schedule their pilots.

Some of the costs of these constraints can be alleviated by making

adjustments in the pilot scheduling system. Costs related to changing

the scheduling system are discussed later in this regulatory

evaluation. (See the section on Developing Computer Programming.) Other

potential costs that cannot be alleviated by changes in the scheduling

system have not been quantified because they are difficult to estimate.

However, the FAA contends that based on the above set of assumptions,

those costs will be considerably smaller than the $42.5 million

estimated in the regulatory evaluation for the NPRM.

Operating Experience and Operating Cycles for PIC Candidates

The final rule will increase the number of hours of observed

supervised operating experience for transitioning PICs in Group II

airplanes and will add operating cycle requirements for both initial

and transitional PICs in both Group I and Group II airplanes. The

current requirement for transitioning PICs in Group II airplanes is 15

hours of operating experience; the new requirement will increase the

hours to 25. The potential cost of this requirement will be the cost to

provide a check pilot to observe the PIC candidate for the additional

10 hours.

The FAA estimates that there will be 3,119 transition PICs in Group

II airplanes in 1994 assuming that 10 percent of the PICs in Group II

airplanes require transition training each year. The cost of this

section to air carriers will be to provide a check pilot for the 10

additional hours of supervised operating experience for these

transitioning PICs. Check pilots in Group II airplanes are compensated

at $127 per hour. The cost of compliance in 1994, therefore, would be

$4 million. [[Page 20867]] Over the years 1994-2003, the requirement

that transitioning PIC candidates of Group II airplanes receive an

additional 10 hours of supervised operating experience will cost $45.6

million, with a present value of $31.5 million.

Section 121.434(f) of the existing rule allows air carriers to

reduce the number of hours of required PIC operating experience by 50

percent by substituting an additional takeoff and landing for each hour

of flight. The hours of operating experience for PICs who meet

transition training requirements may be reduced by one hour per

landing. Although the final rule increases the number of hours of

operating experience for transitioning PICs, the allowance for landings

in this provision results in a smaller increase in the costs of the

additional operating experience hours. The FAA estimates that the

savings will be 10 percent of the incremental costs of additional PIC

transitional operating experience requirements in Group II airplanes.

Over the years 1994 to 2003, the cost savings will be $4.6 million,

with a present value of $3.2 million.

The final rule will prohibit the reduction of the required number

of operating experience hours for initial Group II PICs. The FAA

estimates that under the current rule, the hourly requirements could be

reduced by 10 percent by the allowance of one hour per landing and

takeoff. Because the final rule removes this allowance, however, it

will add the expense of a check pilot for those hours currently

reduced. The FAA estimates that the additional cost of prohibiting a

reduction of operating experience hours for initial Group II PICs in

1994 equals $99,000 (312 pilots x 25 hrs. x $127/hr. x 10%). Over

the next 10 years, the total cost will be $1.1 million, with a present

value of $789,000. When this cost is added to the other costs of

complying with the new PIC operating experience requirements over the

next 10 years, the total cost will be $42.1 (45.6-4.6+1.1) million,

with a present value of $29 million.

Consolidation of Learning and Skills

Section 121.434(g) of the final rule will require candidate PICs

and SICs to acquire 100 hours of line operating experience for

consolidation of knowledge and skills within 120 days after the

completion of one of the following requirements:

--An airline transport pilot certificate with type rating practical

test;

--An additional type rating practical test; or

--A proficiency check for those pilots who already possess a type

rating in that particular aircraft.

The final rule will also require that if a pilot who is

consolidating his or her skills performs any flight time in another

type of airplane operated by the certificate holder before completing

the 100 hours, that pilot will have to successfully complete refresher

training before returning to the new airplane type. This refresher

training will have to be conducted by a qualified instructor or check

pilot. If the pilot did not complete the required 100 hours of line

operating flight time, the certificate holder could extend the 120-day

period to 150 days. In this instance, however, the pilot could be

subject to refresher training if a check pilot determined that the

pilot had not retained an adequate level of proficiency in the new

airplane type.

Section 121.438(a) of the final rule will prohibit SICs who have

less than 100 flight hours in the airplane being flown from making

takeoffs and landings, unless the PIC is a check pilot, when certain

adverse weather and/or runway conditions exist or when the PIC

determined that it was prudent to exercise his or her prerogative and

make the takeoff or the landing. This restriction will not

significantly interfere with the consolidation of learning and skills

requirements for SICs, who should be able to acquire 100 hours of

operating experience within the 120 days. Therefore, there are no costs

associated with this restriction.

The current bidding systems that most air carriers use have

resulted in some newly type-rated or proficiency-checked pilots being

placed on reserve for the airplanes in which they have recently

received practical tests and/or proficiency checks. Thus, these newly

rated pilots may not have the opportunity to consolidate their skills.

The Joint Government/Industry Task Force on Flight Crew Performance

included a consolidation requirement among their recommendations to the

FAA. The FAA finds, therefore, that the current bidding systems could

be modified to ensure that affected pilots could consolidate their

skills within a 120-day period. To the extent that they fail to do so,

there would be additional costs of compliance. The FAA estimates that

with current flight times of about 75 hours per month, 90 percent of

the affected pilots would consolidate their skills within the 120 days,

and all of them would complete consolidation within 150 days. The costs

of compliance associated with the 10 percent who could not complete

consolidation within 120 days can be separated into two categories: (1)

The cost of a supervised line observation flight conducted by a check

pilot; or (2) the cost of refresher training.

Supervised Line Observation

A supervised line observation flight for a pilot is conducted if

the pilot is going to take longer than 120 days to complete the 100

hours of operating experience. This flight is estimated to take an

average of 2 hours. The cost that this requirement will impose will be

the cost of providing a check pilot for those 2 hours. For SIC

candidates, the check pilot can serve as PIC. Since there is little if

any wage differential between PICs and check pilots, little if any

additional cost will be imposed by this requirement. For PIC

candidates, the check pilot will act as SIC for that supervised

observation flight. This would impose an additional cost since check

pilots earn more than SICs. The difference in wage between a PIC check

pilot and an SIC ranges from $62/hour for Group II pilots and $15/hour

for Group I pilots. The total cost of this requirement over the next 10

years is $508,200 dollars with a present value of $351,000.

Refresher Training

If a pilot who is consolidating his or her skills performs any

flight time in another type of airplane operated by the certificate

holder before completing the 120 hours, he or she will have to

successfully complete refresher training before returning to the new

airplane type. The FAA estimates that half of the PICs and SICs who do

not consolidate their skills will require some refresher training. Air

carriers have modules that they use to teach different aspects of a

training program. The FAA expects that operators will use these modules

to provide pilots the additional training in those areas that the check

airmen find them to be deficient. The cost of compliance for the

requirement for refresher training, therefore, would be the cost of

instructors for those PICs and SICs. The FAA estimates that the

refresher training will take an average of three hours and that Group

II airplane instructors will be compensated at $127 per hour and Group

I instructors at $55 per hour. In 1994, this cost will amount to

$218,000. Over the years 1994 to 2003, the costs will total $2.5

million, with a present value of $1.7 million.

Developing Computer Programming

Section 121.438(b) states that ``no person may conduct operations .

. . unless, for that type airplane, either the PIC or the SIC has at

least 75 hours of [[Page 20868]] line operating flight time, either as

PIC or SIC.'' The cost of implementing crew pairing guidelines would be

that of developing software for a scheduling program to pair newly-

qualified pilots with experienced pilots. To estimate this cost, the

FAA surveyed part 121 Principal Operations Inspectors (POIs) to learn

how many carriers currently have internal crew pairing guidelines that

will be in compliance with the requirement. Numbers of pilots,

airplanes, and airplane types were obtained from FAPA's Pilot Directory

of Employers.

Based on the make-up of the airline pilot population, the FAA

contends that it should not be difficult to pair a newly qualified

pilot with one that already has the required operating experience. For

instance, the number of pilots that need operational experience is

relatively small compared to the number of experienced pilots. The FAA

estimates that approximately 13 percent of pilots employed by major

airlines, 7 percent employed by national airlines, and 38 percent

employed by regional airlines are currently subject to crew pairing

restrictions. In addition, many airlines operate only a few different

types of airplanes. Among the majors, where there are an average of 14

pilots per airplane, there are 620 pilots per type of airplane. Among

the national air carriers, there are 10 pilots per airplane and an

average of 45 pilots per type. Finally, among the regional air

carriers, there are 7 pilots per airplane and 76 pilots per type.

The crew pairing requirement could be implemented at a minimal cost

to those air carriers that currently do not have crew pairing

guidelines. This is because of the large number of pilots per airplane

type and because of the number of air carriers that already have

established crew pairing guidelines in the absence of this regulation.

The cost of implementing crew pairing restrictions would be that of

developing a software program to pair newly-qualified pilots with

experienced pilots. The FAA estimates that this development will take

one programmer one week to modify existing software programs and write

the necessary documentation at a cost of $1,300. Based on the survey of

POIs, the FAA estimates that 76 air carriers will have to develop a

computer program for crew pairing. Thus, the one-time cost of this

requirement will be $98,800 ($1,300 x 76).

Benefits

The final rule will help to prevent accidents that result from the

pairing of under-experienced pilots or in which in-type flight skill

and knowledge are not consolidated. The FAA has identified two

accidents over the past 10 years in which the NTSB determined that the

inexperience of the pilots was the probable cause. Of the 145

passengers that were on board these the two airplanes, 30 (20.7

percent) were killed and 31 (21.4 percent) were seriously injured. Both

airplanes were destroyed. The airplane in the New York accident also

caused damage to a pier and to the approach lighting at LaGuardia

Airport.

The benefits of the final rule will be, in part, the number of

casualties that it will help to prevent over the next 10 years. To

estimate the potential fatal and serious injuries over the next 10

years, the FAA calculated the proportion of passengers killed or

seriously injured in such accidents and applied those proportions to

the expected average enplacement levels over the next 10 years. The FAA

estimates that from 1994 to 2003, the average air carrier airplane will

have 183 seats and will carry, on average, 128 people on board--121

passengers and 7 crew members. If this ``average'' airplane were to be

involved in an accident similar to the ones in Denver and New York, the

FAA estimates the casualty rate of the ``average'' accident would

approach that of the Denver and New York accidents. Thus, the number of

fatalities would be 26 (128 x .207) and the number of serious inquires

would be 27 (128 x .214).

The FAA uses a value of $2.6 million to estimate the benefit value

of preventing a fatality and $500,000 to prevent a serious injury.

Thus, the value of preventing the estimated number of fatalities and

serious injuries will be $67.6 million (26 x $2.6 million) and $13.5

million (27 x $500,000) respectively. Added to these amounts are the

average replacement value of an air carrier airplane, $11 million, and

the value of a major NTSB investigation, $433,500. This brings the

total value of preventing one crew-pairing related accident over the

next 10 years to $92.5 million ($67.6 million + $13.5 million + $11.0

million + $433,500).

Based on the number of air carrier operations and the number of

accidents that have occurred over the past 10 years, the FAA projects

that over the next 10 years, in absence of this final rule, another two

accidents could occur. The benefits of preventing both of those

accidents is $185 million, with a present value of $130 million.

How much of these benefits can be attributed to this final rule is

not certain. However, since pilot error and crew inexperience were the

probable causes of the Denver and New York accidents, the FAA estimates

that the final rule will prevent at least one of the future accidents.

Thus, the present value benefits of this final rule will be $65 million

($130 million/2).

Benefit-Cost Comparison

The present value cost of the final rule to require several new and

modified operating experience requirements for PICs and SICs will be

$33.4 million over the next 10 years. The present value benefit of the

final rule by preventing one accident over the next ten years will $65

million. Thus, the FAA has determined that the final rule is cost-

beneficial.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) was enacted by

Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and

disproportionately burdened by Federal regulations. The RFA requires

agencies to review rules which may have `` a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities.''

The FAA has adopted criteria and guidelines for rulemaking

officials to apply when determining whether a proposed or existing rule

has any significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Based on these criteria, a small air carrier is one that owns

9 or fewer aircraft and a substantial number of carriers is one that is

not less than 11 or which is more than one-third of affected small

entities.

The FAA has determined that approximately 35 air carriers operating

under part 121 could be considered small entities. Based on the FAA's

criteria and guidelines, a significant regulatory cost impact to these

air carriers ranges from $4,300 for an unscheduled carrier to $61,600

for a scheduled carrier to $110,100 for scheduled carriers whose entire

fleet has a seating capacity of more than 60. These values are

annualized costs and are expressed in 1993 dollars. Typically, there

are about 11 pilots per aircraft for carriers operating Group II

airplanes and 6 pilots per aircraft for carriers operating Group I

airplanes. Approximately half of these pilots act as PICs, while the

other half act as SICs.

For a small scheduled carrier having a fleet seating capacity of

more than 60 seats, owning 9 group II airplanes, and employing 99

pilots, the FAA estimates that 5 PICs would need 10 hours of additional

transition operating experience at a cost of $6,350 (5 x 10 x $127/hr).

Small entities will no [[Page 20869]] longer be able to take advantage

of reducing the required number of experience hours by exchanging one

hour of supervised operating experience for one landing and takeoff.

Thus, for the 5 PIC candidates, this will result in a cost of $1,600

(5 x 25 hours x 10% x $127/hr). Two PICs would not complete their

consolidation within the 120-day period and require a supervised line

observation flight by a check pilot at a cost of $248 (2 x 2

hours x $62/hr); one pilot would require refresher training at a cost

of $381 (1 x 3 hours x $127). The costs of compliance to these carriers

will be $8,600, which is less than the $110,100 threshold cost for a

significant impact under the regulatory flexibility guidelines

described above. Thus, the rule will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of these small entities.

Using the same methodology to estimate the cost for a small entity

owning 9 turboprop airplanes and employing 54 pilots, 2 PICs would need

10 hours of additional transition operating experience at a cost of

$1,100 (2 x 10 x $55/hr). These pilots would also not be able to reduce

the number of hours of supervised operating experience at a cost of

$275 (2 x 25 hours x 10% x $55/hr). One pilot would not complete

consolidation of their learning within 120 days and require a line

observation flight at a cost of $30 (1 x 2 hrs x $15), and 1 pilot

needing refresher training at a cost of $165 (1 x 3 hrs x $55). The FAA

estimates that the total cost to a small turboprop-owned air carrier

will be $1,570 per year, which is less than the $61,600 threshold for a

scheduled air carrier operating planes with less than 60 seats. Thus,

the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of these small entities.

Finally, a small entity owning 9 reciprocating engine airplanes and

employing 54 pilots, 2 PICs would need 10 hours of additional

transition operating experience at a cost of $1,100 (2 x 10 x $55/

hr). These pilots would also not be able to reduce the number of hours

of supervised operating experience at a cost of $275 (2 x 25 hours

x 10% x $55/hr). One pilot would not complete consolidation of their

learning within 120 days and require a line observation flight at a

cost of $30 (1 x 2 hrs x $15), and 1 pilot needing refresher

training at a cost of $165 (1 x 3 hrs x $55). The FAA estimates

that the total cost to a small turboprop-owned air carrier will be

$1,570 per year, which is less than the $4,300 for small unscheduled

carriers. Thus, the rule will not have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of these small entities.

International Trade Impact

The final rule will have little impact on international trade. U.S.

air carriers operating in international markets would incur some

additional costs, primarily for supervised operating experience

requirements, whereas foreign air carriers operating in the same

markets will not be affected by the final rule. If the cost of the

final rule (i.e., $33.4 million over the next 10 years) were borne

entirely by U.S. carriers serving international markets, the cost would

still represent a negligible amount of the international passenger

revenues compared to the $280 billion forecast to be collected between

1993 and 2002.

International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation

Regulations

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on

International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with ICAO

Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent

practicable. For this final rule, the FAA reviewed the SARP of Annex 6,

applicable to pilot training for commercial air transportation

operations. The FAA has determined that these amendments would not

present any differences. The SARP are more general than the FAR, with

much of the pilot training to be determined by the State of the

Operator.

In reviewing the JAR, the FAA finds that regulations exist that are

similar to this final rule, though they are less specific. JAR-OPS

1.945 addresses Conversion Training and Checking. Paragraph (e) of that

section states ``Once a conversion course has been started a crew

member shall not undertake flying duties on another type or variant

until the course is completed or terminated.''

Federalism Implications

The regulations herein would not have substantial direct effects on

the states, on the relationship between the national government and the

states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive

Order 12612, it is determined that this regulation will not have

sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and based on the

findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the

International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this

regulation is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order

12866. In addition, the FAA certifies that this regulation will not

have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. This regulation is considered significant

under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,

1979). A final regulatory evaluation of the regulation, including a

Regulatory Flexibility Determination and Trade Impact Analysis, has

been placed in the docket. A copy may be obtained by contacting the

person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

Air safety, Air transportation, Aviation safety, Drug abuse,

Narcotics, Safety, and Transportation.

The Amendment

The Federal Aviation Administration amends part 121 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 121) as follows:

PART 121--CERTIFICATION AND OPERATIONS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND

SUPPLEMENTAL AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS OF LARGE

AIRCRAFT

1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. App. 1354(a), 1355, 1356, 1357, 1401, 1421-

1430, 1472, 1485, and 1502; 49 U.S.C. 106(g).

2. Section 121.431(b) is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 121.431 Applicability.

* * * * *

(b) For the purpose of this subpart, the airplane groups and terms

and definitions prescribed in Sec. 121.400 and the following

definitions apply:

Consolidation is the process by which a person through practice and

practical experience increases proficiency in newly acquired knowledge

and skills.

Line operating flight time is flight time performed in operations

under this part.

Operating cycle is a complete flight segment consisting of a

takeoff, climb, enroute portion, descent, and a landing.

3. Section 121.434 is amended by revising the heading; removing the

flush paragraph at the end of paragraph (b); removing the words ``the

certificate holder's approved training program includes a course of

training in an airplane simulator under Sec. 121.409(c)

[[Page 20870]] and'' in paragraph (c)(1)(ii); revising the introductory

text of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c); revising paragraphs (b)(2),

(c)(2), (c)(3) introductory text, (c)(3)(i), (c)(3) (ii), and (f);

designating the flush paragraph following paragraph (f) as paragraph

(i); and adding new paragraphs (a)(3), (g) and (h) to read as follows:

Sec. 121.434 Operating experience, operating cycles, and consolidation

of knowledge and skills.

(a) No certificate holder may use a person nor may any person serve

as a required crewmember of an airplane unless the person has

satisfactorily completed, on that type airplane and in that crewmember

position, the operating experience, operating cycles, and the line

operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills,

required by this section, except as follows:

* * * * *

(3) Separate operating experience, operating cycles, and line

operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills are not

required for variations within the same type airplane.

* * * * *

(b) In acquiring the operating experience, operating cycles, and

line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills,

crewmembers must comply with the following:

* * * * *

(2) The operating experience, operating cycles, and line operating

flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills must be acquired

after satisfactory completion of the appropriate ground and flight

training for the particular airplane type and crewmember position.

* * * * *

(c) Pilot crewmembers must acquire operating experience and

operating cycles as follows:

* * * * *

(2) A second in command pilot must perform the duties of a second

in command under the supervision of an appropriately qualified check

pilot.

(3) The hours of operating experience and operating cycles for all

pilots are as follows:

(i) For initial training, 15 hours in Group I reciprocating powered

airplanes, 20 hours in Group I turbopropeller powered airplanes, and 25

hours in Group II airplanes. Operating experience in both airplane

groups must include at least 4 operating cycles (at least 2 as the

pilot flying the airplane).

(ii) For transition training, except as provided in paragraph

(c)(3)(iii) of this section, 10 hours in Group I reciprocating powered

airplanes, 12 hours in Group I turbopropeller powered airplanes, 25

hours for pilots in command in Group II airplanes, and 15 hours for

second in command pilots in Group II airplanes. Operating experience in

both airplane groups must include at least 4 operating cycles (at least

2 as the pilot flying the airplane).

* * * * *

(f) Flight crewmembers may substitute one additional takeoff and

landing for each hour of flight to meet the operating experience

requirements of this section, up to a maximum reduction of 50% of

flight hours, except those in Group II initial training, and second in

command pilots in Group II transition training. Notwithstanding the

reductions in programmed hours permitted under Secs. 121.405 and

121.409, the hours of operating experience for flight crewmembers are

not subject to reduction other than as provided in this paragraph and

paragraph (e) of this section.

(g) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, pilot in

command and second in command crewmembers must each acquire at least

100 hours of line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge

and skills (including operating experience required under paragraph (c)

of this section) within 120 days after the satisfactory completion of:

(1) Any part of the flight maneuvers and procedures portion of

either an airline transport pilot certificate with type rating

practical test or an additional type rating practical test, or

(2) A Sec. 121.441 proficiency check.

(h) The following exceptions apply to the consolidation requirement

of paragraph (g) of this section:

(1) Pilots who have qualified and served as pilot in command or

second in command on a particular type airplane in operations under

this part before August 25, 1995 are not required to complete line

operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills.

(2) Pilots who have completed the line operating flight time

requirement for consolidation of knowledge and skills while serving as

second in command on a particular type airplane in operations under

this part after August 25, 1995 are not required to repeat the line

operating flight time before serving as pilot in command on the same

type airplane.

(3) If, before completing the required 100 hours of line operating

flight time, a pilot serves as a pilot in another airplane type

operated by the certificate holder, the pilot may not serve as a pilot

in the airplane for which the pilot has newly qualified unless the

pilot satifactorily completes refresher training as provided in the

certificate holder's approved training program and that training is

conducted by an appropriately qualified instructor or check pilot.

(4) If the required 100 hours of line operating flight time are not

completed within 120 days, the certificate holder may extend the 120-

day period to no more than 150 days if--

(i) The pilot continues to meet all other applicable requirements

of subpart O of this part; and

(ii) On or before the 120th day the pilot satisfactorily completes

refresher training conducted by an appropriately qualified instructor

or check pilot as provided in the certificate holder's approved

training program, or a check pilot determines that the pilot has

retained an adequate level of proficiency after observing that pilot in

a supervised line operating flight.

(5) The Administrator, upon application by the certificate holder,

may authorize deviations from the requirements of paragraph (g) of this

section, by an appropriate amendment to the operations specifications,

to the extent warranted by any of the following circumstances:

(i) A newly certificated certificate holder does not employ any

pilots who meet the minimum requirements of paragraph (g) of this

section.

(ii) An existing certificate holder adds to its fleet an airplane

type not before proven for use in its operations.

(iii) A certificate holder establishes a new domicile to which it

assigns pilots who will be required to become qualified on the

airplanes operated from that domicile.

* * * * *

4. Section 121.438 is added to subpart O to read as follows:

Sec. 121.438 Pilot operating limitations and pairing requirements.

(a) If the second in command has fewer than 100 hours of flight

time as second in command in operations under this part in the type

airplane being flown, and the pilot in command is not an appropriately

qualified check pilot, the pilot in command must make all takeoffs and

landings in the following situations:

(1) At special airports designated by the Administrator or at

special airports designated by the certificate holder; and

(2) In any of the following conditions: [[Page 20871]]

(i) The prevailing visibility value in the latest weather report

for the airport is at or below \3/4\ mile.

(ii) The runway visual range for the runway to be used is at or

below 4,000 feet.

(iii) The runway to be used has water, snow, slush or similar

conditions that may adversely affect airplane performance.

(iv) The braking action on the runway to be used is reported to be

less than ``good''.

(v) The crosswind component for the runway to be used is in excess

of 15 knots.

(vi) Windshear is reported in the vicinity of the airport.

(vii) Any other condition in which the PIC determines it to be

prudent to exercise the PIC's prerogative.

(b) No person may conduct operations under this part unless, for

that type airplane, either the pilot in command or the second in

command has at least 75 hours of line operating flight time, either as

pilot in command or second in command. The Administrator may, upon

application by the certificate holder, authorize deviations from the

requirements of this paragraph (b) by an appropriate amendment to the

operations specifications in any of the following circumstances:

(1) A newly certificated certificate holder does not employ any

pilots who meet the minimum requirements of this paragraph.

(2) An existing certificate holder adds to its fleet a type

airplane not before proven for use in its operations.

(3) An existing certificate holder establishes a new domicile to

which it assigns pilots who will be required to become qualified on the

airplanes operated from that domicile.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 21, 1995.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-10282 Filed 4-26-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M