[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21449-21462]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08388]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61 and 141

[Docket No.: FAA-2015-1846; Amdt. Nos. 61-136, 141-18]
RIN 2120-AK71

Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rulemaking relieves burdens on pilots seeking to obtain
aeronautical experience, training, and certification by increasing the
allowed use of aviation training devices. These actions are necessary
to bring the regulations in line with the current

capabilities of aviation training devices and the needs and activities
of the general aviation training community and pilots.

DATES: This rule is effective May 12, 2016.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcel Bernard, Airmen Certification
and Training Branch, Flight Standards Service, AFS-810, Federal
Aviation Administration, 898 Airport Park Road, Suite 204, Glen Burnie,
MD 21061; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> x235 email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This rule finalizes the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
regarding the use of aviation training devices for pilot certification.
80 FR 34338 (Jun. 16, 2015). The NPRM proposed to increase the maximum
time that may be credited in an aviation training device (ATD) toward
the aeronautical experience requirements for an instrument rating under
Sec.  61.65(i). The NPRM proposed to permit a person to credit a
maximum of 20 hours of aeronautical experience acquired in an approved
ATD toward the requirements for an instrument rating. By letter of
authorization (LOA), devices that qualify as advanced aviation training
devices (AATDs) were proposed to be authorized for up to 20 hours of
experience to meet the instrument time requirements. Devices that
qualify as basic aviation training devices (BATDs) were proposed to be
authorized, by LOA, for a maximum of 10 hours of experience to meet the
instrument time requirements.
    Based on the comments received to the NPRM, the FAA is revising
Sec.  61.65 to include a specified allowance of 10 hours for BATDs and
20 hours for AATDs in part 61 (combined use not to exceed 20 hours) for
the instrument rating.
    The NPRM also addressed the use of ATDs in approved instrument
rating courses. The NPRM proposed to amend appendix C to part 141 to
increase the limit on the amount of training hours that may be
accomplished in an ATD in an approved course for an instrument rating.
The FAA proposed to allow ATDs to be used for no more than 40% of the
total flight training hour requirements in an approved instrument
rating course.
    Based on the comments received to the NPRM, the FAA is revising
appendix C to part 141 to include a specified allowance of 25% of
creditable time in BATDs \1\ and 40% of creditable time for AATDs under
part 141 (not to exceed 40% total time) for the instrument rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ If a course of training is approved under the minimum
requirements as prescribed in part 141, appendix C, for the
instrument rating (35 hours of training required), 25% in a BATD
would equate to 8.75 hours and 40% in an AATD would equate to 14
hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Sec.  61.65(i) requires a pilot who is logging
instrument time in an ATD to wear a view-limiting device. The NPRM
proposed to revise Sec.  61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the requirement that
pilots accomplishing instrument time in an ATD wear a view-limiting
device. The FAA is finalizing this proposal without change.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to
promulgate regulations and rules; 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires
the Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security; and 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which requires
the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman
certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an
individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties
related to, the position authorized by the certificate.

III. Background

    Since the 1970s, the FAA has gradually expanded the permitted use
of flight simulation for training--first permitting simulation to be
used in air carrier training programs and eventually permitting pilots
to credit time in devices toward the aeronautical experience
requirements for airman certification and recency. Currently, title 14
of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 60 governs the
qualification of flight simulation training devices (FSTDs), which
include full flight simulators (FFSs) level A through D and flight
training devices (FTDs) levels 4 through 7. The FAA has, however,
approved other devices, including ATDs, for use in pilot certification
training, under the authority provided in 14 CFR 61.4(c).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Section 61.4(c) states that the ``Administrator may approve
a device other than a flight simulator or flight training device for
specific purposes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For over 30 years, the FAA has issued LOAs to manufacturers of
ground trainers, personal computer-based aviation training devices
(PCATD), FTDs (levels 1 through 3), BATDs, and AATDs. These LOAs were
based on guidance provided in advisory circulars (ACs) that set forth
the qualifications and capabilities for the devices. Prior to 2008,
most LOAs were issued under the guidance provided in AC 61-126,
Qualification and Approval of Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training
Devices, and AC 120-45, Airplane Flight Training Device Qualification.
Starting in July 2008, the FAA approved devices in accordance with AC
61-136, FAA Approval of Basic Aviation Training Devices (BATD) and
Advanced Aviation Training Devices (AATD). More recently, on December
3, 2014, the FAA published a revision to AC 61-136A, Approval of
Aviation Training Devices and Their Use for Training and Experience.
    In 2009, the FAA issued a final rule that for the first time
introduced the term ``aviation training device'' into the regulations
and placed express limits on the amount of instrument time in an ATD
that could be credited toward the aeronautical experience requirements
for an instrument rating.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In a 2007 NPRM, the FAA proposed to limit the time in a
personal computer-based aviation training device that could be
credited toward the instrument rating. Pilot, Flight Instructor, and
Pilot School Certification NPRM, 72 FR 5806 (Feb. 7, 2007). Three
commenters recommended that the FAA use the terms ``basic aviation
training device'' (BATD) and ``advanced aviation training device''
(AATD). Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School Certification
Final Rule, 74 FR 42500 (Aug. 21, 2009) (``2009 Final Rule''). In
response to the commenters, the FAA changed the regulatory text in
the final rule to ``aviation training device,'' noting BATDs and
AATDs ``as being aviation training devices (ATD) are defined'' in an
advisory circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the 2009 final rule, Sec.  61.65(i) has provided that no more
than 10 hours of instrument time received in an ATD may be credited
toward the instrument time requirements of that section. In addition,
appendix C to part 141 permits an ATD to be used for no more than 10%
of the total flight training hour requirements of an approved course
for an instrument rating.
    Prior to the 2009 final rule, the FAA had issued hundreds of LOAs
to

manufacturers of devices that permitted some ATDs (as well as ground
trainers, and FTDs (levels 1 through 3)) to be used to a greater extent
than was ultimately set forth in the regulations. The FAA continued to
issue LOAs for AATDs in excess of the express limitations in the
regulations after the publication of the 2009 final rule.
    On January 2, 2014, the FAA published a notice of policy requiring
manufacturers of ATDs to obtain new LOAs reflecting the appropriate
regulatory allowances for ATD use. 79 FR 20.\4\ The notice of policy
stated the FAA's conclusion that it could not use LOAs to exceed
express limitations that had been placed in the regulations through
notice and comment rulemaking. The FAA noted that, since August 2013,
LOAs issued for new devices reflect current regulatory requirements.
However, manufacturers and operators who held LOAs issued prior to
August 2013 acted in reliance on FAA statements that were inconsistent
with the regulations. Therefore, the FAA granted a limited exemption
from the requirement in the regulations to provide manufacturers,
operators, and pilots currently training for an instrument rating time
to adjust to the reduction in creditable hours. This short-term
exemption was intended to provide an interim period to transition the
LOAs for all previously approved devices in accordance with the new
policy. The FAA found the exemption to be in the public interest in
order to prevent undue harm caused by reasonable reliance on the LOAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA Approved
Training Devices,'' January 2, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the notice of policy, this short term exemption
expired on January 1, 2015. The FAA explained that after that date, no
applicant training for an instrument rating under part 61 may use more
than 10 hours of instrument time in an ATD toward the minimum
aeronautical experience requirements required to take the practical
test for an instrument rating.\5\ In addition, no instrument rating
course approved under appendix C to part 141 may credit more than 10%
of training in ATDs toward the total flight training hour requirements
of the course (unless that program has been approved in accordance with
Sec.  141.55(d) or (e)).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Under Sec.  61.65, a person who applies for an instrument
rating must have completed 40 hours of actual or simulated
instrument time of which 15 hours must have been with an authorized
instructor who holds the appropriate instrument rating.
    \6\ Under appendix C, each approved course for an instrument
rating must include 35 hours of instrument training for an initial
instrument rating or 15 hours of instrument training for an
additional instrument rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the discrepancy between the level of ATD credit allowed
historically by LOA and the lower allowances placed in the regulations,
the FAA published a direct final rule that would have amended the
regulations governing the use of ATDs.\7\ The direct final rule would
have increased the use of these devices for instrument training
requirements above the levels established in the 2009 final rule. In
developing this direct final rule, the FAA noted that ATD development
has advanced to an impressive level of capability. Many ATDs can
simulate weather conditions with variable winds, variable ceilings and
visibility, icing, turbulence, high definition (HD) visuals, hundreds
of different equipment failure scenarios, navigation specific to
current charts and topography, specific navigation and communication
equipment use, variable ``aircraft specific'' performance, and more.
The visual and motion component of some of these devices permit
maneuvers that require outside visual references in an aircraft to be
successfully taught in an AATD. Many of these simulation capabilities
were not possible in previously approved devices (such as PCATDs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 79 FR 71634, Dec. 3, 2014, withdrawn at 80 FR 2001, Jan. 15,
2015 (RIN 2120-AK62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the direct final rule, the FAA stated its belief that permitting
pilots to log increased time in ATDs would encourage pilots to practice
maneuvers until they are performed to an acceptable level of
proficiency. In an ATD, a pilot can replay the training scenario,
identify any improper action, practice abnormal/emergency procedures,
and determine corrective actions without undue hazard or risk to
persons or property. In this fashion, a pilot can continue to practice
tasks and maneuvers in a safe, effective, and cost efficient means of
maintaining proficiency.

IV. The Direct Final Rule

    As described in the previous section, to address the discrepancy
between FAA regulations and prior policy, on December 3, 2014, the FAA
published a direct final rule that would have increased the allowed use
of ATDs. The FAA received 20 comments to the direct final rule.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The direct final rule and the comments received thereto may
be found in FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0987 at http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Credit for aeronautical experience requirements for an instrument
rating: The direct final rule would have increased the maximum time
that may be credited in an ATD toward the aeronautical experience
requirements for an instrument rating under Sec.  61.65(i). The direct
final rule would have permitted a person to credit a maximum of 20
hours of aeronautical experience acquired in an approved ATD toward the
requirements for an instrument rating. Devices that qualify as AATDs
would have been authorized for up to 20 hours of experience to meet the
instrument time requirements. Devices that qualify as BATDs would have
been authorized for a maximum of 10 hours of experience to meet the
instrument time requirements.
    Approved instrument rating courses: The direct final rule also
would have amended appendix C to part 141 to increase the limit on the
amount of training hours that may be accomplished in an ATD in an
approved course for an instrument rating. An ATD would have been
permitted to be used for no more than 40% of the total flight training
hour requirements in an approved instrument rating course.
    Comments received: The FAA received 20 comments regarding these
provisions. Eighteen comments supported the provisions. However, two
commenters raised concerns. As those comments were adverse to the
direct final rule, the FAA was required to withdraw the direct final
rule, 80 FR 2001, (Jan. 15, 2015). 14 CFR 11.13. The comments received
to the direct final rule and FAA's responses were discussed in the
notice of proposed rulemaking published June 16, 2015. 80 FR 34338.
    View-limiting devices: Under Sec.  61.51(g), a person may log
instrument time only for that flight time when the person operates an
aircraft solely by reference to the instruments under actual or
simulated conditions. When instrument time is logged in an aircraft, a
pilot wears a view-limiting device to simulate instrument conditions
and ensure that he or she is flying without utilizing outside visual
references. Currently, Sec.  61.65(i) requires a pilot who is logging
instrument time in an ATD to wear a view-limiting device. The direct
final rule would have revised Sec.  61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the
requirement that pilots accomplishing instrument time in an ATD wear a
view-limiting device.
    The purpose of a view-limiting device is to prevent a pilot (while
training in an aircraft during flight) from having outside visual
references that would naturally be present otherwise. These references
are not available in a training device and a pilot has no opportunity
to look outside for any useful visual references pertaining to the
simulation. The FAA recognizes that the majority of these devices have
a simulated visual

display that can be configured to be unavailable or represent ``limited
visibility'' conditions that preclude any need for a view-limiting
device to be worn by the student. This lack of visual references
requires the pilot to give his or her full attention to the flight
instruments which is the goal of any instrument training or experience.
The FAA believes that using a training device can be useful because it
trains the pilot to focus on, appropriately scan and interpret the
flight instruments. Since these devices incorporate a visual system
that can be configured to the desired visibility level, use of a view-
limiting device would have no longer been required by the direct final
rule.
    When the FAA introduced Sec.  61.65(i)(4) requiring view-limiting
devices in the 2009 final rule, the preamble was silent as to why a
view-limiting device was necessary. 74 FR 42500, 42523. Based on
comments from industry, the FAA has determined that due to the
sophistication of the flight visual representation for ATDs and the
capability of presenting various weather conditions appropriate to the
training scenario, a view-limiting device is unnecessary. Because
persons operating an ATD can simulate both instrument and visual
conditions, FAA LOAs specifically reference Sec.  61.51 that stipulates
a pilot can log instrument time only when operating the aircraft solely
by reference to the instruments in actual or simulated instrument
flight conditions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ AC 61-136A Appendix 4, Training Content and Logging
Provisions references limitations for logging instrument time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments received: The FAA received one comment in response to this
provision in the direct final rule. The comment received to the direct
final rule and FAA's response were discussed in the notice of proposed
rulemaking published June 16, 2015. 80 FR 34338.

V. The Proposed Rule

    After consideration of the comments received to the direct final
rule, on June 16, 2015, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (80 FR 34338) proposing the following changes to 14 CFR
parts 61 and 141. These changes were the same as in the direct final
rule, 79 FR 71634, (Dec. 3, 2014), withdrawn at 80 FR 2001, (Jan. 15,
2015).
    The FAA received a total of 60 comments to the notice of proposed
rulemaking, 50 from individuals; five from flight schools; three from
organizations representing pilots and flight instructors, including the
Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE), the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association (AOPA), and the National Association of Flight
Instructors (NAFI); one from an anonymous commenter purporting to
represent Garmin International; and one from ATD manufacturer Redbird
Flight Simulations. The proposed provisions, the comments received, and
FAA's responses are discussed in the following sections.

A. Credit for the Aeronautical Experience Requirements for an
Instrument Rating and Approved Instrument Rating Courses

    The FAA proposed to increase the maximum time that may be credited
in an ATD toward the instrument time requirements for an instrument
rating under Sec.  61.65(i). A person would be permitted to credit a
maximum of 20 hours of instrument time in an approved ATD toward the
requirements for an instrument rating.\10\ Devices that qualify as
AATDs would be authorized for up to 20 hours of instrument time.
Devices that qualify as BATDs would be authorized for a maximum of 10
hours of instrument time. In light of this difference, pilots must--as
required by current regulations--include in their logbooks the type and
identification of any ATD that is used to accomplish aeronautical
experience requirements for a certificate, rating, or recent flight
experience. 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(iv). The FAA is retaining the existing
limit of 20 hours of combined time in FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs that may be
credited towards the aeronautical experience requirements for an
instrument rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As required under Sec.  61.51(g)(4), to log instrument time
in an ATD for the purpose of a certificate or rating, an authorized
instructor must be present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA also proposed to amend appendix C to part 141 to increase
the limit on the amount of training hours that may be accomplished in
an ATD in an approved course for an instrument rating. An ATD could be
used for no more than 40% of the total flight training hour
requirements in an instrument rating course. The proposed rule did not
change the current provisions in appendix C which limit credit for
training in FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs, that if used in combination, cannot
exceed 50% of the total flight training hour requirements of an
instrument rating course.
    In addition, the FAA proposed to amend Sec.  141.41 to clarify the
existing qualification and approval requirement for FSTDs and to add
the qualification and approval of ATDs by the FAA, which is currently
conducted pursuant to Sec.  61.4(c).
1. Comments Supporting the Proposed Provisions
    The FAA received 57 comments in support of these proposed
provisions, with 47 from individuals and 10 from organizations. Of the
57 comments received in support of the proposed rule, five recommended
changes to the proposed regulations.
    Nineteen individual commenters provided general support for the
proposed rule. Nine commenters who identified themselves as pilots who
had used ATDs for their own training provided support for the rule.
They emphasized the value of being able to have a flight instructor
pause the training, discuss the scenario, provide instant feedback and
additional instruction, and then continue the training session. These
individuals also believed that their training was enhanced by the
ability to focus on the specific training tasks and ensure accurate,
appropriate learning of the lesson. Commenters also noted that in an
ATD instructors can focus solely on teaching rather than dividing their
focus between teaching important instrument skills and general aircraft
operations.
    Commenters also emphasized the value of being presented with
training scenarios that cannot be accomplished safely in the aircraft.
Commenters cited emergency procedures, flight into thunderstorms,
icing, and turbulent conditions as primary examples of conditions that
can be simulated safely in ATDs.
    SAFE, NAFI, and Redbird Flight Simulations also noted the ability
of current ATDs to simulate a variety of aircraft types and
configurations, as well as to simulate various conditions inside and
outside the aircraft.
    A number of individual commenters also noted the value, both
financial and time saving, of accomplishing more repetitions in the
same amount of time when using an ATD as opposed to using an aircraft.
Two individual commenters estimated that time in an approved simulator
with an instructor costs about $100 per hour, while dual time in an
instrument flight rules-certified aircraft is $200 per hour or more.
These commenters asserted that adding an extra 10 hours of simulator
time cuts $1,000 from the overall training cost. NAFI also noted that
because the training is independent of weather and air traffic control
conditions, a training syllabus can be followed more closely with use
of the ATDs and the student can avoid unplanned, non-productive

time delays when attempting to practice a procedure.
    Thirteen commenters who identified themselves as flight instructors
supported the rule. They echoed the sentiments of those commenters who
identified themselves as pilots who had used ATDs for their own
training. Commenters discussed the belief that ATDs save lives, reduce
training time and cost, reduce atmospheric and noise pollution, and
produce safer pilots. They particularly noted the ability to train
scenarios that would not be trained using an aircraft--thunderstorms,
icing, etc. They emphasized the value of scenario-based training,
followed closely by training in an aircraft. These commenters noted the
importance of being able to train students regarding emergency
procedures using meaningful repetition, until the commenters confirm
the student's mastery of those skills. AOPA supported this view,
stating that simulator training for an instrument rating allows
instructors to provide a safer, more effective training experience.
Redbird Flight Simulations also supported this view, stating that the
ATD is the ideal place to learn, ask questions and practice, and the
aircraft is the place where the student demonstrates what he or she has
learned and can focus on gaining real-world flying experience with the
basic fundamental instrument skills already engrained.
    A few commenters noted that students whom they had trained
initially in ATDs found the experience so useful that they returned for
recurrent training in those same ATDs. One commenter noted FAA's
inferred endorsement of the use of AATDs in Instrument Practical Test
Standard (FAA-S-8081-4E, Chg 5) by the inclusion of tasks for an
instrument proficiency check which may be credited using an AATD.
    Five commenters commenting on behalf of flight schools also
concurred with these comments. These commenters discussed the ability
for pilots to practice situations and procedures that would not
``normally'' be possible to accomplish safely in an aircraft, including
various weather conditions and simulated instrument failures.
Commenters focused on the unique training that ATDs allow instructors
to provide. As two commenters noted,

    Aircraft are not classrooms and as such they are poor
environments for learning. The AATDs allow for students experiencing
difficult learning situations the opportunity to repeat the lesson
easily, safely and as frequently as needed. Importantly, the
instructor is able to focus entirely on teaching rather than
splitting his/her attention on traffic, ATC instructions and safe
aircraft operation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Stephen Cunningham, Docket No. FAA-2015-1846-0034.
Anonymous, Docket No. FAA-2015-1846-0038.

    These commenters emphasized that ATDs are only one component of the
training curriculum and process, and that all learning in an ATD would
be accompanied by training in the aircraft. They also noted that ATDs
and aircraft do not replace each other. NAFI agreed, pointing out that
a significant portion of training would still be required in an
aircraft under the proposed regulations.
    Commenters, including SAFE and several individuals, noted the use
of simulators by other industries, including the United States military
and air carriers. SAFE specifically cited a 1998 United States Air
Force study regarding the transfer of training effectiveness.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Carretta, Thomas R., and Dunlap, Ronald D. ``Transfer of
Training Effectiveness in Flight Simulation: 1986-1997.'' United
States Air Force Research Laboratory, 1998. http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA362818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters who support
increased training time allowances in ATDs, including the statements
discussing the increased dynamic training capability of these devices,
cost savings, time savings, effective use of scenario-based training,
and recent technical advancements that enhance the capabilities of
ATDs. With over 30 years of experience evaluating, approving, and
providing oversight for FSTDs and over 10 years approving ATDs, the FAA
recognizes their evolving capabilities, safety benefits, and improved
design justifying their increased use and credit for minimum pilot
experience requirements.
    One commenter noted the safety benefit of ATDs related to
decommissioning of very high frequency omni-directional radio range
(VORs), non-directional beacons (NDBs), the scarcity of localizer back-
courses, and scarcity of outer markers. The commenter noted that the
practical test standards still require the demonstration of a VOR
approach for an instrument candidate. As the commenter explained:

    Thus, instrument instructors must use a more limited set of VORs
to conduct VOR instrument approach training, resulting in greater
congestion around VORs during training maneuvers. Numerous FAA
publications suggest avoiding concentrations around VORS, such as
FAA-P-8740-51, `How to Avoid a Midair Collision.' When one considers
finding VOR approaches located on the airport (without a final
approach fix) and those conducted off airport (those with a final
approach fix), the amount of time an instructor must spend exposed
to the risk of a midair collision is quite large. The risk of a
midair collision is non-existent in an ATD.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Anonymous, Docket No. FAA-2015-1846-0035.

    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenter that ATDs provide
for unlimited choices when practicing electronic navigation, including
instrument approaches, and the safety advantages afforded in these
training devices. Traffic conflicts and geographic location are not a
limitation when training in an FSTD or ATD. ATDs come with a database
affording significant navigational choices. Advantages include
executing navigation or instrument approach procedures to an airport
that a pilot may not have experienced or executed in flight before.
2. Comments Providing Institutional Research Related to the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
    In the NPRM, the FAA specifically sought ``. . . comment regarding
any additional relevant data or institutional research that supports
the training and safety advantages when using ATDs, or establishes that
such devices do not enhance pilot training and flight safety.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 80 FR 34338 at 34342.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received two comments that specifically addressed this
request.
    One individual commenter cited an unpublished dissertation \15\
that the commenter believed supported the use of ATDs. The commenter
stated:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Kearns, S. (2007). ``The Effectiveness of Guided Mental
Practice in a Computer-Based Single Pilot Resource Management (SRM)
Training,'' Ph.D. Dissertation, Capella University).

    In her dissertation study, Kearns compared simulators far less
capable then [sic] ATDs to a guided mental practice experimental
technique. Though her results did not specifically evaluate ATDs,
Kearn [sic] demonstrated how ATD-level simulators (and guided mental
practice) effectively train skills enhancing mental workload and
situational awareness.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Anonymous, Docket No. FAA-2015-1846-0035.

    FAA Response: The FAA obtained and reviewed the unpublished Kearns
dissertation.
    The study author described the study as follows:

    The purpose of this investigation was to assess the feasibility
of guided mental practice, as an instructional strategy, embedded
within an asynchronous computer-based non-technical training program
for pilots. Two asynchronous computer-based single pilot resource
management (SRM) training programs were developed for the study,
varying only in the

method of active practice. One version incorporated hands-on
practice and another utilized a form of mental practice, termed
guided mental practice. The term guided mental practice was
developed to describe the process of mental practice which is
facilitated by a computer-based training program, such as through
the presentation of a video of a flight simulator scenario.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Kearns, at 80.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The study author defined guided mental practice as:

. . . practice that took place without any hands-on interaction yet
was facilitated by a computer-based flight simulator scenario
embedded within an asynchronous online SRM training program.
Participants were asked to view a video of a flight simulator in a
particular scenario and imagine themselves as the pilot of the
flight. Guided mental practice differs from traditional mental
practice, which is typically an entirely internal process, as an
external medium guides the learner through the practice
exercise.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Kearns, at 12.

    Three groups were formed in the study (a) SRM training with hands-
on practice, (b) SRM training with mental practice, and (c) a control
group that received no training. The study used a sample size of 12
participants per condition.\19\ All three groups of participants
completed a high-fidelity flight simulator evaluation in which metrics
assessed their situation awareness and mental workload, the two
constructs targeted in the SRM training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Kearns, at 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The study found that although no difference existed between the
practice conditions, groups that completed training with either hands-
on or mental practice demonstrated improved situation awareness over
the group that did not receive any training as measured by the
situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). Significant
findings were not found with either of the metrics meant to assess
workload: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's task load
index (NASA-TLX), and secondary task (ST) metrics.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Kearns, at 82-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While this study did not directly address whether ATDs or other
simulators provide benefit by increasing learning of piloting skills,
it does appear to indicate that deliberate practice is important to
pilot training, and that any practice, whether in a simulator or
watching a video of a simulation and imagining oneself as the pilot, is
more beneficial than no use of simulation at all in advance of the
skill evaluation. While the FAA believes that this study may provide
useful information for its area of interest, the study was not focused
on the decision point the FAA was considering regarding whether to move
forward with this regulatory change--that is, data or institutional
research that supports the training and safety advantages when using
ATDs, or establishes that such devices do not enhance pilot training
and flight safety. Situational awareness is one of many elements to be
considered in evaluating pilot training and safety. The study did not
consider whether skill sets were better learned by use of either guided
mental practice or hands-on use of a simulator as compared with
training in an aircraft only.
    SAFE asserted that research shows that when properly utilized as
part of a comprehensive training program such training devices actually
speed up the learning process by allowing students to bypass areas of
successful understanding and to concentrate on areas where more
understanding and practice is required.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Carretta, Thomas R., and Dunlap, Ronald D. ``Transfer of
Training Effectiveness in Flight Simulation: 1986-1997.'' United
States Air Force Research Laboratory, 1998. http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA362818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA Response: The abstract of the study cited by SAFE reads as
follows:

    The purpose of this report was to review recent studies
regarding the effectiveness of flight simulators as augmentation for
``hands-on'' flying training. Simulation-based training has been
proposed to reduce costs, extend aircraft life, maintain flying
proficiency, and provide more effective training, especially in
areas difficult to train in operational aircraft. A review of the
literature from 1986 to 1997 identified 67 articles, conference
papers, and technical reports regarding simulator flying training
and transfer. Of these, only 13 were related directly to transfer of
training from the simulator to the aircraft. Studies of simulator
effectiveness for training landing skills constituted a majority of
the transfer studies, although a few examined other flying skills
such as radial bombing accuracy and instrument and flight control.
Results indicate that simulators are useful for training landing
skills, bombing accuracy, and instrument and flight control.
Generally, as the number of simulated sorties increases, performance
improves, but this gain levels off after approximately 25 missions.
Further, several studies indicate that successful transfer may not
require high-fidelity simulators or whole-task training, thus
reducing simulator development costs.
    Evaluation of this literature is difficult for many reasons.
Typically, researchers fail to report sufficient detail regarding
research methods, training characteristics, and simulator fidelity.
In addition to these methodological concerns, there is a lack of
true simulator-to-aircraft transfer studies involving complex pilot
skills. This may be due to problems such as inadequate simulator
design, cost, and availability, and access to simulators in
operational flying units. Future directions in simulator transfer of
training are discussed.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Ibid.

    Their literature review found that numerous studies conducted
between 1986 and 1997 indicated that simulators were found to be useful
for training landing skills. As the number of simulated sorties
increased, performance increased, but the performance gain appeared to
level off after approximately 25 missions. Two other studies considered
for the literature review suggest that simulators provide an effective
means to train instrument procedures and flight control. The results
suggest that in order to produce transfer to the aircraft it may be
necessary to train only the critical components of the task rather than
the whole task. Authors emphasized the limitations of the literature
review, including a lack of information regarding the simulator
fidelity characteristics, research methods, and training
characteristics among other challenges.
    While the FAA found this literature review to provide some limited
support for the agency's position, the review did not provide
significant support for this position. Given the lack of information
regarding simulators used, the effectiveness of the skills transfer,
and the age of the review itself, it is likely that the literature
review cannot be used to directly support the FAA's position. The FAA
notes that FSTD and ATD technology has evolved significantly since this
literature review was written and for that reason alone it is possible
that studies conducted today would show different conclusions regarding
the effectiveness of skill transfer, as simulators at all levels are
more realistic and have greater information from which to provide
simulation than that which existed 20 years ago.
    Nonetheless, the FAA agrees that the use of ground based training
devices in advance of flight training in an aircraft speeds up the
overall process of learning. The FAA believes that practice decreases
the time required in an actual aircraft to reach a level of proficiency
required to successfully complete a practical test for a pilot
certificate or rating. The Air Force research paper referenced by SAFE
supports this assertion, but does not directly address the current
capabilities of ATDs.
    The individual commenter also believed that allowing increased
hours in ATDs would increase economic demand for ATDs, thereby
increasing competition and resulting in lower ATD

prices and increased ATD innovation. The commenter cited a textbook
that he or she believed supported this position.\23\ The commenter
further asserted that this increased competition will increase the
quality of ATDs. The commenter compared the current situation regarding
the use of ATDs to digital chart maturation,\24\ arguing that when
regulation is applied inappropriately, innovation may be stifled. Thus,
the commenter asserted, expanded use of ATDs has derivative benefits
consistent with a long-term view of aviation and safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Vasigh, B., Fleming, K., Tacker, T. (2008) Introduction to
Air Transport Economics: From Theory to Applications. Burlington,
VT: Ashgate). http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=637&calcTitle=1&isbn=9781409454878⟨=cy-GB.
    \24\ Tuccio, W.A. (2013). Aviation Approach Charts in an iPad
World. Journal of Navigation, 66(1). Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8777261&fileId=S0373463312000409.

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

    FAA Response: The FAA generally agrees that permitting the greater
use of ATDs may increase the demand for ATDs. In turn, the increased
demand for ATDs may result in more firms entering the market,
increasing competition, and perhaps in more technical innovation in
ATDs. The FAA, however, restricts the economic impact analysis to the
initial impact, as each succeeding economic impact is more speculative.
    As noted previously, the intent of the specific request for
information was to seek any additional relevant data or institutional
research that supports the training and safety advantages when using
ATDs, or establishes that such devices do not enhance pilot training
and flight safety. The intent of this regulation is not to foster
development of ATDs. The FAA emphasizes that even without this
regulation persons are permitted to use ATDs and FSTDs to gain further
experience in addition to any time that may be expressly creditable
when using ATDs or FSTDs under the regulations.
    Finally, the commenter asserted that economic growth of ATDs will
offer enhanced applications of ATDs by researchers and innovators,
contributing to aviation safety.\25\ The commenter argued that ATD
maturation in operational training environments will enable such
forward-thinking training frameworks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Tuccio, W.A. (2011). Heuristics to Improve Human Factors
Performance in Aviation. Journal of Aviation/Aerospace Education &
Research, 20(3). from http://commons.erau.edu/jaaer/vol20/iss3/8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that it is likely that the purchase
and use of ATDs will increase with the additional FAA allowances
provided for minimum pilot experience requirements. Additionally, the
Tuccio research paper referenced by the commenter generally supports
the use of simulation in aviation pilot training specific to heuristics
\26\ but does not speak directly to any particular simulator design or
capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Heuristics Merriam-Webster definition: Involving or serving
as an aid to learning, discovery, or problem-solving by experimental
and especially trial-and-error methods  ; also: Of or relating to exploratory problem-
solving techniques that utilize self-educating techniques (as the
evaluation of feedback) to improve performance .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Comments Supporting the Proposed Provisions With Changes
    The FAA received five comments supporting the proposed rule but
recommending changes to the proposed regulations. One commenter noted
that in the proposed rule the FAA differentiated between the number of
hours that were proposed to be credited toward the aeronautical
experience requirements in an AATD (20 hours) versus a BATD (10 hours).
The commenter noted that these differences were not stipulated in the
proposed text of 14 CFR 61.65(i) regarding credit for aeronautical
experience for the instrument rating, and that no differentiation was
made between AATDs and BATDs in part 141 regarding approved instrument
rating courses--either in the preamble or the regulatory text.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenter and believes that
providing explicit and separate regulatory allowances for BATDs and
AATDs, as currently provided in the FAA LOAs, is appropriate.
Specificity in the regulation will better inform individuals receiving
instrument training as to the appropriate allowances for the different
levels of ATDs. Therefore, in this final rule the FAA is revising Sec.
61.65 and appendix C to part 141 to include a specified allowance of 10
hours for BATDs and 20 hours for AATDs in part 61 (combined use not to
exceed 20 hours), and 25% of creditable time in BATDs and 40% of
creditable time for AATDs under part 141 (not to exceed 40% total time)
for the instrument rating.
    Currently, under the conditions and limitations set forth in the
LOAs, training providers must provide copies of LOAs to people who
receive training in the device. By providing a copy of the LOA, pilots
who receive training will know the amount of training that may be
logged in the device for the purpose of meeting the aeronautical
experience requirements for a certificate or rating.
    The same commenter believed that there could be confusion regarding
the amount of time that can be credited when using a BATD, and when
using percentages of simulator, FTD, AATD and BATD time that can be
used in combination. For example, the commenter asserted that under
appendix C to part 141, section 4(b)(4) as proposed, providing 40% of
the required training in a BATD and 10% in a simulator would satisfy
the letter of the rule.
    FAA Response: As discussed previously, the FAA agrees with the
commenter and is providing for separate specific regulatory allowances
for BATDs and AATDs and clarifying the total creditable percentages of
time when using BATDs and AATDs in combination with other FAA approved
training devices.
    The same commenter believed that the FAA was being inconsistent in
its treatment of time that could be credited when using a BATD in part
61 versus part 141. The commenter noted that the FAA had proposed that
10 hours of the 40 hours required could be obtained using a BATD under
part 61 (25% of the hours needed), whereas the FAA had proposed that
10% of the hours could be credited in a BATD under part 141 (3.5
hours).\27\ Based on the commenter's understanding of the FAA proposal,
the commenter recommended that the total number of hours that could be
credited when using a BATD under part 141 be increased to 20% of the
total hours (7 hours of the 35 hours required).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The 3.5 hours reflects 10% of the 35 hours of instrument
training that is the minimum curriculum hours under appendix C to
part 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenter and will provide a
consistent allowance in the regulation for ATD credit when using a BATD
or AATD under part 61 and part 141. To provide a consistent allowance
under part 141 training requirements for the instrument rating, in this
final rule the FAA is allowing up to a 25% credit (8.75 hours) when
using a BATD for the minimum training time requirements.
    One commenter noted that the FAA does not differentiate regarding
the use of AATDs versus BATDs anywhere else in part 141. The commenter
believed that by differentiating AATDs from BATDs, it would now be
possible to allow credit for AATD use toward flight times for private
pilot, commercial pilot, flight instructor and additional rating
courses. Another commenter requested that the FAA consider expanding
the utilization of these devices for the private pilot rating as well
from the current 2.5 hours to 10 hours. Another

commenter requested that appendix G of part 141 be revised to permit
flight instructors to use AATDs in their own training. The commenter
asserted that if instrument instructors are to teach effectively in
ATDs, then it is logical those same instructors should use ATDs during
their own training in order to realize economic and safety benefits of
ATDs similar to those provided by the new rule under appendix C to part
141, and learn effective ATD training techniques. Yet another commenter
suggested expanding the creditable use of ATDs to all certificates--
airline transport pilot, commercial, private, flight instructor, etc.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters and is providing
separate regulatory allowances for BATDs and AATDs as described
previously and clarifying the amount of creditable time when BATDs and
AATDs are used in combination with FSTDs for instrument training. The
FAA notes that part 61 provides time allowances for private pilot,
commercial pilot, and airline transport pilot in an FSTD that is
representative of the aircraft category, class, and type if
appropriate. Currently, the FAA approves the use of ATDs for private
pilot, commercial pilot, and airline transport pilot certification
through the issuance of LOAs under the Administrator's authority in
Sec.  61.4(c). The FAA will consider this comment concerning specific
regulatory credit for ATDs to meet the requirements for pilot
certificates and may address it in other rulemakings as appropriate.
    One commenter asserted that current regulations regarding the use
of ATDs for instrument proficiency checks under 14 CFR 61.57 is
confusing. The commenter noted that Sec.  61.57(d)(1)(i) specifies that
the instrument proficiency check must be conducted in an aircraft while
the Instrument Practical Test Standard specifies that both FSTDs or
AATDs may be used for part or all of the instrument proficiency check.
The commenter recommended that the regulations be clarified to
correspond to the practical test standard.
    FAA Response: This comment is outside the scope of the proposed
rule. The FAA notes, however, that Sec.  61.57(d)(1)(ii) provides an
allowance for use of an FSTD that is representative of the aircraft
category when conducting the instrument proficiency check. The FAA will
consider this comment concerning the use of an ATD for the instrument
proficiency check and the reference in the Instrument Practical Test
that allows its use and will address it in other rulemakings as
appropriate.
    One commenter requested a variety of changes to Sec.  61.57(c)
regarding instrument experience and recency for pilots in command. The
commenter highlighted differences between current requirements for
completing instrument experience using an ATD to maintain instrument
experience (Sec.  61.57(c)(3)); completing instrument recency
experience using a combination of an aircraft and a full flight
simulator, FTD, and ATD (Sec.  61.57(c)(4)); and completing instrument
experience using a combination of a flight simulator or FTD, and an ATD
(Sec.  61.57(c)(5)).
    FAA Response: These comments are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking. The FAA will consider these comments and may address them
in other rulemakings as appropriate.
    Finally, one commenter recommended changes to permit ground
instructors to use ATDs to train their students.
    FAA Response: The FAA allows ground instructors certain privileges.
This includes training for aeronautical knowledge typically in a
classroom environment and authorizing students for knowledge tests.
While a ground instructor may use an ATD to illustrate ground training
concepts, such training may not be logged to meet the aeronautical
experience requirements for certificates and ratings. Providing flight
training--or training in FSTDs or ATDs that can substitute for some of
the required flight training--is a privilege reserved for flight
instructors who have been evaluated during a practical test on the
ability to provide flight training. Expanding this privilege to ground
instructors is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
4. Comments Opposing the Proposed Provisions
    Three commenters opposed the proposed provisions.
    One commenter, who identified himself as a flight instructor,
believed that new instrument pilots need the stress, noise, and feeling
of the real airplane when forming their habits and acquiring their
skills, not the quiet, controlled, sterile atmosphere of a simulator.
While the commenter supported the use of simulators later, he did not
believe they are appropriate for new pilots.
    FAA Response: The FAA somewhat disagrees with this commenter's
general statement that pilots ``. . . need the stress and noise and
feeling of the real item when forming their habits and acquiring their
skills, not the quiet controlled sterile atmosphere of a SIM.'' The FAA
contends that training in an ATD allows reduction in unnecessary
distractions during initial training and permits focus on the important
fundamental instrument skills and tasks necessary for safe and
controlled instrument flight. This includes practicing emergency
procedures and other maneuvers that cannot be safely accomplished in an
aircraft. Practice in an FSTD or ATD until a pilot performs a
particular segment of a procedure or action correctly, before
attempting to do the same complex tasks in an aircraft, is an
acceptable and desirable practice.
    The FAA also contends that because a significant portion of the
instrument time must be accomplished in an aircraft, the stress and
noise experience and the feeling for the real environment discussed by
the commenter will be provided during that time. Additionally, the FAA
notes that Sec.  61.65(d)(2)(i) (airplane) and Sec.  61.65(e)(2)(i)
(helicopter) currently require that three hours of training must be
accomplished in an aircraft within two months of the practical test.
The required instrument training on cross country procedures under
instrument flight rules, including a flight of 250 nautical miles with
at least three different instrument approaches and an instrument
approach at each airport, must also be accomplished in an aircraft.
    The FAA believes that training in FSTDs and ATDs, when used in
conjunction with training in an aircraft, teach an instrument student
to trust the appropriate sense, vision, in order to successfully
operate an aircraft in low visibility conditions. Training in an ATD
reinforces this necessary skill. Any reliance on ``sounds or feel'' may
ultimately lead to loss of control when operating an aircraft in
instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Because ignoring the
postural senses involves relying on visual clues, the ATD provides an
excellent platform for a pilot to develop this portion of his or her
instrument flying skills. A person must use his or her vision and focus
on the flight instruments to successfully operate an aircraft, FSTD, or
ATD in IMC conditions. The FAA recognizes that training devices do not
require motion in order to be approved as an ATD; thus, these devices
are limited in that they cannot completely train the pilot to ignore
outside sensory perceptions. However, the FAA finds that a pilot can
develop this ability during the aeronautical experience that an
applicant for an instrument rating must obtain in an aircraft.
    Another commenter, who also identified himself as a flight
instructor, believed that FTDs and simulators do a good job at
pretending to be an airplane in terms of learning procedures, but

they are not an airplane. The commenter believed that an ATD cannot
give the true feeling of transitioning from visual meteorological
conditions (VMC) to IMC, especially while climbing or turning. The
commenter asserted that unless a provision is added to the rule to
require the student to have more flight training in IMC conditions (the
commenter recommended 5 hours), adding 10 hours of ATD time will only
make the instrument pilots of the future less capable of flying in IMC.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenter that these trainers
(ATDs) do a great job for learning procedures, but disagrees that ATDs
cannot adequately provide for simulated transitions from VMC to IMC.
Very often a pilot does not ``feel'' anything in an aircraft during
these transitions. The FAA has evaluated hundreds of ATD visual systems
and has found them to have adequate fidelity and capabilities, as
required in AC 61-136A, to simulate visibility transition scenarios. In
fact, many of the FAA approved visual systems provide for numerous
scenarios including flying through multiple layers of clouds and
varying visibility conditions. This commenter fails to provide an
adequate explanation to support his or her position. Additionally, the
commenter's discussion of FFSs, FTDs and PCATDs is outside the scope of
this ATD rulemaking.
    The third commenter addressed specific comments relating to a
particular ATD. The commenter referenced Redbird ATDs, and asserted
that:

    [T]heir panels are limiting in the sense that switches are not
the same in the simulator as it is [sic] in the airplane. . . . The
Redbird simulator does not provide a volume knob for either the COM
or NAV which contains the ID mode. This is a required step in order
to properly identify a VOR station. . . . The standby instruments is
graphically depicted but the position of these instruments does not
reflect the real location of where these instruments are
installed.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Anonymous, Docket No. FAA-2015-1846-0031.

    The commenter also expressed concern regarding updated databases to
these training devices. The commenter believed that any ATD should be
required to have the latest navigation database running on the ATD.
    FAA response: The FAA notes that the commenter's discussion is
concentrated on the dislike of the functionality of the Redbird
trainer, rather than the ATD allowances for the proposed rule. The FAA
agrees, however, that ATDs (the FAA assumes that the commenter is
discussing a particular Redbird AATD based on the content of his
initial statements) are not identical to the actual aircraft. The FAA
emphasizes that, assuming the ATD in question received a LOA from the
FAA, it met or exceeded the minimum fidelity and capability
requirements specified for such devices in AC 61-136A. ATD fidelity
requirements do not require that ATDs be exactly like that of the
aircraft. The FAA notes that the Redbird Flight Simulations ATDs the
FAA has approved through LOA do provide for the ability to update the
database to reflect current instrument approach procedures. Appendix 2
of the AC states: The ATD must have at least a navigational area
database that is local to the training facility to allow reinforcement
of procedures learned during actual flight in that area. All
navigational data must be based on procedures as published per 14 CFR
part 97 (STANDARD INSTRUMENT PROCEDURES). The FAA has evaluated many of
the Redbird training devices and finds that they meet the standards in
AC 61-136A for ATD approval. If one were to prefer greater fidelity or
more exacting duplication of certain aircraft configurations, then the
FAA would suggest the use of a higher fidelity FAA approved training
device such as an FTD or FFS. However, the FAA standards set forth in
AC 61-136A are appropriate to training instrument procedures as
described in Appendix 4, Training Content and Logging Provisions. This
describes what instrument tasks can be successfully taught in ATDs.
5. Comments Opposing the Process
    Two commenters expressed strong objections to the path the FAA took
regarding this rulemaking. They objected to the withdrawal of the
direct final rule, and believed that the adverse comments the FAA
received during the comment period for the direct final rule should not
have caused the agency to withdraw the rulemaking. They also believed
the FAA should have acted more quickly once the original discrepancy
between the regulations and policy was identified.
    FAA Response: Part 11 of title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations mandates the process and responsibilities associated with
rulemaking. The FAA is required to follow those requirements even if
viewed as unnecessary or inconvenient by a segment of the public. The
Administrative Procedure Act requires the FAA to provide the public an
opportunity to comment on proposed rulemakings, allowing the public to
influence or suggest changes to those proposals. The FAA is committed
to regulate fairly, promote safety, and works diligently within the
confines of the rulemaking process.

B. View-Limiting Device

    The FAA proposed to revise Sec.  61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the
requirement that pilots accomplishing instrument time in an ATD wear a
view-limiting device. The FAA emphasizes, however, that a pilot--
whether in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD--may log instrument time only
when the pilot is operating solely by reference to the instruments
under actual or simulated conditions. If a pilot is using an ATD and
the device is providing visual references upon which the pilot is
relying, this would not constitute instrument time under Sec.
61.51(g).
    Comments received: The FAA received six comments from SAFE, NAFI,
and four individuals, supporting the elimination of the requirement
that pilots accomplishing instrument time in an ATD wear a view-
limiting device. SAFE explained its support for removal of the
provision, noting that a benefit of using ATDs is simulation of the
cockpit environment. SAFE asserted that that benefit is lost when the
student is required to wear such a device. SAFE asserted that most
students quickly become so immersed in the ATD experience that there is
no need for a view-limiting device to further focus them on the
instrument panel. All other commenters provided general support and did
not explain or further justify their support for removal of this
requirement.
    FAA response: As the FAA stated when discussing the support it
received for removing this requirement in the direct final rule, the
FAA agrees that it is unnecessary for a student to wear a view-limiting
device when using an ATD. The FAA finds that this requirement is not
necessary because ATDs do not afford relevant outside references.
Therefore, the FAA is revising 14 CFR 61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the
requirement that pilots accomplishing instrument time in an ATD wear a
view-limiting device.

C. Conforming Amendments and Nomenclature Change

    While considering these changes, the FAA became aware that other
appendices in part 141 reference Sec.  141.41(a) when discussing FFS,
and Sec.  141.41(b) when discussing FTDs and ATDs. As this rule
consolidates requirements related to FFS and FTDs into Sec.  141.41(a),
and adds new paragraph (b) related to ATDs, the FAA

is correcting cross-references in appendices C, D, E, F, G, J, K, and
M.
    Further, while considering these regulatory changes, the FAA noted
that the nomenclature regarding flight simulators has changed. The
definition as found in Sec.  1.1 references a ``full flight simulator''
whereas the regulations often use the older nomenclature ``flight
simulator.'' Therefore, in the sections the FAA has determined need to
be revised as part of the final rule, the FAA is removing the words
``flight simulator'' wherever they appear and replacing them with the
words ``full flight simulator.''

VI. Advisory Circulars and Other Guidance Materials

    To further implement this rule, the FAA is revising the following
FAA Order: FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management
System, Volume 11, Chapter 10, Section 1, (Basic and Advanced Aviation
Training Device) Approval and Authorized Use under 14 CFR parts 61 and
141.

VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354), as codified in 5 U.S.C. 603 et seq., requires agencies to
analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended, 19 U.S.C.
Chapter 13, prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4), as codified in 2 U.S.C. Chapter 25, requires agencies
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this final rule.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this rule:
(1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an economically
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold
identified above. These analyses are summarized below.
    Department of Transportation DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows.
    The provisions included in this rule are either relieving or
voluntary. The elimination of the requirement to use a view-limiting
device is a relieving provision. The other two provisions are voluntary
and cost relieving--additional ATD credit for instrument time for an
instrument rating and additional ATD credit for approved instrument
courses, if acted upon, is less expensive than flight training time.
The FAA made the same cost-benefit determination as part of the direct
final rule (79 FR 71634, Dec. 3, 2014) and on this part of the notice
of proposed rulemaking (80 FR 34338, Jun. 16, 2015) and received no
comments.
    Two commenters, both of whom identified themselves as private
pilots working toward their instrument ratings, discussed the potential
for cost relief provided by the proposed rule. Both commenters
estimated that time in an approved simulator with an instructor costs
about $100 per hour, while dual time in an instrument flight rules-
certified aircraft is $200 per hour or more. These commenters asserted
that adding an extra 10 hours of simulator time reduces $1,000 from the
overall training cost.
    Persons who use the new provisions will do so only if the benefit
they will accrue from their use exceeds the costs they might incur to
comply. Given the hundreds of LOAs issued, industry's high usage of
ATDs, and SAFE's, AOPA's, and NAFI's endorsements of ATDs, the change
in requirements is likely to be relieving. Benefits will exceed the
costs of a voluntary rule if just one person voluntarily complies.
    Since this rule will offer a lower cost alternative, will provide
regulatory relief for the use of view-limiting devices, and will allow
greater voluntary use of ATDs, the expected outcome will be cost
relieving to minimal impact with positive net benefits.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    Most of the parties affected by this rule will be small businesses
such as flight instructors, aviation schools, and fixed base operators.
The general lack of publicly available financial information from these
small businesses precludes a financial analysis of these small
businesses. While there is likely a substantial number of small
entities affected, the provisions of this rule are either relieving
(directly provides cost relief) or voluntary (provides benefits or
costs only if a person voluntarily chooses to use the rule provision).
Thus,

the FAA determines that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA made the same
determination as part of the direct final rule (79 FR 71634, Dec. 3,
2014) and as part of the notice of proposed rulemaking (80 FR 34338,
Jun. 16, 2015) and, in both cases, we requested, but did not receive,
any comments.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

VII. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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

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

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory
cooperation.

VIII. Additional Information

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
     Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
     Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies, or
     Accessing the Government Publishing Office's Web page at
http://www.fdsys.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
docket or amendment number of the rule) to the Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this rule, including
economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the
Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced previously.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

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

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA) requires FAA to comply with

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

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Teachers.

14 CFR Part 141

    Airmen, Educational facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS

0
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

0
2. Amend Sec.  61.65 as follows:
0
a. In paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(8)(ii), (c) introductory text, and (h),
remove the words ``flight simulator'' and add in their place the words
``full flight simulator''; and,
0
b. Revise paragraph (i) and add paragraph (j).
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  61.65  Instrument rating requirements.

* * * * *
    (i) Use of an aviation training device. A maximum of 10 hours of
instrument time received in a basic aviation training device or a
maximum of 20 hours of instrument time received in an advanced aviation
training device may be credited for the instrument time requirements of
this section if--
    (1) The device is approved and authorized by the FAA;
    (2) An authorized instructor provides the instrument time in the
device; and
    (3) The FAA approved the instrument training and instrument tasks
performed in the device.
    (j) Except as provided in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, a
person may not credit more than 20 total hours of instrument time in a
full flight simulator, flight training device, aviation training
device, or a combination towards the instrument time requirements of
this section.

PART 141--PILOT SCHOOLS

0
3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709, 44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

0
4. Revise Sec.  141.41 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.41  Full flight simulators, flight training devices, aviation
training devices, and training aids.

    An applicant for a pilot school certificate or a provisional pilot
school certificate must show that its full flight simulators, flight
training devices, aviation training devices, training aids, and
equipment meet the following requirements:
    (a) Full flight simulators and flight training devices. Each full
flight simulator and flight training device used to obtain flight
training credit in an approved pilot training course curriculum must
be:
    (1) Qualified under part 60 of this chapter, or a previously
qualified device, as permitted in accordance with Sec.  60.17 of this
chapter; and
    (2) Approved by the Administrator for the tasks and maneuvers.
    (b) Aviation training devices. Each basic or advanced aviation
training device used to obtain flight training credit in an approved
pilot training course curriculum must be evaluated, qualified, and
approved by the Administrator.
    (c) Training aids and equipment. Each training aid, including any
audiovisual aid, projector, mockup, chart, or aircraft component listed
in the approved training course outline, must be accurate and relevant
to the course for which it is used.

0
5. In appendix B to part 141, revise paragraph (c) in section 4 to read
as follows:

Appendix B to Part 141--Private Pilot Certification Course

* * * * *
    4. Flight training. * * *
    (c) For use of full flight simulators or flight training devices:
    (1) The course may include training in a full flight simulator or
flight training device, provided it is representative of the aircraft
for which the course is approved, meets the requirements of this
paragraph, and the training is given by an authorized instructor.
    (2) Training in a full flight simulator that meets the requirements
of Sec.  141.41(a) may be credited for a maximum of 20 percent of the
total flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of
this section, whichever is less.
    (3) Training in a flight training device that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) may be credited for a maximum of 15
percent of the total flight training hour requirements of the approved
course, or of this section, whichever is less.
    (4) Training in full flight simulators or flight training devices
described in paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) of this section, if used in
combination, may be credited for a maximum of 20 percent of the total
flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of this
section, whichever is less. However, credit for training in a flight
training device that meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) cannot
exceed the limitation provided for in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
6. In appendix C to part 141, revise paragraph (b) in section 4 to read
as follows:

Appendix C to Part 141--Instrument Rating Course

* * * * *
    4. Flight training. * * *
    (b) For the use of full flight simulators, flight training devices,
or aviation training devices--
    (1) The course may include training in a full flight simulator,
flight training device, or aviation training device, provided it is
representative of the aircraft for which the course is approved, meets
the requirements of this paragraph, and the training is given by an
authorized instructor.
    (2) Credit for training in a full flight simulator that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) cannot exceed 50 percent of the total
flight training hour requirements of the course or of this section,
whichever is less.
    (3) Credit for training in a flight training device that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(a), an advanced aviation training device
that meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(b), or a combination of
these devices cannot exceed 40 percent of the total flight training
hour requirements of the course or of this section, whichever is less.
Credit for training in a basic aviation training device that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(b) cannot exceed 25 percent of the total
training hour requirements permitted under this paragraph.
    (4) Credit for training in full flight simulators, flight training
devices, and aviation training devices if used in

combination, cannot exceed 50 percent of the total flight training hour
requirements of the course or of this section, whichever is less.
However, credit for training in a flight training device or aviation
training device cannot exceed the limitation provided for in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
7. In appendix D to part 141, revise paragraph (c) in section 4 to read
as follows:

Appendix D to Part 141--Commercial Pilot Certification Course

* * * * *
    4. Flight training. * * *
    (c) For the use of full flight simulators or flight training
devices:
    (1) The course may include training in a full flight simulator or
flight training device, provided it is representative of the aircraft
for which the course is approved, meets the requirements of this
paragraph, and is given by an authorized instructor.
    (2) Training in a full flight simulator that meets the requirements
of Sec.  141.41(a) may be credited for a maximum of 30 percent of the
total flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of
this section, whichever is less.
    (3) Training in a flight training device that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) may be credited for a maximum of 20
percent of the total flight training hour requirements of the approved
course, or of this section, whichever is less.
    (4) Training in the flight training devices described in paragraphs
(c)(2) and (3) of this section, if used in combination, may be credited
for a maximum of 30 percent of the total flight training hour
requirements of the approved course, or of this section, whichever is
less. However, credit for training in a flight training device that
meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) cannot exceed the limitation
provided for in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
8. In appendix E to part 141, revise paragraph (b) in section 4 to read
as follows:

Appendix E to Part 141--Airline Transport Pilot Certification Course

* * * * *
    4. Flight training. * * *
    (b) For the use of full flight simulators or flight training
devices--
    (1) The course may include training in a full flight simulator or
flight training device, provided it is representative of the aircraft
for which the course is approved, meets the requirements of this
paragraph, and the training is given by an authorized instructor.
    (2) Training in a full flight simulator that meets the requirements
of Sec.  141.41(a) may be credited for a maximum of 50 percent of the
total flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of
this section, whichever is less.
    (3) Training in a flight training device that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) may be credited for a maximum of 25
percent of the total flight training hour requirements of the approved
course, or of this section, whichever is less.
    (4) Training in full flight simulators or flight training devices
described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, if used in
combination, may be credited for a maximum of 50 percent of the total
flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of this
section, whichever is less. However, credit for training in a flight
training device that meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) cannot
exceed the limitation provided for in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
9. In appendix F to part 141, revise paragraph (b) in section 4 to read
as follows:

Appendix F to Part 141--Flight Instructor Certification Course

* * * * *
    4. Flight training. * * *
    (b) For the use of flight simulators or flight training devices:
    (1) The course may include training in a full flight simulator or
flight training device, provided it is representative of the aircraft
for which the course is approved, meets the requirements of this
paragraph, and the training is given by an authorized instructor.
    (2) Training in a full flight simulator that meets the requirements
of Sec.  141.41(a), may be credited for a maximum of 10 percent of the
total flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of
this section, whichever is less.
    (3) Training in a flight training device that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(a), may be credited for a maximum of 5
percent of the total flight training hour requirements of the approved
course, or of this section, whichever is less.
    (4) Training in full flight simulators or flight training devices
described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, if used in
combination, may be credited for a maximum of 10 percent of the total
flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of this
section, whichever is less. However, credit for training in a flight
training device that meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) cannot
exceed the limitation provided for in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
10. In appendix G to part 141, revise paragraph (b) in section 4 to
read as follows:

Appendix G to Part 141--Flight Instructor Instrument (For an Airplane,
Helicopter, or Powered-Lift Instrument Instructor Rating, as
Appropriate) Certification Course

* * * * *
    4. Flight training. * * *
    (b) For the use of full flight simulators or flight training
devices:
    (1) The course may include training in a full flight simulator or
flight training device, provided it is representative of the aircraft
for which the course is approved for, meets requirements of this
paragraph, and the training is given by an instructor.
    (2) Training in a full flight simulator that meets the requirements
of Sec.  141.41(a), may be credited for a maximum of 10 percent of the
total flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of
this section, whichever is less.
    (3) Training in a flight training device that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(a), may be credited for a maximum of 5
percent of the total flight training hour requirements of the approved
course, or of this section, whichever is less.
    (4) Training in full flight simulators or flight training devices
described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, if used in
combination, may be credited for a maximum of 10 percent of the total
flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of this
section, whichever is less. However, credit for training in a flight
training device that meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(b) cannot
exceed the limitation provided for in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
11. In appendix J to part 141, revise paragraph (b) in section 4 to
read as follows:

Appendix J to Part 141--Aircraft Type Rating Course, For Other Than an
Airline Transport Pilot Certificate

* * * * *
    4. Flight training. * * *
    (b) For the use of full flight simulators or flight training
devices:
    (1) The course may include training in a full flight simulator or
flight training device, provided it is representative of the aircraft
for which the course is approved, meets requirements of this

paragraph, and the training is given by an authorized instructor.
    (2) Training in a full flight simulator that meets the requirements
of Sec.  141.41(a), may be credited for a maximum of 50 percent of the
total flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of
this section, whichever is less.
    (3) Training in a flight training device that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(a), may be credited for a maximum of 25
percent of the total flight training hour requirements of the approved
course, or of this section, whichever is less.
    (4) Training in the full flight simulators or flight training
devices described in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section, if used
in combination, may be credited for a maximum of 50 percent of the
total flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of
this section, whichever is less. However, credit training in a flight
training device that meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) cannot
exceed the limitation provided for in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

0
12. In appendix K to part 141, revise section 4 to read as follows:

Appendix K to Part 141--Special Preparation Courses

* * * * *
    4. Use of full flight simulators or flight training devices. (a)
The approved special preparation course may include training in a full
flight simulator or flight training device, provided it is
representative of the aircraft for which the course is approved, meets
requirements of this paragraph, and the training is given by an
authorized instructor.
    (b) Except for the airline transport pilot certification program in
section 13 of this appendix, training in a full flight simulator that
meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(a), may be credited for a
maximum of 10 percent of the total flight training hour requirements of
the approved course, or of this section, whichever is less.
    (c) Except for the airline transport pilot certification program in
section 13 of this appendix, training in a flight training device that
meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(a), may be credited for a
maximum of 5 percent of the total flight training hour requirements of
the approved course, or of this section, whichever is less.
    (d) Training in the full flight simulators or flight training
devices described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, if used in
combination, may be credited for a maximum of 10 percent of the total
flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of this
section, whichever is less. However, credit for training in a flight
training device that meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) cannot
exceed the limitation provided for in paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *

0
13. In appendix M to part 141, revise paragraph (c) of section 4 to
read as follows:

Appendix M to Part 141--Combined Private Pilot Certification and
Instrument Rating Course

* * * * *
    4. Flight training.
* * * * *
    (c) For use of full flight simulators or flight training devices:
    (1) The course may include training in a combination of full flight
simulators, flight training devices, and aviation training devices,
provided it is representative of the aircraft for which the course is
approved, meets the requirements of this section, and the training is
given by an authorized instructor.
    (2) Training in a full flight simulator that meets the requirements
of Sec.  141.41(a) may be credited for a maximum of 35 percent of the
total flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or of
this section, whichever is less.
    (3) Training in a flight training device that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) or an aviation training device that
meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(b) may be credited for a maximum
of 25 percent of the total flight training hour requirements of the
approved course, or of this section, whichever is less.
    (4) Training in a combination of flight simulators, flight training
devices, or aviation training devices, described in paragraphs (c)(2)
and (3) of this section, may be credited for a maximum of 35 percent of
the total flight training hour requirements of the approved course, or
of this section, whichever is less. However, credit for training in a
flight training device and aviation training device, that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(b), cannot exceed the limitation provided
for in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 44703(a), on April 4, 2016.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-08388 Filed 4-8-16; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P