
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67799-67846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26845]



[[Page 67799]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 218

November 12, 2013

Part III





Department of Transportation





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





Federal Aviation Administration





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





14 CFR Part 121





Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft 
Dispatchers; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 67800]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No.: FAA-2008-0677; Amdt. No. 121-366]
RIN 2120-AJ00


Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft 
Dispatchers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the training requirements for pilots 
in air carrier operations. The regulations enhance air carrier pilot 
training programs by emphasizing the development of pilots' manual 
handling skills and adding safety-critical tasks such as recovery from 
stall and upset. The final rule also requires enhanced runway safety 
training and pilot monitoring training to be incorporated into existing 
requirements for scenario-based flight training and requires air 
carriers to implement remedial training programs for pilots. The FAA 
expects these changes to contribute to a reduction in aviation 
accidents. Additionally, the final rule revises recordkeeping 
requirements for communications between the flightcrew and dispatch; 
ensures that personnel identified as flight attendants have completed 
flight attendant training and qualification requirements; provides 
civil enforcement authority for making fraudulent statements; and, 
provides a number of conforming and technical changes to existing air 
carrier crewmember training and qualification requirements. The final 
rule also includes provisions that provide opportunities for air 
carriers to modify training program requirements for flightcrew members 
when the air carrier operates multiple aircraft types with similar 
design and flight handling characteristics.

DATES: Effective March 12, 2014.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking 
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How 
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions contact Nancy 
Lauck Claussen, email: Nancy.l.Claussen@faa.gov; for flightcrew member 
questions, contact Robert Burke, email: Robert.Burke@faa.gov; Air 
Transportation Division (AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20591; telephone (202) 267-8166. For legal questions, contact Sara 
Mikolop, email: Sara.Mikolop@faa.gov or Bonnie Dragotto, email: 
Bonnie.Dragotto@faa.gov; Office of Chief Counsel (AGC-200), Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 
20591; telephone (202) 267-3073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). This rulemaking is 
promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which 
vests final authority in the Administrator for carrying out all 
functions, powers, and duties of the administration relating to the 
promulgation of regulations and rules, and 44701(a)(5), which requires 
the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for 
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air 
commerce and national security.
    Also, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration 
Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216) specifically required the FAA 
to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive 
ground training and flight training in recognizing and avoiding stalls, 
recovering from stalls, and recognizing and avoiding upset of an 
aircraft, as well as the proper techniques to recover from upset of an 
aircraft. Public Law 111-216 also directed the FAA to require air 
carriers to develop remedial training programs for flightcrew members 
who have demonstrated performance deficiencies or experienced failures 
in the training environment. In addition, Public Law 111-216 directed 
the FAA to issue a final rule with respect to the notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2009 
(74 FR 1280).

List of Acronyms

    To assist the reader, the following is a list of acronyms used in 
this final rule:

AC Advisory Circular
AOA Angle of Attack
AQP Advanced Qualification Program
ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee
ATP Airline Transport Pilot
AURTA Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid
CAB Civil Aeronautics Board
CAP Continuous Analysis Process
CAST Commercial Aviation Safety Team
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRM Crew Resource Management
CTP Certification Training Program
DOT Department of Transportation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FCOM Flightcrew Operating Manual
FDR Flight Data Recorder
FFS Full Flight Simulator
FSB Flight Standardization Board
FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device
FTD Flight Training Device
IAS Indicated Airspeed
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ICATEE International Committee for Aviation Training in Extended 
Envelopes
INFO Information for Operators
IOS Instructor Operating Station
LOC-I Loss of Control In-Flight
LOFT Line Oriented Flight Training
MDR Master Differences Requirements
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIC Pilot in Command
POI Principal Operations Inspector
PRIA Pilot Records Improvement Act
PTS Practical Test Standards
SAFO Safety Alert for Operators
SIC Second in Command
SMS Safety Management System
SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Table of Contents

I. Overview of Final Rule
II. Background
    A. Statement of the Problem
    B. Related Actions
    C. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations
    D. Sections 208 and 209 of Public Law 111-216
    E. Summary of NPRM and SNPRM
    F. Differences Between SNPRM and Final Rule
III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule
    A. General
    B. Compliance with Final Rule Requirements
    C. Applicability of Final Rule and Impact of Final Rule on 
Operators with Advanced Qualification Program Curriculums
    D. Fraud and Falsification
    E. Personnel Identified as Flight Attendants
    F. Approval of Airplane Simulators and Training Devices
    G. Approval of Training Equipment Other Than Flight Simulation 
Training Devices
    H. Pilot Monitoring Duties and Training
    I. Flight Instructor (Simulator) and Check Airmen (Simulator) 
Training
    J. Remedial Training Programs
    K. Related Aircraft Differences Training
    L. Extended Envelope Flight Training
    M. Extended Envelope Ground Training
    N. Communication Records for Domestic and Flag Operations
    O. Runway Safety
    P. Crosswind Maneuvers Including Wind Gusts

[[Page 67801]]

    Q. Miscellaneous
    R. SNPRM Economic Comments
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
V. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
VI. How to Obtain Additional Information
    A. Rulemaking Documents
    B. Comments Submitted to the Docket
    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

I. Overview of Final Rule

    On May 3, 2004, the FAA established the Crewmember/Dispatcher 
Qualification Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) as a forum for the 
FAA and the aviation community to discuss crewmember and aircraft 
dispatcher qualification and training. The ARC submitted 
recommendations to the Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety in 
April 2005.\1\ These recommendations focused on changes to the 
regulatory requirements, the development of qualification performance 
standards (QPS) appendices specific to the qualification, training and 
evaluation of crewmembers (i.e. pilots, flight engineers, and flight 
attendants) and aircraft dispatchers, and reorganization of the 
existing regulations for traditional air carrier training programs, 
found in subparts N and O of part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ARC recommendations are available at Regulations.gov, 
FAA-2008-0677-0049.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the ARC's recommendations, the FAA proposed a 
comprehensive reorganization and revision to crewmember and aircraft 
dispatcher qualification, training, and evaluation requirements in a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published January 12, 2009 (74 FR 
1280).
    On February 12, 2009, shortly after publication of the NPRM, a 
Colgan Air, Inc. Bombardier DHC-8-400, operating as Continental 
Connection flight 3407, crashed into a residence in Clarence Center, 
New York, about 5 nautical miles northeast of the airport resulting in 
the death of everyone on board and one person on the ground. The 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the 
probable cause of this accident was the pilot in command's (PIC) 
inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led 
to an aerodynamic stall.
    The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension 
Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216), enacted August 1, 2010, included a 
number of requirements to form ARCs and conduct rulemaking related to 
the results of the NTSB investigation of the Colgan Air accident. For 
example, in Sec.  208 of Public Law 111-216, Congress directed the FAA 
to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive 
ground training and flight training in recognizing and avoiding stalls, 
recovering from stalls, and recognizing and avoiding upset of an 
aircraft, as well as the proper techniques to recover from upset. 
Public Law 111-216 also directed the FAA to conduct rulemaking to 
ensure air carriers develop remedial training programs for flightcrew 
members who have demonstrated performance deficiencies or experienced 
failures in the training environment. In addition, Public Law 111-216 
included a number of related requirements for rulemaking.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The rulemakings required by Public Law 111-216 include Sec.  
203, FAA pilot records database; Sec.  206, Flight crewmember 
mentoring, professional development, and leadership training; Sec.  
215, Safety management systems; Sec.  216, Flight crew member 
screening and qualifications; and Sec.  217, Airline transport pilot 
certification. These rulemaking projects are in various stages of 
development, and updates on the status of these rulemakings can be 
found on the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Report on DOT 
Significant Rulemakings, available at http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report-on-significant-rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the statutory mandate to conduct rulemaking related to 
stall and upset prevention and recovery training, as well as 
significant comments on the NPRM and the need to obtain additional data 
and clarify the proposal, the FAA published a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on May 20, 2011 (76 FR 29336). The SNPRM 
included pilot training requirements intended to mitigate the causal 
factors related to pilot training identified by the NTSB in its 
investigation and report on the 2009 Colgan Air accident.
    The FAA recognizes the critical safety roles and contributions of 
all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers in today's integrated 
operating environment. The agency has taken steps in addition to this 
final rule to ensure that crewmember and aircraft dispatcher training 
reflects that integrated operating environment.
    Since the publication of the SNPRM, however, there have been 
several changes within the aviation industry. These changes have 
resulted from work by the FAA and air carriers to implement the related 
rulemakings and guidance required by Public Law 111-216. Specifically, 
recent changes to the Airline Transport Pilot certification 
requirements for first officers (second in command pilots) have raised 
the baseline knowledge and skill set of pilots entering air carrier 
operations.
    In addition, while the agency finalizes the proposed rulemaking 
that will require part 121 operators to implement safety management 
systems (SMS), many air carriers have already begun to develop SMSs, 
which will assist air carriers in identifying risks unique to their own 
operating environments (including air carrier training programs), and 
establishing mitigations to address those risks. Implementation of the 
initiatives identified in the FAA's 2009 Call to Action to Enhance 
Airline Safety has also impacted the training environment.
    As a result of these changes, the FAA believes it is necessary to 
consider the cumulative effects of these efforts across the aviation 
industry before additional regulations are imposed. Accordingly, at 
this time, the agency has decided to finalize certain provisions of the 
proposal that enhance pilot training for rare, but high-risk scenarios, 
and that provide the greatest safety benefit. The time required in 
order to publish a final rule that contained the comprehensive 
revisions and reorganization of existing training program requirements 
as proposed in the SNPRM would result in unacceptable delay in light of 
the risk presented by these scenarios.
    The FAA will continue to assess the need for the comprehensive 
revisions and reorganization of pilot, flight engineer, flight 
attendant and dispatcher qualification and training requirements 
proposed in the NPRM and SNPRM as it evaluates the cumulative 
effectiveness of these various efforts outlined above. If this 
assessment indicates that additional action is warranted, the FAA will 
engage stakeholders on these important issues and work to develop 
additional safety measures as appropriate.
    This final rule adds training requirements for pilots that target 
the prevention of and recovery from stall and upset conditions, 
recovery from bounced landings, enhanced runway safety training, and 
enhanced training on crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts. Stall 
and upset prevention require pilot skill in manual handling maneuvers 
and procedures. Therefore, the manual handling maneuvers most critical 
to stall and upset prevention (i.e., slow flight, loss of reliable 
airspeed, and manually controlled departure and arrival) are included 
in the final rule as part of the agency's overall stall and upset 
mitigation strategy. These maneuvers are identified in the final rule 
within the ``extended envelope'' training provision.
    Further, the final rule requires air carriers to establish remedial 
training and tracking programs for pilots with

[[Page 67802]]

performance deficiencies or multiple failures; includes additional 
training for instructors and check airmen who conduct training or 
checking in a flight simulation training device (FSTD); and 
incorporates pilot monitoring training into existing requirements for 
scenario-based flight training. The final rule also provides for 
efficiencies in training flightcrew members who operate multiple 
aircraft types with similar design and flight handling characteristics. 
In addition, the rule finalizes other discrete SNPRM proposals, such as 
ensuring that personnel identified as flight attendants have completed 
flight attendant training and qualification requirements; requiring 
approval of training equipment; revising record keeping requirements 
for communication records between the flight crew and dispatch 
personnel; establishing civil enforcement authority for making 
fraudulent or intentionally false statements; and other technical and 
conforming changes.
    Table 1, Summary of Final Rule Provisions, provides additional 
detail regarding the final rule provisions incorporated into existing 
subparts of part 121.

                                    Table 1--Summary of Final Rule Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Final rule provision \3\               Description of provision         Timeline for compliance \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraud and falsification (Sec.   121.9)...  Although currently prohibited by   Compliance is required on the
                                            criminal statute, this section     effective date of the final
                                            authorizes the FAA to take         rule.
                                            certificate action or assess a
                                            civil penalty against a person
                                            for making a fraudulent or
                                            intentionally false statement.
Personnel identified as flight attendants  Prohibits part 121 operators from  Compliance is required on the
 (Sec.   121.392).                          identifying persons as flight      effective date of the final
                                            attendants if those persons have   rule.
                                            not completed flight attendant
                                            training and qualification.
Approval of flight simulation training     Conforms the requirements for the  Compliance is required 5 years
 devices (Sec.   121.407).                  evaluation, qualification, and     after the effective date of the
                                            maintenance of flight simulation   final rule.
                                            training devices used in part
                                            121 to existing part 60
                                            requirements.
Training equipment other than flight       Ensures that all equipment used    Compliance is required 5 years
 simulation training devices approved       in approved training programs      after the effective date of the
 under part 60 (Sec.  Sec.   121.408,       adequately replicates the          final rule.
 121.403(b)(2)).                            equipment that will be used on
                                            an aircraft.
Pilot monitoring (Sec.  Sec.   121.409,    Requires training on pilot         Compliance is required 5 years
 121.544, appendix H).                      monitoring to be incorporated      after the effective date of the
                                            into existing requirements for     final rule.
                                            scenario-based training and
                                            establishes an operational
                                            requirement that flightcrew
                                            members follow air carrier
                                            procedures regarding pilot
                                            monitoring. The pilot not flying
                                            must monitor the aircraft
                                            operation.
Training for instructors and check airmen  Requires check airmen and flight   Compliance is required 5 years
 who serve in FSTDs (Sec.  Sec.             instructors who conduct training   after the effective date of the
 121.413, 121.414).                         or checking in FSTDs to complete   final rule.
                                            initial, transition, and
                                            recurrent training on the
                                            operation of the FSTD and the
                                            device's limitations.
Remedial training program (Sec.  Sec.      Implements Congressional           Compliance is required 5 years
 121.415(h) and 121.415(i)).                direction to require part 121      after the effective date of the
                                            operators to identify and          final rule.
                                            correct pilot training
                                            deficiencies through remedial
                                            training programs.
Proficiency checks for PICs (Sec.          Amends current provision to        Compliance is required 5 years
 121.441(a)(1)(ii)).                        require PICs who fly more than     after the effective date of the
                                            one aircraft type to receive a     final rule.
                                            proficiency check in each
                                            aircraft type flown.
Related aircraft differences training      Allows air carriers to modify      Since the related aircraft
 (Sec.  Sec.   121.400, 121.418, 121.434,   training program requirements      provisions provide relief to
 121.439, 121.441).                         for flightcrew members when the    operators, compliance is
                                            air carrier operates aircraft      permitted on the effective date
                                            with similar flight handling       of the final rule.
                                            characteristics.
Extended envelope flight training          Requires pilot flight training on  Compliance is required 5 years
 maneuvers and procedures (Sec.  Sec.       the following maneuvers and        after the effective date of the
 121.407(e), 121.423, 121.424,              procedures:                        final rule.
 121.427(d)(1)(i), 121.433(e), appendix     Upset recovery maneuvers
 E).                                        Manually controlled slow
                                            flight.
                                            Manually controlled loss
                                            of reliable airspeed.
                                               Manually controlled
                                               instrument arrivals and
                                               departures.
                                               Recovery from stall
                                               and stick pusher activation,
                                               if aircraft equipped.
                                               Recovery from bounced
                                               landing.
                                           This training is required in a
                                            full flight simulator (FFS)
                                            during all qualification and
                                            recurrent training and will
                                            require additional time to
                                            complete.

[[Page 67803]]

 
Extended envelope ground training          Requires pilots to complete        Compliance is required 5 years
 subjects (Sec.  Sec.   121.419(a)(2),      ground training during             after the effective date of the
 121.427).                                  qualification and recurrent        final rule.
                                            training on stall prevention and
                                            recovery and upset prevention
                                            and recovery. This training adds
                                            2 hours to qualification ground
                                            training and 30 minutes to
                                            recurrent ground training.
Communication records for domestic and     Codifies details of content for    Compliance is required on the
 flag operations (Sec.   121.711).          records of communication between   effective date of the final
                                            aircraft dispatchers and flight    rule.
                                            crew previously described in a
                                            legal interpretation.
Runway safety maneuvers and procedures     Expands existing taxi and pre-     Compliance is required 5 years
 (Appendices E and F).                      takeoff requirements.              after the effective date of the
                                                                               final rule.
Crosswind maneuvers including wind gusts   Expands existing requirement for   Compliance is required 5 years
 (Appendices E and F).                      training on crosswind maneuvers    after the effective date of the
                                            to include gusts.                  final rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Table 1 does not include all technical or editorial amendments.
\4\ All final rule provisions are effective 120 days after publication in the Federal Register. However, certain
  provisions have an extended timeline for compliance consistent with the proposal in the NPRM and SNPRM. The
  FAA encourages early compliance and will work with all operators to ensure compliance with the final rule
  training provisions is achieved as soon as practicable but no later than 5 years after the effective date of
  the final rule.

    Table 2 shows the FAA's estimate for the base case costs, including 
the low and high cost range, in 2012 dollars. Table 2 also shows the 
estimated potential quantified safety benefits using a 22-year 
historical accident analysis. The FAA conducted a sensitivity analysis 
to explore the effect of reducing the historical analysis period from 
22 years to 10 years in response to comments disputing the use of a 22-
year time frame. Using a shorter historical analysis period, the 
estimated benefits of this final rule increase by approximately 17 
percent. This analysis can be found in Appendix 14 of the Regulatory 
Impact Analysis, which is available in the docket for this rulemaking.

Table 2--Total Benefits and Costs (2012 $ Millions) From 2019 to 2028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO13.160

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    The agency has identified 11 aircraft accidents over a 22-year 
interval (between 1988 and 2009), including the 2009 Colgan accident, 
that may have been prevented or mitigated by the training requirements 
in this final rule. This final rule also responds to several 
requirements in Public Law 111-216 and addresses seven National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations.
    Several of the accidents that the FAA has determined could have 
been mitigated by the pilot training requirements in the final rule 
involved rare, but high-risk in-flight events. For example, on February 
12, 2009, a Colgan Air, Inc., Bombardier DHC-8-400, operating as 
Continental Connection flight 3407, was on an instrument approach to 
Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, Buffalo, New York, when it 
crashed into a residence in Clarence Center, New York, about 5 nautical 
miles northeast of the airport resulting in the death of everyone 
aboard and one person on the ground. The NTSB determined that the 
probable cause of this accident was the pilot in command's (PIC) 
inappropriate response to the activation of the stick shaker, which led 
to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover. The 
PIC's response was inappropriate because he pulled back on the control 
column rather than pushing it forward to reduce the angle of attack. As 
a result, the airplane's pitch increased and its airspeed decreased, 
resulting in the stall. A contributing factor relevant to this 
rulemaking was both pilots' failure to monitor airspeed via their 
primary flight display and thus their failure to recognize the 
impending stick shaker onset as airspeed fell and pitch increased. The 
NTSB noted that the ``failure of both pilots to detect this situation 
was the result of a significant breakdown in their monitoring 
responsibilities and workload management.'' The PIC's poor response 
suggests he was surprised by activation of the stick shaker. Had the 
flightcrew been required to complete the extended envelope training 
provisions required by this final rule, this accident would likely have 
been mitigated.
    Prior to the Colgan Air accident, on November 12, 2001 American 
Airlines flight 587 crashed in a residential area of Belle Harbor, New 
York. The airplane accident occurred shortly after takeoff from John F. 
Kennedy International Airport, Jamaica, New York. All 260 people aboard 
the airplane and 5 people on the ground were killed, and the airplane 
was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. The NTSB found the 
probable cause of this accident to be the in-flight separation of the 
vertical stabilizer as a result of the loads beyond ultimate design 
caused by the second in

[[Page 67804]]

command's (SIC) unnecessary and excessive rudder pedal inputs. The 
rudder input was a reaction to wake turbulence.
    Characteristics of the Airbus A300-600 rudder system design and 
elements of the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program 
also contributed to the incorrect rudder pedal inputs. The NTSB found 
that the American Airlines Advanced Aircraft Maneuvering Program 
excessive bank angle simulator exercise could have caused the SIC to 
have an unrealistic and exaggerated view of the effects of wake 
turbulence; erroneously associate wake turbulence encounters with the 
need for aggressive roll upset recovery techniques; and develop control 
strategies that would produce a much different, and potentially 
surprising and confusing, response if performed during flight.
    The provisions adding upset prevention and recovery training in 
this final rule (Sec. Sec.  121.419 and 121.423) may have mitigated 
this accident because the training delivers recovery strategies which 
focus on primary control inputs and early intervention strategies. 
Further, the provisions that require pilots to complete upset 
prevention and recovery training in a full flight simulator (FFS) 
(Sec.  121.423) with an instructor who has been trained on the specific 
motion and data limitations of the FFS (Sec.  121.414) would mitigate 
the possibility of delivering negative training in simulation.
    In another in-flight accident on September 8, 1994, USAir (now US 
Airways) flight 427, a Boeing 737-3B7 (737-300), N513AU, crashed while 
maneuvering to land at Pittsburgh International Airport, Pittsburgh, 
Pennsylvania. Flight 427 was operating as a scheduled domestic 
passenger flight from Chicago-O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, 
Illinois, to Pittsburgh. The flightcrew did not report any problems 
with the airplane and radar data indicates that the closest other 
traffic was about 4.5 miles and 1,500 feet vertically separated from 
flight 427 at the time of the accident. About 6 miles northwest of the 
destination airport, the airplane entered an uncontrolled descent and 
impacted terrain near Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. All 132 people on board 
were killed, and the airplane was destroyed by impact forces and fire. 
The NTSB determined that the probable cause of the accident was a loss 
of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder 
surface to its limit. The rudder surface most likely deflected to its 
limit in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots as a 
result of a failed main rudder power control unit (PCU). The FAA has 
determined that the provisions regarding upset prevention and recovery 
training in this final rule may have prevented or mitigated this 
accident.
    Also, on December 20, 2008, Continental Airlines flight 1404, a 
Boeing 737-500, N18611, departed the left side of runway 34R during 
takeoff from Denver International Airport, Denver, Colorado. At the 
time of the accident, visual meteorological conditions prevailed, with 
strong and gusty winds out of the west. The NTSB reported that, as the 
airplane crossed uneven terrain before coming to a stop it became 
airborne, resulting in a jarring impact when it regained contact with 
the ground. A postcrash fire ensued and the airplane was substantially 
damaged. The PIC and 5 of the 110 passengers were seriously injured; 
the SIC, 2 cabin crewmembers, and 38 passengers sustained minor 
injuries.
    The NTSB accident report revealed that before starting the takeoff 
roll the PIC verbally repeated the wind speed and direction; however, 
during the takeoff roll the PIC inconsistently applied cross wind 
correction. The NTSB found that the probable cause of the accident was 
the PIC's ceased rudder input, which was needed to maintain directional 
control of the airplane, about 4 seconds before the excursion, when the 
airplane encountered a strong and gusty crosswind that exceeded the 
PIC's training and experience. The FAA has determined that the 
expansion of existing requirements for training on crosswind maneuvers 
to include wind gusts in this final rule may have prevented or 
mitigated this accident.
    The final rule also addresses preventable runway safety accidents 
and incidents that have occurred on a more frequent basis. For example, 
on August 27, 2006, Comair flight 5191, a Bombardier CL-600-2B19, 
crashed during takeoff from Blue Grass Airport, Lexington, Kentucky, 
resulting in the death of the PIC, a flight attendant, and 47 
passengers. The SIC also received serious injuries. The flight crew was 
instructed to take off from runway 22 but instead proceeded to take off 
from runway 26, which was much shorter. The airplane ran off the end of 
the runway and crashed into the airport perimeter fence, trees, and 
terrain. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and postcrash 
fire. The NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was 
the flightcrew members' failure to use available cues and aids to 
identify the airplane's location on the airport surface during taxi and 
their failure to cross-check and verify that the airplane was on the 
correct runway before takeoff. The enhanced runway safety training 
provisions in this final rule would likely have mitigated this 
accident.

B. Related Actions

1. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 111-216)
    Public Law 111-216 contained a number of related requirements for 
rulemaking, resulting in the following rulemaking initiatives: Pilot 
Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier 
Operations; Safety Management Systems; Flight Crewmember Mentoring, 
Leadership and Professional Development; and Pilot Records Database. 
The rule related to pilot certification was recently published and the 
remaining initiatives are in various stages of development. Further, 
the agency determined that amendments to FSTD qualification and 
evaluation standards in part 60 are needed to support the provisions in 
this final rule.
    On July 15, 2013, the FAA published the final rule on Pilot 
Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier operations 
(78 FR 42324) (Pilot Certification rule). This final rule creates new 
certification and qualification requirements for pilots in air carrier 
operations including operations conducted under part 121. As a result 
of this action, a second in command pilot (first officer) in domestic, 
flag, and supplemental operations must now hold an airline transport 
pilot (ATP) certificate and an airplane type rating for the aircraft to 
be flown. Further, the Pilot Certification rule adds to the training 
and experience requirements for an ATP certificate with an airplane 
category multiengine class rating or an ATP certificate obtained 
concurrently with an airplane type rating. To receive an ATP 
certificate with a multiengine class rating, a pilot must have 50 hours 
of multiengine flight experience and must have completed a new FAA-
approved ATP Certification Training Program (CTP). This new training 
program will include academic coursework and training in an FSTD. The 
Pilot Certification rule raises the experience requirement and the 
baseline knowledge for incoming part 121 pilots in that it provides 
foundational knowledge on many topics including aerodynamics, 
meteorology, air carrier operations, leadership/professional 
development, and crew resource management (CRM).
    On November 5, 2010, the FAA published an NPRM that proposes to

[[Page 67805]]

require each part 121 operator to develop and implement a safety 
management system (SMS) to improve the safety of its aviation-related 
activities (75 FR 68224). The SMS NPRM proposed to require part 121 
operators to develop systematic procedures, practices, and policies for 
the management of safety risk for all of its aviation systems. While 
crewmember and dispatcher training programs constitute aviation systems 
and as such must be addressed within the certificate holder's SMS, the 
requirements in this final rule do not duplicate the SMS proposal. For 
example, the remedial training requirements in this final rule may 
serve as an element of a robust SMS and provide specific solutions to 
identified pilot performance deficiencies, thereby complementing the 
SMS requirements for continuous monitoring, analysis, and corrective 
action.
    In addition, the agency has initiated a separate rulemaking to 
implement the requirements of Sec.  206 of Public Law 111-216 related 
to flight crewmember mentoring, leadership and professional 
development. The action is necessary to ensure that air carriers 
establish or modify training programs to address mentoring, leadership, 
and professional development of flight crewmembers in part 121 
operations. Although the agency proposed certain academic training 
related to Sec.  206(a)(1)(D)--(E) in the SNPRM preceding this final 
rule, the agency is not proceeding with those elements of the proposal 
in this final rule. These issues will be considered in the Flight 
Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership, and Professional Development 
rulemaking project (RIN 2120-AJ87).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As provided in Appendix Q, Table 2A, of the SNPRM the agency 
proposed academic training on PIC authority, PIC responsibility, 
leadership and command, and conflict resolution every 18 months at 
an introductory level for SICs and a refresher level for PICs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, the FAA has initiated a separate rulemaking project to define 
simulator fidelity requirements for several new and modified training 
tasks mandated for air carrier training programs by Public Law 111-216 
(Part 60 rulemaking).\6\ This rulemaking would amend part 60 to 
establish new or updated FSTD technical evaluation standards for 
training tasks such as full stall training, airborne icing training, 
and upset recognition and recovery training. Furthermore, this 
rulemaking would improve the minimum FSTD evaluation requirements for 
crosswinds with gusts (takeoff/landing) and bounced landing recovery 
methods in response to NTSB and Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) 
recommendations. The rulemaking will help ensure simulator fidelity 
when conducting various flight training tasks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Qualification 
Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training 
Tasks, RIN 2120-AK08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, to address the requirements of Sec.  203 of Public Law 
111-216, the FAA has initiated a rulemaking project (RIN 2120-AK31) to 
develop a pilot records database and phase out the requirements of the 
Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) found at 49 U.S.C. 44703(h). 
Although the FAA, in the SNPRM, had proposed to conform Sec.  121.683 
(proposed as Sec.  121.684) to the PRIA provisions, the FAA will 
consider these requirements in the pilot records database rulemaking to 
avoid confusion and possible redundancy. Thus, the FAA has not included 
proposed Sec.  121.684 in the final rule.
    In connection with these rulemaking initiatives and this final 
rule, Public Law 111-216 also required the FAA to establish several 
ARCs and several Task Forces to further examine existing training 
program requirements and develop recommendations for improvements. The 
FAA chartered the Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training ARC; the 
Training Hours Requirement Review ARC; and the Stick Pusher and Adverse 
Weather Event Training ARC (the 208 ARC) to respond to the directives 
in Public Law 111-216.
    The 208 ARC also worked to develop effective upset prevention and 
recovery training methodologies. Subsequently, the International Civil 
Aviation Organization (ICAO), the European Aviation Safety Agency 
(EASA), and the FAA decided to combine efforts to identify and 
establish an acceptable approach to eliminating such occurrences. ICAO 
sponsored seven meetings in 2012 during which Civil Aviation 
Authorities and subject matter experts were encouraged to participate 
in focused discussions. Also, as a number of initiatives were underway 
simultaneously that sought to reduce the number of loss of control in-
flight (LOC-I) events, ICAO brought many of the groups involved with 
these efforts into the ensuing discussions under what became known as 
the loss of control avoidance and recovery training (LOCART) 
initiative.
    The ARCs have presented their recommendations to the FAA. The 
reports from the following ARCs have been placed in the docket for this 
rulemaking:
     Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training ARC
     Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training ARC
     Training Hours Requirement Review ARC
    The agency notes that many of the new requirements in this final 
rule are consistent with ARC recommendations, including pilot 
monitoring requirements; enhanced simulator instructor training; upset 
prevention and recovery training; manual handling training; and 
remedial training requirements.
    Finally, the FAA recognizes that drafting proposals on related 
topics simultaneously can give the appearance of overlapping or 
duplicative requirements. As we have done in this rule and in prior 
rulemakings issued to address the discrete sections of Public Law 111-
216, the FAA will continue to minimize any overlapping or duplicative 
requirements.
2. FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95)
    On February 14, 2012, following the publication of the SNPRM, the 
FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-95) added certain 
flight attendant requirements similar to those included in the SNPRM, 
such as English language proficiency and training on various aspects of 
flight attendant response to passenger intoxication. Specifically, 
Sec.  304 of Public Law 112-95 (49 U.S.C. 44728) requires flight 
attendants to be proficient in English and identifies certain English 
language competencies that must be demonstrated. In current part 61, 
English language proficiency is an eligibility requirement for all 
pilot certificates. In current part 63, English language proficiency is 
an eligibility requirement for a flight engineer certificate. The 
statutory mandate therefore ensures that all crewmember communication 
complies with crew resource management objectives.
    Compliance with Sec.  304 has been required since the statute was 
enacted. The FAA has published an INFO for air carriers to use when 
complying with the statutory requirement. This INFO can be accessed at 
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/.
    Additionally, Sec.  309 of Public Law 112-95 (49 U.S.C. 44734) 
requires each air carrier to provide flight attendants with training on 
providing alcohol to passengers, recognizing intoxicated passengers, 
and dealing with disruptive passengers. Section 309 also requires air 
carriers to provide flight attendants with situational training on the 
proper method for dealing with intoxicated passengers. Currently, under 
14 CFR

[[Page 67806]]

121.421, operators are already required to provide flight attendants 
with training on how to handle passengers whose conduct might 
jeopardize safety. To assist operators with meeting the specific 
statutory mandate in Sec.  309, the FAA has published an INFO regarding 
compliance with the statutory requirement. This INFO can be accessed at 
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/.
3. Related Agency Initiatives
    In the time since the Colgan accident in 2009, the FAA has put 
forth several initiatives that support improved pilot training in part 
121 operations. These initiatives, along with the requirements in the 
final rule, are intended to reduce the number of aviation accidents.
    One major initiative was the FAA Call to Action to Enhance Airline 
Safety, which began in June of 2009. (The report ``Answering the Call 
to Action on Airline Safety and Pilot Training'' will be placed in the 
docket for this rulemaking). The Call to Action included a number of 
key initiatives including a two-part focused review of air carrier 
flightcrew member training, qualification, and management practices. 
First, the FAA assessed the capability of air carriers to identify, 
track, and manage low-time flightcrew members and those who have failed 
evaluations or have demonstrated a repetitive need for additional 
training. Second, the FAA conducted additional inspections to 
revalidate that the air carriers' training and qualification programs 
met regulatory standards.
    As part of the Call to Action, in 2009 the FAA inspected 85 air 
carriers to determine if they had systems to provide remedial training 
for pilots.\7\ The FAA did not inspect carriers who train pilots under 
an Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) because AQP includes such a 
system. When the inspections began in June of 2009, not all air 
carriers had developed remedial training programs. However, by January 
2010, after the completion of the inspections, all air carriers had 
some part of a remedial training system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Due to airline mergers and bankruptcies, there are fewer 
total air carriers (83 as of February 2013) operating under part 
121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, on August 6, 2012, the FAA published Advisory Circular (AC) 
120-109, Stall and Stick Pusher Training which was developed based on a 
review of recommended practices developed by major airplane 
manufacturers, labor organizations, air carriers, training 
organizations, simulator manufacturers, and industry representative 
organizations.\8\ This AC identified best practices and guidance for 
training, testing, and checking for pilots to ensure correct and 
consistent responses to unexpected stall warnings and stick pusher 
activations. This AC also included guidance regarding the development 
of stall and stick pusher event training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1020244
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional FAA actions to address pilot training requirements 
include the following:
     Information for Operators (INFO) 09007 Pilot Training and 
Checking--Pneumatic Deicing Boot Equipped Airplanes recommends that 
operators enhance pilot training and checking to ensure safe operations 
in icing conditions. All INFOs can be accessed at http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/
     Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 09015 Training for 
Landing on Contaminated Runways highlights FAA guidance regarding 
training and procedures for landing on contaminated runways. All SAFOs 
can be accessed at http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo
     INFO 10002 Agency Best Practices consolidates guidance and 
resources that can be used by operators to improve pilot training.
     SAFO 10006 Inflight Icing Operations and Training 
Recommendations includes recommendations regarding Pilot and Dispatcher 
training to address severe icing conditions associated with freezing 
rain and freezing drizzle.
     INFO 10010 Enhanced Upset Recovery Training highlights the 
availability of the Airplane Upset Recovery and Training Aid that all 
operators can use to develop an effective upset recovery training 
module.
     SAFO 13002 Manual Flight Operations recommends that in 
this age of aircraft automation, training and flight operations should 
emphasize manual handling when appropriate to ensure pilots retain the 
ability to manually fly the airplane.

C. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations

    This final rule addresses the following NTSB recommendations for 
certificate holders operating under Title 14 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) part 121:
     A-96-120. Require 14 CFR part 121 and 135 operators to 
provide training to flightcrews in the recognition of and recovery from 
unusual attitudes and upset maneuvers, including upsets that occur 
while the aircraft is being controlled by automatic flight control 
systems, and unusual attitudes that result from flight control 
malfunctions and uncommanded flight control surface movements.
     A-05-14. Require all 14 CFR part 121 air carrier operators 
to establish programs for flightcrew members who have demonstrated 
performance deficiencies or experienced failures in the training 
environment that would require a review of their whole performance 
history at the company and administer additional oversight and training 
to ensure that performance deficiencies are addressed and corrected.
     A-05-30. Require all 14 CFR part 121 and 135 air carriers 
to incorporate bounced landing recovery techniques in their flight 
manuals and to teach these techniques during initial and recurrent 
training.
     A-07-44. Require that all 14 CFR part 91K, 121, and 135 
operators establish procedures requiring all crewmembers on the flight 
deck to positively confirm and cross-check the airplane's location at 
the assigned departure runway before crossing the hold short line for 
takeoff. This required guidance should be consistent with the guidance 
in AC 120-74A and SAFO 06013 and 07003.
     A-10-22. Require 14 CFR part 121, 135, and 91K operators 
and 14 CFR part 142 training centers to develop and conduct training 
that incorporates stalls that are fully developed; are unexpected; 
involve autopilot disengagement; and include airplane-specific 
features, such as a reference speeds switch.
     A-10-23. Require all 14 CFR part 121, 135, and 91K 
operators of stick pusher-equipped aircraft to provide their pilots 
with pusher familiarization simulator training.
     A-10-111. Require 14 CFR part 121, 135, and 91K operators 
to incorporate the realistic, gusty crosswind profiles developed as a 
result of Safety Recommendation A-10-110 into their pilot simulator 
training programs.
    In the analysis for the final rule, the FAA identified 11 accidents 
involving part 121 operations, resulting in fatalities or injuries that 
occurred between 1988 and 2009 that may have been prevented or 
mitigated if the proposed enhanced training requirements had been in 
effect at the time of those accidents. Causal factors that contributed 
to these accidents

[[Page 67807]]

included inadequate pilot training regarding recovery from stall, upset 
recovery, runway safety, bounced landings, crosswind takeoffs with 
gusts, and pilot monitoring. These accidents resulted in 601 
fatalities, 48 serious injuries, and 137 minor injuries. A detailed 
description of this accident analysis, and how it was conducted, is 
provided in the benefits section of the regulatory evaluation for this 
final rule.

D. Sections 208 and 209 of Public Law 111-216

    This final rule responds to Public Law 111-216, sections 208 and 
209. Under Public Law 111-216, Congress directed the FAA to conduct 
rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members receive ground 
training and flight training in recognizing and avoiding stalls, 
recovering from stalls, and recognizing and avoiding upset of an 
aircraft, as well as the proper techniques to recover from upset; 
directed the FAA to conduct rulemaking to ensure air carriers develop 
remedial training programs for flightcrew members who have demonstrated 
performance deficiencies or experienced failures in the training 
environment; and directed the FAA to issue a final rule with respect to 
the NPRM.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The FAA notes that Sec.  201 of Public Law 111-216 states 
that ``[t]he term `flight crewmember' has the meaning given the term 
`flightcrew member' in part 1 of title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations.'' Part 1 defines ``flightcrew member'' as ``a pilot, 
flight engineer, or flight navigator assigned to duty in an aircraft 
during flight time.'' Because flight engineers and flight navigators 
do not manipulate the aircraft controls and flight navigators are no 
longer used in part 121 operations, the FAA assumes that Congress 
did not intend to require these flightcrew members to complete 
training on recovery from full stall and upset. Further, because no 
accidents have been attributed to flight engineer performance and 
the agency has not identified any issues related to flight engineer 
training, the remedial training requirements in the final rule apply 
to pilots only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Summary of NPRM and SNPRM

    On January 12, 2009, the FAA published an NPRM (74 FR 1280), 
proposing major changes to the requirements for crewmember and aircraft 
dispatcher training programs in domestic, flag, and supplemental 
operations. The primary purpose of the NPRM was to establish new 
requirements for traditional air carrier training programs to enhance 
crewmember and aircraft dispatcher training. The NPRM proposed a 
significant reorganization of training and qualification requirements 
as new subparts to be added to part 121.
    Upon review of the comments to the NPRM, the FAA identified several 
issues that were not adequately addressed in the NPRM. Furthermore, the 
FAA determined that additional data and clarification were necessary. 
Because of the substantive changes and reorganization of the NPRM, on 
May 20, 2011 the FAA published the rulemaking proposal in its entirety 
in an SNPRM (76 FR 29336).

F. Differences Between SNPRM and Final Rule

    In the SNPRM, the agency included the NPRM proposals to reorganize 
and revise crewmember and aircraft dispatcher qualification, training, 
and evaluation requirements in existing subparts N and O of part 121. 
This reorganization would have resulted in the creation of two new 
subparts within part 121.
    The agency has decided to finalize provisions proposed in the SNPRM 
that enhance pilot training for rare but high risk scenarios and 
provide the greatest safety benefit. The final rule also includes other 
discrete provisions proposed in the SNPRM and described in Table 1. As 
discussed in the Overview section of this preamble, the remaining 
proposals in the SNPRM require further deliberation. These remaining 
proposals include the following:
     The operational requirements pertaining to crewmembers and 
aircraft dispatchers, except for Sec.  121.9 (Fraud and falsification), 
Sec.  121.392 (Personnel identified as flight attendants) and Sec.  
121.711 (Communication records), which are reflected in Table 3 below.
     The reorganization and restructuring of crewmember and 
aircraft dispatcher training and qualification in proposed subparts BB 
and CC, including the crewmember and aircraft dispatcher qualification 
performance standards in proposed Appendices Q, R, S and T (except as 
specifically noted in Table 3 below).
    Thus, the FAA may pursue additional rulemaking in the future to 
address the more comprehensive changes proposed in the NPRM and SNPRM.
    The agency has incorporated the final rule provisions into existing 
subparts of part 121 rather than creating new subparts within part 121. 
Table 3 identifies the SNPRM source for each of the final rule 
provisions.

       Table 3--SNPRM Source of Provisions Included in Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Description of final rule         Final rule
            provision                  provision        SNPRM provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraud and falsification.........  Sec.   121.9......  Sec.   121.9.
Personnel identified as flight    Sec.   121.392....  Sec.   121.392.
 attendants.
Approval of FSTDs...............  Sec.   121.407....  Sec.   121.1345.
Training equipment other than     Sec.  Sec.          Sec.  Sec.
 FSTDs approved under part 60.     121.408,            121.1331,
                                   121.403(b)(2).      121.1351.
Pilot monitoring................  Sec.  Sec.          Sec.  Sec.
                                   121.409, 121.544,   121.1213,
                                   appendix H.         121.1353.
Training for instructors and      Sec.  Sec.          Sec.  Sec.
 check airmen who serve in FSTDs.  121.413, 121.414.   121.1377,
                                                       121.1381.
Remedial training...............  Sec.   121.415(h)   Sec.
                                   and Sec.            121.1355(a)(4),
                                   121.415(i).         (a)(5) and (b).
Proficiency checks for PICs.....  Sec.                Sec.   121.1223.
                                   121.441(a)(1)(ii).
Related aircraft differences      Sec.  Sec.          Sec.  Sec.
 training.                         121.400, 121.418,   121.1205,
                                   121.434, 121.439,   121.1206,
                                   121.441.            121.1215,
                                                       121.1230.
Extended envelope ground          Sec.  Sec.          Appendix Q,
 training subjects.                121.419(a)(2),      Attachment 2,
                                   121.427.            Table 2A.
Extended envelope training        Sec.  Sec.          Appendix Q,
 maneuvers and procedures          121.407(e),         Attachment 3,
 (Including requirements to        121.423, 121.424,   Tables 3A and 3B.
 train in an FFS).                 121.427(d)(1)(i),
                                   121.433(e),
                                   appendix E.
Communication records for         Sec.   121.711....  Sec.   121.711.
 domestic and flag operations.
Runway safety maneuvers and       Appendix E, Flight  Appendix Q,
 procedures.                       Training            Attachment 3,
                                   Requirements:       Table 3A.
                                   I(c), I(d).
                                  Appendix F,
                                   Proficiency Check
                                   Requirements:
                                   I(c), I(d).

[[Page 67808]]

 
Crosswind maneuvers including     Appendix E, Flight  Appendix Q,
 wind gusts.                       Training            Attachment 3,
                                   Requirements:       Table 3A.
                                   II(c), IV(d).
                                  Appendix F,
                                   Proficiency Check
                                   Requirements: II
                                   (c), V(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

A. General

    The FAA received approximately 130 comments in response to the 
SNPRM. Commenters included air carriers, labor organizations, trade 
associations, training organizations, one aircraft manufacturer, 
Families of Continental Flight 3407, the NTSB, and individuals. Air 
carrier and trade associations commented that the SNPRM was overly 
prescriptive; the FAA underestimated costs and overestimated benefits; 
and the FAA underestimated the effect of the proposal on air carriers 
that use an AQP for training. Labor organizations' comments included 
concerns regarding the proposed integration of lower fidelity and non-
motion simulators for pilot training; the standards by which CRM 
competencies would be integrated into job performance training and 
evaluated; and the proposed recordkeeping requirements. An aircraft 
manufacturer supported the related aircraft initiatives included in the 
SNPRM. The NTSB and Families of Continental Flight 3407 were generally 
supportive of the SNPRM but raised concerns regarding the efficacy of 
the remedial training proposal further discussed in section III. 
(Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule) J. (Remedial Training 
Programs) of this preamble.
    The agency received several comments on the proposed flight 
attendant and aircraft dispatcher training requirements. Labor 
organizations generally supported the proposed training and 
qualification requirements, but air carriers asserted some provisions, 
such as the proposals regarding requalification requirements and check 
flight attendant and check dispatcher training and qualification, were 
unnecessary and would place an undue burden on operators.
    As part of the FAA's effort to move forward with a rule that 
finalizes specific statutorily mandated requirements and provisions 
proposed in the SNPRM that enhance pilot training and provide the 
greatest safety benefit, but require time to implement, the final rule 
does not include the flight attendant and aircraft dispatcher training 
requirements proposed in the SNPRM. In the discussion that follows, the 
FAA has addressed those comments related to the provisions included in 
this final rule.

B. Compliance With Final Rule Requirements

    In the SNPRM, the agency proposed an effective date for the final 
rule of 120 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. However, for the crewmember and aircraft dispatcher training 
and qualification revisions in proposed subparts BB and CC, the agency 
proposed to allow air carriers to come into compliance with the 
requirements no later than 5 years after the effective date of the 
final rule. As explained in the SNPRM, setting the effective date for 
120 days after publication of the final rule and allowing use of the 
existing regulations for 5 years would provide existing certificate 
holders and the FAA time to smoothly transition to the new 
requirements.
    Consistent with the proposal, all provisions in this final rule 
will become effective 120 days after publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register. In the final rule, compliance is required on the 
effective date unless the regulatory text for a particular provision 
indicates the alternate date for compliance of 5 years after the 
effective date. Although the final rule allows air carriers up to 5 
years to come into compliance, the FAA encourages air carriers to 
comply with these provisions as early as possible to maximize the 
safety benefits that this rule will achieve.
    In the final rule, the agency modified the compliance date for 
certain provisions as follows:
     The final rule eliminates the 5-year compliance date for 
the provisions regarding related aircraft (Sec.  121.418) because these 
amendments provide voluntary alternatives to certain requirements of 
subparts N and O.
     The final rule eliminates the 5-year compliance date for 
the provision regarding the prohibition on fraud and falsification 
(Sec.  121.9) because all persons subject to the final rule 
prohibitions on fraud and falsification are currently prohibited from 
committing fraud and falsification by criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001.
     The final rule eliminates the 5-year compliance date for 
the provision regarding personnel identified as flight attendants 
(Sec.  121.392) because this requirement imposes a minimal burden on 
air carriers.
    Consistent with the SNPRM, the final rule requires compliance with 
the agency proposals regarding dispatch communication records upon the 
rule's effective date. The applicable date on which compliance is 
required for each substantive final rule provision is summarized in 
Table 1 of this preamble.
    The FAA recognizes that some air carriers may have implemented a 
number of the new training requirements in the final rule but the 
agency has determined that maintaining a 5-year compliance period as 
proposed in the NPRM and SNPRM continues to be appropriate for the 
training-related initiatives because it may not be feasible for most 
part 121 operators to achieve compliance by the effective date of the 
final rule.
    To accomplish many of the new safety-critical flight training 
provisions, the FFSs in which the training must be completed must be 
updated. As discussed previously, the FAA has initiated the Part 60 
rulemaking to develop the standards for updating these simulators to 
ensure the extended envelope training provided for in this final rule 
is conducted in a realistic, accurate training environment. The FAA 
believes the 5-year compliance period for these provisions will provide 
sufficient time for completion of that rulemaking project and the 
actual updates to the FFSs that would be required by that rulemaking. 
The FAA will continue to evaluate the time necessary for compliance 
with the training requirements set forth in this final rule based on 
the updates that are necessary for the FFSs and will seek public 
comment on this issue in the Part 60 rulemaking. In addition, based on 
the comments received to the SNPRM, the FAA recognizes that some 
operators may already have the technology and simulation knowledge 
necessary to incorporate these training requirements into their 
approved training programs. The FAA encourages these operators to

[[Page 67809]]

initiate compliance with this rule as soon as practicable. To help 
facilitate these efforts, operators should contact the FAA's National 
Simulator Program to obtain the relevant guidance material on 
evaluating the FSTDs used to provide extended envelope training.
    The FAA recognizes the public benefit associated with early 
implementation of the new safety-critical training requirements. The 
FAA will work with all operators to ensure compliance with the final 
rule training provisions is achieved as soon as possible but no later 
than 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. As originally 
proposed, we anticipated that air carriers would complete holistic 
changes to their training programs at one time. Upon further reflection 
and based on the revisions to the final rule and the simulator updates 
discussed earlier, we note that individual air carriers may submit 
proposed training program revisions for approval at any point after the 
effective date. The agency will work with each air carrier to meet 
their implementation needs.

C. Applicability of Final Rule Requirements and Impact of Final Rule on 
Operators with Advanced Qualification Program Curriculums

    Air carriers that conduct operations under part 121 may train and 
qualify crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers in accordance with the 
provisions of current subparts N, O, and P. Alternatively, air carriers 
may train and qualify crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers under an AQP 
in accordance with the provisions of subpart Y.
    Subpart Y does not contain training and evaluation requirements, 
per se. However, an AQP developed in accordance with subpart Y allows 
air carriers to use alternative methods for training and evaluating 
pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers 
based on instructional systems design, advanced simulation equipment, 
and comprehensive data analysis to continuously validate curriculums.
    In accordance with Sec.  121.909, to obtain approval of an AQP, an 
air carrier must develop a Qualification Standards Document that 
specifies which requirements of parts 61, 63, 65, 121 (including 
subparts N, O, and P), or 135, as applicable, will be replaced by the 
AQP curriculum. Each requirement contained in part 61, 63, 65, 121, or 
135 that is not specifically addressed in an approved AQP curriculum 
continues to apply to the certificate holder.
    The SNPRM principally affected part 121 operators that train and 
qualify crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers in accordance with the 
provisions of current subparts N, O, and P. However, commenters 
generally noted that the FAA underestimated the impact of the proposed 
requirements on AQP carriers. Additionally, some commenters noted that 
AQP should be mandated as the sole training method to be used by all 
certificate holders conducting part 121 operations.
    First, as previously discussed, AQP provides for an alternate 
method of compliance with the standards provided by parts 61, 63, 65, 
121 (including subparts N and O), or 135, as applicable. This means 
that even if the agency mandated AQP for all part 121 operators, the 
agency would have to provide standards from which to create the 
compliance methods in an AQP. These standards would change as the 
technology used in training tools evolves and as the FAA learns more 
about factors contributing to accidents and effective training 
methodology. Further, the final rule includes training requirements 
that are mandated by statute (i.e., upset and stall prevention and 
recovery). Without a revision to the traditional training requirements 
in this final rule, the FAA would not be able to require these 
maneuvers and procedures for pilots as part of pilot AQP curriculums.
    Second, commenters including Continental, American, USAirways, 
JetBlue, Delta, and ASTAR, stated that the agency did not fully 
consider all of the direct and indirect effects that the proposal would 
have on part 121 operators that currently conduct training under an 
AQP. The agency has reviewed its final rule cost analysis to determine 
whether carriers that currently train flightcrew members under an AQP 
would incur additional costs not previously considered. Upon further 
review of existing pilot AQPs and the final rule requirements, the 
agency has determined the new ground and flight training requirements 
in the final rule are generally not addressed by existing pilot AQPs. 
Therefore, in the final rule regulatory evaluation, the agency has 
revised its cost analysis and determined that it is appropriate to 
attribute costs to the additional ground and flight training 
requirements for all pilots who train under subparts N and O as well as 
those who train under an AQP.
    Applicable requirements of part 121 that are not specifically 
addressed in the certificate holder's AQP continue to apply to the 
certificate holder and to the individuals being trained and qualified 
by the certificate holder. See Sec.  121.903(b). This final rule 
differs from the SNPRM in that it does not alter the training and 
qualification principles established in subparts N and O, but rather 
adds discrete new pilot training subjects, procedures and maneuvers. 
Accordingly, an operator that uses AQP to train flightcrew members must 
submit a revised Qualification Standards Document if that operator 
seeks to address these additional ground training subjects and flight 
training procedures and maneuvers through alternative methods in 
accordance with subpart Y.
    Third, in response to comments that AQP should be mandated for all 
part 121 operators, the FAA maintains its position as stated in the 
SNPRM. Although the FAA considers AQP to be an effective voluntary 
alternative for compliance with minimum training and qualification 
requirements, the FAA does not believe that it is appropriate to 
require all air carriers to train under AQP. The FAA recognizes that 
AQP may not be appropriate for every certificate holder. The AQP is a 
voluntary program established to allow a greater degree of regulatory 
flexibility in the approval of innovative training programs. Based on a 
documented analysis of operational requirements, a certificate holder 
under AQP may propose to depart from the traditional practices with 
respect to what, how, when, and where training and testing is 
conducted. Detailed AQP documentation requirements, data collection, 
and analysis provide the FAA and the operator with the tools necessary 
to adequately monitor and administer an AQP. See 70 FR 54810, 54811 
(Sept. 16, 2005).
    The FAA further recognizes that some air carriers may not wish to 
incur the costs associated with an AQP. Such costs include additional 
personnel and management infrastructure to develop and facilitate the 
required data collection, analysis, and application required under AQP. 
Furthermore, some air carriers may prefer the structured requirements 
of a traditional program to the analytically-driven AQP training 
program. Other air carriers that use contract training facilities may 
not find AQP to be a suitable alternative to traditional training 
requirements. Accordingly, the final rule does not require all 
certificate holders to train under the AQP requirements in subpart Y of 
part 121. This determination is consistent with the recommendations 
provided by the Training Hours Requirement Review ARC findings. See 
Training Hours Requirement Review ARC Report.

[[Page 67810]]

D. Fraud and Falsification

    In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed adding Sec.  121.9, a new general 
requirement that would prohibit a person from making intentionally 
false or fraudulent statements on an application, record, or report 
required by part 121. The SNPRM also specified the consequences of 
making incorrect and intentionally false or fraudulent statements. 
Although the language would be added to part 121 for the first time, it 
is not a new concept in FAA regulations. Similar language already 
appears in 14 CFR 61.59 and 67.403, and was recently added to part 139 
subpart B at Sec.  139.115. Moreover, 18 U.S.C. 1001 currently 
prohibits fraud and intentional falsification in matters within the 
jurisdiction of the executive branch.
    The FAA proposed adding the requirement to part 121 to emphasize 
the importance of truthful statements, especially with regard to 
training and checking of crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers. The FAA 
considers the making of intentionally false or fraudulent statements a 
serious offense. Falsification has a serious effect on the integrity of 
the records on which the FAA's safety oversight depends. If the 
reliability of these records is undermined, the FAA's ability to 
promote aviation safety is compromised.
    Airbus requested clarification regarding to whom the proposed 
sanctions would apply. Continental supports the prohibition of 
fraudulent or intentionally false statements, but commented that the 
assignment of responsibility and potential sanctions go too far. For 
example, it is Continental's understanding that the proposal adopts a 
strict liability standard for a part 121 operator by imposing denial of 
a training program application or removal of a training program 
approval for infractions. Continental further commented that the FAA 
should hold a carrier responsible for fraudulent or intentionally false 
statements only when it can prove carrier approval or endorsement of 
such actions; individual employee or contractor actions should not be 
automatically attributed to a carrier. They conclude that penalties 
against carrier training programs should only be levied when FAA can 
prove carrier approval of such actions. In addition, Continental stated 
that the proposal to impose penalties for incorrect statements or 
entries is inconsistent with FAA enforcement policy, because Order 
2150.3B, FAA Enforcement and Compliance Program, and case law recognize 
that not all acts warrant enforcement action, especially unintended 
acts. Continental notes that the introduction of penalties for 
incorrect statements or entries, which may have been made 
inadvertently, will serve no deterrent purpose and recommends 
eliminating paragraph (c) of proposed Sec.  121.9.
    The agency agrees with comments that not all certificate holder 
actions necessarily warrant the strictest agency response and clarifies 
that Sec.  121.9 does not set forth a strict liability standard. 
Section 121.9 identifies the potential consequences for intentional 
falsification or fraud. However, the potential sanctions set forth in 
Sec.  121.9(b) are limited to cases of intentional falsification or 
fraud that violate Sec.  121.9(a). As discussed in the following 
paragraph, proposed Sec.  121.9(c) regarding consequences for making 
incorrect statements has not been included in the final rule.
    Further, in response to comments that Sec.  121.9 is inconsistent 
with agency guidance, the agency responds that the addition of Sec.  
121.9 does not alter the agency's policy in Order 2150.3B regarding the 
factors it considers in assessing whether to pursue enforcement action, 
the type of enforcement action (i.e. administrative, legal, etc.) to 
pursue, and the nature of the sanction that will be pursued, if any. In 
fact, Sec.  121.9(b)(3)-(4) of the proposal recognize that a more 
flexible response by the agency may be warranted in certain 
circumstances. Not all action taken as a result of a regulatory 
violation is punitive as is the case with the proposal to deny an 
application or approval of a training program upon the discovery of 
incorrect training-related information upon which the agency relied. 
Rather, as is the case today, the agency may withdraw an approved 
training program to assess the safety and effectiveness of the program 
based on accurate information. Therefore, proposed paragraph (c) is not 
necessary and has not been included in the final rule.
    In response to commenters' concerns that certificate holders may be 
held liable for the actions of any person under Sec.  121.9 as 
proposed, the regulatory language of Sec.  121.9(b) applies to 
certificate holders as well as any person acting on behalf of a 
certificate holder who commits an act prohibited by Sec.  121.9(a). 
Commenters' concerns regarding liability for the acts of their 
employees have been addressed by case law. Part 119 certificate holders 
are ultimately responsible for compliance with the duties required to 
satisfy part 121 requirements and are expected to oversee the conduct 
of persons they employ. If a certificate holder could be considered 
liable only upon proof that it was at fault independently, it would 
have an incentive to minimize oversight of persons it employs.
    Currently, 18 U.S.C. 1001 prohibits fraud and falsification in 
matters within the jurisdiction of the executive branch. Accordingly, 
there is no cost or additional burden to the certificate holder to 
comply with this provision, and there is no reason to delay compliance 
with this section by 5 years.\10\ In the final rule, this provision 
will become effective 120 days after publication in the Federal 
Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 18 U.S.C. 1001 is a criminal statute prohibiting fraud and 
intentional falsification in matters within the jurisdiction of the 
executive branch. This regulation will allow the agency to pursue 
civil enforcement in instances in which a person has committed fraud 
or falsification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Personnel Identified as Flight Attendants

    In existing Sec.  121.391, the FAA requires flight attendants on an 
aircraft operated under part 121 when the agency determines that the 
presence of a flight attendant is required to ensure the safety of the 
aircraft and its occupants. When such a determination has been made, 
the agency also identifies the minimum number of flight attendants 
required. However, a certificate holder may choose to provide a flight 
attendant when one is not required or a certificate holder may choose 
to provide additional flight attendants in excess of the required 
minimum number of flight attendants.
    Historically, there has been an inconsistent application of the 
rules regarding training and qualification requirements for these 
flight attendants who are not required to be on the aircraft. In part 
121, the agency requires flight attendants to complete training that 
will enable them to perform safety-related functions in a normal 
operating environment as well as to increase passenger and crewmember 
survivability in an accident. However, the identification of any 
crewmember as a flight attendant implies that the crewmember is fully 
qualified to perform all safety-related flight attendant duties and 
responsibilities upon which other crewmembers or passengers may rely.
    Accordingly, in Sec.  121.392 of the SNPRM and the final rule, the 
agency requires any person identified by the certificate holder as a 
flight attendant on an aircraft in operations under part 121 to have 
completed the part 121 flight attendant training and qualification 
requirements. This requirement applies whether or not the person serves 
as a required crewmember. The agency

[[Page 67811]]

further clarifies that certificate holders must identify a person 
serving as a crewmember who has not yet completed all flight attendant 
training and qualification requirements to serve as a required 
crewmember on a particular aircraft, such as a person who is gaining 
the aircraft operating experience required by Sec.  121.434(e), as a 
qualifying flight attendant. Air carriers may determine how they want 
to identify these individuals to passengers, as appropriate for their 
operation. Some possible methods would be to differentiate their 
uniform from that of fully qualified flight attendants, identify flight 
attendants in training as ``trainees'' via nametags or to make an 
announcement to passengers before the aircraft pushes back from the 
gate.
    The FAA did not receive any comments on this section as proposed in 
the SNPRM. Proposed Sec.  121.392 appears in the final rule with a 
modified compliance date as discussed in section III.B. of this 
preamble.

F. Approval of Airplane Simulators and Training Devices

    Currently, existing Sec.  121.407 requires a certificate holder to 
obtain the agency's approval for the use of airplane simulators and 
other training devices in a training program approved under part 
121.\11\ In the NPRM (Sec.  121.1347) and in the SNPRM (Sec.  
121.1345), the agency proposed to require each FSTD used in a part 121 
training program to be qualified and maintained in accordance with 14 
CFR part 60--Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing 
Qualification and Use, and approved by the Administrator for use in 
training or evaluating the particular flight training maneuver or 
procedure. This proposal aligned the existing requirements for approval 
of airplane simulators and other training devices in a part 121 
training program with the requirements regarding the evaluation, 
qualification, and maintenance of FSTDs added to title 14 in 2006. The 
part 60 FSTD requirements currently apply to all persons using or 
applying to use an FSTD to meet any requirement of title 14, chapter 1, 
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation, 
including the training and qualification requirements of subparts N and 
O. See 14 CFR 60.1(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The agency notes that the terms ``visual simulator'' and 
``airplane simulator'' as used throughout part 121, are currently 
referred to as ``full flight simulators'' in part 60. A ``training 
device'' or ``flight training device,'' as used throughout part 121 
are currently referred to as ``flight training devices'' in part 60. 
A ``non-visual simulator'' or a ``simulator without a visual 
system'' is a motion simulator without a visual presentation. These 
types of devices have either been retired or upgraded to FFSs with 
the installation of visual displays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Southwest, American, USAirways, Continental, FedEx, and a number of 
other commenters questioned how the proposal would affect devices 
qualified in accordance with ACs that predate part 60. These commenters 
recommended a blanket statement on simulation and various types of 
simulator qualification that states an FFS could be either qualified 
under part 60 or grandfathered into regulation by Sec.  60.17 although 
not actually qualified under part 60.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Although this comment was made in connection with the use 
of an FSTD to maintain pilot recent experience requirements, it is 
generally applicable to a number of other conforming references to 
part 60 throughout the SNPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule does not modify the existing part 60 requirements 
for the evaluation, maintenance, and qualification of FSTDs. In the 
final rule, the agency clarifies that Sec.  60.17 will continue to 
address previously qualified devices that may be used in part 121 
training programs.
    Through modifications to existing Sec.  121.407, the final rule 
incorporates the proposal to conform part 121 requirements regarding 
the use of FSTDs in approved training programs with the existing part 
60 requirements that already apply to the use of FSTDs in part 121 
training programs.

G. Approval of Training Equipment Other Than Flight Simulation Training 
Devices

    Current regulations do not provide specific requirements for 
training equipment other than FSTDs, but the regulations generally 
require training equipment to be adequate. To ensure that all equipment 
used in approved training programs is adequate for the particular task 
for which it is used, in Sec.  121.1351 of the NPRM and SNPRM, the FAA 
proposed requirements for training equipment other than FSTDs. The FAA 
has retained this provision as Sec.  121.408 of the final rule. Section 
121.408 states that the FAA must approve training equipment (e.g. 
cockpit procedures trainers, door/exit trainers, water survival 
equipment, etc.) used to functionally replicate aircraft equipment 
required to be used as part of the approved training program.
    In the SNPRM, the agency explained that this provision would apply 
to training equipment including, but not limited to, portable emergency 
equipment, including life vests and fire extinguishers, aircraft exit 
trainers, and equipment for overwater operations. In response to 
comments to the NPRM that the proposed requirements in Sec.  121.1351 
were overly broad and open to interpretation, the agency restated the 
purpose of this requirement in the SNPRM was focused on ensuring that 
crewmembers receive training on emergency equipment that replicates the 
actual equipment they would use in emergency situations in aircraft 
operations. The proposed requirements in Sec.  121.1351 appear in Sec.  
121.408 of the final rule with the clarifications described in the 
following paragraphs.
    In response to the SNPRM, American, the Air Transport Association 
of America, Inc. (ATA) (now known as Airlines for America), USAirways, 
Continental, ASTAR, FedEx, and Southwest requested more specificity 
about the types of training equipment that would be covered under this 
section. American, ATA, USAirways, Continental, ASTAR, and FedEx 
further stated that it would be difficult to comply with the provision 
that requires the training equipment to replicate the form, fit, 
function, and weight, as appropriate, of the aircraft equipment, 
because much of the data, which must come from the manufacturers, is 
not part of the information currently provided by the manufacturers.
    In the final rule, the FAA maintains the existing requirements in 
Sec.  121.403(b)(2) that all training devices mockups, systems 
trainers, procedures trainers and other training aids be listed in the 
air carrier's approved training program. The final rule also includes a 
new provision, proposed in the SNPRM, which clarifies the FAA's intent 
regarding the criteria that must be met by this training equipment. 
This provision requires that training equipment used to accomplish the 
training requirements of this part meet the form, fit, function, and 
weight, as appropriate, of the actual equipment that crewmembers will 
be using during normal and/or emergency aircraft operations. In 
addition, the equipment must replicate the normal operation (and 
abnormal and emergency operation, if appropriate) of the aircraft 
equipment including the required force, actions and travel of the 
aircraft equipment and variations in aircraft equipment operated by the 
certificate holder, if applicable. It must also replicate the operation 
of the aircraft equipment under adverse conditions, if appropriate.
    The FAA has qualified the requirement with ``as appropriate'' to 
allow for flexibility in cases where manufacturer's data is not 
available or it is impracticable or unnecessary to meet this 
requirement. The FAA clarifies that the requirements in section Sec.  
121.408 apply to training equipment used to

[[Page 67812]]

accomplish job performance requirements only where replication of the 
actual equipment used in operations is key to the learning objectives 
of the drill. Further, certain criteria do not affect the efficacy of 
training equipment as a training tool. For example, the weight of the 
entire door trainer would not have to match the weight of that size 
section of an actual aircraft fuselage, but the weight of the door/
window that the crewmember is opening would have to replicate the 
weight of the actual exit on an aircraft in order to prepare a 
crewmember adequately to react in an emergency. The key objective of 
this requirement is that the training equipment reflects the equipment 
that would be used by the crewmember in normal and/or emergency 
aircraft operations in order to accomplish the learning objectives of 
the drill.
    Additionally some commenters noted that the FAA has not required 
the official approval of training equipment outside of the National 
Simulator Program or part 60. In response, the FAA clarifies that 
existing Sec.  121.403(b)(2) already requires that all training device 
mockups, systems trainers, procedures trainers, and other training aids 
be listed in the air carrier's approved training program. The 
requirements of Sec.  121.408 simply clarify the functional attributes 
and requirements that must be met by this training equipment.
    Commenters (American, ATA, USAirways, Continental, ASTAR, FedEx and 
Southwest) have assumed that this provision would apply to door and 
window trainers, but question whether it would also include unique 
slat/flap handle trainers, intruder resistant cockpit door latch 
trainers, and many other cockpit or cabin items for which a hands-on 
trainer would be beneficial, but not necessarily required.
    The FAA agrees that it is important to clarify what training 
equipment must meet the requirements of Sec.  121.408. In the final 
rule, the FAA has amended Sec.  121.408(b) to require that the 
provisions of this section apply to training equipment used to meet the 
training requirements of this subpart. This includes portable emergency 
equipment (e.g. fire extinguishers, portable oxygen bottles, and 
protective breathing equipment), aircraft exit trainers, equipment for 
overwater operations, and other equipment used to meet hands on 
training requirements.
    The agency notes that air carriers may find it useful to create 
hands on training opportunities for crewmembers to enhance training in 
a certain area, even when hands on performance training is not required 
by regulation. When a device (e.g. unique slat/flap handle trainers, 
intruder resistant cockpit door latch trainers, and many other cockpit 
or cabin items) is not required by the training requirements of this 
subpart, the functional attributes and requirements for the equipment 
of Sec.  121.408 do not apply. However, the device must still be listed 
in the air carrier's approved training program, under the requirements 
of Sec.  121.403, and contribute to training objectives.
    Southwest also asserts that the requirement proposed in Sec.  
121.1351(d) that all training equipment must have a method of 
documenting discrepancies in close proximity, precludes the use of 
technology to maintain an electronic log book for discrepancies unless 
a recording device is located in close proximity to each piece of 
equipment. Southwest proposed changing ``close proximity'' to ``within 
the training facility.''
    The FAA agrees with the commenter and in the final rule has amended 
the requirements of Sec.  121.408(d) to only require a method for 
documenting discrepancies for all training equipment. This provision 
will allow the greatest flexibility for air carriers to develop, and 
submit for approval, a method that works effectively in their 
particular training environment.

H. Pilot Monitoring Duties and Training

    Existing regulations do not explicitly address development of pilot 
monitoring skills. However, pilot monitoring duties are currently 
included in the operating manual required by Sec.  121.133. Therefore, 
the FAA expects that they are incorporated in air carrier standard 
operating procedures.
    Historically, the FAA has referred to the individual completing 
pilot monitoring duties as the pilot not flying. In FAA AC 120-71A, 
Standard Operating Procedures for Flight Deck Crewmembers, the agency 
provides guidance regarding a means to incorporate standard operating 
procedures for the pilot not flying and pilot flying duties into the 
operating manual. The FAA amended this AC in 2003. In one notable 
change, the agency replaced the term ``pilot not flying'' with the term 
``pilot monitoring'' to convey that the pilot not flying should be 
actively engaged in the safe operation of the aircraft and as such, 
should be trained and evaluated in performing active pilot monitoring 
skills.
    In Sec.  121.1213 of the NPRM and SNPRM, the agency proposed to 
codify the use of the term ``pilot monitoring'' to reflect the 
activities conducted by the pilot who is seated at the controls, but 
not flying the aircraft or the FSTD. The agency further proposed to 
require a pilot to accomplish pilot monitoring duties in accordance 
with the operating manual. The proposals did not change the current 
duties and responsibilities of the pilots at the controls.
    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) supported the 
use of the term ``pilot monitoring,'' as incorporated in the NPRM and 
SNPRM, as it better describes the function of the pilot who is not 
actually controlling the aircraft. Southwest, Fed Ex, Continental, 
American, ATA, and USAirways commented that the agency should include a 
definition of ``pilot monitoring'' in the final rule to clarify the 
term. The agency is not persuaded by commenters that a definition of 
``pilot monitoring'' is required. In the final rule, Sec.  121.544 of 
subpart T includes the proposed description of the pilot who must 
complete pilot monitoring duties with sufficient detail such that an 
additional definition is not necessary.
    In Sec.  121.1213 of the SNPRM, the agency's proposal combined 
operational and training requirements for the pilot monitoring. 
Southwest, Continental, ASTAR, American, ATA, USAirways, and FedEx 
commented that the agency should remove language in the proposal that 
would require pilots to accomplish pilot monitoring duties in 
accordance with the operating manual while at the controls of an FSTD 
during training. These commenters stated that there may be times when a 
pilot is instructed to behave in a way other than specified by the 
operating manual to complete a training objective (e.g., incapacitated 
pilot, get into upset event for training purposes, check pilot 
training, etc.).
    In response to comments, the agency clarifies that training 
requirements must be based on operating manual contents and standard 
operating procedures so that pilots can receive comprehensive training 
on the procedures that must be followed during operations. However, the 
agency recognizes that it may not always be feasible or practical to 
maintain consistency with the operating manual for the ``set up'' of 
certain maneuvers and procedures in a training environment. Therefore, 
the final rule addresses pilot monitoring duties and training in 
separate provisions. Section 121.544 of the final rule provides pilot 
monitoring duties and Sec.  121.409 and appendix H provide pilot 
monitoring training.
    The agency's determination regarding the need for training on pilot 
monitoring is supported by the NTSB final report on the Colgan 
accident. In the NTSB final report on this accident, the NTSB

[[Page 67813]]

stated, ``The flight crewmembers failed to monitor the airplane's pitch 
attitude, power, and especially its airspeed and failed to notice, as 
part of their monitoring responsibilities, the rising low-speed cue on 
the IAS display. Multiple strategies can be used to protect against 
catastrophic outcomes resulting from these and other monitoring 
failures, including flight crew training, flight deck procedures, and 
low-airspeed alert systems . . .'' The NTSB concluded that ``the 
monitoring errors made by the accident flight crew demonstrate the 
continuing need for specific pilot training on active monitoring 
skills.'' See NTSB Rep. AAR-10/01, at p. 94.
    In the SNPRM, the agency proposed to require pilots to serve as 
pilot monitoring during Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) to 
facilitate opportunities for pilots to practice and demonstrate 
proficiency in pilot monitoring skills and workload management under 
the supervision of a flight instructor or check airman. The final rule 
includes requirements for part 121 operators to provide opportunities 
for pilot monitoring training during LOFT.
    Currently, the agency requires LOFT, a scenario-based training 
event with minimal check pilot or flight instructor interruption, for 
all pilots who complete training in an advanced simulation training 
program. In accordance with appendix H, LOFT must consist of two 
representative flights for each pilot. In addition, air carriers may 
substitute LOFT that meets the requirements of Sec.  121.409, for the 
recurrent proficiency check requirement specified in Sec.  121.441. 
Further information regarding LOFT can be found in AC 120-35C, which 
provides guidelines for the design and implementation of LOFT.
    In Sec.  121.1353 of the SNPRM, the agency proposed to add 
specificity to existing LOFT requirements by requiring each pilot to 
serve as pilot flying and pilot monitoring any time a part 121 operator 
uses LOFT in a training curriculum. Similar to existing LOFT 
requirements in appendix H, the agency proposed that LOFT must consist 
of two operating cycles. However, the SNPRM defined ``operating cycle'' 
as a gate-to-gate operation. Further, the agency proposed that one of 
the required operating cycles would be a ``pilot flying cycle'' and one 
cycle would be a ``pilot monitoring cycle.''
    Southwest, ASTAR, American, ATA, USAirways, Continental, UPS, and 
FedEx, stated that the two operating cycles that must be completed 
during LOFT should not be required to include two full gate-to-gate 
(taxi-in and taxi-out) scenarios. These comments were provided in 
response to the proposal for two operating cycles for all LOFT and with 
particular concern regarding recurrent LOFT. These commenters state two 
gate-to-gate operating cycles would reduce the effectiveness of LOFT 
due to more time and emphasis on ground operations and less on flight 
operations.
    Further ASTAR, American, ATA, USAirways, Continental, UPS, and 
FedEx stated that, for those carriers engaged in long haul, 
international flights, the requirement to design LOFT with two 
operating cycles representative of the certificate holder's operation 
will be challenging. Commenters recommend that for purposes of a LOFT, 
``Operating Cycle'' should be defined to include only takeoff, climb, 
en route, descent and landing.
    The FAA concurs with commenters that two gate-to-gate operating 
cycles are unnecessary for the reasons cited by commenters. In response 
to carriers' concerns regarding the effect of requiring two operating 
cycles for LOFT, the agency clarifies that LOFT is intended to be 
representative of a certificate holder's operation, not a replication 
of the flight. As described in FAA AC 120-35C Line Operational 
Simulation: Line Oriented Flight Training, Special Purpose Operational 
Training, Line Operational Evaluation, LOFT is conducted as a line 
operation and allows for no interruption by the instructor during the 
session except for a non-disruptive acceleration of uneventful en route 
segments. Accordingly, the crew completing LOFT must complete one taxi-
out and one taxi-in during the 4-hours required for LOFT in current 
Sec.  121.409. Additional segments need only consist of takeoff, climb, 
en route, descent, and landing.
    Commenters state that the proposed requirement for two operating 
cycles during which a pilot serves exclusively as pilot monitoring or 
pilot flying was not representative of actual line operations. This 
proposal would force crews into predetermined pilot flying and pilot 
monitoring roles irrespective of actual line operations in order to 
meet the regulatory requirements.
    The agency agrees with comments that the LOFT training should be 
representative of actual line operations. During typical line 
operations, a pilot may not serve exclusively as either the pilot 
flying or the pilot monitoring. Therefore, the final rule does not 
require exclusive pilot monitoring and flying cycles during LOFT. 
Instead, the final rule requires pilots who must complete LOFT in 
accordance with appendix H or who complete LOFT as an alternative to 
the proficiency check requirement specified in Sec.  121.441, to 
complete two representative flight segments and to serve as pilot 
monitoring for a period of time during the LOFT. This change ensures 
pilots will have an opportunity to practice pilot monitoring under the 
supervision of a flight instructor or check airman while maintaining a 
representative scenario-based training environment.
    In addition, in the SNPRM, the agency proposed to require part 121 
operators to evaluate active pilot monitoring skills. American, ATA, 
USAirways, Continental, and ASTAR commented that the proposed 
evaluation requirements Sec.  121.1213 will require the development of 
new pilot monitoring standards, and grading and data collection methods 
making the requirement burdensome.
    Based on review of the comments and the proposal, the agency 
clarifies that pilot monitoring is most appropriately assessed in the 
LOFT environment which is intended to represent a normal operation. 
Therefore, it would not be appropriate to require monitoring as a 
discrete training and evaluation item.
    The final rule requirement to include pilot monitoring during LOFT 
does not place any additional simulator time burden on operators who 
use advanced simulation training programs to train their pilots or 
substitute LOFT for recurrent proficiency check requirements because 
the requirement can be met during the ordinary course of any LOFT that 
is currently part of a part 121 operator's training program. However 
there may be some burden due to the need to amend an air carrier's 
training program. This burden has been reflected in the information 
collection requirements that are discussed in the Paperwork Reduction 
Act discussion in Section IV of the preamble. The FAA has included this 
requirement in the final rule as amendments to paragraph 6 in appendix 
H and Sec.  121.409.

I. Flight Instructor (Simulator) and Check Airmen (Simulator) Training

    Existing Sec. Sec.  121.413 and 121.414 require flight instructors 
and check airmen to complete initial and transition ground and flight 
training. The ground training focuses on instruction and evaluation 
methods, procedures, and techniques. Sections 121.413 and 121.414 do 
not currently require ground training on the specific operation and 
limitations of the simulator or training device.
    However, appendix H to part 121 requires certificate holders to 
provide enhanced instruction for flight

[[Page 67814]]

instructors and check airmen that serve in advanced simulation training 
programs. Flight instructors and check airman who serve in a part 121 
advanced simulation training program must complete the training 
required by Sec. Sec.  121.413 and 121.414, as applicable, as well as 
annual training identified in appendix H that includes simulator 
operation, limitations, and minimum equipment required for each course 
of training.
    In Sec. Sec.  121.1377 and 121.1381 of the SNPRM, the agency 
proposed requirements for all flight instructors and all check airmen 
who serve in FSTDs to complete ground training on FSTD use, operation, 
and limitations based on existing appendix H annual training 
requirements. To coincide with the SNPRM proposal for flightcrew member 
recurrent training, the agency proposed an 18 month interval for 
recurrent flight instructor and check airman training.
    Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) expressed specific concern 
about the qualifications of instructors conducting training in upset 
recognition and recovery. APS stated that the delivery of upset 
recognition and recovery training by instructors who have not first 
been provided with such information themselves and qualified in the 
delivery of information and techniques in this area has a high 
probability of propagating incorrect or unsafe information and 
techniques. APS recommended that the FAA require instructors to receive 
training and be specifically qualified to deliver training in the area 
of upset recognition and recovery.
    The FAA agrees with this commenter's concerns regarding the 
importance of instructor training for upset recovery training. Similar 
concerns were raised by the 208 ARC, which identified the lack of 
instructor knowledge, qualification, and standardization as a major 
hazard for the delivery of upset recovery training.
    In the final rule, the FAA has determined that instructor and check 
airman training must not only contain initial and recurrent training 
for maneuvers, concepts and techniques but must also include training 
on both the data and motion limitations of the FSTD. Accordingly, the 
agency added these enhanced training requirements for flight 
instructors and check airmen to current Sec. Sec.  121.413 and 121.414. 
Further, the FAA has established the recurrent interval for flight 
instructor and check airmen training at 12 months to coincide with 
appendix H recurrent training that flight instructors and check airmen 
who conduct training or checking in FSTDs must complete.
    Training on the limitations of the specific FSTD will enable 
instructors and check airmen to provide upset recovery training 
consistent with the capabilities and performance of the specific 
aircraft type. This comprehensive instructor training will not only 
increase instructor standardization and the quality of upset recovery 
training, but also reduce the risk of negative training which could 
easily occur with an untrained instructor. These enhanced instructor 
and check airmen training requirements are consistent with 
recommendations of the 208 ARC. Current training for check airmen and 
instructors is extensive and the FAA has determined that these new 
final rule requirements can be integrated into the part 121 certificate 
holder's current curriculum for check airmen and instructor training.
    Commenters including Continental and American stated that the 
proposed check airmen recurrent training requirements in the SNPRM 
would result in additional cost to air carriers. The FAA has revised 
the projected benefits and costs based on the specific provisions that 
are adopted in this final rule. The final rule recurrent training 
requirements for flight instructors and check airmen who serve in FSTDs 
can be accomplished within the instructor and check airman requirements 
in existing appendix H. Therefore, costs are limited to those costs 
that may accrue from the revision to existing manuals and training 
courseware. This burden has been reflected in the information 
collection requirements that are discussed in the Paperwork Reduction 
Act discussion in Section IV of the preamble.

J. Remedial Training Programs

    In Sec.  208(a)(2) of Public Law 111-216, Congress directed the 
Administrator to conduct a rulemaking to require part 121 operators to 
establish remedial training programs for flightcrew members who have 
demonstrated performance deficiencies or experienced failures in the 
training environment. See footnote 2. This statutory requirement for 
rulemaking is consistent with NTSB recommendation A-05-14 and existing 
FAA guidance regarding pilot remedial training.
    The Congressional direction is similar to NTSB recommendation A-05-
14, issued following the Federal Express flight 647 accident in 
Memphis, Tennessee on December 18, 2003. See NTSB/AAR-05/01. The NTSB's 
review of Federal Express's pilot training procedures and oversight at 
the time of the accident revealed that Federal Express's pilot training 
program focused on a pilot's performance on the day of the check with 
little or no review of that pilot's performance on checks months or 
years earlier. In January 2004, as a result of a series of operational 
accidents and incidents, Federal Express implemented an enhanced 
oversight program to identify and track pilots who have demonstrated 
performance deficiencies or failures in the training environment. The 
NTSB's report on the accident concluded that a similar proactive 
program would provide safety benefits for other part 121 operators. 
Accordingly, in recommendation A-05-14, the NTSB recommended that the 
FAA require all part 121 operators to establish programs for flightcrew 
members who demonstrated performance deficiencies or experienced 
failures in the training environment that would require a review of 
their whole performance history at the company and administer 
additional oversight and training to ensure that performance 
deficiencies are addressed and corrected. The NTSB reiterated 
recommendation A-05-14 in the Colgan Air flight 3407 accident report 
(NTSB/AAR-10/01) after the investigation revealed that the pilot 
demonstrated continued weaknesses in basic aircraft control and 
attitude instrument flying during multiple evaluations within a 3-year 
period.
    On October 27, 2006, the agency issued SAFO 06015, ``Remedial 
Training for Part 121 Pilots.'' Consistent with NTSB recommendation A-
05-14, in this SAFO, the agency recommended a process to identify 
pilots with persistent performance deficiencies or who have experienced 
multiple failures in training and checking. The agency explained that 
the process should accomplish three objectives: (1) Review the entire 
performance history of any pilot in question; (2) provide additional 
remedial training as necessary; and (3) provide additional oversight by 
the certificate holder to ensure that performance deficiencies are 
effectively addressed and corrected. Following the Administrator's Call 
to Action to Enhance Airline Safety, in January 2010, the agency 
confirmed that all part 121 operators had implemented remedial training 
consistent with the objectives of SAFO 06015. See FAA Fact Sheet, 
January 27, 2010.
    In the SNPRM, the agency explained that the statutory requirement 
for the development of remedial training programs for flightcrew 
members who have demonstrated performance deficiencies or experienced 
failures in the training environment was included

[[Page 67815]]

as part of the continuous analysis process (CAP) proposed in Sec.  
121.1355. See 76 FR 29336, 29340 (May 20, 2011).
    In the SNPRM, the FAA revised the CAP process to include more 
detailed requirements to ensure that all part 121 operators regularly 
analyze flightcrew member training and checking and that any 
deficiencies in flightcrew member performance or operation of the 
training program are identified and corrected. See 76 FR at 29361. The 
agency further proposed to require part 121 operators to monitor 
flightcrew members who completed remedial training. See 76 FR at 29361.
    Commenters, including the Regional Airline Association (RAA), 
questioned whether the proposed CAP was generally duplicative of 
activities that would be required in accordance with a certificate 
holder's SMS. Specifically, RAA commented that the CAP proposal 
unnecessarily duplicates activities that more appropriately fall within 
the purview of an airline SMS. RAA suggested that, rather than 
maintaining CAP and SMS as ``separate silos'' for analyzing a 
certificate holder's training program, the agency withdraw proposed 
Sec. Sec.  121.1355 (applicable to crewmembers) and 121.1441 
(applicable to aircraft dispatchers) and incorporate the CAP into the 
agency's proposed SMS rule.
    The agency agrees that elements of the proposed CAP were similar to 
the proposed SMS requirements. Accordingly, in the final rule, the 
agency has only retained the pilot-specific remedial training 
components of the proposed CAP that complement the proposed SMS 
requirements. The agency clarifies that the analysis process element of 
the remedial training program requirement may serve as a component of a 
robust SMS.
1. Analysis Process
    Section 121.415(h) of the final rule retains the SNPRM proposal 
that each approved training program must include a process for the 
regular analysis of individual pilot training and checking performance 
to identify pilots with performance deficiencies during training and 
checking or multiple failures during checking. The agency recommends 
that air carriers analyze an individual pilot's performance after 
completion of any qualification curriculum or recurrent training/
checking event. To meet the intent of a regular analysis, the agency 
expects an air carrier to analyze an individual pilot's performance at 
least annually. The agency expects this analysis to include a review of 
the pilot's performance during all training and checking with the air 
carrier to identify performance deficiencies or multiple failures.
2. Remedial Training and Tracking
    The purpose of remedial training and tracking is to ensure that the 
failures or identified performance deficiencies are addressed and 
corrected. Therefore, effective remedial training must be tailored to 
the individual pilot. Possible methods of remedial training include, 
but are not limited to, one-on-one training with an instructor, repeat 
of ground or flight training modules, additional LOFT, or a combination 
of methods. The remedial training requirements in the final rule are 
consistent with the Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training ARC 
recommendations, which called for implementing structured remedial 
training programs, while retaining flexibility for air carriers to 
tailor tracking to the individual pilot.
    Section 121.415(i) of the final rule requires the approved training 
program to include methods for remedial training and tracking \13\ of 
pilots that have been identified during the analysis process required 
under 121.415(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ After further review of the SNPRM, in the final rule 
remedial training requirements, the agency has replaced the term, 
``monitoring'' with the term, ``tracking.'' The agency made this 
substitution because the term ``monitoring'' was inconsistent with 
existing guidance and to avoid confusion with ``pilot monitoring'' 
duties described elsewhere in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  121.1335(b) of the SNPRM, the agency proposed to require 
that the air carrier monitor (identified as tracking in the final rule) 
an individual who has completed remedial training until the individual 
satisfactorily completes the following recurrent training session to 
ensure the crewmember's competent performance during this period. ATA, 
American, USAirways, Continental, FedEx, and Southwest commented that 
the duration of the monitoring (identified as tracking in the final 
rule) of an individual who completed remedial training was unclear.
    After further review of the SNPRM and consideration of the 
comments, the agency has determined that the certificate holder must 
have the flexibility to establish the duration of pilot tracking. Pilot 
tracking is an element of the remedial training process to manage 
pilots with performance deficiencies or multiple failures to ensure 
that the performance deficiencies or failures are effectively 
corrected. The agency expects air carriers to conduct additional 
observation of pilot performance following completion of remedial 
training to determine whether the pilot has mastered the maneuver(s), 
procedure(s) or subject area(s), in which he or she has previously 
demonstrated weakness. Possible methods of tracking include, but are 
not limited to, additional PIC line checks, SIC line checks or 
observations, additional proficiency checks, additional flight 
training, or a combination of these methods. Given the potential range 
of identified areas of weakness, the individual pilot performance 
during remedial training and tracking and the frequency of 
opportunities to continuously demonstrate proficiency in those areas, 
the agency determined that the necessary time frame for tracking these 
pilots' performance will vary. The agency expects certificate holders 
to continue to track a pilot until the performance deficiencies or 
failures are effectively corrected. The agency also expects each 
certificate holder's approved training program to include specific 
indicators used to determine that the pilot has mastered the 
maneuver(s), procedure(s), or subject area(s) in which the pilot has 
previously demonstrated weakness.
    The agency clarifies that tracking is separate from required 
recurrent training and checking. Regardless of any additional training 
or checking that a pilot completes during tracking, recurrent training 
and checking is still required at the intervals specified in part 121. 
A pilot's due month for recurrent training or checking may not be 
changed based on completion of any additional training or checking 
required by the certificate holder's remedial training and tracking 
program.
    The NTSB and Families of Continental Flight 3407 commented that 
once a pilot completes a ``checkride'' there will be no further 
tracking of this individual even if he or she subsequently experiences 
difficulty performing a maneuver, similar to the scenario identified 
during the investigation of the Colgan accident. The requirement for 
additional tracking of pilot performance is not the only opportunity 
for a certificate holder to consider a pilot's overall training and 
checking performance. As previously discussed, the final rule includes 
the requirement for regular analysis of individual pilot training and 
checking performance. If a pilot completes tracking and subsequently 
demonstrates weakness again, this pilot would again be identified 
during the analysis process. Then, this pilot would again be required 
to complete remedial training and tracking in accordance with the 
certificate holder's approved training program.

[[Page 67816]]

    Families of Continental Flight 3407 commented that enhanced 
recordkeeping requirements are necessary for a complete assessment of a 
pilot's performance. The agency believes that existing air carrier 
training and checking recordkeeping practices provide sufficient 
information for operators to successfully implement the remedial 
training program requirements in the final rule. In addition, Sec.  
121.683 requires operators to maintain records to demonstrate pilot 
compliance with the training and qualification requirements of subparts 
N and O.\14\ Records regarding an individual's performance in the 
training or checking environment are of the type that could be used to 
satisfy the requirements of Sec.  121.683(a)(1). Accordingly, these 
records should be currently available for operator use in implementing 
an effective remedial training program including the regular analysis 
of pilot training and checking performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As discussed in section II.B.1. of this preamble, the FAA 
has initiated a rulemaking project (RIN 2120-AK31) to develop a 
pilot records database and phase out the requirements of the PRIA 
found at 49 U.S.C. 44703(h) and will consider the requirements of 
Sec.  121.683 in the pilot records database rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Related Aircraft Differences Training

    Under existing regulations, flightcrew members must complete the 
training, checking, and qualification requirements for each aircraft 
type they operate. In addition, due to differences in instrumentation 
and installed equipment, the skills and knowledge required to operate 
aircraft of the same type may be different. Therefore, crewmembers 
trained on one variant of an aircraft type may require additional 
training to safely and efficiently operate other variants of that 
aircraft type. This additional training is identified in existing 
regulations as differences training.
    The FAA, through Flight Standardization Boards (FSB), provides 
analysis of the differences between the variations of existing aircraft 
types during certification. The analyses are published in a Master 
Differences Requirements (MDR) document in each FSB report. Under 
existing regulations, an operator preparing a training program must 
review the MDR, determine the differences between the variants of the 
aircraft type, and develop a training program, subject to FAA approval, 
that addresses these differences.
    With the rapid advancement in modern technologies, both in 
manufacturing techniques and systems design and application, industry 
now incorporates products and processes that have redefined the 
relationships between and within aircraft types. For example, the 
technological development of flight guidance computers has produced 
``fly-by-wire'' control laws embedded in computer software that 
increasingly determine and control the handling or flight 
characteristics of an aircraft. The use of such technology can produce 
aircraft types of differing models and aerodynamic airframes, with 
similar handling or flight characteristics. In addition, modern 
aircraft systems and displays may allow different type certificated 
aircraft to have common flight deck and systems designs, such that 
minimal differences training may be warranted.
    Given this technological advancement, when requested by industry, 
the FSB will analyze and compare aircraft with different type 
certificates and their associated systems. Through this analysis, the 
FSB may recommend training reduction for identified similarities 
between aircraft types. These recommendations are documented in FSB 
reports for each aircraft and have been used by certificate holders to 
develop training program curriculums.
    In the SNPRM, the agency proposed to extend the differences 
training concept to aircraft with different type certificates. This 
proposal would not change existing requirements pertaining to 
differences training for variants of a single aircraft type.
    To address the relationships among aircraft with different type 
certificates, in the SNPRM, the FAA proposed to add to part 121 a 
definition for ``related aircraft'' for use exclusively in the context 
of flightcrew member training, checking, and qualification. Related 
aircraft refers to two or more aircraft of the same make (with either 
the same or different type certificates) that have been demonstrated 
and determined by the Administrator to have commonality to the extent 
that flightcrew member training, checking, recent experience, operating 
experience, operating cycles, and line operating flight time for 
consolidation of knowledge and skills may be reduced while still 
meeting the training and qualification requirements for service on the 
other aircraft. This definition is consistent with the related aircraft 
definition in AC 120-53A--Guidance for Conducting and Use of Flight 
Standardization Board Evaluations. The agency has provided an update to 
this advisory circular (AC 120-53B) in the docket for this final rule.
    Based on the FAA's experience with evaluating aircraft similarities 
in the training, checking and operations contexts, in Sec.  121.1206 of 
the SNPRM, the FAA proposed to allow certificate holders to seek 
related aircraft designation for aircraft with different type 
certification for use in part 121 training program development. Having 
such a designation would allow certificate holders to take advantage of 
any similarities that may exist between different aircraft types in its 
operation. Certificate holders could develop a related aircraft 
differences training program (inclusive of training and checking), make 
modifications to existing training programs, or seek a deviation from 
the SNPRM's proposed recency, operating experience and consolidation 
requirements.
    In the final rule, the agency has added the proposal for related 
aircraft differences training to Sec.  121.418 and has retained the 
proposed deviation authority with modifications. Further, consistent 
with Sec.  121.1223 of the SNPRM, Sec.  121.441(a)(1)(ii) of the final 
rule requires a PIC to complete a proficiency check in each aircraft 
type in which the PIC is to serve. Compliance with this provision will 
be required 5 years after the effective date of the final rule.
    A certificate holder may seek a deviation to allow credit for 
related aircraft operating experience and consolidation, recency of 
experience and proficiency checking through a deviation request 
submitted in accordance with Sec. Sec.  121.434, 121.439, and 121.441 
respectively.
    Currently, in accordance with Sec.  121.433(d), a PIC who serves on 
more than one aircraft type must complete either recurrent flight 
training or a proficiency check on each aircraft type. To ensure PICs 
operating multiple aircraft types (whether designated as related or not 
designated as related) maintain proficiency on each aircraft type, the 
FAA has carried forward the proposal from the SNPRM to require a 
proficiency check on each aircraft type in which a PIC serves.
    The recurrent frequency for a PIC proficiency check in this final 
rule aligns with the existing recurrent checking frequency of 12 
months. The agency does not believe this requirement results in any 
additional burden or cost to a certificate holder. Section 121.433(d) 
currently requires a PIC to satisfactorily complete either recurrent 
flight training or a proficiency check on each aircraft type in which a 
PIC serves within the preceding 12 calendar months. Therefore, this 
amendment to Sec.  121.441 does not require any additional time in an 
FSTD during flightcrew member recurrent

[[Page 67817]]

training. Additionally, the FAA expects that any training program 
updates needed to reflect this change are minimal and are subsumed in 
the paperwork costs for the collective amendments made to the recurrent 
training provisions.
    However, the final rule does allow a certificate holder to seek a 
deviation from this requirement for aircraft that are designated 
related. In accordance with Sec.  121.441(f), a certificate holder may 
apply for a deviation that would allow reduced frequency and/or reduced 
content of the designated related aircraft proficiency check for PICs. 
Although the final rule does not amend the existing requirements 
applicable to SICs in Sec.  121.441(a)(2), the deviation authority 
added to Sec.  121.441(f) also permits a certificate holder to seek a 
deviation from the proficiency check requirements applicable to SICs 
for designated related aircraft.
    The agency notes that, consistent with current practice, the FAA 
has not established a limit on the number of aircraft types, or 
variants within a type, on which a flightcrew member may be qualified 
to serve provided a flightcrew member is able to demonstrate 
proficiency and complete the training and checking requirements set 
forth in the certificate holder's approved training program.
    Airbus supported the proposal to allow certificate holders to 
modify their pilot training programs based on FSB related aircraft 
designation. However, FedEx, Southwest, Continental, ASTAR, American, 
ATA, and USAirways questioned the necessity for the designation of 
related aircraft because existing FSB reports already define the 
relationship between aircraft. Commenters further asserted that they 
should not be required by regulation to seek approval from the FAA for 
related aircraft designation a second time outside the FSB process.
    The agency clarifies that neither the proposal nor the final rule 
make any substantive changes to the process by which FSB analysis of 
aircraft with the same or different type certificates is currently 
conducted. Currently, part 121 requires differences training for 
variants of aircraft with the same type certification, but it does not 
specifically address a differences training concept for aircraft with 
different type certification. Thus, the agency determined codification 
of the related aircraft policy in AC 120-53A is necessary.
    ASTAR, Continental, American, ATA, USAirways, and Southwest asked 
the agency to clarify the proposed recurrent training requirements for 
flightcrew members qualified on related aircraft that required an 
alternating sequence of flight training and checking for each related 
aircraft type.
    Upon further review of the proposal, the agency has determined that 
the concept currently in place for recurrent differences training and 
recurrent evaluations should apply to training on aircraft designated 
as related. In the final rule, flightcrew member recurrent training 
must include all required ground training, flight training and checking 
and crewmember emergency training on a ``base aircraft.'' For an 
aircraft designated as related to the base aircraft, each flightcrew 
member must be trained or trained and checked on the differences as 
described in the FSB report.
    ATA, USAirways, FedEx, Continental, ASTAR, Southwest, and American 
expressed confusion regarding the use of the term ``classification of 
related aircraft'' as proposed in the SNPRM provision that would allow 
part 121 operators to seek deviations from operating experience, 
consolidation, and recent experience requirements. These commenters 
also stated that there is no clear guidance on acceptable reasons for 
the agency to authorize a deviation from operating experience, 
consolidation and recent experience based on related aircraft 
designation.
    In response to commenters' concerns regarding the term 
``classification of related aircraft,'' the agency has amended the 
final rule deviation language to refer to ``designation of related 
aircraft'' for clarity and consistency. Regarding commenters' concerns 
about the basis for authorizing deviations from operating experience, 
consolidation and recent experience, the agency will evaluate a 
deviation request based on the recommendations in the FSB report. 
Additionally, the agency notes that under existing requirements and in 
the final rule, separate operating experience, operating cycles, and 
line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and skills 
are not required for variations within the same type airplane. See 14 
CFR 121.434(a).
    ATA, USAirways, FedEx, Continental, ASTAR, Southwest, and American 
noted that the deviations are now required to be approved by the FAA 
Director of Flight Standards. These commenters suggest that the 
deviation authority should remain at the principal operations inspector 
(POI) level, asserting that a POI who is familiar with the airline's 
operation, experience levels, and training programs is critical to 
making a well-founded decision regarding a deviation.
    The agency generally agrees with commenters that POIs are the most 
familiar with the operation, experience levels and training programs of 
the certificate holder they oversee. However, upon further review of 
the proposal, the agency has determined that it is more appropriate to 
address the Administrator's delegation of authority for specific 
functions associated with related aircraft designations and deviations 
in guidance material. Accordingly, the final rule reflects this change.
    The agency emphasizes that the related aircraft provisions do not 
create a requirement for an operator to seek designation of related 
aircraft. A part 121 operator's determination whether to pursue a 
related aircraft designation or develop related aircraft differences 
training is voluntary. The alternative to related aircraft differences 
training is for the part 121 operator to develop comprehensive training 
programs for any new aircraft type as is currently required.

L. Extended Envelope Flight Training

    Currently, the agency does not require ground or flight training on 
recovery from aerodynamic (full) stall or upset conditions. In Sec.  
208 of Public Law 111-216, enacted August 1, 2010, Congress directed 
the FAA to require part 121 operators to provide flightcrew members 
with ground and flight training on the recognition and avoidance of 
stalls and upsets as well as full stall and upset recovery maneuvers. 
Public Law 111-216 also directed the agency to implement the 
recommendations of the expert panel convened to report on methods to 
increase flightcrew member familiarity with and response to stick 
pusher systems and adverse weather events.
    Public Law 111-216 followed the Colgan accident in which the flight 
crew incorrectly responded to both a stall warning and a stick pusher 
activation resulting in an aerodynamic stall. Additional improper 
response to the stalled condition precipitated an upset condition from 
which the flight crew did not recover, resulting in the death of 
everyone on board as well as one person on the ground and a 
catastrophic loss of the aircraft.
    In the SNPRM, the agency proposed to require flightcrew members to 
receive flight training on upset recognition and recovery, as well as 
recovery from full stall and stick pusher activations. The SNPRM also 
proposed to require pilot ground training on recognition and recovery 
from stall and upset.
    As required by Public Law 111-216, the final rule includes stall 
and upset

[[Page 67818]]

ground and flight training. Consistent with Public Law 111-216 and the 
208 ARC recommendations, the agency has determined that the greatest 
safety benefit can be achieved by adjusting the focus of the training 
requirements to ``avoid'' or prevent the upset or stall. Accordingly, 
the final rule promotes pilot manual handling skill development to 
prevent stall and upsets, coupled with training which allows pilots to 
quickly recover from developed stalls and upsets. The final rule also 
includes the proposed requirement for flight training on recovery from 
bounced landings.
    In the final rule, the agency identifies the stall and upset 
prevention and recovery maneuvers and procedures as ``extended envelope 
training.'' The term ``extended envelope training'' refers to maneuvers 
and procedures conducted in a FSTD that may extend beyond the limits 
where typical FSTD performance and handling qualities have been 
validated with heavy reliance on flight data to represent the actual 
aircraft. In instances when obtaining such flight data is hazardous or 
impractical, engineering predictive methods and subject-matter-expert 
assessment are used to represent the aircraft adequately in the 
simulator.
    The final rule extended envelope flight training maneuvers and 
procedures are required in qualification curriculums as proposed in the 
SNPRM, as well as in recurrent curriculums. The time required to 
complete the extended envelope training is in addition to existing 
programmed hour requirements for inflight training.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The programmed hours identified in Sec.  121.424 refer to 
``inflight'' training. As defined in 121.401, ``inflight'' refers to 
maneuvers, procedures or functions that must be conducted in the 
airplane. Extended envelope training does not fall within this 
definition because this training must be completed in a FFS. 
Therefore, the pilot inflight training programmed hours have not 
been amended to account for the additional time required for these 
new training requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SNPRM, the agency proposed to require all pilots in part 121 
operations to complete recurrent training for the extended envelope 
flight training tasks at either 9 month or 36 month intervals. The 
agency also proposed to require all pilots to complete recurrent 
training or evaluation on approach to stall in at least one 
configuration (clean, takeoff or maneuvering, or landing) every 9 
months. A number of commenters raised concern generally regarding the 
totality of required recurrent training proposed in the SNPRM. However, 
commenters did not provide specific objections to the proposed training 
or evaluation frequency for approach to stall or the extended envelope 
flight training tasks.
    In the final rule, the agency replaces the term ``approach to 
stall'' with ``stall prevention training.'' \16\ This change does not 
alter the substantive requirements of existing approach to stall 
training. The FAA has adopted this terminology change in concert with 
ICAO and as a result of the FAA/ICAO/EASA joint initiative to study the 
contributing factors of loss of control inflight, internationally 
recognized as the LOCART initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The agency considers stall prevention training and approach 
to stall training as synonymous. As such, the FAA is not requiring 
certificate holders to adopt this new nomenclature in any 
documentation. However, the FAA will revise AC 120-109 and make 
other conforming changes to adopt this terminology in future 
rulemakings and guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has determined that the term ``stall prevention training'' 
more accurately describes the training objective intended by the 
existing ``approach to stall'' maneuvers. This terminology change also 
draws a clearer distinction from the full stall recovery training 
introduced in this final rule. As described in AC 120-109, pilots 
should continue to be trained that the primary response at the first 
indication of a stall is to reduce the angle of attack.
    The recurrent frequency for stall prevention (approach to stall) 
training and evaluation and the extended envelope maneuvers training in 
this final rule aligns with the existing recurrent training and 
evaluation frequency of 6 months for PICs and 12 months for SICs. The 
extended envelope maneuvers training focuses on manual handling skills 
for proper response to development of slow flight, stall prevention and 
loss of reliable airspeed. Accordingly, in the final rule, the agency 
has increased the frequency for these manual handling maneuvers from 
the proposed rule and decreased the frequency of recurrent training 
proposed for stall and upset recovery from the proposed rule to target 
resources to the areas in which the greatest safety benefit can be 
achieved. As a result, and in order to encourage a cohesive training 
approach, the agency has determined that every 24 months, upset and 
stall recovery should be trained together with the manual handling 
skill development. The agency further notes that this frequency is 
consistent with the 208 ARC recommendation that upset recovery should 
be trained no less frequently than every 36 months.
    Additionally, in furtherance of stall prevention, the agency 
ensures that the existing requirement to train or evaluate approach to 
stall every 12 months is maintained even if a part 121 operator 
substitutes line-oriented simulator training or LOFT for alternating 
SIC recurrent training. Training and checking on stall prevention 
(approach to stall) provides the greatest benefit in that proficiency 
in this area provides the highest likelihood that the pilot will be 
able to avoid the onset of stall or upset.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The agency notes that currently, line-oriented simulator 
training (also referred to as line oriented flight training or LOFT) 
may be substituted for alternating SIC recurrent training which may 
exclude stall prevention (approach to stall) training. See 
Sec. Sec.  121.409 and 121.441. For this reason, the final rule 
ensures that stall prevention training must be conducted every 12 
months even if a part 121 training program substitutes LOFT for 
alternating SIC recurrent training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, in the final rule, the agency is furthering the training 
concepts developed in the Pilot Certification rule. The requirements in 
both this final rule and the Pilot Certification rule use academic 
training to develop foundational knowledge and then consolidate that 
knowledge with FSTD training and experience. Together, these final 
rules require certificate holders to effectively provide a building 
block approach to learning for pilots. Developing the broad concepts of 
aerodynamics in the ATP CTP to the type specific aerodynamic concepts 
now required in an air carrier's training program, serves as an 
effective method to deliver the training mandated by Public Law 111-216 
and recommended by the 208 ARC.
    Enhanced academic knowledge, emphasis on prevention training, and 
the recommended recovery techniques developed by the Original Equipment 
Manufacturer (OEM) constitute a complete training solution. The agency 
expects that if this solution is properly delivered, it will have a 
significant effect on the LOC-I statistics.
1. Upset Prevention and Recovery
    Existing regulations do not specifically require pilots to receive 
flight training on upset prevention and recovery. The Colgan Air flight 
3407 and American Airlines flight 587 accidents reinforced the need for 
this training because each involved sudden or unexpected aircraft 
upset.
    In the NPRM, the agency proposed to require flight training for 
upset recognition and recovery during every qualification curriculum 
and during recurrent training. In the SNPRM, the agency added a 
requirement for pilots to be evaluated on this task.
    Upset prevention: The greatest safety benefit can be achieved if an 
upset condition is prevented through proper pilot intervention. 
Although the agency

[[Page 67819]]

supports training pilots on recovery skills for a developed upset, the 
probability of recovery from the upset condition decreases with the 
magnitude of the divergence from the desired flight path. Accordingly, 
the final rule extended envelope flight training includes both training 
on manual handling skills to enhance a pilot's ability to prevent 
upset, as well as training to recover from an upset condition. Each of 
these concepts is derived from recommendations received from the 208 
ARC.
    The purpose of requiring manual handling skills is to ensure 
correct pilot control inputs to avoid undesired flightpath deviations. 
Manual handling skills are essential to the prevention of stall and 
upset because they allow a pilot to master the aircraft's flight path 
without the use of total automation. Development and maintenance of 
these skills are necessary to keep pilots engaged in the operation of 
the aircraft and more easily allow them to become re-engaged if an 
abnormal problem arises which prohibits automation or typical flight 
path guidance. Thus, the final rule maintains the SNPRM proposal to 
require, as part of the extended envelope flight training, manual 
handling training throughout all phases of flight to better develop a 
pilot's core manual handling skills and consolidate the principles of 
airplane energy management.
    Pilots must know the common errors to avoid and why they occur, as 
well as the importance of cross-checking and verifying inputs and 
communication and coordination between pilots. It is also critical for 
pilots to know how the airplane responds to inputs across all flight 
regimes (e.g., high and low altitudes, airspeeds, and energy states).
    Accordingly, the training requirements in the final rule include 
manually flown arrival and departure, slow flight, and flight with loss 
of reliable airspeed. The agency expects that training on these 
maneuvers and procedures will provide pilots with the manual handling 
skills necessary to prevent undesired flight path divergence.
    Manually controlled arrival and departure: In the SNPRM, the agency 
proposed to require pilots to complete training on manually controlled 
departure and arrival. The agency did not receive any comments on the 
proposal to train these maneuvers.
    Existing appendices E and F of part 121 currently require area 
departure and area arrival for both training and checking, but these 
maneuvers need not be performed manually. Modern aircraft are commonly 
operated using autoflight systems (e.g., autopilot or autothrottle/
autothrust). Autoflight systems are useful tools for pilots and have 
improved safety and workload management, and thus enabled more precise 
operations. However, continuous use of autoflight systems could lead to 
degradation of the pilot's ability to quickly recover the aircraft from 
an undesired state. Therefore, the agency has retained the provisions 
regarding manually controlled arrival and departure in the final rule.
    Slow flight: In the SNPRM, the agency proposed to require ``slow 
flight'' training during qualification and recurrent training to 
provide pilots with an understanding of the performance of the airplane 
and ``hands-on'' exposure to the way the airplane handles at airspeeds 
that are just above the stall warning. Similarly, the 208 ARC 
recommended slow flight as a task which can develop a pilot's manual 
handling skill.
    ALPA and an individual supported the proposed addition of slow 
flight to pilot training curriculums. However, ALPA expressed concern 
regarding the target speeds specified for slow flight in the draft 
advisory circular published with the SNPRM (AC 120-FCMT), which are set 
as those between the onset of stall warning and aerodynamic stall. ALPA 
believes that the airspeed for slow flight should be established by the 
manufacturer (such as Vref) and be near the onset of stall warning 
indication, but fast enough that stall warnings would rarely, if ever, 
be activated. ALPA further states that requiring slow flight practice 
at speeds that require pilots to continuously fly while ignoring 
impending stall indications would result in negative training and could 
cause pilots to become desensitized by the approach to stall warnings.
    The FAA agrees that encountering continuous stall warnings during 
slow flight practice without initiating an immediate stall recovery 
procedure would result in negative training. The target speed for slow 
flight must be below the speeds that are normal and appropriate for the 
various configurations, but targeted to avoid stall warning devices. 
Further, the FAA concurs with the use of Vref for the configuration 
which should allow for the necessary experience in low speed/low energy 
handling characteristics with sufficient margins to avoid stall 
warning/stall onset with proper airspeed control. The agency will 
revise draft guidance contained in AC 120-FCMT on slow flight 
accordingly.
    Loss of reliable airspeed: Finally, practice and experience with 
the recognition of and appropriate response to a system malfunction 
that results in loss of reliable airspeed is essential to minimizing 
the risk of stall and upset. Failure or erroneous display of critical 
flight information, such as airspeed, can lead to an upset if loss of 
energy is not quickly recognized and aircraft control is not 
maintained. As such, loss of reliable airspeed has been included in the 
final rule extended envelope training requirements.
    The training of an airspeed indication system malfunction is 
critical for a pilot's understanding of type specific failure modes. 
Additionally, cascading failure of other dependent systems provides a 
training environment, which allows a pilot to practice manually 
handling an aircraft with varying degrees of automation and 
capabilities that may be present during upset. In many instances, the 
loss of reliable airspeed results in an aircraft which must be flown 
primarily by relying on pitch and power. Further, these maneuvers 
require an understanding of the aerodynamic qualities of large 
transport category aircraft. Therefore, this training requirement 
covers a broad spectrum of conditions that could be encountered during 
the period in which the upset could be prevented as well as during 
recovery. The training is also consistent with 208 ARC recommendations 
regarding pilot awareness of how system malfunctions affect their 
specific aircraft and the recommendation to provide more manual 
handling skill training with emphasis on the aircraft's pitch and power 
relationship.
    Checking extended envelope flight training maneuvers: In the SNPRM, 
the agency proposed to require evaluation of two components of the 
extended envelope training--recovery from full stall and upset. Atlas 
Air recommended against any evaluation of upset recovery or any other 
maneuvers and procedures in this area. This commenter stated that the 
requirement to evaluate upset recognition and recovery skills will not 
improve pilot response and will likely have a negative unintended 
consequence that will far outweigh any perceived benefit of evaluating 
the maneuver.
    Upon further review of the proposal and comments, the agency has 
removed the requirement to evaluate upset recovery from the final rule 
because the agency agrees that a successful recovery is somewhat 
difficult to quantify due to the multitude of variables involved. This 
final rule increases the academic knowledge of pilots, requires 
increased instructor training to deliver these concepts, develops 
pilot's manual handling skills which aid in upset

[[Page 67820]]

prevention, and trains the pilots in proper recovery techniques. 
Achieving the learning objective defined in the recovery maneuvers is 
paramount.
    Evaluation and approval of upset training programs: Commenters also 
raised concerns regarding upset training. APS recommended that the FAA 
produce guidance for the evaluation and approval of programs of 
instruction in upset recognition and recovery that includes 
stipulations for appropriate content, methodology, and delivery of 
training.
    The FAA concurs with the commenter's recommendation and will 
provide operators and training providers with sufficient and 
comprehensive guidance on the academic content, validated maneuvers, 
and appropriate cautions for the delivery of upset prevention and 
recovery training. In developing guidance, the agency has considered 
the recommendations of the 208 ARC on many aspects of training upset 
prevention and recovery in FSTD, including the scope and objective of 
conducting this training in an FSTD; the training device requirements; 
the instructor requirements; the academic training elements required 
before beginning upset prevention and recovery training in an FSTD; the 
flight training elements required including slow flight and manual 
handling training; and, the completion criteria for upset prevention 
and recovery training in an FSTD. In making its recommendations, the 
208 ARC considered information provided by experts on LOC-I causal 
factors and reviewed previous guidance such as the Airplane Upset 
Recovery Training Aid (AURTA) produced by Airbus/Boeing and endorsed by 
the Flight Safety Foundation. The FAA has included e a copy of the ARC 
recommendations in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Data and qualification of FSTDs: FlightSafety commented that most 
data packages do not contain the information and data necessary to 
model a FFS to accomplish the required upset recognition and recovery 
training. FlightSafety further commented that a mandate to train a 
recovery technique to use for a specific aircraft type without OEM data 
and/or FAA approved procedures would not improve training or safety. 
APS raised the same concern based in part on the expectation that 
extreme pitch and roll angles would necessarily be part of upset 
recognition and recovery training.
    The FAA shares the commenter's concerns on the use of validated 
aircraft data and addresses this concern later in this section of the 
preamble. However, the agency disagrees with the assertion that upset 
recovery training must contain extreme pitch and roll angles. The FAA 
sought recommendations on this issue from the 208 ARC. The 208 ARC 
reviewed the work completed by such groups as the developers of the 
AURTA, the Industry/FAA Stall Work Group, and the International 
Committee for Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes (ICATEE). The 208 
ARC validated much of the previous work done by each of these groups 
and used the AURTA Revision 2 \18\ and the FAA AC 120-109 \19\ as the 
basis of their recommendations. The ARC recommended the FAA use these 
two documents as source documents for the development of advisory 
material for upset prevention and recovery training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/training/media/AP_UpsetRecovery_Book.pdf
    \19\ http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-109.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, an airplane OEM group was also established within the 208 
ARC to develop recommended standard OEM guidance for the recovery from 
nose-high/nose-low upsets. Airbus, ATR, Boeing, Bombardier, and Embraer 
developed the upset prevention and recovery template contained in the 
advisory material published with this final rule.
    The FAA is satisfied the upset recovery techniques developed in 
conjunction with this final rule are appropriate. Each maneuver and 
associated recovery was developed by OEMs and has been validated to 
remain in both the data and motion limitations of a Level C or Level D 
FFS if conducted properly. The FAA also stresses that the increased 
instructor and check airmen training will allow instructors and check 
airmen to recognize any excursions outside of the data or motion 
capabilities of the device and debrief pilots on any such event.
    Expand ``Upset'' definition: Calspan recommends the following 
expanded definition of upset: ``An aircraft upset is further defined as 
an airplane unintentionally exceeding the parameters normally 
experienced in line operations or an event that alters the normal 
response of the airplane to pilot input such that the pilot must adopt 
an alternate control strategy to sustain or regain controlled flight.''
    Calspan commented that the definition of upset used in the NPRM 
does not capture how the precipitating event may impact the pilot's 
ability to control the aircraft. A number of accidents have occurred 
where a control failure or disturbance significantly altered the normal 
response of the airplane to pilot input such that conventional control 
strategies proved to be inadequate. Calspan further commented that the 
NPRM cited numerous NTSB recommendations developed from accidents that 
resulted in extreme upset conditions precipitated by an underlying 
control system issue. Calspan stated that these accidents were in fact 
controllable had the crew executed proper alternate control responses, 
but without upset recovery training they did not possess the knowledge 
and skill necessary to safely recover.
    The FAA agrees that alternate control strategies are a component of 
a well-developed upset prevention and recovery training program. In 
guidance material developed for upset prevention and recovery, the 
agency will discuss the advantages and cautions for using alternate 
control strategies when primary control responses are not effective. 
However, the FAA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that most 
cited upset accidents were a result of control system issues. In the 
most recent accidents such as Colgan Air flight 3407, American Airlines 
flight 587 and USAir flight 427, the NTSB identified improper pilot 
response as a contributing factor.
    Further, the FAA is not persuaded that the description of upset 
should be changed as recommended by the commenter. The agency continues 
to recognize the description of upset proposed in the NPRM. This 
description is also consistent with the AURTA and the 208 ARC 
recommendations.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ In the NPRM Upset Recognition and Recovery is described as 
follows:
    6.5 Task: Upset Recognition and Recovery
    (d) Reference the most current version of the Industry's 
Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid. An aircraft upset is almost 
universally described as exceeding one or more of the following:
    (1) Pitch attitude greater than 25[deg] nose up.
    (2) Pitch attitude greater than 10[deg] nose down.
    (3) Bank angle greater than 45[deg]or within these parameters, 
but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Stall Prevention and Recovery
    In the SNPRM, the agency proposed to require pilots to train on 
recovery from full stall. Further, the agency proposed to require that, 
for pilots operating aircraft equipped with stick-pusher, stall 
recovery training must be completed by going through stick pusher 
release. Although the agency did not receive any comments objecting to 
the proposed requirement to train recovery from full stall in general, 
the agency did receive a number of technical comments regarding this 
proposed flight training. For example, ALPA commented that ICATEE has

[[Page 67821]]

concluded that there is a need and a benefit for training pilots to the 
full aerodynamic stall because aircraft behavior in a full aerodynamic 
stall is very different from the aircraft behavior in an approach to 
stall condition. However, ALPA cautioned that the ICATEE recommendation 
for full-stall training should be put into place only if the 
aerodynamic model of the aircraft in the FFS is representative of a 
full aerodynamic stall in flight; the instructor pilot is given 
enhanced training in upset recovery training; and the FFS has feedback 
capability to assist the instructor and pilots in ensuring the stall 
training is conducted and evaluated properly. The agency agrees with 
ALPA's comments and addresses these comments throughout the preamble. 
The separate part 60 rulemaking initiative previously noted is also 
responsive to the issues raised by ALPA.
    One recovery procedure: ALPA commented that the FAA-Industry Stall/
Stick Pusher Work Group concluded that successful recovery from an 
impending stall and a full aerodynamic stall, require the same 
procedure. ALPA supports an approach in which pilots are trained to 
treat an ``approach to stall'' the same way as a ``full stall.'' 
Further, ALPA commented that this would simplify pilot recognition and 
response to an impending stall and allows for a single pilot 
conditioned response (i.e., one recovery procedure) to both approach to 
stall warning and full aerodynamic stall.
    The agency agrees with the comments regarding one procedure for 
recovery from an impending stall and full aerodynamic stall. In AC 120-
109, Stall and Stick Pusher Training, the agency stresses that pilot 
training should emphasize treating an ``approach to stall'' the same as 
a ``full stall.'' This common recovery procedure is also consistent 
with the recommendations from the 208 ARC for stall prevention and 
recovery.
    Stall training methods and evaluation: FlightSafety commented that, 
in practice, a pilot should initiate a stall recovery at the first 
indication of a stall or at least at the stick shaker warning. However, 
in the SNPRM, the agency proposed to require stick pusher training that 
would give a pilot the experience of allowing an aircraft to go through 
early warning signs of stall, including stick shaker, so that they 
experience stick pusher. Thus, FlightSafety believes the requirement as 
proposed will not enhance safety. Further, FlightSafety recommends 
conducting stick pusher recovery as a demonstration, with training 
emphasis placed on recovery well before stick pusher activation.
    Similarly, while ALPA agrees with industry experts that full-
aerodynamic stall training and recovery should be demonstrated as a 
``train to proficiency maneuver,'' ALPA states that full-aerodynamic 
stall should not be an evaluated item. ALPA states that only stall 
recoveries initiated at the first sign of the stall should be 
evaluated. ALPA recommends that the final rule incorporate the 
recommendations from the FAA-Industry Stall/Stick Pusher Work Group by 
maintaining the training requirement as a demonstration maneuver but 
removing the requirement to evaluate full stalls and stalls to stick 
pusher activation.
    The FAA agrees with the FlightSafety and ALPA comments regarding 
evaluation and traditional training methods for recovery from full 
stall and stick pusher release. As discussed earlier, given that 
recovery procedures for approach to stall and full stall are the same, 
to avoid the potential for negative training that might occur by having 
pilots avoid early warning signs of stall, the FAA is not requiring 
evaluation of recovery from full stall.
    In Sec.  121.423, added to subpart N by this final rule, the agency 
has revised the recovery from full stall and stick pusher activation 
tasks. In the final rule, recovery from full stall and stick pusher 
activation are instructor-guided hands-on experience tasks only. This 
training will emphasize the recovery by the pilot incorporating the 
same angle of attack (AOA) principles from the stall prevention 
(approach to stall) training. Accordingly, in the final rule, neither 
full stall nor stick pusher is evaluated during a proficiency check.
    Further, just as with upset training, the FAA has focused training 
on maneuvers that develop a flightcrew member's skill of preventing 
stalls. The FAA will continue to emphasize training and checking of 
prompt recovery at the first indication of a stall. Approaches to 
stalls (stall prevention training) are critical maneuvers which gauge a 
pilot's understanding and early response to stall indications including 
stall warning; as such the final rule maintains existing requirements 
for evaluation of this task.
    High altitude approach to stall maneuver: ALPA recommends splitting 
the proposed requirement to complete training on stalls in a ``clean 
configuration'' into two separate tasks: one for high altitude and one 
for low altitude because high altitude stalls have unique issues that 
should be separately trained. Although the FAA agrees with the comment 
regarding differences between high altitude stalls and low altitude 
stalls, in the final rule, the agency continues to require recovery 
from approach to stall as it exists in current appendices E and F 
(i.e., requiring training in at least takeoff, clean and landing 
configuration). The agency does not specify the scenarios for stall 
prevention (approach to stall) in order to provide part 121 operators 
with the flexibility needed to develop a training methodology most 
appropriate for their operation.
    However, in AC 120-109, the FAA recommends that air carriers 
incorporate high altitude stall prevention training into their training 
programs. This AC also recommends training on the differences between 
low altitude and high altitude stall prevention and appendix 2 of the 
AC includes a sample training scenario of a clean configuration high 
altitude approach to stall.
    Manufacturer stall recovery procedures: ALPA notes that the SNPRM 
did not consider that manufacturers are developing and publishing stall 
recovery procedures for each specific aircraft. ALPA recommends that 
the final rule and stall recovery guidance recognize this development 
by including language to ensure that the pilot correctly executes the 
manufacturer-recommended stall recovery procedure in the Flightcrew 
Operating Manual (FCOM) and returns the aircraft to a safe flying 
condition. The agency agrees with ALPA and in AC 120-109 emphasizes 
that the manufacturer's recommended stall recovery procedure takes 
precedence over the generic recovery template.
    Recovery and training criteria: ALPA commented that stall recovery 
training and evaluation criteria should not mandate a predetermined 
altitude or emphasize a ``minimum loss of altitude.'' Similarly, Atlas 
Air stated that it has difficulty with overemphasis on ``minimizing 
altitude loss'' for approach to stall training.
    In response to commenters' concerns regarding stall recovery 
training and evaluation criteria, the agency notes that it has recently 
issued a number of information and guidance documents to assist air 
carriers with properly and consistently evaluating pilots' recovery 
from approach to stall. The agency initially issued SAFO 10012, 
Possible Misinterpretation of the Practical Test Standards (PTS) 
Language ``Minimal Loss of Altitude,'' to clarify the intent of the 
requirement for ``minimal loss of altitude'' during evaluation of 
recovery from approach to stalls. Then, in August 2012, the agency 
published AC 120-109, Stall and Stick Pusher Training,

[[Page 67822]]

emphasizing that the primary goal of testing or checking recovery from 
approach to stall is to evaluate a pilot's immediate recognition and 
response, which should be an immediate reduction of AOA. Additionally, 
the agency has revised the approach to stall evaluation criteria in the 
ATP PTS. The ATP PTS revision eliminates the language referring to 
``minimum loss of altitude,'' emphasizes reduction of AOA over 
maintaining altitude, and also recommends that one of the three 
required approach to stalls should be accomplished while the autopilot 
is engaged.
3. Recovery From Bounced Landing
    In the SNPRM, the agency proposed to add training on recovery from 
bounced landing to initial and transition curriculums. The agency also 
proposed to require that pilots complete recovery from bounced landing 
in recurrent training. The agency determined that the appropriate 
recurrent training interval for this task was 36 months based on the 
agency's balancing of the potential risk with the frequency of such an 
event.
    The FAA determined that training on recovery from bounced landing 
is necessary based on FAA review of accident history including FedEx 
flight 859. On September 14, 2004, a Boeing McDonnell Douglas MD-11F 
operating as FedEx flight 859 experienced a tail strike during a go-
around maneuver from Memphis International Airport. Neither of the two 
flightcrew members was injured. In its investigation of this accident, 
the NTSB found the probable cause was the pilot's over-rotation during 
a go-around maneuver initiated because of a bounced landing. See NTSB 
Event ID DCA04MA082.
    Upon further review of the accident history related to bounced 
landings, and comments submitted by the NTSB, the agency agrees with 
the NTSB that the bounced landing proposal is responsive to NTSB 
recommendation A-05-30 issued following the American Eagle flight 5401 
accident in San Juan, Puerto Rico. On May 9, 2004, American Eagle 
flight 5401 skipped on initial contact with the runway. Then, after the 
initial touchdown, the PIC took control of the airplane. Flight data 
recorder (FDR) data indicated that after taking control, the PIC made 
several abrupt changes in pitch and power, which led to two bounces 
before the airplane crashed at Luis Mu[ntilde]oz Marin International 
Airport. The PIC was seriously injured; the SIC, 2 flight attendants, 
and 16 of the 22 passengers received minor injuries. The NTSB concluded 
that company guidance on bounced landing recovery techniques would have 
increased the possibility that the PIC could have recovered from the 
bounced landings or handled the airplane more appropriately by 
executing a go-around. The NTSB recommended that the FAA take action to 
require all part 121 and part 135 operators to incorporate bounced 
landing recovery techniques in their flight manuals and to teach these 
techniques during initial and recurrent training.
    On June 9, 2006, the FAA issued SAFO 06005, Bounced Landing 
Training for certificate holders operating under Title 14 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 121 and 135. This SAFO recommends 
that each part 121 or 135 operator check to see that bounced landing 
recovery techniques are included in the manuals used by their pilots 
and in their initial ground training for each of the airplane types 
that the operator flies. The SAFO also recommends that those same 
techniques are reinforced by briefings and debriefings during flight 
training, supervised operating experience, and line checks. The SAFO 
includes instructions on how to develop bounced landing recovery 
techniques if not already addressed by the operator.
    In 2009, the FAA enlisted the assistance of the ATA and the RAA to 
poll part 121 and 135 member carriers to find out if they incorporated 
recovery from bounced landing into their training program as SAFO 06005 
suggests. Both organizations reported 100 percent implementation of the 
SAFO's recommendations.
    The final rule requirements for flight training in an FFS on 
recovery from bounced landing supplements the ground training 
recommended by SAFO 06005. The agency has included the proposal for 
bounced landing training in the final rule subject to the modification 
described in the following discussion. In the final rule, the FAA has 
determined that recovery from bounced landing must be trained during 
all qualification training curriculums, including upgrade. The agency 
notes that any maneuver or procedure that is trained in recurrent must 
be covered in the pilot's qualification training because the pilot's 
base month for recurrent is reset upon the completion of the 
qualification curriculum. If an upgrade curriculum does not also 
include all maneuvers and procedures required by the recurrent 
curriculum, then the recurrent interval for a maneuver or procedure may 
be extended.
    FlightSafety questioned how training would be developed for an 
aircraft that does not have written procedures for recovery from 
bounced landings and whether the FAA developed a training tool and 
syllabus for simulator training. FlightSafety further commented that if 
the agency has developed a training tool and syllabus for simulator 
training, it would question the data that forms the basis for the tool.
    In the draft Flightcrew Member AC (AC 120-FCMT) published for 
comment with the SNPRM, the agency developed generic procedures and 
performance expectations for recovery from a bounced landing, including 
techniques for avoiding overcontrol and premature derotation during 
bounced landings. These procedures were based on a review of the 
accidents and extensive FAA and industry experience with these 
accidents and incidents. However, the FAA expects that the 
recommendations of the aircraft OEM to take precedence regarding 
procedures that may differ from any published FAA guidance.
4. Use of Full Flight Simulators for Extended Envelope Flight Training
    Currently, air carriers may voluntarily use simulators for varying 
amounts of the training and checking required by subparts N and O. The 
agency requires an airplane simulator for windshear training only. See 
Sec.  121.409(d). However, the FAA has long recognized that the use of 
simulation in flight training provides an opportunity to train, 
practice, and demonstrate proficiency in a safe, controlled 
environment.
    In the SNPRM, the agency proposed to require all flight training 
and evaluation to be completed in an FSTD. This requirement included a 
range of FSTDs from Level 4 flight training devices (FTDs) through 
Level D FFSs depending on the maneuver or procedure. For the extended 
envelope maneuvers and procedures, the agency proposed to allow the use 
of FFSs ranging from Level A to Level D.
    For certain maneuvers required in part 121 pilot training, such as 
the maneuvers included in the extended envelope training requirements, 
motion provides cues that may affect pilot control strategies and 
subsequently, vehicle performance. Motion serves as an essential 
element of a task when, in order to complete the task, the flightcrew 
member must make continual adjustments based on any number of sensory 
inputs. Accordingly, for those training tasks where motion is critical 
to achieving the training objective, such as ``recovery from stall,'' 
an FFS is essential to successful training outcomes.
    Although commenters generally supported the agency's proposal to 
require FSTDs for all flight training and

[[Page 67823]]

evaluation, some air carriers such as Continental, United, and JetBlue 
were generally critical of the agency's reliance on FFSs, noting that 
effective training programs currently in place use a combination of 
FFSs and FTDs to deliver training. Other commenters such as the 
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) 
and the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), ALPA, and APS stated 
that only the highest levels of FSTDs should be used to deliver 
training citing concerns including the risk for negative training. APS 
commented specifically that operators should be required to use the 
highest level of device available to train upset recognition and 
recovery because, considering the high consequence nature of aircraft 
upset events, every effort should be made to provide pilots with the 
greatest fidelity possible in order to learn the skills necessary for 
prevention and recovery from a LOC-I situation.
    The agency has not included the proposal to require all flightcrew 
member training to be completed in an FSTD although currently, most 
operators use FSTDs in pilot training programs. The final rule does, 
however, require the extended envelope training required in Sec.  
121.423 to be completed in a FFS. The agency addresses the APS comments 
regarding the use of the highest level of device available for training 
upset events in the discussion on the requirement for Level C FFSs.
    Level C FFS: In the final rule, the agency continues to require the 
extended envelope flight training maneuvers and procedures to be 
completed in an FFS. However, the final rule requires a minimum of a 
Level C FFS because these devices provide the highest level of 
aerodynamic modeling, visual fidelity and motion cueing to replicate 
the aircraft for motion based pilot training. The requirement to use a 
Level C or higher FFS is consistent with current appendix H 
requirements for Advanced Simulation Programs that do not permit Level 
B devices except in limited circumstances. Further, the 3-degree-of-
freedom motion cues provided by Level A and B devices do not provide 
the level of fidelity required to meet the training objectives of the 
extended envelope flight training maneuvers and procedures as compared 
to the 6-degree-of-freedom requirements for Level C and higher devices.
    In response to comments suggesting that the highest level of device 
is required for training in a simulated environment, the FAA has 
determined that the current distinction in capabilities between a Level 
C and Level D FFS is negligible for the extended envelope training 
included in this final rule. The primary difference that exists today 
between a Level C and a Level D FFS is the evaluation of vibration and 
sound. Level D evaluation involves objective criteria while Level C 
evaluation of vibration and sound is subjective.
    Deviation Authority: Although the final rule applies the 
requirement to train in an FFS to a limited number of tasks, the agency 
has considered comments on the FSTD deviation authority proposed in the 
SNPRM as they relate to the final rule requirements. In the SNPRM, the 
agency proposed a means by which certificate holders could seek a 
deviation from the requirements to complete all flight training in an 
FSTD. The proposed deviation authority contemplated the use of an 
aircraft as an alternate training platform.
    ASTAR commented on the SNPRM deviation authority, stating that the 
FSTD requirements in the SNPRM did not recognize that some operators 
fly older aircraft for which the level of simulator required exists in 
limited numbers or does not exist at all. The National Air Carrier 
Association, Atlas Air, and six individuals commented on deviation 
authority generally, opposing a deviation authority that allows 
training in lower level devices than those specified for each flight 
training task in the SNPRM.
    The agency agrees that the challenges identified by ASTAR may arise 
with respect to the requirement to use a Level C or higher FFS for 
extended envelope flight training, although currently over 95% of FAA-
evaluated FFS devices that replicate part 121 aircraft are either a 
Level C or higher FFS. Therefore, in those limited instances in which a 
Level C or higher FFS does not exist (e.g., certain older fleets such 
as the Convair 580) or for extraordinary reasons, access to a Level C 
or higher FFS is limited, a carrier may apply for FAA consideration of 
a deviation in accordance with the process described in Sec.  
121.423(e) of the final rule. Conducting extended envelope flight 
training inflight presents significant safety risks. Therefore, the 
extended envelope maneuvers and procedures must be trained in a 
controlled simulated environment or through another means by which the 
learning objectives can be achieved.
    Training in Other Devices: Two training providers, ETC and Calspan, 
commented that current capabilities of existing FSTDs are limited in 
their ability to fully train crewmembers in the competencies needed to 
prevent and recover from LOC-I events because they cannot replicate the 
stressors that will be present. These commenters and APS suggested 
using alternate training resources (e.g., in-flight simulation aircraft 
or a continuous-g motion platform) in conjunction with FSTD and 
academic training. Calspan commented that academic training should be 
augmented with both an in-flight simulator and ground-based FFS 
training.
    The agency intends for the extended envelope training to include 
ground training and flight training in a FFS. At this time the agency 
does not have sufficient information by which to determine the safety 
and effectiveness of the alternate training devices proposed by 
commenters. Enhanced academic knowledge, emphasis on prevention 
training and the recommended recovery techniques developed by the OEM 
constitutes a complete training solution. The agency has determined 
that if this solution is implemented properly, it will have a 
significant effect on the LOC-I statistics.
    Consistency with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 
9625: United, Continental, and USAirways stated that the FSTD 
requirements proposed in the SNPRM are inconsistent with some of the 
more progressive concepts in contained in ICAO Document 9625 which 
seeks to align simulator standards and training tasks on a global 
basis. It is designed to address all levels of pilot training and 
licensing, which is outside of the scope of the SNPRM.\21\ Although the 
final rule does not contain many of the maneuvers contemplated by the 
SNPRM, the remaining maneuvers and FSTD requirements are consistent 
with the standards contained in the ICAO Document 9625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Document 
9625 addresses the use of Flight Simulation Training Devices 
(FSTDs). The methods, procedures and testing standards contained in 
this manual are the result of the experience and expertise provided 
by National Aviation Authorities (NAA), aeroplane and FSTD operators 
and manufacturers. Document 9625 may be obtained from ICAO at 
www.icao.int.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Device Qualification: ALPA, FlightSafety, and Families of 
Continental Flight 3407 commented that existing FFSs lack the data 
package containing the information required to create the aerodynamic 
model necessary to accomplish full stall and upset recovery training. 
ALPA further commented that modifications to part 60 are also necessary 
for existing FSTDs to address bounced landings, as well as tasks such 
as icing, microburst and windshear, so as to avoid negative training in 
these areas.

[[Page 67824]]

    APS stated that there are Instructor Operating Station (IOS) 
capabilities that could enhance training in upset recognition and 
recovery. APS recommends that an FSTD specification be created for the 
qualification of newly manufactured devices which calls for information 
to be provided to the instructor indicating whether or not the FSTD is 
being operated within the valid training envelope for that device.
    The FAA agrees with commenters that modifications to part 60 are 
necessary to train the extended envelope flight training tasks, but 
such modifications are outside of the scope of this rulemaking. 
Imposing new FSTD evaluation requirements will require revisions to the 
qualifications standards in part 60 (for newly qualified FSTDs) or an 
FSTD Directive (for previously qualified FSTDs). Accordingly, the FAA 
has initiated rulemaking to address the necessary changes to part 60 
which will be needed to deliver the FFS fidelity and IOS tools needed 
to effectively deliver many of the extended envelope training tasks. 
Amendments to part 60 qualification standards for extended envelope 
training and the IOS panel upgrades are also responsive to the 
recommendations for simulation improvements from the 208 ARC.
    The FAA believes that the 5 year compliance period in this rule 
provides an ample amount of time for an FSTD sponsor to conduct any 
necessary modifications as may be required by amendments to part 60 to 
ensure the FSTD validation limits are sufficient to conduct the 
required training tasks.

M. Extended Envelope Ground Training

    Currently, the agency does not require specific ground training on 
stall or upset recovery concepts. As stated above, Sec.  208 of Public 
Law 111-206 directed the FAA to require part 121 operators to provide 
flightcrew members with ground and flight training on the recognition 
and avoidance of aerodynamic stalls and upsets as well as aerodynamic 
stall and upset recovery maneuvers. The agency proposed to require 
training on these two ground training subjects in the SNPRM (Table 2A 
in attachment 2 of appendix Q). The agency did not receive any comments 
on this proposal.
    The final rule includes training on stall prevention and recovery 
as well as upset prevention and recovery. In the final rule, the agency 
identifies upset ground training as upset prevention and recovery. The 
modification focuses the training requirements on knowledge to create 
awareness and the ability to prevent an occurrence of upset, rather 
than focusing solely on training after the upset has already occurred 
and recovery is necessary. Prevention serves to avoid incidents and 
includes any pilot action to avoid a divergence from a desired airplane 
state prior to entering an upset event. Recovery training serves to 
reduce accidents as a result of an unavoidable upset event. 
Accordingly, recovery refers to pilot actions that return an airplane 
that is diverging in altitude, airspeed, or attitude to a desired 
state. This change to ground training is consistent with the 
recommendations of the 208 ARC, convened by the FAA as required by 
Sec.  208 of Public Law 111-216.
    In the final rule the agency included ground training on full 
stalls and upset as additions to current Sec.  121.419, Pilots and 
flight engineers: Initial, transition, and upgrade ground training. 
Section 121.427 requires that the subjects covered in Sec.  121.419 are 
covered in recurrent training as well. Due to the addition of these 
subjects, the agency has adjusted the existing required programmed 
hours for initial and recurrent ground training. The agency has 
determined that 2 additional hours are required for initial training 
and 30 additional minutes are required for recurrent training, based on 
a review of the content required for training these subjects and the 
agency's experience evaluating and approving training programs.

N. Communication Records for Domestic and Flag Operations

    Under the current regulations, Sec.  121.711 requires certificate 
holders conducting domestic or flag operations to record all en route 
radio contacts between the certificate holder and its pilots and to 
keep the record for at least 30 days. Existing Sec.  121.711 recodified 
14 CFR 40.512, which provided that ``[e]ach air carrier shall maintain, 
and retain for a period of 30 days, records of radio contacts by or 
with pilots en route.'' The rationale behind this rule, as stated in 
the preamble to the NPRM that proposed Sec.  40.512, was to ``enable 
the [Civil Aeronautics] Board and the Administrator to discharge fully 
their respective accident investigation and safety regulatory 
responsibilities.'' See 23 FR 7721, 7723 (October 7, 1958).
    The FAA issued a legal interpretation of this section setting forth 
the minimum content that must be included in a Sec.  121.711 
communication record, including: the date and time of the contact; the 
flight number; aircraft registration number; approximate position of 
the aircraft during the contact; call sign; and narrative of the 
contact. See Legal Interpretation to John S. Duncan, Division Manager, 
Air Transportation Division, FAA Flight Standards Service, from Rebecca 
B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (Feb. 2, 
2010), a copy of which is included in the docket for this rulemaking
    In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed revisions to Sec.  121.711 to 
clarify the contents of the record required for each en route radio 
contact between the certificate holder and its pilots, based on the 
agency's February 2010 legal interpretation. The agency also proposed 
to extend the record requirement in Sec.  121.711 to supplemental 
operations. In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed that these additional 
recordkeeping requirements be effective 120 days from the publication 
of the final rule.
    The FAA received comments on the proposed revisions to Sec.  
121.711 from Continental, USAirways, Southwest, American, ATA, FedEx, 
ASTAR, and one individual. Commenters stated that the time frame for 
implementation is too short because it requires carriers to incorporate 
new functionality into existing software systems, and the agency did 
not identify a safety benefit that would result from this new 
requirement. The commenters asserted that this requirement does not 
enhance safety or increase efficiency, but increases complexity and 
cost for operators, with no positive cost/benefit. Based on the 
foregoing, Continental, USAirways, Southwest, ATA, FedEx, and American 
recommend striking this proposal from the SNPRM.
    As discussed in the background section of the preamble, the FAA has 
determined it is necessary to move forward at this time with a final 
rule that contains certain discrete provisions proposed in the SNPRM. 
As a result, this final rule does not change the operational control 
requirements for supplemental operations. Since the final rule does not 
provide for supplemental operators to share in operational control, it 
would be incongruous to impose the requirements of Sec.  121.711 to 
communications in supplemental operations. Therefore, the communication 
record requirements in Sec.  121.711 will not be extended to 
supplemental operations as part of this final rule.
    In the final rule, the FAA has retained the proposed changes to 
Sec.  121.711 as they apply to domestic and flag operators. As set 
forth previously, the agency has interpreted the current provision of 
the regulations as requiring certain minimum details regarding the 
contact between a certificate holder and its pilots. The approach in 
the SNPRM has merely codified the agency's

[[Page 67825]]

interpretation of the level of detail required to comply with existing 
regulations. Accordingly, in the final rule, the agency has retained 
the 120-day timeline for compliance with this provision because the 
final rule no longer extends the Sec.  121.711 recordkeeping 
requirement to supplemental operations.
    The communication record requirements in Sec.  121.711 apply to 
communications that take place while an aircraft is ``en route'' to its 
destination. In the SNPRM preamble, the agency clarified that in this 
specific context, an aircraft is considered to be ``en route'' from the 
time the aircraft pushes back from the departing gate until the 
aircraft reaches the arrival gate at its destination. See 76 FR 29336, 
29352 (May 20, 2011). One individual commenter noted that the agency's 
interpretation of ``en route'' in this context was inconsistent with a 
legal interpretation previously issued by the FAA and suggested that 
Sec.  121.711 be revised to clearly state that communication records 
are required from the time the aircraft has pushed back from the origin 
gate until the time it arrives at the destination gate. See Legal 
Interpretation to Mr. Charles Lewis from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant 
Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (April 17, 1997); see also, Legal 
Interpretation to Ansel McAllaster, Manager, Flight Standards Division 
from John H. Cassidy, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division 
(September 21, 1988), copies of which are included in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter that clarification is necessary 
given the context in which the term ``en route'' is primarily used in 
existing regulations and the conflicting intent of the SNPRM. 
Therefore, the final rule revises Sec.  121.711 to reflect the meaning 
of ``en route'' in this context, consistent with the meaning asserted 
in the SNPRM preamble.
    The same individual further suggested removing the word ``radio'' 
from current Sec.  121.711 ``if the intent is for the certificate 
holder to maintain records of all contact from pushback at origin to 
arrival at destination gate.'' As the commenter points out, if a pilot 
communicates with dispatch via a means of communication other than 
radio, a record may not be required under current Sec.  121.711. The 
agency agrees with this commenter. Since the meaning of en route in the 
context of Sec.  121.711 includes time when the aircraft is on the 
ground, the potential exists for non-radio communications to occur 
between dispatch and the flightcrew. Such a result would be contrary to 
the clear intent of the SNPRM and the original premise of Sec.  
121.711, which was to ensure that appropriate records of all en route 
communications between aircraft dispatchers and the flightcrew are 
created and maintained. Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the 
provisions of current Sec.  121.99.
    Sections 121.711 and 121.99 were added to part 121 in the same 
rulemaking and both provisions were recodifications from the Civil 
Aeronautics Board (CAB) regulations. See 29 FR 19186, 19195, and 19228 
(Dec. 31, 1964). Section 121.99 describes the type of communication 
system each certificate holder is required to have for purposes of 
communications in domestic and flag operations. Although these 
provisions are not currently cross-referenced, they are closely 
intertwined because the requirements of Sec.  121.711 contemplate the 
type of communication system that is required in Sec.  121.99.
    In 2007, Sec.  121.99 was revised to change the previous 
requirement for a ``two-way radio communication system . . .'' to a 
requirement of a ``two-way communication system under normal operating 
conditions.'' See 72 FR 31662, 31668 (Jun. 7, 2007). This revision, 
removing the word ``radio,'' was made in recognition that advancements 
in technology have provided for other communication methods for 
contacting an aircraft other than radio. The agency explained the 
revision in the preamble to the NPRM stating that ``these changes would 
make the regulation more flexible for modern means of communication and 
would allow for future changes in technology.'' See 67 FR 77326, 77333-
34 (Dec. 17, 2002). To ensure that Sec.  121.711 is not rendered 
meaningless by the use of non-radio communication technology, the FAA 
has removed the word ``radio'' from Sec.  121.711 in the final rule and 
included a cross-reference to Sec.  121.99.

O. Runway Safety

    Currently, the maneuvers ``taxi'' and ``pre-takeoff checks'' appear 
in appendices E and F and are required training and evaluation 
maneuvers. Upon review of accident and runway incursion history, the 
FAA determined that it was necessary to include additional procedures 
within ``taxi'' and ``pre-takeoff checks'' to reduce the causal factors 
that led to accidents and runway incursions.
    For example, on August 27, 2006, Comair flight 5191 crashed during 
takeoff from Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky. See NTSB/AAR-
07/05. The flight crew was instructed to take off from runway 22 but 
instead lined up the airplane on runway 26 and began the takeoff roll. 
The airplane ran off the end of the runway and impacted the airport 
perimeter fence, trees, and terrain. The PIC, flight attendant, and 47 
passengers were killed, and the SIC received serious injuries. The 
airplane was destroyed by impact forces and postcrash fire.
    Existing agency guidance and advisory material identify procedures 
that part 121 operators should use to enhance runway safety. See AC 
120-74B, Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135 Flightcrew Procedures During Taxi 
Operations; SAFO 06013 Flight Crew Techniques and Procedures That 
Enhance Pre-takeoff and Takeoff Safety; and SAFO 07003, Confirming the 
Takeoff Runway. The taxi and pre-takeoff procedures proposed in the 
SNPRM and included in the final rule are consistent with this guidance 
and advisory material.
    In the SNPRM, the agency proposed to include three additional 
procedures during the execution of the ``taxi'' maneuver. The agency 
proposed that, to comply with the maneuver requirement, ``taxi,'' a 
flightcrew member must complete the procedures ``Use of airport diagram 
(surface movement chart),'' ``Appropriate clearance before crossing or 
entering active runways,'' and ``Observation of all surface movement 
guidance control markings and lighting.'' Although some certificate 
holders may already train and evaluate taxi at this level of 
specificity, the FAA has determined that this maneuver must be targeted 
by all certificate holders to ensure that flightcrew members 
consistently use available cues and aids to identify the airplane's 
location on the airport surface during taxi and verify proper 
clearances before crossing or entering active runways.
    Further, in response to the accident involving Comair flight 5191 
and NTSB recommendation A-07-044, the FAA determined it was necessary 
to add pre-takeoff procedures, ``receipt of takeoff clearance'' and 
``confirmation of aircraft location and FMS entry for departure runway 
prior to crossing hold short line for takeoff.'' The purpose of these 
procedures is to positively confirm and cross check the airplane's 
location at the assigned departure runway before crossing the hold-
short line for takeoff.
    The final rule incorporates the proposals in the SNPRM for airport 
runway safety training into existing taxi and pre-takeoff checks 
requirements in appendices E and F of part 121. The FAA has determined 
that the training and evaluation time required to

[[Page 67826]]

complete these taxi and pre-takeoff procedures would not take any 
longer than the time currently required to complete those maneuvers 
because the procedures are incorporated into the existing taxi and pre-
takeoff maneuver requirements.
    In incorporating the final rule runway safety requirements into 
appendices E and F, the agency has eliminated the option to complete 
pre-takeoff procedures in a non-visual simulator. Flightcrew members 
use visual cues, signs, and markings to confirm the aircraft's location 
prior to crossing the hold short line for takeoff. Accordingly, if an 
operator chooses to train and evaluate pre-takeoff procedures in a 
simulator instead of inflight, a simulator with a visual system must be 
used. The agency does not believe this change causes any additional 
cost to operators since there are currently no non-visual simulators 
qualified by the FAA's National Simulator Program.

P. Crosswind Maneuvers Including Wind Gusts

    Existing training requirements for a PIC and SIC include the 
requirement to perform multiple takeoffs and landings until the PIC or 
SIC achieves proficiency. Currently, as part of the required training 
and evaluation of takeoffs and landings, flightcrew members must 
successfully complete crosswind maneuvers, as set forth in appendices E 
and F to part 121.
    In the NPRM, the proposed Qualification Performance Standards for 
pilots specifically provided that while performing landings during 
training, pilots must demonstrate the ability to ``apply gust and wind 
factors and take into account meteorological phenomena . . .''. See 74 
FR 1280, 1366 (Jan. 12, 2009). This requirement was inadvertently left 
out of the SNPRM, but remains consistent with the SNPRM's incorporation 
of existing crosswind training into the proposed training requirements 
for flightcrew members.
    In its comments on the SNPRM, the NTSB stated that this rulemaking 
should include the requirements to train high gusty crosswinds. The 
agency agrees that wind gust maneuvers are a critical component of 
crosswind takeoffs and landings and that the training requirement 
should clearly reflect the incorporation of this variable into 
crosswind takeoff and landing training.
    The final rule clarifies that crosswind training for flightcrew 
members in takeoff and landing maneuvers includes training on maneuvers 
necessary to respond to wind gusts. Wind gusts are a key variable of 
crosswind training given that a pilot must be able to rapidly respond 
to changes in speed and direction of winds to maintain the correct 
flight path to the runway. Moreover, crosswind training that includes 
the wind gust variable will improve training in areas identified as 
probable causes of accidents by the NTSB, including the accident 
involving Continental Airlines flight 1404. The NTSB determined that 
the probable cause of this accident was the PICs ``cessation of rudder 
input, which was needed to maintain directional control of the 
airplane, about 4 seconds before the excursion, when the airplane 
encountered a strong and gusty crosswind that exceeded the captain's 
training and experience.'' In connection with this accident, the NTSB 
issued a number of safety recommendations including A-10-111, which 
advised the FAA to require part 121, 135, and 91K operators to 
incorporate realistic, gusty crosswind profiles into their pilot 
simulator training programs.
    In the final rule, the FAA has amended appendices E and F to 
include the requirement for training and evaluation in crosswind 
takeoff and crosswind landing with gusts. The FAA has determined that 
this level of specificity is necessary to ensure that all flightcrew 
members have the necessary skills for takeoff and landing in gusty 
winds. It is likely that many certificate holders already train and 
evaluate crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusty winds included as a 
variable of the training. However, the agency recognizes that not all 
FFSs are capable of replicating gusts and is reviewing simulator 
capabilities as part of a separate rulemaking. Moreover, since 
crosswind takeoff and landing are already required and gusty winds are 
merely one variable of this current requirement, the agency does not 
believe any additional time is necessary to train and evaluate 
crosswind takeoffs and landings with gusts.

Q. Miscellaneous

    The final rule includes a number of miscellaneous editorial and 
clarifying changes. These changes remedy typographical errors, 
redundancies and provisions that are no longer applicable within the 
regulatory text.
    In those instances in which the agency must provide approval or 
authorization, for consistency, the final rule refers only to the 
Administrator. The Administrator's delegation of authority for specific 
functions is appropriately addressed in guidance material.
    Finally, the agency has removed flight navigator training 
requirements from subpart N. Flight navigators are no longer required 
on aircraft used in part 121 operations. Also, consistent with the 
SNPRM, the agency replaced the terms proficiency check and competency 
check in Sec.  121.413(a)(2) with checks and supervision of operating 
experience, to more accurately reflect check airman functions in part 
121 operations.

R. SNPRM Economic Comments

    In March 2010, the FAA conducted a preliminary regulatory 
evaluation to estimate the costs and benefits of the provisions 
proposed in the SNPRM. The agency received several comments on the 
SNPRM regulatory evaluation from air carriers, labor organizations and 
trade associations. This section provides a summary of issues raised by 
commenters on the SNPRM regulatory evaluation and the FAA's response.
1. Benefit Analysis
    ATA, Continental, and United noted the benefit methodology 
developed for the SNPRM regulatory evaluation differs significantly 
from the original methodology used in the NPRM regulatory evaluation.
    The FAA refined the SNRPM regulatory evaluation benefit analysis 
based on public comments to the NPRM analysis. For example, in the 
SNPRM benefit analysis, the FAA limited historical accidents to those 
associated with airlines that did not have an existing AQP for pilot 
training. The agency made this change based on comments stating it was 
inconsistent for the FAA to determine that the provisions in the NPRM 
would have minimal cost impact on AQP operators while claiming monetary 
benefits for preventing or mitigating accidents that involved carriers 
using AQP for training. Further, consistent with NPRM comments, the FAA 
discounted the benefits in the same way costs were discounted.
    The agency has determined it is necessary to move forward at this 
time with a final rule to address certain provisions proposed in the 
SNPRM that enhance pilot training for rare but high risk scenarios and 
provide the greatest safety benefit. Therefore, the methodology used in 
the regulatory evaluation for the final rule differs somewhat from the 
SNPRM.
    The final rule regulatory evaluation benefits analysis uses the 
same methodology as that used in the SNPRM analysis in terms of using 
the Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST) approach to select and score 
each accident, and discounting benefits and costs. However, after 
further review of the proposal and existing AQPs, the

[[Page 67827]]

FAA has determined that the training standards required in the final 
rule will result in new training for all pilots who complete training 
under subparts N and O as well as those who complete training under 
AQP.
    Thus, the agency has estimated the benefits and costs of the final 
rule requirements on all part 121 operators, including those training 
pilots under an AQP. In addition, the final rule benefit analysis adds 
benefits from accidents involving air carriers that trained pilots 
under an AQP at the time of the accident if the accident could have 
been prevented or mitigated by the requirements in the final rule. The 
cost analysis for the final rule also calculates costs for carriers 
that use AQP to train pilots based on new training requirements for all 
pilots and not just traditionally trained pilots.
    Several commenters raised concerns about the accident avoidance 
safety benefit analysis in which the FAA estimated the potential 
benefits of the SNPRM by attempting to calculate the number and cost of 
future accidents that would be prevented if this proposal were adopted. 
Continental and Southwest assert the methodology the FAA used assumed 
that past accident history from the chosen time period would be an 
accurate reflection of future accidents. The commenters contend that 
the accident rate per departure has been decreasing over the past 60 
years and therefore the FAA methodology is flawed.
    First, although part 121 accidents have generally decreased over 
the past 20 years, major and serious accidents still occur. The NTSB's 
records on Accidents and Accident Rates show that from 2001 to 2010, 26 
major accidents, 19 serious accidents, 160 accidents with injuries, and 
209 accidents with aircraft damage occurred.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ NTSB Aviation Statistical Reports, Table 2. Accidents and 
Accident Rates by NTSB Classification, 1992 through 2011, for U.S. 
Air Carriers Operating Under 14 CFR 121, http://www.ntsb.gov/data/table2_2012.html, (visited. March 14, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, OMB guidance directs the FAA to monetize quantitative 
estimates by using sound and defensible procedures to monetize benefits 
and costs. The FAA used the willingness-to-pay approach to assume that 
past accident history would be an accurate reflection of reducing the 
risk of future airplane accident fatalities. This approach is 
transparent, reproducible and follows OMB guidance. OMB states the 
willingness-to-pay approach is the best methodology to use if reduction 
in fatality risk is monetized, and the monetized value of small changes 
in fatality risk can be measured by the ``value of statistical life'' 
(VSL).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4, March 
4, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimated total damages for the accidents identified in the 
SNPRM regulatory evaluation based on assumptions identified in the 
benefits analysis. ATA commented that accident investigation costs were 
assigned based on the agency conducting the investigation and that it 
is unclear how the FAA identified which type of cost applied to each 
accident.
    The FAA calculated investigation costs based on the results of a 
study completed in 2003 and 2004 to provide the FAA with critical 
values the agency uses in costs analyses. The results of the study can 
be found in a report ``Economic Values for FAA Investment and 
Regulatory Decisions, A Guide'' at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/050404%20Critical%20Values%20Dec%2031%20Report%2007Jan05.pdf. The 
benefit analysis added the weighted averages of investigation costs (in 
2002 dollars) for an NTSB investigation, an FAA investigation and a 
private investigation from Table 8-2 of the study to estimate the total 
per accident investigation cost savings. Since Table 8-2 was in 2002 
dollars, using a GDP deflator, we escalated the results of Table 8-2 to 
2012 dollars. In addition, the FAA used Department of Transportation 
guidance to estimate accident costs found at http://www.dot.gov/policy/transportation-policy/treatment-economic-value-statistical-life. The 
SNPRM regulatory evaluation documented this report as a data source for 
accident costs.
    ATA, Continental, and Delta commented that the SNPRM regulatory 
evaluation contains no description of the criteria the FAA used to 
determine which accidents were relevant or how the criteria were 
applied.
    The process the FAA used to determine which accidents were relevant 
to the proposal is described in Section II.B.2. Accident Population and 
Scoring on page 7 of the SNPRM regulatory evaluation. To determine 
which accidents were relevant to the accident avoidance benefit 
analysis, the FAA initially reviewed accident data for U.S. certificate 
holders required to train under parts 121 and 121/135 from 1988 through 
2009. The agency considered accidents that occurred during this 22-year 
period because this period includes accidents with open NTSB 
recommendations. The agency then selected accidents in which the NTSB 
identified areas of inadequate training as either the probable cause or 
a contributing factor to the accident. The accidents included for 
consideration in the analysis were those for which the FAA developed a 
regulatory change proposed in the SNPRM that could have mitigated each 
accident. Finally, the agency eliminated from consideration accidents 
that occurred by operators with an AQP training program and while the 
carrier was operating under part 135.
    The importance of training varies for each of the accidents. 
Therefore, the FAA rated each accident by evaluating the effectiveness 
of the proposed rule against each accident using the scoring process in 
CAST. All of the accidents with published final NTSB reports were 
scored against the CAST safety enhancements. The agency used the NTSB 
recommendations along with narratives, probable cause, contributing 
factors and other pertinent data to score the accidents.
    American, ATA, Continental, Southwest, and United believe the 
accident analysis should only include accidents from the past 10 years 
because of the dramatic decline in accident rates over the past 20 
years. ATA and United contend the FAA should exclude pilot-related 
accidents from carriers who are now out of business, have merged with 
other carriers, or involve more than one airline.
    For the benefits analysis, the FAA analyzed the causal factors, as 
determined by the NTSB, for past accidents that occurred in part 121 
operations. As discussed earlier in this preamble, the first accident 
with pertinent accident causal factors was Delta flight 1141. Although 
the accident rate has declined in the last 10 years, accident causal 
factors identified by the NTSB during the 22-year historical benefit 
analysis period are still relevant and need to be addressed. Also, 
accidents by carriers who are out of business, have merged with other 
carries, or involve more than one airline could have been mitigated if 
this proposal had been in effect when the accident occurred. Therefore 
these accidents were included in the benefits analysis because (1) the 
accident occurred while the pilot was training under a part 121 
traditional training program, and (2) new US certificated operators 
entering part 121 service and training under a traditional training 
program would benefit from the additional training requirement proposed 
in the SNPRM.
    American, ASTAR, ATA, Continental, Delta, Southwest, and USAir 
contend the FAA has failed to give adequate credit for accident rate 
reduction

[[Page 67828]]

resulting from existing training program enhancements and technological 
advancements that have been incorporated over the last 20 years, 
including the following: Terrain Avoidance Warning System (TAWS); 
Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) standard operating procedures; 
CFIT avoidance, vertical angles; CFIT prevention training; Visual Glide 
Slope Indicators (VGSI) requirements implemented; Area Navigation 
(RNAV) 3D and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approach 
procedures; Flight Operation Quality Assurance (FOQA) and Aviation 
Safety Action Program (ASAP); loss of control prevention, policies, 
systems and training; and runway incursion prevention policies, systems 
and training. Taking these enhancements into account, the commenters 
assert the FAA economic analysis overstates the potential benefit/cost 
savings purported to be achieved by implementation of the proposed 
rule.
    Even with these existing programs, the NTSB shows that major and 
serious accidents still occur. The final rule requirements include 
higher training standards and specific tasks which improve pilot 
training program's content and application that will reduce human error 
among crewmembers, particularly in hazardous or emergency situations.
    Southwest disagrees with the FAA's analysis of NTSB recommendations 
relevant to training and accidents that could have been mitigated if 
the proposed training requirements had been in effect at the time of 
the accident. The SNPRM cited 28 NTSB recommendations relevant to 
training programs that were issued as a result of 178 accidents, which 
occurred between 1988 and 2009. Southwest reviewed the 28 NTSB 
recommendations and stated ``the FAA speculates that no more than 4 
accidents were associated with pilot inflight actions.'' Additionally, 
Southwest noted the NTSB did not identify inadequate training as the 
probable cause of these four accidents. Therefore, Southwest disagrees 
with the FAA's conclusion that these pilot inflight accidents could 
have been mitigated if the proposed training requirements had been in 
effect at the time of the accident.
    As part of the decision to move forward with certain provisions 
proposed in the SNPRM that enhance pilot training for rare but high 
risk scenarios and other discrete provisions, the agency has conducted 
a new analysis and determined the final rule addresses the seven NTSB 
recommendations identified in the background section of this preamble.
    Moreover, the FAA clarifies that relevant NTSB recommendations were 
used to establish the proposed training requirements. These 
recommendations served as one of the components of the analysis used to 
establish the mitigation effect on discrete accidents. The approach 
taken to establish an effectiveness ratio (mitigation for each 
accident) for the training requirements included an analysis of each 
accident in the context of the CAST scoring process.
2. Cost Analysis
    ATA, Continental, ASTAR, and United contend the SNPRM regulatory 
evaluation fails to provide documentation of the underlying assumptions 
of the cost estimates.
    The FAA documented the sources for its information in the 
assumption sections, tables and footnotes of the SNPRM regulatory 
evaluation. The methodologies employed in the analysis were discussed 
in the sections preceding the tables showing total costs.
    ATA and United stated the projected growth in affected crew 
population levels of initial/new hire training in the SNPRM regulatory 
evaluation was based on the net increase in total crew population but 
ignores training necessary to replace retiring crew. United also stated 
that, retirements alone are expected to be 5 percent annually 
throughout the benefit period and thus the FAA underestimated the pilot 
attrition rate in the SNPRM regulatory evaluation. As a result of 
underestimating the attrition rate, United asserts that we have 
underestimated the training costs that will result from retirements. 
United contends one retirement would generate at least two initial 
courses.
    The FAA crew population forecast accounts for the replacement of a 
retired crewmember in the turnover percentage. Although United 
projected a 5 percent retirement rate for their pilots, the FAA 
maintains its assumption that 5 percent of the total number of pilots 
would leave an operator through attrition (including loss of medical 
certificate, loss of airman certificate, career transfer, or 
retirement). This assumption is based on objective data presented in a 
University of North Dakota study.\24\ The FAA disagrees with United's 
assertion that for every crewmember who retires, two courses of initial 
training would be required. The agency assumed that for each pilot lost 
through attrition, one pilot will complete initial training. For any 
additional training, the agency considered transition training and 
upgrade training and accounted for those training costs in the final 
rule regulatory evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/aviation_forecast_2010/agenda/media/GAF%20Jim%20Higgins%20and%20Kent%20Love.pdf. The University of North 
Dakota estimates that 2.12% of pilots have retired annually along 
with forecasting 2.94% pilot attrition (loss of medical, loss of 
certificate, career transfer) from 2009 to 2024. We rounded to three 
digits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2013-2023, we expect the total 
number of part 121 pilots to increase by 0.4 percent annually.\25\ 
Applying BLS labor wage data, the FAA has determined that the training 
costs due to attrition and growth will range from $51.6M to $69.1M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2013-2033. Table 30: Active Pilots 
by Type of Certificate, Airline Transport, 2012-2033. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_forecasts/aerospace_forecasts/2013-2033/ Accessed March 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ATA stated the FAA's determination of the net impact on annual 
training hours appears to be based on the minimum programmed hour 
requirements rather than on the actual number of training hours 
necessary to complete the required training tasks.
    In preparing the cost estimate for the SNPRM regulatory evaluation, 
the FAA identified the proposed programmed hour requirements and 
calculated the incremental costs that the proposed programmed hours 
would add over the current regulatory requirements. If operators 
voluntarily exceed the training standard proposed in the SNPRM, then 
there was no additional compliance cost estimated in the FAA cost 
analysis.
    ALPA, American, Continental, JetBlue, Southwest, United, UPS, and 
USAir stated the FAA underestimated the time it takes to complete 
flight training tasks proposed in the SNPRM.
    On October 26, 2009 the FAA conducted a simulator trial to 
determine the time required to complete the proposed recurrent 
proficiency check requirements. The agency collected data on the time 
it took to complete the recurrent proficiency check tasks proposed in 
the NPRM and then used this data to estimate the time required to 
complete the proficiency check requirements proposed in the SNPRM. See 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2008-0677-0177. In 
preparing the cost estimate for the SNPRM regulatory evaluation, the 
FAA used the data from the simulator trial to determine the additional 
training hours required by the proposal and calculated the incremental 
costs, over the current regulations, the proposed requirements would 
add.

[[Page 67829]]

    On June 19, 2012, the FAA conducted a second simulator trial to 
determine the time required to complete the additional final rule 
maneuvers and procedures in each curriculum. During the second 
simulator trial, the agency observed two FAA pilots perform the 
extended envelope flight training requirements in an Airbus 330 Level D 
simulator.\26\ The FAA pilots serving as the PIC and SIC both held ATP 
certificates and were current and qualified to operate the Airbus 330. 
All required checklists and procedures were completed in their entirety 
for each maneuver and procedure. In addition, all required Air Traffic 
Control (ATC) instructions and clearances were provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Recognition of, and recovery from, full stall and 
demonstration of stick pusher activation were not completed during 
the second simulator trial. Therefore, the agency considered the 
time for recognition of, and recovery from, approach to stall--clean 
configuration, collected during the first simulator trial. The 
agency expects the time for each of these two maneuvers to be 
similar to the time for recognition of, and recovery from, approach 
to stall because full stall and stick pusher are further developed 
stages of an approach to stall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The data collected during this simulator trial provides the 
estimated simulator time required to meet the extended envelope flight 
training requirements in the final rule. The FAA has reviewed both 
simulator trials and revised the cost estimates for the training tasks 
required by the final rule.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The FAA has amended the Technical Report to add the 2012 
simulator trial data in new appendix G. The agency has placed the 
revised Technical Report in the public docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ATA, Continental, United, and USAIR noted the FAA calculates 
simulator costs at an hourly rate instead of the industry-standard 4-
hour blocks for the purpose of keeping the cost of the proposed rule 
low. These commenters also stated the simulator hour projection for the 
SNPRM regulatory evaluation does not consider collective bargaining 
agreements that may further limit training hours per day.
    The SNPRM regulatory evaluation calculated simulator costs at an 
hourly rate instead of 4-hour blocks. Industry is not tied to the 4-
hour simulator training blocks. With the 5-year compliance date in the 
final rule for simulator training tasks, air carriers have the ability 
to revise their internal processes or re-negotiate contracts with 
simulator training providers. In addition, the FAA believes that 
bargaining agreements can be adjusted before the 5 year compliance 
date. Therefore these costs are not attributed to the rule. The final 
rule includes extended envelope training that must be completed in an 
FFS. The agency estimates that the time required to complete this 
training ranges from 90 to 135 minutes for initial training, 60 to 90 
minutes for transition training, 45 to 60 minutes for upgrade training, 
and 30 to 45 minutes for recurrent training.
    Continental contends the associated costs for legacy mainframe 
computer programming related to the proposed requirement for evaluating 
and recording line check performance in proposed Sec.  121.1233(d) were 
not accounted for in the SNPRM regulatory evaluation. Continental also 
states the requirements proposed in the SNPRM would add significantly 
to the recordkeeping system requirement.
    The agency notes programmers in major companies, such as 
Continental, are typically on staff. Staff programmers typically cover 
software updates and maintenance. The FAA has reviewed the paperwork 
requirements for the new final rule provisions and has revised the 
regulatory evaluation accordingly. Upon further review of the SNPRM 
regulatory evaluation, the agency identified paperwork costs that were 
inadvertently omitted. For the final rule regulatory evaluation, the 
FAA has further reviewed the potential costs of implementing the final 
rule requirements and captured additional detail. For example, the 
paperwork costs now fully address the review and development of 
training programs, courseware and manuals.
    ATA, Continental, JetBlue, and USAir assert the SNPRM regulatory 
evaluation did not include non-paperwork costs for program development, 
and maintenance including high capital and management costs necessary 
to modify or replace training equipment, reconfigure training 
facilities, or re-program and maintain software systems.
    The agency included costs in the SNPRM regulatory evaluation for 
maintenance, including high capital and management costs, necessary to 
modify or replace training equipment, reconfigure training facilities, 
or re-program and maintain software systems with a simulator or ground 
cost hourly rental expense.
    For the final rule, the FAA determined that the average simulator 
rental fee is $500 per hour plus the cost of an instructor for 
consistency with the FAA's ``Pilot Certification and Qualification 
Requirements for Air Carrier Operations'' final rule. The FAA believes 
the hourly rental price accurately reflects the cost of capital and 
includes costs for maintenance, capital, management, reconfiguring 
training facilities, and reprogramming.
    The FAA received several comments from air carriers stating the 
agency underestimated the cost of a number of SNPRM provisions, 
including: Operating manual changes; the continuous analysis process; 
crewmember and aircraft dispatcher requalification; flightcrew member 
recurrent training; relief pilot recent experience; PIC line checks; 
training with a complete flightcrew; flight attendant operating 
experience; check flight attendant requirements; aircraft dispatcher 
qualification and recurrent training; and, check dispatcher training.
    At this time, the agency is proceeding with a final rule to address 
certain provisions proposed in the SNPRM that enhance pilot training 
for rare but high risk scenarios, provide the greatest safety benefit, 
and require time to implement, as well as certain other discrete 
proposals. This final rule does not include the provisions identified 
by commenters as having underestimated costs. If a subsequent final 
rule includes the provisions cited by commenters, the agency will 
review the costs identified in the SNPRM and determine whether 
reassessment of these costs is necessary.
3. General Cost-Benefit Analysis
    ATA asserted that the FAA failed to correctly match the timing of 
the benefits and costs in the SNPRM regulatory evaluation and asserted 
that the incurrence of implementation costs would necessarily precede 
any benefits that might occur by at least two years.
    The FAA initiated the benefits and costs of the analysis at the 
compliance date of the final rule. The compliance date proposed in the 
SNPRM was 2016, or 5 years after the proposed effective date of the 
final rule. In the SNPRM regulatory evaluation, the agency determined 
the timing of both the benefits and costs would start in 2016 and end 
in 2025.
    In the SNPRM, the agency proposed an effective date for the final 
rule of 120 days after publication in the Federal Register. The agency 
further proposed to require compliance with certain amendments to part 
121 on the effective date and to delay compliance with other amendments 
requiring time to implement, to 5 years after the effective date. 
However, in the SNPRM regulatory evaluation, the agency assumed the 
timing of both the benefits and costs for all provisions would start in 
2016 to account for a compliance date of 5 years after the proposed 
effective date of the final rule, and end in 2025.
    The agency agrees that some implementation costs may be incurred 
prior to when the full benefits of the final rule are realized. For the 
final rule, safety benefits are realized beginning in 2019, when 
compliance is required with

[[Page 67830]]

the new pilot training maneuvers and procedures. However, the agency 
assumes paperwork costs associated with the training provisions for 
instructors and check airmen who serve in FSTDs will begin the year 
before the compliance date in preparation to meet the final rule 
requirements. For the paperwork costs associated with the remaining 
final rule provisions, the agency assumes new paperwork costs start to 
accrue on the date that compliance is required. These timelines are 
reflected in the table that appears in the Paperwork Reduction Act 
discussion in the Regulatory Notices and Analyses section of this 
preamble (Section IV). Greater detail regarding the paperwork burden 
can be found in the Summary of Estimated Paperwork Costs by Objective 
Grouping section of the final rule regulatory evaluation.
4. Economic Impact to Operators Training under AQP
    The FAA received several comments from air carriers concerned that 
the agency failed to include costs to air carriers with pilots who 
train under an AQP in its economic analysis of the SNPRM.
    In the economic analysis of the SNPRM, the agency determined the 
proposals in the SNPRM would have a minimal impact on carriers that 
train pilots using an AQP. Therefore, the SNPRM regulatory evaluation 
included only certain paperwork costs for these carriers.
    Following further review of existing AQP curriculums and the final 
rule pilot training requirements, the agency has determined that the 
majority of new pilot training maneuvers and procedures are not 
incorporated into existing AQPs used to train pilots. Therefore, the 
FAA has estimated the cost of the new requirements on all part 121 
operators, including those who train under AQP.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic 
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct 
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon 
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. 
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of 
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act 
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create 
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In 
developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider 
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis 
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of 
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that 
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with 
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule. We suggest readers 
seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of 
which we have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this final 
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an 
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is ``significant'' as defined in the 
U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures; (4) will have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States; and (6) will 
not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal governments, 
or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold identified above. 
These analyses are summarized below.

Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule

    The following table shows the FAA's estimate for the base case 
costs, including the low and high cost range, in 2012 dollars. This 
table also shows our estimated potential quantified safety benefits 
using a 22-year historical accident analysis period.

Total Benefits and Costs (2012 $ Millions) From 2019 to 2028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO13.161

    For the benefits analysis, the FAA analyzed the causal factors, as 
determined by the NTSB, for past accidents that occurred in part 121 
operations. The objective of the analysis was to determine if an 
accident could have been prevented or mitigated by the training 
provisions in the final rule. In 1988, Delta flight 1141 crashed 
shortly after lifting off from the runway at the Dallas-Fort Worth 
International Airport (DCA88MA072). In its final report, the NTSB 
determined that one causal factor for the accident was ``The captain 
and first officer's inadequate cockpit discipline which resulted in the 
flightcrew's attempt to take off without wing flaps and slats properly 
configured.''
    As a result of the accident investigation, the NTSB made 
recommendations to the FAA that emphasized the importance of training 
and manual procedures regarding ``the roles of each flight crewmember 
in visually confirming the accomplishment of all operating checklist 
items,'' as well as the ``verification of flap position during stall 
recognition and recovery procedures.''
    The FAA determined that the pilot monitoring training and 
operational provisions may have prevented or mitigated this accident. 
The pilot monitoring training will provide pilots an opportunity to 
practice monitoring skills in an environment that closely simulates 
real line operations. The operational requirements will require 
flightcrew members to follow air carrier procedures regarding pilot 
monitoring. Together, these provisions establish an active requirement 
for the pilot not flying the aircraft to remain engaged throughout the 
flight by monitoring the

[[Page 67831]]

pilot flying, as well as the position of the aircraft, the flight 
instruments, the configuration of the aircraft, etc. The provisions 
will ensure that the pilot monitoring is prepared to notify the pilot 
flying of any anomalies or to assume the flying responsibilities if 
necessary. If these requirements had been in place at the time of this 
accident, the pilot monitoring may have identified the incorrect 
configuration and notified the pilot flying prior to takeoff.
    Therefore, the FAA initiated the historical accident interval for 
the benefits analysis with this accident in 1988. The FAA concluded the 
accident interval in 2009 with the Colgan accident because, at this 
time, the NTSB still has not finalized its reports on the major 
accidents (that may be pertinent to this training rule) that occurred 
in 2010 and 2011. This is why the FAA uses the same 22 year accident 
interval (1988-2009) for the benefits analysis in the final rule as in 
the SNPRM.
    The FAA identified 10 additional major accidents with casual 
factors identified by the NTSB that are addressed by the provisions in 
the final rule that occurred during this 22 year accident interval. The 
FAA cited these accidents in the benefits analysis based on pertinent 
accident causal factors, regardless of whether or not there were open 
NTSB recommendations associated with those accidents.
    The FAA notes, however, that it conducted a sensitivity analysis to 
explore the effect of reducing the historical accident analysis period 
from the 22 years to 10 years in response to comments disputing the use 
of a 22-year time frame. Appendix 14 of the regulatory evaluation shows 
that using a shorter historical accident analysis period increases the 
estimated benefits of the final rule by approximately 17 percent.

Who is potentially affected by this rule?

    This final rulemaking will increase costs to operators of transport 
category airplanes operating under 14 CFR part 121 by requiring 
improved pilot training, as well as by requiring accompanying revisions 
to their training manuals and related training materials.

Assumptions

    The benefit and cost analysis for the regulatory evaluation is 
based on the following factors/assumptions:
     The analysis is conducted in constant dollars with 2012 as 
the base year.
     The estimates of costs and benefits reported in this 
evaluation include both 2012 dollar values and present values. Benefits 
and costs are calculated in present values using both 3 percent and 7 
percent discount rates as prescribed by OMB in Circular A-4.
     This final rule will be published in late 2013.
     This final rule will become effective in 2014, 120 days 
after its publication. Compliance is required on the effective date 
(120 days) for a few of the provisions, including for example all 
technical amendments, Sec. Sec.  121.9 (falsification), 121.392 
(identification of personnel as flight attendants), and 121.711 
(communication records). Compliance with the remaining substantive 
provisions is required within 5 years after the effective date.
     Although some incidental costs are expected to occur prior 
to 2019, the primary analysis period for costs and benefits extends for 
10 years, from 2019 through 2028. This period was selected because 
annual costs and benefits will have reached a steady state by 2019.
     Safety benefits will be realized beginning in 2019, when 
compliance is required with the new training provisions in the final 
rule.
     Past accident history from 1988 to 2009 (22 years) is an 
appropriate basis on which to forecast the likely future occurrence of 
the types of accidents that the training and other provisions of this 
rule will help to prevent. The full regulatory evaluation provides a 
detailed justification for the selection of the 22 year analysis 
period, as well as a sensitivity analysis that explores the effect of 
reducing the historical analysis period from the 22 year period to 10 
years. The Accident Population and Scoring section in the full final 
rule regulatory evaluation gives more details on the use of accident 
history in this analysis.

Changes From the SNPRM to the Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation

    Based on public comments and further agency review of the proposal, 
the FAA made the following changes to the regulatory evaluation for the 
final rule:
     Re-estimated costs and benefits to correspond directly to 
the provisions of this final rule. The final rule focuses on 
enhancements to pilot training for rare, but high-risk scenarios.
     Assumed that the final rule will affect all Advanced 
Qualification Program (AQP) and non-AQP trained pilots in command, 
second in command, check pilots, and flight instructors by adding 
simulator and ground school time to their current training curriculum.
     Accounted for paperwork costs documenting the required 
revisions to operators listed in Appendix 9 of the regulatory 
evaluation.
     Updated the value of averted fatalities, injuries, 
accident investigation and medical costs based on current DOT 
guidance.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Revised Departmental Guidance 2013: Treatment of the 
Value of Preventing Fatalities and Injuries in Preparing Economic 
Analysis.'' available at http://www.dot.gov/regulations/economic-values-used-in-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Updated the hourly wages and benefits for aircraft crew 
members with current hourly wages from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS).
     Removed airfare, hotel, and per diem travel costs from the 
cost estimates because the FAA believes operators will be able to 
complete the new final rule training requirements within their current 
initial, upgrade, transition, or recurrent simulator and ground school 
training days. The FAA conducted a sensitivity analysis on the costs of 
the final rule adding an additional day of travel. The results of the 
sensitivity analysis are shown in Appendix 10 of the regulatory 
evaluation. Even with the cost of an extra day of travel, the benefits 
of the final rule still exceed the costs.
     Conducted a new accident analysis that took into account 
the mitigations of other rulemakings for the same accidents in 
determining the probability of effectiveness for this final rule.
     Assumed that the ``Flight Simulation Training Devices 
Qualification Standards For Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event 
Training Tasks'' rulemaking (RIN 2120-AK08) is in place by the time 
compliance is required with the new pilot training requirements because 
amendments to FSTD qualification and evaluation standards in part 60 
are needed to support the new full flight simulator training 
requirements in this final rule. In addition, the agency recognizes 
that the final rule on Pilot Certification and Qualification 
Requirements for Air Carrier Operations will be in place at the time 
that compliance is required with the pilot training requirements in 
this final rule.
     Included a table in Appendix 13 of the regulatory 
evaluation comparing the probability of effectiveness ratings of the 
overlapping accidents from the Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest 
Requirements final rule, the Pilot Certification and Qualification 
Requirements for Air Carrier Operations final rule and this final rule.
     Updated employment growth rates for pilots based on 
current FAA forecasts and actual February 2013 employment statistics 
for operators

[[Page 67832]]

listed in Appendix 9 of the regulatory evaluation.
     Updated the hourly simulator costs from the $550 estimate 
used in the SNPRM to $500 for the final rule based on updated FAA 
Flight Standards Service (AFS) data. This revised cost maintains 
consistency with analysis from the Pilot Certification and 
Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations final rule 
published on July 15, 2013 (78 FR 42324).
     Conducted a sensitivity analysis on the hourly simulator 
rental rate using the $550 rate from the SNPRM. The agency estimated 
$323.1 million for the total costs using the $550 hourly rate. The 
total benefits, as shown in the table above, exceed the costs for the 
$550 hourly simulator rental rate.
     Initiated the ``Flight Simulation Training Device 
Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and Adverse Weather Event 
Training Tasks'' rulemaking to amend 14 CFR part 60 to require the 
additional programming and upgrades to simulators, which will be needed 
to comply with extended envelope training required by the final rule. 
The FAA estimates that the $500 hourly simulator rental rate assumed in 
this analysis includes all upgrades expected to be required by the 
Flight Simulation Training Device rulemaking. As an alternative, the 
agency also conducted a sensitivity analysis using $600 for an hourly 
simulator rental rate. The agency estimated $332.4 million for the 
total costs with the $600 hourly rate. The total benefits as shown in 
the table above also exceed the costs for the $600 hourly simulator 
rental rate.
     Conducted a sensitivity analysis to explore the effect of 
reducing the historical analysis period from the 22 year period to 10 
years in response to comments disputing the use of a 22-year time frame 
for accidents. Appendix 14 of the final rule regulatory evaluation 
shows that using the 10-year period, the estimated benefits of this 
final rule increase by approximately 17 percent. The full regulatory 
evaluation provides a detailed justification for the selection of the 
22 year analysis period.
     Changed the pilot ground school distance learning \29\ 
percentage from the 80 percent estimate used in the SNPRM to 100 
percent, because the FAA allows 100 percent of ground training to be 
accomplished via distance learning.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Distance learning allows pilots to train out of the 
classroom (such as at home).
    \30\ FAA Order 8900.1, Vol.3, Ch. 19, Sec. 5, Para. 3-1209 (July 
15, 2013). The FAA notes that pilot ground school training 
requirements include hands-on emergency equipment training (current 
Sec.  121.417(c) requires that every 24 months, pilots must perform 
hands-on drills on aircraft emergency equipment) that may not be 
accomplished via distance learning. These costs are not included in 
this cost analysis because those hands-on drills are currently 
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits of This Rule

    Phased-in potential benefits will accrue from the additional 
training requirements, and these are estimated in the table above. As 
prescribed by OMB in Circular A-4, we discounted the 2012 $ benefits to 
their present values using a seven and three percent annual rate.
    The final rule will also generate qualitative benefits. The final 
rule addresses safety issues identified during two recent FAA ``Call to 
Action'' initiatives including improvement of runway safety by 
requiring training in critical runway safety issues, responds to seven 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety recommendations, and 
addresses the requirements in the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 
Administration Extension Act of 2010.

Costs of This Rule

    The FAA estimates the range of costs to air carriers in the table 
above. As prescribed by OMB in Circular A-4, we discounted the 2012 $ 
to their present values using a seven and three percent annual rate.

Alternatives Considered

    The FAA considered multiple alternatives to the final rule. Three 
of the alternatives that were considered would have provided relief 
from some of the rule's provisions to small entities, while one 
alternative considered accepting all of the provisions of the SNPRM. A 
discussion of these alternatives can be found in the final regulatory 
flexibility analysis.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) 
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall 
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable 
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale 
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions 
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required 
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain 
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given 
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, 
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    The FAA believes that this final rule will result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose 
of this analysis is to provide the reasoning underlying the FAA 
determination.
    Section 604 of the Act requires agencies to prepare and make 
available for public comment a final regulatory flexibility analysis 
(FRFA) describing the impact of final rules on small entities. Section 
604(a) of the Act specifies the content of a FRFA.
    Each FRFA must contain:
     A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
     A statement of the significant issues raised by the public 
comments in response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a 
statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a 
statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such 
comments;
     The response of the agency to any comments filed by the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in 
response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change 
made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the 
comments;
     A description of and an estimate of the number of small 
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such 
estimate is available;
     A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping 
and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of 
the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement 
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the 
report or record; and
     A description of the steps the agency has taken to 
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent 
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a 
statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other 
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which 
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

Statement of the Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule

    The primary purpose and objectives of the final rule are to ensure 
that training and evaluation is provided for crewmembers by 
establishing new

[[Page 67833]]

requirements for part 121 commercial air carrier training programs, as 
mandated by Public Law 111-216. The changes seek to make a significant 
contribution to the FAA's accident reduction goal by directly 
addressing the safety goals from two recent FAA ``Call to Action'' 
initiatives including improvement of runway safety by requiring 
training in critical runway safety issues. The requirements of the 
final rule also implement numerous safety recommendations from the 
NTSB.

Statement of the Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments

    There were no significant issues raised by the public comments in 
response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

Agency Response to Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy

    There were no comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration in response to the proposed rule.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements of the Rule

    As described in the Paperwork Reduction Act summary in this 
preamble, the agency expects only minimal new training documentation, 
reporting and record-keeping compliance requirements to result from 
this final rule. Every operator (including small businesses and 
businesses with greater than 1500 employees) will incur a paperwork 
burden as described in Paperwork Reduction Act discussion in this 
preamble.
    Costs for the labor entailed in meeting these documentation, 
reporting, and record-keeping requirements constitute a burden under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, and these costs are accounted for in the 
final rule regulatory evaluation. The types of professional skills 
necessary for preparation of the report or record include both 
technical writers and flight instructors.
    Under section 604 of the Act, the FAA must determine an estimate of 
the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement. 
This determination is typically based on small entity size and cost 
thresholds that determine whether an entity meets the definition of 
``small,'' and these thresholds vary depending on the affected 
industry.
    Using the size standards from the Small Business Administration for 
Air Transportation and Aircraft Manufacturing, the FAA defined 
companies as small entities if they have fewer than 1,500 
employees.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 13 CFR 121.201, Size Standards Used to Define Small 
Business Concerns, Sector 48-49 Transportation, Subsector 481 Air 
Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Entities Affected

    This final rule will be published in 2013 and become effective in 
2014. Operators affected by this final rule will be required to comply 
with a majority of the final rule requirements 5 years after the 
effective date. The FAA does not know if an operator will still be in 
business or will still remain a small business entity by the 2019 
compliance date applicable to the majority of the provisions. 
Therefore, the FAA will use current U.S. operator's employment and 
annual revenue in order to determine the number of operators this final 
rule affect.
    To determine the economic impact of this final rule on small-
business operators the agency began by identifying the affected firms, 
gathering operational data, and establishing the compliance cost 
impact. The FAA obtained a list of U.S. operators, who are affected by 
the final rule, from the FAA Flight Standards Service National Vital 
Information Subsystem (NVIS) database.\32\ Using information provided 
by the U.S. Department of Transportation Form 41 filings and the World 
Aviation Directory & Aerospace Database (WAD) the agency obtained 
company revenue and employment for many of the operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The National Vital Information Subsystem (NVIS) is a Flight 
Standard Service database that contains the general information 
about operators, including the number of pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We determined that 83 operators would be affected by the final 
rule. Of these 83 operators, there are 49 that reported annual 
employment and operating revenue data. Of the 49 air carriers that 
reported annual employment data, 22 air carriers are below the SBA size 
standard of 1,500 employees for a small business. Due to the sparse 
amount of publicly available data on internal company financial and 
employment statistics for small entities, it is not feasible to 
identify how many of the remaining carriers that did not report 
employment data would also qualify as small businesses, so it is not 
possible to estimate the total population of small entities that are 
likely to be affected by this rulemaking. However, based on the 
publically available data, the FAA assumes that this rule will have an 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    To assess the final rule's cost impact to small business operators, 
the FAA determined the amount of additional time this rulemaking will 
add to their current training activities.
    The FAA uses the average hourly wage (including benefits) of 
flight-crew members as a basis to estimate costs for additional 
training time. The FAA does not expect that the additional training 
requirements will result in higher travel costs, because the final rule 
adds only a small amount of training time, which we believe can be 
absorbed within operators' current training schedules. In order to 
estimate the impact on small entities, we sum the incremental costs of 
this rulemaking, and use that estimate to calculate an average cost per 
flight crew member. We then use that average to estimate the total cost 
burden on carriers that we identify as meeting the above definition of 
small entities.
    Specifically, we estimate each operator's total compliance cost by 
multiplying our estimate of the average cost per flight crew member by 
the number of flight-crew members for each of the 22 air carriers that 
meet the SBA size standard for a small business of 1,500 employees. In 
estimating the average cost per flight-crew member, we use the high 
cost from the range of costs estimated in the final rule, in order to 
provide a conservative estimate. We then measure the economic impact on 
small entities by dividing the estimated compliance cost for each of 
the 22 small entities by its annual revenue, and expressing the result 
as a percentage.
    The FAA estimates that costs for complying with this final rule 
will exceed one percent of annual revenue for 2 of the sample of 22 
operators identified as small entities. On the basis of these 
estimates, we conclude that this final rule will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Agency Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities

    In the following Analysis of Alternatives section, the FAA 
considered three alternatives to minimize the significant economic 
impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of 
applicable statutes. The Analysis of Alternatives section also includes 
statements of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the 
final rule and why each one of the alternatives to the rule, considered 
by the agency, which affect the impact on small entities, was rejected.

Analysis of Alternatives

    The FAA proposed alternatives to the SNPRM for small carriers and 
considered the proposed alternatives as

[[Page 67834]]

it developed the final rule. A discussion of the final rule 
alternatives follows.
    Alternative 1-12 month recurrent training cycle for small entities.
    Currently, PICs (captains) train every 6 months and SICs (first 
officers) train every 12 months. The FAA considered extending the 
recurrent training cycle for PICs working for small entities to 12 
months to coincide with existing SIC recurrent training cycles. This 
would result in cost savings for small entities. However, a reduction 
in the training frequency for PICs to a 12-month cycle would be 
contrary to the purpose of this rulemaking, which is to improve safety. 
As a consequence, FAA determined that this alternative was 
unacceptable.
    Alternative 2--Excluding certain small entities.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA considered exempting certain operators from 
compliance with the rule simply because they are small entities; 
however, small entities had experienced past accidents that the agency 
believes could be mitigated or prevented by this rule. Thus exempting 
small entities entirely form the rule would be contrary to our policy 
of ensuring a single high level of safety in all part 121 operations. 
Thus, the FAA did not find this alternative to be acceptable.
    Alternative 3--Extending the final compliance date to 7 years for 
small entities.
    Extending the final compliance date from 5 years to 7 years for 
small entities reduces the costs to small entities over the analysis 
interval. Under this alternative, the FAA expects that the projected 
cost of the final rule would not be significant for some of the 22 
operators studied.
    In the final rule, the FAA requires improvements that would reduce 
human error among crewmembers, particularly in situations that present 
special hazards. Because these requirements would address problems that 
are faced by all part 121 air carriers, regardless of their size, 
excluding certain operators simply because they are small entities 
would again be contrary to FAA's policy of ensuring one high level of 
safety in all part 121 operations. Thus, the FAA also found this 
alternative to be unacceptable.
    Alternative 4--The SNPRM
    This agency considered moving forward with a final rule including 
all of the provisions of the rule proposed in the SNPRM. Industry 
commented that the rule language was unclear and did not estimate all 
of the proposal's costs. Instead of modifying the SNPRM, the FAA 
elected to adopt a final rule that included those provisions that 
provide the greatest safety benefit. Thus, the FAA did not accept this 
alternative.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal 
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities 
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United 
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not 
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the 
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic 
objective, such the protection of safety, and does not operate in a 
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also 
requires consideration of international standards and, where 
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that 
the final rule ensures the safety of the American public and does not 
exclude foreign operators that meet this objective. As a result, this 
rule is not considered as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign 
commerce.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement 
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final 
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more 
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate 
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently 
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100 
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, 
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information 
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an 
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor 
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays 
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    This final rule will impose the following information collection 
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these information collection 
amendments to OMB for its review. The Office of Management and Budget 
has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0739 to this collection, and upon 
publication of this rule, the package will be available on reginfo.gov.
    Summary: This final rule revises the training requirements for 
pilots in air carrier operations. The regulations enhance air carrier 
pilot training programs by emphasizing the development of pilots' 
manual handling skills and adding safety-critical tasks such as 
recovery from stall and upset. The final rule also requires enhanced 
runway safety training, training on pilot monitoring to be incorporated 
into existing requirements for scenario-based flight training and 
requires air carriers to implement remedial training programs for 
pilots. The FAA expects these changes to contribute to a reduction in 
aviation accidents.
    Public comments: The requirements in the final rule were proposed 
in a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, published in the 
Federal Register on January 12, 2009, vol. 74, no. 7, pages 1280-1453, 
and the public was encouraged to comment.
    Commenters to the proposed rule noted that the provisions 
specifically addressing preparation, approval and contents of 
crewmember and dispatcher manuals would generally result in significant 
time and cost to revise current manuals. Commenters also noted that 
proposed requirements regarding collection and retention of crewmember 
and dispatcher records were excessive and unnecessary. Commenters 
further noted that paperwork required by the proposed requirements for 
approval and amendment of crewmember and dispatcher training programs 
were burdensome for both air carriers and FAA personnel. Commenters 
also identified programming costs related to SNPRM provisions (e.g. new 
training intervals, new evaluation intervals and new designations for 
check personnel) and claimed that while these costs would be 
substantial, they were not included in the agency's cost analysis. The 
FAA has not adopted these proposed requirements in this final rule.
    The final rule contains discrete additional training and evaluation 
requirements (e.g. prevention and recovery from stall, prevention and 
recovery of upset, recovery from bounced landing and training in manual

[[Page 67835]]

handling skills). The FAA did not receive any comments regarding 
recording or recordkeeping requirements for these proposed provisions 
that are being adopted in the final rule.
    Purpose: This project is in direct support of the Department of 
Transportation's Strategic Plan--Strategic Goal--SAFETY; i.e., to 
promote the public health and safety by working toward the elimination 
of transportation-related deaths and injuries. This final rule also 
responds to Public Law 111-216, sections 208 and 209. Under Public Law 
111-216, Congress directed the FAA to conduct rulemaking to ensure that 
all flightcrew members receive ground training and flight training in 
recognizing and avoiding stalls, recovering from stalls, and 
recognizing and avoiding upset of an aircraft, as well as the proper 
techniques to recover from upset. Public Law 111-216 also directed the 
FAA to ensure air carriers develop remedial training programs for 
flightcrew members who have demonstrated performance deficiencies or 
experienced failures in the training environment. The FAA will use the 
information it collects and reviews to ensure compliance and adherence 
to regulations and, where necessary, to take enforcement action on 
violators of the regulations.
    Respondents (including number of): The FAA estimates there are 83 
certificate holders who would be required to provide information in 
accordance with the final rule. The respondents to this proposed 
information requirement are certificate holders using the training 
requirements in 14 CFR part 121.
    Frequency: The FAA estimates certificate holders will have a one-
time information collection, then may collect or report information 
occasionally thereafter.
    Annual Burden Estimate:
    The FAA estimates the total one time paperwork costs for the final 
rule will be about $8.2 million.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO13.162

International Compatibility and Cooperation

    1. In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and 
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has 
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and 
has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.
    2. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet 
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, 
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent 
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has 
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of 
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have 
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically 
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy 
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has 
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical 
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    See the ``Regulatory Evaluation'' discussion in the ``Regulatory 
Notices and Analyses'' section elsewhere in this preamble.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined 
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism 
implications.

C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, 
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it 
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it 
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by 
using the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

[[Page 67836]]

    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by 
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal 
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the 
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic 
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name 
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, 
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. 
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

The Amendment

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 121 of title 
14 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

0
1. The authority for part 121 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 
44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 
46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).


0
2. Add Sec.  121.9 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.9  Fraud and falsification.

    (a) No person may make, or cause to be made, any of the following:
    (1) A fraudulent or intentionally false statement in any 
application or any amendment thereto, or in any other record or test 
result required by this part.
    (2) A fraudulent or intentionally false statement in, or a known 
omission from, any record or report that is kept, made, or used to show 
compliance with this part, or to exercise any privileges under this 
chapter.
    (b) The commission by any person of any act prohibited under 
paragraph (a) of this section is a basis for any one or any combination 
of the following:
    (1) A civil penalty.
    (2) Suspension or revocation of any certificate held by that person 
that was issued under this chapter.
    (3) The denial of an application for any approval under this part.
    (4) The removal of any approval under this part.

0
3. Add Sec.  121.392 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.392  Personnel identified as flight attendants.

    (a) Any person identified by the certificate holder as a flight 
attendant on an aircraft in operations under this part must be trained 
and qualified in accordance with subparts N and O of this part. This 
includes:
    (1) Flight attendants provided by the certificate holder in excess 
of the number required by Sec.  121.391(a); and
    (2) Flight attendants provided by the certificate holder when 
flight attendants are not required by Sec.  121.391(a).
    (b) A qualifying flight attendant who is receiving operating 
experience on an aircraft in operations under subpart O of this part 
must be identified to passengers as a qualifying flight attendant.

0
4. Amend Sec.  121.400 by adding paragraphs (c)(9) through (11) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  121.400  Applicability and terms used.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (9) Related aircraft. Any two or more aircraft of the same make 
with either the same or different type certificates that have been 
demonstrated and determined by the Administrator to have commonality to 
the extent that credit between those aircraft may be applied for 
flightcrew member training, checking, recent experience, operating 
experience, operating cycles, and line operating flight time for 
consolidation of knowledge and skills.
    (10) Related aircraft differences training. The flightcrew member 
training required for aircraft with different type certificates that 
have been designated as related by the Administrator.
    (11) Base aircraft. An aircraft identified by a certificate holder 
for use as a reference to compare differences with another aircraft.

0
5. Amend Sec.  121.403 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.403  Training program: Curriculum.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) A list of all the training device mockups, systems trainers, 
procedures trainers, or other training aids that the certificate holder 
will use. No later than March 12, 2019, a list of all the training 
equipment approved under Sec.  121.408 as well as other training aids 
that the certificate holder will use.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  121.407 as follows:
0
A. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
B. Revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(iii), (a)(2), and 
(a)(3); and
0
C. Add paragraph (e).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  121.407  Training program: Approval of airplane simulators and 
other training devices.

    (a) Each airplane simulator and other training device used to 
satisfy a training requirement of this part in an approved training 
program, must meet all of the following requirements:
    (1) Be specifically approved by the Administrator for--
    (i) Use in the certificate holder's approved training program;
    (ii) * * *
    (iii) The particular maneuver, procedure, or flightcrew member 
function involved.
    (2) Maintain the performance, function, and other characteristics 
that are required for qualification in accordance with part 60 of this 
chapter or a previously qualified device, as permitted in accordance 
with Sec.  60.17 of this chapter.
    (3) Be modified in accordance with part 60 of this chapter to 
conform with any modification to the airplane being simulated that 
results in changes to performance, function, or other characteristics 
required for qualification.
* * * * *
    (e) An airplane simulator approved under this section must be used 
instead of the airplane to satisfy the pilot flight training 
requirements prescribed in the extended envelope training set forth in

[[Page 67837]]

Sec.  121.423 of this part. Compliance with this paragraph is required 
no later than March 12, 2019.

0
7. Add Sec.  121.408 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.408  Training equipment other than flight simulation training 
devices.

    (a) The Administrator must approve training equipment used in a 
training program approved under this part and that functionally 
replicates aircraft equipment for the certificate holder and the 
crewmember duty or procedure. Training equipment does not include FSTDs 
qualified under part 60 of this chapter.
    (b) The certificate holder must demonstrate that the training 
equipment described in paragraph (a) of this section, used to meet the 
training requirements of this subpart, meets all of the following:
    (1) The form, fit, function, and weight, as appropriate, of the 
aircraft equipment.
    (2) Replicates the normal operation (and abnormal and emergency 
operation, if appropriate) of the aircraft equipment including the 
following:
    (i) The required force, actions and travel of the aircraft 
equipment.
    (ii) Variations in aircraft equipment operated by the certificate 
holder, if applicable.
    (3) Replicates the operation of the aircraft equipment under 
adverse conditions, if appropriate.
    (c) Training equipment must be modified to ensure that it maintains 
the performance and function of the aircraft type or aircraft equipment 
replicated.
    (d) All training equipment must have a record of discrepancies. The 
documenting system must be readily available for review by each 
instructor, check airman or supervisor, prior to conducting training or 
checking with that equipment.
    (1) Each instructor, check airman or supervisor conducting training 
or checking, and each person conducting an inspection of the equipment 
who discovers a discrepancy, including any missing, malfunctioning or 
inoperative components, must record a description of that discrepancy 
and the date that the discrepancy was identified.
    (2) All corrections to discrepancies must be recorded when the 
corrections are made. This record must include the date of the 
correction.
    (3) A record of a discrepancy must be maintained for at least 60 
days.
    (e) No person may use, allow the use of, or offer the use of 
training equipment with a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative 
component to meet the crewmember training or checking requirements of 
this chapter for tasks that require the use of the correctly operating 
component.
    (f) Compliance with this section is required no later than March 
12, 2019.

0
8. Amend Sec.  121.409 as follows:
0
A. Remove the semicolon at the end of paragraph (b)(1) and add a period 
in its place;
0
B. Revise paragraph (b)(2);
0
C. Remove paragraph (b)(3); and
0
D. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(3).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  121.409  Training courses using airplane simulators and other 
training devices.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) Provides training in at least the following:
    (i) The procedures and maneuvers set forth in appendix F to this 
part; or
    (ii) Line-oriented flight training (LOFT) that--
    (A) Before March 12, 2019,
    (1) Utilizes a complete flight crew;
    (2) Includes at least the maneuvers and procedures (abnormal and 
emergency) that may be expected in line operations; and
    (3) Is representative of the flight segment appropriate to the 
operations being conducted by the certificate holder.
    (B) Beginning on March 12, 2019--
    (1) Utilizes a complete flight crew;
    (2) Includes at least the maneuvers and procedures (abnormal and 
emergency) that may be expected in line operations;
    (3) Includes scenario-based or maneuver-based stall prevention 
training before, during or after the LOFT scenario for each pilot;
    (4) Is representative of two flight segments appropriate to the 
operations being conducted by the certificate holder; and
    (5) Provides an opportunity to demonstrate workload management and 
pilot monitoring skills.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  121.411 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and 
(6) and (c)(1) through (3) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.411  Qualifications: Check airmen (airplane) and check airmen 
(simulator).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings required to serve as 
a pilot in command or flight engineer, as applicable, in operations 
under this part;
    (2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases 
for the airplane, including recurrent training, that are required to 
serve as a pilot in command or flight engineer, as applicable, in 
operations under this part;
    (3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or 
flight checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command or 
flight engineer, as applicable, in operations under this part;
* * * * *
    (6) Has satisfied the recency of experience requirements of Sec.  
121.439 of this part, as applicable; and
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings, except medical 
certificate, required to serve as a pilot in command or a flight 
engineer, as applicable, in operations under this part;
    (2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases 
for the airplane, including recurrent training, that are required to 
serve as a pilot in command or flight engineer, as applicable, in 
operations under this part;
    (3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or 
flight checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command or 
flight engineer, as applicable, in operations under this part;
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  121.412 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and 
(b)(5) and (6) and (c)(1) through (3) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.412  Qualifications: Flight instructors (airplane) and flight 
instructors (simulator).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Holds the airman certificates and rating required to serve as a 
pilot in command or flight engineer, as applicable, in operations under 
this part;
    (2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases 
for the airplane, including recurrent training, that are required to 
serve as a pilot in command or flight engineer, as applicable, in 
operations under this part;
    (3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or 
flight checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command or 
flight engineer, as applicable, in operations under this part;
* * * * *
    (5) Holds at least a Class III medical certificate unless serving 
as a required crewmember, in which case holds a Class I or a Class II 
medical certificate as appropriate; and

[[Page 67838]]

    (6) Has satisfied the recency of experience requirements of Sec.  
121.439 of this part, as applicable.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Holds the airman certificates and ratings, except medical 
certificate, required to serve as a pilot in command or flight 
engineer, as applicable, in operations under this part;
    (2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases 
for the airplane, including recurrent training, that are required to 
serve as a pilot in command or flight engineer, as applicable, in 
operations under this part;
    (3) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate proficiency or 
flight checks that are required to serve as a pilot in command or 
flight engineer, as applicable, in operations under this part; and
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  121.413 as follows:
0
A. Revise the section heading;
0
B. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (d), (e) introductory text, (e)(4), and 
(g) introductory text; and
0
C. Add paragraphs (c)(7), (h), and (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  121.413  Initial, transition and recurrent training and checking 
requirements: Check airmen (airplane), check airmen (simulator).

    (a) * * *
    (2) Within the preceding 24 calendar months that person 
satisfactorily conducts a check or supervises operating experience 
under the observation of an FAA inspector or an aircrew designated 
examiner employed by the operator. The observation check may be 
accomplished in part or in full in an airplane, in a flight simulator, 
or in a flight training device.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (7) For check airmen who conduct training or checking in a flight 
simulator or a flight training device, the following subjects specific 
to the device(s) for the airplane type:
    (i) Proper operation of the controls and systems;
    (ii) Proper operation of environmental and fault panels;
    (iii) Data and motion limitations of simulation; and
    (iv) The minimum airplane simulator equipment required by this part 
or part 60 of this chapter, for each maneuver and procedure completed 
in a flight simulator or a flight training device.
    (d) The transition ground training for check airmen must include 
the following:
    (1) The approved methods, procedures, and limitations for 
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures 
applicable to the airplane to which the check airman is transitioning.
    (2) For check airmen who conduct training or checking in a flight 
simulator or a flight training device, the following subjects specific 
to the device(s) for the airplane type to which the check airman is 
transitioning:
    (i) Proper operation of the controls and systems;
    (ii) Proper operation of environmental and fault panels;
    (iii) Data and motion limitations of simulation; and
    (iv) The minimum airplane simulator equipment required by this part 
or part 60 of this chapter, for each maneuver and procedure completed 
in a flight simulator or a flight training device.
    (e) The initial and transition flight training for check airmen 
(airplane) must include the following:
* * * * *
    (4) For flight engineer check airmen (airplane), training to ensure 
competence to perform assigned duties.
* * * * *
    (g) The initial and transition flight training for check airmen who 
conduct training or checking in a flight simulator or a flight training 
device must include the following:
* * * * *
    (h) Recurrent ground training for check airmen who conduct training 
or checking in a flight simulator or a flight training device must be 
completed every 12 calendar months and must include the subjects 
required in paragraph (c)(7) of this section.
    (i) Compliance with paragraphs (c)(7), (d)(2), and (h) of this 
section is required no later than March 12, 2019.

0
12. Amend Sec.  121.414 as follows:
0
A. Revise the section heading;
0
B. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (d), (e) introductory text, (e)(4), and 
(g) introductory text; and
0
C. Add paragraphs (c)(8), (h), and (i).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  121.414  Initial, transition and recurrent training and checking 
requirements: flight instructors (airplane), flight instructors 
(simulator).

    (a) * * *
    (2) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, that person 
satisfactorily conducts instruction under the observation of an FAA 
inspector, an operator check airman, or an aircrew designated examiner 
employed by the operator. The observation check may be accomplished in 
part or in full in an airplane, in a flight simulator, or in a flight 
training device.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (8) For flight instructors who conduct training in a flight 
simulator or a flight training device, the following subjects specific 
to the device(s) for the airplane type:
    (i) Proper operation of the controls and systems;
    (ii) Proper operation of environmental and fault panels;
    (iii) Data and motion limitations of simulation; and
    (iv) The minimum airplane simulator equipment required by this part 
or part 60 of this chapter, for each maneuver and procedure completed 
in a flight simulator or a flight training device.
    (d) The transition ground training for flight instructors must 
include the following:
    (1) The approved methods, procedures, and limitations for 
performing the required normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures 
applicable to the airplane to which the flight instructor is 
transitioning.
    (2) For flight instructors who conduct training in a flight 
simulator or a flight training device, the following subjects specific 
to the device(s) for the airplane type to which the flight instructor 
is transitioning:
    (i) Proper operation of the controls and systems;
    (ii) Proper operation of environmental and fault panels;
    (iii) Data and motion limitations of simulation; and
    (iv) The minimum airplane simulator equipment required by this part 
or part 60 of this chapter, for each maneuver and procedure completed 
in a flight simulator or a flight training device.
    (e) The initial and transition flight training for flight 
instructors (airplane) must include the following:
* * * * *
    (4) For flight engineer instructors (airplane), inflight training 
to ensure competence to perform assigned duties.
* * * * *
    (g) The initial and transition flight training for flight 
instructors who conduct training in a flight simulator or a flight 
training device must include the following:
* * * * *
    (h) Recurrent flight instructor ground training for flight 
instructors who conduct training in a flight simulator or a flight 
training device must be completed every 12 calendar months and must 
include the subjects required in paragraph (c)(8) of this section.

[[Page 67839]]

    (i) Compliance with paragraphs (c)(8), (d)(2), and (h) of this 
section is required no later than March 12, 2019.

0
13. Amend Sec.  121.415 as follows:
0
A. Revise section heading;
0
B. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the reference to ``Sec. Sec.  121.419 
through 121.422'' and add in its place ``Sec. Sec.  121.419, 121.421 
and 121.422'';
0
C. In paragraph (b), remove the reference to ``121.426'' and add in its 
place ``121.425'';
0
D. In paragraph (d), remove the reference to ``Sec.  121.418'' and add 
in its place ``Sec.  121.418(a)'' and remove the word ``his'' and add 
in its place ``their'';
0
E. In paragraph (f), remove the reference to ``Sec. Sec.  121.419 
through 121.425'' and add in its place ``Sec. Sec.  121.419, 121.421, 
121.422, 121.424, and 121.425''; and
0
F. Add paragraphs (h), (i), and (j).
    The revision and additions read as follows:


Sec.  121.415  Crewmember and dispatcher training program requirements.

* * * * *
    (h) Each training program must include a process to provide for the 
regular analysis of individual pilot performance to identify pilots 
with performance deficiencies during training and checking and multiple 
failures during checking.
    (i) Each training program must include methods for remedial 
training and tracking of pilots identified in the analysis performed in 
accordance with paragraph (h) of this section.
    (j) Compliance with paragraphs (h) and (i) of this section is 
required no later than March 12, 2019.

0
14. Amend Sec.  121.418 as follows:
0
A. Revise section heading;
0
B. Redesignate paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) 
and the undesignated paragraph, as paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), 
(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iii), and (a)(2) respectively;
0
C. Add a subject heading to paragraph (a); and
0
D. Add paragraphs (b) and (c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  121.418  Differences training and related aircraft differences 
training.

    (a) Differences training.
* * * * *
    (b) Related aircraft differences training. (1) In order to seek 
approval of related aircraft differences training for flightcrew 
members, a certificate holder must submit a request for related 
aircraft designation to the Administrator, and obtain approval of that 
request.
    (2) If the Administrator determines under paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section that a certificate holder is operating related aircraft, the 
certificate holder may submit to the Administrator a request for 
approval of a training program that includes related aircraft 
differences training.
    (3) A request for approval of a training program that includes 
related aircraft differences training must include at least the 
following:
    (i) Each appropriate subject required for the ground training for 
the related aircraft.
    (ii) Each appropriate maneuver or procedure required for the flight 
training and crewmember emergency training for the related aircraft.
    (iii) The number of programmed hours of ground training, flight 
training and crewmember emergency training necessary based on review of 
the related aircraft and the duty position.
    (c) Approved related aircraft differences training. Approved 
related aircraft differences training for flightcrew members may be 
included in initial, transition, upgrade and recurrent training for the 
base aircraft. If the certificate holder's approved training program 
includes related aircraft differences training in accordance with 
paragraph (b) of this section, the training required by Sec. Sec.  
121.419, 121.424, 121.425, and 121.427, as applicable to flightcrew 
members, may be modified for the related aircraft.

0
15. Amend Sec.  121.419 as follows:
0
A. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(ix);
0
B. In paragraph (a)(2)(x), remove ``and'' following the semi-colon;
0
C. Redesignate paragraph (a)(2)(xi) as (a)(2)(xiii); and
0
D. Add new paragraph (a)(2)(xi) and paragraphs (a)(2)(xii) and (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  121.419  Pilots and flight engineers: Initial, transition, and 
upgrade ground training.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ix) Other instructions as necessary to ensure pilot and flight 
engineer competence.
    (2) * * *
    (xi) For pilots, stall prevention and recovery in clean 
configuration, takeoff and maneuvering configuration, and landing 
configuration.
    (xii) For pilots, upset prevention and recovery; and
    (xiii) The approved Airplane Flight Manual.
* * * * *
    (e) Compliance and pilot programmed hours. (1) Compliance with the 
requirements identified in paragraphs (a)(2)(xi) and (a)(2)(xii) of 
this section is required no later than March 12, 2019.
    (2) Beginning March 12, 2019, initial programmed hours applicable 
to pilots as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section must 
include 2 additional hours.


Sec.  121.420  [Removed and Reserved]

0
16. Remove and reserve Sec.  121.420.

0
17. Add Sec.  121.423 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.423  Pilot: Extended Envelope Training.

    (a) Each certificate holder must include in its approved training 
program, the extended envelope training set forth in this section with 
respect to each airplane type for each pilot. The extended envelope 
training required by this section must be performed in a Level C or 
higher full flight simulator, approved by the Administrator in 
accordance with Sec.  121.407 of this part.
    (b) Extended envelope training must include the following maneuvers 
and procedures:
    (1) Manually controlled slow flight;
    (2) Manually controlled loss of reliable airspeed;
    (3) Manually controlled instrument departure and arrival;
    (4) Upset recovery maneuvers; and
    (5) Recovery from bounced landing.
    (c) Extended envelope training must include instructor-guided hands 
on experience of recovery from full stall and stick pusher activation, 
if equipped.
    (d) Recurrent training: Within 24 calendar months preceding service 
as a pilot, each person must satisfactorily complete the extended 
envelope training described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) and (c) of 
this section. Within 36 calendar months preceding service as a pilot, 
each person must satisfactorily complete the extended envelope training 
described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section.
    (e) Deviation from use of Level C or higher full flight simulator:
    (1) A certificate holder may submit a request to the Administrator 
for approval of a deviation from the requirements of paragraph (a) of 
this section to conduct the extended envelope training using an 
alternative method to meet the learning objectives of this section.
    (2) A request for deviation from paragraph (a) of this section must 
include the following information:
    (i) A simulator availability assessment, including hours by 
specific simulator and location of the simulator, and a simulator 
shortfall analysis that includes the training that cannot be completed 
in a Level C or higher full flight simulator; and
    (ii) Alternative methods for achieving the learning objectives of 
this section.

[[Page 67840]]

    (3) A certificate holder may request an extension of a deviation 
issued under this section.
    (4) Deviations or extensions to deviations will be issued for a 
period not to exceed 12 months.
    (f) Compliance with this section is required no later than March 
12, 2019. For the recurrent training required in paragraph (d) of this 
section, each pilot qualified to serve as second in command or pilot in 
command in operations under this part on March 12, 2019 must complete 
the recurrent extended envelope training within 12 calendar months 
after March 12, 2019.

0
18. Amend Sec.  121.424 as follows:
0
A. Revise paragraph (a);
0
B. Revise paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
C. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the word ``and'' following the semi-
colon;
0
D. Redesignate paragraph (b)(2) as (b)(3);
0
E. Add new paragraph (b)(2);
0
F. In paragraph (c), remove the reference to ``paragraph (a)'' and add 
in its place ``paragraph (a)(1);'' and
0
G. Add paragraph (e).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  121.424  Pilots: Initial, transition, and upgrade flight 
training.

    (a) Initial, transition, and upgrade training for pilots must 
include the following:
    (1) Flight training and practice in the maneuvers and procedures 
set forth in the certificate holder's approved low-altitude windshear 
flight training program and in appendix E to this part, as applicable; 
and
    (2) Extended envelope training set forth in Sec.  121.423.
    (b) The training required by paragraph (a) of this section must be 
performed inflight except--
* * * * *
    (2) That the extended envelope training required by Sec.  121.423 
must be performed in a Level C or higher full flight simulator unless 
the Administrator has issued to the certificate holder a deviation in 
accordance with Sec.  121.423(e); and
* * * * *
    (e) Compliance with paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of this section is 
required no later than March 12, 2019.


Sec.  121.426  [Removed and Reserved]

0
19. Remove and reserve Sec.  121.426.
0
20. Amend Sec.  121.427 as follows:
0
A. Revise paragraph (b)(4);
0
B. Remove paragraph (c)(2);
0
C. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (c)(2) and (3), 
respectively;
0
D. Revise paragraph (d)(1);
0
E. Remove paragraph (d)(3); and
0
F. Add paragraph (e).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  121.427  Recurrent training.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) CRM and DRM training. For flightcrew members, CRM training or 
portions thereof may be accomplished during an approved simulator line 
operational flight training (LOFT) session. The recurrent CRM or DRM 
training requirements do not apply until a person has completed the 
applicable initial CRM or DRM training required by Sec. Sec.  121.419, 
121.421, or 121.422.
* * * * *
    (d) Recurrent flight training for flightcrew members must include 
at least the following:
    (1) For pilots--
    (i) Extended envelope training as required by Sec.  121.423 of this 
part; and
    (ii) Flight training in an approved simulator in maneuvers and 
procedures set forth in the certificate holder's approved low-altitude 
windshear flight training program and flight training in maneuvers and 
procedures set forth in appendix F to this part, or in a flight 
training program approved by the Administrator, except as follows--
    (A) The number of programmed inflight hours is not specified; and
    (B) Satisfactory completion of a proficiency check may be 
substituted for recurrent flight training as permitted in Sec.  
121.433(c) and (e) of this part.
* * * * *
    (e) Compliance and pilot programmed hours:
    (1) Compliance with the requirements identified in paragraphs 
(d)(1)(i) of this section is required no later than March 12, 2019.
    (2) After March 12, 2019, recurrent programmed hours applicable to 
pilots as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section must include 30 
additional minutes.


Sec.  121.432  [Amended]

0
21. Amend Sec.  121.432 as follows:
0
A. Remove paragraphs (b)(2) and (3);
0
B. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) as paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) 
respectively;
0
C. Remove paragraphs (c) and (d); and
0
D. Designate the undesignated paragraph as paragraph (c).

0
22. Amend Sec.  121.433 as follows:
0
A. Remove ``he'' and add in its place ``the person'' each time it 
appears in the section; and
0
B. Revise paragraphs (d) and (e).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  121.433  Training required.

* * * * *
    (d) For each airplane in which a pilot serves as pilot in command, 
the person must satisfactorily complete either recurrent flight 
training or a proficiency check within the preceding 12 calendar 
months. The requirement in this paragraph expires on March 12, 2019. 
After that date, the requirement in Sec.  121.441(a)(1)(ii) of this 
part applies.
    (e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(2) and (d) of this section, a 
proficiency check as provided in Sec.  121.441 of this part may not be 
substituted for the extended envelope training required by Sec.  
121.423 or training in those maneuvers and procedures set forth in a 
certificate holder's approved low-altitude windshear flight training 
program when that program is included in a recurrent flight training 
course as required by Sec.  121.409(d) of this part.

0
23. Amend Sec.  121.434 as follows:
0
A. Add paragraph (a)(4); and,
0
B. In paragraph (b)(1), remove ``he'' and add in its place ``the 
person'';
0
C. Remove the last sentence of paragraph (f); and
0
D. Revise paragraph (i).
    The addition and revision read as follows:


Sec.  121.434  Operating experience, operating cycles, and 
consolidation of knowledge and skills.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Deviation based upon designation of related aircraft in 
accordance with Sec.  121.418(b).
    (i) The Administrator may authorize a deviation from the operating 
experience, operating cycles, and line operating flight time for 
consolidation of knowledge and skills required by this section based 
upon a designation of related aircraft in accordance with Sec.  
121.418(b) of this part and a determination that the certificate holder 
can demonstrate an equivalent level of safety.
    (ii) A request for deviation from the operating experience, 
operating cycles, and line operating flight time for consolidation of 
knowledge and skills required by this section based upon a designation 
of related aircraft must be submitted to the Administrator. The request 
must include the following:
    (A) Identification of aircraft operated by the certificate holder 
designated as related aircraft.
    (B) Hours of operating experience and number of operating cycles 
necessary based on review of the related aircraft, the operation, and 
the duty position.

[[Page 67841]]

    (C) Consolidation hours necessary based on review of the related 
aircraft, the operation, and the duty position.
    (iii) The administrator may, at any time, terminate a grant of 
deviation authority issued under this paragraph (a)(4).
* * * * *
    (i) Notwithstanding the reductions in programmed hours permitted 
under Sec. Sec.  121.405 and 121.409 of subpart N of this part, the 
hours of operating experience for crewmembers are not subject to 
reduction other than as provided in accordance with a deviation 
authorized under paragraph (a) of this section or as provided in 
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.


Sec.  121.435  [Removed and Reserved]

0
24. Remove and reserve Sec.  121.435.
0
25. Amend Sec.  121.439 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.439  Pilot qualification: Recent experience.

* * * * *
    (f) Deviation authority based upon designation of related aircraft 
in accordance with Sec.  121.418(b).
    (1) The Administrator may authorize a deviation from the 
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section based upon a designation 
of related aircraft in accordance with Sec.  121.418(b) of this part 
and a determination that the certificate holder can demonstrate an 
equivalent level of safety.
    (2) A request for deviation from paragraph (a) of this section must 
be submitted to the Administrator. The request must include the 
following:
    (i) Identification of aircraft operated by the certificate holder 
designated as related aircraft.
    (ii) The number of takeoffs, landings, maneuvers, and procedures 
necessary to maintain or reestablish recency based on review of the 
related aircraft, the operation, and the duty position.
    (3) The administrator may, at any time, terminate a grant of 
deviation authority issued under this paragraph (f).

0
26. Amend Sec.  121.441 by revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding 
paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.441  Proficiency checks.

    (a) * * *
    (1) For a pilot in command--
    (i) Before March 12, 2019,
    (A) A proficiency check within the preceding 12 calendar months 
and,
    (B) In addition, within the preceding 6 calendar months, either a 
proficiency check or the approved simulator course of training.
    (ii) Beginning on March 12, 2019,
    (A) A proficiency check within the preceding 12 calendar months in 
the aircraft type in which the person is to serve and,
    (B) In addition, within the preceding 6 calendar months, either a 
proficiency check or the approved simulator course of training.
* * * * *
    (f) Deviation authority based upon designation of related aircraft 
in accordance with Sec.  121.418(b) of this part.
    (1) The Administrator may authorize a deviation from the 
proficiency check requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of this 
section based upon a designation of related aircraft in accordance with 
Sec.  121.418(b) of this part and a determination that the certificate 
holder can demonstrate an equivalent level of safety.
    (2) A request for deviation from paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of this 
section must be submitted to the Administrator. The request must 
include the following:
    (i) Identification of aircraft operated by the certificate holder 
designated as related aircraft.
    (ii) For recurrent proficiency checks, the frequency of the related 
aircraft proficiency check and the maneuvers and procedures to be 
included in the related aircraft proficiency check based on review of 
the related aircraft, the operation, and the duty position.
    (iii) For qualification proficiency checks, the maneuvers and 
procedures to be included in the related aircraft proficiency check 
based on review of the related aircraft, the operation, and the duty 
position.
    (3) The administrator may, at any time, terminate a grant of 
deviation authority issued under this paragraph (f).

0
27. Add Sec.  121.544 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.544  Pilot monitoring.

    Each pilot who is seated at the pilot controls of the aircraft, 
while not flying the aircraft, must accomplish pilot monitoring duties 
as appropriate in accordance with the certificate holder's procedures 
contained in the manual required by Sec.  121.133 of this part. 
Compliance with this section is required no later than March 12, 2019.

0
28. Revise Sec.  121.711 to read as follows:


Sec.  121.711  Communication records: Domestic and flag operations.

    (a) Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations 
must record each en route communication between the certificate holder 
and its pilots using a communication system as required by Sec.  121.99 
of this part.
    (b) For purposes of this section the term en route means from the 
time the aircraft pushes back from the departing gate until the time 
the aircraft reaches the arrival gate at its destination.
    (c) The record required in paragraph (a) of this section must 
contain at least the following information:
    (1) The date and time of the contact;
    (2) The flight number;
    (3) Aircraft registration number;
    (4) Approximate position of the aircraft during the contact;
    (5) Call sign; and
    (6) Narrative of the contact.
    (d) The record required in paragraph (a) of this section must be 
kept for at least 30 days.

0
29. Amend appendix E:
0
A. By revising the first paragraph;
0
B. In the Table entitled ``Flight Training Requirements'':
0
i. Redesignate entry I(c) as I(c)(1) and revise text of I(c)(1);
0
ii. Add new entry I(c)(2);
0
iii. Redesignate entry I(d) as I(d)(1) and revise text of (I)(d)(1);
0
iv. Add new entry I(d)(2);
0
v. Redesignate entry II(c) as II(c)(1);
0
vi. Add new entry II(c)(2);
0
vii. In entry III(e) replace the word ``runway'' with ``runaway'';
0
viii. Revise entry III(i);
0
ix. Redesignate entry IV(d) as IV(d)(1); and
0
x. Add new entry IV(d)(2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 121--Flight Training Requirements.

    The maneuvers and procedures required by Sec.  121.424 of this 
part for pilot initial, transition, and upgrade flight training are 
set forth in the certificate holder's approved low-altitude 
windshear flight training program, Sec.  121.423 extended envelope 
training, and in this appendix. All required maneuvers and 
procedures must be performed inflight except that windshear and 
extended envelope training maneuvers and procedures must be 
performed in an airplane simulator in which the maneuvers and 
procedures are specifically authorized to be accomplished. Certain 
other maneuvers and procedures may be performed in an airplane 
simulator with a visual system (visual simulator), an airplane 
simulator without a visual system (nonvisual simulator), a training 
device, or a static airplane as indicated by the appropriate symbol 
in the respective column opposite the maneuver or procedure.

[[Page 67842]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO13.163


[[Page 67843]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO13.164


[[Page 67844]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO13.165


0
30. In appendix F, amend the entries in the Table as follows:
0
A. Remove the reference in entry I(b) to Sec.  121.424(d)(2) and add in 
its place a reference to Sec.  121.424(d)(1)(ii);
0
B. Redesignate entry I(c) as I(c)(1) and revise it;
0
C. Add entry I(c)(2);
0
D. Redesignate entry I(d) as I(d)(1) and hyphenate the words power-
plant in I(d)(1);
0
E. Add entry I(d)(2);
0
F. Redesignate entry II(c) as II(c)(1) and revise it;
0
G. Add entry II(c)(2);
0
H. Amend entry III(c)(4) by removing the second sentence;
0
I. Revise entry IV(b) and the first floating paragraph that follows;
0
J. Amend entry V introductory text by removing the last sentence in the 
first paragraph;
0
K. Redesignate entry V(c) as V(c)(1); and
0
L. Add entry V(c)(2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

[[Page 67845]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Required                                 Permitted
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Maneuvers/procedures       Simulated                                                            Waiver
                                instrument    Inflight      Visual     Nonvisual     Training     provisions of
                                conditions                simulator    simulator      device          Sec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------121.441(d)---
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
I Preflight--
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(c)(1) Taxiing. Before March   ...........            B  ...........  ...........  ...........  ................
 12, 2019, this maneuver
 includes taxiing (in the
 case of a second in command
 proficiency check to the
 extent practical from the
 second in command crew
 position), sailing, or
 docking procedures in
 compliance with instructions
 issued by the appropriate
 traffic control authority or
 by the person conducting the
 checks......................
(c)(2) Taxiing. Beginning      ...........            B  ...........  ...........  ...........  ................
 March 12, 2019, this
 maneuver includes the
 following: (i) Taxiing (in
 the case of a second in
 command proficiency check to
 the extent practical from
 the second in command crew
 position), sailing, or
 docking procedures in
 compliance with instructions
 issued by the appropriate
 traffic control authority or
 by the person conducting the
 checks. (ii) Use of airport
 diagram (surface movement
 chart). (iii) Obtaining
 appropriate clearance before
 crossing or entering active
 runways. (iv) Observation of
 all surface movement
 guidance control markings
 and lighting................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(d)(2) Beginning March 12,     ...........  ...........            B  ...........  ...........  ................
 2019, pre-takeoff procedures
 that include power-plant
 checks, receipt of takeoff
 clearance and confirmation
 of aircraft location, and
 FMS entry (if appropriate),
 for departure runway prior
 to crossing hold short line
 for takeoff.................
II Takeoff--
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(c)(1) Crosswind. Before       ...........          B *  ...........  ...........  ...........  ................
 March 12, 2019, one
 crosswind takeoff, if
 practicable, under the
 existing meteorological,
 airport, and traffic
 conditions..................
(c)(2) Beginning March 12,     ...........          B *  ...........  ...........  ...........  ................
 2019, one crosswind takeoff
 with gusts, if practicable,
 under the existing
 meteorological, airport, and
 traffic conditions..........
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
IV. Inflight Maneuvers
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(b) Stall Prevention. For the            B  ...........  ...........            B  ...........               B *
 purpose of this maneuver the
 approved recovery procedure
 must be initiated at the
 first indication of an
 impending stall (buffet,
 stick shaker, aural
 warning). Except as provided
 below there must be at least
 three stall prevention
 recoveries as follows:......
    (1) One in the takeoff
     configuration (except
     where the airplane uses
     only a zero-flap takeoff
     configuration).
    (2) One in a clean
     configuration.
    (3) One in a landing
     configuration.
At the discretion of the
 person conducting the check,
 one stall prevention
 recovery must be performed
 in one of the above
 configurations while in a
 turn with the bank angle
 between 15[deg] and 30[deg].
 Two out of the three stall
 prevention recoveries
 required by this paragraph
 may be waived * * *.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
V Landings and Approaches to
 Landings--

[[Page 67846]]

 
Notwithstanding the
 authorizations for combining
 and waiving maneuvers and
 for the use of a simulator,
 at least two actual landings
 (one to a full stop) must be
 made for all pilot-in-
 command and initial second-
 in-command proficiency
 checks.
Landings and approaches to
 landings must include the
 types listed below, but more
 than one type may be
 combined where appropriate.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
(c)(2) Beginning March 12,     ...........          B *  ...........  ...........  ...........  ................
 2019, crosswind landing with
 gusts, if practical under
 existing meteorological,
 airport, and traffic
 conditions..................
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
31. Amend appendix H by adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (6) 
in the section titled Advanced Simulation Training Program; and add 
paragraph (5) to the section titled Level C Training and Checking 
Permitted to read as follows:

Appendix H to Part 121--Advanced Simulation

* * * * *
    Advanced Simulation Training Program
* * * * *
    6. * * * After March 12, 2019, the LOFT must provide an 
opportunity for the pilot to demonstrate workload management and 
pilot monitoring skills.
* * * * *
    Level C
    Training and Checking Permitted
* * * * *
    5. For all pilots, the extended envelope training required by 
Sec.  121.423 of this part.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority provided by 49 
U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a) and Secs. 208 and 209 of Public Law 111-216, 
124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note), on November 5, 2013.

Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-26845 Filed 11-6-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


