[Federal Register: September 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 177)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55851-55889]
[DOCID:fr14se10-24]

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

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Aviation Administration

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

14 CFR Parts 117 and 121

Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements; Proposed Rule

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 117 and 121

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1093; Notice No. 10-11]
RIN 2120-AJ58

Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to amend its existing flight, duty and
rest regulations applicable to certificate holders and their flightcrew
members. The proposal recognizes the growing similarities between the
types of operations and the universality of factors that lead to
fatigue in most individuals. Fatigue threatens aviation safety because
it increases the risk of pilot error that could lead to an accident.
The new requirements, if adopted, would eliminate the current
distinctions between domestic, flag and supplemental operations. The
proposal provides different requirements based on the time of day,
whether an individual is acclimated to a new time zone, and the
likelihood of being able to sleep under different circumstances.

DATES: Comments are due November 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Dale E. Roberts,
Air Transportation Division (AFS-200), Flight Standards Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal issues: Rebecca MacPherson, Office of
the Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (AGC-200), 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires
the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum safety
standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for
safety in air commerce and national security.

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Statement of the Problem
    B. NTSB Recommendations
    C. International Standards
    1. Amendment No. 33 to the International Standards and
Recommended Practices, Annex 6 to the Convention on International
Civil Aviation, Part I, International Commercial Air Transport--
Aeroplanes (ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP))
    2. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority Publication 371 (CAP-
371)
    3. Annex III, Subpart Q to the Commission of the European
Communities Regulation No. 3922/91, as Amended (EU OPS Subpart Q)
III. General Discussion of the Proposal
    A. Applicability
    B. Joint Responsibility
    C. Fatigue Training
    D. Flight Duty Period
    E. Acclimating to a New Time Zone
    F. Daily Flight Time Restrictions
    G. Mitigation Strategies
    1. Augmentation
    2. Split Duty Rest
    H. Consecutive Nighttime Flight Duty Periods
    I. Reserve Duty
    J. Cumulative Duty Periods
    K. Rest Requirements
    1. Pre-Flight Duty Period Rest
    2. Cumulative Rest Requirements
    L. Fatigue Risk Management Systems
    M. Commuting
    N. Exception for Emergency and Government Sponsored Operations
IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

I. Executive Summary

    As discussed in greater detail throughout this document, this
rulemaking proposes to establish one set of flight time limitations,
duty period limits, and rest requirements for pilots in part 121
operations. The rulemaking aims to ensure that pilots have an
opportunity to obtain sufficient rest to perform their duties, with an
objective of improving aviation safety.
    Current part 121 pilot duty and rest times differ by type of
operation (domestic, flag, and supplemental). A general summary of
current versus proposed flight time limits, duty time limits, and rest
time requirements are included in the table below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Rest time                                  Duty time                              Flight time
                            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Scenario                                                          Maximum flight      Maximum flight
                              Minimum rest prior   Minimum rest prior to      duty time--         duty time--       Maximum flight      Maximum flight
                              to duty-- domestic    duty--international       unaugmented          augmented      time-- unaugmented    time--augmented
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Part 121...........  Daily: 8-11          Minimum of 8 hours to   16................  16-20 depending on  8.................  8-16 depending on
                              depending on         twice the number of                         crew size.                              crew size.
                              flight time.         hours flown.
NPRM.......................  9..................  9.....................  9-13 depending on   12-18 depending on  8-10 depending on   None.
                                                                           start time and      start time, crew    FDP start time.
                                                                           number of flight    size, and
                                                                           segments.           aircraft rest
                                                                                facility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A summary of the FAA estimates of the costs and benefits associated
with the provisions in this rule can be found in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Nominal costs         PV costs
                                      (millions)          (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs (over 10 years).....            $1,254.1              $803.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Benefits               Nominal benefits       PV benefits
                                      (millions)          (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$6.0 million VSL................              659.40              463.80
$8.4 million VSL................                 837                 589
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA began considering changing its existing flight, duty and
rest regulations in June 1992, when it announced the tasking of the
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) Flightcrew Member Flight/
Duty Rest Requirements working group.\1\ The tasking followed the FAA's
receipt of hundreds of letters about the interpretation of existing
rest requirements and several petitions to amend existing regulations.
While the working group could not reach consensus, it submitted a final
report in June 1994 with proposals from several working group members.
Following receipt of the ARAC's report, the FAA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking in 1995 (1995 NPRM).\2\ The FAA received over 2000
comments to the 1995 NPRM. Although some commenters, including the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), NASA, Air Line Pilots
Association, and Allied Pilots Association, said the proposal would
enhance safety, many industry associations opposed the 1995 NPRM,
stating the FAA lacked safety data to justify the rulemaking, and
industry compliance would impose significant costs. The FAA never
finalized the 1995 rulemaking, and on November 23, 2009, the agency
withdrew it because it was outdated and raised many significant issues
that the agency needed to consider before proceeding with a final
rule.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 57 FR 26685; June 15, 1992.
    \2\ Flightcrew Member Duty Period Limitations, Flight Time
Limitations and Rest Requirements notice of proposed rulemaking (60
FR 65951; December 20, 1995).
    \3\ 74 FR 61067.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 10, 2009, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt testified before the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation
Operations, Safety, and Security on Aviation Safety regarding the FAA's
role in the oversight of certificate holders. He addressed issues
regarding flightcrew member \4\ training and qualifications, flightcrew
fatigue, and consistency of safety standards and compliance between air
transportation certificate holders.\5\ He also committed to assess the
safety of the air transportation system and to take appropriate steps
to improve it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``flightcrew member'' is defined in 14 CFR 1.1 as a pilot,
flight engineer, or flight navigator assigned to duty in an aircraft
during flight time.
    \5\ In this document, the terms ``certificate holder'' and
``carrier'' are used interchangeably. Technically, one could be a
``certificate holder'' under part 121 without also being an air
carrier. Accordingly, the draft regulatory text only uses the term
``certificate holder''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2009, the FAA chartered the Flight and Duty Time
Limitations and Rest Requirements Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)
\6\ comprised of labor, industry, and FAA representatives to develop
recommendations for an FAA rule based on current fatigue science and a
thorough review of international approaches to the issue. The FAA
chartered the ARC to provide a forum for the U.S. aviation community to
discuss current approaches to mitigate fatigue found in international
standards and make recommendations on how the United States should
modify its regulations. The ARC consisted of 18 members representing
airline and union associations. The members were selected based on
their extensive certificate holder management, direct operational
experience, or both.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See http://www.faa.gov/about/office%5Forg/
headquarters%5Foffices/avs/offices/afs/afs200/ for the ARC Charter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the FAA asked the ARC to consider and address the
following:
     A single approach to addressing fatigue that consolidates
and replaces existing regulatory requirements for parts 121 and 135.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While tasked to consider part 135 operations, the ARC did
not consider these operations, and this proposal does not address
them either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Generally accepted principles of human physiology,
performance, and alertness based on the body of fatigue science.
     Information on sources of aviation fatigue.
     Current approaches to address fatigue mitigation
strategies in international standards.
     The incorporation of fatigue risk management systems
(FRMS) into a rulemaking.
    The ARC met over a 6-week period beginning July 7, 2009. Early on,
the FAA told the ARC members it was very interested in the ARC's
recommendations, but that the agency retained the authority and
obligation to evaluate any proposals and independently determine how
best to amend the existing regulations. The agency reiterated that
participation on the ARC in no way precluded the ARC members from
submitting comments critical of the NPRM when it was published. On
September 9, 2009, the ARC delivered its final report to the FAA in the
form of a draft NPRM.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A copy of the ARC recommendations can be found in the docket
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ARC's goal was to reach as much agreement as possible on the
prospective regulation. However, the members recognized early on that
they would not be able to reach consensus on all issues. They were,
however, generally successful in agreeing upon broad regulatory
approaches and were able to reach consensus on two issues--how to
address reserve \9\ and the role of commuting in any proposed
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed Sec.  117.3 (Definitions) were the term
``Reserve Flightcrew Member'' is defined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Cargo Airline Association (CAA) presented a separate proposal
for FAA consideration to address the unique operations of its
members.\10\ According to the CAA, cargo operations are subject to
different operational and competitive factors than scheduled passenger
air carrier operations, including flight delays and schedule changes
outside of the control of the certificate holder. The National Air
Carrier Association (NACA) also submitted an alternate proposal to the
ARC.\11\ NACA proposed

that the regulations contained in subpart S to part 121 continue to
apply to certificate holders conducting unscheduled supplemental
operations. In addition, it proposed to include a requirement that such
operators develop and implement FRMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This proposal may be found in attachment 1 to the ARC
report.
    \11\ This proposal may be found in attachment 2 to the ARC
report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist the ARC with its goal of developing proposed rules to
enhance flightcrew member alertness and employ fatigue mitigation
strategies, the following experts in sleep, fatigue, and human
performance research presented a brief overview of the existing science
and studies on sleep and fatigue to the ARC:
     Dr. Gregory Belenky, M.D., Sleep and Performance Research
Center, Washington State University and Dr. Steven R. Hursh, Ph.D.,
President, Institutes for Behavior Resources, Professor, Johns Hopkins
University School of Medicine presented information on sleep, fatigue,
and human performance.
     Dr. Thomas Nesthus, Ph.D., FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute
(CAMI) presented an overview of the current FAA fatigue studies.
     Dr. Peter Demitry, M.D., 4d Enterprises, addressed
questions from the ARC but did not make a presentation.
    The ARC members considered the information presented by the
scientists as well as other available scientific information and used
their substantial operational experience knowledge base to develop the
ARC proposals.
    Following their presentations, the scientific experts encouraged
the ARC to consider the entire body of scientific studies in developing
any proposed limitations and requirements, rather than any one
scientific study.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A bibliography of available studies has been placed in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 1, 2010, the President signed the Airline Safety and
Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010, Public Law 111-
216 (the Act). In section 212 of the Act, Congress directed the FAA to
issue regulations no later than August 1, 2011 to ``specify limitations
on the hours of flight and duty time allowed for pilots to address
problems relating to pilot fatigue.''
    The Act directed the FAA to consider several factors that could
impact pilot alertness including time of day, number of takeoffs and
landings, crossing multiple time zones, and the effects of commuting.
In addition, the agency was directed to review the available research
on fatigue, sleep and rest requirements recommended by the NTSB and
NASA, and applicable international standards. Finally, the agency was
to explore alternate procedures to facilitate alertness in the cockpit,
air carrier scheduling and attendance policies (including sick leave),
and medical screening and treatment options.
    The FAA has developed a proposal for addressing the risk of fatigue
on the safety of flight based on an evaluation of the available
literature, existing regulatory requirements in both the United States
and other countries, and the broad personal, professional experience of
the ARC members and FAA staff, as well as the recommendations of the
NTSB and NASA. Today's proposal is consistent with the statutory
mandate set forth in the Act and takes a new approach whereby the
distinctions between domestic, flag, and supplemental operations are
eliminated. Rather, all types of operations would take into account the
effects of circadian rhythms, inadequate rest opportunities and
cumulative fatigue.
    The FAA believes its proposal sufficiently accommodates the vast
majority of operations conducted today, while reducing the risk of
pilot error from fatigue leading to accidents. In some areas, the FAA
proposes to relax current requirements, while in others, it strengthens
them to reflect the latest scientific information. The agency proposes
to provide credit for fatigue-mitigating strategies, such as sleep
facilities, that some certificate holders are currently providing with
no regulatory incentive. The agency has also tentatively decided that
certain operations conducted under the existing rules are exposing
flightcrew members to undue risk.
    Today's proposal sets forth a matrix that addresses transient
fatigue (i.e., the immediate, short-term fatigue that can be addressed
by a recuperative rest opportunity) by establishing a 9-hour minimum
rest opportunity prior to commencing duty directly associated with the
operation of aircraft (flight duty period, or FDP), placing
restrictions on that type of duty, and further placing restrictions on
flight time (that period of time when the aircraft is actually in
motion--flight time is encompassed by FDP).
    The proposal provides carriers with a level of flexibility not
afforded today by permitting a limited extension of FDP and a limited
reduction in the minimum rest opportunity in circumstances that are
neither within the carrier's control nor reasonably foreseeable. In
order to assure that carriers are adequately scheduling flightcrew
member's work days, so as not to overuse the extension, carriers would
be required to report on both their overall schedule integrity and
specific crew-pairing schedule integrity on a bi-monthly basis. Should
a carrier fail to meet the required levels of integrity, it would have
to adjust its schedule to make it more reliable.
    The proposal addresses cumulative fatigue by placing weekly and 28-
day limits on the amount of time a flightcrew member may be assigned to
any type of duty, including FDP. Further 28-day and annual limits are
placed on flight time. Flightcrew members would be required to be given
at least 30 consecutive hours free from duty on a weekly basis, a 25
percent increase over the current requirements.
    In addition, today's proposal addresses the impact of changing time
zones and flying through the night by reducing the amount of flight
time and FDP available for these operations. More flight time and FDP
would be available for certificate holders that add additional
flightcrew members and provide adequate rest facilities to allow
flightcrew members an opportunity to sleep aboard the aircraft. Credit
would also be available to certificate holders that provide sufficient
ground-based rest facilities.
    All carriers would have to develop training programs to educate all
employees responsible for developing air carrier schedules and safety
of flight on the symptoms of fatigue, as well as the factors leading to
fatigue and how to mitigate fatigue-based risk.
    For those operations that cannot be conducted under the proposed
prescriptive requirements, today's proposal also allows a carrier to
develop a carrier-specific fatigue risk management system (FRMS). An
FAA-approved FRMS would allow a certificate holder to customize its
operations based on a scientifically-validated demonstration of
fatigue-mitigating approaches and their impact on a flightcrew member's
ability to safely fly an airplane beyond the confines of the proposed
rule. Finally, today's proposal provides a limited exception for
certain emergency operations or operations conducted under contract
with the United States government that cannot otherwise be conducted
under the prescriptive requirements proposed here. In order to assure
there is no abuse, and that the exception is necessary, the proposal
includes a reporting requirement.

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    Fatigue is characterized by a general lack of alertness and
degradation in mental and physical performance. Fatigue manifests in
the aviation context

not only when pilots fall asleep in the cockpit while cruising, but
perhaps more importantly, when they are insufficiently alert during
take-off and landing. Reported fatigue-related events have included
procedural errors, unstable approaches, lining up with the wrong
runway, and landing without clearances.
    There are three types of fatigue: transient, cumulative, and
circadian. Transient fatigue is acute fatigue brought on by extreme
sleep restriction or extended hours awake within 1 or 2 days.
Cumulative fatigue is fatigue brought on by repeated mild sleep
restriction or extended hours awake across a series of days. Circadian
fatigue refers to the reduced performance during nighttime hours,
particularly during an individual's window of circadian low (WOCL)
(typically between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.).
    Common symptoms of fatigue include:
     Measurable reduction in speed and accuracy of performance,
     Lapses of attention and vigilance,
     Delayed reactions,
     Impaired logical reasoning and decision-making, including
a reduced ability to assess risk or appreciate consequences of actions,
     Reduced situational awareness, and
     Low motivation to perform optional activities.
    A variety of factors contribute to whether an individual
experiences fatigue as well as the severity of that fatigue. The major
factors affecting fatigue include:
     Time of day. Fatigue is, in part, a function of circadian
rhythms. All other factors being equal, fatigue is most likely, and,
when present, most severe, between the hours of 2 a.m. and 6 a.m.
     Amount of recent sleep. If a person has had significantly
less than 8 hours of sleep in the past 24 hours, he or she is more
likely to be fatigued.
     Time awake. A person who has been continually awake more
than 17 hours since his or her last major sleep period is more likely
to be fatigued.
     Cumulative sleep debt. For the average person, cumulative
sleep debt is the difference between the amount of sleep a person has
received over the past several days, and the amount of sleep they would
have received if they got 8 hours of sleep a night. A person with a
cumulative sleep debt of more than 8 hours since his or her last full
night of sleep is more likely to be fatigued.
     Time on task. The longer a person has continuously been
doing a job without a break, the more likely he or she is to be
fatigued.
     Individual variation. Individuals respond to fatigue
factors differently and may become fatigued at different times, and to
different degrees of severity, under the same circumstances.
    There is often interplay between various factors that contribute to
fatigue. For example, the performance of a person working night and
early morning shifts is impacted by the time of day. Additionally,
because of the difficulty in getting normal sleep during other than
nighttime hours, such a person is more likely to have a cumulative
sleep debt or to not have obtained a full night's sleep within the past
24 hours.
    Scientific research and experimentation have consistently
demonstrated that adequate sleep sustains performance. For most people,
8 hours of sleep in each 24 hours sustains performance indefinitely.
Sleep opportunities during the WOCL are preferable, although some
research indicates that the total amount of sleep is more important
than the timing of the sleep. Within limits, shortened periods of
nighttime sleep may be nearly as beneficial as a consolidated sleep
period when augmented by additional sleep periods, such as naps before
evening departures, during flights with augmented flightcrews, and
during layovers. Sleep should not be fragmented with interruptions. In
addition, environmental conditions, such as temperature, noise, and
turbulence, impact how beneficial sleep is and how performance is
restored.
    When a person has accumulated a sleep debt, recovery sleep is
necessary to fully restore the person's ``sleep reservoir.'' Recovery
sleep should include at least one physiological night, that is, one
sleep period during nighttime hours in the time zone in which the
individual is acclimated. The average person requires in excess of 9
hours of sleep a night to recover from a sleep debt.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Recovery sleep does not require additional sleep equal to
the cumulative sleep debt; that is, an 8-hour sleep debt does not
require 8 additional hours of sleep.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several aviation-specific work schedule factors \14\ can affect
sleep and subsequent alertness. These include early start times,
extended work periods, insufficient time off between work periods,
insufficient recovery time off between consecutive work periods, amount
of work time within a shift or duty period, number of consecutive work
periods, night work through one's window of circadian low, daytime
sleep periods, and day-to-night or night-to-day transitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Rosekind MR. Managing work schedules: an alertness and
safety perspective. In: Kryger MH, Roth T, Dement WC, editors.
Principles and Practice of Sleep Medicine; 2005:682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA believes its current regulations do not adequately address
the risk of fatigue. Presently, flightcrew members are effectively
allowed to work up to 16 hours a day, with all of that time spent on
tasks directly related to aircraft operations. The regulatory
requirement for 9 hours of rest is regularly reduced, with flightcrew
members spending rest time traveling to or from hotels and being
provided with little to no time to decompress. Additionally,
certificate holders regularly exceed the allowable duty periods by
conducting flights under part 91 instead of part 121, where the
applicable flight, duty and rest requirements are housed. As the NTSB
repeatedly notes, the FAA's regulations do not account for the impact
of circadian rhythms on alertness, and the entire set of regulations is
overly complicated, with a different set of regulations for domestic
operations, flag operations, and supplemental operations.

B. NTSB Recommendations

    The NTSB has long been concerned about the effects of fatigue in
the aviation industry. The first aviation safety recommendations,
issued in 1972, involved human fatigue, and aviation safety
investigations continue to identify serious concerns about the effects
of fatigue, sleep, and circadian rhythm disruption. Currently, the
NTSB's list of Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements includes
safety recommendations regarding pilot fatigue. These recommendations
are based on two accident investigations and an NTSB safety study on
commuter airline safety.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ On February 2, 2010, the NTSB released a press release
summarizing the results of its investigation into the Colgan Air
crash of February 12, 2009, which resulted in the death of 50
people. The NTSB did not state that fatigue was causal factor to the
crash; however, it did recommend that the FAA take steps to address
pilot fatigue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In February 2006 the NTSB issued safety recommendations after a
BAE-J3201 operated under part 121 by Corporate Airline struck trees on
final approach and crashed short of the runway at Kirksville Regional
Airport, Kirksville, Missouri. The captain, first officer, and 11 of
the 13 passengers died. The NTSB determined the probable cause of the
October 19, 2004 accident was the pilots' failure to follow established
procedures and properly conduct a non-precision instrument approach at
night in instrument meteorological conditions. The NTSB

concluded that fatigue likely contributed to the pilots' performance
and decision-making ability. This conclusion was based on the less than
optimal overnight rest time available to the pilots, the early report
time for duty, the number of flight legs, and the demanding conditions
encountered during the long duty day.
    As a result of the accident, the NTSB issued the following safety
recommendations related to flight and duty time limitations: (1) Modify
and simplify the flightcrew hours-of-service regulations to consider
factors such as length of duty day, starting time, workload, and other
factors shown by recent research, scientific evidence, and current
industry experience to affect crew alertness (recommendation No. A-06-
10); and (2) require all part 121 and part 135 certificate holders to
incorporate fatigue-related information similar to the information
being developed by the DOT Operator Fatigue Management Program into
initial and recurrent pilot training programs. The recommendation notes
that this training should address the detrimental effects of fatigue
and include strategies for avoiding fatigue and countering its effects
(recommendation No. A-06-10).
    The NTSB's list of Most Wanted Transportation Safety Improvements
also includes a safety recommendation on pilot fatigue and ferry
flights conducted under 14 CFR part 91. Three flightcrew members died
after a Douglas DC-8-63 operated by Air Transport International was
destroyed by ground impact and fire during an attempted three-engine
takeoff at Kansas City International Airport in Kansas City, Missouri.
The NTSB noted that the flightcrew conducted the flight as a
maintenance ferry flight under part 91 after a shortened rest break
following a demanding round trip flight to Europe that crossed multiple
time zones. The NTSB further noted that the international flight,
conducted under part 121, involved multiple legs flown at night
following daytime rest periods that caused the flightcrew to experience
circadian rhythm disruption. In addition, the NTSB found the captain's
last rest period before the accident was repeatedly interrupted by the
certificate holder.
    In issuing its 1995 recommendations, the NTSB stated that the
flight time limits and rest requirements under part 121 that applied to
the flightcrew before the ferry flight did not apply to the ferry
flight operated under part 91. As a result, the regulations permitted a
substantially reduced flightcrew rest period for the nonrevenue ferry
flight. As a result of the investigation, the NTSB reiterated earlier
recommendations to (1) finalize the review of current flight and duty
time limitations to ensure the limitations consider research findings
in fatigue and sleep issues and (2) prohibit certificate holders from
assigning a flightcrew to flights conducted under part 91 unless the
flightcrew met the flight and duty time limits under part 121 or other
applicable regulations (recommendation No. A-95-113).
    In addition to recommending a comprehensive approach to fatigue
with flight duty limits based on fatigue research, circadian rhythms,
and sleep and rest requirements, the NTSB has also stated that FRMS may
hold promise as an approach to dealing with fatigue in the aviation
environment. However, the NTSB noted that it considers fatigue
management plans to be a complement to, not a substitute for,
regulations to address fatigue.

C. International Standards

    There are a number of standards addressing flight and duty time
limitations and rest requirements that have been adopted by other
jurisdictions, as well as the International Civil Aviation Organization
(ICAO), and these standards were reviewed by the ARC to determine if
any of their philosophy or structures could be adopted by the FAA.
While the ARC found many of the requirements useful, it also determined
that the U.S. requirements would need to address the U.S. aviation
industry and that the existing standards could not fully achieve that
objective. The FAA agrees that none of the existing standards fully
address the U.S. aviation environment. Nevertheless, the existing
standards do serve as the basis of many of the provisions proposed
today. Accordingly, specific provisions of these standards are
discussed throughout the rest of this document and a copy of each
standard has been placed in the docket.
1. Amendment No. 33 to the International Standards and Recommended
Practices, Annex 6 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,
Part I, International Commercial Air Transport--Aeroplanes (ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices (SARP))
    The ICAO SARP for Contracting States (States) provide that a
certificate holder should establish flight time and duty period
limitations and rest provisions that enable the certificate holder to
manage the fatigue of its flightcrew members. The ICAO SARP do not
provide specific numerical values for these provisions but set forth a
regulatory framework for member States to use as guidelines in
establishing prescriptive limitations for fatigue management. Member
States are required to base their regulations on scientific principles
and knowledge with the goal of ensuring that flightcrew members perform
at an adequate level of alertness for safe flight operations. The ICAO
SARP do not address fatigue risk management programs currently;
however, these programs are currently under development.
2. United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority Publication 371 (CAP-371)
    Air Navigation Order 2000, Part VI, as amended, requires a
certificate holder to have a civil aviation authority-approved scheme
for regulating the flight time of aircrews. CAP-371 provides guidance
on this requirement and recognizes that the prime objective of a flight
limitation scheme is to ensure flightcrew members are adequately rested
at the beginning of each Flight Duty Period (FDP) and are flying
sufficiently free from fatigue so they can operate efficiently and
safely in normal and abnormal situations. When establishing maximum
FDPs and minimum rest periods, certificate holders must consider the
relationship between the frequency and patterns of scheduled FDPs and
rest periods, and the effects of working long hours with minimum rest.
3. Annex III, Subpart Q to the Commission of the European Communities
Regulation No. 3922/91, as Amended (EU OPS subpart Q)
    EU OPS subpart Q prescribes limitations on FDPs, duty periods,
block (flight) time, and rest requirements. Like the previous standards
discussed, EU OPS subpart Q recognizes the importance of enabling
flightcrew members to be sufficiently free from fatigue so they can
operate the aircraft satisfactorily in all circumstances. In
establishing flight and duty limitation and rest schemes, EU OPS
subpart Q requires certificate holders to consider the relationship
between the frequencies and pattern of FDPs and rest periods, and the
cumulative effects of long duty hours with interspersed rest.
Certificate holders must take action to revise a schedule in cases
where the actual operation exceeds the maximum scheduled FDP on more
than 33 percent of the flights in that schedule during a specified
period.

III. General Discussion of the Proposal

A. Applicability

    The FAA is proposing to limit this rulemaking to part 121
certificate holders and the flightcrew members \16\ who work for them.
While fatigue is a universal problem that applies to all types of
operations and to all safety sensitive functions, the agency has
decided to take incremental steps in addressing fatigue. Thus, future
rulemaking initiatives may address fatigue concerns related to flight
attendants, maintenance personnel, and dispatchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A flightcrew member is a certified pilot or flight engineer
assigned to duty aboard an aircraft during a flight duty period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, part 135 certificate holders should pay close
attention to both this NPRM and any final rule. This is because part
135 operations are very similar to those conducted under part 121,
particularly part 121 supplemental operations. The FAA does not
intuitively see any difference in the safety implications between the
two types of operations, although it acknowledges there may be less
overall risk to the flying public in part 135 operations than part 121
operations. Accordingly, the part 135 community should expect to see an
NPRM addressing its operations that looks very similar to, if not
exactly like, the final rule the agency anticipates issuing as part of
this rulemaking initiative.
    Today's proposal applies to all flights conducted by part 121
certificate holders, including flights like ferry flights that are
historically conducted under part 91. While these types of flights can
continue to operate under the general rules of part 91, the flight,
duty, and rest requirements proposed here would also apply.
    In addition, the FAA has tentatively decided against adopting
different requirements based on the nature of the operation. The FAA
has designed the flight, duty and rest scheme proposed today to enhance
flightcrew member alertness and mitigate fatigue. The agency's existing
regulatory scheme provides different rules for domestic operations,
flag operations, and supplemental operations. This hodgepodge of
requirements developed over time to address changing business
environments and advances in technology that allowed for longer periods
of flight. Thus, in domestic operations, flight time is essentially
calculated based on time at the controls, while in supplemental
operations, the regulations contemplate restrictions based on ``time
aloft'' since a flightcrew member may not be at the controls for the
entire flight; crew augmentation is prohibited in domestic operations;
and the regulations governing flag operations, where augmentation is
largely assumed, allow certificate holders to liberally increase the
amount of flight time based on the presence of additional flightcrew
members, regardless of whether those individuals can actually fly the
airplane.
    Fatigue factors, however, are universal. The sleep science, while
still evolving and subject to individual inclinations, is clear in a
few important respects: most people need eight hours of sleep to
function effectively, most people find it more difficult to sleep
during the day than during the night, resulting in greater fatigue if
working at night; the longer one has been awake and the longer one
spends on task, the greater the likelihood of fatigue; and fatigue
leads to an increased risk of making a mistake.
    The FAA recognizes there are different business models and needs
that are partly responsible for the differences in the current
regulations. It is sympathetic to concerns raised within the ARC by
cargo carriers and carriers engaged in supplemental operations that new
regulations will disproportionately impact their business models.
However, the FAA also notes that the historical distinction between the
types of operators has become blurred. Cargo carriers conduct the vast
majority of their operations at night, but passenger carriers also
offer ``red eyes'' on a daily basis. Some carriers operate under
domestic, flag or supplemental authority, depending on the nature of
the specific operation. Additionally, in some instances, the FAA has
authorized a carrier to conduct supplemental operations under the flag
rules.
    Today's proposal is designed to recognize the growing similarities
between the kinds of operations and the universality of factors that
lead to fatigue in most individuals. Thus, the proposal provides
different requirements based on the time of day, whether an individual
is acclimated to a new time zone, and the likelihood of being able to
sleep under different circumstances. If today's proposal is adopted,
the FAA expects that most part 121 operators will be required to make
changes to their existing operations, and some will need to make more
changes than others. However, the FAA also believes that the proposal
is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the vast majority of operations
conducted today without imposing unreasonable costs.

B. Joint Responsibility

    Fatigue mitigation is a joint responsibility of the certificate
holder and the flightcrew member. Today's proposal recognizes the need
to hold both certificate holders and pilots responsible for making sure
flightcrew members are working a reasonable number of hours, getting
sufficient sleep, and not reporting for flight duty in an unsafe
condition. Many of the ways that carriers and flightcrew members will
negotiate this joint responsibility will be handled in the context of
labor management relations. Others will not. Today's proposal is
drafted in a manner that directly imposes the regulatory obligations on
both the certificate holders and the flightcrew members. It is unfair
to place all the blame for fatigue on the carriers. Pilots who pick up
extra hours, moonlight, report to work when sick, commute
irresponsibly, or simply choose not to take advantage of the required
rest periods are as culpable as carriers who push the envelop by
scheduling right up to the maximum duty limits, assigning flightcrew
members who have reached their flight time limits additional flight
duties under part 91, and exceeding the maximum flight and duty limits
by claiming reasonably foreseeable circumstances are beyond their
control.
    One important element of this proposal is that flightcrew members
may not accept an assignment that would consist of an FDP if they are
too fatigued to fly safely. Likewise a flightcrew member may not
continue subsequent flight segments if he or she has become too
fatigued to fly safely. Certificate holders also must assess a
flightcrew member's state when he or she reports to work. If the
carrier determines a flightcrew member is showing signs of fatigue, it
may not allow the flightcrew member to fly. Flightcrew members should
be cognizant of the appearance and behavior of fellow flightcrew
members, including such signs of fatigue as slurred speech, droopy
eyes, requests to repeat things, and attention to the length of time
left in the duty period. If a flightcrew member (or any other employee)
believes another flightcrew member may be too tired to fly, he or she
would have to report his or her concern to the appropriate management
person, who would then be required to determine whether the individual
is sufficiently alert to fly safely.
    In addition, under today's proposal, carriers would need to develop
and implement an internal evaluation and audit program to monitor
whether

flightcrew members are reporting to work fatigued. The FAA anticipates
that the program would look at both the number of instances in which
this happens as well as the reasons contributing to the problem. The
FAA is aware of anecdotal reports of pilots flying when fatigued
because they are short on sick leave, as well as instances when pilots
have called in sick when the true problem was fatigue. As part of the
internal audit, a carrier may need to delve into the reasons flightcrew
members call in sick to make sure it is capturing accurately incidents
of pilot fatigue. It could choose to create a separate fatigue category
to mitigate the risk of pilots calling in sick when in fact they are
fatigued.
    A carrier would be required to take steps to correct any fatigue
problem that it identifies. For example, if the carrier became aware
that flightcrew members were commuting during their WOCL, the carrier
could require that all flightcrew members spend the night prior to
starting a series of FDPs within the local commuting area. The carrier
could also implement other measures to address problems associated not
only with commuting, but any behavior that could lead to flightcrew
members reporting for FDPs unfit for duty.
    Several ARC members urged that these requirements be encapsulated
in a non-punitive fatigue policy. While the FAA certainly supports such
policies, it also recognizes that requiring carriers to develop and
implement non-punitive fatigue policies is challenging from a
regulatory perspective. Carriers are entitled to investigate the causes
for an employee's fatigue. If a carrier determines that the flightcrew
member was responsible for becoming fatigued, it has every right to
take steps to address that behavior. To the extent the fatigue may be a
function of the carrier not following the regulatory requirements, the
FAA certainly would investigate and possibly initiate enforcement
action. In addition, self-reporting could be encapsulated in a
carrier's voluntary disclosure program under the FAA's Aviation Safety
Action Program (ASAP), which has certain non-punitive provisions built
into the program.

C. Fatigue Training

    The FAA believes fatigue-based training requirements are critical
to informing flightcrew members how their personal behavior can
unwittingly lead to fatigue, and how to mitigate the risk of fatigue in
an industry that does not follow a traditional 9-to-5 work day. Fatigue
training is not currently required under any regulatory regime. In the
presentation to the ARC by the sleep specialists, all specialists noted
that people regularly underestimate their level of fatigue, often to
dangerous levels. The ARC generally agreed that fatigue training was a
good idea, and several members noted that such training should extend
to all ``stakeholders'', e.g., employees of the certificate holder
responsible both for scheduling and for safety of flight, rather than
just flightcrew members.
    The FAA agrees that flightcrew members do not bear sole
responsibility for making sure they are adequately rested and that they
are not the only employees of the carrier who need to be trained on the
impact of fatigue on the safety of flight. The agency is proposing to
require fatigue training for each person involved with scheduling
aircraft and crews, all crewmembers and management personnel. The FAA
is proposing to require 5 hours of initial training for all newly-
hired, covered employees prior to starting work in that capacity and 2
hours of annual, recurrent training. This training would be approved
through the agency's Operations Specifications (OpSpec) process.
    The training curriculum would address general fatigue and fatigue
countermeasures along with the following subject areas:
     FAA regulatory requirements for flight, duty and rest, and
NTSB recommendations on fatigue management;
     The basics of fatigue, including sleep fundamentals and
circadian rhythms;
     The causes of fatigue, including medical conditions that
may lead to fatigue;
     The effect of fatigue on performance;
     Fatigue countermeasures, prevention and mitigation;
     The influence of lifestyle, including nutrition, exercise,
and family life, on fatigue;
     Familiarity with sleep disorders and their possible
treatments;
     The impact of commuting on fatigue;
     Flightcrew member responsibility for ensuring adequate
rest and fitness for duty; and
     The effect of operating through and within multiple time
zones.
    In addition, the FAA recognizes that the study of fatigue and
fatigue mitigation is on-going. Changes may need to be made to training
programs even after approval by the FAA. Accordingly, whenever the
Administrator finds that revisions are necessary for the continued
adequacy of an approved fatigue education and training program, the
certificate holder must, after notification, make any changes in the
program that are deemed necessary by the Administrator. The FAA
anticipates that such changes would be implemented through the agency's
OpSpecs as provided for in 14 CFR 119.51, providing carriers with an
opportunity to provide input and appeal rights.

D. Flight Duty Period

    There are numerous studies that generally address fatigue, as well
as models \17\ that have been developed. The models predict fatigue-
based performance degradation based on data input such as when a flight
begins, how long it lasts, whether there is a rest opportunity, and the
local time of day at departure and landing. Only one of these models
has been validated in the aviation context,\18\ although there is
general validation in the railroad and motor carrier industries. The
available validations are not directly applicable to aviation because
of the impact of relatively rapid movement within multiple time zones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Bio-mathematical modeling of fatigue and performance can
assist in providing objective metrics, which are conspicuously
lacking in fatigue science. The rationale for modeling is that
conditions that lead to fatigue are well known. A model simulates
specific conditions and determines if fatigue could be present.
Models can estimate degradations in performance and provide an
estimate of schedule-induced fatigue risk that considers many
dynamically changing and interacting fatigue factors.
    \18\ The SAFE model, developed by Mick Spencer of the United
Kingdom, has been validated in the aviation context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While there is ample science indicating that performance degrades
during windows of circadian low and that regular sleep is necessary to
sustain performance, there is no evidence that flying multiple segments
is more fatiguing than flying one or two segments per duty period.
However, multiple segments require more time on task because there are
more take-offs and landings, which are both the most task-intensive and
the most safety-critical stages of flight. Also, pilots appear to
generally agree that flying several legs during a single duty period
could be more fatiguing.
    One approach to addressing fatigue is to link the length of duty
directly related to flight to the time of day and the number of legs
that are scheduled to be flown. This approach recognizes the additional
fatigue introduced by night-time flying and by flying several legs,
with multiple take-offs and landings. As discussed earlier, the current
regulatory system in the United States provides variability based on
whether a given

operation is flown under domestic, flag or supplemental rules; but
within each category of operation there is little to no variability in
permissible flight time based on the particular operation.
    Other jurisdictions have largely eliminated the concept of a
uniform flight time in favor of a variable FDP that encompasses flight
time but also includes other duties directly related to flight. An FDP
is duty consisting of training required by the certificate holder's
approved flight training curriculum and qualification segment to be
conducted in a simulator, flight training device and aircraft
training,\19\ as well as pre-flight deadheads \20\ without an
intervening rest, and all duties from the time the flightcrew member is
required to report for duty to fly until the last movement of the
aircraft. An FDP begins when a crewmember is required to report for
duty that includes a flight, series of flights, or positioning flights
(including part 91 ferry flights) and ends when the aircraft is parked
after the last flight and there is no plan for further aircraft
movement by the same crewmember.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Training conducted in accordance with the certificate
holder's approved ground training program would be considered duty
outside of an FDP.
    \20\ Deadhead transportation means transportation of a
crewmember as a passenger, by air or surface transportation, as
required by a certificate holder, excluding transportation to or
from a suitable accommodation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the UK's CAP-371 an FDP is limited to no more than 13 hours
under a minimum crew pairing, but may be increased through augmentation
or split duty rest, and is reduced based on flying in the WOCL or
flying multiple legs. The minimum FDP is 9 hours, unless flying
multiple night-time operations, when FDP is reduced to 8 hours. A pilot
in command may extend the FDP up to 3 hours due to unforeseen
circumstances. Any duty immediately preceding flight check-in is also
considered FDP, as is simulator training conducted during the same duty
period if prior to flying, regardless of whether there is a break.
    Under EU-OPS subpart Q, the maximum FDP is 13 hours, reduced at 30-
minute increments per segment after the second segment down to a 2-hour
reduction. One-hour extensions are permitted, except when an FDP has
more than six segments, when no extension is permitted. There is a more
complicated formula that applies when encroaching on the WOCL. There
are no more than two extensions during any 7-day period. Schedule
robustness is addressed by requiring that actual operations not exceed
FDP more than 33 percent of the time (i.e., actual flights are within
the FDP limits at least 67 percent of a scheduling season). A 2-hour
extension is permitted at the discretion of the entire crew for
unforeseen circumstances.
    The pending EASA proposal on flight duty and rest would adopt the
same FDP concept as CAP-371 and EU-OPS subpart Q. Like those standards,
the maximum FDP is 13 hours unless a mitigation strategy such as
augmentation is adopted, and the FDP is reduced based on time of day
and number of legs flown. Unlike the CAP-371, and similar to EU-OPS
subpart Q, the EASA proposal contemplates that schedules that do not
regularly meet the maximum-allowable FDP will be changed. The CAP-371
merely requires a pilot in command to report when the FDP is exceeded.
    The ARC members generally agreed with the approach adopted in CAP-
371 and by EASA, although they could not agree on how conservative
maximum FDPs should be. Tables A(1) and A(2) depict the two ranges of
FDP discussed by the ARC, with Table A(1) generally representing the
labor position, and A(2) generally representing the carriers' position.
Both tables reduce the amount of FDP during the nighttime hours to
address flying during one's WOCL, and both reduce the amount of FDP
once a flightcrew member has flown more than four legs. Flightcrew
members would enter the table based on the time at their home base
(i.e., the city where they regularly fly from) unless they have
acclimated to a different time zone, at which point they would enter
the table based on local time. In addition, the FDP would be reduced by
30 minutes for unacclimated flightcrew members. Extensions no greater
than 2 hours (possibly as many as 3 hours internationally or for
augmented flights) beyond a scheduled FDP would be allowed for
circumstances beyond a carrier's control. The decision to extend would
rest on both the carrier and the pilot in command, although specific
coordination might not be required in every instance. In addition,
there would be limits on the number of times a crew pairing could be
extended in any 168-hour period, with discussion of whether that limit
should be once or twice, but general agreement that it should not be
allowed on consecutive days. A flightcrew member could not continue an
FDP beyond the extension except under emergency circumstances.

                             Table A(1)--Flight Duty Period: Un-Augmented Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Maximum flight duty period (hours)  for lineholders based on number of flight
Time of start  (Home base or                                       segments
         acclimated)         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1           2           3           4           5           6          7+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000-0359...................          9           9           9           9           9           9           9
0400-0459...................         10          10           9           9           9           9           9
0500-0559...................         11          11          11          11          10         9.5           9
0600-0659...................         12          12          12          12        11.5          11        10.5
0700-1259...................         13          13          13          13        12.5          12          11
1300-1659...................         12          12          12          12        11.5          11        10.5
1700-2159...................         11          11          10          10         9.5           9           9
2200-2259...................       10.5        10.5         9.5         9.5           9           9           9
2300-2359...................        9.5         9.5           9           9           9           9           9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Table A(2)--Flight Duty Period: Un-Augmented Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Maximum flight duty period (hours)  for lineholders based on number of flight
                                                                   segments
 Time of start  (Home base)  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1           2           3           4           5           6          7+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000-0159...................          9           9           9           9           9           9           9
0200-0459...................         10          10          10          10           9           9           9
0500-0659...................         12          12          12          12        11.5          11        10.5
0700-1259...................         13          13          13          13        12.5          12        11.5
1300-1659...................         12          12          12          12        11.5          11        10.5
1700-2159...................         11          11          11          11           9           9           9
2200-2259...................       10.5        10.5        10.5        10.5           9           9           9
2300-2359...................        9.5         9.5         9.5         9.5           9           9           9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to assure that the extensions are not abused and that
carriers are creating schedules contemplating circumstances that may be
beyond their control, but that are reasonably foreseeable (e.g.,
seasonal weather trends, planned runway construction, chronically-
delayed airports or markets), a carrier would provide the FAA with
scheduled FDPs for all its crew pairings and the actual FDPs, including
any extensions, on a regular basis. Some argued this cycle should be as
little as once a month, while others argued a quarterly reporting cycle
was sufficient. Should the carriers' actual FDPs fail to meet the
scheduled FDP too many times during the reporting cycle, they would be
required to change the scheduled FDPs to more realistic levels. The ARC
agreed that 95 percent of a carrier's schedules would need to fall
within the maximum FDP depicted in Table A(1) or A(2). In order to
identify specific crew pairings that were problematic, each crew
pairing would need to fall within the limits in the tables for a lesser
percentage of the time, somewhere between 70 percent and 85 percent.
    The FAA has decided to propose the more conservative FDPs depicted
in Table A(1), with a 2-hour extension for unforeseeable circumstances
beyond the carrier's control permitted once in a 168-hour period.\21\
Since the entire flightcrew is impacted by the extension, only one
flightcrew member needs to have utilized the extension in the previous
168 hours for it to no longer be available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ A 3-hour extension would be allowed for augmented
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the extension is less than 30 minutes, the FAA anticipates
permitting multiple extensions during the 168-hour period. The FAA has
tentatively determined that short incursions into the permissible
extension are unlikely to be fatiguing given the other requirements of
today's proposal and that limiting a flightcrew member to a single
weekly extension that could be as small as five or ten minutes is
unreasonable. However, the extensions are intended to address
unforeseeable circumstances beyond the carrier's control. Such
circumstances should be of sufficiently short duration that the carrier
could not reasonably make schedule adjustments. Thus, while the FAA
contemplates that adverse weather could fit within the criteria because
it is beyond the control of the certificate holder, it would not always
be considered unforeseeable. Carriers should anticipate thunderstorms
in many parts of the United States during the summer months. Likewise,
heavy snow in the northern parts of the country should be anticipated
during the winter, and the jet stream follows basic seasonal patterns.
By the same token, carriers are not responsible for air traffic delays;
however, if they are operating out of chronically delayed airports, air
traffic delays are clearly foreseeable. To the extent even small
extensions are regularly occurring, the schedule reliability
requirements discussed by the ARC should require schedule adjustments,
even when encroachments beyond the times in the FDP table are very
small.
    The FAA recognizes that adopting the numbers in Table A(1) is a
conservative approach. The FAA has decided to propose the more
conservative numbers because it has little experience with this type of
regulatory regime. However, the numbers contemplated under both tables
are very similar, and the FAA is open to arguments that a more
expansive FDP is merited. The agency also recognizes that upon
completion of an FDP, a flightcrew member could be assigned other
duties as long as he or she is provided with a required rest
opportunity prior to commencing his or her next FDP. The underlying
premise of today's proposal is to ensure flightcrew members are
adequately rested during the time they are responsible for the
operation of aircraft. To the extent other duties are not directly
related to the safe operation of flight, the FAA believes there is no
need to reduce the current implied daily duty limit of 16 hours in un-
augmented operations, as long as those duties do not introduce the
potential for fatigue during flight.
    The reduction in maximum FDP during nighttime hours is broadly
supported by existing sleep science. Although not addressed by sleep
studies, the FAA has also tentatively decided to reduce the amount of
available FDP depending on the number of legs flown (flight segments)
because of a general agreement among the ARC members and FAA staff
previously employed as pilots by commercial air carriers that multiple
take-offs and landings are more fatiguing. Much of the available
science is based on laboratory studies, with exceptionally limited
validation in the aviation context; accordingly, the FAA has
tentatively decided to rely on the experience of these individuals
rather than assuming no adverse impact on safety. The FAA is not
proposing to make any adjustments for the first four flight segments
based on this same experience. The linear reduction contemplated in the
EASA regulations (which is used for multiple purposes) appears to have
more to do with regulatory simplicity than with any actual experience
or science.
    As recommended by the ARC, a flightcrew member would enter the FDP
table based on home base time, unless acclimated to a different time
zone. Thus, if a flightcrew member ordinarily flies out of Chicago, the
flightcrew member would enter an FDP as though he or she were in
Chicago, regardless of where he or she is physically located.\22\

A 10 a.m. crew pairing out of Heathrow would be treated as if it
commenced at 4 a.m., because of the 6-hour time difference between
Chicago and London. If the operation requires the flightcrew member to
cross more than four time zones, he or she would be considered
unacclimated, and there would be a 30-minute reduction in the maximum
FDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Some carriers have moved to virtual home bases, or have no
home base. This is most common among supplemental operators. In
those instances, the proposal contemplates that the carrier would
name a home base somewhere within the continental United States, and
that home base would be considered the flightcrew member's home
base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has also decided to propose the reporting requirements
discussed by the ARC to assure realistic scheduling. The agency has
tentatively decided that reports be filed with the FAA every two
months. The ARC discussed a range of one to three months. The FAA
believes a monthly reporting requirement could be excessively
burdensome to both the certificate holders and the FAA. By the same
token, if the reporting interval is too long, carriers may avoid
addressing common delay scenarios, simply waiting them out.
    Under today's proposal, carriers must first demonstrate that 100
percent of the scheduled crew pairings fall within the limits in the
FDP table. Actual system-wide FDPs should not exceed the maximum levels
in the FDP table more than five percent of the time. Each crew pairing
would need to fall within the FDP table 80 percent of the time. The
agency believes a 20 percent variation for a specific crew pairing
provides carriers with sufficient flexibility to address multiple yet
small excursions beyond the FDP table, while still forcing the carriers
to recognize when a particular crew pairing is problematic. Because no
flightcrew member may exceed the limits in the FDP table beyond 30
minutes more than once in any 168-hour period, the FAA does not believe
a 20 percent variation will result in any immediate adverse safety
situation.
    Should any of the three proposed reporting requirements be
exceeded, a carrier would be required to readjust the problematic crew
pairings to more realistic schedules. These adjustments, which could be
seasonal in nature, would be on-going and would apply to subsequent
years. To the extent a carrier could immediately implement measures to
improve schedule fidelity, it should do so. However, the ability of
carriers to immediately address the scheduling issue is difficult to
evaluate without understanding the impact of published schedules on
resolving the problem. The FAA has notionally proposed that changes be
made within 60 days, but it is interested in better understanding the
impact of such a requirement on carriers' schedules.
    Below, and throughout this document, we invite commenters to
address specific questions, along with any other matters they consider
relevant. We are particularly interested in receiving recommendations
that would provide the same or better protection against the problems
of fatigue at lower cost. We may incorporate any such recommendation in
a Final Rule in this proceeding.
    With that in mind, the FAA seeks comment on the following:
    (1) Please comment on adopting maximum FDPs. Should the maximum FDP
vary based on time of day? Should it vary based on the number of
scheduled flight segments? Should the proposed limits be modified up or
down, and to what degree? Please provide supporting data.
    (2) Please comment on permitting flightcrew members and carriers to
operate beyond a scheduled FDP. Is the proposed 2-hour extension
appropriate? Is the restriction on a single occurrence beyond 30
minutes in a 168-hour period appropriate? Should a flightcrew member be
restricted to a single occurrence regardless of the length of the
extension? Please provide supporting data.
    (3) Please comment on the proposed schedule reliability reporting
requirements. Should carriers be required to report on crew pairings
that exceed the scheduled FDP, but not the maximum FDP listed in the
FDP table?
    (4) Should carriers be required to report on more parameters, such
as cumulative duty hours or daily flight time? If so, why?
    (5) What should be the interval between reporting requirements?
    (6) How long after discovering a problematic crew pairing should
the carrier be afforded to correct the scheduling problem?

E. Acclimating to a New Time Zone

    Unlike other forms of transportation, where an individual moves
gradually through multiple time zones over the course of the day, the
nature of aviation allows an individual to traverse several time zones
over a relatively short period of time. This phenomenon exposes
flightcrew members to a greater sense of disorientation or jet lag than
employees in other forms of transportation. For trips with short turn
around times, a flightcrew member likely would not acclimate, and would
simply enter the FDP table based on his or her home base time. However,
flightcrew members remaining in a new theater for longer periods of
time may need to acclimate to the new theater.
    During the question and answer session with ARC members, the sleep
specialists explained how an individual acclimates to time zones when
flying long range operations. They stated that having sleep
opportunities during a physiological night is the most important
fatigue mitigation strategy for global travel. They also noted that an
individual attempting to acclimate to a new time zone will adjust his
or her clock approximately 1 hour per day for each hour of time zone
difference. The ARC members noted that based on their collective
personal experience, one could acclimate much more quickly if one
managed his or her sleep opportunity appropriately. The sleep
specialists also noted that even if an individual consciously decided
not to acclimate to a new time zone, given enough time, the individual
would begin to acclimate anyway because of the differences in exposure
to daylight.
    The ARC discussed various approaches to determine whether a
flightcrew member is acclimated before accepting an assignment for an
FDP. The ARC originally defined the un-acclimated condition as flying
across five or more time zones.\23\ Moving beyond these constraints
would qualify as moving into a new theater of operations. The ARC
members agreed that the continental United States should constitute a
single theater so that a flightcrew member would always be acclimated
when flying domestically. The ARC concluded that to reset from an un-
acclimated condition to an acclimated condition a flightcrew member
would require either three consecutive physiological night's rest,\24\
during which period the flightcrew member could fly, or a 30 to 36 hour
layover rest period. Some ARC members noted that a flightcrew member
could be on duty during the period encompassing 3 local nights, but not
during local nighttime hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In some areas of the world, time zones change in one half
hour increments rather than one hour increments. Accordingly, one
would have to experience a time change of at least four hours as
well as five time zones.
    \24\ Physiological night's rest means the rest occurs between
the hours of 0100 and 0700 local time. This definition assures an
opportunity to sleep during the WOCL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted previously, sleep science has not been validated in the
aviation context. The members of the ARC universally rejected the
premise that it would take between six and 9 days to acclimate to a
European time zone. The FAA is inclined to agree with the ARC members'
experience, especially given the limited scientific information
specific to aviation. The FAA also recognizes that assuring that length
of time to acclimate to a new theater is impractical in the aviation
context.

    The FAA proposes to permit a carrier to adjust where the flightcrew
member enters the FDP as an acclimated crew member if the individual
has been in a new theater of operations for 72 hours or has been given
at least 36 consecutive hours free from duty. Remaining in the same
theater for 72 hours allows for three physiological night's rest. A 36
consecutive hour break in duty does not allow for the same amount of
rest, but allows the individual to structure the available rest
opportunity in a manner that best suits his or her personal sleep
patterns. The FAA is not proposing to stipulate that an unacclimated
flightcrew member will only become acclimated when continuing to fly
within a new theater as long as that flightcrew member does not fly at
night. This strikes the agency as an unnecessary constraint.
    While the continental United States is considered a single theater,
operations from one part of the United States could trigger the need to
acclimate sooner than operations from another part of the United
States. Thus, a flight from New York to Hawaii could trigger a need to
acclimate in Hawaii, while a flight from Los Angeles to Hawaii would
not.
    The ARC discussed the amount of rest needed for flightcrew members
returning to their home base after becoming acclimated in another
theater. The ARC members noted that the flightcrew member is not truly
acclimated to the new theater but also is no longer acclimated to his
or her home base. Ultimately, the ARC members agreed that a flightcrew
member must always find at least 30 to 36 continuous hours free of duty
in any 168 consecutive hours and that once a flightcrew member is given
this rest, the flightcrew member is considered acclimated to local
time. Based on this discussion, the FAA has decided against imposing
any unique restrictions on a flightcrew member simply because he or she
has returned to his or her home base. Acclimation to a home base is
treated the same as any other acclimation to a new theater.
    However, the FAA is proposing to require a greater rest opportunity
when a flightcrew member has been away from his or her home base for
more than 168 hours. In this instance, the FAA proposes to require a
rest period that includes 3 physiological nights, rather than 36 hours
free from duty or permitting the flightcrew member to fly during that
approximately 72-hour period. This decision is based on the ARC
members' consideration of the amount of rest being dependent on how
long the flightcrew member was away from home base. The ARC reviewed
the current regulation, which requires a flightcrew member who exceeds
12 flight hours to receive twice the amount of rest upon return to home
base.
    The ARC members also discussed the impact of multiple consecutive
round-trip flights where flightcrew members would fly consecutive
flights to an international destination, lay over for a day, and then
return to the home base (e.g., Houston, Texas, to Paris, France, and
return to Houston).\25\ These types of pairings are common, with a
flightcrew member potentially flying three roundtrips in a week. The
concern was that these types of flights will typically have layovers
from 20 to 28 hours. The length of the layovers is primarily based on
scheduling concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ These pairings do not always involve a return to a home
base, but could be a return to another city within the time zone for
or adjacent to the flightcrew member's home base. They can also
occur when the flightcrew member has adjusted to a new theater and
an airport within that theater effectively becomes the home base.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The length of the layover does not initially appear problematic,
particularly in light of the current regulations which only require one
24-hour break in duty in a 7-day period. However, when the flights are
particularly long, a layover of approximately 24 hours becomes a
problem because the flightcrew member is constantly flipping his or her
internal clock. When one runs the scenario through the SAFTE/FAST model
with a three-person augmented crew, the flightcrew member reaches high
fatigue limits during the second round-trip flight and is dangerously
fatigued during the third round-trip flight. However, when the flights
are not particularly long flights, flightcrew members appear to have no
problem flying three roundtrip flights, even with the 24-hour layovers.
    The ARC developed a draft regulatory proposal to address operations
so long that they almost trigger a fourth flightcrew member. Under that
proposal, if the flight assignment is for a three pilot flight crew and
the layover is between 20 and 28 consecutive hours and the two FDPs,
separated by the layover rest, are greater than 22 to 24 hours, then
the flight crew requires two physiological night's rest or one
physiological night's rest with an 8-hour restriction on the next FDP.
    Upon reflection, the FAA has decided that the ARC proposal is
unduly complicated and only addresses a small number of potential
operations. The agency has decided against proposing it. However, as
part of the required training program proposed today, carriers should
be educated on the risks associated with flipping a flightcrew member's
internal clock, particularly when conducting operations that are on the
cusp of requiring an additional flightcrew member.
    The FAA requests comments on the following:
    (7) Is a 3-day adjustment to a new theater of operations sufficient
for an individual to acclimate to the new theater?
    (8) Is a 36-hour break from duty sufficient for an individual to
acclimate to a new theater?
    (9) Should flightcrew members be given a longer rest period when
returning to home base than would otherwise be provided based on moving
to a new theater?
    (10) Should the FAA have different requirements for flightcrew
members who have been away from their home base for more than 168
hours? If so, why?
    (11) Should the FAA require additional rest opportunities for
multiple pairings between two time zones that have approximately 24-
hour layovers at each destination? What if the scheduled FDPs are well
within the maxima in the applicable FDP table or augmentation table?

F. Daily Flight Time Restrictions

    Initial ARC discussion of FDPs assumed that, as is the case in CAP-
371 and the EASA regulations, there would be no daily limit on flight
time. Instead flight time would effectively be limited to approximately
2 hours less than the FDP because FDP assumes a flightcrew member will
report for duty an hour and a half before flying and will spend
approximately 30 minutes after completing all flying for the day
completing paperwork. In that context, the maximum amount of time
flying during the middle of the day could increase from the current 8
hours to as much as 11 hours, almost a 50 percent increase. The ARC
noted that the FAA may decide that daily limits on flight time are
still needed and proposed a variable flight time based on the hour of
the day. Tables B(1) and B(2) represent potentially acceptable flight
time limitations within FDPs. Table B(1) generally represents the
position of the carriers, while Table B(2) generally represents the
position of labor.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Some carriers argued that no limit should be placed on
flight time and some labor representatives argued that the maximum
limit should be variable, but should never exceed eight hours.

                 Table B(1)--Maximum Flight Time Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum flight
              Time of start (home base)                   time (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000-0159............................................                7
0200-0459............................................                8
0500-0659............................................               10
0700-1259............................................               11
1300-1659............................................               10
1700-2159............................................                9
2200-2259............................................                8.5
2300-2359............................................                7.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Table B(2)--Maximum Flight Time Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Maximum flight
               Time of start (home base)                  time (hours)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000-0459.............................................                 7
0500-0659.............................................                 8
0700-1259.............................................                 9
1300-1959.............................................                 8
2000-2359.............................................                 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the CAA presented an alternate regulatory approach,
whereby flight time limits for all-cargo operations would be more
expansive and would differ dependent on whether the particular
operation was a domestic operation or an international operation. The
numbers proposed by the CAA are presented in Tables B(3) and B(4).

       Table B(3)--Maximum Flight Time Limits, Domestic All-Cargo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Maximum flight  Maximum flight
        Time of start (home base)         time (hours) 1-  time (hours)
                                             4 sectors      5+ sectors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000-0459...............................               8               7
0500-1459...............................              11               9
1500-1659...............................              10               8
1700-2359...............................               8               7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table B(4)--Maximum Flight Time Limits, International All-Cargo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Maximum flight
                                          Maximum flight  time (2 pilot,
                                          time (2 pilot)    1 engineer)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight time includes WOCL...............               8              12
Flight time does not include WOCL.......              10              12
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has decided to propose a variation of the more conservative
maximum daily flight time limits for unaugmented operations in Table
B(2). The agency proposes to extend the number of hours reflected in
Table B(2) by one hour. This approach melds the different approaches in
Tables B(1) and B(2), allowing for slightly higher flight time limits
during early morning and daytime hours than are currently allowed, but
not permitting extensions that, at some hours, come close to a 50
percent increase over the current limits. Because current unaugmented
operations are limited to 8 hours, the FAA's ability to evaluate the
impact of significantly longer flight time limits on aviation safety is
limited. Accordingly, the FAA believes it is appropriate to propose
overall limits that are more conservative than those depicted in Tables
B(1), B(3) and B(4).
    The FAA recognizes that it has allowed up to 12 hours of flight
time in circumstances that it has considered augmented operations, even
though the third flightcrew member is not able to fly the plane. This
has occurred in supplemental and flag operations when the flightcrew
consists of two pilots and a flight engineer, and was more common when
the fleet of aircraft requiring flight engineers was larger.
Accordingly, this data set is much smaller than the set based on the 8-
hour domestic limitation. Nevertheless, based on the safety history of
these operations, it may be possible to demonstrate that longer flight
time limits will not adversely affect safety, particularly during
daytime hours when the flightcrew had an opportunity to sleep through
their WOCL the previous night.
    The FAA also recognizes that daily flight time limits will have the
greatest impact on crew pairings that consist of a single leg. This is
because when flying multiple segments, more of the FDP will be spent on
layovers. Thus, for a single segment pairing, almost all of the FDP
will consist of flight time, while for a pairing with three or four
legs, much of the FDP will not consist of flight time. As a carrier
adds legs, the FDP becomes more of a constraint than the flight time
limit.
    The FAA has decided against proposing special rules for all-cargo
operations because there are no physiological differences between
pilots who fly cargo planes and pilots who fly passenger planes. As
noted before, the FAA believes the distinctions between domestic and
international operations are largely irrelevant. To the extent they are
truly distinct (generally due to the length of the trip), those
differences are better addressed through augmentation rather than
simply by extending the allowable flight time. Augmentation is
discussed in greater detail in the next section.
    The FAA seeks comment on the following:
    (12) If the FAA adopts variable FDP limits, is there a continued
need for daily flight time limits?
    (13) If the FAA retains daily flight time limits, should they be
higher or lower than proposed? Please provide data supporting the
answer.
    (14) Should modifications be made to the proposed flight time
limits to recognize the relationship between realistic flight time
limits and the number of flight segments in an FDP?

G. Mitigation Strategies

1. Augmentation
    Even with the variable FDP and flight time, there will continue to
be a need to augment crews for longer flights. Ideally, augmentation
should follow the same approach as FDP, i.e., circadian rhythms,
acclimation to time changes, and multiple flight segments should be
considered in determining how much augmentation is required. Further
consideration should be given to the quality of the available rest
facility.
    Essentially, the current regulations require augmentation beyond 8
hours of scheduled flight time. Under the FAA's flag and supplemental
rules, augmentation permits the following increases in flight time
above the 8-hour limitation contemplated under the agency's domestic
rules: \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Because the domestic rules do not allow for any extension
of flight time, augmentation is not used domestically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If there are three flightcrew members (one of whom may be
an engineer), maximum flight time is extended to 12 hours. There is no
requirement for a rest facility.
     If there are four pilots (or three pilots and two flight
engineers), maximum flight time is extended to 16

hours. There must be an FAA-approved rest facility on board the
aircraft (generally a bunk).
     There are no hard constraints on flight time that exceeds
16 hours. Instead, the FAA has addressed the carriers' fatigue
mitigation practices on a case-by-case basis.
    The FAA believes that its current approach to augmentation fails to
consider several pertinent factors. It fails to adequately consider the
qualifications of all of the flightcrew members, giving credit for
individuals who are not qualified to operate the controls; it fails to
consider the varying quality of sleep facilities below a 12-hour flight
time limit; it fails to recognize that, provided an opportunity for
sleep is provided, some domestic operations could benefit from
augmentation; and, as is the case generally with the agency's flight
and duty regulations, it fails to consider the impact of circadian
rhythms.
    The FAA proposes to amend the existing regulations by varying the
levels of augmentation credit depending on the quality of the rest
facility, except that no credit would be given for rest in coach seats.
The level of extensions would also vary based on when the flight takes
place to account for circadian rhythms and whether the flight crew is
acclimated. Domestic augmentation would be permitted if a sufficient
rest opportunity is provided. Finally, all flightcrew members would
have to be type-rated as a second-in-command (SIC) or pilot-in-command
(PIC) and throughout the flight at least one crewmember on the
flightdeck would have to be type-rated as a PIC. The FAA would also
continue to permit extensions in flight time based on the number of
flightcrew members, with greater credit given for four-man flightcrews
than for three-man crews.
    The FAA believes this approach will provide carriers with a
significant amount of flexibility. Should the carrier decide not to
invest in superior rest facilities, it could opt to provide a lesser
quality rest facility and add additional, qualified flightcrew members
to extend the augmentation period.
    The FAA's proposal is largely based on the general recommendation
of the ARC. In reaching its conclusions, the ARC members reviewed the
scientific material regarding augmentation that was presented during
its meetings. Following are key points made by the sleep specialists
during their presentations.
     In-flight naps with augmented flightcrews are dramatically
helpful in mitigating sleep debt.
     When extending the FDP with an augmented flightcrew,
augmented flightcrew members are presented with an opportunity for in-
flight sleep, however the flightcrew members must take advantage of
this sleep opportunity because augmentation is of no value if the
entire flightcrew is awake.
     The value of augmented flightcrew operations depends on
the available sleep facility, with a quiet, flat bunk being the most
desirable.
     In-flight sleep has restorative value, and the flatter one
is able to lie, the more beneficial the sleep.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Sitting up increases blood flow to the brain and causes
emission of norephrenephrine, which is stimulative instead of
relaxing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To divide in-flight duty and rest among the flightcrew
appropriately, route guides for positioning of sleep should be
developed for augmented flightcrews (i.e., not all crewmembers need to
be provided for equal sleep opportunities; rather pilots responsible
for more complicated duties such as take-offs and landings may need
more of a sleep opportunity, and may need that opportunity at a more
ideal time in the flight).
    In establishing the maximum scheduled FDP limitations for an
augmented flightcrew, the ARC discussed the relative merits and safety
of operations conducted with augmented flightcrews receiving in-flight
rest, as compared to conventionally scheduled operations. The ARC noted
that the type of rest facility needs to be addressed in the proposed
rule and in advisory material.
    The most comprehensive evaluation of available sleep facilities was
conducted by the Dutch government in 2007 to provide science-based
advice on the maximum permissible extension of the FDP related to the
quality of the available onboard rest facility and the augmentation of
the flightcrew with one or two pilots. Extension of Flying Duty Period
by In-flight Relief (July 29, 2007) (TNO Report). The TNO report
benchmarked existing research in arriving at its recommended values.
The TNO report evaluated the quality of existing sleep facilities to
determine how much sleep a flightcrew member could reasonably expect to
get. The evaluation ranged from coach seats (a class IV rest facility)
to bunks that were isolated from the rest of the crew and passengers (a
class I rest facility). Based on the quality of the facility, the TNO
Report assigned different values that would allow for an extension of
the FDP. Based on its research, TNO decided against giving any credit
for class IV rest facilities.
    The ARC noted that both the TNO Report and CAP-371, to varying
degrees, assign value to in-flight rest opportunities that depend on
the quality of the rest facility available on the aircraft. The ARC
determined that there are approximately 20 different combinations of
facilities among various certificate holders. The ARC members developed
a rating system dependent on the ability to lie in a horizontal, flat
position; control the amount of light and noise; and rest in a
temperature-controlled environment; as well as the flightcrew member's
time off task. Depending on the amount of points assigned to these
areas, the amount of credit for receiving rest in a type of seat could
be calculated. The ARC members suggested a Type I, II, and III scheme,
resulting in the following classes of sleep facilities:
     Class 1 rest facility: A bunk or other surface that allows
for a flat sleeping position, is separated from both the flight deck
and passenger cabin to provide isolation from noise and disturbance and
provides controls for light and temperature.
     Class 2 rest facility: A seat in an aircraft cabin that
allows for a flat or near flat sleeping position (around 80 degrees
from the seat's vertical centerline),\29\ is separated from passengers
by a minimum of a curtain to provide darkness and some sound
mitigation, and is reasonably free from disturbance by passengers and/
or flightcrew members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ This constraint would likely keep the rest facility out of
the coach or economy section of the aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Class 3 rest facility: A seat in an aircraft cabin or
flight deck that reclines at least 40 degrees, provides leg and foot
support, and is not located in the coach or economy section of a
passenger aircraft.
    Accordingly, the ARC revised the sleep credit for the class rest
facility to more closely align the percentages with the TNO Report
recommendations as follows:
     Class 1: 75 percent.
     Class 2: 56 percent.
     Class 3: 25 percent.
     No credit for coach seats.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ CAA would give partial credit for coach seats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ARC determined that augmentation should be required when either
the maximum scheduled FDP or flight time hour limit depicted in Tables
A and B of this document is insufficient for the planned operation. The
ARC considered that longer flights crossing multiple time zones or
overnight flights could be better indicators of the need to augment
than flight times. For example,

an 8-hour, 45-minute flight during the day could be safely operated by
an un-augmented flightcrew, but a 7-hour, 30-minute overnight flight
should perhaps be augmented. One ARC member proposed that any planned
pairing with greater than 6.5 block hours where the FDP infringes on
the normal sleep cycle require augmentation.
    The ARC developed Table C, which combines the limits from the first
(single flight segment) column of the proposed FDP table (Table A) with
principles from the TNO Report.

                                              Table C--Flight Duty Period: Acclimated Augmented Flightcrew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum flight duty period (hours and minutes) based on rest facility and number of pilots
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Time of start  (home base)                      Class 1 rest facility           Class 2 rest facility           Class 3 rest facility
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             3 pilots        4 pilots        3 pilots        4 pilots        3 pilots        4 pilots
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000-0559...............................................           13:50           16:05           12:55           14:20           11:45           12:15
0600-0659...............................................           15:10           17:40           14:10           15:40           12:55           13:25
0700-1259...............................................           16:30           19:20           15:25           17:05              14           14:30
1300-1659...............................................           15:10           17:40           14:10           15:40           12:50           13:20
1700-2359...............................................           13:50           16:05           12:55           14:20           11:45           12:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ARC discussed placing an absolute cap of 16 or 18 hours (for a
three- or four-man flightcrew, respectively) on the FDP, even though
the TNO Report scheme results in a higher FDP. The ARC determined that
higher FDPs could be achieved only by use of an FRMS. Under such a
constraint, only augmented operations commencing between the hours of 7
a.m. and 1 p.m. would be constrained beyond Table C, and then only when
the highest quality rest facility is provided. The ARC stated that its
prescriptive approach could apply to most operations, but certificate
holders engaged in ultra-long range operations could use an FRMS to
develop an alternate means of fatigue mitigation tailored to their
specific operations. The ARC members noted that some types of
operations, such as air cargo operations, which operate under different
demands and circumstances, might approach augmentation and fatigue
differently than other types of operations.
    The maximum scheduled FDP limitations for augmented flightcrew
member operations with an unacclimated flightcrew are set forth in
Table D.

                                             Table D--Flight Duty Period: Unacclimated Augmented Flightcrew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Maximum flight duty period (hours and minutes) based on rest facility and number of pilots
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Time of start  (home base)                      Class 1 rest facility           Class 2 rest facility           Class 3 rest facility
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              3 pilot         4 pilot         3 pilot         4 pilot         3 pilot         4 pilot
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0000-0559...............................................           13:15           15:20           12:20           13:35           11:15           11:45
0600-0659...............................................           14:30              17           13:35              15           12:15           12:50
0700-1259...............................................           15:50           18:30           14:50           16:25           13:30              14
1300-1659...............................................           14:30              17           13:35              15           12:20           12:45
1700-2359...............................................           13:15           15:20           12:20           13:35           11:15           11:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The ARC calculated the maximum scheduled FDPs in Table D for
augmented flightcrew members who are not acclimated based on the same
methodology provided for acclimated flightcrew members in Table C
above. However, for unacclimated flightcrew members there is a roughly
30-minute reduction in the planned maximum FDP for augmentation
calculation. The absolute cap of 16 and 18 hours would correspondingly
be reduced to 15.5 and 17.5 hours, respectively.
    The FAA has decided to propose the augmentation levels proposed by
the ARC in Table C, except that the numbers have been rounded up or
down to the closest half hour for regulatory efficiency. As suggested
by the ARC, acclimated operations are capped at 16 hours if only a
three-man crew is available and 18 hours if a four-man crew is
available. In addition, the FAA is not proposing to implement Table D
into the regulatory text because it is essentially a thirty minute
reduction from Table C. Rather, the regulatory text specifies that the
numbers in Table C are reduced by 30 minutes if a crew is not
acclimated. This approach is consistent with the one proposed for un-
augmented operations.
    The ARC noted that augmentation should be used strictly for long
flights and not to extend the FDP for multiple short flight segments.
The ARC discussed whether more than two flight segments should be
permitted in augmented flight operations and, if so, should an FRMS be
required to do so. Some members of the ARC cautioned that augmentation
should not be permitted to facilitate unnecessary additional flight
segments or eliminate crew swaps. These individuals argued that
augmentation was initially permitted to address those flights that
could not reasonably be conducted within the existing rules at that
time because the distances involved prevented long layovers or crew
swaps. This issue was particularly relevant to the discussion of
whether augmentation should be used for domestic operations. The
primary concern related to multi-segment augmented flights was the
available sleep opportunity for flightcrew members. Everyone
acknowledged that flightcrew members are not going to sleep during
take-off and landing. Accordingly, flight segments need to be
sufficiently long to permit the flightcrew members to actually sleep.
The ARC agreed that a flightcrew member assigned to a multi-segment
trip needs a specific amount of available time to rest to fly the
multiple segments.

    The FAA agrees that short flight segments will not permit a
flightcrew member to sleep. Thus, too many flight segments, even within
an extended FDP, would not allow a meaningful sleep opportunity for the
flightcrew. The FAA is proposing that a certificate holder not schedule
an augmented crew pairing with more than three segments (including FDPs
that include required technical stops such as stopping for fuel or to
clear customs). In addition, two consecutive hours must be available
for in-flight rest for the flightcrew member manipulating the controls
during landing; a 90-minute consecutive period must be available for
in-flight rest for each flightcrew member; and the last flight segment
must provide a two consecutive hour rest period. The proposed
requirement for the 2-hour rest opportunity on the last flight segment
is designed to address a common recognition among the ARC members that,
even on a flight with only two segments, the last segment is often of
such duration that there is no realistic rest opportunity, even though
this is when the crew is likely to be the most fatigued.
    The ARC discussed the qualifications of the relief flightcrew
member used in augmented operations. Some ARC members emphasized that
there must be one type-rated flightcrew member on the flight deck at
all times. One ARC member noted that current regulations require only
one type-rated flightcrew member on the aircraft. Another ARC member
stated that under no circumstances should a flight engineer serve as a
relief flightcrew member. The ARC proposed that at least one flightcrew
member type-rated in the aircraft be on the flight deck at all times.
The ARC largely deferred to the FAA in deciding whether to allow
augmentation based on the presence of a flight engineer.
    As mentioned earlier in this section, the FAA does not believe a
flight engineer may serve as a relief flightcrew member unless he or
she is qualified as a PIC or SIC and type rated. The purpose of a
relief flightcrew member is to have someone available to help fly the
airplane when another flightcrew member is at rest. In order for him or
her to do this, the relief flightcrew member must know how to actually
operate the aircraft.
    The FAA seeks comment on the following:
    (15) Should augmentation be allowed for FDPs that consist of more
than three flight segments? Does it matter if each segment provides an
opportunity for some rest?
    (16) Should flight time be limited to 16 hours maximum within an
FDP, regardless of the number of flightcrew members aboard the
aircraft, unless a carrier has an approved FRMS?
    (17) Should some level of credit be given for in-flight rest in a
coach seat? If so, what level of credit should be allowed? Please
provide supporting data.
    (18) Is there any reason to prohibit augmentation on domestic
flights assuming the flight meets the required in-flight rest periods
proposed today?
    (19) Are the proposed required rest periods appropriate?
    (20) Should credit be allowed if a flightcrew member is not type-
rated and qualified as a PIC or SIC?
2. Split Duty Rest
    The concept of allowing mitigation for split duty sleep is similar
to that for augmentation, in that a crewmember can regenerate to some
extent because of the ability to sleep for a period of time during his
or her FDP. In fact, the quality of the sleep facility may be
significantly better than the quality of a sleep facility aboard an
aircraft. However, the initial theory behind augmentation was that it
was impossible to simply place a fresh crew aboard the aircraft. While
that may be true in some instances where split duty rest is
contemplated, it is not universally true. In any case, current
regulations provide no incentive for a carrier to provide its
flightcrew members with a rest opportunity outside of the mandatory
rest requirements. Nevertheless, some carriers have spent considerable
amounts of money developing rest facilities for their employees, and
others provide hotel rooms, even though not required by the FAA.
Carriers have taken these steps recognizing that, even though not
required, providing the rest facilities increases the level of safety.
    The ARC discussed the concept of split sleep with the sleep
specialists to assess the value of the type of rest obtained on a split
duty trip. The scientists noted that split sleep is an area of
intensive work. All other factors being equal, if the total amount of
actual sleep is the same, split sleep is theoretically as valuable as
continuous sleep.\31\ However, the presenters noted that the value of
sleep is impacted by where it falls in the circadian cycle. They stated
that split sleep with 4 hours sleep during a circadian night is better
than 8 hours of continuous sleep during the day. However, the larger
portion of split sleep ideally would fall during the WOCL, and they
reiterated that split sleep with a component at night is better than
consolidated sleep during the day. This is because the ability to sleep
effectively is diminished during daytime hours because it is very
difficult to get continuous sleep during this time. They also stressed
that actual sleep is important, and noted that a 4-hour sleep
opportunity may only net 2 hours of actual sleep.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ However, they also noted that there is an overhead involved
in getting to sleep, and that split sleep multiplies that overhead.
Therefore, split sleep with 4 hours at night and 4 hours during the
day would, over time, result in a cumulative sleep debt.
    \32\ The presenters stated that it is less clear if a split
sleep involving a 2-hour sleep segment and a 6-hour sleep segment is
equivalent to eight hours of continuous sleep.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ARC discussed extending the FDP based on the opportunity for
sleep during the duty period and the mitigations needed to extend the
FDP. These mitigations would apply to split duty trip pairings
(including continuous duty overnights, also known as CDOs), in which a
flightcrew member has a downtime of several hours between flights
within the same FDP.
    Some members of the ARC rejected the concept of a regulatory credit
for split duty sleep, while others noted that it is fully consistent
with the concept of extending FDPs based on augmentation. The ARC
considered allowing a certificate holder to extend the FDP up to 50 to
75 percent of time that a flightcrew member spent resting in a suitable
accommodation up to a maximum FDP of 12 to 13 hours as long as certain
conditions were met. First, the sleep facility should be a single
occupancy, temperature-controlled facility with sound mitigations that
provide a flightcrew member with the undisturbed ability to sleep in a
bed and to control light. Second, the flightcrew member must be given
an actual, not simply scheduled, sleep opportunity in the suitable
accommodation. Some ARC members also suggested that there should be a
requirement that the sleep facility be approved by the FAA, there be an
employee feedback process to assure the facilities were adequate, and
that the opportunity for rest coincide with the flightcrew member's
circadian rhythms.
    The FAA is proposing to permit credit for split duty sleep
consistent with the proposal presented by those members of the ARC
supporting credit. A reasonable sleep opportunity must actually be
provided (as opposed to simply scheduled), and the sleep facility must
be adequate to reasonably allow sleep. A carrier could extend an FDP by
50 percent of the actual available sleep opportunity if it provides at
least 4

hours sleep opportunity. However, the FDP could not be extended beyond
12 hours.\33\ The sleep opportunity is calculated from the time the
flightcrew member actually reaches the sleep facility, rather than when
it is scheduled. This is because a scheduled sleep opportunity may be
reduced considerably if there are delays or an unanticipated need for
further aircraft movement. As with all other instances when
transportation to or from a rest facility is involved, the period of
time engaged in transportation does not count as duty, but it also does
not count as rest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ As a practical matter, the 12-hour limitation on FDP makes
split duty sleep desirable only for nighttime operations or
operations that begin late at night and restart very early in the
morning. The FAA believes it is unlikely a carrier would rely on
split duty sleep opportunities in the middle of the day because
there would be no additional credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rest facility must be adequate to reasonably permit the
flightcrew member with an opportunity to rest. To that end, it must be
quiet, temperature-controlled, and light-controlled. The FAA considered
whether to require that it also be a single occupancy facility. The
agency has tentatively decided against such a requirement because it
understands that there are currently facilities where there may be more
than one bed per room, and it believes this is fundamentally a labor-
management issue. Flightcrew members regularly spend the night near
their home base in houses or apartments where there may be multiple
beds in a single room. If this dormitory-type housing is sufficient for
full rest periods, it should, from a regulatory perspective, be
sufficient for a split rest facility.
    The FAA seeks input on the following:
    (21) Please comment on whether a single occupancy rest facility
provides a better opportunity for sleep or a better quality of rest
than a multiple occupancy facility such as a multi-bed crew sleeping
facility or multi-bed living quarters. Please provide supporting data.

H. Consecutive Nighttime Flight Duty Periods

    There was a discussion among ARC members on whether there should be
a limitation on the number of consecutive nights that a pilot could
fly, based, in part, on a presentation to the ARC that performance
falls off under the SAFTE/FAST model after the third night. Currently
the FAA places no restrictions on the number of allowable consecutive
nighttime operations, as long as the crewmember receives 24 consecutive
hours free from duty in a 7-day period. CAP-371 provides a scheme
whereby flight duty periods are reduced based on the number of previous
consecutive nights flown. The FAA is unaware of the basis for this
scheme, and it is not readily apparent from a reading of the
requirement.
    Modeling indicates that consecutive nights of nighttime work will
lead to a decrease in productivity over a relatively short period of
time (approximately 3 days). The modeling notes a steady deterioration
in performance because it is very difficult for most people to sleep
effectively during the day.\34\ The members of the ARC who had flown
nighttime operations generally agreed that the first night of multiple
nighttime operations was the most difficult because they were
unaccustomed to being awake all night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ A copy of the technical report evaluating the model has
been placed in the docket. See also, Rosekind, M.R., Gander, P.H.,
Graeber, R.C., Connell, L.J., Gregory, K.B., Miller, D.L., & Barnes,
R.M. (1998). Crew factors in flight operations: The initial ASA-Ames
field studies on fatigue. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine, 69 (2), B1-B60. Thomas, M.J.W., Petrilli, R.M., Roach,
G.D. (2007). The Impacts of Australian Transcontinental ``Back of
Clock'' operations on sleep and performance in commercial aviation
flight crew (B2005/0121). Adelaide/Whyalla, Australia: University of
South Australia, Centre for Applied Behavioural Science. Gander,
P.H., Gregory, K.B., Connell, L.J., Miller, D.L., Graeber, R.C., &
Rosekind, M.R. (1996). Crew factors in flight operations: VII.
Psychophysiological responses to overnight cargo operations (NASA/
TMm1996-110380). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the ARC discussion, the cargo contingent of the part 121
community asserted that if one changes the assumption in the SAFTE/FAST
model and assumes that one can train oneself to sleep effectively
during the day, it may be possible to work more consecutive nights
without a significant degradation in performance. This may be
particularly true if an individual is provided an opportunity to sleep
during the night while packages are being sorted from one plane to the
next. The cargo carriers asserted that higher levels of sleep pressure
brought on by the longer period of wakefulness on day one of the
pairing act to offset the general inability to sleep effectively during
the day, particularly when people have been trained to understand the
need to take advantage of the sleep pressure to improve their ability
to sleep during the day. The FAA has asked Dr. Hursh, who developed the
SAFTE/FAST model,\35\ to input these assertions into the model. Dr.
Hursh determined that, given a sufficient sleep opportunity at night, a
person can sustain his or her performance at acceptable levels for five
consecutive nights. However, the smaller the nighttime sleep
opportunity, the lower level of performance, particularly by night
five. In addition, training on how to maximize sleep opportunities is
critical because an individual needs to get enough sleep during the day
to make up for the nighttime sleep deficit. A copy of Dr. Hursh's
analysis has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ This model is widely used, with approximately 14 major
carriers and sixteen governmental agencies world-wide having used
the model to evaluate fatigue in aviation and other industrial
settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has decided to take a comprehensive approach towards
consecutive nighttime operations that it believes addresses the
concerns by both contingents within the ARC. The agency proposes to
permit consecutive nighttime flying, constrained only by 30-hour
consecutive rest required for any 168-hour period, as long as there is
an opportunity to rest in a suitable facility during the flight duty
period. As proposed, this sleep opportunity would have to comport with
the proposed split duty requirements for extending a flight duty
period. Should no such opportunity be provided, a carrier could not
assign a flightcrew member to more than three consecutive nightime
FDPs. While this approach is more restrictive than currently permitted,
it permits cargo carriers who provide adequate rest facilities to
continue their current operations. It also assures that flightcrew
members are given an opportunity for limited nighttime rest.
    The FAA has concerns that simply limiting nighttime operations to
three consecutive nights could result in a significant increase in the
number of first night operations, since presumably carriers will not
change the nature of their operations, but simply will schedule more
multiple-night crew pairings to accommodate the existing operations.
Thus, a flightcrew member who is currently assigned two 5-night
pairings in a 2-week period could potentially be assigned three 3-night
pairings in the same 2-week period, increasing the risk associated with
the first night of operations by 50 percent during that timeframe.
Certainly long-standing industry practice has been to fly more than
three consecutive nights. The FAA is concerned that taking an approach
that may appear safer in modeling could lead to adverse safety impacts
in the real world.
    The ARC contingent advocating restrictions on consecutive night
flight duty periods suggested a fourth night was acceptable as long as
a 14-hour rest was provided between nights three and four. The FAA
notes that a 14-hour rest opportunity would limit a flightcrew member
to a maximum 10-hour duty

period, excluding the time required for local commuting.\36\ The FAA is
not sure that this approach would provide a meaningful FDP for the
fourth night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Although today's proposal does not contemplate a 24-hour
day, the FAA assumes that consecutive nighttime operations would
generally be scheduled at approximately the same time each day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA requests input on the following:
    (22) Should there be any restriction on consecutive nighttime
operations? If not, why?
    (23) If the nighttime sleep opportunity is less than that
contemplated under the split duty provisions of this notice, should a
carrier be allowed to assign crew pairing sets in excess of three
consecutive nights? Why or why not?
    (24) If the nighttime sleep opportunity meets the split duty
provisions of this notice, should the carrier be allowed to extend the
flight duty period as well as the number of consecutive nighttime
flight duty periods? Why or why not?
    (25) Should a fourth night of consecutive nighttime duty be
permitted if the flightcrew member is provided a 14-hour rest period
between nights three and four?

I. Reserve Duty

    While the term ``Reserve'' has been used for years in the air
carrier industry, the term is not addressed at all in part 121. The
agency has issued 11 legal interpretations on the subject of reserve,
which range from examples of whether a crewmember is on duty and, if
applicable, whether the required rest associated with that duty period
is impeded by being in a reserve status.
    The ARC discussed various definitions of reserve and initially
proposed that reserve means that a pilot that does not have a regular
flying schedule and is available for flight when contacted by the
company. That pilot has no telephone or reporting responsibility to the
company. The ARC refined the definition of ``reserve'' to read ``a
flightcrew member that is required by a certificate holder to be
available to receive an assignment for duty.'' In addition, the ARC
established the following types of reserve duty: Long-call, short-call,
and airport/standby. The ARC noted that the policies that apply to
reserve flightcrew members vary significantly between certificate
holders, but also found that there are some relatively consistent
conditions.
    CAP-371 places restrictions on ``Standby Duty'', which is generally
the equivalent of short-call reserve discussed below. When standby duty
is undertaken at home, or in a suitable accommodation provided by the
operator, during the period 2200 to 0800 hours local time and a crew
member is given 2 hours or less notice of a report time, the allowable
FDP starts at the report time for the designated reporting place. EASA
recognizes ``standby duty'', but does not place any regulatory
restrictions on this type of duty.