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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-16432

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** July 2, 1996
- **Citation:** 61 FR 34508

## Text

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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A96-16432. Public record. Not legal advice.