Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions

SUMMARY: This final rule: Updates the terminology used to describe

simulators; eliminates the requirement that the minimum of 1 year of

employment as an instructor or check airman be with the operator of the

simulator; and authorizes the use of Level C simulators for initial and

upgrade training and checking for second-in-command (SIC) duties. This

action responds to concerns identified by certain affected certificate

holders in petitions for exemption. It is intended to alleviate

unnecessary training costs while maintaining an equivalent level of

safety.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 17, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary E. Davis, Project Development

Branch, AFS-240, Air Transportation Division, Office of Flight

Standards, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-3747.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Final Rules

Any person may obtain a copy of this final rule by submitting a

request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,

ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by

calling (202) 267-9677. Communications must identify the notice number

of this final rule.

Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future

rules should request from the above office a copy of Advisory Circular

No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.

Background

Appendix H to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 121,

``Advanced Simulation Plan,'' provides guidelines and a means for

achieving flightcrew training and checking in advanced airplane

simulators. The three-phase plan provides standards for a progressive

upgrade of airplane simulators so that the total scope of flightcrew

training can be enhanced.

Appendix H specifically describes the simulator and visual system

requirements that must be met to obtain approval to conduct certain

training and checking in the particular type of simulator (Phase I, II,

or III).

Appendix H was developed and adopted when there were no ``advanced

simulators.'' Currently, however, advanced simulators exist which have

permitted virtual duplication of many aircraft performance

characteristics and systems. As a result, the vast majority of U.S.

airline pilot training is now conducted in these advanced simulators.

According to industry members, however, certain limitations originally

incorporated into Appendix H still require a small, yet relatively

expensive, amount of training to be completed in the actual airplane.

In light of their highly satisfactory experience with these

simulators, some industry members believe that Level C simulators

should be approved for those flightcrew training and checking maneuvers

that currently are permitted only in the aircraft or in Level D

simulators. (The differences between Level C and Level D simulators are

discussed in more detail below.) In a petition for exemption dated

October 12, 1992, the Air Transport Association, on behalf of its

affected member airlines and other similarly situated airlines,

petitioned for an exemption to provide for initial training in a Level

C simulator. Trans World Airlines and Tower Airlines petitioned

individually to use a Level C simulator to conduct limited initial and

upgrade training and checking functions that would normally be

conducted in a Level D simulator. Agreeing in part with the

petitioners' supportive information and, based on its own experience,

the FAA granted some limited relief for training and checking.

More recently, United Airlines (United) has requested similar but

slightly more extensive relief than previously granted. United believes

that its experience with advanced simulation, as well as the FAA's own

experience, more than adequately justifies expending the scope of

flightcrew training and checking in a Level C simulator. In support of

its request, United points out that: (1) The same training curricula

and pilot proficiency standards would apply to a Level C or Level D

simulator; (2) these curricula can be implemented and proficiency

demonstrated effectively in a Level C simulator; and (3) daily local

FAA oversight of training and checking programs will assure that these

curricula and standards remain sufficient.

United further believes that its request would be in the public

interest since it is universally acknowledged that simulator training

is superior to training in an actual aircraft and the public is served

best when high quality training is conducted in the safest and most

cost-effective manner.

The FAA agrees with much of United's rationale in its petition;

however, after consideration of the supportive information, the FAA

believes that United is not alone or unique in its request. Therefore,

the FAA has determined that the appropriate response to the United

petition for exemption is to change the existing regulations. On

February 14, 1995, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) (60 FR 8490) in which it proposed to revise and clarify certain

requirements of part 121, appendix H. The FAA received nine comments on

its proposal. The commenters included the Air Transport Association

(ATA), Simuflite, the Regional Airline Association (RAA), the Airline

Pilots Association (ALPA), the Federal Express Corporation (FedEx),

United, Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. (ASA), American Airlines

(American), and an individual whose affiliation was not revealed. ALPA

and the individual were the only commenters who were not generally

supportive of the proposal and made several recommendations. Other

commenters expressed general support with minor modifications. All

comments are discussed below under ``Discussion of the Final Rule.''

Discussion of the Final Rule

Terminology

Simulators historically have been referred to in terms of

``phases'' because it was expected that operators would be upgrading

their simulator inventories in phases while exercising simulator

privileges commensurate with the phase of the simulator. The upgrading

of simulators in phases is now essentially complete and the designation

of ``phase'' for identification of simulator complexity is no longer

descriptive. Operators no longer begin at a lower level of

qualification and upgrade in phases. The tendency is to acquire a given

level simulator that best meets their needs. The agency and the

industry now commonly refer to simulators in terms of ``levels.'' The

FAA received two comments, from Simulflite and United, on this proposal

to modify existing appendix H terminology. Both commenters supported

the FAA's proposal to replace the term ``phase'' with the term

``level.''

[[Page 30727]]

This rule, therefore, revises appendix H, as discussed below, to

replace the old terminology with the new throughout the appendix. The

new terminology will be used throughout this preamble in discussing

other amendments to this rule.

The levels currently used to describe a particular simulator

compared with the older phase designations are:

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

New terminology Old terminology

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

Level A................................... Visual.

Level B................................... Phase I.

Level C................................... Phase II.

Level D................................... Phase III.

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

Authorizing Additional Training and Checking in a Level C Simulator

All simulators duplicate or simulate the functions of an airplane

to varying levels of accuracy. The FAA currently requires that, for

each higher level of simulator, the simulator duplicate the performance

of the airplane over larger and more critical portions of the

airplane's operating envelope. This performance must be shown by

documented evidence. Level D simulators must provide the highest level

of flight realism. They must perform as the airplane performs over the

largest portion of the airplane's operating envelope, while providing

the most complete and technically accurate environment possible.

Evidence of this performance must include certain sophisticated

aerodynamic modeling that allows more complete replication of the

performance of the airplane.

Level C simulators are designed to operate over the same portion of

the airplane's operating envelope as Level D simulators, and do so

under a relatively sophisticated performance verification process.

Level C simulators, however, are not required to have sophisticated

aerodynamic modeling factors. Nor do they undergo the degree of

performance verification that Level D simulators do.

The FAA proposed that Level C simulators may be used for initial

qualification and upgrade training and checking for SIC. Because of

performance differences between Level C and level D simulators,

however, the FAA proposed that pilots qualified using Level C

simulators meet certain prerequisite levels of experience. Further, the

FAA proposed that these pilots be required to have supervised post-

qualification operational experience.

Several commenters discussed the various capabilities of Level C

and D simulators. The opinions of the various commenters on this issue

are paraphrased as follows:

ATA: There is no evidence to show that a Level D simulator makes

any difference in the training and qualification of pilots when

compared to the training available in a Level C simulator. There is no

difference in flight dynamic performance between Level C and D

simulators. Level C can be treated as Level D for all training and

checking functions.

FedEx: The only perceptible difference between a Level C and D

simulator is that a Level D simulator has a daylight visual system. A

Level C simulator is capable of providing the same quality of training

as a Level D simulator. The pilot must pass the same flight test

standards on all required maneuvers in either Level C or Level D

simulators. A 1984 study concluded that a simulator, less sophisticated

than a Level C simulator, will support a large majority of the events

needed for ATP certification. Moreover, this study also concluded that

for an ATP or type rating for students with a commercial rating (1,500

hours of flight) no requirement exists for a daylight visual system.

United: The continued efforts to justify uses for a Level D

simulator are simply not supported by airline training experience.

Level C simulators are completely adequate for all training and

checking. Level D simulators cost more to buy and maintain. The

aerodynamic models and performance of Level C and D simulators are

identical. The real differences between Level C and Level D simulators

are the availability of daylight visual scenes, some special effects,

and objective tuning of sound and motion cues.

ASA: A Level C simulator should be allowed for full training and

checking for initial SIC. The FAA also should allow partial credit for

Level B under appendix H. The only significant difference is the visual

system, which, except for circle-to-land maneuvers is not a factor.

Level 5, 6, and 7 Flight Training Devices should be allowed credit

under appendix H. This would allow a combination of flight training

devices and Level B or C training.

American: A Level D simulator has an extremely limited training

value advantage over a Level C simulator. With the recent technological

advances in visual systems, a Level C simulator could be more valuable

from a training perspective than some Level D simulators. The Level C

simulator with the wide visual system is superior to the Level D

simulator with the conventional monitor optics display in meeting

training objectives.

ALPA: If a Level C simulator can be substituted for a Level D

simulator, then how is training enhanced and safety maintained? Level D

simulators provide airframe icing effects and realistic airport

lighting. They also provide airframe buffet and visual scenes such as

landing illusions, overwater approaches, and rising terrain on the

approach path.

Individual: Simulators are not all that they should be--visual

cues, inflight dynamics, landing maneuvers, and total environment

experiences have yet to be fully developed with current simulator

technology.

FAA response: The discussion of the differences between Level C and

Level D simulator programs includes consideration for the performance

standards of each and how each level of qualification may be applied to

training and checking. Application of a specific qualification level

depends in turn on student experience levels and the overall

curriculum. The FAA still believes, as industry did when appendix H was

implemented, that lower experience levels require more accurate flight

dynamic simulation and training in a wide variety of special effects

such as weather and runway contaminants. The Level D simulator

performance standards exceed Level C in special effects to include

daylight visual scenes and more accurate testing for flight dynamics,

motion, and sound. It has always been FAA's intent that the special

effects required of each qualification level be used in the curriculum

for initial and upgrade pilot qualification.

The FAA understands ALPA's concern that the special effects (to

include daylight visual scenes) required of Level D simulators

currently are not being exercised in contemporary training programs as

originally intended. These effects are one of the key elements required

for the different experience levels acceptable for use in Levels C and

D.

One commenter, ASA, suggested that appendix H should ``allow

partial credit for Level B,'' and that ``Levels 5, 6, and 7 Flight

Training Devices should be credited under appendix H.'' The FAA

believes that items 1. and 2. of the ``Advanced Simulation Training

Program'' provide the latitude to integrate Level A, B, C, and D

simulators with other simulators and training devices to maximize the

total training, checking, and certification functions.

The 1984 FAA study referenced by FedEx assumed that the ATP/Type

rating applicant met the experience requirements for an ATP as provided

under Sec. 61.155. While this is a higher experience level than that

required of an SI for part 121 operations, it speaks directly to the

application of the

[[Page 30728]]

performance differences between Level C and Level D simulators and the

related PIC and SIC qualifications and certification credits. For

example, SIC applicants that do not meet Sec. 61.155 experience may

qualify in a Level D simulator, while those applicants that do meet

this experience may qualify in a Level C simulator.

The FAA believes that further studies are needed to explore the

entire issue of ``out-of-the-window'' visual cue requirements relative

to the current and projected state of the art. A research requirement

for this study has been established. Industry participation is planned

and judged essential to the success of this research.

The FAA agrees with the commenters who have indicated that the

aerodynamic performance of Level D has been generally accepted as the

industry standard for all advanced simulators including Level C.

Therefore, the FAA accepts that the aerodynamic performance of some

(late model) Level C simulators may be identical to Level D simulators.

Level C simulators that meet Level D aerodynamic performance standards

provide training benefits in some areas equal to Level D simulators.

However, the use of Level D aerodynamics is not required of Level C,

and Level C simulators are not tested and qualified to Level D

aerodynamic standards.

Given 13 years of experience using Level C simulators, and the

rigorous qualification process and performance standards required for

Level C simulators, the FAA adopts its proposal to allow Level C

simulators to be used for initial qualification and upgrade training

and checking for SIC.

Prior Aeronautical Experience

The FAA proposed to add a new paragraph 4 to the proposed section

entitled ``Level C, Training and Checking Permitted.'' Under this

proposal, the FAA would permit SIC applicants to obtain initial and

upgrade training and certification checks in Level C simulators if

certain preconditions are met. This new paragraph, as proposed, would

require that the applicant meet the prior aeronautical experience

requirements for an ATP certificate and airplane rating under

Sec. 61.155, before beginning training in a Level C simulator and

before being checked under Sec. 61.157 in a Level C simulator for an

ATP certificate or rating.

Simuflite expressed uncertainty regarding the lack of any

requirement for recency of experience and no restrictions on

prerequisite experience for SIC applicants who meet the aeronautical

experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 in ``the'' airplane. According

to Simuflite, the proposal should have stipulated that the applicants

possess the experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 in ``an'' airplane

of equivalent class. As for the proposed revisions to the operating

experience provisions, Simuflite agreed that operating experience

should be acquired performing the duties of the respective crew

position under the supervision of a check pilot and regardless of

whether the training was done in a Level C or D simulator. However,

according to Simuflite, the provision to make operating experience

requirements more stringent for the SIC who received training in a

Level C infers that there is some belief that the training may be

insufficient and inferior.

In regard to Sec. 121.434(f), RAA recommended that the FAA

eliminate from the final rule the proposed restriction which would not

permit SIC pilots trained in a Level C simulator to reduce the hours of

initial operating experience by up to 50 percent by the substitution of

one additional takeoff and landing for each hour of flight.

FedEx stated that it could only agree that SIC's should have to

meet the flight experience requirements of Sec. 61.155, if qualifying

in a Level C simulator, if an ATP certificate is involved. If the FAA

is going to require SIC's to meet the requirements of Sec. 61.155, then

it should require all pilots qualifying as SIC's to meet those

requirements, regardless of the method used to qualify the individual.

According to FedEx, there probably are not many part 121 SIC's who do

not meet the requirements of Sec. 61.155. Further, FedEx did not agree

that Sec. 121.434(c)(2) should be tied to all pilots trained in a Level

C simulator. For FedEx, if an SIC needs supervised operating

experience, then it should be made applicable to all SIC's, regardless

of how they were qualified.

United supported a requirement for SIC operating experience to be

gained in the SIC duty position, supervised by a check pilot. However,

United did not support the proposed requirement that the operating

experience consist of at least four takeoffs and four landings as the

sole manipulator of the controls. According to United, experience with

``pilot not flying'' duties is as important as ``pilot flying'' duties.

In this regard, United concurred with ATA's opinion on rewording

Sec. 121.434(c)(2)(ii)(B). United further noted that the question of

whether or not to amend Sec. 121.434(f) in this proposal (Notice 95-2)

differed from FAA's earlier proposal to amend that same section in

Notice 93-1.

American commented that, since some training in the flight training

segment may actually begin in either a flight training device or Levels

A or B simulators to accomplish events permitted under part 121,

appendix E, the third sentence of the preamble discussion under the

heading ``Prior Aeronautical Experience'' should have been worded as

follows: ``The rule would require * * * under Sec. 61.155, before

beginning the flight training segment of a training program that uses a

Level C simulator to accomplish the inflight training items under part

121, appendix E and the part 61, appendix A check for the ATP

certificate or rating under Sec. 61.157.'' Like United, American

concurred with ATA's suggested rewording of Sec. 121.434(c)(2)(ii)(B).

FAA Response: Regarding amendments to Sec. 121.434, the FAA agrees

with the commenters and has determined that these proposed amendments

need not be retained. The FAA, in its deliberations and review of

comments, agrees with United which pointed out that the questions on

whether or not to amend Sec. 121.434(f) was contradictory to an earlier

FAA proposal. Some commenters also stated that the proposal to require

four takeoffs and four landings for the SIC as sole manipulator of the

controls was excessive and did not address pilot-not-flying duties. The

FAA has decided that the changes made to Sec. 121.434 in the final rule

entitled ``Pilot Operating and Experience Requirements'' (60 FR 20858,

April 27, 1995) satisfies these issues raised by commenters and

adequately addresses the safety concerns of the FAA. Therefore, the FAA

will not propose additional amendment to Sec. 121.434.

Regarding the proposed change to require an SIC to meet the flight

experience requirements of Sec. 61.155, the FAA has determined that

Level D simulators, used in an approved appendix H training program

that may use the prescribed special effects for the 250-hour

commercial, instrument-rated pilot, constitute the minimum acceptable

level for initial and upgrade SIC qualification in part 121 today.

Using a Level C simulator for training the 1500-hour ATP applicant is

equal to or better than using a Level D similator for training the 250-

hour commercial, instrument-rated pilot. The FAA believes that

experience requirements are a vital part of qualification, as well as

any required certification within qualification. Therefore, it is

appropriate to require Sec. 61.155 experience for SIC qualification and

training and paragraph 4 under proposed ``Level C, Training and

[[Page 30729]]

Checking Permitted'' is adopted as proposed.

Modifying Employment Requirement

This final rule will remove the requirement in appendix H (in

paragraph 3 of the section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training

Program'') that each instructor and check airman have been employed for

at least 1 year by the certificate holder applying for approval of the

program. The FAA's intention, in originally requiring a minimum period

of 1-year of employment with the operator, was to ensure suitable

experience levels for individuals selected to be instructors and check

airmen. The most sophisticated simulator can be of little value without

an experienced, well-trained instructor or check airman to operate it.

However, the agency has concluded that this goal can be achieved by 1

year of experience serving as an instructor or check airman with any

part 121 operator. The FAA believes that this amount of instructor

experience, in addition to the training prerequisites for these

individuals in appendix H, is an adequate level of preparation for an

instructor or check airman in a Level C simulator. Modifying the

employment requirement in this way will not decrease safety. However,

it should be noted that, instructors and check airmen may participate

in more than one operator's approved training program; each operator

must provide training for each instructor and check airman in its

training program. Thus, an instructor or check airman who instructs for

more than one operator must receive training in each operator's

program.

Similarly, the FAA proposed to revise the section entitled ``Phase

II, Training and Checking Permitted'' in appendix H to provide that

pilots seeking to upgrade to pilot in command (PIC) do not have to have

obtained the prerequisite SIC experience ``with the operator,'' nor

have served or be serving as SIC ``with that operator.'' Again, the FAA

believes that the level of experience required by an approved training

program, in addition to the training prerequisites for these

individuals in appendix H and elsewhere under the Federal Aviation

Regulations, establishes an adequate level of preparation regardless of

employment with any specific operator.

Commenters generally supported the FAA's proposal to remove certain

employment restrictions. However, ATA suggested deleting paragraph 3 of

the Advanced Simulation Plan entirely or, if not possible, modifying

paragraph 3 to make clear that anyone who has 1 year of experience--

namely with the military, a manufacturer, or a foreign airline--is

qualified.

RAA commented that previous experience should not be limited to

airplanes of the same group. According to RAA, the FAA should require 1

year as PIC or instructor pilot, to include military time. Further, RAA

indicated that pilots should have a type rating and should have

completed an air carrier approved training program.

FedEx commented that the proposal should be modified to include

flight instructors with experience in airplanes of the same group who

gained experience in the military, with airframe manufacturers, and/or

with training centers.

United supported the FAA's proposal to delete the requirement for

employment ``by the certificate holder'' under existing paragraph 3 of

``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' because this relief has

already been offered through exemptions issued to United and to ATA. It

also supported the FAA's proposal to delete the words ``with the

operator'' for PIC initial or upgrade training, under existing

paragraphs 2(a) (ii) and (iii) of ``Phase II Training and Checking

Permitted.''

United concurred with other commenters that equivalent military

experience should be allowed.

ASA indicated that appendix H should allow established operators to

introduce new aircraft with instructors currently employed without

waiting 1 year to gain in-type experience.

American echoed the exemption experience mentioned by United and

further stated that this experience has proven that training received

by a pilot who has already served as SIC on a large jet aircraft

provides an equivalent transfer of learning.

ALPA was opposed to the proposal indicating that it only addresses

the issue of airplane knowledge and qualification but not familiarity

with company policies and operating procedures.

FAA response: the FAA has carefully reviewed commenters' opinions

concerning its proposal to amend the 1-year employment requirement for

instructors and check airmen in part 121, appendix H and in certain

exemptions. The commenters generally concurred that safety

considerations should not be based on employment status but rather on

prior in-flight experience in the group of airplanes in which the pilot

is instructing or checking. By amending the employment provisions of

appendix H, the FAA's intent is to honor all experience gained as an

instructor or evaluator in group. This would include experience under

part 121, part 135, corporate, and military operations.

Further, in response to United's comment, the FAA adopts its

proposal to delete the words ``by the certificate holder'' from

paragraph 3 of ``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' and to delete

the words ``with the operator'' from paragraphs 2(a) (ii) and (iii) of

``Phase II Training and Checking Permitted.''

The FAA understands ALPA's concern that instructors and check

airmen should be familiar with ``company policies and operating

procedures.'' However, as previously stated, the FAA believes that the

student entry level of experience required by an approved training

program, in addition to the training prerequisites for these

individuals in appendix H, and elsewhere under part 121, establishes an

adequate level of preparation.

Clarifying Training and Certification Check Requirements for Initial

and Upgrading Training for SIC's Upgrading to PIC

Under the proposed section entitled ``Level C, Training and

Checking Permitted,'' the FAA proposed to redesignate paragraph 2(a) as

paragraph 2 and paragraph 2(b) as paragraph 3 to clearly distinguish

between the prerequisites for initial versus upgrade training and

checking. This paragraph restructuring was proposed in order to

eliminate the need for the flush paragraph currently at the end of the

section.

Current paragraph 2(a) sets forth the prerequisites for training

and checking in a Level C simulator for SIC's upgrading to PIC in the

same equipment. For example, a pilot serving as SIC in a Boeing 727

upgrading to PIC in the same airplane would have to meet the

requirements of this paragraph. Under new paragraph 2, as proposed,

these requirements would not change. The pilot would still have to have

previously qualified as SIC in the equipment, be currently serving as

SIC in an airplane in the same group, and have at least 500 hours of

actual flight time as SIC in an airplane in the same group. These

requirements are consistent with the definition of upgrade training

under Subpart N--Training Program. Section 121.400(c)(3) defines

``upgrade training'' as the training required for crewmembers who have

qualified and served as SIC or flight engineer on a particular airplane

type, before they serve as PIC or SIC, respectively, on that airplane.

The requirements of current paragraph 2(b) must be read in

conjunction with the final paragraph in

[[Page 30730]]

the section to determine that it applies to initial training and

checking for SIC's upgrading to PIC in an airplane type in which the

pilot has never served as SIC. This SIC has experience in the same

group of airplanes, but not in the same airplane to which the pilot

wants to upgrade. For example, a pilot serving as an SIC in a Boeing

737 initially upgrading to PIC in a Boeing 727 must meet the

requirements of this paragraph.

New paragraph 3, as proposed, would not change this requirement,

but would make it easier for the reader to see that it applies to

initial training and checking. The pilot would still have to be

employed by an operator, be currently serving as SIC in an airplane in

the same group, have served as SIC on at least two airplanes of the

same group, and have a minimum of 2500 flight hours as SIC in airplanes

in the same group. Because proposed new paragraph 3 would refer to

``initial'' training, the language in the current last paragraph is no

longer needed to explain that pilots meeting these requirements may

upgrade to another airplane in that group in which that pilot has not

previously qualified. The requirements in new paragraph 3 continue to

be consistent with Sec. 121.400(c)(1), which defines ``initial

training'' as the training required for crewmembers and dispatchers who

have not qualified and served in the same capacity on another airplane

of the same group.

The FAA received two comments on its proposed clarifications to

initial and upgrade training requirements for SICs under paragraphs (2)

and (3) of the section entitled ``Level C, Training and Checking

Permitted.'' (Comments received on current flight-hour requirements are

discussed below under ``Modifying Current Flight-Hour Requirements.'')

ATA requested that paragraph 2(c) be reworded as follows: ``Is

currently serving as second in command in an airplane in the same group

as the type airplane to which the pilot is upgrading.'' It further

requested that proposed paragraph 3(c), which would require a pilot to

have served as SIC on at least two airplanes of the same group, be

deleted.

American concurred with ATA's requested modification of paragraph

2(c) and ATA's suggestion to delete proposed paragraph 3(c). American

further proposed, however, adding a new paragraph 5 to address PIC's

seeking an additional type rating on an ATP within the same group

without meeting flying time experience requirements.

FAA Response: The FAA does not agree that removing the requirement

in proposed paragraph 3(c) for a PIC initial applicant to have ``served

as SIC on at least two airplanes of the same group'' will yield an

adequate level of safety. Removing this paragraph would allow an SIC

flying hour credits outside of part 121 operations.

American's comment that additional language be added to allow PIC's

to seek an additional type rating on an ATP within the same group

without meeting flying time experience requirements may have merit.

Although it would be beyond the scope of the proposal to add a new

paragraph 5, as American proposes, the FAA believes that the new PIC

upgrade language as adopted in paragraph 2 responds directly to this

concern.

Modifying Current Minimum Flight-Hour Experience Requirements

In crafting its proposal, the FAA contemplated whether to propose

revising certain flight-hour experience requirements for initial and

upgrade training and checking in a Level C simulator. Currently, pilots

upgrading from SIC to PIC in equipment in which they have previously

qualified as SIC are required to have at least 500 hours of actual

flight time while serving as SIC in an airplane in the same group.

Similarly, pilots who are initially upgrading from SIC to PIC in other

equipment in which the pilot has not been previously qualified, must

have a minimum of 2500 hours as SIC in airplanes of the same group as

the equipment to which they are upgrading.

The flight hour experience requirements ensure that a pilot has

adequate experience in order to upgrade to PIC. These values were

established, based on the collective opinions of the FAA and industry

members, when appendix H was originally adopted. Since then, industry

members have argued that the required hours are excessive. Based on the

success of some industry members who have operated under exemptions

that provided certain relief of these flight-hour requirements and

other specific requirements for upgrade training under Subpart N, the

FAA indicated in the NPRM preamble that it may propose, at some future

date, to eliminate the 500 flight-hour requirement and reduce from 2500

to 500 the number of flight hours required for initial upgrade training

and checking.

In its preamble, the FAA requested comments and additional

information that may justify proposing to modify these current flight

hour requirements in a future rulemaking. These comments are discussed

below.

ATA proposed that the FAA eliminate the requirement for an SIC to

have 500 flight hours in an airplane in the same group and reduce from

2500 to 500 the number of flight hours required for initial upgrade

training and checking. ATA recommended that the 500-hour requirement

apply to any pilot initially upgrading to PIC regardless of whether the

qualification was based on the use of a Level C simulator. If this is

not done, the perception will remain, according to ATA, that training

and checking in a Level C simulator is inferior to other methods of

pilot qualification.

FedEx concurred with ATA.

United commented that there need be no prerequisites for SIC or PIC

training or checking in Level C simulators, either initial, upgrade,

transition, or recurrent in an airline training program.

American indicated that it is has successfully exercised an ATA

exemption provision which allows the upgrading PIC, who is previously

qualified in the equipment, to train and check in a Level C simulator.

Under this exemption there is no requirement for the SIC to possess 500

hours flying time with the operator as an SIC. Further this exemption

allows the initial PIC candidate, not previously qualified in the

equipment, to possess only 500 hours flying time with the operator as

an SIC instead of 2500 hours in two different airplanes of the same

group.

ALPA did not agree with the current regulations that allow a pilot

to receive initial training exclusively in a Level D simulator without

experience prerequisites. According to ALPA, with the possibility of

low-time pilots and ab initio candidates being placed in large aircraft

in the near future, training needs to be enhanced, and not reduced in

quality.

FAA Response: The FAA appreciates the invited comments on reducing

current minimum flight-hour requirements.

Standardizing Language and Eliminating Obsolete References

As discussed above, the term ``phase'' is no longer used to

describe the various simulators referred to in Appendix H. Accordingly,

the FAA proposed to replace ``phase'' with ``level'' wherever it

appears and to use the current alphabetical designations for the

various levels.

In addition, the FAA proposed to remove the section entitled

``Phase IIA Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for part 121 Operators'' as

obsolete. For the same reason, it proposed to remove

[[Page 30731]]

paragraph 7 of the section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training

Program'' which references Phase IIA. Under Phase IIA, any part 121

operator could conduct Phase II training for 3 and \1/2\ years from the

date it was approved for Phase I in a simulator approved for the

landing maneuver under Phase I. The carrier's upgrade plan had to be

submitted to the FAA before July 30, 1981. Thus, these provisions are

no longer effective.

United supported changing the terminology and also deleting all

reference to ``Phase IIA.'' According to United, these changes

certainly are appropriate and are supported.

The proposed removal of the obsolete sections is adopted as

proposed.

Additional Comments

The FAA received some comments that are general in nature and that

do not specifically reference the proposed amendments.

For example, United proposed deleting the word ``Plan'' from the

title of appendix H since it is no longer, and has not been for many

years, a plan.

Simuflite recommended that it would seem reasonable to place

simulator and training device requirements in a separate regulatory

structure, since it is clear that all segments of the aviation training

industry may exercise the permitted simulation training and checking.

Simulator standards should stand alone in a rule addressing the use of

simulation equipment as appropriate to operations conducted under those

rules. The proposed changes should be expanded to clarify that the same

training and checking authority in Level C simulators be extended to

those part 135 operators who will not be required to comply with

subparts N and O of part 121.

ALPA would like to see an additional simulator category, perhaps

Level E, which would be a Level D with all aircraft devices such as

Traffic Collision Avoidance System, weather radar, Global Positioning

Warning System, terrain presentations, and more realistic air traffic

control communications. This would add an additional level of reality

to pilot training.

FAA response: The FAA appreciates all of above comments and

believes that they may have merit. In particular, the FAA agrees that

there is room for upgrading simulation standards to include special

equipment operations such as weather radar and TCAS (integrated where

appropriate), and realistic air-to-ground communications (ATC, Weather,

Company, etc.). These comments cannot be incorporated into this final

rule, however, because they do not address proposals that have been

published for public comment and are therefore outside the scope of the

proposal.

In addition, ATA commented that the comment period should have been

longer than 30 days to allow for more precise comments and economic

analysis.

FAA Response: In allotting the 30-day comment period, the FAA was

responding to the large number of requests for relief from the aviation

industry. The FAA considered it to be in the best interest of safety

and the public to expedite the regulation by every means possible. The

FAA did not violate any requirements of the Administrative Procedures

Act, which does not require specific comment periods for rulemaking.

Regulatory Analysis

Executive Order 12866 established the requirement that, within the

extent permitted by law, a Federal regulatory action may be undertaken

only if the potential benefits to society for the regulation outweigh

the potential costs to society. In response to this requirement, and in

accordance with Department of Transportation policies and procedures,

the FAA has estimated the anticipated benefits and costs of this

rulemaking action.

The FAA has determined that this rule is not a ``significant

rulemaking action'', as defined by Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review). The anticipated costs and benefits associated

with this rule are summarized below. (A more detailed discussion of

costs and benefits is contained in the full regulatory evaluation

placed in the docket for this rule.)

Costs

The rule does not impose any additional costs on either part 121

air carrier operators or the flying public. The rule allows certain

training practices that the FAA has determined to be safe and efficient

methods for training pilots, and it clarifies other portions of

appendix H. Thus, the rule does not impose any additional costs because

it permits operators to use the least costly methods of training while

maintaining an equivalent level of safety for the flying public. Since

current training practices could be maintained to current standards

under the rule, there is no reduction in aviation safety imposed on the

flying public.

Potential Cost-Relief Benefits

The rule generates potential cost savings benefits estimated at

$21.6 million, in 1992 dollars, over the next 10 years (or $13.3

million, discounted, using a 7.0 percent rate of interest). These

potential cost savings benefits take the form of increased operational

efficiency (qualitative) and cost savings (quantitative) to those part

121 operators engaged in initial simulator training, in accordance with

appendix H.

The potential cost savings benefits of the rule represent the

difference between the costs incurred currently by part 121 air

carriers for initial training and checking of SIC pilots and the costs

that incurred from the proposal becoming a rule. Currently, certain

requirements for initial training and checking of SIC pilots that are

not performed in a Level D simulator must be performed in the aircraft.

Under the rule, those requirements that are performed in the aircraft

in lieu of a Level D simulator can be performed in a Level C simulator.

The costs of operating the aircraft for those requirements above the

costs of operating the less expensive simulator for those same

requirements is the estimated benefit of this rule.

In an effort to derive a cost-relief estimate associated with this

rule, several part 121 air carriers were contacted. These air carriers

provided the agency with estimated aircraft operating costs per hour,

the time needed to train and check pilots for those requirements that,

under the present rule, cannot be performed in a Level C simulator, and

the number of pilots that it expects to train in the next 10 years.

Potential Operational Efficiency Benefits

The potential benefits of the rule would be generated in the form

of increased operational efficiency. In the full regulatory evaluation

placed in the docket, these potential efficiency benefits are presented

qualitatively. These benefits are difficult to estimate quantitatively

due, at present, to the lack of available cost information.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

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

Congress to ensure that small entities are not unnecessarily and

disproportionately burdened by government regulations. The RFA requires

government agencies to determine whether rules will have ``a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities''

and, in cases where they will, conduct a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis.

According to FAA Order 2100.14A (Regulatory Flexibility and

Guidance), a substantial number of small entities is

[[Page 30732]]

defined as a number which is not less than eleven and which is more

than one-third of the small entities subject to a proposed or existing

rule. A significant economic impact on a small entity is an annualized

net compliance cost which, when adjusted for inflation, equals or

exceeds the significant cost threshold for the entity type under

review.

The entities that potentially would be affected by the rule are

small part 121 operators that own, but do not necessarily operate, nine

or fewer aircraft. As discussed in the cost section of this evaluation

summary, the rule would not impose any costs on these operators because

it is cost-relieving in nature. Therefore, the rule would not impose a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small aircraft

operators.

International Trade Impact Assessment

The rule would have little, if any, impact on the competitive

posture of either U.S. carriers doing business in foreign countries or

foreign carriers doing business in the United States. This assessment

is based on the fact that the rule would not impose any cost on part

121 operators because it is cost-relieving in nature. These operators

do not compete directly with air carriers engaged in foreign operations

(part 129).

Federalism Implications

The regulations contained herein would not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12866, it is determined that this rule

would not have federalism implications requiring the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

International Civil Aviation Organization and Joint Aviation

Regulations

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

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

Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP) to the maximum extent

practicable. The FAA is not aware of, and did not receive any comments

indicating any differences that this rule will present.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no information collection requests requiring

approval of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to the

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

Conclusion

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

findings in the Regulatory Flexibility Determination and the

International Trade Impact Analysis, the FAA has determined that this

regulation is not significant under Executive Order 12866. In addition,

it is certified that this rule will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This rule is not

considered significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

Air carriers, Aircraft, Federal Aviation Administration.

The Rule

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends 14 CFR part 121 as follows:

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL

OPERATIONS

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

follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,

44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904,

44912, 46105.

2. Appendix H is amended by replacing the words ``Phase I'',

``Phase II'', and ``Phase III'' with the words ``Level B'', ``Level

C'', and ``Level D'' respectively, wherever they appear; by replacing

the words ``Phase I, II, and III'' with the words ``Level B, C, and

D,'' wherever they appear; by replacing the words ``Phase II or III''

with the words ``Level C or D'', wherever they appear; by replacing the

words ``Phase I, II, or III'' with the words ``Level B, C, or D''.

3. The section entitled ``Advanced Simulation Training Program'' in

Appendix H is amended by removing paragraph 7 and revising paragraph 3

to read as follows:

Appendix H to Part 121--Advanced Simulation Plan

* * * * *

Advanced Simulation Training Program

* * * * *

3. Documentation that each instructor and check airman has

served for at least 1 year in that capacity in a certificate

holder's approved program or has served for at least 1 year as a

pilot in command or second in command in an airplane of the group in

which that pilot is instructing or checking.

* * * * *

4. Appendix H, ``Phase II, Training and Checking Permitted'' is

amended by revising the title and paragraph 2 and by adding paragraphs

3 and 4 as follows:

Level C

Training and Checking Permitted

1. * * *

2. Upgrade to pilot-in-command training and the certification

check when the pilot--

a. Has previously qualified as second in command in the

equipment to which the pilot is upgrading;

b. Has at least 500 hours of actual flight time while serving as

second in command in an airplane of the same group; and

c. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane in

this same group.

3. Initial pilot-in-command training and the certification check

when the pilot--

a. Is currently serving as second in command in an airplane of

the same group;

b. Has a minimum of 2,500 flight hours as second in command in

an airplane of the same group; and

c. Has served as second in command on at least two airplanes of

the same group.

4. For all second-in-command pilot applicants who meet the

aeronautical experience requirements of Sec. 61.155 of this chapter

in the airplane, the initial and upgrade training and checking

required by this part, and the certification check requirements of

Sec. 61.157 of this chapter.

5. Appendix H, ``Phase IIA, Interim Simulator Upgrade Plan for Part

121 Operators'' is removed in its entirety.

Issued in Washington, DC., on May 30, 1996.

David R. Hinson,

Administrator.

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M