[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29336-29526]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10554]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 98

May 20, 2011

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Aviation Administration

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

14 CFR Parts 65, 119, 121 et al.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 98 / Friday, May 20, 2011 / Proposed
Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 65, 119, 121, 135, 142

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0677; Notice No. 08-07A]
RIN 2120-AJ00

Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).

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

SUMMARY: On January 12, 2009, the FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking on qualification, service, and use of crewmembers and
aircraft dispatchers. Because of the complexity of the issues and the
concerns raised by commenters, the FAA is issuing this supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking. The FAA proposes to amend the
regulations for crewmember and aircraft dispatcher training programs in
domestic, flag, and supplemental operations. The proposed regulations
enhance traditional training programs by requiring the use of flight
simulation training devices for flightcrew members and including
additional training and evaluation requirements for all crewmembers and
aircraft dispatchers in areas that are critical to safety. The proposal
also reorganizes and revises the qualification, training, and
evaluation requirements. The proposed changes are intended to
contribute significantly to reducing aviation accidents.

DATES: Send your comments on or before July 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2008-
0677 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any of
our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment
(or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you
may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-
140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For flightcrew member information
contact James K. Sheppard, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for flight
attendant information contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and for aircraft dispatcher information
contact Leo D. Hollis, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Air Transportation
Division (AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal questions, contact Anne Bechdolt,
Office of Chief Counsel (AGC-200), Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this proposal and related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires
the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security. In addition, the Airline Safety and
Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)
specifically directed the FAA to issue a final rule with respect to the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register on
January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1280).

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Background
    A. Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
    B. Summary of Comments
    C. Need for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM)
    D. General Overview of SNPRM
    E. Basis for the Rulemaking
    F. Impact of SNPRM on AQP Operators
    G. Transition From Current Training Program Requirements
(Sec. Sec.  121.1202 and 121.1402)
III. Discussion of Significant Issues in SNPRM
    A. Flightcrew Member Job Performance Training (Appendices Q and
R)
    1. Job Performance Task Requirements and Definitions
    2. Pilot Monitoring Requirements (Sec.  121.1213)
    3. Frequency of Training and Evaluation for Recurrent Tasks
    4. Proposed Baseline and Minimum Programmed Hours (Sec.
121.1335)
    5. Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Requirements
(Including Level of FSTD) (Sec.  121.1345, Table 3B of the Pilot and
Flight Engineer QPS)
    B. Reduction in Programmed Hours and Modification of Training
Program Based on Operation of Related Aircraft
    C. Require Certificated Aircraft Dispatchers for Supplemental
Operations
    D. Establish Deviation Authority To Allow Contract Aircraft
Dispatcher Services (Sec.  121.1411)
    E. Clarify Training Requirements for Other Operations Personnel
(Sec.  121.1475)
    F. Requalification Requirements for Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers
    1. Flightcrew Member Requalification (Sec.  121.1239)
    2. Flight Attendant Requalification (Sec.  121.1309)
    3. Aircraft Dispatcher Requalification (Sec.  121.1419)
IV. General Issues for Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers
    A. Training Program: Approval and Amendment Process (Sec. Sec.
121.1337 and 121.1437)
    B. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Manuals and Manual
Procedures (Sec. Sec.  121.133, 121.134, 121.135, and 121.540)

    C. Distance Learning
    D. Training Program: General--Crewmember Records (Sec. Sec.
121.1331 and 121.1431)
    E. Training Program: Curriculum by Aircraft Type and Curriculum
By Aircraft Type and Operation (Sec. Sec.  121.1333 and 121.1433)
    F. Training Program: Administering Training and Evaluation
(Sec. Sec.  121.1341 and 121.1439)
    G. Continuous Analysis Process (CAP) (Sec. Sec.  121.1355 and
121.1441)
    H. Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (Sec.  121.9)
    I. English Language Requirement (Sec. Sec.  121.1209 and
121.1407)
    J. Crewmember and Dispatcher Record (Sec. Sec.  121.683 and
121.684)
    K. Management and Technical Personnel Required for Operations
Conducted Under Part 121 of This Chapter (Sec.  119.65)
    L. Applicability (Sec. Sec.  121.1201 and 121.1401)
    M. Training Program: Contract Training Requirements (Sec.
121.1339)
    N. Curriculum Category Requirements: Check Pilot, Check Flight
Engineer, or Check Flight Attendant Initial, Transition, and
Recurrent Academic Training (Sec.  121.1381)
    O. Training Program: Academic Evaluation (Sec.  121.1343)
    P. Training Program: Training Equipment Other Than Flight
Simulation Training Devices (Sec.  121.1351)
    Q. Curriculum Category Requirements: Crewmember New Hire (Sec.
121.1363)
    R. Initial Cadre for Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers
(Sec. Sec.  121.1257, 121.1323, and 121.1425)
    1. Check Airman Initial Cadre (Sec.  121.1257)
    2. Check Flight Attendant Initial Cadre (Sec.  121.1323)
    3. Check Dispatcher Initial Cadre (Sec.  121.1425)
V. Other Issues by Specialty
    A. Flightcrew Member
    B. Flight Attendant
    C. Aircraft Dispatcher
VI. Impact Statements

I. Executive Summary

    On January 12, 2009, the FAA published an NPRM addressing
qualification, service, and use of crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers
as part of the Administrator's Call to Action and FAA's continuing
efforts to reduce fatal accidents in which human error was a major
contributing cause. The proposed changes focused on reducing human
error and improving performance among flightcrew members, flight
attendants, and aircraft dispatchers.
    The NPRM proposed regulations to enhance traditional training
programs by requiring the use of Flight Simulation Training Devices
(FSTD) for flightcrew members and including additional training and
evaluation requirements for all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers in
areas that are critical to safety. These areas included:
     Ensuring that flightcrew members are trained and evaluated
in a complete flight crew environment;
     Requiring special hazard training for flightcrew members
that addresses loss of control and controlled flight into terrain
(CFIT); and
     Requiring additional training and practice in the use of
crew resource management (CRM) skills.
    Further, flight attendants would be required to complete ``hands-
on'' performance drills using emergency equipment and procedures every
12 months, training and experience requirements for check dispatchers
and dispatcher instructors would be standardized and all certificate
holders would be required to develop a continuous analysis process
(CAP) to identify and correct deficiencies in their training programs.
    The FAA received approximately 150 comments in response to the NPRM
(with approximately 3,000 pages of detailed comments). Many commenters
asserted that the FAA understated the impact of the NPRM on air
carriers conducting training under an approved Advanced Qualification
Program (AQP) and underestimated the number of FSTD periods required to
meet flightcrew member training and evaluation requirements.
    In response to these comments, the FAA developed a report to
validate FAA cost estimates in the NPRM and SNPRM regarding: (1) The
number of simulator sessions, hours, and tasks required to accomplish
proposed flightcrew member training and evaluation requirements for
both AQP and non-AQP air carriers; and (2) the minimal impact of the
proposed rule on carriers training under an AQP in accordance with the
provisions in part 121, subpart Y.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Flightcrew Member Training and Qualification Review and
Analysis Technical Report,'' April 5, 2010 (FAA Technical Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Building on the foundation set in the NPRM and review of the
comments submitted, the FAA is issuing this SNPRM to address several
key issues that were not addressed in the NPRM and to clarify several
other issues raised in the comments. These issues include:
     Allowing modification of training program requirements for
flightcrew members based on an air carrier's operation of aircraft with
similar flight handling characteristics;
     Requiring certificated aircraft dispatchers for
certificate holders conducting supplemental operations;
     Establishing deviation authority to allow contract
aircraft dispatchers; and
     Establishing training requirements for other operations
personnel (e.g., ground operations and management personnel).
    In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration
Extension Act of 2010 (Act) was enacted on August 1, 2010. See Public
Law 111-216, Sec. Sec.  208, 209. Under the Act, Congress has directed
the FAA to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew members
receive ground (academic) training and flight (job performance)
training in the recognition and avoidance of stalls, and recovery from
stall, and recognition and avoidance of upset of an aircraft, as well
as the proper techniques to recover from upset. The Act also requires
the development of remedial training programs for flightcrew members
who have demonstrated performance deficiencies or experienced failures
in the training environment.
    This SNPRM integrates these new requirements with the original NPRM
and lays out a process by which significant safety benefits can be
achieved. This SNPRM does this through a focus on the requirements of
the Act, an effort to address or partially address 28 NTSB
recommendations, and adjustments to the original NPRM based upon public
comment.
    The result is a vision for enhanced certificate holder training
that builds on the strengths in the current regulations and guidance
and defines a path for making that training more effective. The key
features of the SNPRM include:
     Enhancing training programs by requiring the use of flight
simulation training devices (FSTD) for flight crewmembers;
     Addressing National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommendations regarding crewmember training;
     Realigning the recurrent training and evaluation interval
to 9 months for both pilots in command (PICs) and second in command
(SICs) that results in an equivalent level of training for both. SICs
would now receive twice the amount of FSTD time over a 36 month
training cycle as they receive today;
     Focusing on the value of training and evaluation in a
complete flightcrew environment through this realignment, which would
increase the likelihood that PICs and SICs who need recurrent training
would train together;
     Providing a clear definition of the tasks required to
train and evaluate pilots in part 121 operations during the 36-month
recurrent training cycle while maintaining flexibility for the
certificate holder;

     Clarifying the minimal impact on certificate holders
training under an Advanced Qualification Program (AQP).
    The FAA estimated cost of this proposed rule over the 10-year
analysis interval is $391.9 million, $199.1 million at a seven percent
present value, and $290.3 million at a three percent present value. The
estimated potential quantified safety benefits over the 10-year
analysis interval is $445.1 million, $222.9 million at a seven percent
present value, and $327.5 million at a three percent present value.
    The following table shows the benefit and cost results.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY11.000

    In addition, the following tables show a comparison of crewmember
and aircraft dispatcher training hours.

  Comparison of Current and Proposed Recurrent Job Performance Training Hours for PICs and SICs Over a 36-Month
                                                 Training Cycle
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Current rule                            SNPRM
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            PIC (hours)       SIC (hours)        PIC (hours)       SIC (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 months...............................                 4                 4                  6                 6
12 months..............................                 4                ''
18 months..............................                 4                 4                  6                 6
24 months..............................                 4                ''                  6                 6
30 months..............................                 4                 4                  6                 6
36 months..............................                 4                ''   ................  ................
                                                       24                12                 24                24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY11.001

II. Background

A. Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

    On January 12, 2009, the FAA published an NPRM (74 FR 1280),
proposing to amend the regulations for crewmember and aircraft
dispatcher training programs in domestic, flag, and supplemental
operations. The primary purpose of the NPRM was to establish new
requirements for traditional air carrier training programs to ensure
that safety-critical training and evaluation is provided. The secondary
purpose of the NPRM was to reorganize, simplify and recodify all rule
language relating to crewmember and aircraft dispatcher qualification
and training requirements in subparts N, O, and P of part 121, into
subparts BB and CC of part 121. The proposed changes sought to make a
significant contribution to the FAA's accident reduction goal by
improving performance and reducing human error among flightcrew
members, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers. These changes
included:
     Training and evaluating flightcrew members in a complete
flight crew environment;
     Requiring Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) to be
administered to flightcrew members in a full flight simulator (FFS)
during recurrent training;
     Requiring the use of qualified FSTD for training and
evaluating flightcrew members;
     Requiring special hazard training for flightcrew members,
such as loss of control and CFIT; and
     Requiring additional training and practice in the use of
CRM skills;
     Requiring flight attendants to complete ``hands on''
performance drills every 12 months using emergency equipment and
procedures;
     Requiring trained and qualified flight attendant ground
instructors and evaluators;
     Standardizing the training and experience requirements for
check dispatchers and dispatcher instructors;
     Implementing supervised operating experience (SOE)
requirements for aircraft dispatchers;
     Establishing requalification training and evaluation for
crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers;
     Requiring a CAP for certificate holders.
    In addition to these requirements, the FAA also proposed to
reformat existing subparts N, O, and P, into subparts BB and CC.
Subpart BB addresses the qualification standards and training and
evaluation requirements for flightcrew members and flight attendants
currently in subparts N, O, and P, as well as appendices E, F, and H.
Subpart CC addresses the qualification standards and training and
evaluation requirements for aircraft dispatchers and other operations
personnel currently in subparts N and P. The FAA also proposed to
establish four Qualification Performance Standards (QPS) Appendices:
Pilots, appendix Q; Flight Engineers, appendix R; Flight Attendants,
appendix S; and Aircraft Dispatchers, appendix T. These appendices
contained the minimum training and evaluation standards as well as
procedures for crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers to become qualified
and maintain qualification. In each QPS appendix, the material was
separated into two sections: ``QPS Requirements,'' which were
regulatory and in addition to the requirements in part 121, and ``QPS
Information,'' which contained advisory material and explained methods
of compliance with the regulatory requirements of subparts BB and CC,
as well as the QPS requirements sections.
    As proposed in the NPRM, each training program curriculum would
consist of categories of training (referred to as curriculum categories
in the SNPRM) related to the individual's level of qualification
experience. These categories of training addressed first time
qualification for a certificate holder, first time qualification in
type, configuration differences within type or series, maintaining and
regaining qualification, and changes in operation. These categories of
training included new hire, initial, transition, conversion (full and
core), upgrade (full and core), emergency, differences, recurrent,
requalification, and special. For these curriculum categories, the NPRM
established minimum programmed hours and specific task requirements for
both academic and job performance training and evaluation. Academic
training and evaluation, commonly referred to as ground training,
provides students with the required knowledge and cognitive skills
necessary to perform the tasks required for the crewmember duty
position or training or evaluation duty position. This training may be
completed in either a classroom setting or through distance
learning.\2\ Job performance training and evaluation provides students
with the practical, hands-on experience of integrating knowledge and
skills and learning the related motor skills necessary to perform the
job. The FAA also proposed revising manual requirements and requiring
separate approvals of the flightcrew member, flight attendant, and
aircraft dispatcher operating manuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The FAA has defined distance learning in FAA guidance as
``learning that is accomplished by any training method not including
an instructor and a gathering of trainees collocated in a
traditional classroom''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment period for the NPRM was originally scheduled to close
on May 12, 2009. In response to requests, the FAA issued a notice (74
FR 17910, April 20, 2009) extending the comment period until August 10,
2009.

B. Summary of Comments

    The FAA received approximately 150 comments in response to the NPRM
(with approximately 3,000 pages of detailed comments). The issues
raised by commenters are discussed in more detail later in this
document under the heading ``Discussion of Significant Issues.''
Commenters included industry organizations, unions, individual
airlines, aircraft manufacturers, the NTSB, and individual members of
the public. Many commenters, including Air Transport Association of
America (ATA), Regional Airline Association (RAA), and individual
airlines, raised the following general concerns with the NPRM:
     The FAA understated the impact of the NPRM on air carriers
conducting training under an approved AQP.
     The FAA underestimated the number of FSTD periods required
to meet flightcrew member training and evaluation requirements.
     The FAA did not adequately consider the impact of
requiring a full crew for flightcrew member training and evaluation.
    Several unions representing pilots and flight attendants, and a
professional organization representing dispatchers, generally supported
most of the NPRM, although all submitted specific recommendations for
change or clarification.
    In addition, the NTSB generally supported the NPRM. In its
comments, the NTSB listed 13 open safety recommendations related to
crewmember training and included an explanation of whether the NPRM
addressed each of them.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NTSB recommendations A-95-124, A-96-120, A-07-44, A-08-16,
and A-08-17 also include operations conducted under part 135 or
operations conducted under part 91, subpart K. Although the NPRM and
SNPRM address NTSB recommendations for part 121 operators, the NPRM
and SNPRM would not address these recommendations for part 135
operations or part 91, subpart K operations.

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

C. Need for Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM)

    Upon review of the comments, the FAA identified the following major
issues that were not adequately addressed in the NPRM: the impact of
the proposed rule on air carriers conducting training under an approved
AQP; modification of training program requirements for flightcrew
members based on an air carrier's operation of aircraft with similar
flight handling characteristics; certificated aircraft dispatchers for
certificate holders conducting supplemental operations; deviation
authority to allow contract aircraft dispatchers; and training
requirements for other operations personnel. Furthermore, the FAA
determined that additional data and clarification was necessary
regarding the development of the minimum programmed hours for
curriculum categories and flightcrew member job performance task
requirements for the initial and recurrent curriculum categories', the
proposed frequency for conducting training; the level of FSTD required
to meet the proposed training program requirements', and the interim
requirements for air carriers transitioning from the requirements of
subparts N, O, and P to the requirements of subparts BB and CC.
    In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration
Extension Act of 2010 was enacted on August 1, 2010. See Public Law
111-216, Sec. Sec.  208, 209. Under this Act, Congress has mandated
that the FAA issue a final rule with respect to this proposal within 14
months after the date of the enactment of the Act. Congress also has
required the FAA to conduct rulemaking to ensure that all flightcrew
members receive ground training and flight training in the recognition
and avoidance of stalls, and recovery from stall, and recognition and
avoidance of upset of an aircraft, as well as the proper techniques to
recover from upset. The Act also prescribes the development of remedial
training programs for flightcrew members who have demonstrated
performance deficiencies or experienced failures in the training
environment. The FAA has included these requirements in the SNPRM. The
FAA is providing the public an opportunity to comment on these
additional requirements, as well as other changes from the NPRM.
    Because of the substantive changes and reorganization of the NPRM,
the FAA is publishing the rulemaking proposal in its entirety in this
SNPRM. These changes are discussed below. To facilitate review, the FAA
has provided a distribution and derivation table in the docket, listing
the current rule requirements, the sections as proposed in the NPRM,
and where those requirements appear in the SNPRM.

D. General Overview of SNPRM

    This section provides a summary of the SNPRM and offers further
explanation for the need for the proposed safety improvements. It also
clarifies the impact of the proposal on air carriers conducting
training under an approved AQP, as well as the interim requirements for
operators transitioning from the training program requirements of
existing subparts N, O and P to subparts BB and CC.
    The FAA has retained the structure of the rule as proposed in the
NPRM, with minor changes. Each air carrier that currently trains under
the requirements of subparts N, O, and P rather than through an
approved AQP would be required to have an approved training program
that meets the standards set forth in subparts BB and CC. As discussed
later in this document, based on the FAA's analysis of six existing AQP
carriers, on average, an AQP carrier may expect to add 5-6 flightcrew
member training or evaluation tasks to its curriculum, assuming the
carrier has not obtained approval of alternative means of compliance
for the proposed tasks in subpart BB that are not currently addressed.
The requirements for qualification, service and use of pilots, flight
engineers, and flight attendants (including the training program
requirements for each population) are set forth in subpart BB and
appendices Q, R, and S. The requirements for the qualification,
service, and use of aircraft dispatchers (including the training
program requirements) and the training requirements for other
operations personnel, are set forth in subpart CC and appendix T. The
training program must include the task requirements that pertain to
each certificate holder's particular operations for academic and job
performance training and evaluation for the following curriculum
categories: new hire, initial, transition, conversion, upgrade,
emergency, differences, recurrent, requalification, and special. The
task requirements for each air carrier would vary depending on the air
carrier's particular operations. The academic and job performance
training and evaluation tasks for these curriculum categories are set
forth in the QPS appendix specific to each population. In addition to
the curriculum categories, each training program must also include the
personnel, facilities, equipment, and other resources used to meet the
training requirements, as further outlined in subparts BB and CC.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA made one significant format change regarding
the QPS appendices. Several commenters stated that including guidance
information with the regulatory requirements made it difficult to
determine which provisions in the appendices were required. To
eliminate this confusion, the FAA has removed all of the non-regulatory
informational sections from the QPS appendices and placed this guidance
material in the following draft advisory circulars (ACs): Aircraft
Dispatcher Training and Evaluation, Flight Attendant Training and
Evaluation, and Flightcrew Member Training and Evaluation. In addition,
the FAA also revised AC 120-53A, Guidance for Conducting and Use of
Flight Standardization Board Evaluations, to address the new process
set forth in the SNPRM for certificate holders seeking modification of
their training programs based on operation of aircraft with similar
flight handling characteristics, or as otherwise referred to in the
SNPRM, related aircraft. These draft ACs are available for review in
the docket.

E. Basis for the Rulemaking

    The safety need for this rulemaking is based on a review of
accidents involving U.S. certificate holders required to train under
part 121, NTSB recommendations regarding training requirements, and the
resulting need to codify existing recommended practices contained in
FAA guidance material that represent current industry practices. The
FAA received several comments regarding the basis for the NPRM and this
section provides additional clarification.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the leading causes of fatal accidents for
U.S. air carriers over the last 20 years have been loss of control and
CFIT. Human error was also a major factor in many of the accidents
during this time period. This was most recently evidenced in the Colgan
Air crash that occurred on February 12, 2009, when the pilot lost
control of the aircraft after failing to follow appropriate procedures,
resulting in the death of 45 passengers, two flight attendants, both
pilots, and an individual on the ground. This rulemaking is necessary
to address the training inadequacies the FAA identified in its accident
analysis, as well as the multiple NTSB recommendations resulting from
these accidents.
    In the NPRM, the FAA identified 169 accidents that occurred from
1985 to 2004 that could have been mitigated if

the proposed enhanced training requirements had been in effect at the
time of those accidents. Several commenters raised questions regarding
whether this accident analysis included air carriers training under an
approved AQP or accidents that had already been accounted for by other
rulemaking actions. As a result of these comments, the FAA conducted a
new accident analysis for the SNPRM. In this analysis, the FAA
identified 178 accidents that occurred between 1988 and 2009 that were
the result of inadequate training, incomplete operating manuals, and
inadequate training standards and operating procedures. These accidents
resulted in 492 fatalities, 196 serious injuries, and 615 minor
injuries. This accident analysis does not include accidents by
operators training under an approved AQP, or any accident that occurred
while an air carrier was operating under the requirements of part 135.
A detailed description of this analysis, and how it was conducted, is
provided in section III.B.2 of the regulatory evaluation that is
available for review in the docket.
    The NTSB investigation reports of these accidents revealed, among
other issues, the following areas of training inadequacies: Recovery
from stall, active pilot monitoring skills, effective CRM, CFIT,
operations in icing conditions, contaminated runways, upset recovery
and recognition, and special hazards training. The NTSB often noted
that these issues were compounded further by incomplete manuals and
inadequate standards and operating procedures. These accidents resulted
in the NTSB issuing several recommendations for training program
requirements. The changes proposed in the NPRM and SNPRM incorporate
the applicable sections relevant to training from the following NTSB
recommendations:
     Crewmember Resource Management (CRM) training
(Recommendations A-88-71 and A-94-96);
     Flight attendant training (Recommendations A-92-67, A-92-
70, A-92-71, A-92-74, and A-92-77);
     Traffic Collision and Avoidance System Resolution Advisory
(TCAS RA) training (Recommendation A-93-46);
     Use of simulators to conduct LOFT (Recommendations A-94-
191 through 194);
     Training of flightcrews to respond to sudden, unusual or
unexpected aircraft upsets (Recommendation A-96-120);
     Training of crewmembers to respond to in-flight fires
(Recommendations A-01-83 through A-01-85);
     Aircraft pressurization on the ground while the ground air
conditioning source is supplying conditioned (cooled or heated) air to
the cabin (Recommendation A-07-96);
     Monitoring of exit availability on the ground after a
significant event to help expedite and emergency evacuation
(Recommendation A-09-26);
     Communication and coordination between Flight Crewmembers
and Flight Attendants regarding emergency and unusual situations
(Recommendation A-09-27);
     Pilot monitoring duties (Recommendation A-10-10);
     Requirements for flightcrew member academic training
regarding leadership (Recommendations A-10-13, A-10-14, and A-10-15);
     Pilot recordkeeping requirements regarding training
performance (Recommendations A-10-17 and A-10-18);
     Develop and implement procedures to establish airspeed
reference (Recommendation A-10-21); and
     Develop and conduct stall recovery training and provide
stick pusher familiarization training for pilots of stick-pusher
equipped aircraft (Recommendations A-10-22 and A-10-23).
    In the SNPRM, the FAA has included several provisions to respond
directly to these NTSB recommendations. For example, the FAA has
required training on certain new tasks for flightcrew member and flight
attendant job performance and academic training. In addition, the FAA
has enhanced the CRM training requirements, including leadership and
command training for flightcrew members and requiring CRM training in
initial, upgrade, and recurrent for flightcrew members.
    In addition to addressing the problems revealed in the FAA's
accident analysis and NTSB recommendations, this rulemaking is also
necessary to codify existing guidance material now contained in FAA
Order 8900.1 (Sept. 13, 2007).\4\ This Order is available for review at
http://fsims.avs.faa.gov/fsims/fsims.nsf. This order contains the
primary guidance for FAA inspectors conducting oversight of air
carriers. In drafting the proposed requirements for the NPRM and SNPRM,
especially with regard to the minimum programmed hour requirements for
curriculum categories, the FAA reviewed the sections in the Order
pertaining to training and proposed to codify some of these recommended
practices for all air carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This guidance material was previously contained in FAA
Orders 8400 and was consolidated into FAA Order 8900.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Impact of SNPRM on AQP Operators

    This rulemaking principally affects air carriers training in
accordance with the provisions of current subparts N, O, and P. Rather
than train under the standards in subparts N, O, and P, an air carrier
may elect to train under an approved AQP established in accordance with
the provisions in subpart Y of part 121. AQP is an alternative method
for developing training and testing materials for pilots, flight
attendants, and aircraft dispatchers based on instructional systems
design, advanced simulation equipment, and comprehensive data analysis
to continuously validate curriculums. The NPRM and the SNPRM contain a
number of AQP-based requirements, such as crew-oriented, scenario-based
training, and mandated use of FSTDs. As noted in the NPRM, however, the
FAA believed that current AQP training programs already met the safety
improvements that were proposed in the NPRM, and thus air carriers
training under an approved AQP would not be affected by the proposed
rule. For this reason, the FAA originally estimated that the proposed
revisions to subpart N and O would have minimal to no impact on air
carriers currently operating under an approved AQP curriculum.
    Upon review of the NPRM, some commenters suggested that the FAA
require AQP for everyone, while others suggested that the proposed
revisions to the training requirements would require significant
revision to their approved AQP.
    Although the FAA considers AQP to be an effective voluntary
alternative for compliance with minimum training and qualification
requirements, the FAA does not believe that it is appropriate to
require all air carriers to train under AQP. As stated in the AQP final
rule, the FAA recognized, and continues to recognize, that AQP may not
be appropriate for every certificate holder. The AQP is a voluntary
program established to allow a greater degree of regulatory flexibility
in the approval of innovative training programs. Based on a documented
analysis of operational requirements, a certificate holder under AQP
may propose to depart from the traditional practices with respect to
what, how, when, and where training and testing is conducted. Detailed
AQP documentation requirements, data collection, and analysis provide
the FAA and the operator with the tools necessary to adequately monitor
and

administer an AQP. See 70 FR 54810, 54811 (Sept. 16, 2005).
    The FAA recognizes that some air carriers may not wish to incur the
costs associated with an AQP. Such costs include additional personnel
and management infrastructure to develop and facilitate the required
data collection, analysis and application required under AQP.
Furthermore, some air carriers may prefer the structured requirements
of a traditional program to the analytically-driven AQP training
program. Other air carriers that use contract training facilities may
not find AQP to be a suitable alternative to traditional training
requirements. The FAA also acknowledges that to get the most benefit
from AQP data collection, a stable work force and route structure is
necessary. Therefore, for those air carriers that have a higher
turnover in their pilot ranks or conduct supplemental operations where
the routes may vary, AQP may not be appropriate. Accordingly, in the
SNPRM, the FAA is not proposing to require all certificate holders to
operate under the AQP requirements in subpart Y of part 121.
    To determine the impact of the proposed rule on operators training
under an approved AQP, the FAA conducted an analysis of six air
carriers that are representative of those currently operating under an
approved AQP. See FAA Technical Report, Sec.III, p. 12, App. B. The
purpose of the analysis was to identify where the existing AQP pilot
flight training curriculums for the representative fleets and operators
(a) complied with the NPRM requirement, (b) had AQP-approved
alternatives in place, or (c) did not address the NPRM requirement. For
this analysis, the FAA used the criteria presently employed for AQP
approvals. In addition to examining AQP curriculum content against the
NPRM, the average AQP planned hours for each of the target curriculums
were compared to the time required to accomplish the current
requirements under part 121 appendices E and F and the time required to
accomplish the proposed requirements under the NPRM. The FAA then
examined the six carriers' programs to determine the time differences
between the current AQP curriculums and the tasks proposed in the NPRM
that were not currently addressed in those curriculums. Although the
FAA recognizes that AQP carriers may propose alternative means of
compliance for those tasks, for the purposes of this analysis, the FAA
did not make any assumptions regarding any alternative proposals for
those NPRM tasks not currently addressed in existing AQPs. The average
amount of time required for accomplishing this analysis for each air
carrier was 30 hours per fleet. For the results of these analyses, see
Table 6 in the FAA Technical Report. Tables for all six AQP carriers
are included in appendix B of the FAA Technical Report and summarized
in Table 8. The tables in appendix B and the excerpt in Table 7 show
the tasks in the proposed rule that presently have no approved AQP
alternative method of compliance.
    Based on the FAA's analysis of six existing AQP carriers, on
average, an AQP carrier may expect to add 5-6 tasks to its curriculum,
assuming the carrier has not obtained approval of alternative means of
compliance for the proposed tasks in subpart BB that are not currently
addressed. Based on an estimate that each task may take anywhere from 2
to 10 minutes to complete, a certificate holder conducting training
under an AQP may be required to add anywhere from 10-60 minutes of
training to its current program. Some of the tasks that may be added by
an individual certificate holder training under AQP may not require
evaluation (e.g., during both initial and recurrent curriculum
categories the task ``slow flight'' is incorporated for training but is
not subject to evaluation,) and some of the added tasks are
incorporated within an existing and over-arching task (e.g., ``use of
airport diagrams'' or ``acquire appropriate clearance before crossing
or entering active runways'' are already covered under the existing
task of ``taxi'').
    The FAA maintains its position in the NPRM that any additional
task(s) that may be required of certificate holders training under the
AQP would have a minimal, if any, impact on the length of the
certificate holder's current approved AQP.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA has added language in Sec.  121.1202(e) to
clarify the impact of the proposal on certificate holders with an
approved AQP or those certificate holders applying for approval of an
AQP. Certificate holders who have an approved AQP curriculum under
subpart Y or have applied for approval of a training program under
subpart Y before the effective date of the final rule would be required
to submit the Qualification Standards Document required for AQP under
14 CFR 121.909(b)(4). In the SNPRM, proposed Sec.  121.1202(e) would
require the certificate holder to indicate in the Qualification
Standards Document the specific provisions of subparts BB and CC that
would be replaced by the AQP curriculum. The certificate holder would
be required to provide a justification and a continuing process
approved by the FAA to show how the AQP curriculum would provide an
equivalent level of safety for the requirements in subparts BB and CC.
The certificate holder would be required to submit the Qualification
Standards Document no later than 5 years after the effective date of
the final rule.

G. Transition From Current Training Program Requirements (Sec. Sec.
121.1202 and 121.1402)

    To help transition non-AQP air carriers from the current
regulations to the revised requirements for qualification, service, and
use of crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers, the FAA proposed in the
NPRM to continue the current regulations under subparts N, O, and P,
for 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. The effective
date of the final rule is 120 days after publication in the Federal
Register. Certificate holders who have an approved training program
before the effective date of the final rule or have submitted a
training program for approval before the effective date of the final
rule may comply with existing regulations, subparts BB and CC, or both.
The proposed rule permits simultaneous compliance to allow the
certificate holder to continue using its approved programs while
transitioning to the new requirements. The FAA has maintained these
provisions in the SNPRM.
    On the date the current regulations expire, all certificate holders
who are not conducting training under an approved AQP, and all
crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers who are not trained under an
approved AQP, must be in compliance with the requirements of subparts
BB and CC of part 121. Therefore, it will be necessary for certificate
holders to begin training under subparts BB and CC in sufficient time
to ensure that all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers are trained,
qualified, and meet the applicable look back provisions of subparts BB
and CC before the expiration of the current regulations. Proposed Sec.
121.1202 and Sec.  121.1402 would require certificate holders to submit
a transition plan that specifies the transition completion date, which
must be before the expiration of the current regulations.
    For example, during the transition period, the air carrier may
decide to train all newly-hired crewmembers in accordance with the
proposed rules, while continuing to train existing crewmembers under
the current requirements. Individual crewmembers would be required to
be fully in

compliance with the requirements of the existing regulations or with
the proposed regulations. Another example would be when a certificate
holder submits a training program for a new aircraft type after the
effective date of the rule. The training program developed for this new
aircraft type must be in compliance with and approved under proposed
subparts BB and CC. However, the certificate holder would be allowed to
continue conducting training and evaluation on aircraft in its existing
fleet in accordance with the regulations in subparts N, O, and P within
the 5-year transition period. A carrier could not ``cherry pick''
between the two sets of regulations for individual employees. Setting
the effective date for 120 days after publication of the final rule and
allowing use of the existing regulations for 5 years after this period
provides existing certificate holders and the FAA time to smoothly
transition to the new requirements. By using this approach, certificate
holders seeking FAA approval for a new training program would not have
to develop one training program to comply with the old regulations, and
then develop another training program to comply with the new
regulations.
    The SNPRM, like the NPRM, proposes that if a new training program
is submitted for approval after the rule's effective date, the training
program must meet the requirements of subparts BB and CC, as
applicable. The FAA does not intend that non-significant modifications
that may be proposed to a current training program under the existing
regulations would require the certificate holder to initiate
development of a training program to comply with subpart BB or CC any
earlier than they had planned in accordance with their current business
plan.
    The FAA has included a grandfather provision in proposed subpart BB
to allow persons qualified for a crewmember duty position under the
current rules to meet the requirements of the proposed rule without
having to repeat certain categories of training they have already
completed under the current rules. Proposed subpart CC contains a
similar grandfather provision for aircraft dispatchers. For example,
currently-qualified crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers would not have
to repeat basic qualification, new hire, or initial curriculum
categories, as applicable.
    During the transition, Sec.  121.1202(d) states ``the lesser
qualification requirements apply for that duty position for that
operation.'' If one crewmember hasn't yet been transitioned to subpart
BB and one has, when they are working together on an aircraft, the
``lesser'' operational requirement may be met. For example, current
Sec.  121.455 requires the PIC to have had additional training before
the crew lands at a ``special airport'' but the SNPRM requires both
pilots to have had additional training before they land at a ``special
airport.'' If the SIC was still being trained under the current
requirements, the SIC would not have the additional training required
under the SNPRM, but the airplane could land because the ``lesser''
operational requirement would be met.
    The NPRM did not specify when certificate holders must comply with
proposed requirements that are outside subparts N, O, and P of part
121. A commenter noted that the time frames specified in Sec. Sec.
121.400, 121.431, and 121.1202 apply only to subparts N and O of part
121, which do not contain the manual requirements. In the SNPRM, the
FAA has clarified the dates of compliance for Sec.  119.65, Sec.
119.67, Sec.  119.69, Sec.  119.71, Sec.  121.9, Sec.  121.125, Sec.
121.126, Sec.  121.133, Sec.  121.134, Sec.  121.135, Sec.  121.136,
Sec.  121.392, Sec.  121.465, Sec.  121.536, Sec.  121.537, Sec.
121.540, Sec.  121.683, Sec.  121.684, Sec.  121.689, Sec.  121.690,
Sec.  121.711, and Sec.  121.805.

III. Discussion of Significant Issues in SNPRM

    This section provides clarification of major areas of concern
raised by commenters, introduces new requirements, and explains the
significant revisions of requirements proposed in the NPRM.
    During the comment period, the FAA received several requests for
clarification of the job performance training for flightcrew members,
with specific regard to the training and evaluation task requirements
and definitions in the NPRM, pilot monitoring skills, minimum
programmed hours, frequency of training, availability of simulators as
a result of the increased frequency, and the level of FSTD required to
complete training. On April 7, 2009, the FAA held a public meeting to
provide clarification. During the public meeting, participants from
industry questioned the basis for the proposal and requested additional
data to support the proposed changes. In the comments received after
the public meeting, ATA and individual airlines requested additional
information regarding the projected costs of the proposed requirements
and how the tasks, based on the task definitions, could be accomplished
within the proposed programmed hours.
    After the close of the comment period, the FAA determined it was
necessary to gather additional data regarding (1) the number of
simulator sessions, hours, and tasks required to accomplish the
proposed flightcrew member training and evaluation requirements for
both AQP and non-AQP air carriers; and (2) the impact of the proposed
rule on carriers training under an AQP, as set forth in part 121,
subpart Y. While the FAA primarily developed the FAA Technical Report
to validate the cost and impact of the proposed training and evaluation
requirements in the NPRM, throughout the process of developing the FAA
Technical Report, the FAA determined that it was necessary to revise
and clarify the training and evaluation requirements in the SNPRM. The
FAA also held a meeting on December 8, 2009, with ATA and several
member airlines to clarify the comments received during the comment
period. A summary of this meeting is available for review in the
docket. The following provides clarification of the job performance
training and evaluation for flightcrew members.

A. Flightcrew Member Job Performance Training (Appendices Q and R)

1. Job Performance Task Requirements and Definitions
    The flightcrew member tasks that must be performed during job
performance training and evaluation for the various curriculum
categories are set forth in Table 3A of appendices Q and R of the NPRM
and SNPRM. In the NPRM, the FAA also provided corresponding definitions
for the tasks that provided additional instruction for completion of
these tasks. Several commenters questioned the basis for the tasks, the
frequency for accomplishing the tasks during recurrent training and
evaluation, and how, based on the definitions, the tasks could be
accomplished within the proposed minimum programmed hours for the
curriculum categories.
    Upon review of the comments and based on the discussion on December
8, 2009, the FAA, as part of the FAA Technical Report, conducted a
comparison analysis of initial and recurrent curriculum categories task
requirements for the current requirements and those proposed in Table
3A of appendix Q of the NPRM and SNPRM. The FAA focused on these two
curriculum categories because (1) the initial curriculum category
contains the largest number of tasks for any curriculum category under
both the

current rule and the proposed revisions, and (2) the recurrent
curriculum category under the NPRM and SNPRM contains the largest cost
because each flightcrew member is required to complete task
requirements every 9 months.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require 8 hours of training and
evaluation for pilots in recurrent job performance training. However,
based on the results of the FAA's Technical Report, the FAA believes
that all of the recurrent training and evaluation task requirements can
be completed in less than the 8 hours set forth in the NPRM. The Actual
Simulator Trial conducted as part of the FAA Technical Report
demonstrated that the required tasks for a recurrent evaluation could
be completed in 3 hours and 29 minutes. With all of the required
``every nine month'' tasks \5\ having been completed during the
recurrent evaluation, the FAA believes the requirements for the LOFT
session could be accomplished in under 3 hours. In addition, during
those recurrent training cycles that include an FFS course of
instruction instead of an evaluation, depending on the number of
required ``every nine month'' tasks accomplished during the FFS course
of instruction, the FAA believes the LOFT also could be accomplished in
3 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See table 3A in appendix Q and appendix R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the minimum programmed hours for
recurrent training from 8 hours (as proposed in the NPRM) to 6 hours.
The FAA has not made a similar change to the programmed hours in the
other curriculum categories (initial, transition, and upgrade) because
flightcrew members who are newly hired or not yet qualified on the type
of aircraft may require more repetition of the assigned tasks to become
proficient.
    As identified in the FAA Technical Report, initial training under
the current provisions of subparts N and O require training on 62 job
performance tasks for pilots in command (PICs) and 56 job performance
tasks for seconds in command (SICs). The NPRM proposed a total of 125
job performance tasks for PIC and SIC initial training. In the SNPRM,
the FAA has revised the abnormal and emergency procedures tasks, which
now results in a total of 94 required tasks for initial training. These
94 job performance tasks are based on a recodification of existing
requirements in appendix E and H of part 121, NTSB recommendations, and
standard industry practices. The FAA determined the standard industry
practices by reviewing existing AQP training programs and non-AQP
training programs. See FAA Technical Report, Table 2, p. 7. A detailed
review of these training programs is provided in Appendices A and B of
the FAA Technical Report.
    The FAA recognizes that some of the confusion regarding the
proposed task requirements was a result of the proposed task
definitions in attachment 4 of the Pilot and Flight Engineer QPS
appendices. For example, for the task ``unannunciated abnormal
procedures,'' some commenters interpreted the corresponding task
definition as requiring training on all unannunciated abnormal
procedures. For some aircraft, this might require training on 58
different procedures. This is not what the FAA intended. The proposed
definition was intended to allow a certificate holder to select a
representative sample to ensure adequate exposure to these
unannunciated abnormal procedures. To clarify the intent, the FAA has
removed the flightcrew member task definitions and deleted attachment 4
of appendices Q and R. The flightcrew member task definitions serve as
more of a guide to certificate holders in tailoring the tasks in Table
3A to the certificate holder's unique operations and are more
appropriate as guidance material in the draft Flightcrew Member AC. As
a result of deleting all of attachment 4, however, some tasks in Table
3A required further specification and others required consolidation. As
a result of this consolidation and reorganization, the FAA has adjusted
the number of overall tasks from the current rule to the SNPRM in both
initial and recurrent training and evaluation as follows: (1) From 62
tasks for PICs and 56 tasks for SICs to 94 tasks for each in initial
training; (2) from 34 tasks for PICs and 32 tasks for SICs to 54 tasks
for each in initial evaluation; (3) from 36 tasks for PICs and 35 tasks
for SICs to approximately 52 tasks (assuming equal distribution of
those tasks that are required every 36 months) for each 9-month
recurrent cycle that does not contain a recurrent evaluation and
approximately 12 tasks (assuming equal distribution) for each recurrent
cycle that contains a recurrent evaluation; and (4) 34 tasks for PICs
and 32 tasks for SICs to 54 tasks for each in recurrent evaluation. See
FAA Technical Report, Sec. III, Comparison of Current Rule, NPRM and
SNPRM, Table 2, p. 7 (Apr. 5, 2010). The FAA clarified, modified, and
added tasks for all curriculum categories to ensure that pilots develop
the necessary skills to properly and safely perform routine functions.
These include landing on contaminated runways, landing from a non-
precision approach, and performing visual approaches and landings
without the aid of electronic or other glide path information. In
addition, the FAA consolidated line environments, addressed in section
13 of Table 3A of the NPRM, into other sections of Table 3A of the
SNPRM to specifically require maneuvers in a particular environment.
These revisions were necessary to eliminate confusion regarding the
required tasks in Table 3A. The following provides a detailed
explanation for the development of some of the significant proposed
task requirements, as well as the task requirements prescribed by
Public Law 111-216. In developing the tasks in Table 3A, the FAA
recognized that loss of control is a major factor in aviation accidents
involving a fatality. The FAA's proposal to revise requirements for
recovery from approach to stall training in the NPRM would have
addressed some of the causal factors in accidents where loss of control
was identified. While the tasks currently required under appendices E
and F for ``recoveries from approaches to stall'' remain a viable part
of the training syllabus, the SNPRM now describes a requirement to have
pilots newly qualifying on an airplane perform recoveries from a
complete stall. There are three scenarios in which stalls generally
occur: clean configuration (table 3A, task 5.2.1), takeoff and
maneuvering configuration (table 3A, task 5.2.2), and landing
configuration (table 3A, task 5.2.3). Under the proposed tasks, the
flightcrew member would be required to complete two recoveries from
stall for each scenario for initial and transition training, and one
recovery from stall in each scenario for conversion, upgrade, and all
phases of requalification training. For recurrent training and all
evaluations, the flightcrew member would be required to complete one
recovery from stall from one of the three scenarios. For flightcrew
members operating aircraft equipped with stick-pusher, the recoveries
from stall must be completed by going through stick-pusher release,
regardless of the scenario selected. In addition to the job performance
training for recovery from stall, the FAA also has proposed academic
training. Under Table 2A, section (d)(10), air carriers will be
required to provide training for special hazards, which includes
recovery from a stall in the three scenarios.
    These proposed changes are supported by the NTSB final report
(NTSB/AAR-10/01) on the Colgan Air

accident of February 12, 2009, and respond to the training requirements
in Public Law 111-216, Sec.  208(a)(1)(A) (Aug. 1, 2010).
    The FAA also added tasks to ensure flightcrew members understand
the performance and handling qualities of the aircraft they are flying.
This would ensure that they are prepared to deal with situations such
as ``jet upsets,'' ``CFIT,'' and ``icing conditions.'' Accordingly, in
the SNPRM the FAA added the following tasks to the requirements in
Table 3A of the Pilot QPS: task 5.6 ``Upset Recognition and Recovery,''
for initial and recurrent training and evaluation; task 5.14 ``CFIT/
Terrain Avoidance,'' for initial and recurrent training and evaluation;
and task 5.15 ``Structural Icing when Airborne,'' for initial and
recurrent training only. The FAA also added task 5.1 ``slow flight,''
for initial training, with recurrent training required every 36 months,
to provide pilots with an understanding of the performance of the
airplane and a ``hands-on'' exposure to the way the airplane handles at
airspeeds that are just above the approach to stall warning. In
addition, the FAA is also requiring academic training for these
subjects. See Table 2A, (d)(1)-(11).
    The task requirement, ``taxi,'' is a current requirement in
appendix E of part 121 and, as such, is included in training programs
for flightcrew members. Upon review of several accidents, including
accidents in August 2006 (NTSB/AAR-07/05, NTSB Recommendation A-07-44)
and August 2005 (NTSB Event ID CHI05LA238), the FAA determined that it
was necessary to expand this task to include 3 sub-tasks for taxi,
which would be treated as separate tasks that must be completed. In the
SNPRM, to comply with the task requirement ``taxi,'' a flightcrew
member would be required to complete the sub-tasks ``Use of airport
diagram (surface movement chart),'' ``Appropriate clearance before
crossing or entering active runways,'' and ``Observation of all surface
movement guidance control markings and lighting.'' See AC 120-74A,
Parts 91, 121, 125 and 135 Flightcrew Procedures During Taxi Operations
and Safety Alert for Operators 06013 and 07003. Although some
certificate holders may already address this task requirement at this
level of specificity, the FAA has determined that this task must be
targeted by all certificate holders to ensure that flightcrew members
use available cues and aids to identify the airplane's location on the
airport surface during taxi and verify that the airplane is on the
correct runway before takeoff. The FAA does not believe the training
time required for the accomplishment of these sub-tasks for ``taxi''
would take any longer than the time required to complete the currently
required ``taxi'' task. See FAA Technical Report, Table 2, p. 7, n. 9.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA added bounced landing recovery training to
the initial training tasks. The FAA is also proposing in the SNPRM that
bounced landing recovery training be conducted at least once every 36
months in recurrent training. This task teaches pilots identification
of and procedures for bounced landing recovery. The FAA determined this
requirement is necessary based on FAA review of accidents that occurred
in September 2004 and July 1997. See NTSB Event ID DCA04MA082 (Sept.
19, 2004); NTSB Report AAR-00/02 (July 31, 1997). The NTSB found the
probable cause of the September 2004 accident was due to the pilot's
over-rotation during a go-around maneuver that was initiated because of
a bounced landing. This task requirement also would respond to NTSB
recommendations issued after the July 1997 accident (NTSB Rec. A-00-93
and A-00-94), which requested that the FAA develop a training tool and
provide a syllabus for simulator training on the execution of
stabilized approaches and techniques for avoiding overcontrol and
premature derotation during bounced landings.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA also added task requirements to Table 3A of
the flightcrew member QPS appendices for approved low altitude
windshear flight training to encompass requirements currently in Sec.
121.409(d). Addressing these tasks in initial and recurrent evaluation
would ensure that pilots have developed the necessary skills to recover
from a windshear encounter. The FAA determined these requirements were
necessary based on a review of an accident that occurred in April 1993,
in which the flightcrew failed to recognize, or recognized too late, an
inadvertent encounter with an un-announced windshear on final approach.
See NTSB Event ID: DEN93FA047.
    Questions from commenters regarding the pilot job performance tasks
and definitions also extend to flight engineers. Table 3A in appendix R
for flight engineers also now incorporates the same format and
essentially the same tasks as required for pilots. Understanding that
the flight engineer is part of the full crew concept that the original
NPRM established, training under this concept would require the flight
engineer to be exposed to essentially the same tasks as the pilots.
However, in this exposure, the flight engineer would have differing
responsibilities and performance requirements for each such task than
the pilots. Because of this difference, it may appear initially that
revised Table 3A in the Flight Engineer QPS describes a dramatic
increase in the number of tasks for flight engineer training, but the
overall tasks and frequencies for flight engineers remain essentially
unchanged from the NPRM.
    As a result of the FAA accident analysis, further consideration of
NTSB recommendations, as well as industry comments regarding the
complex nature of the number of requirements and frequency for
accomplishing the tasks, the FAA has proposed to increase the frequency
of some tasks, reduce the frequency of other tasks, and minimally
change the total number of tasks to be addressed in Table 3A. To
accomplish this, the FAA has clarified how the training tasks are to be
accomplished and has described how to supplement the recurrent
curriculum category (specifically the proficiency check requirements)
by focusing on the training requirements. This clarification is set
forth in the FAA Technical Report, which provides one method of
developing a recurrent training and evaluation program that would meet
the proposed requirements in the SNPRM. See the FAA Technical Report,
Sec. V, p. 18-20, App. C.
    The FAA continues to propose additional simulator requirements to
provide for additional training through the conduct of LOFT and FFS
courses of instruction for both pilots and flight engineers. In the
NPRM, the FAA proposed that an FSTD course of instruction could be
conducted in an FFS or Flight Training Device (FTD). Upon further
review, the FAA has determined that the tasks proposed in Table 3C of
the Pilot QPS could not be accomplished effectively in an FTD. The FAA
concluded that the tasks required for an FSTD course of instruction
could only be conducted in an FFS. In the SNPRM, the FAA is requiring
that the course of instruction be conducted only in an FFS. Therefore,
in the SNPRM the FAA has replaced FSTD course of instruction with FFS
course of instruction.
2. Pilot Monitoring Requirements (Sec.  121.1213)
    Another area of confusion surrounding the flightcrew member job
performance task requirements concerned the proposed requirement for
evaluating pilot monitoring skills. Several individual airlines
commented that the pilot monitoring task would

require all of the tasks in Table 3A of the Pilot QPS to be performed
twice, once as the pilot flying, and once as the pilot monitoring the
operation. This is not the case.
    The current regulations do not explicitly address pilot monitoring
skills. Historically, however, the FAA has commonly referred to this
individual as the pilot not flying, and the duties of this individual
are currently included in the manual required by Sec.  121.133.
Individuals serving as the pilot not flying currently receive training
in LOFT and other training scenarios. In 2003, the FAA revised guidance
addressing procedures for the pilot not flying, and the term ``pilot
not flying'' was replaced with the term ``pilot monitoring.'' See AC
120-71A, Standard Operating Procedures for Flight Deck Crewmembers,
(February 27, 2003). The NPRM proposed to codify the use of the term
``pilot monitoring'' to reflect the activities conducted by the pilot
who is not actually flying the aircraft or the FSTD. The purpose of
using the term ``pilot monitoring'' is to convey that the pilot
monitoring is actively engaged in the safe operation of the aircraft
and as such should be trained and evaluated in performing active
monitoring skills.
    In the NPRM and SNPRM, the FAA has not changed the current duties
and responsibilities of the pilot monitoring. The FAA has for the first
time proposed requiring the evaluation of active pilot monitoring
skills. These proposed changes are further supported by the NTSB final
report (NTSB/AAR-10/01) on the Colgan Air accident of February 12,
2009. In the report, the NTSB concluded that ``the monitoring errors
made by the accident flight crew demonstrate the continuing need for
specific pilot training on active monitoring skills.'' NTSB Rec. AAR-
10/01, at p. 94 (Feb. 2, 2010).
    To meet this requirement, however, the FAA did not intend that each
individual task be accomplished twice by each flightcrew member.
Because a full crew would be required during training and evaluation,
during the accomplishment of any task there would always be a pilot
flying and a pilot monitoring, where both are being observed by a check
airman (pilot) or flight instructor, which is consistent with AC 120-
71A. The NPRM and SNPRM would only require that both pilots be
evaluated for the skill they are performing during each task, whether
it is a flying skill or a monitoring skill.
3. Frequency of Training and Evaluation for Recurrent Tasks
    In addition to the questions regarding the Tasks in Table 3A,
several commenters questioned the frequency with which the Tasks would
be required to be accomplished during recurrent training and
evaluation. Recurrent training and evaluation comprises a large portion
of an air carrier's training program. Under the NPRM and SNPRM,
flightcrew members would be required to complete the assigned recurrent
tasks during two simulator sessions every 9 months over the course of a
36-month cycle for the recurrent curriculum category. In the NPRM, the
FAA designed Table 3A to require that specific tasks be completed
during 9-month, 18-month, and 36-month cycle for recurrent training and
evaluation. An unintended consequence of this design was that some
tasks appeared to be required during every recurrent training and
evaluation simulator period. The FAA did not intend this result for
some of the tasks. To clarify the FAA's intent, in the SNPRM, the FAA
has revised the frequency for accomplishing the tasks during training
and evaluation in Table 3A in appendix Q. The FAA has changed the
column titles for recurrent training and evaluation from ``Every 9
months,'' ``Every 18 months,'' and ``Every 36 months,'' to ``Every 9
months,'' and ``At least once every 36 months.'' Accordingly, if there
is an ``x'' in the ``every 9 months'' column, that task must be
accomplished once during every 9-month cycle. The FAA notes that
recurrent evaluation is required every other 9-month cycle. Therefore,
a cycle may encompass either two training events, or a training event
and an evaluation event. If a task is designated to be completed
``every 9 months,'' that task may be completed in either training
session but is not required to be completed in both. However, if the
cycle includes an evaluation session and there is an ``x'' in the
proficiency check column for that task, the task must be accomplished
in the evaluation session. The task can be done again in the training
session but is not required to be done in the training session for that
9-month cycle. If there is an ``x'' in the ``At least once every 36
months'' column, that task must be accomplished at least once over the
36-month recurrent training and evaluation period. This revision is
necessary to provide certificate holders with an opportunity to use
simulator time to target critical training tasks unique to their
operations.
4. Proposed Baseline and Minimum Programmed Hours (Sec.  121.1335)
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed minimum programmed hours for new
hire, initial, full conversion, core conversion, transition, full
upgrade, core upgrade and recurrent curriculum categories. As proposed,
programmed hours for requalification and differences would be
determined by the Administrator, and for the special curriculum
category, the hours would be developed by the certificate holder and
approved by the Administrator. The programmed hours were based on a
review of guidance in FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 19, Sec. 6, para.
3-1230 (Sept. 13, 2007), and the proposed task requirements that would
need to be accomplished during the programmed hours. The proposed task
requirements resulted in an increase in minimum and baseline programmed
hours from the hours noted in the FAA guidance material.
    The FAA notes that in the NPRM and SNPRM, when a certificate holder
initially submits a training program for approval, Sec.  121.1335
states it must have the baseline programmed hours. After a training
program has final approval, Sec.  121.1335 allows for a reduction to
the minimum hours as specified in the QPSs.
    Continental generally commented that the curriculum category
programmed hours for job performance flight training for flightcrew
members in the NPRM do not reflect the actual time it would take to
accomplish the job performance tasks in Table 3A.
    In the SNPRM, these baseline and minimum programmed job performance
hours are set forth in Table 1A of the appendix Q in the SNPRM and are
as follows: Initial, 36 hours; conversion, 20 hours; transition; 24
hours; upgrade, 20 hours; recurrent, 6 hours every 9 months;
requalification, 6 hours for phase I, 20 hours for phase II, and 24
hours for phase III; and the minimum hours for differences training are
determined by the FAA. These programmed hours are based on FAA guidance
in FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 19, Sec. 6, para. 3-1230 (Sept. 13,
2007) and review of the proposed required tasks in Table 3A.
    As discussed earlier, the FAA conducted a technical analysis of the
time required to accomplish the training and evaluation tasks contained
in the current rule, the NPRM, and the SNPRM for initial and recurrent
curriculum categories. In this analysis, the FAA concluded that the
programmed hours proposed in the NPRM were appropriate. (See FAA
Technical

Report, Sec. III., Tables 3, 6, pp. 9-11.) Therefore, in the SNPRM the
FAA has retained the programmed hours specified in Table 1A of appendix
Q, attachment 1, of the Pilot QPS. In regard to initial training and
evaluation, the FAA has clarified that the initial job performance
training consisting of 36 hours must be conducted independently of the
initial evaluation. There is no specified time requirement for the
initial evaluation because the time necessary to complete the
evaluation is dependent on the tasks that must be accomplished during
the evaluation. Because of the addition of the LOFT requirement and the
additional tasks in Table 3A, the time necessary to complete initial
flight training increased from 20 hours under the current rule to 36
hours in the SNPRM. Furthermore, for requalification programmed hours
for flightcrew members, the NPRM did not provide specific hours. In the
SNPRM, the FAA has proposed specific programmed hours for the
requalification curriculum category. The programmed hours proposed for
phases I, II, and III of requalification are based on the programmed
hours proposed for recurrent, conversion, and transition curriculum
categories respectively. These phases of requalification are
appropriate because they provide a graduated increase in training based
on the amount of time the individual has been unqualified and thus
would ensure that the crewmember is proficient and qualified to serve.
In addition, the FAA removed the task requirements described in
attachment 4 of the QPS in the NPRM to avoid confusion concerning the
definition, number, and frequency of tasks required for initial and
recurrent curriculum categories. The FAA believes, based on the
analysis in the FAA Technical Report, that the tasks can be performed
at the frequency established in Table 3A of appendix Q within the
minimum programmed hours set forth in Table 1A of appendix Q.
    Midwest, American, FedEx, ATA, and UPS commented that programmed
hours apply to specific training categories (e.g., initial, transition)
and that programmed hours in each training category can apply to more
than one duty position simultaneously, such as when the PIC is
completing pilot monitoring tasks and the SIC is completing pilot
flying tasks. The commenters questioned whether this practice would be
an acceptable means of compliance with the task requirements.
    To clarify that some task requirements can be accomplished
simultaneously by the PIC and SIC, in the SNPRM the FAA has revised
Table 3A in the Pilot QPS to identify those tasks that are performed by
the PIC and SIC as a crew. These tasks are flight deck inspection,
navigation system setup, pushback and powerback, taxi, pre take-off
procedures, deicing before takeoff, after landing, contaminated runway
operations, traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS), structural icing
airborne, and extended operations (ETOPS) Procedures.
    Based on the increased frequency and the proposed increase in
recurrent training and evaluation, many commenters raised concerns
regarding the number of simulator periods that would be required to
accomplish the job performance tasks for recurrent training and
evaluation. The commenters estimated that it would take 22 simulator
periods over the course of the 36-month recurrent training and
evaluation timeframe to complete all of the required tasks.
    Although the commenters stated that the task requirements for
recurrent training and evaluation in the NPRM would require 22
simulator periods over a 36-month recurrent cycle, during the Actual
Simulator Trial discussed in the FAA Technical Report, the PIC and SIC
were able to complete 76 of the potential 82 tasks that were proposed
in the NPRM for a recurrent evaluation within 3 hours and 29 minutes.
See FAA Technical Report, Sec. V, pp 17-20; App C. In addition to the
76 tasks, the PIC completed six more tasks and the SIC completed 5 more
tasks within the same simulator session. These additional tasks
included: an additional approach to stall procedure; upset recognition
and recovery; windshear encounter at takeoff; CFIT avoidance; rejected
landing; and additional instrument arrival (PIC only). In the SNPRM,
the FAA has proposed to require that these tasks, except for the
additional recovery from approach to stall, be accomplished during a
recurrent evaluation. As the Actual Simulator Trial demonstrated, all
of these tasks were completed in 3 hours and 29 minutes (including a
12-minute break), well within the 4-hour simulator period that is
normally allotted to complete a proficiency check. See id. The
remaining required recurrent training tasks could be completed during
the remaining 31 minutes of simulator time and the additional LOFT or
FFS course of instruction simulator session. Using conservative
estimates regarding the usage of available simulators, the FAA believes
there is an adequate number of simulators and simulator hours available
to meet the requirements of the SNPRM. See FAA Technical Report, Sec.
V, pp 29-32.
    The FAA has also conducted an evaluation of the simulator period
requirements necessary to complete the remaining tasks identified for
recurrent training and evaluation. In Table 3A of appendix Q in the
SNPRM, there are a maximum of 54 tasks that would be required during
each recurrent evaluation. In addition, there are a maximum of 43 tasks
that would be required every 9 months during recurrent training.
Attachment 3 of appendix Q in the SNPRM indicates, however, that, when
a task is required to be completed ``every 9 months,'' this requirement
is satisfied by the task being completed during the proficiency check
during the 9-month cycle when a proficiency check is conducted.
Therefore, for example, during the 9- and 27-month cycles, 40 of the 43
tasks required every 9 months would be completed during the required
proficiency check. As such, these tasks would not need to be repeated
during the accompanying LOFT or FFS course of instruction. When a
proficiency check is not conducted, the 43 tasks in the ``every 9
months column'' must be completed during the two simulator training
sessions (LOFT and FFS course of instruction).
    In addition to these requirements, there are 33 tasks in Table 3A
that must be completed ``at least once every 36 months.'' If the 33
tasks are equally distributed across 36 months (8 simulator sessions),
there would be approximately 8 tasks added to each 9-month recurrent
cycle (or approximately 4 tasks per simulator session). See FAA
Technical Report, Table 16, p. 28. During the Actual Simulator Trial,
pilots were able to complete 87 tasks using only 3 hours and 29
minutes. They were able to reduce the simulator time they used by
integrating tasks when the combination was a logical occurrence.
    The FAA also notes that for initial training, the tasks must be
completed over a minimum of 36 hours of flight training. For those
operators who have established simulator periods of 4 hours duration,
to accomplish the training tasks within the 36-hour minimum
requirement, nine simulator periods of training would be required
(including one simulator period for a LOFT) and one simulator period
for the evaluation would be required, for a total of 10 simulator
periods. See FAA Technical Report, Sec. III, Table 1, p. 6 (Programmed
Hours).

5. Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Requirements (Including
Level of FSTD) (Sec.  121.1345, Table 3B of the Pilot and Flight
Engineer QPS)
    The NPRM proposed, in Sec.  121.1345, to require that all pilot,
flight engineer, check pilot, check flight engineer, flight instructor,
flight engineer instructor, and Aircrew Program Designee (APD) job
performance training and evaluation be completed in a qualified FSTD
approved by the carrier's Principal Operations Inspector (POI).
However, Sec.  121.1345(b) allowed a certificate holder to request a
deviation from the requirement to use FSTDs for training and
evaluation, and Sec.  121.1229(a) would permit the use of aircraft for
compliance with recency of experience requirements. This is a
significant change in current requirements, which only prescribe use of
an FSTD for windshear training under Sec.  121.409(d). Current appendix
H of part 121 permits air carriers to use simulators for varying
amounts of the required training, testing, and checking. Appendix H is
a voluntary alternative to training and checking in the airplane.
    None of the commenters opposed the requirement to complete all job
performance training and evaluation in a qualified FSTD that is
approved by the POI. In fact, Continental acknowledged that air
carriers ``are already substantially in compliance'' with this proposed
requirement. Boeing asserted that there may be times when simulators
are not available, yet training and checking needs to be accomplished.
Boeing questioned, therefore, whether the proposed rule would allow for
training in airplanes. It stated that in these limited situations,
training could be accomplished safely in an airplane. The FAA believes
it is important to require the use of FSTDs for training. Using FSTDs
allows for in-depth training, including the practice of critical
emergency procedures, in a safer environment. This proposed requirement
also addresses NTSB Recommendations A-94-191 through 194, which state
that ``training and checking in flight simulators, whether conducted
under Part 121 or 135, should be the standard, not the exception.''
    Furthermore, the FAA has long recognized that the use of simulation
in flight training provides an opportunity to train, practice, and
demonstrate proficiency in a safe, controlled environment. Returning to
the airplane for the training or evaluation of all skill sets has
several disadvantages, including significant accident risk, higher
costs for insurance and fuel, additional atmospheric pollution, and
airport traffic saturation. The FAA emphasizes that the skill sets that
are used in simulation must be the same skill sets that would be used
when operating the airplane. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that
use of simulation must be required for flight training.
    However, to accommodate the limited circumstance where the only
option available is to conduct flight training in an airplane because
there is no FSTD available for that airplane or there are not enough
FSTDs for the airplane, the FAA has proposed to allow a deviation from
the requirement to use FSTDs. In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised Sec.
121.1345(a) to draw attention to the deviation authority in paragraph
(b). Paragraph (b) proposes an alternative training program for using
an airplane instead of an FSTD or using an airplane in combination with
an FSTD, including methods of achieving an acceptable level of safety.
    RAA was concerned about the time limit for applying for the
deviation from the use of FSTDs. The FAA notes that paragraph (b)(1)
only establishes a time limit for requesting deviations for certificate
holders who have an approved program or have submitted a training
program for approval before the effective date of the final rule. Under
paragraph (b)(2) there is no time limit on requesting deviations as
part of a request for approval of an initial cadre program.
    The FAA does not intend that the deviation provide a loophole for
certificate holders who want to continue training and evaluating in
airplanes. Rather, the deviation is designed to accommodate those
certificate holders who use airplanes for which there are no FSTDs
available (e.g. DC-6) or who, for extraordinary reasons, do not have
access to an FSTD for the aircraft type they operate. FAA believes that
options provided under paragraph (b) are appropriate and these
requirements have not been changed in the SNPRM.
    American recommended allowing FSTDs to be used for LOFT rather than
requiring an FFS. In the SNPRM, the FAA has retained the requirement
that the qualification and recurrent LOFT must be conducted in an FFS
because the FAA believes that motion is a necessary element of LOFT. A
level A FFS \6\ is the first level of FSTD for which a motion system is
required. Requiring LOFT in an FFS is consistent with recommendations
in AC 120-35C, Line Operational Simulations: Line Oriented Flight
Training, Special Purpose Operational Training, Line Operational
Evaluation (Sept. 27, 2004). However, in the SNPRM, the FAA has
modified Table 3B (Table 3C in the NPRM) to broaden the level of FFS
allowed to be used for LOFT. In the NPRM, certificate holders would not
have been permitted to use a level A or B FFS for qualification LOFT,
or a level A FFS for recurrent LOFT. In the SNPRM, for both
qualification and recurrent LOFT, a level A, B, C, or D FFS may be
used. Upon review of the task requirements, the FAA determined that,
although an FFS was necessary for LOFT, it was unnecessarily
restrictive to limit qualification LOFT to levels C or D FFS and to
limit recurrent LOFT to levels B, C, or D FFS. As such, the SNPRM
proposes to allow the tasks for qualification and recurrent LOFT to be
accomplished in levels A, B, C, or D FFSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FFS levels become more sophisticated as they move up the
alphabet. Accordingly, a level B simulator is more complex than a
level A simulator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA's determination that an FFS must be used for LOFT is based
on the universally recognized conclusion that while both visual and
vestibular systems are directly impacted by simulation, the element of
these systems that is critical to satisfactory training is motion on-
set (or acceleration) cueing. Various studies have shown an increase in
pilot performance when they use simulators with motion. See Showalter,
T.W.; Parris, B.L., ``The Effects Of Motion And G-Seat Cues On Pilot
Simulator Performance Of Three Piloting Tasks,'' Ames Research Center,
Jan 1, 1980 (indicating 40% improvement on yaw performance and Roll
performance, engine out on takeoff with use of motion simulators);
Parris, B.L.; Cook, A.M., ``Effects of visual and motion simulation
cueing systems on pilot performance during takeoffs with engine
failures,'' Ames Research Center, Dec 1, 1978; Hosman, R.J. A.W., & van
der Vaart, J.C. ``Effects of vestibular and visual motion perception on
task performance,'' (1981); Heintzman, Richard J. ``Determination of
Force Cueing Requirements for Tactical Combat Flight Training
Devices,'' Training Systems Product Group Aeronautical Systems Center
Air Force Materiel Command Wright Patterson AFB, February 1997; Gebman,
J.R.; Stanley, W.L.; Barbour, A.A.; Berg, R.T.; Birkler, J.L.,
``Assessing the Benefits and Costs of Motion for C-17 Flight
Simulators,'' Department of The Air Force, Washington, DC, June 1986.
Accordingly, the FAA has determined that LOFT must be conducted in a
level A, B, C, or D FFS because the FFS provides the level of motion
cueing

necessary to ensure proper response in real flight line operations.
    American also questioned the emphasis on level D FFS in Table 3C
``Minimum FSTD Required for Credit,'' noting that many of the tasks
could be appropriately accomplished in a level C FFS. American
suggested revising Table 3C to lower the requirements to accommodate
the use of level C FFS.
    To ensure effective training and evaluation, a pilot needs to
experience a certain level of visual and motion cues that accurately
replicate the aircraft. Level D FFSs have more accurate sound, visual,
and data capabilities than level C FFSs. However, the FAA recognizes if
a pilot meets certain experience requirements, a level C FFS can
provide effective training and evaluation. In the SNPRM, the FAA has
maintained the requirements in the NPRM regarding the use of level C
and D simulators in Table 3 B (Table 3 C in the NPRM). However, the FAA
has also permitted the use of level C FFSs in certain circumstances.
Where a Level D FFS is indicated in Table 3B, a level C FFS may be used
to complete the training and proficiency test if the pilot meets
specified experience requirements. The FAA believes there are a
sufficient number of FFSs available for use by air carriers to meet the
proposed requirements of the SNPRM. A detailed discussion of the
current availability of FSTDs for use in training and evaluation is
available for review in the FAA Technical Report. See FAA Technical
Report, sec. V.C., p, 29.
    As discussed previously, the FAA believes that in light of current
flight simulation technology, job performance training must be
conducted in the specified level of FFS to ensure that the pilot is
trained and evaluated in an environment that accurately replicates the
actual aircraft. The FAA, however, is aware that this flight simulation
technology is rapidly changing. Therefore, the FAA requests comment on
whether the deviation authority proposed in Sec.  121.1345(b) should be
expanded to permit certificate holders to apply for a deviation that
would allow them to conduct training or evaluation in other FSTDs,
provided the certificate holder could demonstrate that training or
evaluation in the other FSTDs would provide an equivalent level of
safety to the training, evaluation, or qualification provided in the
level of device as specified in the QPS.

B. Reduction in Programmed Hours and Modification of Training Program
Based on Operation of Related Aircraft

    Current Sec.  121.405(d) and (g) allow for a reduction in
programmed hours, subjects, and tasks based on training aids, devices,
methods, and procedures listed in the certificate holder's curriculum
that increase the quality and effectiveness of the teaching-learning
process and the certificate holder's operations, and that address the
complexity of the make, model, and series of the aircraft used. One
tool that is used in determining whether a reduction in programmed
hours may be appropriate for a certificate holder is outlined in AC
120-53A, Guidance for Conducting and Use of Flight Standardization
Board Evaluations. When requested by industry, the FAA, through the FAA
Aircraft Evaluation Group (AEG), has undertaken an analysis of new and
derivative aircraft and their associated systems regarding
recommendations for training, checking, recency of experience, and
operating experience applications. The FAA uses these analyses to
develop consistent and practical recommendations for use in developing
training, checking, currency, recent experience and certification
programs for pilots of transport category aircraft. These
recommendations are documented in Flight Standardization Board (FSB)
reports for each aircraft and may be used by a certificate holder to
develop its training program curriculum. The NPRM did not include these
allowances for modification of programmed hours, subjects, and tasks,
nor did it incorporate the guidance material in AC 120-53A.
    The FAA received two comments on this issue. Boeing and Airbus
commented that the NPRM did not allow for modification of programmed
hours, subjects, and tasks. They noted that the NPRM incorporated
neither the modifications currently allowed under Sec.  121.405(d) and
(g), nor the AEG responsibilities regarding recommendations for
training, checking, recency of experience, and operating experience
applications.
    The FAA recognizes that due to differences in instrumentation and
installed equipment, the skills and knowledge required to operate two
aircraft of the same make and model can differ. The range of
differences between variations of a basic aircraft model may be very
wide or very narrow, given the introduction of computerized guidance
systems, electronic instrument displays, and two crewmember
flightcrews. Crewmembers trained on one variant of an aircraft may
require additional training to safely and efficiently operate other
variants of that aircraft. In 1989, FAA established FSBs to begin
analyzing the differences in variants of existing aircraft during
certification. These analyses are published in a Master Differences
Program Requirements (MDPR) document in each FSB report. The MDPR
document contains differences and differences training requirements for
each variation of aircraft type. An operator preparing a training
program may review the MDPR, determine the differences between the
aircraft, and develop a training program, subject to FAA approval, that
addresses these differences.
    In certain circumstances, the differences between each variant may
be so significant that additional training may be necessary. However,
in other cases, technologies in modern aircraft systems and displays
may allow different type certificated aircraft to have common flight
deck and systems designs, such that minimal differences training may be
warranted. In these situations, the FSB has recommended credits for
similarities between aircraft, provided the necessary and critical
levels of training, checking, currency, and recent experience are
maintained.
    For example, the Boeing 737 family of aircraft, whose variations
have encompassed all models from the B-737-100 to the current B-737-NG
family, is an example of one ``type'' of aircraft having diverse
configurations and technologies incorporated in the same type
certificate. In this case, the FAA has established the minimum
differences to maintain an equivalent level of safety by managing the
training, checking, currency, and recent experience requirements across
this fleet of aircraft. On the other hand, the FAA has determined that
it may be appropriate to allow credit based on commonality of systems
design and handling characteristics for the Airbus family of aircraft
(A320/330/340/380).
    With the rapid advancement in modern technologies, both in
manufacturing techniques and systems design and application, the
industry has incorporated products and processes that have redefined
the relationships between and within aircraft fleets. For example, the
technological development of flight guidance computers has produced
``fly-by-wire'' control laws embedded in computer software that
increasingly determine and control the handling or flight
characteristics of an aircraft. The use of such technology can produce
aircraft of differing models and aerodynamic airframes, whose handling
or flight characteristics are similar.

    To address these ``relationships'' among different type
certificated aircraft, the FAA proposes adding a new definition for
``related aircraft'' that applies specifically to flightcrew members in
part 121, subpart BB. Related aircraft means any two or more aircraft
of the same make for which the FAA has determined that the flight
handling characteristics and operating systems of the aircraft are so
similar that it may be appropriate to give credit for some of the
training, testing, checking, recency of experience, or operating
experience conducted in one of the aircraft for the training, testing,
checking, recency of experience, or operating experience that would be
required for the other aircraft. These credits must be authorized by
the FAA.
    Based on the FAA's experience with evaluating aircraft similarities
and dissimilarities regarding training, evaluation, and operations, the
FAA is proposing to allow certificate holders to seek related aircraft
designation. The process for seeking related aircraft designation is
outlined in proposed Sec.  121.1206. Having such a designation may
allow certificate holders to take advantage of any similarities that
may exist between aircraft in its fleet and make modifications to their
training programs, as set forth in Sec.  121.1215, or seek a deviation
from the recency and qualification requirements as set forth in Sec.
121.1230. Before a certificate holder may take advantage of the
allowances in proposed Sec. Sec.  121.1215 and 121.1230, it must submit
an application for related aircraft designation and obtain approval of
that application. The application must be submitted to the Division
Manager of the Air Transportation Division of Flight Standards Service
through the FAA office responsible for approval of the certificate
holder's operations specifications.
    In creating the related aircraft designation, the FAA recognizes
that the range of differences between variations of a basic aircraft
model may be very wide or very narrow given the introduction of
computerized guidance systems, electronic instrument displays, and two
crewmember flightcrews. Crewmembers trained on one variant of an
aircraft would likely require additional training to safely and
efficiently operate other variants of that aircraft. Consistent with
current practice, provided a flightcrew member is able to demonstrate
proficiency and complete the training and evaluation requirements set
forth in the certificate holder's approved training program, the FAA
has not established a limit on the number of aircraft type, or series
within a type, that a flightcrew member may be qualified to serve.

 C. Require Certificated Aircraft Dispatchers for Supplemental
Operations

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed qualification and training program
requirements for all aircraft dispatchers serving in domestic and flag
operations, but was silent with regard to supplemental operations.
Currently, Sec. Sec.  121.125 and 121.127 require certificate holders
conducting supplemental operations to maintain a flight following
center. Supplemental operators are not required to use certificated
aircraft dispatchers but may use operations personnel, commonly
referred to as flight followers. The certificate holder must be able to
show these individuals are able to perform the function of operational
control of the aircraft and other job functions as required. The NPRM
did not include training requirements for these flight followers.
    Midwest and Transport Workers Union (TWU) recommended that the FAA
require certificated aircraft dispatchers for supplemental operations
in order to achieve one level of safety in part 121 operations. Airline
Dispatchers Federation (ADF), TWU, Southwest TWU Local 550, and three
individuals also suggested that the FAA include training requirements
for flight followers in supplemental operations. The Crewmember/
Dispatcher Qualification Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) \7\
dispatcher working group recommended eliminating the release and
operational control rules for supplemental operations and requiring
certificated aircraft dispatchers for all operations conducted under
part 121. See Recommendation Document ``Elimination of Part 121
Supplemental Release and Operational Control Rules'' Docket entry FAA-
2008-0677-049.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The FAA established the ARC on May 3, 2004, as a forum for
the FAA and the aviation community to discuss crewmember and
aircraft dispatcher qualification and training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current provisions, training for flight followers is
generally stated in Sec.  119.65(d). This regulation requires that
anyone in a position to exercise control of operations must be
``qualified through training, experience, and expertise,'' to the
extent of their responsibilities and have a full understanding with
respect to the operation. The FAA notes that as of September 30, 2009,
there were 32 supplemental operators. Of these 32 operators, 21
operators employ only certificated aircraft dispatchers to perform
flight following services and 8 employ some FAA certificated
dispatchers as flight followers, Only three operators do not employ any
FAA certificated dispatchers as flight followers. Of the 32 operators,
31 use flight followers located in the United States. These 31
operators employ 332 flight followers, 300 of which are certificated
aircraft dispatchers, and 3 more who are presently in the process of
obtaining an aircraft dispatcher certificate.
    A majority of supplemental operators already use aircraft
dispatchers as flight followers, recognizing FAA-certificated aircraft
dispatchers provide a higher level of safety than non-certificated
flight followers. Because flight followers may perform the function of
operational control for the Director of Operations without a formal
training program, it is necessary to ensure these individuals are
qualified and trained to perform this function. The provisions in the
SNPRM that would require aircraft dispatchers in supplemental
operations are consistent with other FAA initiatives that serve to
establish a single level of safety for all commercial airlines.
Furthermore, adding these requirements for flight followers would also
conform to ICAO Annex 6 section <IP_ADDRESS> regarding training for people
designated with operational control responsibilities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ICAO Annex 6 was approved and became effective in November
2006, after the ARC had completed its work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the FAA proposes in this SNPRM to require flight
followers to be FAA-certificated aircraft dispatchers, trained and
qualified under proposed subpart CC. This action is further supported
by the following accident history.
    On December 28, 2001, a Boeing 747 cargo airplane operated by a
part 121 Supplemental Operator had a tail strike on departure from
Anchorage, Alaska. The NTSB found prior to departure that the crew
failed to account for the weight of the additional fuel and
inadvertently used the same performance cards that were used for the
previous landing. The NTSB found the probable cause of the accident was
inadequate preflight planning/preparation and failure to calculate
aircraft weight and balance by the flight crew (NTSB Event ID
ANC02LA008). The FAA believes this accident could have been mitigated
if the pilots had been required to share joint responsibility with a
certificated aircraft dispatcher involved in the preflight planning of
this operation. Based on this analysis and in response to comments, the
FAA proposes to amend Sec. Sec.  121.125 and 121.127 to

require personnel performing flight following services to meet the
qualification and training standards set forth in subpart CC. For the
purposes of these new requirements dispatch release and flight release
have the same meaning.
    As a result of requiring certificated aircraft dispatchers in
supplemental operations, the FAA recognizes that the shared
responsibility of operational control between the PIC and the
certificated aircraft dispatcher increases the safety of the flight.
With this added layer of safety, the FAA believes it is appropriate to
allow supplemental carriers to file domestic flight plans with no
alternate airport, under the provisions of Sec.  121.619, as is
currently allowed for part 121 domestic operations. This would result
in a fuel savings for the supplemental operators because current
regulations for supplemental operators require an alternate airport for
all of their operations. Therefore, the FAA has included new Sec.
121.536 to allow supplemental operators to comply with domestic
alternate airport requirements in Sec.  121.619 when they meet the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  121.125 and 121.127.

D. Establish Deviation Authority To Allow Contract Aircraft Dispatcher
Dervices (Sec.  121.1411)

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed a new requirement that aircraft
dispatchers be employees of the certificate holder. The NPRM would have
continued the current FAA policy of prohibiting the use of contract
dispatchers. While current regulations do not address the use of
contract dispatchers, on March 29, 1984, the FAA issued information to
domestic and flag air carriers on ``operational responsibilities and
use of dispatchers who are not in the employ of the certificate
holder,'' which stated that ``to permit the dispatchers operational
control functions and responsibilities to be fulfilled by a person who
is not an employee of the certificate holder would, in effect, permit a
portion of the certificate holder's operational control
responsibilities to be fulfilled by a party other than the certificate
holder which is contrary to Sec. Sec.  121.533(a) and 121.535(a).''
This policy thus prohibited the use of contract aircraft dispatchers
based on concerns that sharing dispatch services between carriers, by
contract or some other arrangement, clouds which carrier really
controls the dispatchers and whether the air carrier that uses the
dispatch services and dispatchers from the other air carrier really has
full operational control of its flights.
    A September 1988 letter from Robert L. Goodrich, Acting Director,
Flight Standards Service, to Marshall S. Filler, attorney for Eastern,
also discussed the sharing or contracting of aircraft dispatchers. In
closing, Mr. Goodrich concluded permitting contract aircraft
dispatchers would be a change in existing policy that would necessitate
public notice and comment. He stated further that the FAA would be
reluctant to adopt such a radically new policy unilaterally without
benefit of comment from interested parties.
    On November 30, 2000, the New England Deputy Regional Counsel
restated the long standing policy against permitting contract
dispatchers to Boston-Maine Airways (BM). See Letter to Boston-Maine
Airways, from FAA Regional Counsel (New England) (Nov. 30, 2000) (copy
available in the docket).
    The FAA did permit the sharing of aircraft dispatch services in
certain limited conditions in Alaska (SFAR 80) from 1997 until March
12, 2001. In establishing the SFAR, the FAA recognized its long-
standing policy that each certificate holder subject to Sec.  121.395
have aircraft dispatchers that are employed exclusively by that
certificate holder. However, small operations located in remote areas
in Alaska had difficulty attracting qualified, certificated aircraft
dispatchers to work and live in those areas. Accordingly, the FAA
issued the SFAR for a 4-year period to allow these operators, upon
authorization by the Administrator, to contract dispatch services, with
the expectation that adequate communications facilities would become
available in all parts of Alaska and other areas within that time. 62
FR 13255 (Mar. 19, 1997). This SFAR was not renewed and, in fact,
terminated on March 12, 2001.
    In addition to the exception provided for certificate holders in
Alaska from 1997 to 2001, current certificate holders conducting
supplemental operations are allowed to contract flight following
services, provided the certificate holder continues to be responsible
for operational control of each flight. See Sec.  121.125(b).
    The FAA received three comments on this issue. Jeppesen suggested
that the employment requirement be removed because the positions of
aircraft dispatcher, check dispatcher, and dispatch program designee
could be filled by contract employees who could provide an equivalent
or higher level of safety as provided by an employee of the certificate
holder. TWU International and Southwest TWU 550 supported the
employment requirement proposed in the NPRM.
    Upon review of the comments and further analysis, the FAA is
retaining the employment requirement in this SNPRM. The FAA recognizes,
however, that supplemental air carriers have been able to demonstrate
an equivalent level of safety using contract flight following services
as when using only employee flight followers. Based on this experience,
the FAA believes that domestic and flag operators may also be able to
demonstrate an equivalent level of safety by using contract dispatch
services. Accordingly, the SNPRM proposes to allow a deviation from the
employment requirement provided that the certificate holder can
demonstrate that operational control is maintained. Advances in
communications, weather analysis and dissemination, and flight tracking
software have improved the operational control capabilities of the
aircraft dispatcher. The consolidation of aircraft dispatchers in a
centralized location could, under certain conditions, provide
availability of experienced aircraft dispatcher personnel. The FAA
reiterates that, in using contract aircraft dispatchers, certificate
holders must maintain operational control. Accordingly, the FAA has
included in the SNPRM deviation authority language in Sec.  121.1411 to
allow the use of contract aircraft dispatchers.
    The proposed deviation to Sec.  121.1411 would place strict
conditions and requirements on the certificate holder regarding the
issuance of operations specifications that outline operational control.
These provisions include: (1) That the certificate holder has at least
one certificated aircraft dispatcher who is an employee of the
certificate holder and is responsible for managing policies,
procedures, training, and qualifications of the contract aircraft
dispatchers; (2) that the certificate holder demonstrates an ability to
maintain operational control and comply with all requirements of this
part; and (3) that the Administrator may, at any time, terminate any
grant of deviation authority that allows the use of contract dispatch
services. Furthermore, this deviation authority is not based on the
size of the certificate holder's operation. Rather, the certificate
holder must demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety would be
achieved and there would not be an adverse effect on safety as a result
of using contract aircraft dispatchers.
    The FAA also recognizes that the proposed requirements in the SNPRM
do not prohibit an aircraft dispatcher from engaging in dispatcher
employment for more than one certificate holder. To ensure that
aircraft

dispatchers are in compliance with the duty time limitations in part
121, the FAA is proposing to amend Sec.  121.465(b) to place
responsibility for compliance with duty time limitations on both the
certificate holder and the aircraft dispatcher, consistent with the
requirements applicable to flightcrew members. This requirement would
become effective 120 days after publication of the final rule.
    The FAA is also amending Sec.  121.711 to extend the communication
record requirements to include supplemental operations and clarify the
contents of the record required for each en route radio contact between
the certificate holder and its pilots. En route for the purposes of
communication recording requirements commences at the time the aircraft
has pushed back from the gate at the origin station and ends when it
arrives at the gate at its destination. In a recent legal
interpretation, the FAA determined that, at a minimum, the following
information must be contained in the record to comply with the
requirements of Sec.  121.711: The date and time of the contact; the
flight number; aircraft registration number; approximate position of
the aircraft during the contact; call sign; and narrative of the
contact. See Legal Interpretation to John S. Duncan, Division Manager,
Air Transportation Division, FAA Flight Standards Service, from Rebecca
B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel, Regulations Division (Feb. 2,
2010). The FAA is proposing to add these recordkeeping requirements to
Sec.  121.711, effective 120 days from the publication of the final
rule.

E. Clarify Training Requirements for Other Operations Personnel (Sec.
121.1475)

    Current subpart N prescribes the requirements applicable to each
certificate holder for establishing and maintaining a training program
for crewmembers, aircraft dispatchers, and ``other operations
personnel.'' 14 CFR 121.400(a). However, subpart N does not define who
these personnel are, nor does it prescribe any actual training
requirements for these personnel. Therefore, the FAA proposed in the
NPRM to remove the reference to ``other operations personnel.''
    During the FAA's review of comments regarding training for flight
followers, the FAA determined that the requirement for the training of
other operations personnel was removed in error. Currently, certificate
holders are required to prepare and keep current a manual that flight,
ground operations and management personnel may use in conducting
operations under part 121. See 14 CFR 121.133, 121.135. That manual
must include instructions and information necessary to allow these
personnel to perform their duties and responsibilities with a high
degree of safety. The requirement for training of ``other operations
personnel'' as outlined in Sec.  121.400(a) is intended to ensure these
flight, ground operations, and management personnel receive training
regarding their duties and responsibilities as outlined in the manual
required under Sec. Sec.  121.133 and 121.135. To ensure these
personnel continue to receive training regarding their safety-related
responsibilities and duties as specified in the manual, the FAA has
revised proposed Sec. Sec.  121.1401 and 121.1403 and added Sec.
121.1475 to include training for ground operations and management
personnel. The FAA currently tracks this training under the Air
Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) and has determined that it is
not necessary to establish specific training program requirements for
these individuals other than requiring training on their safety-related
duties and responsibilities as outlined in the certificate holder's
manual. Approval of this training is not required, but the training
must be acceptable to the Administrator.

F. Requalification for Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers

    The current provisions in subparts N, O, and P do not specifically
identify how a crewmember or aircraft dispatcher becomes unqualified or
how the crewmember can become requalified. Many air carriers have
modified their training programs under Sec.  121.401 to include a
requalification curriculum, based on existing guidance in FAA Order
8900.1. See FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 19, Sect. 11, para. 3-1361-
1369 (flightcrew members); FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 23, Sect. 1,
para. 3-1727-1729 (flight attendants); FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch.
22, Sect. 5, para. 3-1701 (aircraft dispatchers). Without this
curriculum, crewmembers and dispatchers who did not complete recurrent
training within the required timeframe would be required to complete
initial academic and job performance training in order to become
requalified. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to codify existing guidance
material in FAA Order 8900.1 that permits certificate holders to
develop requalification curriculums for crewmembers and aircraft
dispatchers. The requalification phases were based on the number of
months the person had been unqualified and the number of months since
the person last served in a crewmember duty position for the aircraft
type.
1. Flightcrew Member Requalification (Sec.  121.1239)
    In the NPRM, the FAA did not propose to establish minimum
programmed hours for requalification for flightcrew members. Rather,
the FAA proposed that these hours would be determined by the
Administrator. In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the requalification
requirements to clarify the phases of requalification and establish
minimum and baseline programmed hours for each phase of
requalification. Under the proposed requirements, phase I
requalification is triggered if it has been less than 9 months since
the end of the flightcrew member's base month; phase II requalification
is triggered if it has been 9 months or more, but less than 27 months
since the end of the person's base month; and phase III requalification
is triggered if it has been 27 months or more since the end of the
person's base month. The phases require increasing training
requirements depending on the amount of time the crewmember has been
unqualified. The programmed hours for phase I requirements are based on
recurrent requirements; phase II programmed hour requirements are based
on conversion requirements; and phase III programmed hour requirements
are based on transition requirements.\9\ The phase III requalification
requirements are the most extensive because the amount of time that the
person has been unqualified is relatively long, and the flightcrew
member has lost more proficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Conversion is a curriculum category used to qualify a
flightcrew member when that person has qualified and served in that
crewmember position on the same aircraft type for another
certificate holder conducting operations under this part. Transition
is a curriculum category used to qualify a flightcrew member when
that person has qualified and served in that crewmember position on
another aircraft in the same group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining the appropriate phases and minimum programmed hours
for requalification, the FAA reviewed existing requalification programs
for 22 non-AQP air carriers. These requalification programs provided a
wide range of phases for requalification based on the time for which
pilots had been unqualified. These phases varied from less than 3
months to more than 60 months. Some airlines had only two phases of
requalification while others had as many as seven phases. The various
phases generally settled into the following four ranges: 0-12 months;
12-36 months; 36-60 months; and more than 60 months. These four
divisions also had a wide variety of approved academic training hours
and job

performance training hours assigned to regain qualification. These
approved time requirements ranged from 4 hours of academic training and
2 hours of flight training, to completion of initial training with
respect to equipment qualification (120 hours of academic training and
6 to 10 simulator sessions of job performance training.) See FAA
Technical Report, appendix F.
    Based on the wide variance in current requalification programs as
evidenced in appendix F in the FAA Technical Report, the FAA has
determined that it is necessary to establish a uniform standard for
requalification programs. In order to reduce administrative burden and
not require additional development of content for requalification, the
FAA proposes requiring that flightcrew members who enter phase I
requalification complete the recurrent academic and job performance
training and evaluation to become qualified. For flightcrew members
entering phase II requalification, flightcrew members would be required
to complete the academic and job performance training and evaluation
for conversion to become qualified; and flightcrew members entering
phase III requalification would be required to complete the academic
and job performance training and evaluation requirements for transition
to become qualified. Thus, the minimum programmed hours for the phases
of requalification in Table 1A mirror the minimum programmed hours for
these curriculum categories. These phases and hours reflect an
appropriate graduated increase in training and evaluation based on the
amount of time the flightcrew member has been unqualified. To ensure
standardization, the FAA also removed language in Sec.  121.1239
stating that the Administrator would determine programmed hours and
revised Table 1A of the QPS documents to provide these specific
programmed hours.
    In addition, ATA, American, and Southwest suggested that the
certificate holder should control scheduling the beginning date for
requalification training. They stated that there might be some
circumstances, beyond the control of the certificate holder, which may
result in training not being completed within the 9-month time frame.
In such cases, the commenters asserted that as long as the training
occurs within the 30-day window, continuity of training would be
maintained. Commenters also stated that any time requalification
training is conducted, the flightcrew member's base month should be
changed to align with current industry practice.
    The FAA wants to ensure consistency regarding the requalification
training requirements based on the length of time a flightcrew member
has been unqualified. The standardized time frames for triggering the
three phases of requalification would ensure this consistency in
application. In the SNPRM the FAA has maintained the time frames for
completion of training, as proposed in the NPRM. Regardless of whether
a person has begun requalification training, the person remains
unqualified until the training and evaluation is complete. The longer a
person has been unqualified, the more rigorous the requirements are to
become requalified.
    Continental and United believe ``Core Conversion'' in phase II
requalification is in conflict with Tables 2A and 3A, which states
``Full Conversion.'' In the SNPRM, the FAA removed core conversion and
full conversion from the proposal. To provide clarity, the
requalification requirements in Sec.  121.1239 refer only to
requalification curriculum category and reference the requalification
curriculum as established in the flightcrew member QPS.
2. Flight Attendant Requalification (Sec.  121.1309)
    Similar to flightcrew members, the current regulations for flight
attendants do not address how a flight attendant becomes unqualified or
how an unqualified flight attendant can become requalified. In the
NPRM, the FAA identified how a flight attendant becomes unqualified and
proposed a process for requalification. As with the proposed flightcrew