Aircraft Flight Simulator Use in Pilot Training, Testing, and Checking and at Training Centers

SUMMARY: This final rule implements new regulations that contain

certification and operating rules for training centers that will use

aircraft flight simulators and flight training devices for pilot

training, testing, and checking. This rule will increase the use of

flight simulators and flight training devices by permitting their use

for most airman certification training, testing, and checking tasks.

This use of simulation for training, testing, and checking is more

liberal than that currently permitted under the Federal Aviation

Regulations. The training center concept will provide a common source

for standardized, quality training accessible to any individual or

corporate operator and air carriers. This action is consistent with a

state-of-the-art training concept and recognizes industry

recommendations for the expanded use of sophisticated flight

simulation. The new rule also adds regulations regarding Category III

instrument landing system operations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective August 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Warren Robbins, Airman Certification

Branch, (AFS-840), General Aviation and Commercial Division, Flight

Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, Telephone (202) 267-8196.

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

Flight simulation technology has shown enormous advancement during

the past 30 years. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has

permitted greater use of aircraft flight simulators and flight training

devices in training, testing, and checking airmen. The increased

complexity and operating costs of the modern turbine-powered aircraft

and the current operating environment have created an even greater need

for the use of flight simulators and flight training devices. In many

cases, flight simulators have proven to provide more in-depth training

than can be accomplished in the aircraft. The use of flight simulators

and flight training devices in lieu of aircraft has resulted in a

reduction in air traffic congestion, noise and air pollution, and

training costs. The increased use of flight simulators is also

consistent with the national policy for fuel conservation.

Flight simulators provide a safe flight training environment. They

may reduce the number of training accidents by allowing training for

emergency situations, such as fire, total loss of thrust, and systems

failures, that cannot be safely conducted in flight. The FAA has

traditionally recognized the value of flight simulation and has awarded

credit for the completion of certain required training, testing, and

checking by use of simulation.

The first aircraft flight simulators approved by the FAA were

relatively unsophisticated and were authorized for only a limited

number of maneuvers and procedures. As flight simulator technology

developed, the FAA expanded the use of flight simulators but still

required students to perform a number of maneuvers in an aircraft.

Among these were takeoffs, landings, taxiing, and some approaches.

In Amendment No. 121-55 (35 FR 84; January 3, 1970), the FAA

revised parts 61 and 121 to authorize the use of flight simulators and

flight training devices for airman training, testing, and checking.

This use applied only to part 121 air carriers.

In Amendment No. 61-60 (38 FR 3156; February 1, 1973), the FAA

authorized the Sec. 61.58 proficiency check for the pilot of an

aircraft requiring more than one pilot to be accomplished in its

entirety either in an airplane or in a flight simulator or flight

training device. In alternating 12-month periods, the proficiency check

consists of maneuvers and procedures that may be performed in a flight

simulator or flight training device as set forth in appendix F of part

121.

Subsequently, the FAA issued Amendments 61-62 and 121-108 (38 FR

35443; December 28, 1973), effective December 19, 1973. These

amendments, in part, revised parts 61 and 121 by authorizing certain

maneuvers and procedures of the pilot-in-command proficiency check to

be performed in an approved visual flight simulator, if the pilot being

checked accomplished two landings in an airplane of the same type.

The FAA issued Amendments 61-69 and 121-161 (45 FR 44176; June 30,

1980), effective July 30, 1980, that further expanded the use of

advanced flight simulators for air carriers. Amendments 61-69 and 121-

161 formed the basis of the Advanced Simulation Plan, which included

Phase I, II, IIA, and III flight simulators (part 121, appendix H).

Since the infancy of simulation training, the training roles of

several elements of the aviation community have expanded, most notably

those of part 121 and part 135 certificate holders providing training

for other certificate holders. Also, aircraft manufacturers are

providing more simulation training now than they did in the past. This

expansion has led to an ever-increasing need to issue exemptions.

In June 1988, the FAA received from a joint industry/FAA task force

1 several recommendations on the expanded use of flight simulators

in new and innovative training programs. The recommendations included

(1) Establishing a training center certificate for a separate training

entity certificated to conduct training, testing, and checking under 14

Code of Federal Aviation Regulations parts 61, 63, 91, 121, 125, 135,

and 141; (2) centralizing an approval process for course programs and

check airmen at the national level, with local approvals only for

specialty (local or unique) courses; and (3) expanding and

standardizing the use of flight simulators and flight training devices,

while at the same time providing relief from certain provisions of part

121, appendix H. The task force recommended single point oversight of a

certificate by the FAA (instead of separate Flight Standards District

Offices (FSDO's) approving centers in

[[Page 34509]]

their geographic areas), defining training center recordkeeping

requirements, and providing relief from the medical certificate

requirements for instructors and check airmen conducting training in

only flight simulators and flight training devices. The task force

submitted aircraft manufacturer recommendations as an addendum

recommending that a manufacturer's training center provide the initial

operating experience (IOE) for air carriers.

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

\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. Today it continues

to function as an issues area by the same name under the Aviation

Rulemaking Advisory Committee.

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

In April 1989, this task force examined the role of training

centers that provide training, testing, and checking for air carrier

and general aviation pursuant to contracts, particularly training using

flight simulators and flight training devices. This task force, which

was comprised of aviation representatives from special interest groups,

aircraft manufacturers, air carriers, university flight departments,

and training centers such as SimuFlite, FlightSafety International, and

Northwest Aerospace Training Corporation, examined flight simulation

instructor and evaluator issues, including prerequisites; initial and

recurrent training; requirements for current medical certificates;

necessary in-flight experience; training center issues such as

recordkeeping, facilities, and equipment; and the training program

approval process.

The formal recommendations of this task force were forwarded to the

FAA in October 1989. Essentially, the task force recommended that the

FAA standardize the use of flight simulators and flight training

devices, provide a means to certificate entities called training

centers, and permit the training centers to apply for national approval

of core curriculums that could be used by individuals receiving

training under parts 61, 121, 125, and 135. Following receipt of the

recommendations, the FAA appointed an internal working group to

consider the recommendations.

The FAA working group concurred with most of the recommendations of

the task force and recommended that the FAA undertake a rulemaking

project that would include the concept of a certificated training

center.

Related Activity

Several other FAA rulemaking projects address some of the same

sections of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) that are revised in

this rule; however, this rulemaking addresses those sections as they

relate to the use of simulation.

Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 58, ``Advanced

Qualification Program,'' (Amendment 61-88, effective October 2, 1990,

55 FR 40262) allows air carriers conducting training and testing under

part 121 or part 135 to develop innovative approaches to training. Most

AQP training programs will involve the use of simulation.

Three projects, listed below, are final rules that the FAA expects

to issue soon:

``Pilot, Flight Instructor, Ground Instructor, and Pilot

Certification Rules,'' proposed on August 11, 1995 [60 FR 41160],

revises parts 61, 141, and 143.

``Training and Qualifications Requirements for Check Airmen and

Flight Instructors,'' proposed on February 22, 1996 [61 FR 6898],

changes certain provisions of Secs. 121.411, 121.413, 135.337, and

135.339.

``Part 121; Appendix H, Advanced Simulation Plan Revisions,''

proposed on February 14, 1995 [60 FR 8490], updates and revises

appendix H of part 121.

Discussion of the Amendments and the New Rule

General

This final rule addresses the following: (1) The creation of a new

part 142 that contains certification rules and operating rules for

training centers; (2) an expanded use of, and credit for, training,

testing, and checking conducted in flight simulators and flight

training devices in accordance with approved programs conducted at

training centers to satisfy all or some of the requirements of SFAR 58,

part 61, part 121, part 125, or part 135; and (3) new rules pertaining

to Category III authorizations.

The advantage of the training center concept is that it is a common

source for standardized, quality training, testing, and checking

accessible to any individual, operator, and air carriers. Program

approval will be standardized through national guidance, which should

prove especially helpful for training centers operating in different

FAA regions. The rules applicable to training centers apply nationwide,

and training programs, except specialty training courses, are subject

to approval by local FAA offices only after detailed review for

compliance with national guidance. A key concept in the proposal is

standardization of certain elements of training programs, notably: the

extent of the use of simulation, the prerequisites for the use of

simulation for specific tasks, and simulation instructor and evaluator

qualifications.

The FAA proposed a national office to ensure standardization in

simulation training. Several commenters supported the proposal to

create a national office for standardization purposes. The FAA has

decided not to create a national office at this time, however. In the

present economic environment, government is increasingly exploring

alternative methods of accomplishing many of its missions.

Additionally, the FAA subscribes to the concept of decentralization of

government to make it more responsive to the users, and accomplishing

the objectives of this rulemaking without a national office is

consistent with the precept of government decentralization. The FAA is

convinced that it can attain and maintain the concept of

standardization of simulation training by means more economical than

creating a national office.

Detailed guidance will be provided to FAA inspectors and potential

training center certificate applicants in the form of handbooks,

advisory circulars, and FAA orders. The Flight Standards Service will

appoint an ad hoc group of several persons from within existing

resources with experience in subjects related to simulation training

centers. The ad hoc group will process the initial certificate

applications, training specifications, and curriculum approvals. It

will ensure that those approvals are standardized nationally and that

they represent a smooth transition of existing training programs to the

new training regulations.

The Flight Standards Service also will train all its inspectors on

features of part 142 training centers. It will provide detailed

training to those inspectors who will have training center oversight

responsibilities and to Principal Operations Inspectors (POI's) of air

carrier certificate holders that may use a training center.

After the steps outlined above are accomplished and the initial

workload of certificate applications is completed, the ad hoc group

will be dissolved, and approval of training center certificate

applications and oversight of training centers will be decentralized in

accordance with existing FAA structure and management practices.

This rule does not take away any of the uses for flight training

devices currently allowed by 14 CFR, and will have no adverse impact on

the airmen who use flight simulation. Providers of flight simulation

training, testing, and checking under part 142 will come under new

regulatory controls that will enhance the use of qualified flight

simulation in approved training programs. The changes are consistent

with a state-of-the-art training concept, and they recognize industry

[[Page 34510]]

recommendations for the expanded use of sophisticated flight

simulation. The FAA has determined that, if a student has prerequisite

experience, a qualified flight simulator or flight training device used

in an approved training program will provide for an effective transfer

of skills to the actual aircraft.

In this rule, the FAA implements the joint industry/FAA task force

recommendations concerning training centers by using an operational

concept that requires a training center to obtain a certificate plus a

training specification (similar to an operating specification for part

121 and part 135 operators). This approach will add flexibility to

accommodate changing conditions without changing the certificate

itself.

Part 142 allows training centers that do not hold a part 121 or

part 135 operating certificate to use approved flight simulators and

approved flight training devices for airman training, testing, and

checking. This rule also changes certain sections of parts 61, 121,

125, and 135 to provide a mechanism for crediting training, testing,

and checking in flight simulators toward some of the aeronautical

experience, testing, and checking requirements of 14 CFR. Part 121 and

part 135 certificate holders will continue to train personnel under

those parts; however, those certificate holders will be required to

acquire a part 142 training certificate in order to conduct training,

testing, and checking for persons not subject to those parts.

The authority to issue pilot certificates and the provisions

permitting certain training, testing, and checking in a flight

simulator or flight training device, rather than in an aircraft,

remains in part 61.

Part 142 regulates training center certification and operation to

ensure that qualified flight simulators or flight training devices are

used in conjunction with approved courses and curricula. The benefits

of completing a course of standardized instruction in a structured

training environment, and in a timeframe that allows for a building-

block approach to learning, has been recognized and is reflected in the

part 141 flight experience prerequisites for pilot certificates. Thus,

part 141 flight experience requirements were used as the basis for many

of the part 142 initial requirements.

Part 141 Pilot Schools

Pilot schools certificated under part 141 may continue to operate

as they do now. Certification of new pilot schools will also continue

under part 141. A part 141 pilot school wishing to use a Level A

through Level D flight simulator for more than the hours currently

allowed in a pilot ground trainer as described in Sec. 141.41(a)(1),

however, will have to become certificated under part 142. (See Advisory

Circular (AC) 120-40, Airplane Simulator Qualification, as amended, for

the current descriptions of levels of flight simulators).

This rule does not include an increase in credits for use of

simulators except in the structured environment created by part 142, or

as may be individually approved for an air carrier. Part 141 pilot

schools that desire to undertake training by use of more sophisticated

simulation, in addition to training accomplished by aircraft and flight

training devices, may become training centers certificated under part

142. They would apply for certification and course approval under part

142 in the same manner as other applicants.

Advanced Qualification Program (AQP)

This final rule has minimal impact on AQP. It provides the

administrative structure for presentation of AQP to any group other

than aircrews subject to a part 121 or part 135 approved training

program who might receive the AQP training exclusively from their

employing certificate holder. All AQP approval criteria, application

procedures, instructor qualifications, recordkeeping, and data

collection procedures, among others, remain as they are described in

SFAR 58 or its superseding rules.

This final rule changes the definition of a training center that

appears in SFAR 58 to make it compatible with that term as used in part

142; provides that trainers other than part 121 or part 135 certificate

holders presenting an approved AQP to their aircrew employees will have

to do so under a part 142 certificate; and allows persons other than

part 121 or part 135 certificate holders to present training under AQP

if that training is approved in accordance with SFAR 58.

Specific relationships between training center certificate holders

and holders of AQP authorizations, and of training center certificate

holders who become holders of AQP authorizations, are discussed in the

section of this document entitled ``Section-by-Section Summary of the

Comments'' which follows.

Terms

In response to comments, the FAA has either added or revised terms

to expand and clarify the final rule. Each modification of a term or

word is discussed in the ``Section-by-Section Summary of the

Comments.'' A summary of the important new terms and words is provided

below.

Flight Simulator

Section 61.2 defines a flight simulator. In the past, the terms

``simulator'' and ``training device'' have created confusion, so they

are more clearly defined under this section. As defined, the terms make

clear those devices that are not considered a flight simulator or a

flight training device for purposes of this part.

In this final rule, a flight simulator is defined as a full-sized

replica of a specific type or make, model, and series aircraft cockpit,

including the equipment and programs necessary to represent the

aircraft in ground and flight operations. As defined, a flight

simulator also includes a force cueing (motion) system providing cues

at least equivalent to a three-degree of freedom motion system. A

flight simulator is a device that is approved by the Administrator for

uses that may lead to credit for aeronautical experience, required

training, testing, or checking.

Devices such as airborne ILS simulators, ground trainers,

instrument trainers, and flight trainers are not considered flight

simulators or flight training devices under this part unless

specifically evaluated and approved as such by the Administrator.

Flight Training Device

In several sections in this rule, flight training devices are

listed with aircraft and flight simulators as permitted flight training

equipment for various training, testing, or checking tasks of pilots,

although no flight training device may exist for some tasks. The FAA

intends to allow the possibility of approving flight training devices

for training, testing, and checking a wide variety of tasks to allow

and encourage the development of flight training devices in the future.

By permitting the possibility of a wide variety of uses for flight

training devices, which are generally less expensive than flight

simulators, the FAA hopes to encourage the growth of simulation.

Section 61.2 defines a flight training device as a replica of an

aircraft's instruments, equipment, panels, and controls that is located

in an open flight deck area or in an enclosed aircraft cockpit. This

definition includes the equipment and programs necessary to represent

the aircraft in ground operations and flight conditions. As defined, a

flight training device is not required to have a force cueing or visual

system. However, like a flight simulator, a flight training device is a

device that requires approval by the Administrator

[[Page 34511]]

for all uses that may lead to credit for aeronautical experience,

required training, testing, and checking.

Category III Operations

This rule recognizes that technological advances permit aircraft

operated under part 91 to conduct Category III extreme reduced

visibility landing approaches. Part 91, specifically Sec. 91.191 and

91.205, proposed to include implementing requirements to conduct

Category III operations. Part 61 has been amended to specify the

training and testing requirements for Category III operations. Part 1,

Sec. 1.1, Category III approaches.

Simulated Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Conditions

Some airmen have expressed concern about the meaning of the terms

``simulated IFR conditions'' or ``simulated instrument conditions'' in

part 61. There appears to be confusion over whether these conditions

can be achieved by the use of hood devices only. These terms are used

throughout the 14 CFR to mean that instrument conditions may be

simulated by artificially limiting pilot visibility outside the

cockpit. Pilot visibility can be limited by a hood device, by

artificially limiting visibility in an approved flight simulator or

flight training device, or by other appropriate means. Section 61.45

permits the artificial limitation of visibility by these various means.

Tests and Checks

Generally, this rule uses the word ``test'' in lieu of the word

``check.'' Specifically, this rule uses the terms ``initial test,''

``recurrent test,'' and ``practical test.'' These terms refer to an

examination, whatever its nature, on which the applicant receives a

grade, even though the grade may be only ``pass'' or ``fail.''

An exception is found in Sec. 61.58 that requires a ``proficiency

check'' for a pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft. A ``proficiency

check'' is one type of periodic review of a pilot's proficiency as a

PIC, whereas an initial test determines that pilot's qualification to

be a pilot. Thus, when referring to this type of requirement, the FAA

believes that the word ``check'' is more appropriate.

Aircraft

Prior to this rule, the only flight simulators referred to in the

regulations were airplane simulators. The word ``aircraft'' is used

throughout this rule, however, to indicate that the rule applies to

training, testing, and checking in helicopters as well as in airplanes.

When a requirement is meant to apply to only a particular category or

class of aircraft, the appropriate category or class, such as

``airplane,'' ``rotorcraft,'' or ``helicopter,'' is specified.

Normal Landings and Normal Takeoffs

The terms ``normal landing'' and ``normal takeoff'' are used in

several places in the new or amended sections of part 61. ``Normal'' is

meant to describe maneuvers that are not emergency maneuvers or those

that are not done under abnormal conditions. A ``normal'' takeoff or

landing includes those: (1) With different flight path angles, from

steep to shallow; (2) with different configurations, such as flaps down

or up; (3) to or from different surfaces, such as sod, concrete, and

wet or slushy surfaces, or (4) made under various other circumstances

that may be described in an aircraft flight manual. An emergency

takeoff or landing is not a ``normal'' takeoff or landing. A takeoff or

landing is not ``normal'' if it is labeled ``abnormal'' by the aircraft

flight manual.

Easily Reached Controls

There has been some question about the meaning of the term ``easily

reached and operable in a normal manner'' which appeared in Sec. 61.45.

This term, as amended, means that controls that are ``easily reached''

are those that can be reached by any airman or applicant seated in a

designated pilot seat, with seat belts, shoulder harness, or other

provided restraints fastened.

Conventional Manner

This rule also changes the term ``normal manner,'' as it refers to

the operation of an aircraft, to ``conventional manner'' and defines

this term. This new definition should eliminate potential confusion

associated with the use of such terms as ``normal,'' ``abnormal,'' or

``emergency'' performance. These different terms appear in many

aircraft flight manuals and training curriculums. As used in this rule,

in order to perform a normal, abnormal, or emergency maneuver in a

``conventional manner,'' an applicant must use an aircraft that is

equipped with one of the following: (1) A control wheel, stick, yoke,

or cyclic control that in cruise flight, and in a forward movement,

causes a decrease in pitch attitude, and rearward pressure causes an

increase in pitch attitude; a left movement causes a bank to the left,

and a movement to the right causes a bank to the right; and (2) rudder

pedals or antitorque pedals which, when depressing the left pedal,

cause the aircraft nose to yaw left and, when depressing the right

pedal, cause the nose to yaw right. Aircraft with controls that operate

differently than described above may still be used for a practical

test, if the examiner determines that the flight test can be conducted

safely in the aircraft.

Training Center

The characteristics of a training center are addressed in section 2

of SFAR 58 and several sections of part 142. Generally, it is defined

as an entity that must hold an air agency certificate issued under part

142 and must comply with all applicable sections of part 142. It should

be noted that whenever the term training center appears in this rule it

includes satellite training center.

Supervised Operating Experience

Supervised operating experience (SOE) is experience required to

remove certain limitations from an airman's certificate. The limitation

that may be removed by SOE is a limitation on PIC privileges for a

specified aircraft type issued to certain less-experienced pilots who

use high level simulation only for all training and testing for a

certificate, an added rating, or a certificate with an added rating.

The required SOE must be accomplished by serving as PIC under the

supervision of a qualified and current PIC in the airplane type to

which the limitation applies. The SOE must be performed in the seat

normally available to the PIC. The limitation may be removed by

presenting evidence of the SOE to any FSDO. SOE parallels the operating

experience requirement long a feature of air carrier training and

qualification programs, but is less burdensome in that a current and

qualified PIC instead of a check airman may provide the supervision.

More detailed discussion on this matter follows in the response to

comments about Secs. 61.64 and 61.158.

Summary of Comments

Notice 92-10 was published in the Federal Register on August 11,

1992 (57 FR 35888). The comment period closed on December 9, 1992. The

FAA received 328 comments in response to Notice No. 92-10: 223 comments

from various sectors of the interested public, namely pilots and

certificated flight instructors; 48 comments from various aviation

businesses; 13 comments from the major aviation associations; 11

comments from commercial air carriers; 11 comments from the aviation/

academic training school community; and 4 comments from governmental

organizations. Eighteen miscellaneous comments were either duplicates

or entered to this

[[Page 34512]]

docket in error. The FAA considered all of the comments, even those

received after the comment period closed.

Of the 328 comments received, 278 comments made reference to

proposals contained in Sec. 61.197 which addresses renewal of flight

instructor certificates. (Of these 278 comments, 216 comments

referenced only Sec. 61.197, 62 referenced Sec. 61.197 among other

sections.) These comments, as well as those relating to Secs. 61.187,

142.49, and 142.53 concerning instructor flight proficiency, training

center instructor privileges and limitations, and training and testing

requirements, were addressed in Notice No. 92-10A, a Supplemental

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) published in the Federal Register

on February 19, 1993 [58 FR 9514]. The remaining 50 commenters

expressed both support and opposition to the proposals. Many of these

commenters supported the NPRM in concept and purpose, and made various

recommendations for textual revisions. Other commenters made

recommendations with no statement of strong support or opposition to

the proposals. For purposes of discussion, the comments have been

grouped into several broad categories and are discussed in further

detail below. Each comment is discussed in the section of this document

entitled ``Section-by-Section Analysis of the Comments.''

General Issues Covered in the Comments

The following subjects received the most comments. These comments

are responded to individually in a separate section of this document to

follow entitled ``Section-by-Section Summary of the Comments.'' The

issues raised and the nature of the comments are summarized below:

1. The proposed definitions and guidelines regarding the use of

flight simulators and flight training devices will ensure

standardization of training.

Approximately 15 commenters supported the standardization of

training offered by new part 142. Several of the commenters, including

Simulator Training, Inc., (STI) and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots

Association (AOPA), suggested that part 142 define and standardize

training center operations, and reduce the number of exemptions

required for the use of simulation. Additionally, the Air Line Pilots

Association (ALPA) supported the standardized certification

requirements proposed by part 142. ALPA stated that the certification

process ``will assure some level of minimum performance for these

training centers, require accountability for training programs and

equipment, and provide more consistent FAA oversight.''

Northwest Airlines, Inc., (NWA) stated that ``the proliferation of

programs has reached a level where increased regulatory controls must

be imposed.'' NWA and other commenters, including FlightSafety

International (FSI), strongly supported the proposal of an FAA part 142

national office. These commenters suggested that the establishment of

centralized resources would help to promote standardization and

consistency in training and evaluation.

2. The requirements for obtaining a part 142 certificate are

burdensome, costly, and over restrictive.

Approximately 30 commenters objected to various proposals for the

part 142 certification process. The majority of these commenters

specifically cited proposed Secs. 142.17(b)(3) and 142.17(d),

suggesting that they are unnecessarily burdensome and costly.

Fifteen commenters, primarily pilot schools, opposed the proposal

that the principal business office of a part 142 certificate holder

cannot be shared with another certificate holder. The commenters see

this proposed restriction as imposing costly and unnecessary

administrative duplication. Various commenters indicated that the

requirement that a training center own or lease at least one FAA-

approved flight simulator would exclude many smaller training

institutions from the benefits of part 142 participation due to costs

and thereby preclude some students from receiving the benefits of

advanced simulation training. In addition, several commenting part 121

certificate holders stated that if part 121 certificate holders are

required to apply for a separate certificate under part 142, they would

be required to purchase duplicate flight training equipment and

facilities. They stated further that part 142 certificate holders would

be precluded from leasing ``dry'' simulator time from part 121

certificate holders possessing such training equipment.

3. A part 142 certificate should not be required to continue to

provide training to employees of other part 121 or part 135 certificate

holders.

Several commenters opposed the proposals which would require

training entities providing currently approved training programs to be

certificated under part 142. These commenters represented a diverse

group that included air carrier certificate holders, persons interested

in AQP, and current simulator exemption holders.

4. Flight experience gained from the use of simulation cannot fully

replace the operational experience gained in the actual flight

environment.

Several commenters, namely some individuals and the National

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), expressed concern regarding the

reduced hours of actual flight experience proposed in various sections

of the NPRM and posited that flight experience gained through the use

of flight simulation cannot fully replace the operational experience

gained in the actual flight environment.

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Comments

NWA suggested that some readers may have been confused by the

structure of the NPRM, in that it set forth the proposed text, but did

not show the text that remained unchanged. Asterisks were used to

designate the text which the FAA proposed to leave unchanged. The use

of asterisks for this purpose is consistent with the Federal Register's

Document Drafting Handbook.

Several commenters said that several of the proposals should be

deleted in this rulemaking and considered in the part 61, 141, and 143

review. The FAA carefully considered which topics to include in this

rulemaking and which to include in the part 61, 141, and 143 review.

Generally, if a topic relates to simulation, it was addressed in the

NPRM for this rulemaking. Some other part 61 topics also are addressed

in this rulemaking if it was necessary to revise the section for

consistency of style and paragraph numbering.

SFAR 58

SFAR 58.2 Definitions. The FAA proposed in Notice 92-10 to make

the definition of training centers in this section compatible with the

definition of that term as contained in Sec. 142.3.

Several commenters expressed the belief that the proposed

definition was confusing or ambiguous. The FAA agrees that the

definition should be more clear and has simplified the definition. The

revised definition includes those persons who obtain, and operate

under, a part 142 certificate, and those part 121 and part 135

certificate holders who present, under AQP, training that they are

required to present under part 121 or part 135.

Other commenters suggested rewording the definition to exclude

those training providers who already hold a part 121 or part 135

certificate, or those persons who might provide AQP training for those

certificate holders. This is an issue of the applicability of part 142,

which is discussed in the section-by-section

[[Page 34513]]

analysis of Sec. 142.1 and further defined in Sec. 142.3.

SFAR 58.11. Approval of Training, Qualification, or Evaluation by a

Person Who Provides Training by Arrangement.

Delta Air Lines, Inc., (Delta) in a comment typical of several

others, said that there appears to be no sound reason to change the

existing SFAR 58 provision for approval of AQP training, qualification,

or evaluation to be offered by a part 142 training center. It went on

to say that approval under SFAR 58 of training programs, instructor or

evaluator qualification, and use of training equipment should

constitute approval under part 142.

The FAA agrees. The FAA had that intent when making the original

proposals. For example, in the NPRM preamble discussion of Sec. 142.39,

the FAA stated:

``The FAA believes that approval of a curriculum under SFAR 58,

Advanced Qualification Program (AQP), should, for that applicant,

constitute complete approval of that curriculum for use by a

training center certificated under part 142, since the AQP

application contains curriculum criteria at least as detailed as the

part 142 curriculum requirements set forth in proposed Secs. 142.39

and 142.77.''

Several air carriers asked why the FAA proposed in this rulemaking

to fix an expiration date for SFAR 58.

SFAR 58 may or may not expire as determined by separate rulemaking

action underway at this time. Under this final rule, a part 121

certificate holder with an AQP authorization may continue, without

certification under part 142, to train persons who are aircrew

employees of another certificate holder who has an AQP authorization.

Minor editorial changes have been made to clarify the intent of the

proposed rule. This section is adopted with the revisions discussed

above.

Part 61

Sec. 61.1a (adopted as Sec. 61.2) Definition of terms. This section

has been amended to include definitions for terms used in part 61. The

following terms are defined:

(1) An instructor who has a valid ground instructor certificate or

current flight instructor certificate with appropriate ratings issued

by the Administrator;

(2) An instructor authorized under SFAR 58, part 121, part 135, or

part 142 of this chapter to give instruction under those parts; or

(3) Any other person authorized by the Administrator to give

instruction under this part.

(b) ``Flight Simulator, Airplane'' means a device that--

(1) Is a full-sized airplane cockpit replica of a specific type of

airplane, or make, model, and series of airplane;

(2) Includes the hardware and software necessary to represent the

airplane in ground operations and flight operations;

(3) Utilizes a force cueing system that provides cues at least

equivalent to those cues provided by a 3 degree freedom of motion

system;

(4) Utilizes a visual system that provides at least a 45 deg.

horizontal field of view and a 30 deg. vertical field of view

simultaneously for each pilot; and

(5) Has been evaluated, qualified, and approved by the

Administrator.

(c) ``Flight Simulator, Helicopter'' means a device that--

(1) Is a full-sized helicopter cockpit replica of a specific type

of aircraft, or make, model, and series of helicopter;

(2) Includes the hardware and software necessary to represent the

helicopter in ground operations and flight operations;

(3) Utilizes a force cueing system that provides cues at least

equivalent to those cues provided by a 3 degree freedom of motion

system;

(4) Utilizes a visual system that provides at least a 45 deg.

horizontal field of view and 30 deg. vertical field of view

simultaneously for each pilot; and

(5) Has been evaluated, qualified, and approved by the

Administrator.

(d) ``Flight Training Device'' means a device that--

(1) Is a full-sized replica of instruments, equipment, panels, and

controls of an airplane or rotorcraft, or set of airplanes or

rotorcraft, in an open flight deck area or in an enclosed cockpit,

including the hardware and software for systems installed, necessary to

simulate the airplane or rotorcraft in ground operations and flight

operations;

(2) Does not require a force (motion) cueing or visual system; and

(3) Has been evaluated, qualified, and approved by the

Administrator.

(e) ``Set of airplanes or rotorcraft'' means airplanes or

rotorcraft which all share similar performance characteristics, such as

similar airspeed and altitude operating envelope, similar handling

characteristics, and the same number and type of propulsion system or

systems.

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) and Boeing Commercial

Airplane Group (Boeing), in identical comments, stated that this part

should not have new definitions for flight simulators and flight

training devices, but should instead incorporate by reference the

definitions for these items as contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-

40B and AC 120-45A.

The definitions of ``flight simulator'' and ``flight training

device'' set forth in new part 142 are, in all aspects, identical to

those contained in the referenced AC's. The FAA has determined that the

definitions should be contained in the regulatory text so that they are

readily available to applicants for, and holders of, a part 142

certificate and other persons who have an interest in the regulations

concerning training centers.

Crew Systems, Andrews University, and an individual stated that

definitions should not be in this section, but rather in part 1 of 14

CFR, and that the proposed definitions might have a different meaning

to different people. The definitions contained in part 61 are

applicable to that part of 14 CFR. Some of the words or terms might

have a different definition in the context of a different part of 14

CFR. Only those definitions that have general applicability to all

parts of 14 CFR are placed in part 1.

Airbus Service Company, Inc., (Airbus) recommended that this

section be amended to include Air Transportation Ground Instructor, Air

Transportation Flight Instructor, and Air Transportation Flight

Instructor (Simulator Only) in the definition of authorized instructor.

The authority of the persons cited by Airbus to function as

instructors is limited to service in part 121 or part 135. The persons

with the instructor titles cited by Airbus are not necessarily holders

of an FAA flight instructor certificate, and may perform certain flight

instructor functions by virtue of holding an airline transport pilot

(ATP) certificate. The privileges of persons cited by Airbus are not

changed by this definition; they remain the same for the operating part

for which the person was designated. Additionally, many of the persons

cited by Airbus could qualify as an authorized instructor in other

parts, including part 142. See the provision of Sec. 61.2 (a)(2) as

adopted.

One person stated that including the words ``full-sized replica''

in the definition of a flight training device precludes the approval of

personal computer flight simulation technology.

The comment is accurate. The FAA is convinced that simulation has

benefit only if behaviors learned can be transferred to the aircraft.

The FAA is convinced that no effective transfer of learning has been

demonstrated except from flight simulators and flight training devices

that accurately replicate the performance of an aircraft. As discussed

in the NPRM, AC 120-45, as amended, describes the minimum criteria for

flight training devices which will result in

[[Page 34514]]

replication of aircraft performance suitable for specific training,

testing, and checking. The FAA has under development a new AC 120-46,

``Use of Airplane Flight Training Devices (In Flight Training and

Checking for Airman Qualification and Certification),'' which will

provide details about which tasks a particular level of flight training

device may be used for training credit and which tasks one may be used

for testing. At this time, no flight training aid based on what is

commonly known as ``personal computers'' meets the criteria of AC 120-

45. Accordingly, the use of personal computer flight simulation

technology is considered unacceptable.

One commenter stated that this section, and all other proposed

revised sections of part 61, should be deleted and considered in the

phase II of the part 61, 141, and 143 review, which was referenced

earlier as a related rulemaking project.

The FAA does not agree that this would be an appropriate action.

The purpose of this rulemaking was to undertake a comprehensive review,

and revision if necessary, of all rules with the potential for

increasing the use of simulation for airman training, testing, and

checking. Many of these rules are contained in part 61; therefore, the

FAA proposed revisions to certain sections contained in that part.

Sec. 61.2 (adopted as Sec. 61.3) Certification of foreign pilots

and flight instructors.

This section proposed rules for training centers and their

satellite training centers for issuing certificates and ratings outside

the United States. Specifically, this section proposed that training

centers, and their satellite training centers, certificated under part

142 of this chapter, be allowed to do the following outside the United

States: (1) Add additional ratings and endorsements to certificates

issued by the Administrator under the provisions of part 142; and (2)

issue certificates to U.S. citizens within the authority granted to the

training center by the Administrator.

The National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI) commented

that it has long been an FAA policy to not issue U.S. certificates or

additional ratings to foreign nationals outside the United States.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that, under Sec. proposed 61.2

(adopted as Sec. 61.3), the FAA does not issue U.S. certificates to

foreign nationals outside the United States unless issuance meets the

need stipulated in that section. However Sec. 61.2 (adopted as

Sec. 61.3), has, for several years, allowed rating(s) to be added to a

U.S. certificate of a foreign national outside the United States.

Further, Sec. 61.13 has, for several years, allowed the FAA to issue

certificates and added ratings, subject to this need and to collection

of the reimbursement fee required by part 187 [60 FR 19628; April 19,

1995; Fees for Certification Services and Approvals Performed Outside

the United States, Rule and Notices.]

NAFI further states that proposed paragraph (b)(1) does not have a

limitation contained in proposed paragraph (a)(1). It recommends that

the following limitation contained in paragraph (a)(1) be added to

paragraph (b)(1): ``The pilot certificate or rating is needed for the

operation of a U.S.-registered civil aircraft.''

Modern multinational corporations may operate aircraft of different

countries of registry. The commenter has not provided sufficient

rationale for imposing the U. S. certification restriction. The FAA has

determined, therefore, that proposed paragraph (b) should not contain a

restriction on need to operate an aircraft of U.S. registry.

Some commenters, namely United Airlines (United), Trans World

Airlines (TWA), the Air Transport Association (ATA), and the Federal

Express Corporation said, in essence, that the proposed part 142

sections that would permit the certification of training centers

located outside the United States, and that would permit them to add

additional ratings and endorsements, threatens the standardization

concept of part 142 training centers and should be dropped.

The FAA plans to maintain standardization by providing adequate

guidance on instructor and evaluator qualification, simulation

approvals, curriculum approvals, and by emphasizing review and

inspection of that guidance.

Other commenters indicated that maintaining standardization of

training center activities for those training centers outside the

United States will cause a workload on the FAA.

The FAA agrees that creation of foreign training centers will

impose a workload on the FAA. See the FAA plan for compensation for the

workload imposed by training centers outside the United States in the

discussion of comments received in response to proposed Sec. 142.20

(adopted as Sec. 142.19), ``Foreign training centers: Special rules.''

For the reasons discussed, this section is adopted as proposed,

except for editorial changes to make it clear that training centers

prepare, train, and recommend applicants for a certificate or rating,

but do not actually issue a certificate or rating unless the training

center has specific authorization to issue airman certificates.

Sec. 61.3 (adopted as Sec. 61.5) Requirement for certificates,

ratings, and authorizations.

The FAA proposed to amend the lead-in paragraph for Sec. 61.3(d)

(adopted as Sec. 61.5 (d)) and to add a new paragraph (i).

As proposed, paragraph (d) inadvertently would have prevented

lighter-than-air instruction without a flight instructor certificate.

That was not the intent of this rule. Therefore, language allowing such

instruction without a flight instructor certificate is restored to

paragraph (d) of this section. The FAA did not receive any comments on

proposed paragraph (d), therefore, with this minor correction,

paragraph (d) is adopted as proposed.

Proposed paragraph (i) prescribed requirements for pilot category

III authorization. It reads as follows:

(i) Category III pilot authorization.

(1) No person may act as pilot in command of a civil aircraft

during Category III operations unless--

(i) That person holds a current Category III pilot authorization

for that category or class of aircraft, and the type of aircraft, if

applicable; or

(ii) In the case of a civil aircraft of foreign registry, that

person is authorized by the country of registry to act as pilot in

command of that aircraft in Category III operations.

(2) No person may act as second-in-command (SIC) of a civil

aircraft during Category III operations unless that person--

(i) Holds a valid pilot certificate with category and class

ratings for that aircraft and a current instrument rating for that

category aircraft;

(ii) Holds an airline transport pilot certificate with category

and class ratings for that aircraft; or

(iii) In the case of a civil aircraft of foreign registry, is

authorized by the country of registry to act as SIC of that aircraft

during Category III operations.

Some commenters, namely TWA, Delta, American Airlines (American),

ATA, British Aerospace Inc., Training Center (BAe), and AMR Combs

(AMR), believe that part 121 and part 135 certificate holders should

not be required to comply with paragraph (i) of this section, as they

have not been required to comply with the Category II requirements of

paragraph (f) of this section in the past.

There is an alternate mechanism in part 121 to authorize

certificate holders under that part to conduct reduced visibility

instrument approaches. That alternative assures a level of safety

equivalent to this rule. Because of the alternate mechanism in part 121

to

[[Page 34515]]

authorize the commenters and similarly-situated persons to conduct

Category II and Category III operations, the FAA agrees with the

commenters, and has added a new paragraph (j) to except part 121 and

part 135 certificate holders from compliance with paragraph (i).

Current paragraph (f) has been revised in this final rule to conform it

to the format of new paragraph (i). The flush paragraph at the end of

paragraph (f) has been replaced with a new paragraph (j).

Sec. 61.4 Qualification and approval of flight simulators and

flight training devices. In this new section, flight simulators and

flight training devices must be qualified and approved by the

Administrator for training, testing, and checking, if the airman using

flight simulators or flight training devices is to get credit to

satisfy any part of 14 CFR. In addition, each particular maneuver,

procedure, or crewmember function to be performed would be subject to

the approval of the Administrator.

A few commenters suggested that flight simulators and flight

training devices should not have to be approved unless the person using

them expected to get some credit for that use to satisfy some

requirement of 14 CFR.

The FAA agrees, and the rule text has been amended to clarify that

only those flight simulators and flight training devices used to

satisfy training, testing, or checking functions, as may be necessary

to meet FAA regulatory requirements, must be qualified by the

Administrator.

NAFI said that guidelines must be established to specify the

requirements for qualification and approval of flight simulators and

flight training devices to prevent FAA inspectors from arbitrarily

applying their personal standards, and that, once a flight simulator or

flight training device is approved by the FAA, the FAA should not

require another inspector to approve another of the same make and

model.

The FAA agrees that each FAA inspector should not arbitrarily

determine standards for qualification and approval of flight

simulators. The FAA has established guidelines and technical standards

for flight simulators and flight training devices, in AC 120-40, as

amended, and AC 120-45, as amended, respectively. These publications

are available from the Government Printing Office and may be reviewed

at any FSDO. These advisory circulars are made available to facilitate

standardization, qualification, and recommendations for approval of

particular maneuvers and procedures for each flight simulator and level

5 through 7 flight training device, as they are defined at this time.

FAA inspectors may approve the use of flight simulators and flight

training devices for the maneuvers and procedures of a particular

curriculum. To help ensure standardization, the FAA will provide

national guidance for approval of training programs for all part 142

training centers. This guidance should preclude widespread

interpretation on the part of individual inspectors.

Sec. 61.13 Application and qualification. The FAA proposed to

revise paragraph (e) to make this section apply to Category III

authorizations as well as to Category II authorizations. The revised

paragraph reads as follows:

(e) The following requirements apply to a Category II pilot

authorization and to a Category III pilot authorization:

(1) The authorization is issued by a letter of authorization as a

part of the applicant's instrument rating or airline transport pilot

certificate.

(2) Upon original issue the authorization contains a visibility

limitation--

(i) For Category II operations, the limitation is 1,600 feet RVR

and a 150-foot decision height; and

(ii) For Category III operations, each initial limitation is

specified in the authorization document.

(3) Limitations on an authorization may be removed as follows:

(i) In the case of Category II limitations, a limitation is removed

when the holder shows that, since the beginning of the sixth preceding

month, the holder has made three Category II ILS approaches with a 150-

foot decision height to a landing under actual or simulated instrument

conditions.

(ii) In the case of Category III limitations, a limitation is

removed as specified in the authorization.

(4) For the practical test required by this part for a Category II

or a Category III authorization, a flight simulator or flight training

device may be used for simulated instrument conditions, if approved by

the Administrator for simulated instrument conditions.

AIA and Boeing said that Sec. 61.13(e)(3)(i) should contain the

same provision regarding simulated instrument conditions that appears

in Sec. 61.13(e)(4); i.e., ``* * * a flight simulator or flight

training device may be used for simulated instrument conditions. * *

*''

The FAA agrees with the suggestion of the commenters. Paragraph

(e)(4) has been reworded to make it clear that an approved flight

simulator may be used to meet the experience requirement of paragraph

(e)(3) as well as to meet the Category II and Category III practical

test requirements of part 61.

ATA and several air carriers commented that this proposal fails to

include language excepting part 121 and part 135 certificate holders

from compliance with this section. They point out that Sec. 61.3

(adopted as Sec. 61.5) contains an exception for part 121 and part 135

operators from the qualification requirements for Category II

operations.

The provisions of Sec. 61.13 were not intended to apply to

operations conducted by part 121 and 135 certificate holders since the

FAA did not intend to propose, under Sec. 61.3, (adopted as Sec. 61.5)

that a letter of authorization be required for these operations. These

parts prescribe their own requirements for such operations.

Proposed Sec. 61.3 (adopted as Sec. 61.5) has been revised to make

it clear that the exception for part 121 and part 135 certificate

holders also applies to Category III authorization. (See the discussion

of Sec. 61.3 (adopted as 61.5)).

Airbus suggested additional text for this section that would delete

ILS approaches, because MLS, GPS, and other approaches are likely in

the future.

The FAA agrees that the regulations need to be modified to reflect

changing technology; however, this was not a subject of these proposals

and cannot be addressed in this rule at this time.

Airbus also suggested that this section be amended to specify the

quality of the simulated visual scene required for the practical test.

The FAA agrees that the quality of the simulated visual scene that

may be used to complete the Category II or Category III practical test

is of great importance. The sections of the rule that actually require

and authorize training and testing to show competence in reduced

visibility operations, Secs. 61.3 (adopted as Sec. 61.5), 61.67, and

61.68, specify that the practical test must be accomplished under an

approved training program of an air carrier for that air carrier's

aircrews, or in an approved training program of a part 142 certificate

holder. Training program approval criteria for each of those training

programs specify, or will specify, that a flight simulator must be

qualified and approved by the FAA for each maneuver, procedure, and

crewmember task. Further guidance for the technical requirements of

flight simulation is published in AC 120-40 and AC 120-45, as amended.

The FAA believes that the quality control provided by the provisions

described above is satisfactory. Quality of the visual scene in all

modes of flight and the quality of simulation in general is a high

priority for the FAA. For the reasons discussed, this section rewords

[[Page 34516]]

paragraph (e)(4) and is otherwise adopted as proposed.

Sec. 61.21 Duration of Category II and Category III pilot

authorizations. In addition to a change in the title, this section

proposed that Category II and Category III pilot authorizations would

expire 6 months after last issued or renewed.

ATA and a few member air carriers commented that these proposals

included a duration of authorizations that is too restrictive for part

135 and part 121 certificate holders.

The provisions of Sec. 61.21 were not intended to apply to

operations conducted by part 121 and 135 certificate holders since the

FAA did not intend to propose, under Sec. 61.3 (adopted as Sec. 61.5),

that a letter of authorization be required for these operations. These

parts prescribe their own requirements for such operations.

Proposed Sec. 61.3 (adopted as Sec. 61.5) has been revised to make

it clear that the exception for part 121 and part 135 certificate

holders also applies to Category III authorization. (See the discussion

of Sec. 61.3 (adopted as Sec. 61.5)).

Therefore, this section does not apply to a part 121 or part 135

certificate holder.

Therefore, this section is adopted as proposed.

Sec. 61.39 Prerequisites for flight tests. The FAA proposed in

this section to specify a 60-calendar-day time limit for completion of

all increments of the practical test (i.e., the oral increment, the

flight simulator increment, and the flight increment).

In the event that the entire practical test is not satisfactorily

completed within the prescribed 60 calendar days, an applicant is

required to retake the entire practical test, including those

increments satisfactorily completed more than 60 calendar days

previously.

NAFI recommended minor editorial changes to the proposed rule text,

and those minor changes were made in the final rule.

One commenter said that the proposals of this section should be

withdrawn and considered in a subsequent review of part 61.

The FAA cannot defer the implementation of these proposals, since

they relate to simulation testing, a subject covered by this

rulemaking.

No other changes were suggested by commenters. Accordingly, except

for editorial changes, this section is being adopted as proposed.

Sec. 61.45 Flight tests: Required aircraft and equipment.

Proposed paragraph (a) provides that an applicant may use a flight

simulator or a flight training device for those tasks of a practical

test for which the flight simulator or flight training device has been

approved. Previously, this section did not clearly permit the use of

flight simulators or flight training devices for practical tests.

Previously under part 61, a flight simulator or flight training

device could be used only to demonstrate some SIC qualifications and

also to train and test for the ATP certificate. NAFI commented that the

FAA should complete guidelines to specify which maneuvers, procedures,

and crewmember tasks can be trained, tested, or both, by use of each

level of simulation. The FAA agrees, and is drafting such a document

(AC 120-46) at the present time. (See also the response to comments

about Sec. 61.1).

ATA said, in a comment similar to several others, that the proposed

amendments to this section are not necessary, since ``* * * the purpose

of the current rule was not to specify that an aircraft must be used

for the flight test, but rather to prescribe the aircraft requirements

for registration, airworthiness, and equipment.'' ATA continues by

observing that ``Amendment 61.45, effective Feb. 2, 1970, clearly

authorizes the use of simulators for part of the ATPC/TR flight test. *

* *''

Current paragraph (a) of this section deals with the equipment an

applicant must furnish for each test, as well as with the requirements

for registration and airworthiness of that equipment. The wording of

the current paragraph excludes any equipment except aircraft from being

used for the practical test, except as provided in Secs. 61.55 and

61.157. The proposed rule would allow simulation to be used for those

tasks of the practical test for which the simulator is approved. The

FAA considers this expanded use of simulation justified for reasons

stated in the preamble to the NPRM. Accordingly, this section is

adopted as proposed.

Jeppesen-Sanderson and AMR questioned how such tasks as cross-

country skills, rectangular courses, S-turns across a road, and turns

around a point can be evaluated by use of simulation.

At the date of this final rule, there are no flight simulators or

flight training devices that have been approved to evaluate several

tasks, including the examples offered by these commenters.

The intent in the proposal was to permit an increased use of

simulation, in appropriate cases, without having to amend the rules

each time that technological advances permit one of these tasks to be

evaluated in flight simulation. With the assurance that simulation may

be used to meet practical test requirements when it has the technical

capability to do so, manufacturers of such devices should be encouraged

to develop increasingly realistic simulation. Even with regulatory

authority to use simulation for tasks of a practical test, simulation

cannot be used for those tasks until the simulation medium has been

developed, evaluated, and qualified by the FAA to evaluate such tasks.

Airbus commented that the proposed revisions are unworkable for an

aircraft manufacturer's training center and, if implemented, would

impose a severe economic burden on the training center and the part 121

operators it supports.

Although Airbus did not specifically reference Sec. 142.57 in its

comment, it appears Airbus is addressing the aircraft certification,

registration, and airworthiness requirements that are discussed under

Sec. 142.57 below. Training centers, which are to be certificated under

part 142, have distinct requirements for aircraft certification,

registration, and airworthiness. Those requirements, as adopted, are

further discussed in Sec. 142.57.

Proposed paragraph (c) provided that an applicant for a practical

test must provide an aircraft with engine and flight controls that are

easily reached, and that can be operated in a conventional manner by

both the applicant and the evaluator. The paragraph also provided that

the evaluator may conduct a practical test in an aircraft with

different features.

AMR stated that ``* * * 61.45(c)(2)(ii) seems to assume that an

evaluator will be in a pilot's seat when conducting a practical test in

an aircraft. However, evaluators and FAA inspectors currently may

conduct the practical test from a jump seat, or some other location

other than a pilot's seat. * * *'' It recommended rewording to better

state this practice.

The FAA agrees that the practice described by AMR has been and will

be acceptable, and has reworded paragraph 61.45(c)(2)(ii) accordingly.

Proposed paragraph (d) provided that each applicant for a practical

test that requires flight maneuvers and procedures to be accomplished

solely by reference to instruments, must provide equipment that

excludes the applicant's visual reference to objects outside the

aircraft.

Airbus commented that proposed paragraph (d) is unnecessarily

restrictive, in that it prohibits the use of vision-restricting devices

that more realistically create the seeing conditions the pilot is

likely to encounter during

[[Page 34517]]

the instrument-to-visual transition, including visual illusions

associated with maneuvering by visual reference to landing in

restricted seeing conditions. Airbus suggests rewording the paragraph

to allow equipment that restricts an applicant's visual reference to

replicate what might be seen during a reduced visibility approach

transition to a landing.

The FAA notes that this section is directed at maneuvers and

procedures that must be done solely by reference to flight instruments;

it was not intended to, and is not adequate to address, maneuvering

partially by reference to instruments and partially by reference to

obscure visual references to objects outside the cockpit. The FAA

lists, in separate publications, what objects must be visible at a

specified point on an instrument approach in order to continue by

visual reference. The FAA is not aware of a device that can be used in

an aircraft to obscure visibility of objects other than those listed

for continuation of an instrument approach.

The FAA agrees with the commenter that this area of flight is

critical. This is an area of flight that simulation can replicate much

better than an actual aircraft. For simulation, the FAA requires that

the simulated visual presentation be capable of displaying a scene with

visibility as restricted as the visibility that the applicant will be

authorized to observe when completing approaches. Guidance for scene

presentation for simulation is contained in AC 120-40, as amended.

This section is adopted with the changes discussed.

Sec. 61.51 Pilot logbooks.

The FAA proposed to revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to allow pilots to

log the time accrued in a simulated flight lesson. The proposed text

read as follows:

``(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) Total time of flight or lesson.

AMR commented that the word ``flight'' should be added before

``lesson.''

The FAA agrees and has changed the paragraph accordingly.

AMR also commented that the requirement of present paragraph

(b)(1)(iii), which states ``Place, or points of departure and arrival''

is pointless in the context of a simulated flight lesson, as it is

quite possible to conduct a simulator training session and have no

point of departure or arrival.

The FAA agrees, and has changed the paragraph to except simulated

flights from those sessions for which a point of departure and arrival

must be entered.

As proposed, Sec. 61.51(c)(2)(i) has been revised, including

shifting the provision for recreational pilots to a new paragraph (iv),

to make that paragraph easier to read. No substantive change has been

made to the previous provision. The reference to a sole occupant of an

aircraft has been removed since such a person by definition is the

pilot in command.

The FAA proposed to revise paragraphs (b)(3)(iii) and (c)(4)(ii) to

permit the logging of instrument flight time in an approved flight

simulator or approved flight training device.

One commenter said that paragraph (c)(4)(ii) ``* * * only permits

logging of simulated instrument conditions in an approved and qualified

flight simulator or qualified and approved flight training device. It

leaves the logging of simulated instrument flight time by utilization

of a view limiting device in limbo and not discussed.''

The FAA points out that the wording of this paragraph states that

flight simulation ``may'' be used, not that it ``must'' be used, and

that, in both the NPRM preamble and in the preamble to this final rule,

a separate section entitled ``Simulated IFR Conditions'' is devoted to

this discussion to make it clear that a variety of view-limiting

devices may be used. Paragraph 61.45(d) as proposed and as adopted

makes it clear that view-limiting devices, as well as flight

simulation, are acceptable for practical tests.

Andrews University commented that paragraph (c)(4)(ii) is good in

that it allows logging of flight simulator and flight training device

time both with and without a flight instructor.

The FAA points out that this rule does not create any new authority

for a pilot to log flight time in simulation equipment without an

authorized instructor. On the contrary, this paragraph specifies that

an authorized instructor must be present in order to log pilot time in

flight simulation equipment. Further, Sec. 61.51(c)(5) provides that

all time logged as instruction time must be certified by the authorized

instructor from whom it was received. This requirement is intended to

ensure that an applicant's logbook reflects all required instruction

which was provided by an authorized instructor.

With the amendment discussed, this section is adopted as proposed.

Sec. 61.55 Second-in-command qualifications. The FAA proposed in

Sec. 61.55 (b)(4) that initial SIC qualification tests for a particular

category and class or type of aircraft require at least one takeoff and

one landing to be satisfactorily completed in an aircraft of that

category, class, and type as applicable.

Several commenters expressed overall agreement with this proposed

section.

Boeing and AIA commented that, if the simulator used is qualified

for the landing maneuver, the use of an airplane is unnecessary.

The FAA believes that some minimal experience with the category,

class, and type of aircraft, if applicable, is required for those SIC

applicants not previously qualified in any capacity in an aircraft

requiring a crew of more than one person. With the exception of the

takeoff and landing that must be performed in the aircraft, the FAA

believes that, based on its evaluation of the results of training and

testing in flight simulators, the training and testing for SIC

qualifications can be satisfactorily demonstrated in a part 142

training course that is subject to FAA approval.

Paragraph (b)(4) of this section was reworded slightly to make it

clear that the requirement to complete only one takeoff and one landing

in an actual aircraft applies only to persons who complete the rest of

the requirements of this section in an approved course at a training

center certificated under part 142.

Sec. 61.56 Flight review. Under the previous Sec. 61.56, the

flight review could be performed only in an aircraft. A new paragraph

61.56(h) to this section proposed the use of flight simulators or

flight training devices for the flight review if: (1) The flight

simulator or flight training device is approved by the Administrator

for that purpose; and (2) the flight review is accomplished in an

approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part

142.

Jeppesen-Sanderson and the National Air Transportation Association

(NATA), representing a consensus of General Aviation Manufacturers

Association, Helicopter Association International, and others,

commented that simulation should be allowed for the review, in approved

courses conducted under part 141 or part 142.

The FAA does not agree that part 141 should be changed in this rule

to allow pilot schools to conduct the flight review. Part 142 training

centers may conduct flight reviews using simulation because they will

have substantially more required in the way of training capability by

having the following: (1) at least one flight simulator or Level 6 or

Level 7 flight training device; (2) considerably more detailed and

structured training programs; and (3) more demanding instructor

[[Page 34518]]

qualifications than those required under part 141.

United, in a comment similar to several others, recommended that

the flight review should be permitted by simulation in an approved

course conducted by a training center certificated under part 121 or

part 142.

There are no training centers now certificated under part 121 or

any other part. Part 121 certificate holders have a training apparatus

that may be called a school, branch, division, center, and a variety of

other names. There is little doubt that many of them, with minimal

effort at tailoring present training programs, could become training

centers certificated under new part 142. There is no need to change the

rules to allow part 121 certificate holders to conduct a course to

satisfy Sec. 61.56; several courses presented by part 121 schools

already satisfy the requirements of Sec. 61.56. In accordance with the

current provisions of that section, a person need not accomplish the

flight review if that person has satisfactorily completed a pilot

proficiency check, or a test for a certificate, rating, or operating

privilege. Most, if not all, training and qualification activities

undertaken by a part 121 or part 135 certificate holder are for one of

these purposes.

Jeppesen-Sanderson commented that discussion and provisions for

simulation not qualified for the landing maneuver should be deleted.

Based on experience with simulation, the FAA believes that the

flight review can be successfully accomplished in an appropriate flight

simulator or flight training device. Previously, landing maneuvers,

which likely would be required during a flight review, could be

conducted only in a flight simulator qualified as Level B or higher.

Section 61.57(g)(3), however, provides a means for the review to be

accomplished in a Level A flight simulator or in a flight training

device.

One commenter said, in essence, that he believed the flight review

should be an evaluation of maneuvers and procedures required for the

issuance of the certificate applied for, and that not all maneuvers and

procedures can be evaluated in a simulator.

The FAA agrees that not all maneuvers and procedures can be

evaluated in a flight simulator at the present time. Turns about a

point, chandelles, lazy eights, among others, currently cannot be

simulated. However, Sec. 61.56 does not require any specific maneuvers

and procedures. An airman may complete a flight review in a simulator

only if the review is undertaken after completion of an approved

course. The FAA believes that the potential benefits of a structured

review, subject to FAA approval, consisting of various subjects and a

selection of various, but unspecified, maneuvers and procedures

outweigh the fact that flight simulators cannot, at this time,

replicate all maneuvers and procedures required of all certificate

levels.

For the reasons discussed, this section is adopted as proposed.

Sec. 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command. In addition

to a change in the title of this section to indicate that it contains

PIC currency requirements, the NPRM proposed to revise paragraphs (c)

and (d) to read as follows:

(c) General experience.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, no person

may act as pilot in command of an aircraft carrying passengers, or

of an aircraft certificated for more than one required pilot flight

crewmember, unless that person meets the following requirements--

(i) Within the preceding 90 calendar days, that person must have

made three takeoffs and three landings as the sole manipulator of

the flight controls in an aircraft of the same category and class

and, if a type rating is required, of the same type of aircraft.

(ii) If the aircraft operated under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this

section is a tailwheel airplane, that person must have made to a

full stop the landings required by that paragraph in a tailwheel

airplane.

(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of this section,

a person may act as pilot in command of a flight under day visual

flight rules or day instrument flight rules if no persons or

property are carried other than as necessary for compliance with

this part.

(3) Paragraph (c) does not apply to operations conducted under

part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.

(4) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (c)(1) of

this section may be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight

training device subject to the following--

(i) The flight training device or flight simulator must have

been qualified and approved by the Administrator for landings; and

(ii) The flight simulator or flight training device must be used

in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training center

certificated under part 142 of this chapter.

(d) Night experience.

(1) No person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft

carrying passengers at night (the period beginning 1 hour after

sunset and ending 1 hour before sunrise as published in the American

Air Almanac) unless, within the preceding 90 days, that person has

made not fewer than three takeoffs and three landings to a full

stop, at night, as the sole manipulator of the flight controls in

the same category and class of aircraft.

(2) Paragraph (d)(1) of this section does not apply to

operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter.

(3) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (d)(1) of

this section may be accomplished in a flight training device or

flight simulator that is--

(i) Qualified and approved by the Administrator for takeoffs and

landings, if the visual system is adjusted to represent the time of

day described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and

(ii) Used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a

training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.

FSI suggested that paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section should be

changed to ``be consistent with Sec. 121.439.''

The FAA must presume that the recommendation is to change paragraph

(c), as paragraph (d) pertains to night recency of experience, and

there is no night recency of experience requirement in Sec. 121.439.

The deletion of the night landing requirement was not proposed and is

not considered in the final rule. To make paragraph (c), general

experience, including day landings, consistent with Sec. 121.439 would

require operators to have check airmen, operations specifications, and

require each airman to have specific previous experience in the

airplane type (with no provision for aircraft not requiring a type

rating) in operating parts other than part 121 and part 135. Such

dramatic changes to part 91, or other parts of 14 CFR, would simply not

be economically justified. This rulemaking is intended to encourage and

accommodate the use of simulation for more extant training, testing,

and checking tasks, but not to change the tasks required for any

particular certificate, rating, or privilege. Therefore, paragraphs (c)

and (d) are adopted as proposed.

Also, the NPRM proposed to amend paragraph (e) to permit pilots to

meet instrument currency requirements in an approved flight simulator

or flight training device.

NWA recommended that proposed paragraph (e) include an exception

stating that the requirements of Sec. 61.57 do not apply to operations

conducted under part 121 and part 135, similar to the construction of

paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sec. 61.57.

During the comment period and final drafting stage for this final

rule, the FAA was separately considering a petition for exemption or

other regulatory relief from the requirements of paragraph (e) for

members of ATA. On November 11, 1994 the FAA published a final rule [59

FR 56385] that revised Sec. 61.57(f) to provide that PICs employed by a

part 121 or part 135 operator are excepted from compliance with the

recency of experience requirements of Sec. 61.57, only if they are

qualified under Secs. 121.437 or 135.243 and meet the recent experience

[[Page 34519]]

requirements under Secs. 121.439 or 135.247. Therefore, this exception

in paragraph (f) will provide the relief suggested by the commenter.

NATA commented that ``approved course,'' as used in this section,

should include ``those courses approved under part 141 and part 61.''

Several other commenters asked what is meant by ``approved course,''

and whether such a course is limited to takeoffs and landings.

The reference is to courses approved for training centers for

establishing or maintaining currency in those tasks specified in this

section. The content of such courses would not have to be restricted to

takeoffs and landings. The courses might include, for example,

different abnormal and emergency situations for takeoffs and landings,

such as power loss, runway contamination, gusts and shear, factors

causing visual illusion, physiological factors affecting night takeoffs

and landings, and others. There is no such course approved under part

141 and, as discussed earlier under Sec. 61.56, adding new courses to

part 141 was not proposed and is not considered in this rulemaking.

AMR commented that the preamble suggests that a simulator or flight

training device can be used to meet instrument currency requirements,

but the regulation requires that at least 3 of the required 6 hours be

conducted in an aircraft. It recommended clarification of this point.

The FAA agrees that there was an apparent conflict between the

preamble to the NPRM and the rule text dealing with instrument

currency. The rule text has been changed to reflect the intent of the

preamble; paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A) has been changed to read, in part:

(A) Logged at least 6 hours of instrument time including at

least six instrument approaches under actual or simulated instrument

conditions, not more than 3 hours of which may be in approved

simulation representing aircraft other than gliders.

A few air carriers commented that they disagree with the proposed

change of verbiage which requires an instrument competency check to be

given by ``a person authorized by the Administrator'' instead of by

``an FAA inspector, a member of an armed force of the United States

authorized to conduct flight tests, an approved FAA-approved check

pilot, or a certified instrument flight instructor.''

The proposed revision is needed to permit other persons to give the

instrument competency check. For example, the new wording will include

evaluators for part 142 training centers, designated examiners, pilot

proficiency examiners, simulator-only instructors who do not hold a

medical certificate, as well as all those persons named in the previous

rule.

For the reasons discussed, this section is adopted as changed.

Sec. 61.58 Pilot-in-command proficiency check: Operation of

aircraft requiring more than one required pilot. The FAA proposed to

revise this section to permit airmen, under certain conditions, to

accomplish required PIC proficiency checks entirely in a qualified and

approved flight simulator.

Proposed paragraph (a) provided that:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, to serve as pilot

in command of an aircraft that is type certificated for more than one

required pilot crewmember, a person must--

(1) Within the preceding 12 calendar months, complete a pilot-in-

command check in an aircraft that is type certificated for more than

one required pilot crewmember; and

(2) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, complete a pilot-in-

command check in the particular type of aircraft in which that person

will serve as pilot in command.

NAFI, apparently commenting on Sec. 61.58(a), commented that this

section should be revised to close a loophole that allows certain large

or turbojet aircraft, such as the DC-3 and some Cessna C-500 series

aircraft, to be operated by a single pilot. It points out that, under

the current and proposed sections, pilots of those aircraft may not be

required to undertake the pilot proficiency checks.

While NAFI's comment may have merit, changing the applicability of

Sec. 61.58 is not the purpose of this rulemaking, and the FAA did not

propose to change the tasks required for proficiency checks. As stated

earlier, the purpose of this rulemaking is to encourage and accommodate

the use of simulation for more training, testing, and checking tasks,

but not to change the tasks required for any particular certificate,

rating, or privilege.

Proposed Sec. 61.58(e)(1) stated the following:

``Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, a check or a

test described in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(4) of this section may

be accomplished in a flight simulator qualified and approved under part

142 of this chapter subject to the following:

(1) Except as allowed in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this

section, if an otherwise qualified and approved flight simulator used

for a PIC proficiency check is not qualified and approved for a

specific required maneuver--

(i) The training center shall annotate, in the applicant's training

record, the maneuver or maneuvers omitted; and

(ii) Prior to acting as PIC, the pilot shall demonstrate

proficiency in each omitted maneuver in an aircraft or flight simulator

qualified and approved for each omitted maneuver.

Proposed Sec. 61.58(e)(1) would have had the effect of requiring a

flight simulator qualified as Level B or higher to satisfy the

requirements of Sec. 61.58, since only Level B or higher level flight

simulators are qualified for landing.

FSI commented that exemptions have allowed successfully an

alternative that permits the proficiency check to be accomplished in

flight simulators not qualified for landing. That alternative requires

the applicant to complete an approved curriculum, hold a type rating in

the type aircraft for which the proficiency check is required, and have

completed three takeoffs and three landings (one to a full stop) as the

sole manipulator of the flight controls within the 90 days preceding

the proficiency check.

The FAA agrees that the alternative is a current and acceptable

practice. Therefore, paragraph 61.58(e) is reworded to include this

alternative.

Paragraphs 61.58 (e)(2) and (e)(3) contain proposals pertaining to

circling approaches and landings in certain simulators. For example,

under the proposed rule, a proficiency check, which requires a circle-

to-land maneuver, would have to be accomplished in a flight simulator

equipped with a visual system that permits accomplishment of the

circling approach task. If the flight simulator used is not qualified

for circling approaches and the applicant does not demonstrate circling

approaches at the training center, proposed Sec. 61.58(e)(2) would

require that the training center annotate the applicant's records with

the statement, ``Proficiency in circling approaches not demonstrated.''

In addition, proposed Sec. 61.58(e)(2) would restrict the applicant

from performing circling approaches as PIC, during conditions less than

basic VFR weather minimums. This proposed restriction would remain

until proficiency in circling approaches in either an aircraft or a

flight simulator qualified for circling approaches is demonstrated to a

person authorized by the Administrator to conduct the required check.

FSI commented that helicopter pilots should not be required to

perform circling approaches to satisfy the requirement of this section

because, in essence, a helicopter can land to a downwind hover, then

make a hovering

[[Page 34520]]

turn to make a landing to touchdown into the wind.

While this comment may have merit, the FAA did not propose to

change the circling approach requirement. This rule considers what

tasks may be accomplished by use of simulation, either now or in the

future, but does not attempt to determine what tasks should be required

for any particular certificate, rating, or privilege. Those tasks are

being evaluated in a separate rulemaking project (phase II of the part

61, 141, and 143 review).

Airbus commented that Sec. 61.58(e)(3) is not appropriate for

training centers providing training for part 121 and part 135

certificate holders. It continues that an air carrier's operations

specifications prohibit circling approaches unless the pilot is

qualified to perform circling approaches, and that the approved

training for a particular air carrier does not require training in

circling approaches unless the employing air carrier is approved to

conduct circling approaches. Airbus suggests that this paragraph be

written to exclude applicants who are currently employed by a part 121

or part 135 certificate holder.

The FAA agrees in part with the commenter. The comment appears to

pertain to proposed Sec. 61.157 however. Therefore, the commenter's

suggestion will be addressed in the preamble discussion pertaining to

proposed Sec. 61.157.

Section 61.58(f) proposed that, in order to accomplish the

recurrent check entirely in a flight simulator, the pilot must have

performed the 12-and-24-month proficiency checks in an aircraft, as

described in Sec. 61.58(a) (1) and (2).

FSI and Simuflite Training International (SFI) commented that the

words ``if an applicant for a check required by this section has not

satisfactorily completed a PIC check within the period required by

paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) * * * '' that appear in proposed

Sec. 61.58(e) are essentially the same as the provisions contained in

proposed paragraph (f) which reads as follows:

(f) If a pilot has not completed a pilot-in-command proficiency

check within the period required by paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this

section, that pilot must complete the required pilot-in-command

proficiency check in an aircraft.

These commenters point out that both paragraphs would therefore

preclude reestablishment of PIC proficiency by use of a simulator,

which may be more restrictive than current exemptions.

The FAA agrees. It was not intended to propose that Sec. 61.58(e)

be made more restrictive than recent practice has allowed. Accordingly,

Sec. 61.58(e) has been reworded in the final rule. Paragraph (e) now

reads as follows:

(e) A check or a test described in paragraphs (d)(1) through

(d)(4) of this section may be accomplished in a flight simulator

qualified and approved under part 142 of this chapter subject to the

following:

(1) Except as allowed in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this

section, if an otherwise qualified and approved flight simulator

used for a pilot-in-command proficiency check is not qualified and

approved for a specific required maneuver--

(i) The training center shall annotate, in the applicant's

training record, the maneuver or maneuvers omitted; and

(ii) Prior to acting as pilot in command, the pilot shall

demonstrate proficiency in each omitted maneuver in an aircraft or

flight simulator qualified and approved for each omitted maneuver.

(2) If the flight simulator used pursuant to this paragraph is

not qualified and approved for circling approaches--

(i) The applicant's record shall be annotated with the

statement, ``Proficiency in circling approaches not demonstrated;''

and

(ii) The applicant may not perform circling approaches as pilot

in command when weather conditions are less than the basic VFR

conditions described in Sec. 91.155 of this chapter, until

proficiency in circling approaches has been successfully

demonstrated in an approved simulator or aircraft to a person

authorized by the Administrator to conduct the check required by

this section.

(3) If the flight simulator used pursuant to this paragraph is

not qualified and approved for landings--

(i) The applicant must hold a type rating in the airplane

represented by the simulator; and

(ii) Have completed, within the preceding 90 days, at least

three takeoffs and three landings (one to a full stop) as the sole

manipulator of the flight controls in the type airplane for which

the pilot-in-command proficiency check is sought.

In an apparent reference to proposed paragraph (g), which required

a pilot's first PIC proficiency check to be accomplished in an

aircraft, FSI commented that it believes that part 142 will have the

same supervision and scrutiny required of training programs currently

conducted under part 121, and that even the first proficiency check

should be allowed in a flight simulator, as currently permitted under

Sec. 121.439 (sic). (Apparently the commenter was referring to

Sec. 121.441.)

The FAA has considered the comment in the overall context of

increasing the use of simulation in lieu of checking in an aircraft.

The inclusion of a certificate limitation, as described in the

discussion of Secs. 61.64 and 61.158, requiring SOE for certain less

experienced pilots, will assure that pilots first due a PIC proficiency

check in a specific type aircraft will have had some aircraft

experience. Accordingly, after further consideration, the FAA has

concluded that proposed paragraph (g) is unnecessary and it has not

been adopted.

Proposed paragraph (i) stated the following:

(i) If a pilot takes the check required by this section in the

calendar month before, or the calendar month after, the month in

which it is due, the pilot is considered to have taken it when due,

and future proficiency check due dates do not change.

AMR commented, ``The proposed paragraph 61.58(i) leaves open the

same questions that the existing language in parts 61.58(g) and

135.301(a) leave open. The proposed paragraph establishes a base month,

and a 90-day window for checking.'' AMR continues that there are any

number of good reasons why a pilot may not get the check required by

this section within the specified time period, and that the proposed

language does not address the case of a pilot whose currency has

lapsed. It recommends that the period for checking be extended to

include the period from the month before the month a check is due until

2 months after the month a check is due. It further recommends that

another subparagraph be added to specify that, for those pilots who do

not complete a proficiency check during the period due, a new 12-month

period for proficiency check due dates will begin upon completion of

the proficiency check.

The FAA does not agree that extending the acceptable time period

for completion of a proficiency check for 2 months beyond the due date,

and allowing a total window of 4 months for an annual proficiency

check, is warranted. Safety dictates that a pilot's proficiency be

checked regularly and with some degree of frequency. The FAA has found

it acceptable to conduct annual proficiency checks. The scenario

described by the commenter would allow annual proficiency checks to

become 14-month proficiency checks.

The FAA does not agree that a new provision is necessary for pilots

whose currency has lapsed. Paragraph (a) speaks to such a situation in

that the pilot must be able to look back over the current month and the

preceding 12 months or 24 months and find that he or she has completed

the required check.

AIA and Boeing commented that this section should not contain new

flight training device definitions.

Flight training device definitions are contained in Sec. 61.2 as

adopted, and the rationale for adding those definitions is

[[Page 34521]]

provided in the discussion of that section.

As discussed above, the FAA has revised proposed paragraph (e) and

deleted proposed paragraphs (f), (g) and (i), and redesignated

remaining paragraphs accordingly. This section is adopted with the

changes discussed.

Sec. 61.63 Additional aircraft ratings for other than airline

transport pilot certificate (for parts 121 and 135 use only).

The FAA proposed to revise this section title to make it clear that

this section is applicable only to applicants who are pilot crewmember

employees of a part 121 or part 135 certificate holder. This section

would continue to set forth the requirements for adding additional

aircraft ratings to pilot certificates other than ATP certificates.

The NPRM proposed a new Sec. 61.64, titled ``Additional aircraft

ratings for other than airline transport pilot certificates (for other

than parts 121 and 135 use).'' This proposed section contains

provisions for adding ratings for airmen other than pilots applying for

an additional type rating through successful completion of a part 121

or part 135 approved training program. The detailed testing guidelines

are contained in FAA Practical Test Standards. More discussion on PTS

follows in subsequent paragraphs, and under the analysis of comments

about proposed Sec. 61.158 and appendix A of part 61).

Several commenters, including TWA, said that the phrase, ``(for

parts 121 and 135 use only)'' is confusing, and that the FAA should

``enforce one, and only one, set of standards for an ATP certificate.''

Crew Systems said that the proposals appear to create two types of

pilot certificates, one for part 121 and part 135 operations and one

for all other operations.

The FAA has but one set of standards for the ATP certificate, or

for any other certificate. Section 61.63 and Sec. 61.64 are written

differently to articulate the different procedures for gaining added

ratings, including an added rating to the ATP certificate. Neither

section addresses standards for the application of the ATP certificate.

Part 61 has for years listed, under several paragraphs entitled

``Flight proficiency'', broad areas of operations in which each

applicant must demonstrate competence to be awarded any airman's

certificate except for the ATP certificate. For the last several years,

the specific tasks appropriate for an applicant for any certificate or

rating, the conditions under which the tasks are to be performed, and

the standards for each task have been published in PTS.

Additionally, the FAA points out that there are now and have been

for many years at least two different ways to gain an ATP certificate,

or ratings to that certificate, or both. The certificate and ratings

may be earned pursuant to the successful completion of an air carrier

training program or by meeting the requirements of Sec. 61.63 or

Sec. 61.157 outside an air carrier training program. Sections 61.63 and

61.64 recognize the different ways to gain added ratings, and address

the use of simulation for each of those ways.

AIA, Boeing, and AMR commented about this section (and Sec. 61.64)

in general. They stated that these sections are redundant, and that the

requirements for a type rating or an ATP should be the same regardless

of the employment status of the airman concerned.

NATA commented that there was insufficient basis for the formation

of what amounts to two types of ATP certificates, and that the

certification standards for additional ratings should be the same

regardless of employment. These comments were similar to several

others.

To clear some confusion apparently held by the commenters

referenced in the previous paragraph, the FAA points out that

Sec. 61.63 (and new Sec. 61.64) set forth the proposed requirements

that would have to be met to add all additional ratings to airman

certificates other than the ATP certificate, but not the requirements

for the ATP certificate nor added ratings to that certificate.

As stated earlier in the discussion of this section, the FAA agrees

that there is only one standard for any added rating. The commenters

have observed that there have been two different sets of certification

requirements (but not standards) for an added rating to the ATP

certificate. One requirement is the PTS, which requires all applicants

who are not applying by virtue of having successfully completed an

employing air carrier training program to complete all listed tasks.

Another requirement, appendix A of part 61, allows waiver of training,

testing, and checking of tasks that are excluded by an air carrier's

operations specifications for those applicants who are applying by

virtue of having successfully completed an employing air carrier

training program.

Airbus commented that proposed Sec. 61.63 this section

inadvertently imposes an unnecessary economic burden on training

centers of aircraft manufacturers which manufacture airplanes to meet

the standards of part 25. It states that this section proposed

Sec. 61.63 should be applicable to FAA inspectors and employees of a

manufacturer training center, along with aircrew employees of a part

121 or part 135 certificate holder.

The FAA does not see a different economic impact as a result of

applying the alternatives of this section, instead of Sec. 61.64, to

individuals who are not aircrew employees of a part 121 or part 135

certificate holder. The persons mentioned by the commenter have always

been required to complete all the requirements now enunciated in

Sec. 61.64; the exclusion from the requirement to train and test in

certain tasks (for example, the circling approach maneuver) never

applied to a pilot not employed by a certificate holder subject to the

operating rules of part 121. Therefore, the requirements of Sec. 61.64

are not additional requirements for the persons mentioned by the

commenter, and do not impose an additional economic burden.

In response to the comment about the requirements to be met by FAA

inspectors to gain an added rating, the FAA is clear that the

requirements for an individual airman apply to an FAA inspector.

For the reasons described, this section is adopted as proposed.

Sec. 61.64 Additional aircraft ratings for other than airline

transport pilot certificates (for other than part 121 and 135 use). The

FAA proposed in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) of this section that an

applicant who holds a pilot certificate and applies to add a category

or class rating must present a record of training certified by an

authorized flight instructor showing that the applicant has

accomplished certain training. Paragraph (d)(1) proposed that an

applicant who holds a pilot certificate and applies to add a type

rating must present a record of training certified by an authorized

ground or flight instructor showing that the applicant has accomplished

certain training.

In addition to the comments on this section already addressed in

the discussion relating to proposed Sec. 61.63, FSI commented that the

wording of proposed Secs. 61.64(b)(1), (c)(1), and (d)(1) be changed to

delete the words ``flight'' and ``ground'' wherever they appear before

the word ``instructor.'' In essence, it says that, as proposed, this

section would not allow authorized instructors, who do not hold flight

instructor certificates, to certify flight training accomplished in

simulation. It states that this practice already is permitted under

existing exemptions.

The FAA agrees. Accordingly, the final rule incorporates the

revisions suggested by FSI.

Paragraph (e) proposed the following:

[[Page 34522]]

(e) The tasks required by paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this

section shall be performed in--

(1) An airplane of the same type, for which the type rating is

sought; or

(2) Subject to the limitations of paragraph (e)(3) of this

section, a flight simulator or a flight training device that

represents the airplane type for which the type rating is sought.

(3) The flight simulator or flight training device use permitted

by paragraph (e)(2) of this section shall be conducted in accordance

with an approved course at a training center certificated under part

142 of this chapter; or

(4) In another manner approved by the Administrator.

STI asked, ``What could be a possible (sic) another manner approved

by the Administrator?'' It asked if the intent is to allow current part

61 exemption holders to submit a program outside of a part 142

certificated training center. STI believes that to do so would allow

organizations to offer additional type ratings without a part 142

certificate, and that would negate ``the level playing field for all

operators subject to part 142 certification.''

The new rule will allow current part 61 exemption-holding simulator

training centers to continue to operate only if they obtain a part 142

certificate. The phrase in question was intended to allow for approval

of unforeseen circumstances for completing the tasks required to obtain

a part 142 certificate without changing the rule. The FAA has

determined, therefore, that proposed paragraph (e)(4) can be withdrawn

and has renumbered several paragraphs accordingly.

In a general comment concerning actual aircraft flight experience,

the NTSB stated the following:

The Safety Board realizes that there are limitations to

simulation and believes that the proposed regulations must be

sensitive to the safety needs served by retaining some aspects of

actual flight experience.

The NTSB continued:

The Safety Board recognizes that experience in * * * training

devices cannot fully replicate operational experience in the actual

flight environment and the ``seasoning'' that such experience

provides * * *. The Safety Board urges the FAA to review the

proposed regulations to ensure that they achieve the intent while

still safeguarding basic pilot and instructor skills provided by the

physical operating environment.

In another comment addressing general experience in actual aircraft

flight, ALPA stated the following:

While it is true that aircraft simulation has reached

unparalleled levels of realism, and we strongly support increased

use of advanced simulation, there are other factors which are

important, especially for low-time pilots.

One factor is familiarity with and management of the air traffic

control (ATC) environment. Unless every simulator flight is

conducted as line oriented flight training (LOFT), a great deal of

the required ATC interaction is missed. Under ideal circumstances,

LOFT will include realistic interaction with ATC and other aircraft.

Unfortunately, LOFT sessions are not always conducted with this

degree of environmental realism. It is the operation and decision-

making experience which one receives in an aircraft in an ATC

environment, including interaction with other aircraft, which makes

them a safer pilot. This is especially important early in a pilot's

learning experience.

ALPA added: ``For these reasons, caution should be exercised in

relying too heavily on simulator training in a pilot's early training

and experience,'' and ``A pilot who is a candidate for an ATP has

likely flown for a commercial operator for several years. * * *''

The FAA agrees with the commenters' analysis of the importance of

actual aircraft experience when an applicant will use flight simulation

for a large portion of required training and testing. The FAA has had,

for years, mechanisms for part 121 air carriers and for part 91 and

part 125 operators to ensure the flying public that PIC's have actual

aircraft experience prior to acting as PIC for aircraft requiring a

type rating. Part 121 has a requirement for a potential PIC to receive

specified initial operating experience (commonly known as IOE, required

by Sec. 121.434) under the supervision of a check pilot. This operating

experience requirement applies only to the ATP certificate.

Notwithstanding the recency of experience requirement of

Sec. 61.57, experienced pilots who operate under part 91 or under part

125 have no further operating experience requirement. Relatively

inexperienced pilots who intend to operate under part 91 or under part

125 and who gained an airman certificate with a type rating or added a

type rating to any level of airman certificate entirely by training and

testing in a flight simulator have had a limitation placed on their

airman certificate requiring operating experience similar to that

required by Sec. 121.434. The terms of exemptions permitting these

pilots to train and test entirely in flight simulators defined the

experience level thresholds and set the requirements for SOE. The SOE

requirement applies to any level of airman certificate. The SOE

requirement applies only to a pilot who is to act as PIC for the first

time in a particular type aircraft, and may be completed under the

supervision of another qualified and current PIC.

In light of its long-standing requirements for operating experience

for new PIC's of aircraft requiring a type rating and to implement the

NTSB recommendations and those of other commenters, the FAA is

convinced that, in the interest of safety, it is essential to continue

requirements for sufficient operating experience before newly

certificated or rated pilots act as PIC's of aircraft requiring a type

rating.

For the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the FAA has

added new paragraphs (e)(4) through (e)(12) specifying SOE requirements

for certain less experienced pilots who apply for an additional rating.

These revisions are fully responsive to the NTSB's and ALPA's comments.

They reflect current FAA practice with limitations contained in

exemptions or placed directly on pilot certificates or ratings obtained

through simulation.

With the exception of the revisions discussed above, Sec. 61.64 is

adopted as proposed.

Sec. 61.65 Instrument rating requirements. The FAA proposed in

paragraph (c)(3) of this section, that an applicant for an instrument

rating would have to have received instruction in instrument approaches

using two different nonprecision approach systems and one precision

approach system. Paragraph (g)(3)(i) proposed that the practical test

for the instrument rating must include at least one published

precision, nonprecision, and circling approach. Previously, this

section had listed specific types of precision and nonprecision

instrument approaches that an applicant had to receive instruction for,

and had to satisfactorily accomplish, during practical testing.

One commenter said that this section should continue to list

specific non-precision and precision approaches that an applicant must

train for and show competence in, instead of changing to the generic

description, as proposed.

The FAA believes that this change will help keep the rule from

being or becoming obsolete and will provide relief to some applicants.

With ever-changing technology, some instrument approaches may become

obsolete in a few years. New instrument approaches have been added

since the current rule was written, and other new ones are certain to

be added.

For the reasons discussed, paragraphs (c)(3) and (g)(3)(i) are

adopted as proposed.

Section 61.65(e)(2)(ii) proposed that the 20 hours of instrument

instruction by an authorized instructor in a flight simulator or flight

training device, currently allowed under part 61, be

[[Page 34523]]

increased to 30 hours of instruction in a flight simulator or flight

training device if the instruction is accomplished in an approved

course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142.

Paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed revision to this section would

permit the total pilot aeronautical experience requirement for the

instrument rating to be reduced from 125 hours of pilot flight time as

currently required by Sec. 61.65(e)(1) to 95 hours of pilot flight

time, which may include 35 hours of simulated or actual instrument

flight time if the entire instrument curriculum is accomplished under

an approved part 142 course.

Andrews University asked why the increase in credit, and why part

141 pilot schools could not also have an increase to 30 hours.

AMR Combs (AMR), an affiliate of American Airlines, and NATA

commented that the proposals for certain reductions in aeronautical

experience or instructional hours for the instrument rating conducted

at a part 142 training center place part 141 pilot schools at a

competitive disadvantage. They recommended that the FAA grant similar

authority to part 141 schools that have approved flight simulators or

flight training devices.

Jeppesen-Sanderson commented that if a reduction of required hours

from 125 hours of pilot flying time to 95 hours is valid for part 142

then it is valid for part 141.

Another commenter said that the proposed reduction of pilot flying

time to 95 hours under proposed paragraph (h)(i) does not do justice to

the level of exposure a person should have to operate safely in the IFR

environment. The commenter continues that he can attest to the

difficulties encountered when experience requirements were reduced from

200 to 125 hours. The commenter believes that the level of skill

required of the single-pilot IFR operation is the most demanding in

aviation. The commenter states that the rigid oversight proposed for

part 142 is commendable, but inadequate to compensate for the lack of

experience.

The FAA believes that the proposed changes discussed above are

justified based on innovative training concepts that will be a feature

of part 142 training centers. The reasons for the creation of a new

training entity and assigning specific authorities and privileges to it

are discussed under a previous section in this document entitled

``Discussion of the Amendments and the New Rule.''

While part 141 allows the use of ground trainers, except for part

121 and part 135 certificate holders training their own aircrews, under

this final rule, all flight simulator training, testing, and checking

for which an airman is to receive credit to satisfy any requirement of

14 CFR must be accomplished in part 142 training centers. These

training centers will be subject to more stringent training program

requirements than part 141 pilot schools. Part 142 training centers

will be substantially more sophisticated than schools certificated

under part 141 by virtue of the use of the most advanced levels of

flight simulation. They will have considerably more detailed and

structured training programs, their instructors will be subject to more

demanding qualifications, and they will have more interaction with

potential air carrier clients than part 141 pilot schools have.

Experience has shown that there is a greater efficacy in more

structured training using high fidelity simulation than in traditional

aircraft-only or aircraft and complementary flight training device

training such as provided by a part 141 pilot school. At present, under

Sec. 141.41, a part 141 pilot school may use a flight simulator only to

the extent that a flight training device may be used. The requirements

for the part 142 certificate are discussed in more detail in the

applicable section-by-section discussion.

In response to the comment about placing part 141 pilot schools at

an economic disadvantage, the FAA believes that the considerations

discussed above justify the treatment afforded part 142 training

centers. For the reasons discussed, the aeronautical experience

requirements for the instrument rating can be reduced as proposed; all

other proposals discussed above also are adopted in the final rule.

Sec. 61.67 Category II pilot authorization requirements.

The FAA proposed in paragraph (c)(4) of this section that the

practical test for this authorization include approaches that need not

be conducted down to the alert height or decision height, as

applicable, authorized for Category II operations but only if the

approaches are conducted in a flight simulator or flight training

device. This section applies only to ILS approaches, since Category II

applies only to ILS approaches by definition.

Airbus Service Company, Inc., (Airbus) commented that references to

ILS in this section should be deleted, since other means of conducting

Category II operations will soon be available. It also recommended that

references to alert height be deleted, because it is not appropriate

for Category II operations.

The FAA agrees that other means of conducting precision instrument

approaches may soon be available. Those approach procedures may not

include different categories, as ILS procedures do. It would not be

appropriate to determine category requirements for other instrument

approach procedures that do not yet exist. Therefore, the references to

ILS contained in the proposed rule (this section and Sec. 61.68) are

adopted in this final rule.

The FAA agrees that alert height is a term not normally applicable

to Category II operations, and the term is deleted in the final rule.

The FAA stated in paragraph (d)(3) of this proposed section that

oral questioning could be conducted at any time during the flight

increment of the practical test.

One commenter stated that oral questioning must never be allowed

during the operation of an aircraft. He states that the demands placed

on an applicant being tested are great enough without the applicant

having to interrupt a train of thought to answer a question.

The FAA agrees that an applicant should not be carelessly

questioned during the conduct of a practical test. Routine questions

that can be effectively conducted in an interview situation while on

the ground should and will be conducted on the ground to the maximum

extent possible. However, the FAA believes that it is in the interest

of safety to allow evaluators to conduct limited oral questioning

during the practical test. The FAA needs to be able to determine that

an applicant is capable of recognizing and responding to outside

questions, statements, or directions. A verbal warning from air traffic

control (ATC) or another crewmember, an ATC inquiry about the status of

flight progress or windshear encounter, report of a windshear, traffic,

or other hazard to landing are examples of outside questions or

interruptions that a crewmember must be able to cope with and respond

to in the interest of safety. An effective method to determine that an

applicant can cope with these examples and all the requirements of a

practical test is to allow the person conducting the practical test to

insert realistic distractions or to make simulated instructions or

warnings to an applicant during the actual conduct of practical tests.

The FAA has determined that the duration of this authorization

should remain in Sec. 61.21. Accordingly, proposed paragraph (e) is not

adopted.

For the reasons discussed above, this paragraph is adopted as

proposed

[[Page 34524]]

except for the changes discussed, minor typographical corrections, and

deletion of the term ``alert height.''

Sec. 61.68 Category III pilot authorization requirements. This new

proposed section sets forth the requirements for a pilot to conduct

Category III operations. Several part 121 certificate holders commented

that the section should be amended to include the authority for part

121 and part 135 certificate holders to conduct the authorization

practical test pursuant to their approved training programs.

The FAA agrees that part 121 and part 135 certificate holders

should be authorized to conduct the practical test pursuant to their

approved training programs. A new Sec. 61.3(j) is adopted (as Sec. 61.5

(j) by this final rule to permit this practice.

The FAA stated in paragraph (e)(4) of this proposed section that

oral questioning could be conducted at any time during the flight

increment of the practical test.

Boeing and AIA commented that paragraph (e)(4) should be amended to

clarify that the oral increment and flight increment do not occur

simultaneously.

The FAA agrees that the two increments should be separate to the

extent possible, but believes that the authority of inspectors and

examiners to ask clarifying questions during the flight increment as

and if necessary should be stated in the rule. See the discussion of

oral questioning during the flight increment of the practical test in

the analysis of Sec. 61.67. Therefore, paragraph (e)(4) is adopted as

proposed.

Crew Systems commented that inclusion of Category III pilot

authorization provisions in this rulemaking is inappropriate, for such

provisions do not relate to the purpose of the rulemaking-the

certification of training centers.

One objective of this rulemaking is to facilitate the use of

simulation and to cause growth in that industry. One task that flight

simulators are being used for now, and almost certainly will be more in

the future, is Category III training and testing. Thus, the provisions

of this proposed section relate directly to the primary purpose of this

rulemaking.

AMR commented that the ``excruciatingly detailed practical test

procedures in proposed paragraph 61.68(e)'' are not appropriate

regulatory material. It suggests that the FAA delete proposed paragraph

(e) of Sec. 61.68 in its entirety. It recommends that the proposed

training and practical test procedures be included in AC 120-28C, or

published in PTS. Ferrarese Associates, Inc., made essentially the same

comment.

The FAA has determined that it is appropriate to set forth those

mandatory requirements for experience and testing of airmen applying

for Category III authorization in a regulation. An advisory circular

gives non-mandatory advice only for a means, but not the only means, to

accomplish certain actions. The information in this section is similar

to the regulatory language concerning Category II approach

authorization, contained, for many years, in Sec. 61.67.

The FAA has determined that the duration of this authorization

should remain in Sec. 61.21. Accordingly, proposed paragraph (f) is not

adopted. With this change, this section is adopted as proposed.

Sec. 61.109 Airplane rating: Aeronautical experience. The FAA

proposed to allow credit for instruction received in approved flight

simulators and approved flight training devices in this section. The

FAA previously required 20 hours of flight instruction, and all of that

instruction must have been received in an airplane.

Under this proposed section, a maximum of 2.5 hours of flight

simulator or flight training device instruction from an authorized

instructor is creditable toward the 20 hours of flight instruction

required for a private pilot certificate, whether or not that

instruction is accomplished in a training center certificated under

part 142. The 2.5 hours of instruction time may be increased to 5 hours

of instruction in a flight simulator or flight training device,

provided the instruction is accomplished in an approved course

conducted by a training center certificated under part 142.

The flight instruction received in a flight simulator or flight

training device must be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight

training device representing an airplane.

Previously, Sec. 61.109 required at least 40 hours of flight

instruction and solo flight time. Under this proposed section, the 40

hours of aeronautical experience may be reduced to 35 hours provided

that the entire private pilot curriculum is accomplished under an

approved part 142 course.

The 35 hours of aeronautical experience may be further reduced

under paragraph (i) of this section if the applicant completes an

approved private pilot course and if the Administrator determines that

a further reduction is appropriate based on a demonstration of training

program effectiveness that warrants testing such a reduction. Under

this exception, a training center might propose a test training

curriculum the effectiveness of which might be validated by reference

to post-training data covering at least 1 year of student performance

before such a reduction could be considered for other students.

Andrews University commented that it agrees with this proposed

section.

The Japanese Civil Aviation Bureau commented that the reduced

aeronautical experience requirements of this section and Secs. 61.113,

61.129, and 61.131 may have an impact on Convention on International

Civil Aviation (ICAO) agreements, in that students meeting reduced

aeronautical experience requirements may not meet ICAO member states'

requirements for certificates based on a U.S. certificate.

The FAA points out that the reduced aeronautical experience

requirements authorized for part 142 training centers are the same as

the reduced aeronautical requirements that have been authorized for

part 141 pilot schools for many years. Therefore, certificates and

ratings issued under part 142 would have the same ICAO member states'

acceptance as certificates and ratings issued under part 141. The

provision of paragraph (i), which might allow a particular course with

fewer hours of aeronautical experience than otherwise specified in this

section, might lead to a limitation on an airman's certificate that is

similar to the limitation specified in Sec. 61.111(c) and in several

other sections in this part.

ALPA commented that the preamble discussion of paragraph (i) of

this section, and similar paragraphs contained in other proposed

sections, includes vague statements of data that a training center

would have to track to validate its ability to train effectively in

fewer than the minimum number of hours specified in each proposed

section.

The FAA agrees that the few terms offered as examples are not

elaborately discussed. The intention is to allow maximum flexibility to

a training center to develop, at some future date, innovative

curriculums that might adequately train for a specific certificate or

rating in fewer than the current minimum number of hours. In order to

gain the privilege of further reducing minimum training hours, a

training center will be required to demonstrate that it can provide

proper training in fewer hours. To accomplish this, it would have to

propose a method of tracking graduates and collecting data to validate

training program effectiveness. Data to be tracked to point to program

effectiveness might include incidents, accidents, hours flown, and type

of flying. A training center would have to present historical data

covering at least

[[Page 34525]]

1 year (or other period of time approved by the Administrator) before

it could be granted a reduction in the minimum hours prescribed in this

section. Data covering performance over this period of time is

considered necessary to properly evaluate student performance. Data

covering a shorter term would not be sufficient to allow the FAA to

evaluate performance during varying seasonal conditions.

ALPA also commented that 1 year of data collection is an inadequate

period to collect data from which to draw conclusions used to validate

the effectiveness of training students in fewer than the minimum number

of hours set forth in the proposed rule. In support of this comment, it

stated that accident and incident rates are difficult to quantify for

even 10-year periods.

The FAA points out that accidents and incidents are just examples

of pilot performance that may be tracked, and are not meant to be the

only items tracked. The FAA believes that it is in the public interest,

and safe, to allow a reduction if data collected and evaluated justify

such a reduction. If the performance data do not clearly justify the

reduction, none will be undertaken. If, after a test is undertaken, the

FAA determines that the performance of the pilots in the test group is

below standard, the FAA will modify the validation data collection

period or any other control measure that may be indicated.

AMR commented that part 141 pilot schools would be at a

disadvantage in that, unlike training centers, they would not be

permitted to reduce the number of hours of aeronautical experience as

proposed in this and similar sections. It recommends that pilot schools

be allowed the same opportunity if the pilot school has approved flight

simulators or flight training devices.

The minimum number of hours of aeronautical experience proposed in

the NPRM for purposes of part 142 is the same aeronautical experience

required under part 141 for several years. The potential for an even

further reduction is extended to part 142 training centers only,

because the FAA is convinced that further reduction would be possible

at this time only under the more sophisticated training environment

required of these schools.

AMR also commented that in the training environment it is

relatively normal for a student to have more than one instructor during

a course of instruction. Proposed Sec. 61.109(a), it points out, speaks

of a singular instructor, as does the existing regulation. To better

reflect the training center environment, and to avoid the implication

that a trainee must have one and only one instructor, it recommends

that the proposed language be changed to say ``flight instruction from

an authorized instructor or instructors.''

The FAA agrees that students are likely to have more than one

instructor, and it does not intend to prohibit this practice. The term

``authorized instructor'' as used throughout this final rule is

intended to mean that instruction may be received from one instructor

or from more than one instructor. The interpretive rules in 14 CFR part

1 state that words importing the singular include the plural, and that

words importing the plural include the singular.

Therefore, for the reasons stated, this section is adopted as

proposed.

Sec. 61.113 Rotorcraft rating: Aeronautical experience. Under

current Sec. 61.113, an applicant for a private pilot certificate with

a rotorcraft category rating must have at least 40 hours of flight

instruction and solo flight time in aircraft. Instruction in flight

simulators or flight training devices is not authorized. The FAA

proposed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that the 40 hours of

flight instruction and solo flight time must include at least 20 hours

of flight instruction from an authorized flight instructor.

AMR made substantially the same comment that it made about proposed

Sec. 61.109 about a student having more than one instructor. See that

section for the FAA response.

With minor revisions to its format and structure, this section is

adopted as proposed.

Sec. 61.129 Airplane rating: Aeronautical experience. Under

proposed Sec. 61.129(b), an applicant for a commercial pilot

certificate with an airplane rating would have to have at least 250

hours of flight time as a pilot, which could include not more than 50

hours of instruction in a ground trainer acceptable to the

Administrator.

Under proposed Sec. 61.129(b)(1)(ii), up to 100 hours of flight

simulator instruction or flight training device instruction could be

credited toward the 250 hours of total flight time if the instruction

is accomplished in an approved course conducted by a training center

certificated under part 142. To be credited toward the total flight

time requirement for a commercial pilot certificate, flight simulator

or flight training device instruction received would have to be

accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training device

representing an airplane.

AMR, in a comment identical to several others, commented that the

terms of proposed Sec. 61.129(b)(1)(ii) should be made applicable to

training under part 121, part 135, part 141, or SFAR 58.

For reasons discussed in the analysis of comments to Sec. 61.65,

additional flight time may be performed in a simulator and credited

toward total flight time, only if the simulated flight time is

accomplished in accordance with a training program approved under part

142, part 121, or part 135.

NATA commented that this section should be left unchanged.

Jeppesen-Sanderson commented that an approved part 142 commercial

course would allow all training, including cross-country experience, to

be conducted in a flight simulator or flight training device, and that

``* * * it is impractical to conduct the entire commercial training

program in a simulator or flight training device.''

In fact, the proposed rule would not affect the current requirement

pertaining to cross country flights, and it proposed that a maximum of

100 hours of the total of 190 hours of aeronautical experience may be

accomplished in a flight simulator under part 142. The justification

for permitting up to 100 hours of training to be accomplished in a

flight simulator may be found in the discussion of comments to

Sec. 61.65 and in the section of this document entitled ``Discussion of

the Amendments and the New Rule.''

The FAA has decided to omit the words ``Approved commercial pilot

training program conducted under part 142'' from the title of paragraph

(c). Paragraphs within a section do not normally have titles. With this

change, this section is adopted as proposed.

Sec. 61.131 Rotorcraft rating: Aeronautical experience. Under

current Sec. 61.131, an applicant for a commercial pilot certificate

with a rotorcraft category rating must have at least 150 hours of

flight time, including at least 100 hours in powered aircraft, 50 hours

of which must have been in a helicopter.

Under the proposed revision to this section, the applicant may

obtain 35 hours of credit toward total flight time requirement in a

flight simulator or flight training device, or a credit of up to 50

hours of the total required flight time in a flight simulator or flight

training device if the flight simulator time or flight training device

time is obtained from a training center certificated part 142.

Previously, there was no provision for crediting flight simulation time

toward this rating. Under the proposed rule, to be credited toward the

total 150-hour flight time requirement, flight simulator or flight

training device instruction received

[[Page 34526]]

would have to be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training

device representing a rotorcraft.

A provision to allow a further reduction of the 150-hour flight

time requirement, based on demonstrated ability to accomplish training

requirements in less time, was also proposed.

AMR commented that the ratio of dual time to solo time is out of

balance, and that each of those categories of aeronautical experience

should be adjusted.

The ratio of dual to solo aeronautical experience is not

appropriate to consider in this rule, which is aimed at increased use

of simulation. The NPRM did not propose any changes to either solo or

dual flight time requirements.

With minor typographical changes, this section is adopted as

proposed.

Sec. 61.155 Airplane rating: Aeronautical experience. The FAA

proposed to amend this section to allow more credit for the use of

simulation toward the total required aeronautical experience

requirement for an airplane rating on an ATP certificate.

Under existing Sec. 61.155 (b)(2), an applicant for an ATP

certificate with an airplane rating must have had at least 1,500 hours

of flight time as a pilot, including, among other things, at least 75

hours of actual or simulated instrument time, at least 50 hours of

which were in actual flight. Up to 25 hours could have been obtained in

a simulator.

Under the provisions of paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) (3)(ii) of the

proposal, the 25 hours of simulated instrument time previously allowed

could have been increased to 50 hours if accomplished in an approved

course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142.

ALPA and Andrews University commented that it is inconsistent to

propose to allow an increase of only 50 hours of simulated flight time

for an applicant for an ATP certificate since proposed Sec. 61.129

would permit a student to credit up to 100 hours of simulated flight

experience toward the total requirement for the commercial certificate.

The FAA believes that the proposal is not inconsistent. The flying

hour credit allowed by proposed Sec. 61.129 was for total flight hours;

the credit in this proposed section is for simulated instrument

experience. However, in response to comments, paragraph (a)(3), as

adopted, allows not more than 100 hours of total simulated pilot

experience to be credited toward the total requirement for this

certificate. This recognizes that those 100 hours could already be a

part of time accumulated in obtaining a commercial pilot certificate.

NATA and ATA commented, in a comment similar to that of several of

its member organizations, that the proposal permitting increased

amounts of simulated flight time to be credited as aeronautical

experience should be extended to part 121 and part 135 certificate

holders, and to holders of AQP authorization.

It was not the purpose of this rulemaking to extend increased

training credits to holders of certificates issued under part 121 or

part 135. However, any curriculum can be organized for presentation

under principles described by AQP, presented to the FAA for approval

and, upon approval, presented to aircrew employees of the authorization

holder or, if the authorization holder also holds a part 142

certificate, to any other person.

Boeing commented that this proposed section is not applicable to

foreign pilots and military pilots.

The provisions of this proposed section, however, do apply to

military pilots and foreign pilots.

This proposed section is adopted with the changes described above.

Sec. 61.157 Airplane rating: Aeronautical skill (for parts 121 and

135 use only). The FAA proposed to revise this section title to make it

clear that it is applicable only to applicants for an ATP certificate

(with an airplane rating) who are pilot crewmember employees of a part

121 or part 135 certificate holder applying pursuant to that employer's

approved training program. The FAA proposed a new Sec. 61.158 that

applies to other applicants, as discussed under the next heading.

Numerous comments were received concerning this section. In

addition to the persons commenting on proposed Sec. 61.63, which

concerns a similar subject, American Airlines (American), Delta, and

FSI commented on this section. The comments were substantially the same

as the comments regarding proposed Sec. 61.63.

See the response to comments concerning proposed Sec. 61.63 for a

discussion of the reasons for reserving Sec. 61.63 for part 121 and

part 135 use. The same rationale applies to this proposed section.

The FAA will continue the practice of allowing waiver of certain

maneuvers, on an individual basis, as currently provided in appendix A

of part 61 and the PTS, for those persons who have successfully

completed an employing air carrier's approved training program for the

type airplane involved within the preceding 6 calendar months. The

waiver authority will apply only to applicants whose employer does not

have the procedure authorized in the operations specifications, for

example, circling approaches authorized by operations specifications.

The waiver authority will not apply to all persons who are employed by

an air carrier simply because of that person's employment.

The FAA restructured proposed paragraph (a) to better conform to

proper outline and grammatical construction. The subject matter of

proposed paragraph (a)(2) is better placed in existing paragraph (c).

However, in the final rule, the FAA has determined that only paragraph

(g) should be added and therefore has withdrawn proposed paragraphs (a)

and (c).

The FAA has, for years, received questions about whether completion

of a proficiency check taken under part 121 or part 135 would suffice

for the certification requirements of this section. The FAA has

maintained a policy that the proficiency checks in question suffice to

meet the certification requirements of this section. To make that

position clear, the FAA has added a new paragraph (g) to this proposed

section.

This section is adopted with the changes discussed.

Sec. 61.158 Airplane rating: Aeronautical skill (for other than

parts 121 and 135 use). The FAA proposed in this new section general

skill requirements for each ATP certificate applicant with a single-

engine or multiengine class rating or type rating if the applicant is

not a participant in an air carrier training program as an aircrew

employee of an air carrier. This proposed section was intended to

clarify which certification procedures apply to aircrew employee

applicants of air carrier approved training programs and which apply to

other applicants.

Paragraph (c) proposed the following:

(c) The tasks required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of

(Sec. 61.158) shall be performed in--

(1) An airplane of the same class, and, if applicable, an

airplane of the same type, for which the class rating or type rating

is sought; or

(2) Subject to the limitations of paragraph (c)(3) of this

section, a flight simulator or a flight training device that

represents the airplane type for which the type rating is sought, or

set of airplanes if the airplane for which the class rating is

sought does not require a type rating.

(3) The flight simulator or flight training device use permitted

by paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall be conducted in accordance

with an approved course at a training center certificated under part

142 of this chapter; or

(4) In another manner approved by the Administrator.

[[Page 34527]]

STI asked, in essence, whether paragraph (c)(4) is intended to

allow current part 61 simulator exemption holders to submit a training

program for FAA approval without first obtaining certification under

part 142.

This is the same question that STI asked concerning proposed

Sec. 61.64. Proposed paragraph (c)(4) is withdrawn for the same reasons

stated in the response to the comment regarding proposed Sec. 61.64,

and subsequent subparagraphs have been added to include the

requirements for SOE for certain pilots who train and test for added

ratings predominately or entirely by flight simulation.

Several other commenters stated that the FAA appears to be

proposing two different standards for the ATP certificate or added

ratings to that certificate, one standard applicable to applicants who

will conduct air carrier operations and a second standard for

applicants who will conduct other than air carrier operations. See

Sec. 61.64 for the FAA response to comments made by the NTSB and ALPA

that applies also to this section.

An editorial change was made to paragraph (a)(1) of this section to

make the titles of the areas of operation exactly match the table of

contents for those areas of operation in PTS ``FAA-S-8081-5.''

Editorial changes were made to paragraph (2) to make it clear that that

paragraph applies only to additional airplane ratings. Additionally,

although no comments were received about these proposals, the FAA has

withdrawn proposed paragraph (2) (iii) and (iv) of this section given

that they cover issues not germane to the objectives of this final

rule.

A few part 121 certificate holders asked if proposed Sec. 61.158

would apply if a type rating is sought from a trainer other than one's

own employer.

As proposed, this section would apply to all applicants, who are

not aircrew employees of a certificate holder, being trained in

accordance with the requirements of subpart N of part 121 or subpart H

of part 135, as applicable.

Andrews University asked what minimum level of flight simulator or

flight training device would be required by proposed paragraph (c)(2)

to conduct a practical test.

As discussed elsewhere throughout the proposal, the simulation

medium, in addition to the requirements set forth under proposed

paragraph (c)(2), must be qualified and approved for each maneuver,

procedure, and crewmember function for which a training center proposes

to use that simulation medium. The qualification standards are listed

in AC 120-40, as amended, and AC 120-45, as amended, as applicable. In

addition to the guidance contained in these AC's, the FAA is preparing

a new AC 120-46, mentioned earlier in the discussion under Sec. 61.1,

which will assist training center certificate applicants by presenting

a matrix showing the level of simulation that is approved for various

maneuvers, procedures, and crewmember functions. The availability of

that AC will be announced separately.

This proposed section is adopted with the changes discussed in the

preceding paragraphs.

Sec. 61.161 Rotorcraft rating: Aeronautical experience. Under

current Sec. 61.161(b), an applicant for an ATP certificate with a

rotorcraft category and helicopter class rating must have had at least

1,200 hours of flight time as a pilot, including 75 hours of instrument

time, 25 hours of which may have been simulated instrument time in a

flight simulator or flight training device. Proposed Sec. 61.161 would

allow the 25 hours of simulated instrument flight time to be increased

to 50 hours if accomplished in an approved course at a training center

certificated under part 142. To be credited toward the total flight

time requirement, flight simulator or flight training device

instruction would have to be accomplished in a flight simulator or

flight training device representing a rotorcraft.

AMR commented that the 25 hours of simulated instrument flight time

should be increased to 50 hours if accomplished under part 121, part

135, or part 141 if accomplished pursuant to an AQP authorization.

The FAA does not agree that it is appropriate to increase simulated

flight time as recommended by this commenter. See the section-by-

section discussion under Sec. 61.65 and the section of this preamble

entitled ``Discussion of the Amendments and the New Rule'' for the

rationale behind FAA's position on this issue.

For the reasons discussed above, this section is adopted as

proposed.

Sec. 61.163 Rotorcraft rating: Aeronautical skill. The FAA

proposed to revise this section to allow an airman to complete the

practical test for a helicopter rating in a flight simulator or flight

training device if the practical test is taken as a part of a

curriculum at a training center certificated under part 142.

FSI asked if it is an oversight that this section does not contain

some of the same proposed paragraphs that are contained in proposed

Sec. 61.158, which is the parallel section for airplane ratings.

It is not an oversight that this section does not exactly parallel

Sec. 61.158. The proposals that FSI questions contain provisions that

would require an applicant to present a record of having received

ground training and flight training on specified subjects, and to have

been shown competent in specified areas of aeronautical knowledge.

Proposed Sec. 61.158(a)(2)(iii) and (iv), which are the two

paragraphs the commenter suggested that the FAA parallel in this

section, have been withdrawn from Sec. 61.158 in this final rule as

issues not germane to the objectives of this rulemaking. The FAA did

not propose similar provisions in proposed Sec. 61.163. Therefore, it

is inappropriate to consider this comment at this time. The comment

will be considered if such proposals are made in the future for

rotorcraft ratings.

FSI also recommended that the proposed areas of operations listed

in Sec. 61.163(a) be titled and re-ordered to be consistent with the

table of contents contained in ``Airline Transport Pilot and Type

Rating,'' (PTS FAA-S-8081-5).

The FAA has changed the listing of areas of operation as suggested.

In response to the comments addressed in the discussion of

Sec. 61.158 and for the reasons stated there, the FAA has placed

additional paragraphs in this section concerning added ratings obtained

substantially or entirely in flight simulation.

This section is adopted as amended.

Sec. 61.169 Instruction in air transportation service. This

proposed section would require that ATP's giving instruction in

Category II or Category III operations be trained and tested in

Category II or Category III operations, as applicable.

Paragraph (a)(3) proposed that all instruction provided by ATP

certificate holders be conducted in aircraft with functioning dual

controls.

BAe, in a comment similar to several others, commented that

proposed paragraph (a)(3) would allow an ATP to instruct only in

aircraft with functioning dual controls, not in flight simulators or

flight training devices.

Although the FAA did not specifically include simulation in this

proposed section, the intent of this rulemaking is to provide for

increased use of simulation wherever practical and where safety

permits. Therefore, the FAA agrees that this paragraph should be

revised to clarify that privileges of an ATP while instructing in air

transportation service includes instruction in a flight simulator or

flight

[[Page 34528]]

training device. A new paragraph (a)(2) has been added accordingly.

Proposed paragraph (b) continued the existing limitation that an

ATP could not instruct in an aircraft for more than 8 hours in any 24-

consecutive-hour period, nor for more than 36 hours in any 7

consecutive days.

Continental Airlines, FSI, and others commented that proposed

paragraph (b) should specify that the instruction time limitations

apply to aircraft only. These commenters specifically remarked that,

with a briefing and debriefing session that each last for 2 hours, a

simulator instructor's duty day may exceed 8 hours. FSI made the same

comment in reference to Secs. 142.49 and 142.87, and this proposed

section.

Proposed paragraph (b) did not include simulation in the

instructor's time limitation and simulator instruction would not have

been permitted by the proposal. However, because the FAA has modified

the proposal to allow simulator instruction, the FAA believes that duty

time limitations should apply to both simulation and aircraft.

Further, flight instruction time limitations regarding preflight

and post flight activities or briefings and debriefings have never been

addressed. The FAA has determined that, in this final rule, it is

appropriate to clarify that time spent performing these activities does

not count toward the proposed flight instruction time limitations.

Therefore, the words ``excluding briefings and debriefings'' have been

added to paragraph (b) of this section in the final rule.

AMR commented that, by proposing time limitations, the FAA is

mandating work rules, and that the FAA does not provide any

justification for the arbitrary limitations imposed.

The proposed time limitations are not new; they have been contained

in current Sec. 61.169 for many years. The clarification to paragraph

(b) discussed above should remove any confusion about not establishing

new instructor duty times for simulation instruction.

SFI commented that this rule is archaic and attaches a privilege

(instructing) to a certificate that demands neither training nor a

demonstration of skill as an instructor. It continues that the rules

applicable to instruction in air transportation service should be

contained in part 61 and that specialized requirements for air

transportation instructors should be contained in Secs. 121.411 and

135.337, as appropriate.

In addition to holding an ATP certificate, persons who instruct in

air transportation service in part 121 and part 135 must train, and in

implementing guidance requirements as an instructor and demonstrate

skill as an instructor, for the specialized application of air

transportation service. The FAA is convinced that these requirements

assure a level of safety for instruction equivalent to provisions of

part 61, for privileges limited to air transportation service.

This section is adopted with the changes discussed above.

Sec. 61.187 Flight proficiency. As proposed, this section would

permit an applicant for the flight instructor certificate to receive

the required instruction for a flight instructor certificate in a

flight simulator or flight training device used as part of an approved

course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142.

Previously, there was no provision for accomplishing the required

instruction in anything other than an aircraft.

An overwhelming number of comments favored expansion of simulation

to authorize its use for part or all of the instruction that flight

instructor applicants are required to receive. Commenters objected,

however, to the apparent requirement that all instruction must be

received in an approved part 142 training center course. Several

commenters, responding to the NPRM, suggested that the instruction

permitted by this section be permitted for air carriers, part 141

schools, and holders of AQP or other authorizations.

The FAA does not agree. This option has been considered in detail

in previous discussion of comments on Secs. 61.56, 61.57, and 61.155.

Jeppesen-Sanderson, and other organizations representing part 141

and part 61 pilot schools commented, also in response to the NPRM, that

a flight simulator could not do all the tasks in which a flight

instructor must demonstrate competence.

The FAA agrees that this comment is true. The reason for extending

the permitted uses for simulation to training and testing for the

flight instructor certificate, even though simulation will not

currently perform all the requisite tasks for that training and

testing, is the same as discussed in the section-by-section discussion

of Sec. 61.56, regarding future use of simulators.

A wording error in NPRM Notice 92-10 resulted in the proposed rule

text saying that an applicant for a flight instructor certificate must

have received instruction in a accordance with an approved course at a

training center certificated under part 142; the intention was to say

an applicant may receive instruction in such a course. Therefore, the

FAA announced in an SNPRM (FR 58 9514, February 19, 1993) that it had

inadvertently proposed to require that all instruction in preparation

for the airman practical test for this for this certificate be

accomplished in a part 142 course, when it intended to propose that, as

an additional option, the required instruction could be obtained in an

approved flight simulator or flight training device, if that

instruction is received during an approved course offered by a training

center.

AOPA, in its comment to the SNPRM, expressed support for the

changes proposed for this section.

One person, in response to the SNPRM, stated that he objected to a

change that would allow simulation to be used to satisfy any flight

time required for a flight instructor certificate. In his comment, he

stated: ``There * * * is no gain to be obtained * * * other than the

cost reduction by the big companies.''

The FAA believes that there are potentially significant cost

benefits for all persons involved in aviation training, including

individuals who may choose to use a training center for flight

instructor training whenever it becomes available.

In addition, the FAA has determined that allowing the training and

testing for a flight instructor certificate would result in additional

safety benefits if accomplished in a simulator rather than in an

aircraft.

After further analysis, the FAA believes that paragraphs (c)(2) and

(c)(4), as they appeared in the SNPRM, are inaccurate, in that

paragraph (c)(2) refers to a nonexistent flight instructor course

meeting part 61, subpart G, requirements, and paragraph (c)(4) refers

to a nonexistent flight instructor course under part 135. Additionally,

paragraph (c)(3) is repetitive of other provisions of subpart G of part

61.

Therefore, the FAA has revised these paragraphs in the final rule.

This section is adopted with the corrections discussed.

Sec. 61.191 Additional flight instructor ratings. The FAA proposed

to revise this section to permit an airman to accomplish the required

practical tests for flight instructor ratings in a flight simulator or

flight training device used as part of an approved course conducted by

a training center certificated under part 142. Previously, there was no

provision for accomplishing the practical test in anything other than

an aircraft.

The comments regarding this section are essentially the same as

those

[[Page 34529]]

submitted in response to proposed Sec. 61.187. For the reasons

discussed in response to proposed Sec. 61.187, this section is adopted

as proposed.

Sec. 61.195 Flight instructor limitations. This section proposed

to require flight instructors giving instruction in Category II or

Category III operations to be trained and tested in Category II or

Category III operations, as applicable.

One commenter agreed with the proposal, but remarked that he would

like a better definition of what the Category II and Category III

training would be.

While development of such a definition is not the purpose of this

rulemaking, testing requirements for these areas are described in

Secs. 61.67 and 61.68 and training should track the requirements of the

appropriate test.

This section is adopted as proposed, with an added reference to

Sec. 61.68.

Sec. 61.197 Renewal of flight instructor certificates. The FAA

proposed to amend this section to permit an applicant for renewal of a

flight instructor certificate to conduct the required practical test in

a flight simulator or flight training device in a course conducted by a

training center certificated under part 142. Previously, there was no

provision for accomplishing the practical test in anything other than

an aircraft.

In addition to the proposal stated above, the FAA inadvertently

included certain other proposals in this section. The inadvertent

proposals would have required medical qualifications for the renewal of

a flight instructor certificate (proposed Sec. 61.197(a)(1) and

(a)(2)), permitted alternative methods of renewal of the certificate

without accomplishing a practical test (Sec. 61.197(b)(1) and

(b)(2)(iv), and prohibited the use of a flight instructor refresher

clinic for more than two consecutive renewals of a flight instructor

certificate (Sec. 61.197(c)). After publication in the

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