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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67800 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Transportation Division (AFS–200), CAST Commercial Aviation Safety Team Flight Standards Service, Federal CFR Code of Federal Regulations Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Administration, 800 CRM Crew Resource Management Independence Avenue SW., CTP Certification Training Program 14 CFR Part 121 DOT Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) FAA Federal Aviation Administration [Docket No.: FAA–2008–0677; Amdt. No. 267–8166. For legal questions, contact FCOM Flightcrew Operating Manual 121–366] Sara Mikolop, email: Sara.Mikolop@ FDR Flight Data Recorder faa.gov or Bonnie Dragotto, email: FFS Full Flight Simulator RIN 2120–AJ00 [email protected]; Office of FSB Flight Standardization Board Chief Counsel (AGC–200), Federal FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification, Service, and Use of FTD Flight Training Device Crewmembers and Aircraft Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., IAS Indicated Airspeed Dispatchers ICAO International Civil Aviation Washington, DC, 20591; telephone (202) Organization AGENCY: Federal Aviation 267–3073. ICATEE International Committee for Administration (FAA), DOT. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aviation Training in Extended Envelopes ACTION: Final rule. INFO Information for Operators Authority for This Rulemaking IOS Instructor Operating Station SUMMARY: This final rule revises the The FAA’s authority to issue rules on LOC–I Loss of Control In-Flight training requirements for pilots in air aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the LOFT Line Oriented Flight Training carrier operations. The regulations United States Code (U.S.C.). This MDR Master Differences Requirements enhance air carrier pilot training NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rulemaking is promulgated under the NTSB National Transportation Safety Board programs by emphasizing the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), development of pilots’ manual handling OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer which vests final authority in the OMB Office of Management and Budget skills and adding safety-critical tasks Administrator for carrying out all PIC Pilot in Command such as recovery from stall and upset. functions, powers, and duties of the POI Principal Operations Inspector The final rule also requires enhanced administration relating to the PRIA Pilot Records Improvement Act runway safety training and pilot promulgation of regulations and rules, PTS Practical Test Standards monitoring training to be incorporated and 44701(a)(5), which requires the SAFO Safety Alert for Operators into existing requirements for scenario- Administrator to promulgate regulations SIC Second in Command SMS Safety Management System based flight training and requires air and minimum standards for other carriers to implement remedial training SNPRM Supplemental Notice of Proposed practices, methods, and procedures Rulemaking programs for pilots. The FAA expects necessary for safety in air commerce and these changes to contribute to a national security. Table of Contents reduction in aviation accidents. Also, the Airline Safety and Federal I. Overview of Final Rule Additionally, the final rule revises Aviation Administration Extension Act II. Background recordkeeping requirements for of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–216) specifically A. Statement of the Problem communications between the flightcrew required the FAA to conduct B. Related Actions and dispatch; ensures that personnel rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew C. National Transportation Safety Board identified as flight attendants have members receive ground training and (NTSB) Recommendations completed flight attendant training and flight training in recognizing and D. Sections 208 and 209 of Public Law 111–216 qualification requirements; provides avoiding stalls, recovering from stalls, civil enforcement authority for making E. Summary of NPRM and SNPRM and recognizing and avoiding upset of F. Differences Between SNPRM and Final fraudulent statements; and, provides a an aircraft, as well as the proper Rule number of conforming and technical techniques to recover from upset of an III. Discussion of Public Comments and Final changes to existing air carrier aircraft. Public Law 111–216 also Rule crewmember training and qualification directed the FAA to require air carriers A. General requirements. The final rule also to develop remedial training programs B. Compliance with Final Rule includes provisions that provide for flightcrew members who have Requirements opportunities for air carriers to modify demonstrated performance deficiencies C. Applicability of Final Rule and Impact of Final Rule on Operators with training program requirements for or experienced failures in the training flightcrew members when the air carrier Advanced Qualification Program environment. In addition, Public Law Curriculums operates multiple aircraft types with 111–216 directed the FAA to issue a D. Fraud and Falsification similar design and flight handling final rule with respect to the notice of E. Personnel Identified as Flight characteristics. proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published Attendants DATES: Effective March 12, 2014. in the Federal Register on January 12, F. Approval of Airplane Simulators and Training Devices ADDRESSES: 2009 (74 FR 1280). For information on where to G. Approval of Training Equipment Other obtain copies of rulemaking documents List of Acronyms Than Flight Simulation Training Devices and other information related to this To assist the reader, the following is H. Pilot Monitoring Duties and Training final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain I. Flight Instructor (Simulator) and Check Additional Information’’ in the a list of acronyms used in this final rule: Airmen (Simulator) Training SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of AC Advisory Circular J. Remedial Training Programs this document. AOA Angle of Attack K. Related Aircraft Differences Training AQP Advanced Qualification Program L. Extended Envelope Flight Training FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee M. Extended Envelope Ground Training general questions contact Nancy Lauck ATP Airline Transport Pilot N. Communication Records for Domestic Claussen, email: Nancy.l.Claussen@ AURTA Airplane Upset Recovery Training and Flag Operations faa.gov; for flightcrew member Aid O. Runway Safety questions, contact Robert Burke, email: CAB Civil Aeronautics Board P. Crosswind Maneuvers Including Wind [email protected]; Air CAP Continuous Analysis Process Gusts

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67801

Q. Miscellaneous rulemaking related to the results of the In addition, while the agency finalizes R. SNPRM Economic Comments NTSB investigation of the Colgan Air the proposed rulemaking that will IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses accident. For example, in § 208 of require part 121 operators to implement V. Executive Order Determinations Public Law 111–216, Congress directed safety management systems (SMS), A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563 the FAA to conduct rulemaking to many air carriers have already begun to B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations ensure that all flightcrew members develop SMSs, which will assist air That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, receive ground training and flight carriers in identifying risks unique to Distribution, or Use training in recognizing and avoiding their own operating environments VI. How to Obtain Additional Information stalls, recovering from stalls, and (including air carrier training programs), A. Rulemaking Documents recognizing and avoiding upset of an and establishing mitigations to address B. Comments Submitted to the Docket aircraft, as well as the proper techniques those risks. Implementation of the C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement to recover from upset. Public Law 111– initiatives identified in the FAA’s 2009 Fairness Act 216 also directed the FAA to conduct Call to Action to Enhance Airline Safety I. Overview of Final Rule rulemaking to ensure air carriers has also impacted the training develop remedial training programs for environment. On May 3, 2004, the FAA established flightcrew members who have As a result of these changes, the FAA the Crewmember/Dispatcher demonstrated performance deficiencies believes it is necessary to consider the Qualification Aviation Rulemaking or experienced failures in the training cumulative effects of these efforts across Committee (ARC) as a forum for the environment. In addition, Public Law the aviation industry before additional FAA and the aviation community to 111–216 included a number of related regulations are imposed. Accordingly, at discuss crewmember and aircraft requirements for rulemaking.2 this time, the agency has decided to dispatcher qualification and training. In light of the statutory mandate to finalize certain provisions of the The ARC submitted recommendations conduct rulemaking related to stall and proposal that enhance pilot training for to the Associate Administrator for upset prevention and recovery training, rare, but high-risk scenarios, and that 1 Aviation Safety in April 2005. These as well as significant comments on the provide the greatest safety benefit. The recommendations focused on changes to NPRM and the need to obtain additional time required in order to publish a final the regulatory requirements, the data and clarify the proposal, the FAA rule that contained the comprehensive development of qualification published a supplemental notice of revisions and reorganization of existing performance standards (QPS) proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) on May training program requirements as appendices specific to the qualification, 20, 2011 (76 FR 29336). The SNPRM proposed in the SNPRM would result in training and evaluation of crewmembers included pilot training requirements unacceptable delay in light of the risk (i.e. pilots, flight engineers, and flight intended to mitigate the causal factors presented by these scenarios. attendants) and aircraft dispatchers, and related to pilot training identified by the The FAA will continue to assess the reorganization of the existing NTSB in its investigation and report on need for the comprehensive revisions regulations for traditional air carrier the 2009 Colgan Air accident. and reorganization of pilot, flight training programs, found in subparts N The FAA recognizes the critical safety engineer, flight attendant and dispatcher and O of part 121. roles and contributions of all qualification and training requirements Based on the ARC’s crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers proposed in the NPRM and SNPRM as recommendations, the FAA proposed a in today’s integrated operating it evaluates the cumulative effectiveness comprehensive reorganization and environment. The agency has taken of these various efforts outlined above. revision to crewmember and aircraft steps in addition to this final rule to If this assessment indicates that dispatcher qualification, training, and ensure that crewmember and aircraft additional action is warranted, the FAA evaluation requirements in a notice of dispatcher training reflects that will engage stakeholders on these proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published integrated operating environment. important issues and work to develop January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1280). Since the publication of the SNPRM, additional safety measures as On February 12, 2009, shortly after however, there have been several appropriate. publication of the NPRM, a Colgan Air, changes within the aviation industry. This final rule adds training Inc. Bombardier DHC–8–400, operating These changes have resulted from work requirements for pilots that target the as Continental Connection flight 3407, by the FAA and air carriers to prevention of and recovery from stall crashed into a residence in Clarence implement the related rulemakings and and upset conditions, recovery from Center, New York, about 5 nautical guidance required by Public Law 111– bounced landings, enhanced runway miles northeast of the airport resulting 216. Specifically, recent changes to the safety training, and enhanced training in the death of everyone on board and Airline Transport Pilot certification on crosswind takeoffs and landings with one person on the ground. The National requirements for first officers (second in gusts. Stall and upset prevention require Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) command pilots) have raised the pilot skill in manual handling determined that the probable cause of baseline knowledge and skill set of maneuvers and procedures. Therefore, this accident was the pilot in pilots entering air carrier operations. the manual handling maneuvers most command’s (PIC) inappropriate critical to stall and upset prevention response to the activation of the stick 2 The rulemakings required by Public Law 111– (i.e., slow flight, loss of reliable shaker, which led to an aerodynamic 216 include § 203, FAA pilot records database; airspeed, and manually controlled stall. § 206, Flight crewmember mentoring, professional departure and arrival) are included in development, and leadership training; § 215, Safety the final rule as part of the agency’s The Airline Safety and Federal management systems; § 216, Flight crew member Aviation Administration Extension Act screening and qualifications; and § 217, Airline overall stall and upset mitigation of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–216), enacted transport pilot certification. These rulemaking strategy. These maneuvers are identified August 1, 2010, included a number of projects are in various stages of development, and in the final rule within the ‘‘extended updates on the status of these rulemakings can be envelope’’ training provision. requirements to form ARCs and conduct found on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Report on DOT Significant Rulemakings, Further, the final rule requires air 1 The ARC recommendations are available at available at http://www.dot.gov/regulations/report- carriers to establish remedial training Regulations.gov, FAA–2008–0677–0049. on-significant-rulemakings. and tracking programs for pilots with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67802 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE PROVISIONS

Final rule provision 3 Description of provision Timeline for compliance 4

Fraud and falsification (§ 121.9) ...... Although currently prohibited by criminal stat- Compliance is required on the effective date ute, this section authorizes the FAA to take of the final 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 identifying Compliance is required on the effective date (§ 121.392). persons as flight attendants if those per- of the final rule. sons have not completed flight attendant training and qualification. Approval of flight simulation training devices Conforms the requirements for the evalua- Compliance is required 5 years after the ef- (§ 121.407). tion, qualification, and maintenance of flight fective date of the final rule. simulation training devices used in part 121 to existing part 60 requirements. Training equipment other than flight simulation Ensures that all equipment used in approved Compliance is required 5 years after the ef- training devices approved under part 60 training programs adequately replicates the fective date of the final rule. (§§ 121.408, 121.403(b)(2)). equipment that will be used on an aircraft. Pilot monitoring (§§ 121.409, 121.544, appen- Requires training on pilot monitoring to be in- Compliance is required 5 years after the ef- dix H). corporated into existing requirements for fective date of the final rule. scenario-based training and establishes an operational requirement that flightcrew members follow air carrier procedures re- garding pilot monitoring. The pilot not flying must monitor the aircraft operation. Training for instructors and check airmen who Requires check airmen and flight instructors Compliance is required 5 years after the ef- serve in FSTDs (§§ 121.413, 121.414). who conduct training or checking in FSTDs fective date of the final rule. to complete initial, transition, and recurrent training on the operation of the FSTD and the device’s limitations. Remedial training program (§§ 121.415(h) and Implements Congressional direction to re- Compliance is required 5 years after the ef- 121.415(i)). quire part 121 operators to identify and cor- fective date of the final rule. rect pilot training deficiencies through re- medial training programs. Proficiency checks for PICs Amends current provision to require PICs Compliance is required 5 years after the ef- (§ 121.441(a)(1)(ii)). who fly more than one aircraft type to re- fective date of the final rule. ceive a proficiency check in each aircraft type flown. Related aircraft differences training Allows air carriers to modify training program Since the related aircraft provisions provide (§§ 121.400, 121.418, 121.434, 121.439, requirements for flightcrew members when relief to operators, compliance is permitted 121.441). the air carrier operates aircraft with similar on the effective date of the final rule. flight handling characteristics. Extended envelope flight training maneuvers Requires pilot flight training on the following Compliance is required 5 years after the ef- and procedures (§§ 121.407(e), 121.423, maneuvers and procedures: fective date of the final rule. 121.424, 121.427(d)(1)(i), 121.433(e), ap- • Upset recovery maneuvers ...... pendix E). • Manually controlled slow flight ...... • Manually controlled loss of reliable air- speed. • 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 simu- lator (FFS) during all qualification and re- current training and will require additional time to complete.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67803

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF FINAL RULE PROVISIONS—Continued

Final rule provision 3 Description of provision Timeline for compliance 4

Extended envelope ground training subjects Requires pilots to complete ground training Compliance is required 5 years after the ef- (§§ 121.419(a)(2), 121.427). during qualification and recurrent training fective date of the final rule. 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 flag Codifies details of content for records of com- Compliance is required on the effective date operations (§ 121.711). munication between aircraft dispatchers of the final rule. and flight crew previously described in a legal interpretation. Runway safety maneuvers and procedures Expands existing taxi and pre-takeoff require- Compliance is required 5 years after the ef- (Appendices E and F). ments. fective date of the final rule. Crosswind maneuvers including wind gusts Expands existing requirement for training on Compliance is required 5 years after the ef- (Appendices E and F). crosswind maneuvers to include gusts. fective date of the 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 op- erators 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 sensitivity analysis to explore the effect approximately 17 percent. This analysis the base case costs, including the low of reducing the historical analysis can be found in Appendix 14 of the and high cost range, in 2012 dollars. period from 22 years to 10 years in Regulatory Impact Analysis, which is Table 2 also shows the estimated response to comments disputing the use available in the docket for this potential quantified safety benefits of a 22-year time frame. Using a shorter rulemaking. using a 22-year historical accident historical analysis period, the estimated Table 2—Total Benefits and Costs (2012 analysis. The FAA conducted a benefits of this final rule increase by $ Millions) From 2019 to 2028

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER12NO13.160 67804 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

command’s (SIC) unnecessary and a failed main rudder power control unit taxi and their failure to cross-check and excessive rudder pedal inputs. The (PCU). The FAA has determined that the verify that the airplane was on the rudder input was a reaction to wake provisions regarding upset prevention correct runway before takeoff. The turbulence. and recovery training in this final rule enhanced runway safety training Characteristics of the Airbus A300– may have prevented or mitigated this provisions in this final rule would likely 600 rudder system design and elements accident. have mitigated this accident. of the American Airlines Advanced Also, on December 20, 2008, Aircraft Maneuvering Program also Continental Airlines flight 1404, a B. Related Actions contributed to the incorrect rudder Boeing 737–500, N18611, departed the 1. FAA Modernization and Reform Act pedal inputs. The NTSB found that the left side of runway 34R during takeoff of 2012 (Pub. L. 111–216) American Airlines Advanced Aircraft from Denver International Airport, Public Law 111–216 contained a Maneuvering Program excessive bank Denver, Colorado. At the time of the number of related requirements for angle simulator exercise could have accident, visual meteorological rulemaking, resulting in the following caused the SIC to have an unrealistic conditions prevailed, with strong and rulemaking initiatives: Pilot and exaggerated view of the effects of gusty winds out of the west. The NTSB Certification and Qualification wake turbulence; erroneously associate reported that, as the airplane crossed wake turbulence encounters with the uneven terrain before coming to a stop Requirements for Air Carrier need for aggressive roll upset recovery it became airborne, resulting in a jarring Operations; Safety Management techniques; and develop control impact when it regained contact with Systems; Flight Crewmember strategies that would produce a much the ground. A postcrash fire ensued and Mentoring, Leadership and Professional different, and potentially surprising and the airplane was substantially damaged. Development; and Pilot Records confusing, response if performed during The PIC and 5 of the 110 passengers Database. The rule related to pilot flight. were seriously injured; the SIC, 2 cabin certification was recently published and The provisions adding upset crewmembers, and 38 passengers the remaining initiatives are in various prevention and recovery training in this sustained minor injuries. stages of development. Further, the final rule (§§ 121.419 and 121.423) may The NTSB accident report revealed agency determined that amendments to have mitigated this accident because the that before starting the takeoff roll the FSTD qualification and evaluation training delivers recovery strategies PIC verbally repeated the wind speed standards in part 60 are needed to which focus on primary control inputs and direction; however, during the support the provisions in this final rule. and early intervention strategies. takeoff roll the PIC inconsistently On July 15, 2013, the FAA published Further, the provisions that require applied cross wind correction. The the final rule on Pilot Certification and pilots to complete upset prevention and NTSB found that the probable cause of Qualification Requirements for Air recovery training in a full flight the accident was the PIC’s ceased Carrier operations (78 FR 42324) (Pilot simulator (FFS) (§ 121.423) with an rudder input, which was needed to Certification rule). This final rule instructor who has been trained on the maintain directional control of the creates new certification and specific motion and data limitations of airplane, about 4 seconds before the qualification requirements for pilots in the FFS (§ 121.414) would mitigate the excursion, when the airplane air carrier operations including possibility of delivering negative encountered a strong and gusty operations conducted under part 121. training in simulation. crosswind that exceeded the PIC’s As a result of this action, a second in In another in-flight accident on training and experience. The FAA has command pilot (first officer) in September 8, 1994, USAir (now US determined that the expansion of domestic, flag, and supplemental Airways) flight 427, a Boeing 737–3B7 existing requirements for training on operations must now hold an airline (737–300), N513AU, crashed while crosswind maneuvers to include wind transport pilot (ATP) certificate and an maneuvering to land at Pittsburgh gusts in this final rule may have airplane type rating for the aircraft to be International Airport, Pittsburgh, prevented or mitigated this accident. flown. Further, the Pilot Certification Pennsylvania. Flight 427 was operating The final rule also addresses rule adds to the training and experience as a scheduled domestic passenger flight preventable runway safety accidents requirements for an ATP certificate with from Chicago-O’Hare International and incidents that have occurred on a an airplane category multiengine class Airport, Chicago, Illinois, to Pittsburgh. more frequent basis. For example, on rating or an ATP certificate obtained The flightcrew did not report any August 27, 2006, Comair flight 5191, a concurrently with an airplane type problems with the airplane and radar Bombardier CL–600–2B19, crashed rating. To receive an ATP certificate data indicates that the closest other during takeoff from Blue Grass Airport, with a multiengine class rating, a pilot traffic was about 4.5 miles and 1,500 Lexington, Kentucky, resulting in the must have 50 hours of multiengine feet vertically separated from flight 427 death of the PIC, a flight attendant, and flight experience and must have at the time of the accident. About 6 47 passengers. The SIC also received completed a new FAA-approved ATP miles northwest of the destination serious injuries. The flight crew was Certification Training Program (CTP). airport, the airplane entered an instructed to take off from runway 22 This new training program will include uncontrolled descent and impacted but instead proceeded to take off from academic coursework and training in an terrain near Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. runway 26, which was much shorter. FSTD. The Pilot Certification rule raises All 132 people on board were killed, The airplane ran off the end of the the experience requirement and the and the airplane was destroyed by runway and crashed into the airport baseline knowledge for incoming part impact forces and fire. The NTSB perimeter fence, trees, and terrain. The 121 pilots in that it provides determined that the probable cause of airplane was destroyed by impact forces foundational knowledge on many topics the accident was a loss of control of the and postcrash fire. The NTSB including aerodynamics, meteorology, airplane resulting from the movement of determined that the probable cause of air carrier operations, leadership/ the rudder surface to its limit. The this accident was the flightcrew professional development, and crew rudder surface most likely deflected to members’ failure to use available cues resource management (CRM). its limit in a direction opposite to that and aids to identify the airplane’s On November 5, 2010, the FAA commanded by the pilots as a result of location on the airport surface during published an NPRM that proposes to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67805

require each part 121 operator to evaluation requirements for crosswinds • Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather develop and implement a safety with gusts (takeoff/landing) and Event Training ARC management system (SMS) to improve bounced landing recovery methods in • Training Hours Requirement the safety of its aviation-related response to NTSB and Aviation Review ARC activities (75 FR 68224). The SMS Rulemaking Committee (ARC) The agency notes that many of the NPRM proposed to require part 121 recommendations. The rulemaking will new requirements in this final rule are operators to develop systematic help ensure simulator fidelity when consistent with ARC recommendations, procedures, practices, and policies for conducting various flight training tasks. including pilot monitoring the management of safety risk for all of In addition, to address the requirements; enhanced simulator its aviation systems. While crewmember requirements of § 203 of Public Law instructor training; upset prevention and dispatcher training programs 111–216, the FAA has initiated a and recovery training; manual handling constitute aviation systems and as such rulemaking project (RIN 2120–AK31) to training; and remedial training must be addressed within the certificate develop a pilot records database and requirements. holder’s SMS, the requirements in this phase out the requirements of the Pilot Finally, the FAA recognizes that final rule do not duplicate the SMS Records Improvement Act (PRIA) found drafting proposals on related topics proposal. For example, the remedial at 49 U.S.C. 44703(h). Although the simultaneously can give the appearance training requirements in this final rule FAA, in the SNPRM, had proposed to of overlapping or duplicative may serve as an element of a robust conform § 121.683 (proposed as requirements. As we have done in this SMS and provide specific solutions to § 121.684) to the PRIA provisions, the rule and in prior rulemakings issued to identified pilot performance FAA will consider these requirements address the discrete sections of Public deficiencies, thereby complementing the in the pilot records database rulemaking Law 111–216, the FAA will continue to SMS requirements for continuous to avoid confusion and possible minimize any overlapping or monitoring, analysis, and corrective redundancy. Thus, the FAA has not duplicative requirements. action. included proposed § 121.684 in the final 2. FAA Modernization and Reform Act In addition, the agency has initiated a rule. of 2012 (Pub. L. 112–95) separate rulemaking to implement the In connection with these rulemaking initiatives and this final rule, Public On February 14, 2012, following the requirements of § 206 of Public Law publication of the SNPRM, the FAA 111–216 related to flight crewmember Law 111–216 also required the FAA to establish several ARCs and several Task Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 mentoring, leadership and professional (Pub. L. 112–95) added certain flight development. The action is necessary to Forces to further examine existing training program requirements and attendant requirements similar to those ensure that air carriers establish or included in the SNPRM, such as English modify training programs to address develop recommendations for improvements. The FAA chartered the language proficiency and training on mentoring, leadership, and professional Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training various aspects of flight attendant development of flight crewmembers in ARC; the Training Hours Requirement response to passenger intoxication. part 121 operations. Although the Review ARC; and the Stick Pusher and Specifically, § 304 of Public Law 112–95 agency proposed certain academic Adverse Weather Event Training ARC (49 U.S.C. 44728) requires flight training related to § 206(a)(1)(D)—(E) in (the 208 ARC) to respond to the attendants to be proficient in English the SNPRM preceding this final rule, the directives in Public Law 111–216. and identifies certain English language agency is not proceeding with those The 208 ARC also worked to develop competencies that must be elements of the proposal in this final effective upset prevention and recovery demonstrated. In current part 61, rule. These issues will be considered in training methodologies. Subsequently, English language proficiency is an the Flight Crewmember Mentoring, the International Civil Aviation eligibility requirement for all pilot Leadership, and Professional Organization (ICAO), the European certificates. In current part 63, English Development rulemaking project (RIN Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and the language proficiency is an eligibility 5 2120–AJ87). FAA decided to combine efforts to requirement for a flight engineer Also, the FAA has initiated a separate identify and establish an acceptable certificate. The statutory mandate rulemaking project to define simulator approach to eliminating such therefore ensures that all crewmember fidelity requirements for several new occurrences. ICAO sponsored seven communication complies with crew and modified training tasks mandated meetings in 2012 during which Civil resource management objectives. for air carrier training programs by Aviation Authorities and subject matter Compliance with § 304 has been Public Law 111–216 (Part 60 experts were encouraged to participate required since the statute was enacted. 6 rulemaking). This rulemaking would in focused discussions. Also, as a The FAA has published an INFO for air amend part 60 to establish new or number of initiatives were underway carriers to use when complying with the updated FSTD technical evaluation simultaneously that sought to reduce statutory requirement. This INFO can be standards for training tasks such as full the number of loss of control in-flight accessed at http://www.faa.gov/other_ stall training, airborne icing training, (LOC–I) events, ICAO brought many of visit/aviation_industry/airline_ and upset recognition and recovery the groups involved with these efforts operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/. training. Furthermore, this rulemaking into the ensuing discussions under what Additionally, § 309 of Public Law would improve the minimum FSTD became known as the loss of control 112–95 (49 U.S.C. 44734) requires each avoidance and recovery training air carrier to provide flight attendants 5 As provided in Appendix Q, Table 2A, of the with training on providing alcohol to SNPRM the agency proposed academic training on (LOCART) initiative. PIC authority, PIC responsibility, leadership and The ARCs have presented their passengers, recognizing intoxicated command, and conflict resolution every 18 months recommendations to the FAA. The passengers, and dealing with disruptive at an introductory level for SICs and a refresher reports from the following ARCs have passengers. Section 309 also requires air level for PICs. carriers to provide flight attendants with 6 been placed in the docket for this Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) rulemaking: situational training on the proper Qualification Standards for Extended Envelope and • Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks, RIN 2120– Air Carrier Safety and Pilot method for dealing with intoxicated AK08. Training ARC passengers. Currently, under 14 CFR

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67806 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

121.421, operators are already required organizations.8 This AC identified best flightcrews in the recognition of and to provide flight attendants with practices and guidance for training, recovery from unusual attitudes and training on how to handle passengers testing, and checking for pilots to ensure upset maneuvers, including upsets that whose conduct might jeopardize safety. correct and consistent responses to occur while the aircraft is being To assist operators with meeting the unexpected stall warnings and stick controlled by automatic flight control specific statutory mandate in § 309, the pusher activations. This AC also systems, and unusual attitudes that FAA has published an INFO regarding included guidance regarding the result from flight control malfunctions compliance with the statutory development of stall and stick pusher and uncommanded flight control requirement. This INFO can be accessed event training. surface movements. at http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/ Additional FAA actions to address • A–05–14. Require all 14 CFR part aviation_industry/airline_operators/ pilot training requirements include the 121 air carrier operators to establish airline_safety/info/all_infos/. following: programs for flightcrew members who • Information for Operators (INFO) have demonstrated performance 3. Related Agency Initiatives 09007 Pilot Training and Checking— deficiencies or experienced failures in In the time since the Colgan accident Pneumatic Deicing Boot Equipped the training environment that would in 2009, the FAA has put forth several Airplanes recommends that operators require a review of their whole initiatives that support improved pilot enhance pilot training and checking to performance history at the company and training in part 121 operations. These ensure safe operations in icing administer additional oversight and initiatives, along with the requirements conditions. All INFOs can be accessed training to ensure that performance in the final rule, are intended to reduce at http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/ deficiencies are addressed and the number of aviation accidents. aviation_industry/airline_operators/ corrected. • One major initiative was the FAA Call airline_safety/info/all_infos/ A–05–30. Require all 14 CFR part to Action to Enhance Airline Safety, • Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 121 and 135 air carriers to incorporate which began in June of 2009. (The 09015 Training for Landing on bounced landing recovery techniques in report ‘‘Answering the Call to Action on Contaminated Runways highlights FAA their flight manuals and to teach these Airline Safety and Pilot Training’’ will guidance regarding training and techniques during initial and recurrent be placed in the docket for this training. procedures for landing on contaminated • rulemaking). The Call to Action runways. All SAFOs can be accessed at A–07–44. Require that all 14 CFR included a number of key initiatives http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_ part 91K, 121, and 135 operators including a two-part focused review of industry/airline_operators/airline_ establish procedures requiring all air carrier flightcrew member training, safety/safo crewmembers on the flight deck to qualification, and management • INFO 10002 Agency Best Practices positively confirm and cross-check the practices. First, the FAA assessed the consolidates guidance and resources airplane’s location at the assigned capability of air carriers to identify, that can be used by operators to improve departure runway before crossing the track, and manage low-time flightcrew pilot training. hold short line for takeoff. This required members and those who have failed • SAFO 10006 Inflight Icing guidance should be consistent with the evaluations or have demonstrated a Operations and Training guidance in AC 120–74A and SAFO 06013 and 07003. repetitive need for additional training. Recommendations includes • Second, the FAA conducted additional recommendations regarding Pilot and A–10–22. Require 14 CFR part 121, inspections to revalidate that the air Dispatcher training to address severe 135, and 91K operators and 14 CFR part carriers’ training and qualification icing conditions associated with 142 training centers to develop and programs met regulatory standards. freezing rain and freezing drizzle. conduct training that incorporates stalls As part of the Call to Action, in 2009 • INFO 10010 Enhanced Upset that are fully developed; are the FAA inspected 85 air carriers to Recovery Training highlights the unexpected; involve autopilot determine if they had systems to availability of the Airplane Upset disengagement; and include airplane- provide remedial training for pilots.7 Recovery and Training Aid that all specific features, such as a reference The FAA did not inspect carriers who operators can use to develop an effective speeds switch. • A–10–23. Require all 14 CFR part train pilots under an Advanced upset recovery training module. Qualification Program (AQP) because • SAFO 13002 Manual Flight 121, 135, and 91K operators of stick AQP includes such a system. When the Operations recommends that in this age pusher-equipped aircraft to provide inspections began in June of 2009, not of aircraft automation, training and their pilots with pusher familiarization all air carriers had developed remedial flight operations should emphasize simulator training. • A–10–111. Require 14 CFR part training programs. However, by January manual handling when appropriate to 121, 135, and 91K operators to 2010, after the completion of the ensure pilots retain the ability to incorporate the realistic, gusty inspections, all air carriers had some manually fly the airplane. part of a remedial training system. crosswind profiles developed as a result Also, on August 6, 2012, the FAA C. National Transportation Safety Board of Safety Recommendation A–10–110 published Advisory Circular (AC) 120– (NTSB) Recommendations into their pilot simulator training 109, Stall and Stick Pusher Training This final rule addresses the following programs. In the analysis for the final rule, the which was developed based on a review NTSB recommendations for certificate FAA identified 11 accidents involving of recommended practices developed by holders operating under Title 14 of the part 121 operations, resulting in major airplane manufacturers, labor Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) fatalities or injuries that occurred organizations, air carriers, training part 121: between 1988 and 2009 that may have organizations, simulator manufacturers, • A–96–120. Require 14 CFR part 121 been prevented or mitigated if the and industry representative and 135 operators to provide training to proposed enhanced training 7 Due to airline mergers and bankruptcies, there 8 http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ requirements had been in effect at the are fewer total air carriers (83 as of February 2013) advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/ time of those accidents. Causal factors operating under part 121. document.information/documentID/1020244 that contributed to these accidents

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67807

included inadequate pilot training requirements for crewmember and enhance pilot training for rare but high regarding recovery from stall, upset aircraft dispatcher training programs in risk scenarios and provide the greatest recovery, runway safety, bounced domestic, flag, and supplemental safety benefit. The final rule also landings, crosswind takeoffs with gusts, operations. The primary purpose of the includes other discrete provisions and pilot monitoring. These accidents NPRM was to establish new proposed in the SNPRM and described resulted in 601 fatalities, 48 serious requirements for traditional air carrier in Table 1. As discussed in the injuries, and 137 minor injuries. A training programs to enhance Overview section of this preamble, the detailed description of this accident crewmember and aircraft dispatcher remaining proposals in the SNPRM analysis, and how it was conducted, is training. The NPRM proposed a require further deliberation. These provided in the benefits section of the significant reorganization of training remaining proposals include the regulatory evaluation for this final rule. and qualification requirements as new following: • D. Sections 208 and 209 of Public Law subparts to be added to part 121. The operational requirements 111–216 Upon review of the comments to the pertaining to crewmembers and aircraft NPRM, the FAA identified several dispatchers, except for § 121.9 (Fraud This final rule responds to Public Law issues that were not adequately and falsification), § 121.392 (Personnel 111–216, sections 208 and 209. Under addressed in the NPRM. Furthermore, identified as flight attendants) and Public Law 111–216, Congress directed the FAA determined that additional § 121.711 (Communication records), the FAA to conduct rulemaking to data and clarification were necessary. which are reflected in Table 3 below. ensure that all flightcrew members Because of the substantive changes and • The reorganization and receive ground training and flight reorganization of the NPRM, on May 20, restructuring of crewmember and training in recognizing and avoiding 2011 the FAA published the rulemaking aircraft dispatcher training and stalls, recovering from stalls, and proposal in its entirety in an SNPRM (76 qualification in proposed subparts BB recognizing and avoiding upset of an FR 29336). aircraft, as well as the proper techniques and CC, including the crewmember and aircraft dispatcher qualification to recover from upset; directed the FAA F. Differences Between SNPRM and performance standards in proposed to conduct rulemaking to ensure air Final Rule carriers develop remedial training Appendices Q, R, S and T (except as programs for flightcrew members who In the SNPRM, the agency included specifically noted in Table 3 below). have demonstrated performance the NPRM proposals to reorganize and Thus, the FAA may pursue additional deficiencies or experienced failures in revise crewmember and aircraft rulemaking in the future to address the the training environment; and directed dispatcher qualification, training, and more comprehensive changes proposed the FAA to issue a final rule with evaluation requirements in existing in the NPRM and SNPRM. respect to the NPRM.9 subparts N and O of part 121. This The agency has incorporated the final reorganization would have resulted in rule provisions into existing subparts of E. Summary of NPRM and SNPRM the creation of two new subparts within part 121 rather than creating new On January 12, 2009, the FAA part 121. subparts within part 121. Table 3 published an NPRM (74 FR 1280), The agency has decided to finalize identifies the SNPRM source for each of proposing major changes to the provisions proposed in the SNPRM that the final rule provisions.

TABLE 3—SNPRM SOURCE OF PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN FINAL RULE

Description of final rule provision Final rule provision SNPRM provision

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

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67808 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3—SNPRM SOURCE OF PROVISIONS INCLUDED IN FINAL RULE—Continued

Description of final rule provision Final rule provision SNPRM provision

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

III. Discussion of Public Comments and training requirements proposed in the committing fraud and falsification by Final Rule SNPRM. In the discussion that follows, criminal statute, 18 U.S.C. 1001. the FAA has addressed those comments • The final rule eliminates the 5-year A. General related to the provisions included in compliance date for the provision The FAA received approximately 130 this final rule. regarding personnel identified as flight comments in response to the SNPRM. attendants (§ 121.392) because this Commenters included air carriers, labor B. Compliance With Final Rule requirement imposes a minimal burden organizations, trade associations, Requirements on air carriers. training organizations, one aircraft In the SNPRM, the agency proposed Consistent with the SNPRM, the final manufacturer, Families of Continental an effective date for the final rule of 120 rule requires compliance with the Flight 3407, the NTSB, and individuals. days after publication of the final rule agency proposals regarding dispatch Air carrier and trade associations in the Federal Register. However, for communication records upon the rule’s commented that the SNPRM was overly the crewmember and aircraft dispatcher effective date. The applicable date on prescriptive; the FAA underestimated training and qualification revisions in which compliance is required for each costs and overestimated benefits; and proposed subparts BB and CC, the substantive final rule provision is the FAA underestimated the effect of agency proposed to allow air carriers to summarized in Table 1 of this preamble. the proposal on air carriers that use an come into compliance with the The FAA recognizes that some air AQP for training. Labor organizations’ requirements no later than 5 years after carriers may have implemented a comments included concerns regarding the effective date of the final rule. As number of the new training the proposed integration of lower explained in the SNPRM, setting the requirements in the final rule but the fidelity and non-motion simulators for effective date for 120 days after agency has determined that maintaining pilot training; the standards by which publication of the final rule and a 5-year compliance period as proposed in the NPRM and SNPRM continues to CRM competencies would be integrated allowing use of the existing regulations be appropriate for the training-related into job performance training and for 5 years would provide existing initiatives because it may not be feasible evaluated; and the proposed certificate holders and the FAA time to for most part 121 operators to achieve recordkeeping requirements. An aircraft smoothly transition to the new compliance by the effective date of the manufacturer supported the related requirements. aircraft initiatives included in the final rule. Consistent with the proposal, all SNPRM. The NTSB and Families of To accomplish many of the new provisions in this final rule will become Continental Flight 3407 were generally safety-critical flight training provisions, effective 120 days after publication of supportive of the SNPRM but raised the FFSs in which the training must be the final rule in the Federal Register. In concerns regarding the efficacy of the completed must be updated. As the final rule, compliance is required on remedial training proposal further discussed previously, the FAA has the effective date unless the regulatory discussed in section III. (Discussion of initiated the Part 60 rulemaking to text for a particular provision indicates Public Comments and Final Rule) J. develop the standards for updating the alternate date for compliance of 5 (Remedial Training Programs) of this these simulators to ensure the extended years after the effective date. Although preamble. envelope training provided for in this The agency received several the final rule allows air carriers up to 5 final rule is conducted in a realistic, comments on the proposed flight years to come into compliance, the FAA accurate training environment. The FAA attendant and aircraft dispatcher encourages air carriers to comply with believes the 5-year compliance period training requirements. Labor these provisions as early as possible to for these provisions will provide organizations generally supported the maximize the safety benefits that this sufficient time for completion of that proposed training and qualification rule will achieve. rulemaking project and the actual requirements, but air carriers asserted In the final rule, the agency modified updates to the FFSs that would be some provisions, such as the proposals the compliance date for certain required by that rulemaking. The FAA regarding requalification requirements provisions as follows: will continue to evaluate the time and check flight attendant and check • The final rule eliminates the 5-year necessary for compliance with the dispatcher training and qualification, compliance date for the provisions training requirements set forth in this were unnecessary and would place an regarding related aircraft (§ 121.418) final rule based on the updates that are undue burden on operators. because these amendments provide necessary for the FFSs and will seek As part of the FAA’s effort to move voluntary alternatives to certain public comment on this issue in the Part forward with a rule that finalizes requirements of subparts N and O. 60 rulemaking. In addition, based on the specific statutorily mandated • The final rule eliminates the 5-year comments received to the SNPRM, the requirements and provisions proposed compliance date for the provision FAA recognizes that some operators in the SNPRM that enhance pilot regarding the prohibition on fraud and may already have the technology and training and provide the greatest safety falsification (§ 121.9) because all simulation knowledge necessary to benefit, but require time to implement, persons subject to the final rule incorporate these training requirements the final rule does not include the flight prohibitions on fraud and falsification into their approved training programs. attendant and aircraft dispatcher are currently prohibited from The FAA encourages these operators to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67809

initiate compliance with this rule as crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers the SNPRM in that it does not alter the soon as practicable. To help facilitate in accordance with the provisions of training and qualification principles these efforts, operators should contact current subparts N, O, and P. However, established in subparts N and O, but the FAA’s National Simulator Program commenters generally noted that the rather adds discrete new pilot training to obtain the relevant guidance material FAA underestimated the impact of the subjects, procedures and maneuvers. on evaluating the FSTDs used to proposed requirements on AQP carriers. Accordingly, an operator that uses AQP provide extended envelope training. Additionally, some commenters noted to train flightcrew members must The FAA recognizes the public that AQP should be mandated as the submit a revised Qualification benefit associated with early sole training method to be used by all Standards Document if that operator implementation of the new safety- certificate holders conducting part 121 seeks to address these additional ground critical training requirements. The FAA operations. training subjects and flight training will work with all operators to ensure First, as previously discussed, AQP procedures and maneuvers through compliance with the final rule training provides for an alternate method of alternative methods in accordance with provisions is achieved as soon as compliance with the standards provided subpart Y. possible but no later than 5 years after by parts 61, 63, 65, 121 (including the effective date of the final rule. As subparts N and O), or 135, as applicable. Third, in response to comments that originally proposed, we anticipated that This means that even if the agency AQP should be mandated for all part air carriers would complete holistic mandated AQP for all part 121 121 operators, the FAA maintains its changes to their training programs at operators, the agency would have to position as stated in the SNPRM. one time. Upon further reflection and provide standards from which to create Although the FAA considers AQP to be based on the revisions to the final rule the compliance methods in an AQP. an effective voluntary alternative for and the simulator updates discussed These standards would change as the compliance with minimum training and earlier, we note that individual air technology used in training tools qualification requirements, the FAA carriers may submit proposed training evolves and as the FAA learns more does not believe that it is appropriate to program revisions for approval at any about factors contributing to accidents require all air carriers to train under point after the effective date. The agency and effective training methodology. AQP. The FAA recognizes that AQP will work with each air carrier to meet Further, the final rule includes training may not be appropriate for every their implementation needs. requirements that are mandated by certificate holder. The AQP is a statute (i.e., upset and stall prevention voluntary program established to allow C. Applicability of Final Rule and recovery). Without a revision to the a greater degree of regulatory flexibility Requirements and Impact of Final Rule traditional training requirements in this in the approval of innovative training on Operators with Advanced final rule, the FAA would not be able programs. Based on a documented Qualification Program Curriculums to require these maneuvers and analysis of operational requirements, a Air carriers that conduct operations procedures for pilots as part of pilot certificate holder under AQP may under part 121 may train and qualify AQP curriculums. propose to depart from the traditional crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers Second, commenters including practices with respect to what, how, in accordance with the provisions of Continental, American, USAirways, when, and where training and testing is current subparts N, O, and P. JetBlue, Delta, and ASTAR, stated that conducted. Detailed AQP Alternatively, air carriers may train and the agency did not fully consider all of documentation requirements, data qualify crewmembers and aircraft the direct and indirect effects that the collection, and analysis provide the dispatchers under an AQP in proposal would have on part 121 FAA and the operator with the tools accordance with the provisions of operators that currently conduct necessary to adequately monitor and subpart Y. training under an AQP. The agency has administer an AQP. See 70 FR 54810, Subpart Y does not contain training reviewed its final rule cost analysis to 54811 (Sept. 16, 2005). and evaluation requirements, per se. determine whether carriers that However, an AQP developed in currently train flightcrew members The FAA further recognizes that some accordance with subpart Y allows air under an AQP would incur additional air carriers may not wish to incur the carriers to use alternative methods for costs not previously considered. Upon costs associated with an AQP. Such training and evaluating pilots, flight further review of existing pilot AQPs costs include additional personnel and engineers, flight attendants, and aircraft and the final rule requirements, the management infrastructure to develop dispatchers based on instructional agency has determined the new ground and facilitate the required data systems design, advanced simulation and flight training requirements in the collection, analysis, and application equipment, and comprehensive data final rule are generally not addressed by required under AQP. Furthermore, some analysis to continuously validate existing pilot AQPs. Therefore, in the air carriers may prefer the structured curriculums. final rule regulatory evaluation, the requirements of a traditional program to In accordance with § 121.909, to agency has revised its cost analysis and the analytically-driven AQP training obtain approval of an AQP, an air carrier determined that it is appropriate to program. Other air carriers that use must develop a Qualification Standards attribute costs to the additional ground contract training facilities may not find Document that specifies which and flight training requirements for all AQP to be a suitable alternative to requirements of parts 61, 63, 65, 121 pilots who train under subparts N and traditional training requirements. (including subparts N, O, and P), or 135, O as well as those who train under an Accordingly, the final rule does not as applicable, will be replaced by the AQP. require all certificate holders to train AQP curriculum. Each requirement Applicable requirements of part 121 under the AQP requirements in subpart contained in part 61, 63, 65, 121, or 135 that are not specifically addressed in the Y of part 121. This determination is that is not specifically addressed in an certificate holder’s AQP continue to consistent with the recommendations approved AQP curriculum continues to apply to the certificate holder and to the provided by the Training Hours apply to the certificate holder. individuals being trained and qualified Requirement Review ARC findings. See The SNPRM principally affected part by the certificate holder. See Training Hours Requirement Review 121 operators that train and qualify § 121.903(b). This final rule differs from ARC Report.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67810 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

D. Fraud and Falsification unintended acts. Continental notes that considered liable only upon proof that In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed the introduction of penalties for it was at fault independently, it would adding § 121.9, a new general incorrect statements or entries, which have an incentive to minimize oversight requirement that would prohibit a may have been made inadvertently, will of persons it employs. person from making intentionally false serve no deterrent purpose and Currently, 18 U.S.C. 1001 prohibits fraud and falsification in matters within or fraudulent statements on an recommends eliminating paragraph (c) the jurisdiction of the executive branch. application, record, or report required of proposed § 121.9. The agency agrees with comments Accordingly, there is no cost or by part 121. The SNPRM also specified that not all certificate holder actions additional burden to the certificate the consequences of making incorrect necessarily warrant the strictest agency holder to comply with this provision, and intentionally false or fraudulent response and clarifies that § 121.9 does and there is no reason to delay statements. Although the language not set forth a strict liability standard. compliance with this section by 5 would be added to part 121 for the first Section 121.9 identifies the potential years.10 In the final rule, this provision time, it is not a new concept in FAA consequences for intentional will become effective 120 days after regulations. Similar language already falsification or fraud. However, the publication in the Federal Register. appears in 14 CFR 61.59 and 67.403, potential sanctions set forth in E. Personnel Identified as Flight and was recently added to part 139 § 121.9(b) are limited to cases of Attendants subpart B at § 139.115. Moreover, 18 intentional falsification or fraud that U.S.C. 1001 currently prohibits fraud violate § 121.9(a). As discussed in the In existing § 121.391, the FAA and intentional falsification in matters following paragraph, proposed requires flight attendants on an aircraft within the jurisdiction of the executive § 121.9(c) regarding consequences for operated under part 121 when the branch. making incorrect statements has not agency determines that the presence of The FAA proposed adding the been included in the final rule. a flight attendant is required to ensure requirement to part 121 to emphasize Further, in response to comments that the safety of the aircraft and its the importance of truthful statements, § 121.9 is inconsistent with agency occupants. When such a determination especially with regard to training and guidance, the agency responds that the has been made, the agency also checking of crewmembers and aircraft addition of § 121.9 does not alter the identifies the minimum number of flight dispatchers. The FAA considers the agency’s policy in Order 2150.3B attendants required. However, a making of intentionally false or regarding the factors it considers in certificate holder may choose to provide fraudulent statements a serious offense. assessing whether to pursue a flight attendant when one is not Falsification has a serious effect on the enforcement action, the type of required or a certificate holder may integrity of the records on which the enforcement action (i.e. administrative, choose to provide additional flight FAA’s safety oversight depends. If the legal, etc.) to pursue, and the nature of attendants in excess of the required reliability of these records is the sanction that will be pursued, if any. minimum number of flight attendants. undermined, the FAA’s ability to In fact, § 121.9(b)(3)–(4) of the proposal Historically, there has been an promote aviation safety is compromised. recognize that a more flexible response inconsistent application of the rules Airbus requested clarification by the agency may be warranted in regarding training and qualification regarding to whom the proposed certain circumstances. Not all action requirements for these flight attendants sanctions would apply. Continental taken as a result of a regulatory violation who are not required to be on the supports the prohibition of fraudulent is punitive as is the case with the aircraft. In part 121, the agency requires or intentionally false statements, but proposal to deny an application or flight attendants to complete training commented that the assignment of approval of a training program upon the that will enable them to perform safety- responsibility and potential sanctions go discovery of incorrect training-related related functions in a normal operating too far. For example, it is Continental’s information upon which the agency environment as well as to increase understanding that the proposal adopts relied. Rather, as is the case today, the passenger and crewmember a strict liability standard for a part 121 agency may withdraw an approved survivability in an accident. However, operator by imposing denial of a training program to assess the safety and the identification of any crewmember as training program application or removal effectiveness of the program based on a flight attendant implies that the of a training program approval for accurate information. Therefore, crewmember is fully qualified to infractions. Continental further proposed paragraph (c) is not necessary perform all safety-related flight commented that the FAA should hold a and has not been included in the final attendant duties and responsibilities carrier responsible for fraudulent or rule. upon which other crewmembers or intentionally false statements only when In response to commenters’ concerns passengers may rely. it can prove carrier approval or that certificate holders may be held Accordingly, in § 121.392 of the endorsement of such actions; individual liable for the actions of any person SNPRM and the final rule, the agency employee or contractor actions should under § 121.9 as proposed, the requires any person identified by the not be automatically attributed to a regulatory language of § 121.9(b) applies certificate holder as a flight attendant on carrier. They conclude that penalties to certificate holders as well as any an aircraft in operations under part 121 against carrier training programs should person acting on behalf of a certificate to have completed the part 121 flight only be levied when FAA can prove holder who commits an act prohibited attendant training and qualification carrier approval of such actions. In by § 121.9(a). Commenters’ concerns requirements. This requirement applies addition, Continental stated that the regarding liability for the acts of their whether or not the person serves as a proposal to impose penalties for employees have been addressed by case required crewmember. The agency incorrect statements or entries is law. Part 119 certificate holders are inconsistent with FAA enforcement ultimately responsible for compliance 10 18 U.S.C. 1001 is a criminal statute prohibiting policy, because Order 2150.3B, FAA with the duties required to satisfy part fraud and intentional falsification in matters within the jurisdiction of the executive branch. This Enforcement and Compliance Program, 121 requirements and are expected to regulation will allow the agency to pursue civil and case law recognize that not all acts oversee the conduct of persons they enforcement in instances in which a person has warrant enforcement action, especially employ. If a certificate holder could be committed fraud or falsification.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67811

further clarifies that certificate holders and qualification requirements of § 121.1351 were overly broad and open must identify a person serving as a subparts N and O. See 14 CFR 60.1(b). to interpretation, the agency restated the crewmember who has not yet completed Southwest, American, USAirways, purpose of this requirement in the all flight attendant training and Continental, FedEx, and a number of SNPRM was focused on ensuring that qualification requirements to serve as a other commenters questioned how the crewmembers receive training on required crewmember on a particular proposal would affect devices qualified emergency equipment that replicates the aircraft, such as a person who is gaining in accordance with ACs that predate actual equipment they would use in the aircraft operating experience part 60. These commenters emergency situations in aircraft required by § 121.434(e), as a qualifying recommended a blanket statement on operations. The proposed requirements flight attendant. Air carriers may simulation and various types of in § 121.1351 appear in § 121.408 of the determine how they want to identify simulator qualification that states an final rule with the clarifications these individuals to passengers, as FFS could be either qualified under part described in the following paragraphs. appropriate for their operation. Some 60 or grandfathered into regulation by In response to the SNPRM, American, possible methods would be to § 60.17 although not actually qualified the Air Transport Association of differentiate their uniform from that of under part 60.12 America, Inc. (ATA) (now known as fully qualified flight attendants, identify This final rule does not modify the Airlines for America), USAirways, flight attendants in training as existing part 60 requirements for the Continental, ASTAR, FedEx, and ‘‘trainees’’ via nametags or to make an evaluation, maintenance, and Southwest requested more specificity announcement to passengers before the qualification of FSTDs. In the final rule, about the types of training equipment aircraft pushes back from the gate. the agency clarifies that § 60.17 will that would be covered under this The FAA did not receive any continue to address previously qualified section. American, ATA, USAirways, comments on this section as proposed devices that may be used in part 121 Continental, ASTAR, and FedEx further in the SNPRM. Proposed § 121.392 training programs. stated that it would be difficult to appears in the final rule with a modified Through modifications to existing comply with the provision that requires compliance date as discussed in section § 121.407, the final rule incorporates the the training equipment to replicate the III.B. of this preamble. proposal to conform part 121 form, fit, function, and weight, as requirements regarding the use of appropriate, of the aircraft equipment, F. Approval of Airplane Simulators and FSTDs in approved training programs because much of the data, which must Training Devices with the existing part 60 requirements come from the manufacturers, is not Currently, existing § 121.407 requires that already apply to the use of FSTDs part of the information currently a certificate holder to obtain the in part 121 training programs. provided by the manufacturers. agency’s approval for the use of airplane G. Approval of Training Equipment In the final rule, the FAA maintains simulators and other training devices in Other Than Flight Simulation Training the existing requirements in a training program approved under part Devices § 121.403(b)(2) that all training devices 121.11 In the NPRM (§ 121.1347) and in mockups, systems trainers, procedures the SNPRM (§ 121.1345), the agency Current regulations do not provide trainers and other training aids be listed proposed to require each FSTD used in specific requirements for training in the air carrier’s approved training a part 121 training program to be equipment other than FSTDs, but the program. The final rule also includes a qualified and maintained in accordance regulations generally require training new provision, proposed in the SNPRM, with 14 CFR part 60—Flight Simulation equipment to be adequate. To ensure which clarifies the FAA’s intent Training Device Initial and Continuing that all equipment used in approved regarding the criteria that must be met Qualification and Use, and approved by training programs is adequate for the by this training equipment. This the Administrator for use in training or particular task for which it is used, in provision requires that training evaluating the particular flight training § 121.1351 of the NPRM and SNPRM, equipment used to accomplish the maneuver or procedure. This proposal the FAA proposed requirements for training requirements of this part meet aligned the existing requirements for training equipment other than FSTDs. the form, fit, function, and weight, as approval of airplane simulators and The FAA has retained this provision as appropriate, of the actual equipment other training devices in a part 121 § 121.408 of the final rule. Section that crewmembers will be using during training program with the requirements 121.408 states that the FAA must normal and/or emergency aircraft regarding the evaluation, qualification, approve training equipment (e.g. cockpit operations. In addition, the equipment and maintenance of FSTDs added to procedures trainers, door/exit trainers, must replicate the normal operation title 14 in 2006. The part 60 FSTD water survival equipment, etc.) used to (and abnormal and emergency requirements currently apply to all functionally replicate aircraft equipment operation, if appropriate) of the aircraft persons using or applying to use an required to be used as part of the equipment including the required force, FSTD to meet any requirement of title approved training program. actions and travel of the aircraft 14, chapter 1, Federal Aviation In the SNPRM, the agency explained equipment and variations in aircraft Administration, Department of that this provision would apply to equipment operated by the certificate Transportation, including the training training equipment including, but not holder, if applicable. It must also limited to, portable emergency replicate the operation of the aircraft 11 The agency notes that the terms ‘‘visual equipment, including life vests and fire equipment under adverse conditions, if simulator’’ and ‘‘airplane simulator’’ as used extinguishers, aircraft exit trainers, and appropriate. throughout part 121, are currently referred to as equipment for overwater operations. In The FAA has qualified the ‘‘full flight simulators’’ in part 60. A ‘‘training response to comments to the NPRM that device’’ or ‘‘flight training device,’’ as used requirement with ‘‘as appropriate’’ to throughout part 121 are currently referred to as the proposed requirements in allow for flexibility in cases where ‘‘flight training devices’’ in part 60. A ‘‘non-visual manufacturer’s data is not available or it simulator’’ or a ‘‘simulator without a visual system’’ 12 Although this comment was made in is impracticable or unnecessary to meet is a motion simulator without a visual presentation. connection with the use of an FSTD to maintain These types of devices have either been retired or pilot recent experience requirements, it is generally this requirement. The FAA clarifies that upgraded to FFSs with the installation of visual applicable to a number of other conforming the requirements in section § 121.408 displays. references to part 60 throughout the SNPRM. apply to training equipment used to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67812 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

accomplish job performance device (e.g. unique slat/flap handle not flying the aircraft or the FSTD. The requirements only where replication of trainers, intruder resistant cockpit door agency further proposed to require a the actual equipment used in operations latch trainers, and many other cockpit pilot to accomplish pilot monitoring is key to the learning objectives of the or cabin items) is not required by the duties in accordance with the operating drill. Further, certain criteria do not training requirements of this subpart, manual. The proposals did not change affect the efficacy of training equipment the functional attributes and the current duties and responsibilities of as a training tool. For example, the requirements for the equipment of the pilots at the controls. weight of the entire door trainer would § 121.408 do not apply. However, the The Air Line Pilots Association, not have to match the weight of that size device must still be listed in the air International (ALPA) supported the use section of an actual aircraft fuselage, but carrier’s approved training program, of the term ‘‘pilot monitoring,’’ as the weight of the door/window that the under the requirements of § 121.403, incorporated in the NPRM and SNPRM, crewmember is opening would have to and contribute to training objectives. as it better describes the function of the replicate the weight of the actual exit on Southwest also asserts that the pilot who is not actually controlling the an aircraft in order to prepare a requirement proposed in § 121.1351(d) aircraft. Southwest, Fed Ex, Continental, crewmember adequately to react in an that all training equipment must have a American, ATA, and USAirways emergency. The key objective of this method of documenting discrepancies commented that the agency should requirement is that the training in close proximity, precludes the use of include a definition of ‘‘pilot equipment reflects the equipment that technology to maintain an electronic log monitoring’’ in the final rule to clarify would be used by the crewmember in book for discrepancies unless a the term. The agency is not persuaded normal and/or emergency aircraft recording device is located in close by commenters that a definition of operations in order to accomplish the proximity to each piece of equipment. ‘‘pilot monitoring’’ is required. In the learning objectives of the drill. Southwest proposed changing ‘‘close final rule, § 121.544 of subpart T Additionally some commenters noted proximity’’ to ‘‘within the training includes the proposed description of the that the FAA has not required the facility.’’ pilot who must complete pilot official approval of training equipment The FAA agrees with the commenter monitoring duties with sufficient detail outside of the National Simulator and in the final rule has amended the such that an additional definition is not Program or part 60. In response, the requirements of § 121.408(d) to only necessary. FAA clarifies that existing require a method for documenting In § 121.1213 of the SNPRM, the § 121.403(b)(2) already requires that all discrepancies for all training equipment. agency’s proposal combined operational training device mockups, systems This provision will allow the greatest and training requirements for the pilot trainers, procedures trainers, and other flexibility for air carriers to develop, and monitoring. Southwest, Continental, training aids be listed in the air carrier’s submit for approval, a method that ASTAR, American, ATA, USAirways, approved training program. The works effectively in their particular and FedEx commented that the agency requirements of § 121.408 simply clarify training environment. should remove language in the proposal that would require pilots to accomplish the functional attributes and H. Pilot Monitoring Duties and Training requirements that must be met by this pilot monitoring duties in accordance training equipment. Existing regulations do not explicitly with the operating manual while at the Commenters (American, ATA, address development of pilot controls of an FSTD during training. USAirways, Continental, ASTAR, FedEx monitoring skills. However, pilot These commenters stated that there may and Southwest) have assumed that this monitoring duties are currently be times when a pilot is instructed to provision would apply to door and included in the operating manual behave in a way other than specified by window trainers, but question whether required by § 121.133. Therefore, the the operating manual to complete a it would also include unique slat/flap FAA expects that they are incorporated training objective (e.g., incapacitated handle trainers, intruder resistant in air carrier standard operating pilot, get into upset event for training cockpit door latch trainers, and many procedures. purposes, check pilot training, etc.). other cockpit or cabin items for which Historically, the FAA has referred to In response to comments, the agency a hands-on trainer would be beneficial, the individual completing pilot clarifies that training requirements must but not necessarily required. monitoring duties as the pilot not flying. be based on operating manual contents The FAA agrees that it is important to In FAA AC 120–71A, Standard and standard operating procedures so clarify what training equipment must Operating Procedures for Flight Deck that pilots can receive comprehensive meet the requirements of § 121.408. In Crewmembers, the agency provides training on the procedures that must be the final rule, the FAA has amended guidance regarding a means to followed during operations. However, § 121.408(b) to require that the incorporate standard operating the agency recognizes that it may not provisions of this section apply to procedures for the pilot not flying and always be feasible or practical to training equipment used to meet the pilot flying duties into the operating maintain consistency with the operating training requirements of this subpart. manual. The FAA amended this AC in manual for the ‘‘set up’’ of certain This includes portable emergency 2003. In one notable change, the agency maneuvers and procedures in a training equipment (e.g. fire extinguishers, replaced the term ‘‘pilot not flying’’ environment. Therefore, the final rule portable oxygen bottles, and protective with the term ‘‘pilot monitoring’’ to addresses pilot monitoring duties and breathing equipment), aircraft exit convey that the pilot not flying should training in separate provisions. Section trainers, equipment for overwater be actively engaged in the safe operation 121.544 of the final rule provides pilot operations, and other equipment used to of the aircraft and as such, should be monitoring duties and § 121.409 and meet hands on training requirements. trained and evaluated in performing appendix H provide pilot monitoring The agency notes that air carriers may active pilot monitoring skills. training. find it useful to create hands on training In § 121.1213 of the NPRM and The agency’s determination regarding opportunities for crewmembers to SNPRM, the agency proposed to codify the need for training on pilot monitoring enhance training in a certain area, even the use of the term ‘‘pilot monitoring’’ is supported by the NTSB final report when hands on performance training is to reflect the activities conducted by the on the Colgan accident. In the NTSB not required by regulation. When a pilot who is seated at the controls, but final report on this accident, the NTSB

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67813

stated, ‘‘The flight crewmembers failed two full gate-to-gate (taxi-in and taxi- who complete LOFT as an alternative to to monitor the airplane’s pitch attitude, out) scenarios. These comments were the proficiency check requirement power, and especially its airspeed and provided in response to the proposal for specified in § 121.441, to complete two failed to notice, as part of their two operating cycles for all LOFT and representative flight segments and to monitoring responsibilities, the rising with particular concern regarding serve as pilot monitoring for a period of low-speed cue on the IAS display. recurrent LOFT. These commenters time during the LOFT. This change Multiple strategies can be used to state two gate-to-gate operating cycles ensures pilots will have an opportunity protect against catastrophic outcomes would reduce the effectiveness of LOFT to practice pilot monitoring under the resulting from these and other due to more time and emphasis on supervision of a flight instructor or monitoring failures, including flight ground operations and less on flight check airman while maintaining a crew training, flight deck procedures, operations. representative scenario-based training and low-airspeed alert systems . . .’’ Further ASTAR, American, ATA, environment. The NTSB concluded that ‘‘the USAirways, Continental, UPS, and In addition, in the SNPRM, the agency monitoring errors made by the accident FedEx stated that, for those carriers proposed to require part 121 operators flight crew demonstrate the continuing engaged in long haul, international to evaluate active pilot monitoring need for specific pilot training on active flights, the requirement to design LOFT skills. American, ATA, USAirways, monitoring skills.’’ See NTSB Rep. with two operating cycles representative Continental, and ASTAR commented AAR–10/01, at p. 94. of the certificate holder’s operation will that the proposed evaluation In the SNPRM, the agency proposed be challenging. Commenters requirements § 121.1213 will require the to require pilots to serve as pilot recommend that for purposes of a LOFT, development of new pilot monitoring monitoring during Line Oriented Flight ‘‘Operating Cycle’’ should be defined to standards, and grading and data Training (LOFT) to facilitate include only takeoff, climb, en route, collection methods making the opportunities for pilots to practice and descent and landing. requirement burdensome. demonstrate proficiency in pilot The FAA concurs with commenters Based on review of the comments and monitoring skills and workload that two gate-to-gate operating cycles are the proposal, the agency clarifies that management under the supervision of a unnecessary for the reasons cited by pilot monitoring is most appropriately flight instructor or check airman. The commenters. In response to carriers’ assessed in the LOFT environment final rule includes requirements for part concerns regarding the effect of which is intended to represent a normal 121 operators to provide opportunities requiring two operating cycles for operation. Therefore, it would not be for pilot monitoring training during LOFT, the agency clarifies that LOFT is appropriate to require monitoring as a LOFT. intended to be representative of a discrete training and evaluation item. Currently, the agency requires LOFT, certificate holder’s operation, not a The final rule requirement to include a scenario-based training event with replication of the flight. As described in pilot monitoring during LOFT does not minimal check pilot or flight instructor FAA AC 120–35C Line Operational place any additional simulator time interruption, for all pilots who complete Simulation: Line Oriented Flight burden on operators who use advanced training in an advanced simulation Training, Special Purpose Operational simulation training programs to train training program. In accordance with Training, Line Operational Evaluation, their pilots or substitute LOFT for appendix H, LOFT must consist of two LOFT is conducted as a line operation recurrent proficiency check representative flights for each pilot. In and allows for no interruption by the requirements because the requirement addition, air carriers may substitute instructor during the session except for can be met during the ordinary course LOFT that meets the requirements of a non-disruptive acceleration of of any LOFT that is currently part of a § 121.409, for the recurrent proficiency uneventful en route segments. part 121 operator’s training program. check requirement specified in Accordingly, the crew completing LOFT However there may be some burden due § 121.441. Further information regarding must complete one taxi-out and one to the need to amend an air carrier’s LOFT can be found in AC 120–35C, taxi-in during the 4-hours required for training program. This burden has been which provides guidelines for the LOFT in current § 121.409. Additional reflected in the information collection design and implementation of LOFT. segments need only consist of takeoff, requirements that are discussed in the In § 121.1353 of the SNPRM, the climb, en route, descent, and landing. Paperwork Reduction Act discussion in agency proposed to add specificity to Commenters state that the proposed Section IV of the preamble. The FAA existing LOFT requirements by requirement for two operating cycles has included this requirement in the requiring each pilot to serve as pilot during which a pilot serves exclusively final rule as amendments to paragraph flying and pilot monitoring any time a as pilot monitoring or pilot flying was 6 in appendix H and § 121.409. part 121 operator uses LOFT in a not representative of actual line training curriculum. Similar to existing operations. This proposal would force I. Flight Instructor (Simulator) and LOFT requirements in appendix H, the crews into predetermined pilot flying Check Airmen (Simulator) Training agency proposed that LOFT must and pilot monitoring roles irrespective Existing §§ 121.413 and 121.414 consist of two operating cycles. of actual line operations in order to require flight instructors and check However, the SNPRM defined meet the regulatory requirements. airmen to complete initial and transition ‘‘operating cycle’’ as a gate-to-gate The agency agrees with comments ground and flight training. The ground operation. Further, the agency proposed that the LOFT training should be training focuses on instruction and that one of the required operating cycles representative of actual line operations. evaluation methods, procedures, and would be a ‘‘pilot flying cycle’’ and one During typical line operations, a pilot techniques. Sections 121.413 and cycle would be a ‘‘pilot monitoring may not serve exclusively as either the 121.414 do not currently require ground cycle.’’ pilot flying or the pilot monitoring. training on the specific operation and Southwest, ASTAR, American, ATA, Therefore, the final rule does not require limitations of the simulator or training USAirways, Continental, UPS, and exclusive pilot monitoring and flying device. FedEx, stated that the two operating cycles during LOFT. Instead, the final However, appendix H to part 121 cycles that must be completed during rule requires pilots who must complete requires certificate holders to provide LOFT should not be required to include LOFT in accordance with appendix H or enhanced instruction for flight

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67814 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

instructors and check airmen that serve airmen who conduct training or the accident revealed that Federal in advanced simulation training checking in FSTDs must complete. Express’s pilot training program focused programs. Flight instructors and check Training on the limitations of the on a pilot’s performance on the day of airman who serve in a part 121 specific FSTD will enable instructors the check with little or no review of that advanced simulation training program and check airmen to provide upset pilot’s performance on checks months must complete the training required by recovery training consistent with the or years earlier. In January 2004, as a §§ 121.413 and 121.414, as applicable, capabilities and performance of the result of a series of operational as well as annual training identified in specific aircraft type. This accidents and incidents, Federal appendix H that includes simulator comprehensive instructor training will Express implemented an enhanced operation, limitations, and minimum not only increase instructor oversight program to identify and track equipment required for each course of standardization and the quality of upset pilots who have demonstrated training. recovery training, but also reduce the performance deficiencies or failures in In §§ 121.1377 and 121.1381 of the risk of negative training which could the training environment. The NTSB’s SNPRM, the agency proposed easily occur with an untrained report on the accident concluded that a requirements for all flight instructors instructor. These enhanced instructor similar proactive program would and all check airmen who serve in and check airmen training requirements provide safety benefits for other part 121 FSTDs to complete ground training on are consistent with recommendations of operators. Accordingly, in FSTD use, operation, and limitations the 208 ARC. Current training for check recommendation A–05–14, the NTSB based on existing appendix H annual airmen and instructors is extensive and recommended that the FAA require all training requirements. To coincide with the FAA has determined that these new part 121 operators to establish programs the SNPRM proposal for flightcrew final rule requirements can be integrated for flightcrew members who member recurrent training, the agency into the part 121 certificate holder’s demonstrated performance deficiencies proposed an 18 month interval for current curriculum for check airmen or experienced failures in the training recurrent flight instructor and check and instructor training. environment that would require a airman training. Commenters including Continental review of their whole performance and American stated that the proposed Aviation Performance Solutions (APS) history at the company and administer check airmen recurrent training expressed specific concern about the additional oversight and training to requirements in the SNPRM would qualifications of instructors conducting ensure that performance deficiencies are result in additional cost to air carriers. training in upset recognition and addressed and corrected. The NTSB The FAA has revised the projected recovery. APS stated that the delivery of reiterated recommendation A–05–14 in benefits and costs based on the specific upset recognition and recovery training the Colgan Air flight 3407 accident provisions that are adopted in this final report (NTSB/AAR–10/01) after the by instructors who have not first been rule. The final rule recurrent training provided with such information investigation revealed that the pilot requirements for flight instructors and demonstrated continued weaknesses in themselves and qualified in the delivery check airmen who serve in FSTDs can of information and techniques in this basic aircraft control and attitude be accomplished within the instructor instrument flying during multiple area has a high probability of and check airman requirements in evaluations within a 3-year period. propagating incorrect or unsafe existing appendix H. Therefore, costs On October 27, 2006, the agency information and techniques. APS are limited to those costs that may issued SAFO 06015, ‘‘Remedial recommended that the FAA require accrue from the revision to existing Training for Part 121 Pilots.’’ Consistent instructors to receive training and be manuals and training courseware. This with NTSB recommendation A–05–14, specifically qualified to deliver training burden has been reflected in the in this SAFO, the agency recommended in the area of upset recognition and information collection requirements that a process to identify pilots with recovery. are discussed in the Paperwork persistent performance deficiencies or The FAA agrees with this Reduction Act discussion in Section IV who have experienced multiple failures commenter’s concerns regarding the of the preamble. in training and checking. The agency importance of instructor training for explained that the process should J. Remedial Training Programs upset recovery training. Similar accomplish three objectives: (1) Review concerns were raised by the 208 ARC, In § 208(a)(2) of Public Law 111–216, the entire performance history of any which identified the lack of instructor Congress directed the Administrator to pilot in question; (2) provide additional knowledge, qualification, and conduct a rulemaking to require part remedial training as necessary; and (3) standardization as a major hazard for 121 operators to establish remedial provide additional oversight by the the delivery of upset recovery training. training programs for flightcrew certificate holder to ensure that In the final rule, the FAA has members who have demonstrated performance deficiencies are effectively determined that instructor and check performance deficiencies or experienced addressed and corrected. Following the airman training must not only contain failures in the training environment. See Administrator’s Call to Action to initial and recurrent training for footnote 2. This statutory requirement Enhance Airline Safety, in January 2010, maneuvers, concepts and techniques but for rulemaking is consistent with NTSB the agency confirmed that all part 121 must also include training on both the recommendation A–05–14 and existing operators had implemented remedial data and motion limitations of the FAA guidance regarding pilot remedial training consistent with the objectives of FSTD. Accordingly, the agency added training. SAFO 06015. See FAA Fact Sheet, these enhanced training requirements The Congressional direction is similar January 27, 2010. for flight instructors and check airmen to NTSB recommendation A–05–14, In the SNPRM, the agency explained to current §§ 121.413 and 121.414. issued following the Federal Express that the statutory requirement for the Further, the FAA has established the flight 647 accident in Memphis, development of remedial training recurrent interval for flight instructor Tennessee on December 18, 2003. See programs for flightcrew members who and check airmen training at 12 months NTSB/AAR–05/01. The NTSB’s review have demonstrated performance to coincide with appendix H recurrent of Federal Express’s pilot training deficiencies or experienced failures in training that flight instructors and check procedures and oversight at the time of the training environment was included

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67815

as part of the continuous analysis checking with the air carrier to identify the pilot has mastered the maneuver(s), process (CAP) proposed in § 121.1355. performance deficiencies or multiple procedure(s) or subject area(s), in which See 76 FR 29336, 29340 (May 20, 2011). failures. he or she has previously demonstrated In the SNPRM, the FAA revised the weakness. Possible methods of tracking 2. Remedial Training and Tracking CAP process to include more detailed include, but are not limited to, requirements to ensure that all part 121 The purpose of remedial training and additional PIC line checks, SIC line operators regularly analyze flightcrew tracking is to ensure that the failures or checks or observations, additional member training and checking and that identified performance deficiencies are proficiency checks, additional flight any deficiencies in flightcrew member addressed and corrected. Therefore, training, or a combination of these performance or operation of the training effective remedial training must be methods. Given the potential range of program are identified and corrected. tailored to the individual pilot. Possible identified areas of weakness, the See 76 FR at 29361. The agency further methods of remedial training include, individual pilot performance during proposed to require part 121 operators but are not limited to, one-on-one remedial training and tracking and the to monitor flightcrew members who training with an instructor, repeat of frequency of opportunities to completed remedial training. See 76 FR ground or flight training modules, continuously demonstrate proficiency at 29361. additional LOFT, or a combination of in those areas, the agency determined Commenters, including the Regional methods. The remedial training that the necessary time frame for Airline Association (RAA), questioned requirements in the final rule are tracking these pilots’ performance will whether the proposed CAP was consistent with the Air Carrier Safety vary. The agency expects certificate generally duplicative of activities that and Pilot Training ARC holders to continue to track a pilot until would be required in accordance with a recommendations, which called for the performance deficiencies or failures certificate holder’s SMS. Specifically, implementing structured remedial are effectively corrected. The agency RAA commented that the CAP proposal training programs, while retaining also expects each certificate holder’s unnecessarily duplicates activities that flexibility for air carriers to tailor approved training program to include more appropriately fall within the tracking to the individual pilot. specific indicators used to determine purview of an airline SMS. RAA Section 121.415(i) of the final rule that the pilot has mastered the suggested that, rather than maintaining requires the approved training program maneuver(s), procedure(s), or subject CAP and SMS as ‘‘separate silos’’ for to include methods for remedial training area(s) in which the pilot has previously analyzing a certificate holder’s training and tracking 13 of pilots that have been demonstrated weakness. program, the agency withdraw proposed identified during the analysis process The agency clarifies that tracking is §§ 121.1355 (applicable to required under 121.415(h). separate from required recurrent crewmembers) and 121.1441 (applicable In § 121.1335(b) of the SNPRM, the training and checking. Regardless of any to aircraft dispatchers) and incorporate agency proposed to require that the air the CAP into the agency’s proposed additional training or checking that a carrier monitor (identified as tracking in pilot completes during tracking, SMS rule. the final rule) an individual who has The agency agrees that elements of the recurrent training and checking is still completed remedial training until the required at the intervals specified in proposed CAP were similar to the individual satisfactorily completes the proposed SMS requirements. part 121. A pilot’s due month for following recurrent training session to recurrent training or checking may not Accordingly, in the final rule, the ensure the crewmember’s competent agency has only retained the pilot- be changed based on completion of any performance during this period. ATA, additional training or checking required specific remedial training components American, USAirways, Continental, of the proposed CAP that complement by the certificate holder’s remedial FedEx, and Southwest commented that training and tracking program. the proposed SMS requirements. The the duration of the monitoring The NTSB and Families of agency clarifies that the analysis process (identified as tracking in the final rule) Continental Flight 3407 commented that element of the remedial training of an individual who completed once a pilot completes a ‘‘checkride’’ program requirement may serve as a remedial training was unclear. there will be no further tracking of this component of a robust SMS. After further review of the SNPRM individual even if he or she and consideration of the comments, the 1. Analysis Process subsequently experiences difficulty agency has determined that the performing a maneuver, similar to the Section 121.415(h) of the final rule certificate holder must have the scenario identified during the retains the SNPRM proposal that each flexibility to establish the duration of investigation of the Colgan accident. approved training program must include pilot tracking. Pilot tracking is an The requirement for additional tracking a process for the regular analysis of element of the remedial training process of pilot performance is not the only individual pilot training and checking to manage pilots with performance opportunity for a certificate holder to performance to identify pilots with deficiencies or multiple failures to consider a pilot’s overall training and performance deficiencies during ensure that the performance deficiencies checking performance. As previously training and checking or multiple or failures are effectively corrected. The discussed, the final rule includes the failures during checking. The agency agency expects air carriers to conduct requirement for regular analysis of recommends that air carriers analyze an additional observation of pilot individual pilot training and checking individual pilot’s performance after performance following completion of performance. If a pilot completes completion of any qualification remedial training to determine whether curriculum or recurrent training/ tracking and subsequently demonstrates weakness again, this pilot would again checking event. To meet the intent of a 13 After further review of the SNPRM, in the final regular analysis, the agency expects an rule remedial training requirements, the agency has be identified during the analysis air carrier to analyze an individual replaced the term, ‘‘monitoring’’ with the term, process. Then, this pilot would again be pilot’s performance at least annually. ‘‘tracking.’’ The agency made this substitution required to complete remedial training because the term ‘‘monitoring’’ was inconsistent and tracking in accordance with the The agency expects this analysis to with existing guidance and to avoid confusion with include a review of the pilot’s ‘‘pilot monitoring’’ duties described elsewhere in certificate holder’s approved training performance during all training and the final rule. program.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67816 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Families of Continental Flight 3407 incorporates products and processes training, checking and operations commented that enhanced that have redefined the relationships contexts, in § 121.1206 of the SNPRM, recordkeeping requirements are between and within aircraft types. For the FAA proposed to allow certificate necessary for a complete assessment of example, the technological development holders to seek related aircraft a pilot’s performance. The agency of flight guidance computers has designation for aircraft with different believes that existing air carrier training produced ‘‘fly-by-wire’’ control laws type certification for use in part 121 and checking recordkeeping practices embedded in computer software that training program development. Having provide sufficient information for increasingly determine and control the such a designation would allow operators to successfully implement the handling or flight characteristics of an certificate holders to take advantage of remedial training program requirements aircraft. The use of such technology can any similarities that may exist between in the final rule. In addition, § 121.683 produce aircraft types of differing different aircraft types in its operation. requires operators to maintain records to models and aerodynamic airframes, Certificate holders could develop a demonstrate pilot compliance with the with similar handling or flight related aircraft differences training training and qualification requirements characteristics. In addition, modern program (inclusive of training and of subparts N and O.14 Records aircraft systems and displays may allow checking), make modifications to regarding an individual’s performance different type certificated aircraft to existing training programs, or seek a in the training or checking environment have common flight deck and systems deviation from the SNPRM’s proposed are of the type that could be used to designs, such that minimal differences recency, operating experience and satisfy the requirements of training may be warranted. consolidation requirements. § 121.683(a)(1). Accordingly, these Given this technological In the final rule, the agency has added records should be currently available for advancement, when requested by the proposal for related aircraft operator use in implementing an industry, the FSB will analyze and differences training to § 121.418 and has effective remedial training program compare aircraft with different type retained the proposed deviation including the regular analysis of pilot certificates and their associated systems. authority with modifications. Further, training and checking performance. Through this analysis, the FSB may consistent with § 121.1223 of the recommend training reduction for SNPRM, § 121.441(a)(1)(ii) of the final K. Related Aircraft Differences Training identified similarities between aircraft rule requires a PIC to complete a Under existing regulations, flightcrew types. These recommendations are proficiency check in each aircraft type members must complete the training, documented in FSB reports for each in which the PIC is to serve. Compliance checking, and qualification aircraft and have been used by with this provision will be required 5 requirements for each aircraft type they certificate holders to develop training years after the effective date of the final operate. In addition, due to differences program curriculums. rule. in instrumentation and installed In the SNPRM, the agency proposed A certificate holder may seek a equipment, the skills and knowledge to extend the differences training deviation to allow credit for related required to operate aircraft of the same concept to aircraft with different type aircraft operating experience and type may be different. Therefore, certificates. This proposal would not consolidation, recency of experience crewmembers trained on one variant of change existing requirements pertaining and proficiency checking through a an aircraft type may require additional to differences training for variants of a deviation request submitted in training to safely and efficiently operate single aircraft type. accordance with §§ 121.434, 121.439, other variants of that aircraft type. This To address the relationships among and 121.441 respectively. additional training is identified in aircraft with different type certificates, Currently, in accordance with existing regulations as differences in the SNPRM, the FAA proposed to § 121.433(d), a PIC who serves on more training. add to part 121 a definition for ‘‘related than one aircraft type must complete The FAA, through Flight aircraft’’ for use exclusively in the either recurrent flight training or a Standardization Boards (FSB), provides context of flightcrew member training, proficiency check on each aircraft type. analysis of the differences between the checking, and qualification. Related To ensure PICs operating multiple variations of existing aircraft types aircraft refers to two or more aircraft of aircraft types (whether designated as during certification. The analyses are the same make (with either the same or related or not designated as related) published in a Master Differences different type certificates) that have maintain proficiency on each aircraft Requirements (MDR) document in each been demonstrated and determined by type, the FAA has carried forward the FSB report. Under existing regulations, the Administrator to have commonality proposal from the SNPRM to require a an operator preparing a training to the extent that flightcrew member proficiency check on each aircraft type program must review the MDR, training, checking, recent experience, in which a PIC serves. determine the differences between the operating experience, operating cycles, The recurrent frequency for a PIC variants of the aircraft type, and develop and line operating flight time for proficiency check in this final rule a training program, subject to FAA consolidation of knowledge and skills aligns with the existing recurrent approval, that addresses these may be reduced while still meeting the checking frequency of 12 months. The differences. training and qualification requirements agency does not believe this With the rapid advancement in for service on the other aircraft. This requirement results in any additional modern technologies, both in definition is consistent with the related burden or cost to a certificate holder. manufacturing techniques and systems aircraft definition in AC 120–53A— Section 121.433(d) currently requires a design and application, industry now Guidance for Conducting and Use of PIC to satisfactorily complete either Flight Standardization Board recurrent flight training or a proficiency 14 As discussed in section II.B.1. of this preamble, Evaluations. The agency has provided check on each aircraft type in which a the FAA has initiated a rulemaking project (RIN an update to this advisory circular (AC PIC serves within the preceding 12 2120–AK31) to develop a pilot records database and 120–53B) in the docket for this final calendar months. Therefore, this phase out the requirements of the PRIA found at 49 U.S.C. 44703(h) and will consider the requirements rule. amendment to § 121.441 does not of § 121.683 in the pilot records database Based on the FAA’s experience with require any additional time in an FSTD rulemaking. evaluating aircraft similarities in the during flightcrew member recurrent

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67817

training. Additionally, the FAA expects training requirements for flightcrew The agency generally agrees with that any training program updates members qualified on related aircraft commenters that POIs are the most needed to reflect this change are that required an alternating sequence of familiar with the operation, experience minimal and are subsumed in the flight training and checking for each levels and training programs of the paperwork costs for the collective related aircraft type. certificate holder they oversee. amendments made to the recurrent Upon further review of the proposal, However, upon further review of the training provisions. the agency has determined that the proposal, the agency has determined However, the final rule does allow a concept currently in place for recurrent that it is more appropriate to address the certificate holder to seek a deviation differences training and recurrent Administrator’s delegation of authority from this requirement for aircraft that evaluations should apply to training on for specific functions associated with are designated related. In accordance aircraft designated as related. In the related aircraft designations and with § 121.441(f), a certificate holder final rule, flightcrew member recurrent deviations in guidance material. may apply for a deviation that would training must include all required Accordingly, the final rule reflects this allow reduced frequency and/or ground training, flight training and change. reduced content of the designated checking and crewmember emergency The agency emphasizes that the related aircraft proficiency check for training on a ‘‘base aircraft.’’ For an related aircraft provisions do not create PICs. Although the final rule does not aircraft designated as related to the base a requirement for an operator to seek amend the existing requirements aircraft, each flightcrew member must designation of related aircraft. A part applicable to SICs in § 121.441(a)(2), the be trained or trained and checked on the 121 operator’s determination whether to deviation authority added to differences as described in the FSB pursue a related aircraft designation or § 121.441(f) also permits a certificate report. develop related aircraft differences holder to seek a deviation from the ATA, USAirways, FedEx, Continental, training is voluntary. The alternative to proficiency check requirements ASTAR, Southwest, and American related aircraft differences training is for applicable to SICs for designated related expressed confusion regarding the use the part 121 operator to develop aircraft. of the term ‘‘classification of related comprehensive training programs for The agency notes that, consistent with aircraft’’ as proposed in the SNPRM any new aircraft type as is currently current practice, the FAA has not provision that would allow part 121 required. established a limit on the number of operators to seek deviations from aircraft types, or variants within a type, operating experience, consolidation, L. Extended Envelope Flight Training on which a flightcrew member may be and recent experience requirements. Currently, the agency does not require qualified to serve provided a flightcrew These commenters also stated that there ground or flight training on recovery member is able to demonstrate is no clear guidance on acceptable from aerodynamic (full) stall or upset proficiency and complete the training reasons for the agency to authorize a conditions. In § 208 of Public Law 111– and checking requirements set forth in deviation from operating experience, 216, enacted August 1, 2010, Congress the certificate holder’s approved consolidation and recent experience directed the FAA to require part 121 training program. based on related aircraft designation. operators to provide flightcrew members Airbus supported the proposal to In response to commenters’ concerns with ground and flight training on the allow certificate holders to modify their regarding the term ‘‘classification of recognition and avoidance of stalls and pilot training programs based on FSB related aircraft,’’ the agency has upsets as well as full stall and upset related aircraft designation. However, amended the final rule deviation recovery maneuvers. Public Law 111– FedEx, Southwest, Continental, ASTAR, language to refer to ‘‘designation of 216 also directed the agency to American, ATA, and USAirways related aircraft’’ for clarity and implement the recommendations of the questioned the necessity for the consistency. Regarding commenters’ expert panel convened to report on designation of related aircraft because concerns about the basis for authorizing methods to increase flightcrew member existing FSB reports already define the deviations from operating experience, familiarity with and response to stick relationship between aircraft. consolidation and recent experience, the pusher systems and adverse weather Commenters further asserted that they agency will evaluate a deviation request events. should not be required by regulation to based on the recommendations in the Public Law 111–216 followed the seek approval from the FAA for related FSB report. Additionally, the agency Colgan accident in which the flight crew aircraft designation a second time notes that under existing requirements incorrectly responded to both a stall outside the FSB process. and in the final rule, separate operating warning and a stick pusher activation The agency clarifies that neither the experience, operating cycles, and line resulting in an aerodynamic stall. proposal nor the final rule make any operating flight time for consolidation of Additional improper response to the substantive changes to the process by knowledge and skills are not required stalled condition precipitated an upset which FSB analysis of aircraft with the for variations within the same type condition from which the flight crew same or different type certificates is airplane. See 14 CFR 121.434(a). did not recover, resulting in the death currently conducted. Currently, part 121 ATA, USAirways, FedEx, Continental, of everyone on board as well as one requires differences training for variants ASTAR, Southwest, and American person on the ground and a catastrophic of aircraft with the same type noted that the deviations are now loss of the aircraft. certification, but it does not specifically required to be approved by the FAA In the SNPRM, the agency proposed address a differences training concept Director of Flight Standards. These to require flightcrew members to receive for aircraft with different type commenters suggest that the deviation flight training on upset recognition and certification. Thus, the agency authority should remain at the principal recovery, as well as recovery from full determined codification of the related operations inspector (POI) level, stall and stick pusher activations. The aircraft policy in AC 120–53A is asserting that a POI who is familiar with SNPRM also proposed to require pilot necessary. the airline’s operation, experience ground training on recognition and ASTAR, Continental, American, ATA, levels, and training programs is critical recovery from stall and upset. USAirways, and Southwest asked the to making a well-founded decision As required by Public Law 111–216, agency to clarify the proposed recurrent regarding a deviation. the final rule includes stall and upset

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67818 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

ground and flight training. Consistent stall or the extended envelope flight maintained even if a part 121 operator with Public Law 111–216 and the 208 training tasks. substitutes line-oriented simulator ARC recommendations, the agency has In the final rule, the agency replaces training or LOFT for alternating SIC determined that the greatest safety the term ‘‘approach to stall’’ with ‘‘stall recurrent training. Training and benefit can be achieved by adjusting the prevention training.’’ 16 This change checking on stall prevention (approach focus of the training requirements to does not alter the substantive to stall) provides the greatest benefit in ‘‘avoid’’ or prevent the upset or stall. requirements of existing approach to that proficiency in this area provides the Accordingly, the final rule promotes stall training. The FAA has adopted this highest likelihood that the pilot will be pilot manual handling skill terminology change in concert with able to avoid the onset of stall or development to prevent stall and upsets, ICAO and as a result of the FAA/ICAO/ upset.17 coupled with training which allows EASA joint initiative to study the Also, in the final rule, the agency is pilots to quickly recover from developed contributing factors of loss of control furthering the training concepts stalls and upsets. The final rule also inflight, internationally recognized as developed in the Pilot Certification rule. includes the proposed requirement for the LOCART initiative. The requirements in both this final rule flight training on recovery from bounced The FAA has determined that the and the Pilot Certification rule use landings. term ‘‘stall prevention training’’ more academic training to develop In the final rule, the agency identifies accurately describes the training foundational knowledge and then the stall and upset prevention and objective intended by the existing consolidate that knowledge with FSTD recovery maneuvers and procedures as ‘‘approach to stall’’ maneuvers. This training and experience. Together, these ‘‘extended envelope training.’’ The term terminology change also draws a clearer final rules require certificate holders to ‘‘extended envelope training’’ refers to distinction from the full stall recovery effectively provide a building block maneuvers and procedures conducted training introduced in this final rule. As approach to learning for pilots. in a FSTD that may extend beyond the described in AC 120–109, pilots should Developing the broad concepts of limits where typical FSTD performance continue to be trained that the primary aerodynamics in the ATP CTP to the and handling qualities have been response at the first indication of a stall type specific aerodynamic concepts now validated with heavy reliance on flight is to reduce the angle of attack. required in an air carrier’s training data to represent the actual aircraft. In The recurrent frequency for stall program, serves as an effective method instances when obtaining such flight prevention (approach to stall) training to deliver the training mandated by data is hazardous or impractical, and evaluation and the extended Public Law 111–216 and recommended engineering predictive methods and envelope maneuvers training in this by the 208 ARC. subject-matter-expert assessment are final rule aligns with the existing Enhanced academic knowledge, used to represent the aircraft adequately recurrent training and evaluation emphasis on prevention training, and in the simulator. frequency of 6 months for PICs and 12 the recommended recovery techniques The final rule extended envelope months for SICs. The extended envelope developed by the Original Equipment flight training maneuvers and maneuvers training focuses on manual Manufacturer (OEM) constitute a procedures are required in qualification handling skills for proper response to complete training solution. The agency curriculums as proposed in the SNPRM, development of slow flight, stall expects that if this solution is properly as well as in recurrent curriculums. The prevention and loss of reliable airspeed. delivered, it will have a significant time required to complete the extended Accordingly, in the final rule, the effect on the LOC–I statistics. envelope training is in addition to agency has increased the frequency for 1. Upset Prevention and Recovery existing programmed hour requirements these manual handling maneuvers from for inflight training.15 the proposed rule and decreased the Existing regulations do not specifically require pilots to receive In the SNPRM, the agency proposed frequency of recurrent training proposed flight training on upset prevention and to require all pilots in part 121 for stall and upset recovery from the recovery. The Colgan Air flight 3407 operations to complete recurrent proposed rule to target resources to the and American Airlines flight 587 training for the extended envelope flight areas in which the greatest safety benefit accidents reinforced the need for this training tasks at either 9 month or 36 can be achieved. As a result, and in training because each involved sudden month intervals. The agency also order to encourage a cohesive training proposed to require all pilots to or unexpected aircraft upset. approach, the agency has determined In the NPRM, the agency proposed to complete recurrent training or that every 24 months, upset and stall evaluation on approach to stall in at require flight training for upset recovery should be trained together with recognition and recovery during every least one configuration (clean, takeoff or the manual handling skill development. maneuvering, or landing) every 9 qualification curriculum and during The agency further notes that this months. A number of commenters recurrent training. In the SNPRM, the frequency is consistent with the 208 raised concern generally regarding the agency added a requirement for pilots to ARC recommendation that upset totality of required recurrent training be evaluated on this task. recovery should be trained no less proposed in the SNPRM. However, Upset prevention: The greatest safety frequently than every 36 months. benefit can be achieved if an upset commenters did not provide specific Additionally, in furtherance of stall objections to the proposed training or condition is prevented through proper prevention, the agency ensures that the pilot intervention. Although the agency evaluation frequency for approach to existing requirement to train or evaluate approach to stall every 12 months is 15 The programmed hours identified in § 121.424 17 The agency notes that currently, line-oriented refer to ‘‘inflight’’ training. As defined in 121.401, simulator training (also referred to as line oriented ‘‘inflight’’ refers to maneuvers, procedures or 16 The agency considers stall prevention training flight training or LOFT) may be substituted for functions that must be conducted in the airplane. and approach to stall training as synonymous. As alternating SIC recurrent training which may Extended envelope training does not fall within this such, the FAA is not requiring certificate holders exclude stall prevention (approach to stall) training. definition because this training must be completed to adopt this new nomenclature in any See §§ 121.409 and 121.441. For this reason, the in a FFS. Therefore, the pilot inflight training documentation. However, the FAA will revise AC final rule ensures that stall prevention training must programmed hours have not been amended to 120–109 and make other conforming changes to be conducted every 12 months even if a part 121 account for the additional time required for these adopt this terminology in future rulemakings and training program substitutes LOFT for alternating new training requirements. guidance. SIC recurrent training.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67819

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67820 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

prevention, and trains the pilots in that upset recovery training must airplane to pilot input such that proper recovery techniques. Achieving contain extreme pitch and roll angles. conventional control strategies proved the learning objective defined in the The FAA sought recommendations on to be inadequate. Calspan further recovery maneuvers is paramount. this issue from the 208 ARC. The 208 commented that the NPRM cited Evaluation and approval of upset ARC reviewed the work completed by numerous NTSB recommendations training programs: Commenters also such groups as the developers of the developed from accidents that resulted raised concerns regarding upset AURTA, the Industry/FAA Stall Work in extreme upset conditions precipitated training. APS recommended that the Group, and the International Committee by an underlying control system issue. FAA produce guidance for the for Aviation Training in Extended Calspan stated that these accidents were evaluation and approval of programs of Envelopes (ICATEE). The 208 ARC in fact controllable had the crew instruction in upset recognition and validated much of the previous work executed proper alternate control recovery that includes stipulations for done by each of these groups and used responses, but without upset recovery appropriate content, methodology, and the AURTA Revision 2 18 and the FAA training they did not possess the delivery of training. AC 120–109 19 as the basis of their knowledge and skill necessary to safely The FAA concurs with the recommendations. The ARC recover. commenter’s recommendation and will recommended the FAA use these two The FAA agrees that alternate control provide operators and training providers documents as source documents for the strategies are a component of a well- with sufficient and comprehensive development of advisory material for developed upset prevention and guidance on the academic content, upset prevention and recovery training. recovery training program. In guidance validated maneuvers, and appropriate Further, an airplane OEM group was material developed for upset prevention cautions for the delivery of upset also established within the 208 ARC to and recovery, the agency will discuss prevention and recovery training. In develop recommended standard OEM the advantages and cautions for using developing guidance, the agency has guidance for the recovery from nose- alternate control strategies when considered the recommendations of the high/nose-low upsets. Airbus, ATR, primary control responses are not 208 ARC on many aspects of training Boeing, Bombardier, and Embraer effective. However, the FAA disagrees upset prevention and recovery in FSTD, developed the upset prevention and with the commenter’s assertion that including the scope and objective of recovery template contained in the most cited upset accidents were a result conducting this training in an FSTD; the advisory material published with this of control system issues. In the most training device requirements; the final rule. recent accidents such as Colgan Air instructor requirements; the academic The FAA is satisfied the upset flight 3407, American Airlines flight 587 training elements required before recovery techniques developed in and USAir flight 427, the NTSB beginning upset prevention and conjunction with this final rule are identified improper pilot response as a recovery training in an FSTD; the flight appropriate. Each maneuver and contributing factor. training elements required including Further, the FAA is not persuaded associated recovery was developed by slow flight and manual handling that the description of upset should be OEMs and has been validated to remain training; and, the completion criteria for changed as recommended by the in both the data and motion limitations upset prevention and recovery training commenter. The agency continues to of a Level C or Level D FFS if conducted in an FSTD. In making its recognize the description of upset properly. The FAA also stresses that the recommendations, the 208 ARC proposed in the NPRM. This description increased instructor and check airmen considered information provided by is also consistent with the AURTA and training will allow instructors and experts on LOC–I causal factors and the 208 ARC recommendations.20 check airmen to recognize any reviewed previous guidance such as the 2. Stall Prevention and Recovery Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid excursions outside of the data or motion (AURTA) produced by Airbus/Boeing capabilities of the device and debrief In the SNPRM, the agency proposed and endorsed by the Flight Safety pilots on any such event. to require pilots to train on recovery Foundation. The FAA has included e a Expand ‘‘Upset’’ definition: Calspan from full stall. Further, the agency copy of the ARC recommendations in recommends the following expanded proposed to require that, for pilots the docket for this rulemaking. definition of upset: ‘‘An aircraft upset is operating aircraft equipped with stick- Data and qualification of FSTDs: further defined as an airplane pusher, stall recovery training must be FlightSafety commented that most data unintentionally exceeding the completed by going through stick packages do not contain the information parameters normally experienced in line pusher release. Although the agency did and data necessary to model a FFS to operations or an event that alters the not receive any comments objecting to accomplish the required upset normal response of the airplane to pilot the proposed requirement to train recognition and recovery training. input such that the pilot must adopt an recovery from full stall in general, the FlightSafety further commented that a alternate control strategy to sustain or agency did receive a number of mandate to train a recovery technique to regain controlled flight.’’ technical comments regarding this use for a specific aircraft type without Calspan commented that the proposed flight training. For example, OEM data and/or FAA approved definition of upset used in the NPRM ALPA commented that ICATEE has procedures would not improve training does not capture how the precipitating or safety. APS raised the same concern event may impact the pilot’s ability to 20 In the NPRM Upset Recognition and Recovery based in part on the expectation that control the aircraft. A number of is described as follows: accidents have occurred where a control 6.5 Task: Upset Recognition and Recovery extreme pitch and roll angles would (d) Reference the most current version of the necessarily be part of upset recognition failure or disturbance significantly Industry’s Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid. and recovery training. altered the normal response of the An aircraft upset is almost universally described as The FAA shares the commenter’s exceeding one or more of the following: 18 ° concerns on the use of validated aircraft http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_ (1) Pitch attitude greater than 25 nose up. industry/airline_operators/training/media/AP_ ° data and addresses this concern later in (2) Pitch attitude greater than 10 nose down. UpsetRecovery_Book.pdf (3) Bank angle greater than 45°or within these this section of the preamble. However, 19 http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/ parameters, but flying at airspeeds inappropriate for the agency disagrees with the assertion Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-109.pdf the conditions.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67821

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67822 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67823

evaluation, some air carriers such as D FFS is negligible for the extended cannot replicate the stressors that will Continental, United, and JetBlue were envelope training included in this final be present. These commenters and APS generally critical of the agency’s rule. The primary difference that exists suggested using alternate training reliance on FFSs, noting that effective today between a Level C and a Level D resources (e.g., in-flight simulation training programs currently in place use FFS is the evaluation of vibration and aircraft or a continuous-g motion a combination of FFSs and FTDs to sound. Level D evaluation involves platform) in conjunction with FSTD and deliver training. Other commenters such objective criteria while Level C academic training. Calspan commented as the International Association of evaluation of vibration and sound is that academic training should be Machinists and Aerospace Workers subjective. augmented with both an in-flight (IAMAW) and the Transport Workers Deviation Authority: Although the simulator and ground-based FFS Union of America (TWU), ALPA, and final rule applies the requirement to training. APS stated that only the highest levels train in an FFS to a limited number of The agency intends for the extended of FSTDs should be used to deliver tasks, the agency has considered envelope training to include ground training citing concerns including the comments on the FSTD deviation training and flight training in a FFS. At risk for negative training. APS authority proposed in the SNPRM as this time the agency does not have commented specifically that operators they relate to the final rule sufficient information by which to should be required to use the highest requirements. In the SNPRM, the agency determine the safety and effectiveness of level of device available to train upset proposed a means by which certificate the alternate training devices proposed recognition and recovery because, holders could seek a deviation from the by commenters. Enhanced academic considering the high consequence requirements to complete all flight knowledge, emphasis on prevention nature of aircraft upset events, every training in an FSTD. The proposed training and the recommended recovery effort should be made to provide pilots deviation authority contemplated the techniques developed by the OEM with the greatest fidelity possible in use of an aircraft as an alternate training constitutes a complete training solution. order to learn the skills necessary for platform. The agency has determined that if this prevention and recovery from a LOC–I ASTAR commented on the SNPRM solution is implemented properly, it situation. deviation authority, stating that the will have a significant effect on the The agency has not included the FSTD requirements in the SNPRM did LOC–I statistics. proposal to require all flightcrew not recognize that some operators fly Consistency with International Civil member training to be completed in an older aircraft for which the level of Aviation Organization (ICAO) 9625: FSTD although currently, most simulator required exists in limited United, Continental, and USAirways operators use FSTDs in pilot training numbers or does not exist at all. The stated that the FSTD requirements programs. The final rule does, however, National Air Carrier Association, Atlas proposed in the SNPRM are inconsistent require the extended envelope training Air, and six individuals commented on with some of the more progressive required in § 121.423 to be completed in deviation authority generally, opposing concepts in contained in ICAO a FFS. The agency addresses the APS a deviation authority that allows Document 9625 which seeks to align comments regarding the use of the training in lower level devices than simulator standards and training tasks highest level of device available for those specified for each flight training on a global basis. It is designed to training upset events in the discussion task in the SNPRM. address all levels of pilot training and The agency agrees that the challenges on the requirement for Level C FFSs. licensing, which is outside of the scope identified by ASTAR may arise with Level C FFS: In the final rule, the of the SNPRM.21 Although the final rule respect to the requirement to use a Level agency continues to require the does not contain many of the maneuvers extended envelope flight training C or higher FFS for extended envelope contemplated by the SNPRM, the maneuvers and procedures to be flight training, although currently over remaining maneuvers and FSTD completed in an FFS. However, the final 95% of FAA-evaluated FFS devices that requirements are consistent with the rule requires a minimum of a Level C replicate part 121 aircraft are either a standards contained in the ICAO FFS because these devices provide the Level C or higher FFS. Therefore, in Document 9625. highest level of aerodynamic modeling, those limited instances in which a Level Device Qualification: ALPA, visual fidelity and motion cueing to C or higher FFS does not exist (e.g., FlightSafety, and Families of replicate the aircraft for motion based certain older fleets such as the Convair Continental Flight 3407 commented that pilot training. The requirement to use a 580) or for extraordinary reasons, access existing FFSs lack the data package Level C or higher FFS is consistent with to a Level C or higher FFS is limited, a containing the information required to current appendix H requirements for carrier may apply for FAA consideration create the aerodynamic model necessary Advanced Simulation Programs that do of a deviation in accordance with the to accomplish full stall and upset not permit Level B devices except in process described in § 121.423(e) of the recovery training. ALPA further limited circumstances. Further, the 3- final rule. Conducting extended commented that modifications to part degree-of-freedom motion cues provided envelope flight training inflight presents 60 are also necessary for existing FSTDs by Level A and B devices do not provide significant safety risks. Therefore, the the level of fidelity required to meet the extended envelope maneuvers and to address bounced landings, as well as training objectives of the extended procedures must be trained in a tasks such as icing, microburst and envelope flight training maneuvers and controlled simulated environment or windshear, so as to avoid negative procedures as compared to the 6-degree- through another means by which the training in these areas. of-freedom requirements for Level C and learning objectives can be achieved. 21 International Civil Aviation Organization higher devices. Training in Other Devices: Two (ICAO) Document 9625 addresses the use of Flight In response to comments suggesting training providers, ETC and Calspan, Simulation Training Devices (FSTDs). The methods, that the highest level of device is commented that current capabilities of procedures and testing standards contained in this required for training in a simulated existing FSTDs are limited in their manual are the result of the experience and expertise provided by National Aviation Authorities environment, the FAA has determined ability to fully train crewmembers in the (NAA), aeroplane and FSTD operators and that the current distinction in competencies needed to prevent and manufacturers. Document 9625 may be obtained capabilities between a Level C and Level recover from LOC–I events because they from ICAO at www.icao.int.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67824 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

APS stated that there are Instructor upset has already occurred and recovery Transportation Division, FAA Flight Operating Station (IOS) capabilities that is necessary. Prevention serves to avoid Standards Service, from Rebecca B. could enhance training in upset incidents and includes any pilot action MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel, recognition and recovery. APS to avoid a divergence from a desired Regulations Division (Feb. 2, 2010), a recommends that an FSTD specification airplane state prior to entering an upset copy of which is included in the docket be created for the qualification of newly event. Recovery training serves to for this rulemaking manufactured devices which calls for reduce accidents as a result of an In the SNPRM, the FAA proposed information to be provided to the unavoidable upset event. Accordingly, revisions to § 121.711 to clarify the instructor indicating whether or not the recovery refers to pilot actions that contents of the record required for each FSTD is being operated within the valid return an airplane that is diverging in en route radio contact between the training envelope for that device. altitude, airspeed, or attitude to a certificate holder and its pilots, based The FAA agrees with commenters that desired state. This change to ground on the agency’s February 2010 legal modifications to part 60 are necessary to training is consistent with the interpretation. The agency also train the extended envelope flight recommendations of the 208 ARC, proposed to extend the record training tasks, but such modifications convened by the FAA as required by requirement in § 121.711 to are outside of the scope of this § 208 of Public Law 111–216. supplemental operations. In the rulemaking. Imposing new FSTD In the final rule the agency included SNPRM, the FAA proposed that these evaluation requirements will require ground training on full stalls and upset additional recordkeeping requirements revisions to the qualifications standards as additions to current § 121.419, Pilots be effective 120 days from the in part 60 (for newly qualified FSTDs) and flight engineers: Initial, transition, publication of the final rule. or an FSTD Directive (for previously and upgrade ground training. Section The FAA received comments on the qualified FSTDs). Accordingly, the FAA 121.427 requires that the subjects proposed revisions to § 121.711 from has initiated rulemaking to address the covered in § 121.419 are covered in Continental, USAirways, Southwest, necessary changes to part 60 which will recurrent training as well. Due to the American, ATA, FedEx, ASTAR, and be needed to deliver the FFS fidelity addition of these subjects, the agency one individual. Commenters stated that and IOS tools needed to effectively has adjusted the existing required the time frame for implementation is too deliver many of the extended envelope programmed hours for initial and short because it requires carriers to training tasks. Amendments to part 60 recurrent ground training. The agency incorporate new functionality into qualification standards for extended has determined that 2 additional hours existing software systems, and the envelope training and the IOS panel are required for initial training and 30 agency did not identify a safety benefit upgrades are also responsive to the additional minutes are required for that would result from this new recommendations for simulation recurrent training, based on a review of requirement. The commenters asserted improvements from the 208 ARC. the content required for training these that this requirement does not enhance The FAA believes that the 5 year subjects and the agency’s experience safety or increase efficiency, but compliance period in this rule provides evaluating and approving training increases complexity and cost for an ample amount of time for an FSTD programs. operators, with no positive cost/benefit. sponsor to conduct any necessary Based on the foregoing, Continental, modifications as may be required by N. Communication Records for USAirways, Southwest, ATA, FedEx, amendments to part 60 to ensure the Domestic and Flag Operations and American recommend striking this FSTD validation limits are sufficient to Under the current regulations, proposal from the SNPRM. conduct the required training tasks. § 121.711 requires certificate holders As discussed in the background conducting domestic or flag operations section of the preamble, the FAA has M. Extended Envelope Ground Training to record all en route radio contacts determined it is necessary to move Currently, the agency does not require between the certificate holder and its forward at this time with a final rule specific ground training on stall or upset pilots and to keep the record for at least that contains certain discrete provisions recovery concepts. As stated above, 30 days. Existing § 121.711 recodified proposed in the SNPRM. As a result, § 208 of Public Law 111–206 directed 14 CFR 40.512, which provided that this final rule does not change the the FAA to require part 121 operators to ‘‘[e]ach air carrier shall maintain, and operational control requirements for provide flightcrew members with retain for a period of 30 days, records supplemental operations. Since the final ground and flight training on the of radio contacts by or with pilots en rule does not provide for supplemental recognition and avoidance of route.’’ The rationale behind this rule, operators to share in operational aerodynamic stalls and upsets as well as as stated in the preamble to the NPRM control, it would be incongruous to aerodynamic stall and upset recovery that proposed § 40.512, was to ‘‘enable impose the requirements of § 121.711 to maneuvers. The agency proposed to the [Civil Aeronautics] Board and the communications in supplemental require training on these two ground Administrator to discharge fully their operations. Therefore, the training subjects in the SNPRM (Table respective accident investigation and communication record requirements in 2A in attachment 2 of appendix Q). The safety regulatory responsibilities.’’ See § 121.711 will not be extended to agency did not receive any comments 23 FR 7721, 7723 (October 7, 1958). supplemental operations as part of this on this proposal. The FAA issued a legal interpretation final rule. The final rule includes training on of this section setting forth the In the final rule, the FAA has retained stall prevention and recovery as well as minimum content that must be included the proposed changes to § 121.711 as upset prevention and recovery. In the in a § 121.711 communication record, they apply to domestic and flag final rule, the agency identifies upset including: the date and time of the operators. As set forth previously, the ground training as upset prevention and contact; the flight number; aircraft agency has interpreted the current recovery. The modification focuses the registration number; approximate provision of the regulations as requiring training requirements on knowledge to position of the aircraft during the certain minimum details regarding the create awareness and the ability to contact; call sign; and narrative of the contact between a certificate holder and prevent an occurrence of upset, rather contact. See Legal Interpretation to John its pilots. The approach in the SNPRM than focusing solely on training after the S. Duncan, Division Manager, Air has merely codified the agency’s

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67825

interpretation of the level of detail flightcrew. Such a result would be 07/05. The flight crew was instructed to required to comply with existing contrary to the clear intent of the take off from runway 22 but instead regulations. Accordingly, in the final SNPRM and the original premise of lined up the airplane on runway 26 and rule, the agency has retained the 120- § 121.711, which was to ensure that began the takeoff roll. The airplane ran day timeline for compliance with this appropriate records of all en route off the end of the runway and impacted provision because the final rule no communications between aircraft the airport perimeter fence, trees, and longer extends the § 121.711 dispatchers and the flightcrew are terrain. The PIC, flight attendant, and 47 recordkeeping requirement to created and maintained. Moreover, it passengers were killed, and the SIC supplemental operations. would be inconsistent with the received serious injuries. The airplane The communication record provisions of current § 121.99. was destroyed by impact forces and requirements in § 121.711 apply to Sections 121.711 and 121.99 were postcrash fire. communications that take place while added to part 121 in the same Existing agency guidance and an aircraft is ‘‘en route’’ to its rulemaking and both provisions were advisory material identify procedures destination. In the SNPRM preamble, recodifications from the Civil that part 121 operators should use to the agency clarified that in this specific Aeronautics Board (CAB) regulations. enhance runway safety. See AC 120– context, an aircraft is considered to be See 29 FR 19186, 19195, and 19228 74B, Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135 ‘‘en route’’ from the time the aircraft (Dec. 31, 1964). Section 121.99 Flightcrew Procedures During Taxi pushes back from the departing gate describes the type of communication Operations; SAFO 06013 Flight Crew until the aircraft reaches the arrival gate system each certificate holder is Techniques and Procedures That at its destination. See 76 FR 29336, required to have for purposes of Enhance Pre-takeoff and Takeoff Safety; 29352 (May 20, 2011). One individual communications in domestic and flag and SAFO 07003, Confirming the commenter noted that the agency’s operations. Although these provisions Takeoff Runway. The taxi and pre- interpretation of ‘‘en route’’ in this are not currently cross-referenced, they takeoff procedures proposed in the context was inconsistent with a legal are closely intertwined because the SNPRM and included in the final rule interpretation previously issued by the requirements of § 121.711 contemplate are consistent with this guidance and FAA and suggested that § 121.711 be the type of communication system that advisory material. revised to clearly state that is required in § 121.99. In the SNPRM, the agency proposed communication records are required In 2007, § 121.99 was revised to to include three additional procedures from the time the aircraft has pushed change the previous requirement for a during the execution of the ‘‘taxi’’ back from the origin gate until the time ‘‘two-way radio communication system maneuver. The agency proposed that, to it arrives at the destination gate. See . . .’’ to a requirement of a ‘‘two-way comply with the maneuver requirement, Legal Interpretation to Mr. Charles communication system under normal ‘‘taxi,’’ a flightcrew member must Lewis from Donald P. Byrne, Assistant operating conditions.’’ See 72 FR 31662, complete the procedures ‘‘Use of airport Chief Counsel, Regulations Division 31668 (Jun. 7, 2007). This revision, diagram (surface movement chart),’’ (April 17, 1997); see also, Legal removing the word ‘‘radio,’’ was made ‘‘Appropriate clearance before crossing Interpretation to Ansel McAllaster, in recognition that advancements in or entering active runways,’’ and Manager, Flight Standards Division technology have provided for other ‘‘Observation of all surface movement from John H. Cassidy, Assistant Chief communication methods for contacting guidance control markings and Counsel, Regulations Division an aircraft other than radio. The agency lighting.’’ Although some certificate (September 21, 1988), copies of which explained the revision in the preamble holders may already train and evaluate are included in the docket for this to the NPRM stating that ‘‘these changes taxi at this level of specificity, the FAA rulemaking. would make the regulation more flexible has determined that this maneuver must The FAA agrees with the commenter for modern means of communication be targeted by all certificate holders to that clarification is necessary given the and would allow for future changes in ensure that flightcrew members context in which the term ‘‘en route’’ is technology.’’ See 67 FR 77326, 77333– consistently use available cues and aids primarily used in existing regulations 34 (Dec. 17, 2002). To ensure that to identify the airplane’s location on the and the conflicting intent of the § 121.711 is not rendered meaningless airport surface during taxi and verify SNPRM. Therefore, the final rule revises by the use of non-radio communication proper clearances before crossing or § 121.711 to reflect the meaning of ‘‘en technology, the FAA has removed the entering active runways. route’’ in this context, consistent with word ‘‘radio’’ from § 121.711 in the final Further, in response to the accident the meaning asserted in the SNPRM rule and included a cross-reference to involving Comair flight 5191 and NTSB preamble. § 121.99. recommendation A–07–044, the FAA The same individual further suggested determined it was necessary to add pre- removing the word ‘‘radio’’ from current O. Runway Safety takeoff procedures, ‘‘receipt of takeoff § 121.711 ‘‘if the intent is for the Currently, the maneuvers ‘‘taxi’’ and clearance’’ and ‘‘confirmation of aircraft certificate holder to maintain records of ‘‘pre-takeoff checks’’ appear in location and FMS entry for departure all contact from pushback at origin to appendices E and F and are required runway prior to crossing hold short line arrival at destination gate.’’ As the training and evaluation maneuvers. for takeoff.’’ The purpose of these commenter points out, if a pilot Upon review of accident and runway procedures is to positively confirm and communicates with dispatch via a incursion history, the FAA determined cross check the airplane’s location at the means of communication other than that it was necessary to include assigned departure runway before radio, a record may not be required additional procedures within ‘‘taxi’’ and crossing the hold-short line for takeoff. under current § 121.711. The agency ‘‘pre-takeoff checks’’ to reduce the The final rule incorporates the agrees with this commenter. Since the causal factors that led to accidents and proposals in the SNPRM for airport meaning of en route in the context of runway incursions. runway safety training into existing taxi § 121.711 includes time when the For example, on August 27, 2006, and pre-takeoff checks requirements in aircraft is on the ground, the potential Comair flight 5191 crashed during appendices E and F of part 121. The exists for non-radio communications to takeoff from Blue Grass Airport in FAA has determined that the training occur between dispatch and the Lexington, Kentucky. See NTSB/AAR– and evaluation time required to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67826 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

complete these taxi and pre-takeoff respond to changes in speed and longer required on aircraft used in part procedures would not take any longer direction of winds to maintain the 121 operations. Also, consistent with than the time currently required to correct flight path to the runway. the SNPRM, the agency replaced the complete those maneuvers because the Moreover, crosswind training that terms proficiency check and procedures are incorporated into the includes the wind gust variable will competency check in § 121.413(a)(2) existing taxi and pre-takeoff maneuver improve training in areas identified as with checks and supervision of requirements. probable causes of accidents by the operating experience, to more accurately In incorporating the final rule runway NTSB, including the accident involving reflect check airman functions in part safety requirements into appendices E Continental Airlines flight 1404. The 121 operations. and F, the agency has eliminated the NTSB determined that the probable R. SNPRM Economic Comments option to complete pre-takeoff cause of this accident was the PICs procedures in a non-visual simulator. ‘‘cessation of rudder input, which was In March 2010, the FAA conducted a Flightcrew members use visual cues, needed to maintain directional control preliminary regulatory evaluation to signs, and markings to confirm the of the airplane, about 4 seconds before estimate the costs and benefits of the aircraft’s location prior to crossing the the excursion, when the airplane provisions proposed in the SNPRM. The hold short line for takeoff. Accordingly, encountered a strong and gusty agency received several comments on if an operator chooses to train and crosswind that exceeded the captain’s the SNPRM regulatory evaluation from evaluate pre-takeoff procedures in a training and experience.’’ In connection air carriers, labor organizations and simulator instead of inflight, a simulator with this accident, the NTSB issued a trade associations. This section provides with a visual system must be used. The number of safety recommendations a summary of issues raised by agency does not believe this change including A–10–111, which advised the commenters on the SNPRM regulatory causes any additional cost to operators FAA to require part 121, 135, and 91K evaluation and the FAA’s response. since there are currently no non-visual operators to incorporate realistic, gusty 1. Benefit Analysis simulators qualified by the FAA’s crosswind profiles into their pilot National Simulator Program. simulator training programs. ATA, Continental, and United noted In the final rule, the FAA has the benefit methodology developed for P. Crosswind Maneuvers Including amended appendices E and F to include the SNPRM regulatory evaluation differs Wind Gusts the requirement for training and significantly from the original Existing training requirements for a evaluation in crosswind takeoff and methodology used in the NPRM PIC and SIC include the requirement to crosswind landing with gusts. The FAA regulatory evaluation. perform multiple takeoffs and landings has determined that this level of The FAA refined the SNRPM until the PIC or SIC achieves specificity is necessary to ensure that all regulatory evaluation benefit analysis proficiency. Currently, as part of the flightcrew members have the necessary based on public comments to the NPRM required training and evaluation of skills for takeoff and landing in gusty analysis. For example, in the SNPRM takeoffs and landings, flightcrew winds. It is likely that many certificate benefit analysis, the FAA limited members must successfully complete holders already train and evaluate historical accidents to those associated crosswind maneuvers, as set forth in crosswind takeoffs and landings with with airlines that did not have an appendices E and F to part 121. gusty winds included as a variable of existing AQP for pilot training. The In the NPRM, the proposed the training. However, the agency agency made this change based on Qualification Performance Standards for recognizes that not all FFSs are capable comments stating it was inconsistent for pilots specifically provided that while of replicating gusts and is reviewing the FAA to determine that the performing landings during training, simulator capabilities as part of a provisions in the NPRM would have pilots must demonstrate the ability to separate rulemaking. Moreover, since minimal cost impact on AQP operators ‘‘apply gust and wind factors and take crosswind takeoff and landing are while claiming monetary benefits for into account meteorological phenomena already required and gusty winds are preventing or mitigating accidents that . . .’’. See 74 FR 1280, 1366 (Jan. 12, merely one variable of this current involved carriers using AQP for 2009). This requirement was requirement, the agency does not training. Further, consistent with NPRM inadvertently left out of the SNPRM, but believe any additional time is necessary comments, the FAA discounted the remains consistent with the SNPRM’s to train and evaluate crosswind takeoffs benefits in the same way costs were incorporation of existing crosswind and landings with gusts. discounted. training into the proposed training The agency has determined it is requirements for flightcrew members. Q. Miscellaneous necessary to move forward at this time In its comments on the SNPRM, the The final rule includes a number of with a final rule to address certain NTSB stated that this rulemaking miscellaneous editorial and clarifying provisions proposed in the SNPRM that should include the requirements to train changes. These changes remedy enhance pilot training for rare but high high gusty crosswinds. The agency typographical errors, redundancies and risk scenarios and provide the greatest agrees that wind gust maneuvers are a provisions that are no longer applicable safety benefit. Therefore, the critical component of crosswind takeoffs within the regulatory text. methodology used in the regulatory and landings and that the training In those instances in which the evaluation for the final rule differs requirement should clearly reflect the agency must provide approval or somewhat from the SNPRM. incorporation of this variable into authorization, for consistency, the final The final rule regulatory evaluation crosswind takeoff and landing training. rule refers only to the Administrator. benefits analysis uses the same The final rule clarifies that crosswind The Administrator’s delegation of methodology as that used in the SNPRM training for flightcrew members in authority for specific functions is analysis in terms of using the takeoff and landing maneuvers includes appropriately addressed in guidance Commercial Aviation Safety Team training on maneuvers necessary to material. (CAST) approach to select and score respond to wind gusts. Wind gusts are Finally, the agency has removed flight each accident, and discounting benefits a key variable of crosswind training navigator training requirements from and costs. However, after further review given that a pilot must be able to rapidly subpart N. Flight navigators are no of the proposal and existing AQPs, the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67827

FAA has determined that the training fatality risk can be measured by the as either the probable cause or a standards required in the final rule will ‘‘value of statistical life’’ (VSL).23 contributing factor to the accident. The result in new training for all pilots who The FAA estimated total damages for accidents included for consideration in complete training under subparts N and the accidents identified in the SNPRM the analysis were those for which the O as well as those who complete regulatory evaluation based on FAA developed a regulatory change training under AQP. assumptions identified in the benefits proposed in the SNPRM that could have Thus, the agency has estimated the analysis. ATA commented that accident mitigated each accident. Finally, the benefits and costs of the final rule investigation costs were assigned based agency eliminated from consideration requirements on all part 121 operators, on the agency conducting the accidents that occurred by operators including those training pilots under an investigation and that it is unclear how with an AQP training program and AQP. In addition, the final rule benefit the FAA identified which type of cost while the carrier was operating under analysis adds benefits from accidents applied to each accident. part 135. involving air carriers that trained pilots The FAA calculated investigation The importance of training varies for under an AQP at the time of the costs based on the results of a study each of the accidents. Therefore, the accident if the accident could have been completed in 2003 and 2004 to provide FAA rated each accident by evaluating prevented or mitigated by the the FAA with critical values the agency the effectiveness of the proposed rule requirements in the final rule. The cost uses in costs analyses. The results of the against each accident using the scoring analysis for the final rule also calculates study can be found in a report process in CAST. All of the accidents costs for carriers that use AQP to train ‘‘Economic Values for FAA Investment with published final NTSB reports were pilots based on new training and Regulatory Decisions, A Guide’’ at scored against the CAST safety requirements for all pilots and not just http://www.faa.gov/regulations_ enhancements. The agency used the traditionally trained pilots. policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/ NTSB recommendations along with Several commenters raised concerns media/050404%20Critical%20Values% narratives, probable cause, contributing about the accident avoidance safety 20Dec%2031%20Report%2007 factors and other pertinent data to score benefit analysis in which the FAA Jan05.pdf. The benefit analysis added the accidents. estimated the potential benefits of the the weighted averages of investigation American, ATA, Continental, SNPRM by attempting to calculate the costs (in 2002 dollars) for an NTSB Southwest, and United believe the number and cost of future accidents that investigation, an FAA investigation and accident analysis should only include would be prevented if this proposal a private investigation from Table 8–2 of accidents from the past 10 years because were adopted. Continental and the study to estimate the total per of the dramatic decline in accident rates Southwest assert the methodology the accident investigation cost savings. over the past 20 years. ATA and United FAA used assumed that past accident Since Table 8–2 was in 2002 dollars, contend the FAA should exclude pilot- history from the chosen time period using a GDP deflator, we escalated the related accidents from carriers who are would be an accurate reflection of future results of Table 8–2 to 2012 dollars. In now out of business, have merged with accidents. The commenters contend that addition, the FAA used Department of other carriers, or involve more than one the accident rate per departure has been Transportation guidance to estimate airline. decreasing over the past 60 years and accident costs found at http:// For the benefits analysis, the FAA therefore the FAA methodology is www.dot.gov/policy/transportation- analyzed the causal factors, as flawed. policy/treatment-economic-value- determined by the NTSB, for past First, although part 121 accidents statistical-life. The SNPRM regulatory accidents that occurred in part 121 have generally decreased over the past evaluation documented this report as a operations. As discussed earlier in this 20 years, major and serious accidents data source for accident costs. preamble, the first accident with still occur. The NTSB’s records on ATA, Continental, and Delta pertinent accident causal factors was Accidents and Accident Rates show that commented that the SNPRM regulatory Delta flight 1141. Although the accident from 2001 to 2010, 26 major accidents, evaluation contains no description of rate has declined in the last 10 years, 19 serious accidents, 160 accidents with the criteria the FAA used to determine accident causal factors identified by the injuries, and 209 accidents with aircraft which accidents were relevant or how NTSB during the 22-year historical damage occurred.22 the criteria were applied. benefit analysis period are still relevant Second, OMB guidance directs the The process the FAA used to and need to be addressed. Also, FAA to monetize quantitative estimates determine which accidents were accidents by carriers who are out of by using sound and defensible relevant to the proposal is described in business, have merged with other procedures to monetize benefits and Section II.B.2. Accident Population and carries, or involve more than one airline costs. The FAA used the willingness-to- Scoring on page 7 of the SNPRM could have been mitigated if this pay approach to assume that past regulatory evaluation. To determine proposal had been in effect when the accident history would be an accurate which accidents were relevant to the accident occurred. Therefore these reflection of reducing the risk of future accident avoidance benefit analysis, the accidents were included in the benefits airplane accident fatalities. This FAA initially reviewed accident data for analysis because (1) the accident approach is transparent, reproducible U.S. certificate holders required to train occurred while the pilot was training and follows OMB guidance. OMB states under parts 121 and 121/135 from 1988 under a part 121 traditional training the willingness-to-pay approach is the through 2009. The agency considered program, and (2) new US certificated best methodology to use if reduction in accidents that occurred during this 22- operators entering part 121 service and fatality risk is monetized, and the year period because this period includes training under a traditional training monetized value of small changes in accidents with open NTSB program would benefit from the recommendations. The agency then additional training requirement 22 NTSB Aviation Statistical Reports, Table 2. selected accidents in which the NTSB proposed in the SNPRM. Accidents and Accident Rates by NTSB American, ASTAR, ATA, Continental, Classification, 1992 through 2011, for U.S. Air identified areas of inadequate training Carriers Operating Under 14 CFR 121, http:// Delta, Southwest, and USAir contend www.ntsb.gov/data/table2_2012.html, (visited. 23 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_ the FAA has failed to give adequate March 14, 2013). a004_a-4, March 4, 2013. credit for accident rate reduction

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67828 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

resulting from existing training program recommendations identified in the that for every crewmember who retires, enhancements and technological background section of this preamble. two courses of initial training would be advancements that have been Moreover, the FAA clarifies that required. The agency assumed that for incorporated over the last 20 years, relevant NTSB recommendations were each pilot lost through attrition, one including the following: Terrain used to establish the proposed training pilot will complete initial training. For Avoidance Warning System (TAWS); requirements. These recommendations any additional training, the agency Controlled Flight into Terrain (CFIT) served as one of the components of the considered transition training and standard operating procedures; CFIT analysis used to establish the mitigation upgrade training and accounted for avoidance, vertical angles; CFIT effect on discrete accidents. The those training costs in the final rule prevention training; Visual Glide Slope approach taken to establish an regulatory evaluation. Indicators (VGSI) requirements effectiveness ratio (mitigation for each Based on the FAA Aerospace implemented; Area Navigation (RNAV) accident) for the training requirements Forecasts 2013–2023, we expect the 3D and Required Navigation included an analysis of each accident in total number of part 121 pilots to Performance (RNP) approach the context of the CAST scoring process. increase by 0.4 percent annually.25 Applying BLS labor wage data, the FAA procedures; Flight Operation Quality 2. Cost Analysis Assurance (FOQA) and Aviation Safety has determined that the training costs Action Program (ASAP); loss of control ATA, Continental, ASTAR, and due to attrition and growth will range prevention, policies, systems and United contend the SNPRM regulatory from $51.6M to $69.1M. training; and runway incursion evaluation fails to provide ATA stated the FAA’s determination prevention policies, systems and documentation of the underlying of the net impact on annual training training. Taking these enhancements assumptions of the cost estimates. hours appears to be based on the into account, the commenters assert the The FAA documented the sources for minimum programmed hour FAA economic analysis overstates the its information in the assumption requirements rather than on the actual potential benefit/cost savings purported sections, tables and footnotes of the number of training hours necessary to to be achieved by implementation of the SNPRM regulatory evaluation. The complete the required training tasks. In preparing the cost estimate for the proposed rule. methodologies employed in the analysis SNPRM regulatory evaluation, the FAA Even with these existing programs, were discussed in the sections preceding the tables showing total costs. identified the proposed programmed the NTSB shows that major and serious hour requirements and calculated the accidents still occur. The final rule ATA and United stated the projected growth in affected crew population incremental costs that the proposed requirements include higher training programmed hours would add over the standards and specific tasks which levels of initial/new hire training in the SNPRM regulatory evaluation was based current regulatory requirements. If improve pilot training program’s operators voluntarily exceed the content and application that will reduce on the net increase in total crew population but ignores training training standard proposed in the human error among crewmembers, SNPRM, then there was no additional particularly in hazardous or emergency necessary to replace retiring crew. United also stated that, retirements compliance cost estimated in the FAA situations. cost analysis. Southwest disagrees with the FAA’s alone are expected to be 5 percent annually throughout the benefit period ALPA, American, Continental, analysis of NTSB recommendations JetBlue, Southwest, United, UPS, and relevant to training and accidents that and thus the FAA underestimated the pilot attrition rate in the SNPRM USAir stated the FAA underestimated could have been mitigated if the the time it takes to complete flight proposed training requirements had regulatory evaluation. As a result of underestimating the attrition rate, training tasks proposed in the SNPRM. been in effect at the time of the accident. On October 26, 2009 the FAA The SNPRM cited 28 NTSB United asserts that we have underestimated the training costs that conducted a simulator trial to determine recommendations relevant to training the time required to complete the programs that were issued as a result of will result from retirements. United contends one retirement would generate proposed recurrent proficiency check 178 accidents, which occurred between requirements. The agency collected data 1988 and 2009. Southwest reviewed the at least two initial courses. The FAA crew population forecast on the time it took to complete the 28 NTSB recommendations and stated accounts for the replacement of a retired recurrent proficiency check tasks ‘‘the FAA speculates that no more than crewmember in the turnover percentage. proposed in the NPRM and then used 4 accidents were associated with pilot Although United projected a 5 percent this data to estimate the time required inflight actions.’’ Additionally, retirement rate for their pilots, the FAA to complete the proficiency check Southwest noted the NTSB did not maintains its assumption that 5 percent requirements proposed in the SNPRM. identify inadequate training as the of the total number of pilots would See http://www.regulations.gov/ probable cause of these four accidents. leave an operator through attrition #!documentDetail;D=FAA-2008-0677- Therefore, Southwest disagrees with the (including loss of medical certificate, 0177. In preparing the cost estimate for FAA’s conclusion that these pilot loss of airman certificate, career transfer, the SNPRM regulatory evaluation, the inflight accidents could have been or retirement). This assumption is based FAA used the data from the simulator mitigated if the proposed training on objective data presented in a trial to determine the additional training requirements had been in effect at the University of North Dakota study.24 The hours required by the proposal and time of the accident. FAA disagrees with United’s assertion calculated the incremental costs, over As part of the decision to move the current regulations, the proposed forward with certain provisions 24 http://www.faa.gov/news/conferences_events/ requirements would add. proposed in the SNPRM that enhance aviation_forecast_2010/agenda/media/GAF%20Jim pilot training for rare but high risk %20Higgins%20and%20Kent%20Love.pdf. The 25 FAA Aerospace Forecasts 2013–2033. Table 30: scenarios and other discrete provisions, University of North Dakota estimates that 2.12% of Active Pilots by Type of Certificate, Airline pilots have retired annually along with forecasting Transport, 2012–2033. http://www.faa.gov/about/ the agency has conducted a new 2.94% pilot attrition (loss of medical, loss of office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/aviation_ analysis and determined the final rule certificate, career transfer) from 2009 to 2024. We forecasts/aerospace_forecasts/2013-2033/ Accessed addresses the seven NTSB rounded to three digits. March 2013.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67829

On June 19, 2012, the FAA conducted required to complete this training ranges underestimated the cost of a number of a second simulator trial to determine the from 90 to 135 minutes for initial SNPRM provisions, including: time required to complete the additional training, 60 to 90 minutes for transition Operating manual changes; the final rule maneuvers and procedures in training, 45 to 60 minutes for upgrade continuous analysis process; each curriculum. During the second training, and 30 to 45 minutes for crewmember and aircraft dispatcher simulator trial, the agency observed two recurrent training. requalification; flightcrew member FAA pilots perform the extended Continental contends the associated recurrent training; relief pilot recent envelope flight training requirements in costs for legacy mainframe computer experience; PIC line checks; training an Airbus 330 Level D simulator.26 The programming related to the proposed with a complete flightcrew; flight FAA pilots serving as the PIC and SIC requirement for evaluating and attendant operating experience; check both held ATP certificates and were recording line check performance in flight attendant requirements; aircraft current and qualified to operate the proposed § 121.1233(d) were not dispatcher qualification and recurrent Airbus 330. All required checklists and accounted for in the SNPRM regulatory training; and, check dispatcher training. procedures were completed in their evaluation. Continental also states the At this time, the agency is proceeding entirety for each maneuver and requirements proposed in the SNPRM with a final rule to address certain procedure. In addition, all required Air would add significantly to the provisions proposed in the SNPRM that Traffic Control (ATC) instructions and recordkeeping system requirement. enhance pilot training for rare but high clearances were provided. The agency notes programmers in risk scenarios, provide the greatest The data collected during this major companies, such as Continental, safety benefit, and require time to simulator trial provides the estimated are typically on staff. Staff programmers implement, as well as certain other simulator time required to meet the typically cover software updates and discrete proposals. This final rule does extended envelope flight training maintenance. The FAA has reviewed not include the provisions identified by requirements in the final rule. The FAA the paperwork requirements for the new commenters as having underestimated has reviewed both simulator trials and final rule provisions and has revised the costs. If a subsequent final rule includes revised the cost estimates for the regulatory evaluation accordingly. Upon the provisions cited by commenters, the training tasks required by the final further review of the SNPRM regulatory agency will review the costs identified rule.27 evaluation, the agency identified in the SNPRM and determine whether ATA, Continental, United, and USAIR paperwork costs that were inadvertently reassessment of these costs is necessary. omitted. For the final rule regulatory noted the FAA calculates simulator 3. General Cost-Benefit Analysis costs at an hourly rate instead of the evaluation, the FAA has further ATA asserted that the FAA failed to industry-standard 4-hour blocks for the reviewed the potential costs of implementing the final rule correctly match the timing of the purpose of keeping the cost of the requirements and captured additional benefits and costs in the SNPRM proposed rule low. These commenters detail. For example, the paperwork costs regulatory evaluation and asserted that also stated the simulator hour projection now fully address the review and the incurrence of implementation costs for the SNPRM regulatory evaluation development of training programs, would necessarily precede any benefits does not consider collective bargaining courseware and manuals. that might occur by at least two years. agreements that may further limit ATA, Continental, JetBlue, and USAir The FAA initiated the benefits and training hours per day. assert the SNPRM regulatory evaluation costs of the analysis at the compliance The SNPRM regulatory evaluation did not include non-paperwork costs for date of the final rule. The compliance calculated simulator costs at an hourly program development, and maintenance date proposed in the SNPRM was 2016, rate instead of 4-hour blocks. Industry is including high capital and management or 5 years after the proposed effective not tied to the 4-hour simulator training costs necessary to modify or replace date of the final rule. In the SNPRM blocks. With the 5-year compliance date training equipment, reconfigure training regulatory evaluation, the agency in the final rule for simulator training facilities, or re-program and maintain determined the timing of both the tasks, air carriers have the ability to software systems. benefits and costs would start in 2016 revise their internal processes or re- The agency included costs in the and end in 2025. negotiate contracts with simulator SNPRM regulatory evaluation for In the SNPRM, the agency proposed training providers. In addition, the FAA maintenance, including high capital and an effective date for the final rule of 120 believes that bargaining agreements can management costs, necessary to modify days after publication in the Federal be adjusted before the 5 year or replace training equipment, Register. The agency further proposed compliance date. Therefore these costs reconfigure training facilities, or re- to require compliance with certain are not attributed to the rule. The final program and maintain software systems amendments to part 121 on the effective rule includes extended envelope with a simulator or ground cost hourly date and to delay compliance with other training that must be completed in an rental expense. amendments requiring time to FFS. The agency estimates that the time For the final rule, the FAA implement, to 5 years after the effective determined that the average simulator date. However, in the SNPRM regulatory 26 Recognition of, and recovery from, full stall and rental fee is $500 per hour plus the cost evaluation, the agency assumed the demonstration of stick pusher activation were not completed during the second simulator trial. of an instructor for consistency with the timing of both the benefits and costs for Therefore, the agency considered the time for FAA’s ‘‘Pilot Certification and all provisions would start in 2016 to recognition of, and recovery from, approach to Qualification Requirements for Air account for a compliance date of 5 years stall—clean configuration, collected during the first Carrier Operations’’ final rule. The FAA after the proposed effective date of the simulator trial. The agency expects the time for each of these two maneuvers to be similar to the believes the hourly rental price final rule, and end in 2025. time for recognition of, and recovery from, accurately reflects the cost of capital The agency agrees that some approach to stall because full stall and stick pusher and includes costs for maintenance, implementation costs may be incurred are further developed stages of an approach to stall. prior to when the full benefits of the 27 capital, management, reconfiguring The FAA has amended the Technical Report to final rule are realized. For the final rule, add the 2012 simulator trial data in new appendix training facilities, and reprogramming. G. The agency has placed the revised Technical The FAA received several comments safety benefits are realized beginning in Report in the public docket for this rulemaking. from air carriers stating the agency 2019, when compliance is required with

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67830 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

the new pilot training maneuvers and pilot training requirements, the agency aggregate, or by the private sector, of procedures. However, the agency has determined that the majority of new $100 million or more annually (adjusted assumes paperwork costs associated pilot training maneuvers and for inflation with base year of 1995). with the training provisions for procedures are not incorporated into This portion of the preamble instructors and check airmen who serve existing AQPs used to train pilots. summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the in FSTDs will begin the year before the Therefore, the FAA has estimated the economic impacts of this final rule. We compliance date in preparation to meet cost of the new requirements on all part suggest readers seeking greater detail the final rule requirements. For the 121 operators, including those who train read the full regulatory evaluation, a paperwork costs associated with the under AQP. copy of which we have placed in the remaining final rule provisions, the IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses docket for this rulemaking. agency assumes new paperwork costs In conducting these analyses, FAA start to accrue on the date that Regulatory Evaluation has determined that this final rule: (1) compliance is required. These timelines Changes to Federal regulations must Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is are reflected in the table that appears in undergo several economic analyses. not an economically ‘‘significant the Paperwork Reduction Act First, Executive Order 12866 and regulatory action’’ as defined in section discussion in the Regulatory Notices Executive Order 13563 direct that each 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is and Analyses section of this preamble Federal agency shall propose or adopt a ‘‘significant’’ as defined in the U.S. (Section IV). Greater detail regarding the regulation only upon a reasoned Department of Transportation’s (DOT) paperwork burden can be found in the determination that the benefits of the Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) Summary of Estimated Paperwork Costs intended regulation justify its costs. will have a significant economic impact by Objective Grouping section of the Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act on a substantial number of small final rule regulatory evaluation. of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires entities; (5) will not create unnecessary 4. Economic Impact to Operators agencies to analyze the economic obstacles to the foreign commerce of the Training under AQP impact of regulatory changes on small United States; and (6) will not impose entities. Third, the Trade Agreements an unfunded mandate on state, local, or The FAA received several comments Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies tribal governments, or on the private from air carriers concerned that the from setting standards that create sector by exceeding the threshold agency failed to include costs to air unnecessary obstacles to the foreign identified above. These analyses are carriers with pilots who train under an commerce of the United States. In summarized below. AQP in its economic analysis of the developing U.S. standards, this Trade SNPRM. Act requires agencies to consider Total Benefits and Costs of This Rule In the economic analysis of the international standards and, where The following table shows the FAA’s SNPRM, the agency determined the appropriate, that they be the basis of estimate for the base case costs, proposals in the SNPRM would have a U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded including the low and high cost range, minimal impact on carriers that train Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. in 2012 dollars. This table also shows pilots using an AQP. Therefore, the 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a our estimated potential quantified safety SNPRM regulatory evaluation included written assessment of the costs, benefits, benefits using a 22-year historical only certain paperwork costs for these and other effects of proposed or final accident analysis period. carriers. rules that include a Federal mandate Following further review of existing likely to result in the expenditure by Total Benefits and Costs (2012 $ AQP curriculums and the final rule State, local, or tribal governments, in the Millions) From 2019 to 2028

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER12NO13.161 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67831

pilot flying, as well as the position of Benefits and costs are calculated in operators listed in Appendix 9 of the the aircraft, the flight instruments, the present values using both 3 percent and regulatory evaluation. configuration of the aircraft, etc. The 7 percent discount rates as prescribed • Updated the value of averted provisions will ensure that the pilot by OMB in Circular A–4. fatalities, injuries, accident investigation monitoring is prepared to notify the • This final rule will be published in and medical costs based on current DOT pilot flying of any anomalies or to late 2013. guidance.28 assume the flying responsibilities if • This final rule will become effective • Updated the hourly wages and necessary. If these requirements had in 2014, 120 days after its publication. benefits for aircraft crew members with been in place at the time of this Compliance is required on the effective current hourly wages from the Bureau of accident, the pilot monitoring may have date (120 days) for a few of the Labor Statistics (BLS). identified the incorrect configuration provisions, including for example all • Removed airfare, hotel, and per and notified the pilot flying prior to technical amendments, §§ 121.9 diem travel costs from the cost estimates takeoff. (falsification), 121.392 (identification of because the FAA believes operators will Therefore, the FAA initiated the personnel as flight attendants), and be able to complete the new final rule historical accident interval for the 121.711 (communication records). training requirements within their benefits analysis with this accident in Compliance with the remaining current initial, upgrade, transition, or 1988. The FAA concluded the accident substantive provisions is required recurrent simulator and ground school interval in 2009 with the Colgan within 5 years after the effective date. training days. The FAA conducted a • accident because, at this time, the NTSB Although some incidental costs are sensitivity analysis on the costs of the still has not finalized its reports on the expected to occur prior to 2019, the final rule adding an additional day of major accidents (that may be pertinent primary analysis period for costs and travel. The results of the sensitivity to this training rule) that occurred in benefits extends for 10 years, from 2019 analysis are shown in Appendix 10 of 2010 and 2011. This is why the FAA through 2028. This period was selected the regulatory evaluation. Even with the uses the same 22 year accident interval because annual costs and benefits will cost of an extra day of travel, the (1988–2009) for the benefits analysis in have reached a steady state by 2019. • benefits of the final rule still exceed the the final rule as in the SNPRM. Safety benefits will be realized costs. The FAA identified 10 additional beginning in 2019, when compliance is • Conducted a new accident analysis major accidents with casual factors required with the new training that took into account the mitigations of identified by the NTSB that are provisions in the final rule. • other rulemakings for the same addressed by the provisions in the final Past accident history from 1988 to accidents in determining the probability rule that occurred during this 22 year 2009 (22 years) is an appropriate basis of effectiveness for this final rule. accident interval. The FAA cited these on which to forecast the likely future • Assumed that the ‘‘Flight accidents in the benefits analysis based occurrence of the types of accidents that Simulation Training Devices on pertinent accident causal factors, the training and other provisions of this Qualification Standards For Extended regardless of whether or not there were rule will help to prevent. The full Envelope and Adverse Weather Event open NTSB recommendations regulatory evaluation provides a Training Tasks’’ rulemaking (RIN 2120– associated with those accidents. detailed justification for the selection of AK08) is in place by the time The FAA notes, however, that it the 22 year analysis period, as well as compliance is required with the new conducted a sensitivity analysis to a sensitivity analysis that explores the pilot training requirements because explore the effect of reducing the effect of reducing the historical analysis amendments to FSTD qualification and historical accident analysis period from period from the 22 year period to 10 evaluation standards in part 60 are the 22 years to 10 years in response to years. The Accident Population and needed to support the new full flight comments disputing the use of a 22-year Scoring section in the full final rule simulator training requirements in this time frame. Appendix 14 of the regulatory evaluation gives more details final rule. In addition, the agency regulatory evaluation shows that using a on the use of accident history in this recognizes that the final rule on Pilot shorter historical accident analysis analysis. Certification and Qualification period increases the estimated benefits Changes From the SNPRM to the Final Requirements for Air Carrier Operations of the final rule by approximately 17 Rule Regulatory Evaluation will be in place at the time that percent. Based on public comments and compliance is required with the pilot Who is potentially affected by this rule? further agency review of the proposal, training requirements in this final rule. • Included a table in Appendix 13 of This final rulemaking will increase the FAA made the following changes to the regulatory evaluation for the final the regulatory evaluation comparing the costs to operators of transport category probability of effectiveness ratings of the airplanes operating under 14 CFR part rule: • Re-estimated costs and benefits to overlapping accidents from the 121 by requiring improved pilot Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest training, as well as by requiring correspond directly to the provisions of this final rule. The final rule focuses on Requirements final rule, the Pilot accompanying revisions to their training Certification and Qualification manuals and related training materials. enhancements to pilot training for rare, but high-risk scenarios. Requirements for Air Carrier Operations Assumptions • Assumed that the final rule will final rule and this final rule. • The benefit and cost analysis for the affect all Advanced Qualification Updated employment growth rates regulatory evaluation is based on the Program (AQP) and non-AQP trained for pilots based on current FAA following factors/assumptions: pilots in command, second in forecasts and actual February 2013 • The analysis is conducted in command, check pilots, and flight employment statistics for operators constant dollars with 2012 as the base instructors by adding simulator and year. ground school time to their current 28 ‘‘Revised Departmental Guidance 2013: • The estimates of costs and benefits training curriculum. Treatment of the Value of Preventing Fatalities and • Injuries in Preparing Economic Analysis.’’ available reported in this evaluation include both Accounted for paperwork costs at http://www.dot.gov/regulations/economic-values- 2012 dollar values and present values. documenting the required revisions to used-in-analysis.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67832 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

listed in Appendix 9 of the regulatory Benefits of This Rule substantial number of small entities. If evaluation. the agency determines that it will, the • Phased-in potential benefits will Updated the hourly simulator costs accrue from the additional training agency must prepare a regulatory from the $550 estimate used in the requirements, and these are estimated in flexibility analysis as described in the SNPRM to $500 for the final rule based the table above. As prescribed by OMB RFA. on updated FAA Flight Standards in Circular A–4, we discounted the 2012 The FAA believes that this final rule Service (AFS) data. This revised cost $ benefits to their present values using will result in a significant economic maintains consistency with analysis a seven and three percent annual rate. impact on a substantial number of small from the Pilot Certification and The final rule will also generate entities. The purpose of this analysis is Qualification Requirements for Air qualitative benefits. The final rule to provide the reasoning underlying the Carrier Operations final rule published addresses safety issues identified during FAA determination. Section 604 of the Act requires on July 15, 2013 (78 FR 42324). two recent FAA ‘‘Call to Action’’ • Conducted a sensitivity analysis on agencies to prepare and make available initiatives including improvement of the hourly simulator rental rate using for public comment a final regulatory runway safety by requiring training in the $550 rate from the SNPRM. The flexibility analysis (FRFA) describing critical runway safety issues, responds agency estimated $323.1 million for the the impact of final rules on small to seven National Transportation Safety total costs using the $550 hourly rate. entities. Section 604(a) of the Act Board (NTSB) safety recommendations, The total benefits, as shown in the table specifies the content of a FRFA. and addresses the requirements in the above, exceed the costs for the $550 Each FRFA must contain: Airline Safety and Federal Aviation hourly simulator rental rate. • A statement of the need for, and • Initiated the ‘‘Flight Simulation Administration Extension Act of 2010. objectives of, the rule; Training Device Qualification Standards Costs of This Rule • A statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in for Extended Envelope and Adverse The FAA estimates the range of costs response to the initial regulatory Weather Event Training Tasks’’ to air carriers in the table above. As flexibility analysis, a statement of the rulemaking to amend 14 CFR part 60 to prescribed by OMB in Circular A–4, we assessment of the agency of such issues, require the additional programming and discounted the 2012 $ to their present and a statement of any changes made in upgrades to simulators, which will be values using a seven and three percent the proposed rule as a result of such needed to comply with extended annual rate. envelope training required by the final comments; rule. The FAA estimates that the $500 Alternatives Considered • The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for hourly simulator rental rate assumed in The FAA considered multiple Advocacy of the Small Business this analysis includes all upgrades alternatives to the final rule. Three of Administration in response to the expected to be required by the Flight the alternatives that were considered proposed rule, and a detailed statement Simulation Training Device rulemaking. would have provided relief from some of any change made to the proposed rule As an alternative, the agency also of the rule’s provisions to small entities, in the final rule as a result of the conducted a sensitivity analysis using while one alternative considered comments; $600 for an hourly simulator rental rate. accepting all of the provisions of the • A description of and an estimate of The agency estimated $332.4 million for SNPRM. A discussion of these the number of small entities to which the total costs with the $600 hourly rate. alternatives can be found in the final the rule will apply or an explanation of The total benefits as shown in the table regulatory flexibility analysis. why no such estimate is available; above also exceed the costs for the $600 • hourly simulator rental rate. Regulatory Flexibility Determination A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other • Conducted a sensitivity analysis to The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 compliance requirements of the rule, explore the effect of reducing the (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a including an estimate of the classes of historical analysis period from the 22 principle of regulatory issuance that small entities which will be subject to year period to 10 years in response to agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the requirement and the type of comments disputing the use of a 22-year the objectives of the rule and of professional skills necessary for time frame for accidents. Appendix 14 applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and preparation of the report or record; and of the final rule regulatory evaluation informational requirements to the scale • A description of the steps the shows that using the 10-year period, the of the businesses, organizations, and agency has taken to minimize the estimated benefits of this final rule governmental jurisdictions subject to significant economic impact on small increase by approximately 17 percent. regulation. To achieve this principle, entities consistent with the stated The full regulatory evaluation provides agencies are required to solicit and objectives of applicable statutes, a detailed justification for the selection consider flexible regulatory proposals including a statement of the factual, of the 22 year analysis period. and to explain the rationale for their • policy, and legal reasons for selecting Changed the pilot ground school actions to assure that such proposals are 29 the alternative adopted in the final rule distance learning percentage from the given serious consideration.’’ The RFA and why each one of the other 80 percent estimate used in the SNPRM covers a wide-range of small entities, significant alternatives to the rule to 100 percent, because the FAA allows including small businesses, not-for- considered by the agency which affect 100 percent of ground training to be profit organizations, and small 30 the impact on small entities was accomplished via distance learning. governmental jurisdictions. rejected. Agencies must perform a review to 29 Distance learning allows pilots to train out of determine whether a rule will have a Statement of the Need for, and the classroom (such as at home). 30 FAA Order 8900.1, Vol.3, Ch. 19, Sec. 5, Para. significant economic impact on a Objectives of, the Rule 3–1209 (July 15, 2013). The FAA notes that pilot The primary purpose and objectives ground school training requirements include hands- equipment) that may not be accomplished via of the final rule are to ensure that on emergency equipment training (current distance learning. These costs are not included in § 121.417(c) requires that every 24 months, pilots this cost analysis because those hands-on drills are training and evaluation is provided for must perform hands-on drills on aircraft emergency currently required. crewmembers by establishing new

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67833

requirements for part 121 commercial companies as small entities if they have time this rulemaking will add to their air carrier training programs, as fewer than 1,500 employees.31 current training activities. mandated by Public Law 111–216. The The FAA uses the average hourly Small Entities Affected changes seek to make a significant wage (including benefits) of flight-crew contribution to the FAA’s accident This final rule will be published in members as a basis to estimate costs for reduction goal by directly addressing 2013 and become effective in 2014. additional training time. The FAA does the safety goals from two recent FAA Operators affected by this final rule will not expect that the additional training ‘‘Call to Action’’ initiatives including be required to comply with a majority requirements will result in higher travel improvement of runway safety by of the final rule requirements 5 years costs, because the final rule adds only requiring training in critical runway after the effective date. The FAA does a small amount of training time, which safety issues. The requirements of the not know if an operator will still be in we believe can be absorbed within final rule also implement numerous business or will still remain a small operators’ current training schedules. In safety recommendations from the NTSB. business entity by the 2019 compliance order to estimate the impact on small date applicable to the majority of the entities, we sum the incremental costs Statement of the Significant Issues provisions. Therefore, the FAA will use of this rulemaking, and use that estimate Raised by Public Comments current U.S. operator’s employment and to calculate an average cost per flight There were no significant issues annual revenue in order to determine crew member. We then use that average the number of operators this final rule raised by the public comments in to estimate the total cost burden on affect. response to the initial regulatory carriers that we identify as meeting the To determine the economic impact of flexibility analysis. above definition of small entities. this final rule on small-business Specifically, we estimate each Agency Response to Comments Filed by operators the agency began by operator’s total compliance cost by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy identifying the affected firms, gathering multiplying our estimate of the average operational data, and establishing the cost per flight crew member by the There were no comments filed by the compliance cost impact. The FAA number of flight-crew members for each Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small obtained a list of U.S. operators, who are of the 22 air carriers that meet the SBA Business Administration in response to affected by the final rule, from the FAA size standard for a small business of the proposed rule. Flight Standards Service National Vital 1,500 employees. In estimating the Description of Projected Reporting, Information Subsystem (NVIS) average cost per flight-crew member, we Recordkeeping and Other Compliance database.32 Using information provided use the high cost from the range of costs Requirements of the Rule by the U.S. Department of estimated in the final rule, in order to Transportation Form 41 filings and the provide a conservative estimate. We As described in the Paperwork World Aviation Directory & Aerospace then measure the economic impact on Reduction Act summary in this Database (WAD) the agency obtained small entities by dividing the estimated preamble, the agency expects only company revenue and employment for compliance cost for each of the 22 small minimal new training documentation, many of the operators. entities by its annual revenue, and reporting and record-keeping We determined that 83 operators expressing the result as a percentage. compliance requirements to result from would be affected by the final rule. Of The FAA estimates that costs for this final rule. Every operator (including these 83 operators, there are 49 that complying with this final rule will small businesses and businesses with reported annual employment and exceed one percent of annual revenue greater than 1500 employees) will incur operating revenue data. Of the 49 air for 2 of the sample of 22 operators a paperwork burden as described in carriers that reported annual identified as small entities. On the basis Paperwork Reduction Act discussion in employment data, 22 air carriers are of these estimates, we conclude that this this preamble. below the SBA size standard of 1,500 final rule will have a significant Costs for the labor entailed in meeting employees for a small business. Due to economic impact on a substantial these documentation, reporting, and the sparse amount of publicly available number of small entities. record-keeping requirements constitute data on internal company financial and Agency Steps Taken To Minimize the a burden under the Paperwork employment statistics for small entities, Significant Economic Impact on Small Reduction Act, and these costs are it is not feasible to identify how many Entities accounted for in the final rule regulatory of the remaining carriers that did not evaluation. The types of professional report employment data would also In the following Analysis of skills necessary for preparation of the qualify as small businesses, so it is not Alternatives section, the FAA report or record include both technical possible to estimate the total population considered three alternatives to writers and flight instructors. of small entities that are likely to be minimize the significant economic Under section 604 of the Act, the FAA affected by this rulemaking. However, impact on small entities consistent with must determine an estimate of the based on the publically available data, the stated objectives of applicable classes of small entities which will be the FAA assumes that this rule will statutes. The Analysis of Alternatives subject to the requirement. This have an impact on a substantial number section also includes statements of the determination is typically based on of small entities. factual, policy, and legal reasons for small entity size and cost thresholds To assess the final rule’s cost impact selecting the final rule and why each that determine whether an entity meets to small business operators, the FAA one of the alternatives to the rule, the definition of ‘‘small,’’ and these determined the amount of additional considered by the agency, which affect thresholds vary depending on the the impact on small entities, was 31 13 CFR 121.201, Size Standards Used to Define rejected. affected industry. Small Business Concerns, Sector 48–49 Using the size standards from the Transportation, Subsector 481 Air Transportation. Analysis of Alternatives Small Business Administration for Air 32 The National Vital Information Subsystem (NVIS) is a Flight Standard Service database that The FAA proposed alternatives to the Transportation and Aircraft contains the general information about operators, SNPRM for small carriers and Manufacturing, the FAA defined including the number of pilots. considered the proposed alternatives as

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67834 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

it developed the final rule. A discussion the greatest safety benefit. Thus, the This final rule will impose the of the final rule alternatives follows. FAA did not accept this alternative. following information collection Alternative 1–12 month recurrent requirements. As required by the International Trade Impact Assessment training cycle for small entities. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 Currently, PICs (captains) train every The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted 6 months and SICs (first officers) train (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the these information collection every 12 months. The FAA considered Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. amendments to OMB for its review. The extending the recurrent training cycle L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies Office of Management and Budget has for PICs working for small entities to 12 from establishing standards or engaging assigned OMB Control Number 2120– months to coincide with existing SIC in related activities that create 0739 to this collection, and upon recurrent training cycles. This would unnecessary obstacles to the foreign publication of this rule, the package will result in cost savings for small entities. commerce of the United States. be available on reginfo.gov. However, a reduction in the training Pursuant to these Acts, the Summary: This final rule revises the frequency for PICs to a 12-month cycle establishment of standards is not training requirements for pilots in air would be contrary to the purpose of this considered an unnecessary obstacle to carrier operations. The regulations rulemaking, which is to improve safety. the foreign commerce of the United enhance air carrier pilot training As a consequence, FAA determined that States, so long as the standard has a programs by emphasizing the this alternative was unacceptable. legitimate domestic objective, such the development of pilots’ manual handling Alternative 2—Excluding certain protection of safety, and does not skills and adding safety-critical tasks small entities. operate in a manner that excludes such as recovery from stall and upset. In the SNPRM, the FAA considered imports that meet this objective. The The final rule also requires enhanced exempting certain operators from statute also requires consideration of runway safety training, training on pilot compliance with the rule simply international standards and, where monitoring to be incorporated into because they are small entities; appropriate, that they be the basis for existing requirements for scenario-based however, small entities had experienced U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed flight training and requires air carriers past accidents that the agency believes the potential effect of this final rule and to implement remedial training could be mitigated or prevented by this determined that the final rule ensures programs for pilots. The FAA expects these changes to contribute to a rule. Thus exempting small entities the safety of the American public and reduction in aviation accidents. entirely form the rule would be contrary does not exclude foreign operators that Public comments: The requirements meet this objective. As a result, this rule to our policy of ensuring a single high in the final rule were proposed in a is not considered as creating an level of safety in all part 121 operations. supplemental notice of proposed unnecessary obstacle to foreign Thus, the FAA did not find this rulemaking, published in the Federal commerce. alternative to be acceptable. Register on January 12, 2009, vol. 74, Alternative 3—Extending the final Unfunded Mandates Assessment no. 7, pages 1280–1453, and the public compliance date to 7 years for small was encouraged to comment. entities. Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Commenters to the proposed rule Extending the final compliance date Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) noted that the provisions specifically from 5 years to 7 years for small entities requires each Federal agency to prepare addressing preparation, approval and reduces the costs to small entities over a written statement assessing the effects contents of crewmember and dispatcher the analysis interval. Under this of any Federal mandate in a proposed or manuals would generally result in alternative, the FAA expects that the final agency rule that may result in an significant time and cost to revise projected cost of the final rule would expenditure of $100 million or more (in current manuals. Commenters also not be significant for some of the 22 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, noted that proposed requirements operators studied. local, and tribal governments, in the regarding collection and retention of In the final rule, the FAA requires aggregate, or by the private sector; such crewmember and dispatcher records improvements that would reduce a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant were excessive and unnecessary. human error among crewmembers, regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently Commenters further noted that particularly in situations that present uses an inflation-adjusted value of paperwork required by the proposed special hazards. Because these $143.1 million in lieu of $100 million. requirements for approval and requirements would address problems This final rule does not contain such a amendment of crewmember and that are faced by all part 121 air carriers, mandate; therefore, the requirements of dispatcher training programs were regardless of their size, excluding Title II of the Act do not apply. burdensome for both air carriers and certain operators simply because they Paperwork Reduction Act FAA personnel. Commenters also are small entities would again be identified programming costs related to contrary to FAA’s policy of ensuring The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 SNPRM provisions (e.g. new training one high level of safety in all part 121 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the intervals, new evaluation intervals and operations. Thus, the FAA also found FAA consider the impact of paperwork new designations for check personnel) this alternative to be unacceptable. and other information collection and claimed that while these costs Alternative 4—The SNPRM burdens imposed on the public. would be substantial, they were not This agency considered moving According to the 1995 amendments to included in the agency’s cost analysis. forward with a final rule including all the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR The FAA has not adopted these of the provisions of the rule proposed in 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not proposed requirements in this final rule. the SNPRM. Industry commented that collect or sponsor the collection of The final rule contains discrete the rule language was unclear and did information, nor may it impose an additional training and evaluation not estimate all of the proposal’s costs. information collection requirement requirements (e.g. prevention and Instead of modifying the SNPRM, the unless it displays a currently valid recovery from stall, prevention and FAA elected to adopt a final rule that Office of Management and Budget recovery of upset, recovery from included those provisions that provide (OMB) control number. bounced landing and training in manual

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67835

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

International Compatibility and Environmental Analysis the Federal Government and the States, Cooperation FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 1. In keeping with U.S. obligations actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental levels of government, and, therefore, under the Convention on International does not have Federalism implications. Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to assessment or environmental impact conform to International Civil Aviation statement under the National C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations Environmental Policy Act in the Organization (ICAO) Standards and That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, absence of extraordinary circumstances. Recommended Practices to the Distribution, or Use The FAA has determined this maximum extent practicable. The FAA rulemaking action qualifies for the The FAA analyzed this final rule has reviewed the corresponding ICAO categorical exclusion identified in under Executive Order 13211, Actions Standards and Recommended Practices paragraph 312f and involves no Concerning Regulations that and has identified no differences with extraordinary circumstances. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, these proposed regulations. Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The V. Executive Order Determinations 2. Executive Order 13609, Promoting agency has determined that it is not a International Regulatory Cooperation, A. Executive Order 12866 and 13563 ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the executive order and it is not likely to promotes international regulatory See the ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation’’ cooperation to meet shared challenges have a significant adverse effect on the discussion in the ‘‘Regulatory Notices supply, distribution, or use of energy. involving health, safety, labor, security, and Analyses’’ section elsewhere in this environmental, and other issues and to preamble. VI. How To Obtain Additional reduce, eliminate, or prevent Information unnecessary differences in regulatory B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism A. Rulemaking Documents requirements. The FAA has analyzed The FAA has analyzed this final rule this action under the policies and under the principles and criteria of An electronic copy of a rulemaking agency responsibilities of Executive Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The document may be obtained by using the Order 13609, and has determined that agency determined that this action will Internet— this action would have no effect on not have a substantial direct effect on 1. Search the Federal eRulemaking international regulatory cooperation. the States, or the relationship between Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER12NO13.162 67836 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and § 121.9 Fraud and falsification. training required for aircraft with Policies Web page at http:// (a) No person may make, or cause to different type certificates that have been www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or be made, any of the following: designated as related by the 3. Access the Government Printing (1) A fraudulent or intentionally false Administrator. Office’s Web page at http:// statement in any application or any (11) Base aircraft. An aircraft www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. amendment thereto, or in any other identified by a certificate holder for use Copies may also be obtained by record or test result required by this as a reference to compare differences sending a request (identified by notice, part. with another aircraft. amendment, or docket number of this (2) A fraudulent or intentionally false ■ 5. Amend § 121.403 by revising rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation statement in, or a known omission from, paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows: Administration, Office of Rulemaking, any record or report that is kept, made, ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue or used to show compliance with this § 121.403 Training program: Curriculum. SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by part, or to exercise any privileges under * * * * * calling (202) 267–9680. this chapter. (b) * * * (b) The commission by any person of B. Comments Submitted to the Docket (2) A list of all the training device any act prohibited under paragraph (a) mockups, systems trainers, procedures Comments received may be viewed by of this section is a basis for any one or trainers, or other training aids that the going to http://www.regulations.gov and any combination of the following: certificate holder will use. No later than following the online instructions to (1) A civil penalty. March 12, 2019, a list of all the training search the docket number for this (2) Suspension or revocation of any equipment approved under § 121.408 as action. Anyone is able to search the certificate held by that person that was well as other training aids that the electronic form of all comments issued under this chapter. certificate holder will use. received into any of the FAA’s dockets (3) The denial of an application for * * * * * by the name of the individual any approval under this part. ■ submitting the comment (or signing the (4) The removal of any approval 6. Amend § 121.407 as follows: ■ comment, if submitted on behalf of an under this part. A. Revise paragraph (a) introductory text; association, business, labor union, etc.). ■ 3. Add § 121.392 to read as follows: ■ B. Revise paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), C. Small Business Regulatory § 121.392 Personnel identified as flight (a)(1)(iii), (a)(2), and (a)(3); and Enforcement Fairness Act attendants. ■ C. Add paragraph (e). The Small Business Regulatory (a) Any person identified by the The revisions and addition read as Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of certificate holder as a flight attendant on follows: an aircraft in operations under this part 1996 requires FAA to comply with § 121.407 Training program: Approval of small entity requests for information or must be trained and qualified in airplane simulators and other training advice about compliance with statutes accordance with subparts N and O of devices. this part. This includes: and regulations within its jurisdiction. (a) Each airplane simulator and other A small entity with questions regarding (1) Flight attendants provided by the certificate holder in excess of the training device used to satisfy a training this document, may contact its local requirement of this part in an approved FAA official, or the person listed under number required by § 121.391(a); and (2) Flight attendants provided by the training program, must meet all of the the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT following requirements: heading at the beginning of the certificate holder when flight attendants are not required by § 121.391(a). (1) Be specifically approved by the preamble. To find out more about Administrator for— SBREFA on the Internet, visit http:// (b) A qualifying flight attendant who _ is receiving operating experience on an (i) Use in the certificate holder’s www.faa.gov/regulations policies/ approved training program; rulemaking/sbre_act/. aircraft in operations under subpart O of this part must be identified to (ii) * * * List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121 passengers as a qualifying flight (iii) The particular maneuver, procedure, or flightcrew member Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, attendant. function involved. Reporting and recordkeeping ■ 4. Amend § 121.400 by adding (2) Maintain the performance, requirements, Safety, Transportation. paragraphs (c)(9) through (11) to read as function, and other characteristics that follows: The Amendment are required for qualification in For the reasons set forth in the § 121.400 Applicability and terms used. accordance with part 60 of this chapter preamble, amend part 121 of title 14 of * * * * * or a previously qualified device, as the Code of Federal Regulations as (c) * * * permitted in accordance with § 60.17 of follows: (9) Related aircraft. Any two or more this chapter. aircraft of the same make with either the (3) Be modified in accordance with PART 121—OPERATING same or different type certificates that part 60 of this chapter to conform with REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, have been demonstrated and any modification to the airplane being AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS determined by the Administrator to simulated that results in changes to have commonality to the extent that performance, function, or other ■ 1. The authority for part 121 is revised credit between those aircraft may be characteristics required for to read as follows: applied for flightcrew member training, qualification. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, checking, recent experience, operating * * * * * 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701–44702, 44705, experience, operating cycles, and line (e) An airplane simulator approved 44709–44711, 44713, 44716–44717, 44722, operating flight time for consolidation of under this section must be used instead 46105; Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 knowledge and skills. of the airplane to satisfy the pilot flight U.S.C. 44701 note). (10) Related aircraft differences training requirements prescribed in the ■ 2. Add § 121.9 to read as follows: training. The flightcrew member extended envelope training set forth in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67837

§ 121.423 of this part. Compliance with that require the use of the correctly command or flight engineer, as this paragraph is required no later than operating component. applicable, in operations under this March 12, 2019. (f) Compliance with this section is part; ■ 7. Add § 121.408 to read as follows: required no later than March 12, 2019. (3) Has satisfactorily completed the ■ 8. Amend § 121.409 as follows: appropriate proficiency or flight checks § 121.408 Training equipment other than ■ A. Remove the semicolon at the end that are required to serve as a pilot in flight simulation training devices. of paragraph (b)(1) and add a period in command or flight engineer, as (a) The Administrator must approve its place; applicable, in operations under this training equipment used in a training ■ B. Revise paragraph (b)(2); part; program approved under this part and ■ C. Remove paragraph (b)(3); and * * * * * that functionally replicates aircraft ■ D. Redesignate paragraph (b)(4) as (6) Has satisfied the recency of equipment for the certificate holder and paragraph (b)(3). experience requirements of § 121.439 of the crewmember duty or procedure. The revisions read as follows: this part, as applicable; and Training equipment does not include FSTDs qualified under part 60 of this § 121.409 Training courses using airplane * * * * * chapter. simulators and other training devices. (c) * * * (b) The certificate holder must * * * * * (1) Holds the airman certificates and demonstrate that the training equipment (b) * * * ratings, except medical certificate, described in paragraph (a) of this (2) Provides training in at least the required to serve as a pilot in command section, used to meet the training following: or a flight engineer, as applicable, in requirements of this subpart, meets all (i) The procedures and maneuvers set operations under this part; of the following: forth in appendix F to this part; or (2) Has satisfactorily completed the (1) The form, fit, function, and weight, (ii) Line-oriented flight training appropriate training phases for the as appropriate, of the aircraft (LOFT) that— airplane, including recurrent training, equipment. (A) Before March 12, 2019, that are required to serve as a pilot in (2) Replicates the normal operation (1) Utilizes a complete flight crew; command or flight engineer, as (and abnormal and emergency (2) Includes at least the maneuvers applicable, in operations under this operation, if appropriate) of the aircraft and procedures (abnormal and part; equipment including the following: emergency) that may be expected in line (3) Has satisfactorily completed the (i) The required force, actions and operations; and appropriate proficiency or flight checks travel of the aircraft equipment. (3) Is representative of the flight that are required to serve as a pilot in (ii) Variations in aircraft equipment segment appropriate to the operations command or flight engineer, as operated by the certificate holder, if being conducted by the certificate applicable, in operations under this applicable. holder. part; (B) Beginning on March 12, 2019— (3) Replicates the operation of the * * * * * aircraft equipment under adverse (1) Utilizes a complete flight crew; ■ conditions, if appropriate. (2) Includes at least the maneuvers 10. Amend § 121.412 by revising (c) Training equipment must be and procedures (abnormal and paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (b)(5) modified to ensure that it maintains the emergency) that may be expected in line and (6) and (c)(1) through (3) to read as performance and function of the aircraft operations; follows: type or aircraft equipment replicated. (3) Includes scenario-based or § 121.412 Qualifications: Flight instructors (d) All training equipment must have maneuver-based stall prevention (airplane) and flight instructors (simulator). training before, during or after the LOFT a record of discrepancies. The * * * * * scenario for each pilot; documenting system must be readily (b) * * * available for review by each instructor, (4) Is representative of two flight (1) Holds the airman certificates and check airman or supervisor, prior to segments appropriate to the operations rating required to serve as a pilot in conducting training or checking with being conducted by the certificate command or flight engineer, as that equipment. holder; and applicable, in operations under this (1) Each instructor, check airman or (5) Provides an opportunity to part; supervisor conducting training or demonstrate workload management and checking, and each person conducting pilot monitoring skills. (2) Has satisfactorily completed the appropriate training phases for the an inspection of the equipment who * * * * * airplane, including recurrent training, discovers a discrepancy, including any ■ 9. Amend § 121.411 by revising missing, malfunctioning or inoperative that are required to serve as a pilot in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (6) and command or flight engineer, as components, must record a description (c)(1) through (3) to read as follows: of that discrepancy and the date that the applicable, in operations under this discrepancy was identified. § 121.411 Qualifications: Check airmen part; (2) All corrections to discrepancies (airplane) and check airmen (simulator). (3) Has satisfactorily completed the must be recorded when the corrections * * * * * appropriate proficiency or flight checks are made. This record must include the (b) * * * that are required to serve as a pilot in date of the correction. (1) Holds the airman certificates and command or flight engineer, as (3) A record of a discrepancy must be ratings required to serve as a pilot in applicable, in operations under this maintained for at least 60 days. command or flight engineer, as part; (e) No person may use, allow the use applicable, in operations under this * * * * * of, or offer the use of training equipment part; (5) Holds at least a Class III medical with a missing, malfunctioning, or (2) Has satisfactorily completed the certificate unless serving as a required inoperative component to meet the appropriate training phases for the crewmember, in which case holds a crewmember training or checking airplane, including recurrent training, Class I or a Class II medical certificate requirements of this chapter for tasks that are required to serve as a pilot in as appropriate; and

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67838 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(6) Has satisfied the recency of (1) The approved methods, accomplished in part or in full in an experience requirements of § 121.439 of procedures, and limitations for airplane, in a flight simulator, or in a this part, as applicable. performing the required normal, flight training device. * * * * * abnormal, and emergency procedures * * * * * (c) * * * applicable to the airplane to which the (c) * * * (1) Holds the airman certificates and check airman is transitioning. (8) For flight instructors who conduct ratings, except medical certificate, (2) For check airmen who conduct training in a flight simulator or a flight required to serve as a pilot in command training or checking in a flight simulator training device, the following subjects or flight engineer, as applicable, in or a flight training device, the following specific to the device(s) for the airplane operations under this part; subjects specific to the device(s) for the type: (2) Has satisfactorily completed the airplane type to which the check airman (i) Proper operation of the controls appropriate training phases for the is transitioning: and systems; airplane, including recurrent training, (i) Proper operation of the controls (ii) Proper operation of environmental that are required to serve as a pilot in and systems; and fault panels; command or flight engineer, as (ii) Proper operation of environmental (iii) Data and motion limitations of applicable, in operations under this and fault panels; simulation; and part; (iii) Data and motion limitations of (iv) The minimum airplane simulator (3) Has satisfactorily completed the simulation; and equipment required by this part or part appropriate proficiency or flight checks (iv) The minimum airplane simulator 60 of this chapter, for each maneuver that are required to serve as a pilot in equipment required by this part or part and procedure completed in a flight command or flight engineer, as 60 of this chapter, for each maneuver simulator or a flight training device. applicable, in operations under this and procedure completed in a flight (d) The transition ground training for part; and simulator or a flight training device. flight instructors must include the * * * * * (e) The initial and transition flight following: training for check airmen (airplane) (1) The approved methods, ■ 11. Amend § 121.413 as follows: must include the following: procedures, and limitations for ■ A. Revise the section heading; performing the required normal, ■ * * * * * B. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (d), (e) abnormal, and emergency procedures introductory text, (e)(4), and (g) (4) For flight engineer check airmen (airplane), training to ensure applicable to the airplane to which the introductory text; and flight instructor is transitioning. ■ competence to perform assigned duties. C. Add paragraphs (c)(7), (h), and (i). (2) For flight instructors who conduct * * * * * The revisions and additions read as training in a flight simulator or a flight (g) The initial and transition flight follows: training device, the following subjects training for check airmen who conduct specific to the device(s) for the airplane § 121.413 Initial, transition and recurrent training or checking in a flight simulator type to which the flight instructor is training and checking requirements: Check or a flight training device must include airmen (airplane), check airmen (simulator). transitioning: the following: (a) * * * (i) Proper operation of the controls * * * * * and systems; (2) Within the preceding 24 calendar (h) Recurrent ground training for months that person satisfactorily (ii) Proper operation of environmental check airmen who conduct training or and fault panels; conducts a check or supervises checking in a flight simulator or a flight operating experience under the (iii) Data and motion limitations of training device must be completed every simulation; and observation of an FAA inspector or an 12 calendar months and must include aircrew designated examiner employed (iv) The minimum airplane simulator the subjects required in paragraph (c)(7) equipment required by this part or part by the operator. The observation check of this section. may be accomplished in part or in full 60 of this chapter, for each maneuver (i) Compliance with paragraphs (c)(7), and procedure completed in a flight in an airplane, in a flight simulator, or (d)(2), and (h) of this section is required in a flight training device. simulator or a flight training device. no later than March 12, 2019. (e) The initial and transition flight * * * * * ■ 12. Amend § 121.414 as follows: training for flight instructors (airplane) (c) * * * ■ A. Revise the section heading; must include the following: (7) For check airmen who conduct ■ B. Revise paragraphs (a)(2), (d), (e) training or checking in a flight simulator * * * * * introductory text, (e)(4), and (g) or a flight training device, the following (4) For flight engineer instructors introductory text; and subjects specific to the device(s) for the (airplane), inflight training to ensure ■ C. Add paragraphs (c)(8), (h), and (i). airplane type: competence to perform assigned duties. The revisions and additions read as (i) Proper operation of the controls * * * * * follows: and systems; (g) The initial and transition flight (ii) Proper operation of environmental § 121.414 Initial, transition and recurrent training for flight instructors who and fault panels; training and checking requirements: flight conduct training in a flight simulator or (iii) Data and motion limitations of instructors (airplane), flight instructors a flight training device must include the simulation; and (simulator). following: (iv) The minimum airplane simulator (a) * * * * * * * * equipment required by this part or part (2) Within the preceding 24 calendar (h) Recurrent flight instructor ground 60 of this chapter, for each maneuver months, that person satisfactorily training for flight instructors who and procedure completed in a flight conducts instruction under the conduct training in a flight simulator or simulator or a flight training device. observation of an FAA inspector, an a flight training device must be (d) The transition ground training for operator check airman, or an aircrew completed every 12 calendar months check airmen must include the designated examiner employed by the and must include the subjects required following: operator. The observation check may be in paragraph (c)(8) of this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67839

(i) Compliance with paragraphs (c)(8), that a certificate holder is operating (2) Beginning March 12, 2019, initial (d)(2), and (h) of this section is required related aircraft, the certificate holder programmed hours applicable to pilots no later than March 12, 2019. may submit to the Administrator a as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of ■ 13. Amend § 121.415 as follows: request for approval of a training this section must include 2 additional ■ A. Revise section heading; program that includes related aircraft hours. ■ B. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the differences training. § 121.420 [Removed and Reserved] reference to ‘‘§§ 121.419 through (3) A request for approval of a training 121.422’’ and add in its place program that includes related aircraft ■ 16. Remove and reserve § 121.420. ‘‘§§ 121.419, 121.421 and 121.422’’; differences training must include at ■ 17. Add § 121.423 to read as follows: ■ C. In paragraph (b), remove the least the following: reference to ‘‘121.426’’ and add in its (i) Each appropriate subject required § 121.423 Pilot: Extended Envelope Training. place ‘‘121.425’’; for the ground training for the related ■ D. In paragraph (d), remove the aircraft. (a) Each certificate holder must reference to ‘‘§ 121.418’’ and add in its (ii) Each appropriate maneuver or include in its approved training place ‘‘§ 121.418(a)’’ and remove the procedure required for the flight program, the extended envelope training word ‘‘his’’ and add in its place ‘‘their’’; training and crewmember emergency set forth in this section with respect to ■ E. In paragraph (f), remove the training for the related aircraft. each airplane type for each pilot. The reference to ‘‘§§ 121.419 through (iii) The number of programmed extended envelope training required by 121.425’’ and add in its place hours of ground training, flight training this section must be performed in a ‘‘§§ 121.419, 121.421, 121.422, 121.424, and crewmember emergency training Level C or higher full flight simulator, and 121.425’’; and necessary based on review of the related approved by the Administrator in ■ F. Add paragraphs (h), (i), and (j). aircraft and the duty position. accordance with § 121.407 of this part. (c) Approved related aircraft The revision and additions read as (b) Extended envelope training must differences training. Approved related follows: include the following maneuvers and aircraft differences training for procedures: § 121.415 Crewmember and dispatcher flightcrew members may be included in (1) Manually controlled slow flight; training program requirements. initial, transition, upgrade and recurrent (2) Manually controlled loss of * * * * * training for the base aircraft. If the reliable airspeed; (h) Each training program must certificate holder’s approved training (3) Manually controlled instrument include a process to provide for the program includes related aircraft departure and arrival; regular analysis of individual pilot differences training in accordance with (4) Upset recovery maneuvers; and performance to identify pilots with paragraph (b) of this section, the (5) Recovery from bounced landing. performance deficiencies during training required by §§ 121.419, (c) Extended envelope training must training and checking and multiple 121.424, 121.425, and 121.427, as include instructor-guided hands on failures during checking. applicable to flightcrew members, may experience of recovery from full stall (i) Each training program must be modified for the related aircraft. and stick pusher activation, if equipped. include methods for remedial training ■ 15. Amend § 121.419 as follows: (d) Recurrent training: Within 24 and tracking of pilots identified in the ■ A. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(ix); calendar months preceding service as a analysis performed in accordance with ■ B. In paragraph (a)(2)(x), remove pilot, each person must satisfactorily paragraph (h) of this section. ‘‘and’’ following the semi-colon; complete the extended envelope (j) Compliance with paragraphs (h) ■ C. Redesignate paragraph (a)(2)(xi) as training described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (i) of this section is required no (a)(2)(xiii); and through (4) and (c) of this section. later than March 12, 2019. ■ D. Add new paragraph (a)(2)(xi) and Within 36 calendar months preceding paragraphs (a)(2)(xii) and (e). ■ 14. Amend § 121.418 as follows: service as a pilot, each person must The revisions and additions read as ■ A. Revise section heading; satisfactorily complete the extended follows: ■ B. Redesignate paragraphs (a) envelope training described in introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3) and § 121.419 Pilots and flight engineers: paragraph (b)(5) of this section. the undesignated paragraph, as Initial, transition, and upgrade ground (e) Deviation from use of Level C or paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), training. higher full flight simulator: (a)(1)(iii), and (a)(2) respectively; (a) * * * (1) A certificate holder may submit a ■ C. Add a subject heading to paragraph (1) * * * request to the Administrator for (a); and (ix) Other instructions as necessary to approval of a deviation from the ■ D. Add paragraphs (b) and (c). ensure pilot and flight engineer requirements of paragraph (a) of this The revisions and additions read as competence. section to conduct the extended follows: (2) * * * envelope training using an alternative (xi) For pilots, stall prevention and method to meet the learning objectives § 121.418 Differences training and related recovery in clean configuration, takeoff of this section. aircraft differences training. and maneuvering configuration, and (2) A request for deviation from (a) Differences training. landing configuration. paragraph (a) of this section must * * * * * (xii) For pilots, upset prevention and include the following information: (b) Related aircraft differences recovery; and (i) A simulator availability training. (1) In order to seek approval of (xiii) The approved Airplane Flight assessment, including hours by specific related aircraft differences training for Manual. simulator and location of the simulator, flightcrew members, a certificate holder * * * * * and a simulator shortfall analysis that must submit a request for related aircraft (e) Compliance and pilot programmed includes the training that cannot be designation to the Administrator, and hours. (1) Compliance with the completed in a Level C or higher full obtain approval of that request. requirements identified in paragraphs flight simulator; and (2) If the Administrator determines (a)(2)(xi) and (a)(2)(xii) of this section is (ii) Alternative methods for achieving under paragraph (b)(1) of this section required no later than March 12, 2019. the learning objectives of this section.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67840 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

(3) A certificate holder may request an ■ D. Revise paragraph (d)(1); The revisions read as follows: extension of a deviation issued under ■ E. Remove paragraph (d)(3); and this section. ■ F. Add paragraph (e). § 121.433 Training required. (4) Deviations or extensions to The revisions and addition read as * * * * * deviations will be issued for a period follows: (d) For each airplane in which a pilot not to exceed 12 months. serves as pilot in command, the person (f) Compliance with this section is § 121.427 Recurrent training. must satisfactorily complete either required no later than March 12, 2019. * * * * * recurrent flight training or a proficiency For the recurrent training required in (b) * * * check within the preceding 12 calendar paragraph (d) of this section, each pilot (4) CRM and DRM training. For months. The requirement in this qualified to serve as second in flightcrew members, CRM training or paragraph expires on March 12, 2019. command or pilot in command in portions thereof may be accomplished After that date, the requirement in operations under this part on March 12, during an approved simulator line § 121.441(a)(1)(ii) of this part applies. 2019 must complete the recurrent operational flight training (LOFT) (e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(2) extended envelope training within 12 session. The recurrent CRM or DRM and (d) of this section, a proficiency calendar months after March 12, 2019. training requirements do not apply until check as provided in § 121.441 of this ■ 18. Amend § 121.424 as follows: a person has completed the applicable part may not be substituted for the ■ A. Revise paragraph (a); initial CRM or DRM training required by extended envelope training required by ■ B. Revise paragraph (b) introductory §§ 121.419, 121.421, or 121.422. § 121.423 or training in those maneuvers text; * * * * * and procedures set forth in a certificate ■ C. In paragraph (b)(1), remove the (d) Recurrent flight training for holder’s approved low-altitude word ‘‘and’’ following the semi-colon; flightcrew members must include at windshear flight training program when ■ D. Redesignate paragraph (b)(2) as least the following: that program is included in a recurrent (b)(3); (1) For pilots— flight training course as required by ■ E. Add new paragraph (b)(2); (i) Extended envelope training as § 121.409(d) of this part. ■ F. In paragraph (c), remove the required by § 121.423 of this part; and ■ 23. Amend § 121.434 as follows: reference to ‘‘paragraph (a)’’ and add in (ii) Flight training in an approved ■ A. Add paragraph (a)(4); and, its place ‘‘paragraph (a)(1);’’ and simulator in maneuvers and procedures ■ B. In paragraph (b)(1), remove ‘‘he’’ ■ G. Add paragraph (e). set forth in the certificate holder’s The revisions and additions read as and add in its place ‘‘the person’’; approved low-altitude windshear flight ■ follows: C. Remove the last sentence of training program and flight training in paragraph (f); and § 121.424 Pilots: Initial, transition, and maneuvers and procedures set forth in ■ D. Revise paragraph (i). appendix F to this part, or in a flight upgrade flight training. The addition and revision read as training program approved by the (a) Initial, transition, and upgrade follows: training for pilots must include the Administrator, except as follows— following: (A) The number of programmed § 121.434 Operating experience, operating (1) Flight training and practice in the inflight hours is not specified; and cycles, and consolidation of knowledge and skills. maneuvers and procedures set forth in (B) Satisfactory completion of a the certificate holder’s approved low- proficiency check may be substituted for (a) * * * altitude windshear flight training recurrent flight training as permitted in (4) Deviation based upon designation program and in appendix E to this part, § 121.433(c) and (e) of this part. of related aircraft in accordance with as applicable; and * * * * * § 121.418(b). (2) Extended envelope training set (e) Compliance and pilot programmed (i) The Administrator may authorize a forth in § 121.423. hours: deviation from the operating experience, (b) The training required by paragraph (1) Compliance with the requirements operating cycles, and line operating (a) of this section must be performed identified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) of this flight time for consolidation of inflight except— section is required no later than March knowledge and skills required by this * * * * * 12, 2019. section based upon a designation of (2) That the extended envelope (2) After March 12, 2019, recurrent related aircraft in accordance with training required by § 121.423 must be programmed hours applicable to pilots § 121.418(b) of this part and a performed in a Level C or higher full as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this determination that the certificate holder flight simulator unless the section must include 30 additional can demonstrate an equivalent level of Administrator has issued to the minutes. safety. (ii) A request for deviation from the certificate holder a deviation in § 121.432 [Amended] accordance with § 121.423(e); and operating experience, operating cycles, ■ 21. Amend § 121.432 as follows: and line operating flight time for * * * * * ■ (e) Compliance with paragraphs (a)(2) A. Remove paragraphs (b)(2) and (3); consolidation of knowledge and skills ■ and (b)(2) of this section is required no B. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(4) and required by this section based upon a later than March 12, 2019. (5) as paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) designation of related aircraft must be respectively; submitted to the Administrator. The § 121.426 [Removed and Reserved] ■ C. Remove paragraphs (c) and (d); and request must include the following: ■ ■ 19. Remove and reserve § 121.426. D. Designate the undesignated (A) Identification of aircraft operated ■ 20. Amend § 121.427 as follows: paragraph as paragraph (c). by the certificate holder designated as ■ A. Revise paragraph (b)(4); ■ 22. Amend § 121.433 as follows: related aircraft. ■ B. Remove paragraph (c)(2); ■ A. Remove ‘‘he’’ and add in its place (B) Hours of operating experience and ■ C. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(3) and ‘‘the person’’ each time it appears in the number of operating cycles necessary (4) as paragraphs (c)(2) and (3), section; and based on review of the related aircraft, respectively; ■ B. Revise paragraphs (d) and (e). the operation, and the duty position.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67841

(C) Consolidation hours necessary (ii) Beginning on March 12, 2019, the certificate holder and its pilots using based on review of the related aircraft, (A) A proficiency check within the a communication system as required by the operation, and the duty position. preceding 12 calendar months in the § 121.99 of this part. (iii) The administrator may, at any aircraft type in which the person is to (b) For purposes of this section the time, terminate a grant of deviation serve and, term en route means from the time the authority issued under this paragraph (B) In addition, within the preceding aircraft pushes back from the departing (a)(4). 6 calendar months, either a proficiency gate until the time the aircraft reaches * * * * * check or the approved simulator course the arrival gate at its destination. (i) Notwithstanding the reductions in of training. (c) The record required in paragraph programmed hours permitted under * * * * * (a) of this section must contain at least §§ 121.405 and 121.409 of subpart N of (f) Deviation authority based upon the following information: this part, the hours of operating designation of related aircraft in (1) The date and time of the contact; experience for crewmembers are not accordance with § 121.418(b) of this subject to reduction other than as part. (2) The flight number; provided in accordance with a deviation (1) The Administrator may authorize (3) Aircraft registration number; authorized under paragraph (a) of this a deviation from the proficiency check (4) Approximate position of the section or as provided in paragraphs (e) requirements of paragraphs (a) and aircraft during the contact; and (f) of this section. (b)(1) of this section based upon a (5) Call sign; and designation of related aircraft in (6) Narrative of the contact. § 121.435 [Removed and Reserved] accordance with § 121.418(b) of this part ■ (d) The record required in paragraph 24. Remove and reserve § 121.435. and a determination that the certificate (a) of this section must be kept for at ■ 25. Amend § 121.439 by adding holder can demonstrate an equivalent least 30 days. paragraph (f) to read as follows: level of safety. (2) A request for deviation from ■ 29. Amend appendix E: § 121.439 Pilot qualification: Recent ■ A. By revising the first paragraph; experience. paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) of this section must be submitted to the Administrator. ■ B. In the Table entitled ‘‘Flight * * * * * The request must include the following: Training Requirements’’: (f) Deviation authority based upon (i) Identification of aircraft operated ■ designation of related aircraft in i. Redesignate entry I(c) as I(c)(1) and by the certificate holder designated as accordance with § 121.418(b). revise text of I(c)(1); (1) The Administrator may authorize related aircraft. ■ ii. Add new entry I(c)(2); (ii) For recurrent proficiency checks, a deviation from the requirements of ■ iii. Redesignate entry I(d) as I(d)(1) the frequency of the related aircraft paragraph (a) of this section based upon and revise text of (I)(d)(1); proficiency check and the maneuvers a designation of related aircraft in ■ and procedures to be included in the iv. Add new entry I(d)(2); accordance with § 121.418(b) of this part related aircraft proficiency check based ■ v. Redesignate entry II(c) as II(c)(1); and a determination that the certificate on review of the related aircraft, the ■ vi. Add new entry II(c)(2); holder can demonstrate an equivalent ■ level of safety. operation, and the duty position. vii. In entry III(e) replace the word (2) A request for deviation from (iii) For qualification proficiency ‘‘runway’’ with ‘‘runaway’’; paragraph (a) of this section must be checks, the maneuvers and procedures ■ viii. Revise entry III(i); submitted to the Administrator. The to be included in the related aircraft ■ ix. Redesignate entry IV(d) as IV(d)(1); request must include the following: proficiency check based on review of and the related aircraft, the operation, and (i) Identification of aircraft operated ■ x. Add new entry IV(d)(2). by the certificate holder designated as the duty position. (3) The administrator may, at any The revisions and additions read as related aircraft. follows: (ii) The number of takeoffs, landings, time, terminate a grant of deviation maneuvers, and procedures necessary to authority issued under this paragraph Appendix E to Part 121—Flight maintain or reestablish recency based (f). Training Requirements. ■ 27. Add § 121.544 to read as follows: on review of the related aircraft, the The maneuvers and procedures required by operation, and the duty position. § 121.544 Pilot monitoring. § 121.424 of this part for pilot initial, (3) The administrator may, at any Each pilot who is seated at the pilot transition, and upgrade flight training are set time, terminate a grant of deviation forth in the certificate holder’s approved low- authority issued under this paragraph controls of the aircraft, while not flying altitude windshear flight training program, (f). the aircraft, must accomplish pilot § 121.423 extended envelope training, and in ■ 26. Amend § 121.441 by revising monitoring duties as appropriate in this appendix. All required maneuvers and paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraph accordance with the certificate holder’s procedures must be performed inflight except (f) to read as follows: procedures contained in the manual that windshear and extended envelope required by § 121.133 of this part. training maneuvers and procedures must be § 121.441 Proficiency checks. Compliance with this section is required performed in an airplane simulator in which (a) * * * no later than March 12, 2019. the maneuvers and procedures are specifically authorized to be accomplished. (1) For a pilot in command— ■ 28. Revise § 121.711 to read as (i) Before March 12, 2019, Certain other maneuvers and procedures may follows: be performed in an airplane simulator with (A) A proficiency check within the a visual system (visual simulator), an § 121.711 Communication records: preceding 12 calendar months and, airplane simulator without a visual system Domestic and flag operations. (B) In addition, within the preceding (nonvisual simulator), a training device, or a 6 calendar months, either a proficiency (a) Each certificate holder conducting static airplane as indicated by the check or the approved simulator course domestic or flag operations must record appropriate symbol in the respective column of training. each en route communication between opposite the maneuver or procedure.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67842 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER12NO13.163 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67843

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER12NO13.164 67844 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 ER12NO13.165 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 67845

Required Permitted Maneuvers/procedures Simulated Waiver provi- instrument Inflight Visual Nonvisual Training sions of conditions simulator simulator device § 121.441(d)

******* I Preflight—

******* (c)(1) Taxiing. Before March 12, 2019, this maneu- ver includes taxiing (in the case of a second in command proficiency check to the extent prac- tical from the second in command crew position), sailing, or docking procedures in compliance with instructions issued by the appropriate traffic con- trol authority or by the person conducting the checks ...... B ...... (c)(2) Taxiing. Beginning March 12, 2019, this ma- neuver includes the following: (i) Taxiing (in the case of a second in command proficiency check to the extent practical from the second in com- mand crew position), sailing, or docking proce- dures 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 light- ing ...... B ......

******* (d)(2) Beginning March 12, 2019, pre-takeoff proce- dures that include power-plant checks, receipt of takeoff clearance and confirmation of aircraft lo- cation, and FMS entry (if appropriate), for depar- ture runway prior to crossing hold short line for takeoff ...... B ...... II Takeoff—

******* (c)(1) Crosswind. Before March 12, 2019, one crosswind takeoff, if practicable, under the exist- ing meteorological, airport, and traffic conditions ...... B * ...... (c)(2) Beginning March 12, 2019, one crosswind takeoff with gusts, if practicable, under the exist- ing meteorological, airport, and traffic conditions ...... B * ......

******* IV. Inflight Maneuvers

******* (b) Stall Prevention. For the purpose of this maneu- ver the approved recovery procedure must be ini- tiated 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: ...... B ...... B ...... B * (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 per- formed in one of the above configurations while in a turn with the bank angle between 15° and 30°. Two out of the three stall prevention recov- eries required by this paragraph may be waived * * *.

******* V Landings and Approaches to Landings—

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3 67846 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

Required Permitted Maneuvers/procedures Simulated Waiver provi- instrument Inflight Visual Nonvisual Training sions of conditions simulator simulator device § 121.441(d)

Notwithstanding the authorizations for combining and waiving maneuvers and for the use of a sim- ulator, 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, 2019, crosswind landing with gusts, if practical under existing meteorolog- ical, airport, and traffic conditions ...... B * ......

*******

■ 31. Amend appendix H by adding a Advanced Simulation Training Program 5. For all pilots, the extended envelope sentence to the end of paragraph (6) in * * * * * training required by § 121.423 of this part. the section titled Advanced Simulation 6. * * * After March 12, 2019, the LOFT Issued in Washington, DC, under the Training Program; and add paragraph must provide an opportunity for the pilot to authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), (5) to the section titled Level C Training demonstrate workload management and pilot 44701(a) and Secs. 208 and 209 of Public Law 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. monitoring skills. and Checking Permitted to read as 44701 note), on November 5, 2013. follows: * * * * * Michael P. Huerta, Appendix H to Part 121—Advanced Level C Training and Checking Permitted Administrator. Simulation * * * * * [FR Doc. 2013–26845 Filed 11–6–13; 4:15 pm] * * * * * BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:31 Nov 08, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\12NOR3.SGM 12NOR3 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3