[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10896-10935]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01111]

Vol. 85

Tuesday,

No. 37

February 25, 2020

Part IV

 Department of Transportation

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

Federal Aviation Administration

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

14 CFR Parts 61, 91, 121, and 135

 Pilot Professional Development; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 2020 /
Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61, 91, 121, and 135

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0504; Amdt. Nos.: 61-144; 91-356; 121-382; and
135-142]
RIN 2120-AJ87

Pilot Professional Development

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the requirements primarily applicable to
air carriers conducting domestic, flag, and supplemental operations to
enhance the professional development of pilots in those operations.
This action requires air carriers conducting domestic, flag, and
supplemental operations to provide new-hire pilots with an opportunity
to observe flight operations and become familiar with procedures before
serving as a flightcrew member in operations; to revise the upgrade
curriculum; and to provide leadership and command and mentoring
training for all pilots in command. This final rule will mitigate
incidents of unprofessional pilot behavior and reduce pilot errors that
can lead to a catastrophic event.

DATES: Effective April 27, 2020. The compliance date for the
requirements in Sec. Sec.  91.1063(b)(2), 121.419(c) and (g), 121.420,
121.424(b) and (g), 121.426, 121.435, and 135.3(d)(1) is April 27,
2022. The compliance date for the requirements in Sec.  121.429 is
April 27, 2023.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheri Pippin, Air Transportation
Division (AFS-200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
    A. Statement of the Problem
    B. Related FAA Actions
    C. National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations
IV. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule
    A. General
    B. Applicability
    C. Effective Date and Compliance Date
    D. Operations Familiarization (Sec.  121.435)
    E. PIC Leadership and Command Training
    1. General
    2. Distance Instruction
    F. PIC Mentoring Training
    G. SIC to PIC Upgrade (Sec. Sec.  121.420 and 121.426)
    1. Performance-Based Curriculum
    2. Revised Upgrade Curriculum Requirements
    3. Upgrade Proficiency Check Requirements
    4. Effect of Revised Upgrade Curriculum on Recurrent Training
    H. Training for Pilots Currently Serving as PIC (Sec.  121.429)
    I. Recurrent PIC Leadership and Command and Mentoring Training
(Sec. Sec.  121.409(b) and 121.427)
    J. Leadership and Command Training and Mentoring Training for
SICs Serving in Operations That Require Three or More Pilots
    K. Pilot Professional Development Committee (Proposed Sec.
121.17)
    L. Pilot Recurrent Ground Training Content and Programmed Hours
(Sec.  121.427)
    M. Part 135 Operators and Part 91 Subpart K Program Managers
Complying With Part 121, Subparts N and O
    N. Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Conforming Changes
    O. SIC Training and Checking Conforming Changes
    P. Other Conforming and Miscellaneous Changes
    Q. Costs and Benefits
    R. Other Out-of-Scope Comments
V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    A. Regulatory Evaluation
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    C. International Trade Impact Assessment
    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
    G. Environmental Analysis
VI. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
    D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
VII. How To Obtain Additional Information
    A. Rulemaking Documents
    B. Comments Submitted to the Docket
    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AC Advisory Circular
ACSPT ARC Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training Aviation Rulemaking
Committee
AQP Advanced Qualification Program
ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee
ATP Airline Transport Pilot
ATP-CTP Airline Transport Pilot Certification Training Program
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRM Crew Resource Management
FFS Full Flight Simulator
FSTD Flight Simulation Training Device
FTD Flight Training Device
InFO Information for Operators
LOFT Line-Oriented Flight Training
MLP ARC Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership, and Professional
Development Aviation Rulemaking Committee
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OF Operations Familiarization
PIC Pilot in Command
PDSC Professional Development Steering Committee
PPDC Pilot Professional Development Committee
SAFO Safety Alert for Operators
SIC Second in Command
SOP Standard Operating Procedures
THRR ARC Flightcrew Member Training Hours Requirement Review
Aviation Rulemaking Committee
91K Part 91, subpart K of 14 CFR.

I. Executive Summary

    On October 7, 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to propose amendments
to requirements for air carriers and pilots operating under part 121 to
enhance the professional development of part 121 pilots.\1\ The
proposed amendments included additional air carrier training for pilots
in command (PIC), additional air carrier qualification for newly hired
pilots, and a requirement for air carriers to establish and maintain a
pilot professional development committee to develop, administer, and
oversee formal pilot mentoring programs. The comment period for the
NPRM closed on January 5, 2017, and the FAA received 44 unique
comments. Only two of the comments opposed the rule, and 22 comments
supported the rule without change. Twelve comments supported the rule
generally but suggested changes. After review of the comments, the FAA
is issuing this final rule, which contains a number of changes from the
NPRM, to enhance the professional development of part 121 pilots. Table
1, Summary of Final Rule Provisions, provides additional detail
regarding the final rule provisions incorporated into part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 69908.

                Table 1--Summary of Final Rule Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Summary of NPRM     Major changes from
          Provision                 provision               NPRM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations familiarization     Operations    Adds
 for new-hire pilots (Sec.     familiarization       requirement that
 121.435).                     must include a        operations
                               minimum of 2          familiarization may
                               operating cycles. A   be completed during
                               new-hire pilot        or after basic
                               completing            indoctrination
                               operations            training, but must
                               familiarization       be completed before
                               must occupy the       beginning operating
                               flight deck           experience.
                               observer seat.
Upgrade training curriculum    Upgrade       No changes.
 requirements (Sec.  Sec.      ground and flight
 121.420 and 121.426).         training
                               requirements have
                               been updated based
                               on the
                               qualification and
                               experience that all
                               upgrading pilots
                               now have as a
                               result of the Pilot
                               Certification and
                               Qualification
                               Requirements for
                               Air Carrier
                               Operations rule
                               requirements.
                               Leadership
                               and command and
                               mentoring training
                               must be included in
                               the upgrade
                               curriculum.
                               Leadership and
                               command and
                               mentoring training
                               are required
                               subjects for
                               upgrade ground
                               training.
                               Leadership and
                               command training
                               must also be
                               incorporated into
                               flight training
                               through scenario-
                               based training.
                               (Note: For those
                               air carriers that
                               use an initial
                               curriculum to
                               qualify pilots to
                               serve as PICs,
                               leadership and
                               command and
                               mentoring training
                               must be provided as
                               part of that
                               initial curriculum
                               (Sec.  Sec.
                               121.419 and
                               121.424)).
                               Leadership and
                               command and
                               mentoring ground
                               training for pilots
                               currently serving
                               as PIC (Sec.
                               121.429).
                               All pilots    Adds
                               currently serving     limitation that the
                               as PIC must           FAA will only allow
                               complete ground       credit for previous
                               training on           training completed
                               leadership and        within 36 calendar
                               command and           months prior to the
                               mentoring.            effective date of
                               The           the final rule.
                               Administrator may
                               credit previous
                               training completed
                               by the pilot at
                               that air carrier.
Recurrent PIC leadership and   PICs must     No changes.
 command and mentoring         complete recurrent
 training (Sec.  Sec.          leadership and
 121.409(b) and 121.427).      command and
                               mentoring ground
                               training every 36
                               months.
                               Recurrent
                               Line-Oriented
                               Flight Training
                               (LOFT) must provide
                               an opportunity for
                               PICs to demonstrate
                               leadership and
                               command.
Leadership and command         SICs          Adds
 training for SICs serving     required to be        requirement for
 in an operation that          fully qualified to    these SICs to
 requires 3 or more pilots     act as PIC, due to    complete leadership
 (Sec.   121.432).             serving in an         and command
                               operation that        training. (These
                               requires 3 or more    SICs are not
                               pilots, are not       required to
                               required to           complete mentoring
                               complete leadership   training).
                               and command and
                               mentoring training.
Pilot recurrent ground         Pilot         No changes.
 training content and          recurrent ground
 programmed hours (Sec.        training has been
 121.427).                     aligned with the
                               pilot initial
                               ground training
                               requirements for
                               pilots who have
                               completed the
                               Airline Transport
                               Pilot Certification
                               Training Program
                               (ATP-CTP). As a
                               result, the
                               existing content
                               and corresponding
                               programmed hours
                               for recurrent
                               ground training
                               have been reduced.
Part 135 Operators and Part    Part 135      Adds
 91 Subpart K Program          operators and part    exception for part
 Managers Complying with       91 subpart K (91K)    135 operators and
 Part 121, Subparts N and O    program managers      part 91K program
 (Sec.  Sec.   91.1063 and     complying with part   managers, that
 135.3).                       121 subparts N and    choose to comply
                               O would continue to   with part 121
                               use the existing      subparts N and O,
                               upgrade curriculum    are not required to
                               requirements and      comply with the
                               the proposed          operations
                               leadership and        familiarization
                               command and           required in Sec.
                               mentoring training    121.435.
                               would only apply to
                               PICs serving in
                               operations that use
                               two or more pilots.
Flight Simulation Training     Part 121,    No changes.
 Device (FSTD) Conforming      subparts N and O
 Changes (Part 121, subparts   and appendices E,
 N and O and appendices E,     F, and H are
 F, and H).                    updated as follows:
                              (1) Reflect the
                               terminology
                               currently used to
                               identify FSTDs
                               approved for use in
                               part 121 training
                               programs;.
                              (2) Remove
                               references to
                               simulation
                               technology that no
                               longer exists; and.
                              (3) Remove
                               requirement for FAA
                               certification of
                               training and remove
                               pilot experience
                               prerequisites for
                               using a Level C
                               full flight
                               simulator (FFS) to
                               reflect advances in
                               current FSTD
                               technology.

SIC Training and Checking      Part 121      No changes.
 Conforming Changes (Part      appendices E and F
 121 appendices E and F).      are updated to
                               align with the
                               current 14 CFR
                               61.71 requirements
                               for SICs to obtain
                               a type rating in a
                               part 121 training
                               program. Initial,
                               conversion, and
                               transition SIC
                               training and
                               checking must
                               include the few
                               training and
                               checking maneuvers
                               and procedures
                               formerly designated
                               in appendices E and
                               F as PIC-only.
Pilot professional             Air           Not adopted
 development committee         carriers must         in the final rule.
 (PPDC) (Sec.   121.17).       establish and
                               maintain a PPDC to
                               develop,
                               administer, and
                               oversee formal
                               pilot mentoring
                               programs. The PPDC
                               must consist of at
                               least one
                               management
                               representative and
                               one pilot
                               representative. The
                               PPDC must meet on a
                               regular basis. The
                               frequency of such
                               meetings would be
                               determined by the
                               air carrier, but
                               must occur at least
                               annually.
Other Conforming and           Pilot         No changes.
 Miscellaneous Changes.        transition ground
                               training has been
                               aligned with the
                               pilot initial
                               ground training for
                               pilots who have
                               completed the ATP-
                               CTP.
                               The term
                               used to identify
                               the training
                               provided to flight
                               engineers
                               qualifying as SICs
                               on the same
                               airplane type has
                               been changed from
                               ``upgrade'' to
                               ``conversion''.
                               Conversion
                               ground training for
                               flight engineers
                               who have completed
                               the ATP-CTP has
                               been aligned with
                               the pilot initial
                               ground training for
                               pilots who have
                               completed the ATP-
                               CTP.
                               Part 121
                               appendices E and F
                               and Sec.   121.434
                               are amended to
                               allow for pictorial
                               means for the
                               training and
                               checking of
                               preflight visual
                               inspections of the
                               exterior and
                               interior of the
                               airplane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cost of the rule is attributed to training requirements that
will reduce the risk of unprofessional pilot behavior and help avoid
situations that can lead to a catastrophic event. The estimated cost of
the rule to the impacted entities is $90.0 million over a 10-year
period. When discounted using a 7-percent discount rate, the rule is
estimated to result in costs of $62.2 million over the same period. The
rule will also generate cost savings to operators of $95.5 million over
a 10-year period. When discounted using a 7-percent discount rate, the
rule will result in savings of $61.2 million over the same period. The
total cost and cost savings are shown in the table below.

                                  Table 2--Comparison of Costs and Cost Savings
                                           [Millions of 2016 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Present value   Annualized at   Present value   Annualized at
                                                       at 7%            7%             at 3%            3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs.....................................          $62.17           $8.29          $76.25           $8.24
Total Cost Savings..............................           61.22            8.16           78.32            8.46
Net Costs.......................................            0.94            0.13           -2.07           -0.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the FAA's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the general authority described in
49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a) and the specific authority found in
section 206 of Public Law 111-216, the Airline Safety and Federal
Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Aug. 1, 2010) (49 U.S.C.
44701 note), which directed the FAA to convene an aviation rulemaking
committee (ARC) and conduct a rulemaking proceeding based on the ARC's
recommendations pertaining to mentoring, professional development, and
leadership and command training for pilots serving in part 121
operations. Section 206 further required that the FAA include in
leadership and command training instruction on compliance with
flightcrew member duties under 14 CFR 121.542 (sterile flight deck
rule).

III. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    As recognized by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB),
the overall safety and reliability of the national airspace system
demonstrates that most pilots conduct operations with a high degree of
professionalism.\2\

Nevertheless, a problem still exists in the aviation industry with some
pilots acting unprofessionally and not adhering to standard operating
procedures (``SOP''), including the sterile flight deck rule.\3\ The
NTSB has continued to cite inadequate leadership in the flight deck,
pilots' unprofessional behavior, and pilots' failure to comply with the
sterile flight deck rule as factors in multiple accidents and
incidents, including Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701 and Colgan Air,\4\
Inc., flight 3407.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Crash of Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701, Bombardier CL-
600-2B19, N8396A, Jefferson City, Missouri, October 14, 2004,
Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-07/01 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2007)
(hereinafter ``Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-07/01'') available
at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAR0701.aspx.
    \3\ See Loss of Control on Approach, Colgan Air, Inc., Operating
as Continental Connection Flight 3407, Bombardier DHC-8-400, N200WQ,
Clarence Center, New York, February 12, 2009, Aircraft Accident
Report NTSB/AAR-10/01 (Washington, DC: NTSB, 2010) (hereinafter
``Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-10/01'') available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAR1001.aspx.
    \4\ Some contributing factors to this accident were also
mitigated by the following rules: Flightcrew Member Duty and Rest
Requirements (77 FR 330, January 4, 2012, RIN 2120-AJ58) with a 0.5
effective mitigation; Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers
and Aircraft Dispatchers (78 FR 67800, November 12, 2013, RIN 2120-
AJ00) with a 0.2 effective mitigation; Pilot Certification and
Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations (78 FR 42324,
July 15, 2013, RIN 2120-AJ67) with a 0.2 effective mitigation; and
Safety Management Systems for Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental
Operations Certificate Holders (80 FR 1307, January 8, 2015, RIN
2120-AJ86) with a 0.05 effective mitigation.
    \5\ More recently, on October 27, 2016 Eastern Airlines flight
3452, a Boeing 737-700, ran off runway 22 during the landing roll at
LaGuardia Airport, Flushing, Queens, New York. The NTSB determined
the probable cause of this incident was the SIC's failure to attain
the proper touchdown point and the flight crew's failure to call for
a go-around, which resulted in the airplane landing more than
halfway down the runway. Contributing to the incident was the PIC's
lack of command authority. See the NTSB Aviation Incident Final
Report, Incident Number DCA17IA020, available at https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/2016_queens_ny.aspx. While this
incident does not form a basis for the issuance of this rule, it
illustrates that leadership and command training remains an
important component of an effective pilot training program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 14, 2004, a Pinnacle Airlines Bombardier CL-600-2B19,
operating as Northwest Airlink flight 3701, crashed into a residential
area about 2.5 miles from the Jefferson City Memorial Airport,
Jefferson City, Missouri. During the flight, both engines flamed out
after a pilot-induced aerodynamic stall and were unable to be
restarted. Both pilots were killed, and the airplane was destroyed. The
NTSB determined the probable causes of this accident were (1) the
pilots' unprofessional behavior, deviation from SOP, and poor
airmanship, which resulted in an in-flight emergency from which the
pilots were unable to recover, in part because of their inadequate
training; (2) the pilots' failure to prepare for an emergency landing
in a timely manner; and (3) the pilots' improper management of the
double engine failure checklist.
    The NTSB noted that at the time of the accident, Pinnacle Airlines
provided 2 hours of leadership training during second in command (SIC)
to pilot in command (PIC) upgrade training with topics covering
leadership authority, responsibility, and leadership styles. The NTSB
also noted that after the accident and as a result of a high initial
failure rate for pilots upgrading to PIC (22% failure rate in July
2004), Pinnacle revised the leadership training to 8 hours with modules
on leadership, authority, and responsibility; briefing and debriefing
scenarios; decision-making processes, including those during an
emergency; dry run line-oriented flight training scenarios; and risk
management and resource utilization. In October 2006, Pinnacle reported
to the NTSB that the pass rate for pilots upgrading to PIC had improved
to 92% first attempt and 95% overall.
    On the evening of February 12, 2009, a Colgan Air, Inc., Bombardier
DHC-8-400, operating as Continental Connection flight 3407, was on
approach to Buffalo-Niagara International Airport, Buffalo, New York,
when it crashed into a residence in Clarence Center, New York, about
five nautical miles northeast of the airport. The two pilots, two
flight attendants, all 45 passengers aboard the airplane, and one
person on the ground were killed, and the airplane was destroyed by
impact forces and a post-crash fire. The NTSB determined that the
probable cause of this accident was the PIC's inappropriate response to
the stall warning which eventually led to a stall from which the
airplane did not recover. Contributing to the accident were (1) the
pilots' failure to monitor airspeed; (2) the pilots' failure to adhere
to sterile flight deck procedures; (3) the PIC's failure to effectively
manage the flight; and (4) Colgan Air's inadequate procedures for
airspeed selection and management during approaches in icing
conditions.
    The NTSB noted that at the time of the accident the Colgan Air crew
resource management (CRM) training was consistent with Advisory
Circular (AC) 120-51E, Crew Resource Management Training and addressed
command, leadership and leadership styles, communication, and decision-
making. The NTSB also noted that the Colgan Air SIC to PIC upgrade
training included a one-day course on leadership; however, the training
focused on the administrative duties associated with becoming a PIC and
did not contain significant content applicable to developing leadership
skills, management oversight, and command authority. The NTSB concluded
that specific leadership training for pilots upgrading to PIC would
help standardize and reinforce the critical command authority skills
needed by a PIC during air carrier operations.
    The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216), enacted August 1, 2010, includes a
number of requirements to convene advisory groups and conduct
rulemakings related to the results of the NTSB investigation of the
Colgan Air accident. Section 206 directs the FAA to convene an ARC to
develop procedures for each part 121 air carrier pertaining to
mentoring, professional development, and leadership and command
training for pilots serving in part 121 operations and to issue an NPRM
and final rule based on the ARC recommendations.
    In accordance with sections 204, 206, and 209 of Public Law 111-
216, the FAA chartered the Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training
(ACSPT) ARC, the Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership, and
Professional Development (MLP) ARC and the Flightcrew Member Training
Hours Requirement Review (THRR) ARC, respectively, in September 2010.
The MLP ARC provided recommendations in November 2010. At the same time
as the MLP ARC worked to develop its recommendations, a number of
related rulemakings required by Public Law 111-216 were already
underway, including the Pilot Certification and Qualification
Requirements for Air Carrier Operations rulemaking and the
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers
rulemaking.
    This final rule is the culmination of the FAA's analysis of (1) the
rulemaking requirements of section 206 of Public Law 111-216; (2) the
recommendations provided by the MLP ARC, the THRR ARC, and the ACSPT
ARC; (3) the part 121 pilot qualification and experience requirements
provided in the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for
Air Carrier Operations final rule (78 FR 42324, July 15, 2013); \6\ (4)
the Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers final rule (78 FR 67800, November 12, 2013); \7\ (5) the
current part 121 PIC role and responsibilities; and (6) the comments
received in response to the NPRM. This final rule furthers the

FAA's safety mission, satisfies the requirement for rulemaking in
section 206 of Public Law 111-216, and accounts for the recent changes
to pilot certification and qualifications to serve as a PIC in part 121
operations. The FAA has determined that this final rule can be
effectively implemented by air carriers and will reduce the risk of
unprofessional pilot behavior and help avoid situations that can lead
to a catastrophic event.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ RIN 2120-AJ67.
    \7\ RIN 2120-AJ00.
    \8\ The FAA notes that section 206 of Public Law 111-216
references both ``flight crewmembers'' and ``pilots.'' Section 201
of Public Law 111-216 states, ``The term `flight crewmember' has the
meaning given the term `flightcrew member' in part 1 of title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations.'' Part 1 defines ``flightcrew member''
as ``a pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigator assigned to duty
in an aircraft during flight time.'' However, because section 206
uses the terms ``flight crewmember'' and ``pilot'' interchangeably,
the FAA assumes that Congress intended the rulemaking requirements
of this section to apply to pilots only. Further, because no
accidents have been attributed to flight engineer performance and
the FAA has not identified any issues related to flight engineer
training or professionalism, this final rule applies to pilots only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Related FAA Actions

    To promote pilot professionalism and standardization, the FAA has
taken a number of actions through rulemakings and guidance. The FAA
first issued the sterile flight deck rule (Sec.  121.542) to prohibit
the performance of nonessential duties by flightcrew members during
critical phases of flight, including all ground operations involving
taxi, take-off and landing, and other flight operations conducted below
10,000 feet, except cruise flight (46 FR 5500, January 19, 1981). On
February 12, 2014, the FAA amended the sterile flight deck rule to
prohibit flightcrew members from using a personal wireless
communications device or laptop computer for personal use while at
their duty station while the aircraft is being operated (Prohibition on
Personal Use of Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck final rule, 79 FR
8257).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ RIN 2120-AJ17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 10, 2017, the FAA issued revised AC 120-71B, Standard
Operating Procedures and Pilot Monitoring Duties for Flight Deck
Crewmembers, which stresses that safety in commercial operations
depends on good crew performance founded on clear, comprehensive, and
readily available SOP.\10\ The AC provides guidance for the design,
development, implementation, evaluation, and updating of SOP, as well
as guidance for training of pilot monitoring duties and integration of
pilot monitoring duties into SOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/1030486.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to NTSB Safety Recommendation A-06-7, the FAA issued
Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO) 06004 on April 28, 2006, to emphasize
the importance of sterile flight deck discipline and fatigue
countermeasures, especially during approach and landing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2006/safo06004.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 3, 2007, the FAA issued Safety Alert for Operators (SAFO)
07006, to address procedural intentional non-compliance (PINC) because
multiple accidents revealed pilots not adhering to established
procedures and airplane limitations when conducting positioning
flights.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Positioning flights include nonrevenue flights, flights to
pick up passengers, and ferry flights for maintenance. See http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/safo/all_safos/media/2007/SAFO07006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 26, 2010, the FAA issued Information for Operators (InFO)
10003, to address flight deck distractions because recent incidents and
accidents revealed pilots using laptop computers and mobile telephones
for personal activities unrelated to the duties and responsibilities
required for conduct of a safe flight.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2010/info10003.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the significance of human performance factors such as
communication, decision-making, and leadership, the FAA issued the Air
Carrier and Commercial Operator Training Programs final rule requiring
crew resource management (CRM) training for flightcrew members and
flight attendants as well as dispatcher resource management (DRM)
training for aircraft dispatchers (60 FR 65940, December 20, 1995).\14\
The FAA also published AC 120-51B Crew Resource Management Training and
AC 121-32 Dispatch Resource Management Training to provide guidance on
establishing CRM and DRM training under the broad requirement
established by the final rule. The current version, AC 120-51E,\15\
stresses that CRM training should focus on the functioning of
crewmembers as teams and should include all operational personnel.
During the time since publication of the CRM final rule, the agency has
revised AC 120-51 three times to address evolving research and concepts
of CRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ RIN 2120-AC79.
    \15\ http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/22879.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA recognizes the need to continue to review air carrier
training and qualification regulations, policies, and guidance to
ensure they are current and relevant and address new technology and
research. Therefore, in January 2014, the FAA chartered the Air Carrier
Training ARC to provide a forum for the U.S. aviation community to
continue to discuss, prioritize, and provide recommendations to the FAA
concerning air carrier training.

C. National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations

    This final rule addresses the following NTSB recommendations from
Aircraft Accident Report NTSB/AAR-07/01 and Aircraft Accident Report
NTSB/AAR-10/01 for air carriers operating under part 121:
     A-07-6: Require regional air carriers operating under 14
CFR part 121 to provide specific guidance on expectations for
professional conduct to pilots who operate nonrevenue flights.
     A-10-13: Issue an advisory circular with guidance on
leadership training for upgrading captains at 14 CFR part 121, 135, and
91K operators, including methods and techniques for effective
leadership; professional standards of conduct; strategies for briefing
and debriefing; reinforcement and correction skills; and other
knowledge, skills, and abilities that are critical for air carrier
operations.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Captain'' is an industry term that refers to the PIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A-10-14: Require all 14 CFR part 121, 135, and 91K
operators to provide a specific course on leadership training to their
upgrading captains that is consistent with the advisory circular
requested in Safety Recommendation A-10-13.

IV. Discussion of Public Comments and Final Rule

A. General

    Airbus, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), NetJets Aviation
(NetJets), and 16 individuals generally agreed with the proposal.
Airlines for America (A4A) generally supported the proposal but
provided comments on and suggested changes to specific provisions,
which are discussed in more detail in the section-by-section analysis
below. The International Air Transport Association generally agreed
with the comments submitted by A4A except for the comments related to
training of SICs serving in augmented operations, stating that A4A's
position is inconsistent with existing European requirements.
    The NTSB largely concurred with the overall intent of the proposal.
However,

the NTSB noted that neither the proposed rule nor the draft AC
Leadership and Command Training for Pilots in Command addresses the
content or intent of NTSB Safety Recommendation A-10-15, which
recommended the development and distribution of multimedia guidance
materials.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NTSB Recommendation A-10-15: Develop and distribute to all
pilots, multimedia guidance materials on professionalism in aircraft
operations that contain standards of performance for
professionalism; best practices for sterile cockpit adherence;
techniques for assessing and correcting pilot deviations; examples
and scenarios; and a detailed review of accidents involving
breakdowns in sterile cockpit and other procedures, including the
Colgan Air, Inc. flight 3407 accident. Obtain the input of operators
and air carrier and general aviation pilot groups in the development
and distribution of these guidance materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the FAA is not developing and distributing new
multimedia guidance materials on professionalism in aircraft
operations. As explained in the NPRM, a prerequisite eligibility
requirement for an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate is the
completion of an airline transport pilot certification training program
(ATP-CTP). The ATP-CTP provides foundational knowledge in many subject
areas, including professionalism. In addition to the draft ACs
published in the docket, the FAA previously published AC 61-138 Airline
Transport Pilot Certification Training Program. These ACs all contain
references to other useful documents for the development of training.
Additionally, the FAA posted these ACs for public comment and
considered those comments before final publication. Therefore, the FAA
believes the intent of NTSB recommendation A-10-15 has been met and
that sufficient resources are already available for training on these
topics. The FAA has removed NTSB recommendation A-10-15 from preamble
section III.C. discussing the NTSB recommendations.
    Jet Blue Airways (Jet Blue) commented that there is great value in
promoting leadership, command, and mentoring training for all air
carrier pilots. However, Jet Blue stated that the proposal failed to
recognize other qualitative advancements such as the Advanced
Qualification Program (AQP), the utilization of advanced simulation
opportunities, and alternative vehicles to obtain command and
leadership knowledge through operational experience. Jet Blue strongly
recommended that rather than directing additional resources toward
implementing regulations that duplicate existing programs and efforts,
the FAA re-direct its efforts toward developing guidance for inclusion
within existing AQPs and other approved programs.
    As described in the NPRM, the proposal was responsive to a
statutory requirement for the FAA to convene an ARC to develop
procedures for air carriers pertaining to pilot mentoring, professional
development, and leadership and command training and to issue an NPRM
and final rule based on those recommendations. Therefore, Jet Blue's
recommendation would not be consistent with the statutory requirement.
However, the FAA proposed to allow credit toward all or part of the
requirements for leadership and command and mentoring training
previously completed by a PIC at that air carrier. The FAA is
maintaining this allowance, with modification, in the final rule. Since
each air carrier's training program is unique, the FAA will evaluate
each specific request for credit, including the supporting
documentation, to determine if the previously provided training meets
the intent of some or all of the leadership and command and mentoring
training.
    The Aviation Accreditation Board International (AABI) recommended
that the FAA reconsider adopting the MLP ARC recommendation for
including professionalism and mentoring as required subjects for new-
hire pilot indoctrination training. A4A and American Airlines
(American) agreed that amendments to basic indoctrination training are
not needed and are appropriately addressed by recent regulatory
changes.
    ALPA stated that guidance should exist ensuring new hire training
includes exposure to the operations of other airline departments such
as dispatch, maintenance, and scheduling. ALPA stated that for
leadership and command training to be effective in the flight deck,
new-hires must receive training on their role in the context of the
leadership and command training that PICs receive.
    The FAA is not making any amendments to basic indoctrination
training. As explained in the NPRM, ATP applicants must complete an
ATP-CTP, which provides the foundational knowledge in several subject
areas including leadership and command and professional development.
The recommendation that new-hire training should include exposure to
the operations of other airline departments such as dispatch,
maintenance, and scheduling is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The FAA expects each individual air carrier will determine if exposure
to other airline departments is beneficial to its operation.
    An individual commenter did not agree that air carriers should have
to train crewmembers on professionalism and safety because this
individual believed these skills should be taught before the pilot
applies for an air carrier. Another individual did not agree that
pilots need to be trained on how to be more professional. One
individual identified as a college student opined that this proposal
could be seen as an unnecessary mandate in an already extensive
training curriculum. In contrast, an individual identified as an
associate college professor stated that the proposal could be
successful in inculcating and reinforcing the highest standards of
technical performance, airmanship, and professionalism. Another
individual wrote that the proposal would result in safety benefits and
address the NTSB recommendations and statutory requirement for
rulemaking.
    As described in the NPRM, most pilots conduct operations with a
high degree of professionalism. However, the NTSB has continued to cite
inadequate leadership in the flight deck, pilots' unprofessional
behavior, and pilots' failure to comply with the sterile flight deck
rule as factors in multiple accidents and incidents. The FAA concurs
with the NTSB recommendation to require leadership training for air
carrier pilots and has concluded that the proposed training is
warranted. With regard to a comment that the proposal should be focused
on interpersonal skills and attitude management training, the FAA notes
that the AC PIC Leadership and Command Training and AC 120-51 Crew
Resource Management Training address these topics.
    One individual commented that there should be a shorter version of
training for senior pilots and that pilots from this pool can be chosen
to help conduct the additional training. The FAA does not agree that
there should be a shorter version of the training for senior pilots. As
discussed further below, the FAA will allow credit toward all or part
of the requirements for initial leadership and command and mentoring
training previously completed by a PIC at that air carrier. In general,
this credit will allow more senior pilots to more quickly meet new
initial training requirements.

B. Applicability

    In the NPRM, the FAA stated that the proposal would affect
certificate holders that train and qualify pilots in accordance with
part 121, including air carriers that train and qualify pilots in
accordance with the provisions of current subparts N and O or under an

AQP in accordance with subpart Y of part 121. Additionally, the FAA
explained that the proposal affects some certificate holders conducting
part 135 commuter operations \18\ and part 91K program managers or part
135 operators authorized to voluntarily comply with subparts N and O of
part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In accordance with 14 CFR 135.3, a certificate holder that
conducts commuter operations under part 135 with airplanes in which
two pilots are required by the type certification rules must comply
with subparts N and O of part 121 instead of the requirements of
subparts E, G, and H of part 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NTSB commented that the FAA should consider expanding the scope
to include additional part 135 and 91K operators. An individual
identified as a private pilot suggested the proposal would be more
relevant to smaller carriers, particularly part 135 carriers.
    The recommendation to include additional part 135 operators and 91K
program managers would exceed the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore,
applicability of the final rule is as proposed.

C. Effective Date and Compliance Date

    In the NPRM the FAA proposed an effective date of 60 days after
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register. However, the FAA
proposed a delayed compliance date of 24 months after the effective
date for the proposals pertaining to operations familiarization,
leadership and command training, mentoring training, the revised
upgrade curriculum, and the Pilot Professional Development Committee.
    A4A and American recommended a delayed compliance date of 36
months, and UPS Airlines (UPS) recommended a delayed compliance date of
48 months after the effective date for the leadership and command and
mentoring training for current PICs proposed in Sec.  121.429. A4A and
American stated that training modules will need to be developed and
approved, instructors trained, and committees formed within the
proposed 24-month timeframe. UPS stated that it would require 24 months
for training modules to be developed and approved. A4A and UPS noted
that there may be several thousand PICs who will require training,
which can be completed only after courseware is approved and the
trainers trained. American stated that it will have over six thousand
pilots who must complete training. UPS also identified other recently
mandated training requirements (e.g., upset recovery) under development
in part 121 operations.
    The FAA concurs with the recommendation to extend the compliance
date to 36 months for the leadership and command and mentoring ground
training for current PICs. As indicated by commenters, there are
several thousand PICs who must complete the training by the compliance
date. Additionally, the FAA understands that carriers are in various
stages of compliance with training all pilots in accordance with the
enhanced pilot training requirements of the Qualification, Service, and
Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule.
    The FAA agrees that extending the compliance date by 12 months will
provide sufficient time for carriers to develop the training, have the
training approved by the FAA, train the instructors, and then complete
training of all the current PICs. Further, a 36-month timeframe is
consistent with the recurrent training frequency for these topics.
    The compliance date for the other proposals pertaining to
operations familiarization, leadership and command training, mentoring
training, and the revised upgrade curriculum remains 24 months after
the effective date. The effective date remains 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register.

D. Operations Familiarization (Sec.  121.435)

    The FAA proposed to require newly hired pilots to complete
operations familiarization (OF) before beginning operating experience
and serving as a pilot in part 121 operations for the air carrier. A
newly hired pilot is a person who has no previous experience with the
air carrier.\19\ The FAA proposed that the OF must include at least two
operating cycles \20\ during part 121 operations conducted by the air
carrier while the newly hired pilot occupies the flight deck observer
seat and uses a headset to listen to the communications between the
required flightcrew members and air traffic control. The FAA proposed
that the OF may occur in any airplane type operated by the air carrier
in part 121 operations. In recognition that certain airplanes used in
part 121 operations do not have an observer seat in the flight deck,
the FAA proposed a process for an air carrier to request a deviation
from the OF requirements to meet the learning objectives through
another means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The FAA clarifies that a person completing conversion
training after serving as a flight engineer for the air carrier is
not a ``newly hired pilot.'' This person is completing training to
serve in a new flightcrew member duty position but is not ``newly
hired'' by the air carrier.
    \20\ Section 121.431(b) defines operating cycle as ``a complete
flight segment consisting of a takeoff, climb, enroute portion,
descent, and a landing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A4A, AABI, American, Jet Blue, the NTSB, one individual identified
as an associate college professor, and several individuals identified
as college students or pilots agreed with the proposed OF. The
individuals believed the OF would provide benefits such as allowing
new-hires to observe SOP and real life situations.
    A4A, American, and Jet Blue agreed with a minimum of two cycles.
However, the NTSB believed the minimum number of operating cycles
should be increased to provide the new-hire pilot with an increased
opportunity to observe different operational events and crew
interactions.
    A4A, American, and Jet Blue agreed that that the OF can be
performed in any aircraft because the processes on all fleet types are
similar. However, ALPA stated that OF should be required in the
aircraft type the new-hire will be scheduled to fly to enhance the
benefits of the experience.
    The NTSB believed some consideration should be given to the minimum
experience of the crew being observed to provide increased value of the
observational opportunity to new-hire pilots.
    As explained in the NPRM, the objective of OF is to provide the
pilot an introduction to an air carrier's operations and company
procedures. Therefore, the FAA expects that this objective can be met
with a minimum of two operating cycles on any airplane type operated by
the air carrier in part 121 operations. The FAA also trusts that the
objective of OF can be met by observation of any crew at that air
carrier because all crews conducting line operations must have
satisfactorily met the training and qualification standards at that air
carrier. The FAA also expects that all air carrier crews follow the air
carrier's SOP and conduct operations professionally regardless of
whether or not they are being observed. Additionally, as explained in
the NPRM, the FAA has determined this final rule will mitigate
unprofessional pilot behavior.
    AABI recommended that proposed Sec.  121.432 specify that the OF
should occur during or after basic indoctrination training and before
operating experience. Jet Blue requested clarification in the final
rule that OF can occur at any time prior to commencement of operating
experience to include any point before or after aircraft qualification
is obtained.
    As described in the NPRM, the FAA expects OF to be completed during
or soon after the completion of basic

indoctrination training. The FAA did not intend that OF could be
completed by college students or other pilots who are not newly hired
pilots at that air carrier. The FAA is clarifying the OF requirements
in a new Sec.  121.435 to provide flexibility for OF to be completed
during or after basic indoctrination training, but before beginning
operating experience.

E. PIC Leadership and Command Training

1. General
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require all PICs serving in part
121 operations to complete leadership and command training.
Specifically, the FAA proposed that this training be included during
ground and flight training in the PIC upgrade curriculum (or the
initial curriculum for the limited circumstance of a new-hire PIC), as
well as the PIC recurrent curriculum. The FAA further proposed that all
pilots qualified to serve as PIC prior to the compliance date must
complete the PIC upgrade ground training on leadership and command.
    The NTSB stated that the proposals for leadership training ``would
likely satisfy the intent'' of NTSB recommendations A-10-13 and A-10-14
as they related to part 121 operations. The NTSB strongly supported the
proposed requirements for leadership and command training to be
included in PIC upgrade ground and flight training, as well as the
proposed requirement for all current PICs to complete leadership and
command training and for the training to be included in the recurrent
curriculum. The NTSB also strongly supported the emphasis on scenario-
based instruction during ground and flight training.
    AABI and one individual generally agreed with leadership and
command training for all PICs. One individual identified as a college
student stated that leadership and command training conducted before
future PICs enter the real flight crew environment could result in
fewer accidents based on pilot decision-making errors.
    A4A and American agreed that the proposal for leadership and
command training should not be overly prescriptive. UPS supported the
FAA's position in not requiring the leadership and command training to
be separate from the upgrade syllabus.
    Jet Blue strongly recommended that the FAA allow each carrier to
develop leadership and command training within the existing framework
of their approved training programs. Jet Blue also stated that final
determination of the curriculum scope, form, and content should remain
with management as approved by the FAA.
    A4A and American suggested that leadership and command training for
pilots upgrading from SIC to PIC should be completed ``on or around the
time of upgrade'' instead of being required to be included in the
upgrade curriculum. A4A, American, and UPS noted that under an AQP
there may be a few items that are accomplished a short time after PIC
upgrade/assignment in order to review and discuss lessons learned
during some of the first flights as PIC.
    As explained in the NPRM, the purpose of leadership and command
training is to provide PICs with the leadership and command skills
necessary to manage the crew (including flight attendants, if
applicable), communications, workload, and decision-making in a manner
that promotes professionalism and adherence to SOP. Therefore, the FAA
maintains that this training must be included in the upgrade curriculum
prior to a pilot serving as a PIC. However, the FAA notes that in
accordance with part 121 subpart Y, air carriers using an AQP may
submit for FAA approval an upgrade curriculum that includes an
alternative method to conduct leadership and command training that
provides an equivalent level of safety.
    Ameristar believed that leadership and command training should only
be required during initial PIC and upgrade training.
    As explained in the NPRM, the purpose of recurrent training is to
ensure that flightcrew members remain competent in the performance of
their assigned duties. Therefore, the FAA maintains that recurrent
leadership and command training is necessary to ensure PICs remain
competent in the performance of their duties. Additionally, Public Law
111-216 specifically directed that recurrent training for PICs include
leadership and command training.
    Ameristar believed CRM and leadership training are closely tied
together. Ameristar suggested that rather than having two or more
regulations added, leadership and command training should be combined
with CRM in Sec.  121.404.
    As described in the NPRM, the FAA agrees that leadership and
command and CRM are related ``soft skills.'' To ensure leadership and
command training is included in ground training and flight training for
all appropriate curriculums, the structure of part 121 subpart N
requires leadership and command training requirements to be included in
multiple regulations. Therefore, the FAA does not agree that leadership
and command training should be combined with CRM in Sec.  121.404.
However, the FAA agrees that leadership and command and CRM are closely
related and notes that that some carriers may choose to comply with
this rule by including robust leadership and command training in their
CRM curricula.
    Ameristar also commented that proposed Sec. Sec.  121.419(c),
121.420(a)(3) and 121.427(d)(1) should not include references to Sec.
121.542, which addresses activities that may interfere with flight
crewmember duties. Ameristar believed the inclusion of Sec.  121.542
implies that leadership and command are only geared or weighted toward
that regulation, lowering the perceived importance of other
regulations. The FAA confirms that leadership and command training is
not geared toward or weighted toward only Sec.  121.542, and the
reference to Sec.  121.542 in Sec. Sec.  121.419(c)(1), 121.420(b)(1)
and 121.427(d)(1) results from Public Law 111-216, which specifically
directed PIC leadership and command training to include instruction on
compliance with Sec.  121.542.
    AABI recommended that the final rule state that facilitation is the
preferred method for leadership and command ground training.
    As described in the draft AC Leadership and Command Training for
Pilots in Command published in the docket, the FAA agrees that an
instructor-led facilitated discussion is an important component of
leadership and command ground training. Therefore, as further explained
in the section regarding PIC Leadership and Command Training--Distance
Instruction, the FAA is revising proposed Sec. Sec.  121.419(c)(1),
121.420(a)(3) (now, 121.420(b)(1)), and 121.427(d)(1) to specifically
require facilitated discussion during leadership and command ground
training.
    ALPA and the NTSB encouraged minimum qualification, pilot line
experience, and training requirements for the instructors who conduct
leadership and command training.
    The FAA does not agree that the final rule should include specific
training or qualification requirements for instructors who conduct
leadership and command training. Air carriers are required to provide
properly qualified ground instructors to conduct the training required
by part 121 subpart N. See Sec.  121.401(a)(2). Additionally, air
carriers are required to provide comprehensive training of flight
instructors. See Sec.  121.414. Further, in

accordance with Sec.  121.401(a)(1), air carriers are required to have
a training program that ensures each flight instructor is adequately
trained to perform the assigned duties. Therefore, the FAA expects that
each air carrier can best determine the training and qualifications
necessary for its instructors to effectively conduct training under the
carrier's program. However, in the associated AC Leadership and Command
Training for Pilots in Command accompanying this final rule, the FAA
will include suggested training topics for instructors who will conduct
leadership and command training.
    ALPA stated that for leadership and command training to be
effective in the flight deck, new-hires must receive training on their
role in the context of the leadership and command training that PICs
receive.
    The FAA does not agree that it is necessary to include a specific
requirement for new-hires to receive training in the context of the
leadership and command training that PICs receive. As explained in the
NPRM, a prerequisite eligibility requirement for an ATP certificate is
the completion of an ATP-CTP. The ATP-CTP provides foundational
knowledge in many subject areas, including leadership and command.
Additionally, basic indoctrination training is currently required to
include duties and responsibilities of crewmembers and applicable
portions of the carrier's manual. See Sec.  121.415(a)(1). Therefore,
the FAA has determined the combination of the ATP-CTP and the basic
indoctrination training at the air carrier sufficiently encompasses
training on leadership and command for new-hires.
    ALPA contended that grading pilots based upon soft skills such as
leadership and command would pose issues as pilots and their
instructors come from diverse backgrounds and experiences. Therefore,
ALPA stated that pass/fail grading should not be based solely on
leadership and command skills unless clear, unambiguous, objective,
measurable standards exist at that airline for those skills.
    The FAA did not propose to evaluate leadership and command skills
during a proficiency check. In accordance with Sec.  121.401, air
carriers are required to have a training program that ensures each PIC
is adequately trained to perform the assigned duties. The FAA expects
that air carriers will use their current processes to develop the
necessary method(s) to ensure that PICs are adequately trained in
leadership and command skills. The FAA will include suggested training
topics in the AC Leadership and Command Training for Pilots in Command,
accompanying this final rule.
2. Distance Instruction
    In the NPRM, the FAA did not propose placing restrictions on
distance instruction as long as the leadership and command training
objectives could be satisfied. However, the FAA sought comment on
whether restrictions on distance instruction are necessary to ensure
the effectiveness of the leadership and command components of PIC
training. The FAA also sought comment on whether the curriculum in
which leadership and command training is required (e.g., PIC initial,
upgrade, recurrent) constitutes a basis for differentiating any
restrictions on distance instruction.
    A4A, AABI, American, Jet Blue, and UPS agreed that there should not
be restrictions on distance instruction. A4A, American, Jet Blue, and
UPS stated that the types and methods of training used by air carriers
continue to evolve with additional software and hardware improvements.
They also stated that the evolution in technology coupled with the
goals of the specific training and the level/type of pilot experience
at a specific airline will dictate the appropriate training format.
    NetJets concurred that a major portion of the leadership and
command ground instruction modules can be accomplished via distance
instruction. However, NetJets believed that the decision-making
exercises and discussions of positive and negative learning experiences
need to be accomplished in facilitated instructor-led training
sessions.
    ALPA recommended limiting the leadership and command ground
training administered through distance instruction methods to 50% of
the total training. ALPA believed that leadership and command training
would be far more effective in a classroom setting and should have an
active, vibrant, hands-on training process with appropriate role-
playing scenarios and having facilitated group discussions.
    The NTSB believed that because of the importance of this training
and its inherently interpersonal topic that the training should only be
done in-person through facilitated discussion and interaction. An
individual identified as an associate college professor stated that
limitations on distance instruction are necessary to guarantee the
success of the leadership and command training.
    As described in the draft AC Leadership and Command Training for
Pilots in Command published in the docket, the FAA agrees that an
instructor-led facilitated discussion including practical decision-
making exercises and discussion of positive and negative leadership
experiences is an important component of leadership and command ground
training. The FAA has determined that a facilitated discussion can be
accomplished with existing technology. With current technology, there
are various systems that can be used for distance instruction: From
simple presentations reviewed individually by a student to fully
interactive video conferencing with instructors and students in
multiple locations. There are several universities that have developed
the necessary technology for students to effectively complete entire
degree programs using distance instruction. However, not all distance
instruction systems would be effective in conducting a facilitated
discussion and meet the objectives of the leadership and command ground
training. Additionally, as noted by commenters, technology continues to
evolve. Therefore, the FAA does not want to impose unnecessary
restrictions on the use of evolving technology which could provide
enhanced capabilities in the future. Thus, the final rule does not
restrict the use of distance instruction for leadership and command
ground training. However, to ensure the objectives of the training are
met, the FAA is specifically requiring facilitated discussion during
leadership and command ground training in Sec. Sec.  121.419(c),
121.420(b), and 121.427(d)(1).

F. PIC Mentoring Training

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require training on mentoring
skills for all PICs serving in part 121 operations to establish the
mentoring environment recommended by the MLP ARC. The proposed
mentoring training would include techniques for instilling and
reinforcing the highest standards of technical performance, airmanship,
and professionalism in newly hired pilots. The FAA proposed that this
training would be included in the PIC upgrade curriculum (or the
initial curriculum for the limited circumstance of a new-hire PIC) and
PIC recurrent ground training. The FAA further proposed that all pilots
qualified to serve as PIC prior to the compliance date must complete
the PIC upgrade ground training on mentoring skills to create a
comprehensive and consistent mentoring environment.
    AABI, the NTSB, and one individual generally agreed with the
mentoring training for all PICs. Jet Blue stated it has had a mentoring
program for all new

hire pilots for several years and further believed that all PICs should
undergo formal training in mentoring skills.
    ALPA encouraged minimum qualification, pilot line experience, and
training required for instructors who conduct mentoring training.
    The FAA does not agree that the final rule should include specific
training or qualification requirements for instructors who will conduct
mentoring training. As discussed earlier, the FAA expects that each air
carrier can best determine the training and qualifications necessary
for their ground instructors to effectively conduct training under the
carrier's program. However, in the associated AC Air Carrier Pilot
Mentoring, the FAA will include suggested training topics for
instructors who conduct mentoring training.
    ALPA asserted that for PIC mentoring training to be effective, new-
hires must also receive training on the role of mentoring and what is
expected of them.
    The FAA does not agree that a specific requirement for new-hires to
receive training on the role of mentoring is necessary. As discussed
earlier, the FAA has determined the combination of the ATP-CTP and the
basic indoctrination training at the air carrier sufficiently
incorporates any necessary training on mentoring for new-hires.
    ALPA stated that pass/fail grading should not be based solely on
mentoring skills unless clear, unambiguous, objective, measurable
standards exist at that airline for those skills.
    As discussed earlier, the FAA expects that air carriers will use
their current processes to develop the necessary method(s) to ensure
that PICs are adequately trained in mentoring skills. The FAA will
include suggested training topics in the AC Air Carrier Pilot
Mentoring, accompanying this final rule.
    ALPA recommended limiting the mentoring ground training
administered through distance instruction methods to 25% of the total
training. ALPA stated that PIC mentoring training must use group
discussion and interactive role-playing scenarios, actual examples of
effective and ineffective mentoring, and the incorporation of CRM. AABI
recommended that the final rule should state that facilitation is the
preferred method for mentoring ground training.
    As described in the draft AC Air Carrier Pilot Mentoring published
in the docket, the FAA agrees that role-playing exercises are an
important component of mentoring training. The FAA also agrees that a
facilitated discussion is the most appropriate method to conduct the
role-playing exercises. However, as further explained in the section
regarding PIC Leadership and Command Training--Distance Instruction,
the FAA believes that a facilitated discussion can be accomplished with
existing technology. Additionally, the FAA does not want to impose
unnecessary restrictions on the use of evolving technology which could
provide enhanced capabilities in the future. Thus, the final rule does
not restrict the use of distance instruction for mentoring training.
However, to ensure the objectives of the training are met the FAA is
specifically requiring facilitated discussion during mentoring ground
training in Sec. Sec.  121.419(c), 121.420, and 121.427(d)(1).
    ALPA further suggested including a definition of long-term
mentoring. ALPA also suggested that mentor programs should have clearly
defined boundaries, rules, and understandings between the mentor and
prot[eacute]g[eacute].
    As described in the NPRM, the FAA did not propose long term
mentoring as recommended by the MLP ARC. Therefore, the FAA is not
including a definition of long-term mentoring.

G. SIC to PIC Upgrade (Sec. Sec.  121.420 and 121.426)

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise upgrade training
requirements to account for the evolution in SIC qualification and
experience requirements. See 81 FR at 69919. The proposed upgrade
training would ensure technical knowledge and skills while focusing on
the decision-making and leadership skills required of a PIC serving in
part 121 operations.
    Ameristar suggested the following text be added: ``completed
initial SIC training and has served as SIC'' or similar language to
avoid potential confusion in proposed Sec.  121.400.
    The FAA does not agree with the suggested revision to the
definition of upgrade training in Sec.  121.400 and is adopting the
language as proposed. A pilot that has only completed initial PIC
training is not eligible to complete SIC operating experience or serve
as an SIC. A person cannot serve as an SIC unless that person has
satisfactorily completed for that type airplane and SIC crewmember
position, approved ground and flight training, a proficiency check,
operating experience, and consolidation of knowledge and skills. See
Sec. Sec.  121.433, 121.434, and 121.441. Therefore, as proposed, a
pilot is only eligible for upgrade training if the pilot has qualified
and served as an SIC on that type airplane.
1. Performance-Based Curriculum
    The FAA proposed a performance-based upgrade curriculum. The
proposal removed the requirement to include all existing upgrade ground
training subjects required by Sec.  121.419(a) and the Sec.  121.424
requirement to include all appendix E maneuvers and procedures during
upgrade flight training. Instead, the proposal refocused upgrade ground
and flight training to include subjects, maneuvers, and procedures
specific to the duties and responsibilities the pilot will have as PIC
at that air carrier. However, consistent with existing upgrade
curriculum requirements, the proposed upgrade flight training continued
to include rare, but high-risk scenarios. Because the FAA proposed to
remove the requirement to train the entire range of Sec.  121.419
subjects and appendix E maneuvers and procedures in upgrade training,
the FAA believed that the revised upgrade ground training could be
completed in less time than the programmed hours currently identified
in each air carrier's approved training program, and the upgrade flight
training could be completed within the same or less time than currently
identified in each air carrier's approved training program.
    One individual stated that the proposed upgrade training will
ensure technical skills and knowledge are facilitated while
concentrating on the leadership and decision-making skills required for
a professional pilot.
    ALPA suggested requiring all the PIC upgrade ground and flight
training that had been required before the Pilot Certification rule.
ALPA opposed the FAA approving any reduction in the current upgrade
flight training footprints based on the Pilot Certification rule and/or
this final rule.
    The FAA does not agree that upgrade training should include all the
ground and flight training that had been required before the Pilot
Certification rule. As explained in the NPRM, the current role served
by an SIC in part 121 operations as well as the current SIC
qualification requirements no longer support the foundation for upgrade
training requirements in current subpart N. As further explained in the
NPRM, the FAA has determined that the revised upgrade ground training
can be completed in less time than the programmed hours currently
identified in each air carrier's approved training program, and the
upgrade flight training can be completed within the same or less time
than currently identified in each air carrier's approved training
program. See 81 FR at 69919.

    ALPA recommended requiring PIC initial and upgrade ground training
to include all the requirements in Sec.  121.419(a) and (b) because
that material may have been learned many years earlier.
    The FAA does not agree with the suggested revision to Sec.
121.419(c) to require PIC initial ground training to include all the
requirements in Sec.  121.419(a) and (b). As explained in the NPRM, in
the Pilot Certification rule, the FAA recognized that a number of the
general knowledge elements that are included in pilot initial ground
training in Sec.  121.419(a)(1) are now addressed by the ATP-CTP
academic requirements. Therefore, in Sec.  121.419(b), the Pilot
Certification rule revised the part 121 initial ground training
requirements by removing the generic elements for pilots who have
completed the ATP-CTP. See 81 FR at 69923. The FAA's position has not
changed; the general knowledge elements that are addressed by an ATP-
CTP do not need to be repeated by a pilot during initial ground
training with an air carrier.
    The FAA does not agree with the suggested revision to Sec.  121.420
to require upgrade ground training to include all the requirements in
Sec.  121.419(a) and (b). As explained in the NPRM, to serve as a pilot
in part 121 operations, a pilot must satisfactorily complete recurrent
ground training within 12 calendar months preceding service as a pilot.
See Sec. Sec.  121.427 and 121.433(c). Further, as explained in the
NPRM, Sec.  121.427 requires recurrent ground training to include
instruction in the subjects required for initial ground training. See
81 FR at 69923. Therefore, the FAA does not agree that review of all
the material in Sec.  121.419(a) and (b) is warranted during upgrade
training because these subjects would have been routinely reviewed
during recurrent ground training.
    ALPA suggested requiring all maneuvers and procedures in Appendix E
to be completed during upgrade flight training.
    The FAA does not agree that upgrade flight training should require
all maneuvers and procedures in Appendix E to be completed. As
explained in the NPRM, with the changes to SIC qualification
requirements as a result of the Pilot Certification rule, an SIC will
have already demonstrated technical mastery of that airplane type at
the ATP certificate level when he or she begins upgrade training. The
FAA does not agree that upgrading pilots would need to complete all
maneuvers and procedures in Appendix E in order to demonstrate that
they can meet the performance standards while simultaneously applying
leadership and command skills. The final rule maintains the proposed
performance-based upgrade curriculum. Among other requirements, upgrade
flight training must include sufficient training to ensure the pilot
has attained the knowledge and skills to proficiently operate the
airplane as a PIC. As explained in the NPRM, the air carrier must
determine the specific maneuvers and procedures for each airplane type
considering its operational factors and authorizations and identified
risks. See 81 FR at 69919.
    ALPA suggested requiring additional/supplemental facilitated ground
school and Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) for leadership and
command training and mentoring training when a new hire is hired
directly as a PIC or upgrades to PIC within a new hire probation
period. ALPA stated that this training should place emphasis on the
culture of the carrier, challenges of being a new PIC at that carrier
while flying with experienced SICs, resources of the carrier and union
(if applicable), making the best use of being mentored by experienced
PICs at that carrier, etc.
    The FAA does not agree that requiring additional ground school and
LOFT is warranted when a new hire is hired directly as a PIC or
upgrades to PIC within a new hire probation period. In accordance with
Sec.  121.401(a)(1), an air carrier's training program must ensure that
each PIC is adequately trained to perform his or her assigned duties.
Therefore, the FAA expects the training program of air carriers who
hire PICs or upgrade pilots to PIC within their new hire probationary
periods to include any additional training determined necessary by the
air carrier to ensure the pilots are adequately trained to perform PIC
duties. Additionally, Sec.  121.436 requires a pilot to have 1,000
hours of air carrier experience before serving as a PIC in part 121
operations.
    ALPA stated that guidance should exist ensuring upgrade training
includes exposure to the operations of other airline departments such
as dispatch, maintenance, and scheduling.
    The recommendation that upgrade training should include exposure to
the operations of other airline departments such as dispatch,
maintenance, and scheduling is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
The FAA expects each individual air carrier will determine if exposure
to other airline departments is beneficial to its operation.
2. Revised Upgrade Curriculum Requirements
i. Seat Dependent and Duty Position Maneuvers and Procedures
    The FAA proposed that the upgrade ground and flight training must
include seat dependent maneuvers and procedures as well as duty
position maneuvers and procedures. See 81 FR at 69920.
    Ameristar questioned why seat dependent training would be required
for a pilot upgrading from SIC to PIC. Ameristar recommended combining
proposed Sec.  121.420 with proposed Sec.  121.429 without seat
dependent training and duty position procedures because these items are
redundant and unnecessary. Ameristar also stated that proposed Sec.
121.426(a)(1) and (2) are not necessary because if a pilot is being
trained as a PIC, the pilot will get seat dependent training and duty
position flight training without prescriptive rules.
    The FAA does not agree with these comments. As explained in the
NPRM, seat dependent maneuvers and procedures include the use of
systems with controls that are not centrally located, or are accessible
or operable from only the left or from only the right pilot seat as
identified by the airplane manufacturer, air carrier, or the
Administrator as seat dependent tasks. Typically, the PIC is assigned
to and operates the airplane from the left seat, and the SIC is
assigned to and operates the airplane from the right seat. An SIC who
has been serving in the right seat of an aircraft would not know the
characteristics of the left seat. Therefore, seat dependent training is
required during upgrade training. As explained in the NPRM, duty
position maneuvers and procedures include tasks specified by the
airplane manufacturer, air carrier, or the Administrator, as PIC or SIC
only tasks. A pilot serving as SIC would not have been previously
trained and qualified on PIC only tasks. Therefore, duty position
maneuvers and procedures are required during upgrade training.
    The FAA is adopting, as proposed, the requirement that upgrade
ground and flight training must include seat dependent maneuvers and
procedures as well as duty position maneuvers and procedures.
ii. Leadership and Command and CRM
    The FAA proposed that upgrade ground training must include
leadership and command, as well as CRM. CRM training includes decision-
making, authority and responsibility, and conflict resolution. The FAA
also

proposed that upgrade flight training must include scenario-based
training structured to incorporate CRM and leadership and command. See
81 FR at 69920.
    AABI and Jet Blue agreed that leadership and command must be
demonstrated during the flight training portion of the upgrade
curriculum. AABI also agreed with the requirement to incorporate
leadership and command into flight training through scenario-based
training.
    Ameristar sought clarification on the definition of ``sufficient
scenario based training incorporating CRM and leadership and command
skills,'' as used in proposed Sec. Sec.  121.424(b) and 121.426(a)(5).
    In the final rule, the FAA maintains a performance-based upgrade
curriculum, and therefore specifying standards for ``sufficient
scenario based training'' is unnecessary in Sec. Sec.  121.424(b) and
121.426(a)(5). As explained in the NPRM, the FAA has determined this
approach will allow air carriers to develop a robust upgrade curriculum
specific to their operations, airplane types, and identified risks. As
further explained in the NPRM, scenario-based training should address
specific training objectives based on technical and soft skills, may
consist of full or partial flight segments, and would necessarily vary,
depending on the training objectives. Additionally, the FAA has
determined this scenario-based training ensures the effective
integration of these ``soft skills'' with technical skills. Therefore,
an air carrier can combine the maneuvers and procedures in appendix E
with the scenario-based training required by Sec. Sec.  121.424(b) and
121.426(a)(5) as long as the training meets the objectives and
requirements of both appendix E and Sec. Sec.  121.424(b) and
121.426(a)(5).
    The FAA recognizes that a carrier may choose to include leadership
and command training in its SIC to PIC upgrade CRM curriculum that may
satisfy the requirements of this final rule. If a carrier develops and
conducts enhanced CRM training that includes additional instruction and
facilitated discussion specifically designed to provide PICs with the
necessary leadership and command skills, that carrier may meet the
requirements under part 121 subpart N related to leadership and command
training. The FAA will consider the training aids, devices, methods,
and procedures used by the carrier as well as the content of the
carrier's enhanced CRM training to determine whether the enhanced CRM
training meets the requirements for leadership and command training.
iii. Mentoring
    The FAA proposed that upgrade ground training must include
mentoring, to include techniques for instilling and reinforcing the
highest standards of technical performance, airmanship, and
professionalism in newly hired pilots. See 81 FR at 69920.
    AABI agreed with the requirement for mentoring training for pilots
upgrading to PIC. ALPA stated that upgrade flight training should also
include mentoring training.
    The FAA does not agree that upgrade flight training should include
mentoring training because it cannot be incorporated into upgrade
flight training effectively. An opportunity for mentoring would have to
be artificially introduced during scenario-based flight training, which
would reduce the effectiveness of that training because the scenario
would no longer be realistic.
iv. Low-Altitude Windshear and Extended Envelope Flight Training
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that upgrade flight training must
continue to include training in the rare, but high risk scenarios
specified in Sec.  121.423 as well as the carrier's approved low-
altitude windshear flight training program.
    The FAA did not receive any comments regarding low-altitude
windshear and extended envelope flight training and is adopting those
requirements as proposed.
v. Additional Flight Training
    The FAA also proposed that the upgrade curriculum must include
sufficient flight training to ensure the pilot has attained the
knowledge and skills to proficiently operate the airplane as a PIC.
Under the proposed upgrade curriculum, the air carrier must determine
the specific maneuvers and procedures for each airplane type
considering its operational factors and authorizations, risks
identified through its safety management system, and other risks
identified through programs such as an Aviation Safety Action Program
(ASAP), Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA), and Line
Operations Safety Audit (LOSA).\21\ Additionally, the FAA proposed that
the training must ensure the pilot has developed the visual and
psychomotor acuity necessary to operate the airplane from the seat
position to be occupied while serving as PIC, typically the left pilot
seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ASAP, FOQA, and LOSA are voluntary programs implemented by
many air carriers. Analysis of the data provided by these voluntary
programs has contributed to increased safety including improvements
to training and operational procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA did not receive any comments on the proposed additional
flight training during upgrade and is adopting the requirements as
proposed.
3. Upgrade Proficiency Check Requirements
    To ensure a proficient PIC, the FAA proposed to revise the waiver
provisions for a Sec.  121.441 proficiency check completed after
upgrade ground and flight training. See 81 FR at 69920.
    Ameristar stated that all the events in Appendix E applicable to
upgrade training are waivable during the proficiency check, thereby
invalidating the rationale for not allowing events to be waived on the
proficiency check after upgrade training. Ameristar also commented that
because compliance with either proposed Sec.  121.441(d)(3)(i) or (ii)
is allowed, compliance with Sec.  121.441(d)(3)(i) would include
upgrade training completed six months earlier making Sec.
121.441(d)(3)(ii) unnecessary.
    As explained in the NPRM, the proposed upgrade training
requirements do not require pilots to complete all maneuvers and
procedures in appendix E during training. Appendix E designates the
airplane or FSTD, as appropriate, that may be used for maneuvers and
procedures required for upgrade training in accordance with proposed
Sec.  121.426. Therefore, to ensure a proficient PIC, proficiency must
be demonstrated for all maneuvers and procedures in appendix F during
the proficiency check completed after upgrade training.
    Proposed Sec.  121.441(d)(3)(ii) is necessary because proposed
Sec.  121.441(d)(3)(i) does not include upgrade training completed
within the previous six months. Section 121.441(d)(3)(i) applies to a
pilot currently qualified for part 121 operations in a particular type
airplane and flightcrew member position. Proposed Sec.
121.441(d)(3)(ii) applies to a pilot who has satisfactorily completed
an approved training curriculum within the preceding six months, except
for an upgrade training curriculum in accordance with proposed
Sec. Sec.  121.420 and 121.426. A pilot who has only completed upgrade
training is not currently qualified for part 121 operations as PIC in
that type airplane because the pilot has not completed the
qualification requirements in part 121 subpart O, including the
proficiency check, operating experience, consolidation of knowledge and
skills and the line check. Therefore, as proposed, waiver authority is
not

allowed on a proficiency check for a pilot who has completed the
upgrade training curriculum in accordance with proposed Sec. Sec.
121.420 and 121.426.
    The FAA is adopting the revised waiver provisions as proposed.
4. Effect of Revised Upgrade Curriculum on Recurrent Training
    In the NPRM, the FAA explained that an air carrier may continue to
reset a pilot's ``base'' month for recurrent flight training if the
pilot satisfactorily completes the proposed upgrade flight training and
proficiency check. An air carrier may only reset a pilot's base month
for recurrent ground training based upon completion of upgrade ground
training if the air carrier's upgrade curriculum includes all recurrent
ground training requirements of Sec.  121.427. See 81 FR at 69921.
    The FAA did not receive any comments on this explanation.

H. Training for Pilots Currently Serving as PIC (Sec.  121.429)

    The FAA proposed that all pilots qualified to serve as PIC prior to
the compliance date must complete the PIC upgrade ground training on
leadership and command and mentoring. However, the FAA also proposed to
allow credit toward all or part of the requirements for leadership and
command and mentoring training for current PICs based on leadership and
command and mentoring training previously completed by these PICs at
that air carrier. The FAA sought comment on the proposal to allow
credit, specifically:
    (1) Whether and to what extent air carriers were already providing
leadership and command training and/or mentoring training for current
PICs as described in the draft ACs included in the docket for the
rulemaking;
    (2) Whether the previous training must have been provided as part
of a training program approved by the FAA for that air carrier;
    (3) Whether the previous training must have been completed within a
certain period of time prior to the effective date of the final rule;
    (4) What criteria and documentation the FAA should consider in
determining whether all or part of the requirements have been met with
previous training; and
    (5) What criteria and documentation the FAA should consider in
determining whether a PIC completed all or part of the previous
training at that air carrier.
    Comments from A4A and several air carriers indicated that numerous
air carriers provide training in some or all of the items addressed in
the draft ACs on leadership and command and mentoring training, and
that some airlines have been providing this training for well over 20
years. Portions of the training is part of an FAA-approved training
curriculum, but some air carriers may have included this training as
part of specialized carrier-specific training that is not FAA-approved.
    A4A, American, and Jet Blue did not believe there should be a
specific timeframe when this training should have been completed in
order to be creditable. In contrast, ALPA believed credit should not be
provided if the training occurred more than 24 months prior to the
publication of the final rule. The NTSB strongly disagreed with the
proposal to allow credit for training completed before the effective
date of the final rule because that training may not be equivalent to
the final rule requirements. A4A stated that whether or not the
training was part of an FAA-approved training program does not negate
the fact that the training took place and should not be a factor in
determining if credit for the training will be allowed.
    A4A, American, and UPS contended that airline records, courseware,
and training module outlines are the appropriate criteria to determine
the extent and subject matter of previous training and whether a PIC
completed training. Jet Blue did not believe that specific criteria or
documentation are necessary for the FAA to determine if all or part of
the requirements have been met.
    American and UPS requested that the FAA leave as much latitude as
possible for establishing that training was accomplished for air
carriers with long records of voluntarily covering the proposed topics.
    ALPA believed that previous mentoring, leadership and command
training should only be credited if effective and recent. ALPA
suggested using data such as participants' critiques, LOSA, ASAP, line
checks, etc. to determine if the training was effective. ALPA also
stated that proper record keeping should reflect that the pilot
participated in the entire course for which credit is being sought.
    An individual identified as an associate college professor stated
that the FAA should allow partial credit toward the requirements for
leadership and command and mentoring training for current PICs based on
leadership and command and mentoring training previously completed at
that air carrier.
    Ameristar stated that current PICs who have completed an air
carrier's CRM should not have to complete initial one-time training.
    As explained in the NPRM, the FAA has determined that it is
unnecessarily burdensome for PICs to complete the one-time training on
leadership and command and mentoring if the PIC has previously
completed training that is duplicative of the proposed requirements. As
indicated by commenters, several air carriers are already providing
some or all of this training. Therefore, the final rule retains the
allowance for credit for training previously completed at that air
carrier.
    However, the FAA will only allow credit for training completed
within 36 calendar months prior to the effective date of the final
rule. As described in the section on Recurrent PIC Leadership and
Command and Mentoring Training, leadership and command are perishable
skills that require recurrent training; in the final rule, the
frequency for recurrent ground training on leadership and command and
mentoring for PICs remains every 36 calendar months, as proposed.
Therefore, the FAA has determined it is appropriate to use the same
timeframe for credit for training.
    Since this training was previously voluntary, the FAA agrees with
commenters that credit should be allowed even if the training was not
included in the FAA-approved training program, where the air carrier
has appropriate records. The FAA also agrees with commenters that
curricula, training modules, and lesson plans combined with a record
for an individual pilot are the appropriate documentation to allow
credit for some or all of the training.
    In the draft ACs, the FAA had proposed that the POI for each
carrier would evaluate the carrier's request and determine whether to
allow credit for some or all of the training. However, to ensure a
consistent determination of whether the previous training met some or
all of the requirements, the FAA is establishing a focus team,
consisting of FAA subject matter experts, to evaluate all requests for
credit. This process will be described in the final version of the ACs
accompanying this final rule.
    The FAA does not agree that if a pilot has completed CRM training
at that carrier, one-time training on leadership and command and
mentoring should not be required. As described in the NPRM, although
CRM contains some elements of the desired leadership training, it is
not designed with the express intent of aiding the PIC in assuming a
leadership role in the aircraft. See 81 FR at 69916. CRM focuses on the
use of all resources available to the pilot and the

functioning of crewmembers as teams (addressing team behaviors and
effectiveness), whereas the leadership and command training required in
this final rule is intended for the development of the individual PIC's
leadership skills, management oversight, and command authority prior to
overall crewmember-integrated CRM training. CRM is also not designed to
provide PICs with mentoring skills. Despite this distinction, the FAA
recognizes that a carrier may choose to include leadership and command
training in its CRM curriculum that may satisfy the requirements of
this final rule. If a carrier develops and conducts enhanced CRM
training that includes additional instruction and facilitated
discussion specifically designed to provide PICs with the necessary
leadership and command skills, that carrier may seek credit for that
training. The FAA will consider the training aids, devices, methods,
and procedures used by the carrier as well as the content of the
carrier's enhanced CRM training to determine whether the enhanced CRM
training meets the requirements for leadership and command training.

I. Recurrent PIC Leadership and Command and Mentoring Training
(Sec. Sec.  121.409(b) and 121.427)

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require recurrent training on
leadership and command and mentoring skills for all PICs serving in
part 121 operations. The FAA proposed to require recurrent ground
training on leadership and command and mentoring for PICs every 36
calendar months. The FAA also proposed to modify the requirements in
Sec.  121.409 to require that the recurrent LOFT scenario must provide
each PIC an opportunity to demonstrate leadership and command.
    AABI and Jet Blue agreed with the requirement for leadership and
command and mentoring training for PIC recurrent training. They also
agreed with the requirement that leadership and command must be
demonstrated during the flight training portion of recurrent training.
Several individuals also agreed with the proposal.
    ALPA asserted that recurrent leadership and command and mentoring
training needs to be conducted every 12 months rather than every 36
months.
    As explained in the NPRM, the FAA has previously recognized that
the necessary frequency for recurrent training is not the same for all
subject areas and tasks. The FAA agrees that mentoring, leadership and
command are perishable skills that require recurrent training. However,
the FAA has determined that because these skills are used regularly
during every flight they are less susceptible to degradation.
Therefore, the frequency for recurrent ground training on leadership
and command and mentoring for PICs is every 36 calendar months, as
proposed.
    Ameristar thought that requiring leadership and command training
during recurrent LOFT implies that a LOFT would be required during
recurrent training. Ameristar believed that distance learning should
suffice for recurrent training.
    The FAA proposed only to modify the existing recurrent LOFT
scenario requirements in Sec.  121.409. The FAA did not intend any
implication that a LOFT would be required during recurrent training. As
currently allowed, air carriers may choose to substitute LOFT that
meets the requirements of Sec.  121.409 for the recurrent proficiency
check requirement specified in Sec.  121.441, but air carriers are not
required to do so.
    The FAA recognizes that a carrier may choose to include leadership
and command training in its recurrent CRM curriculum that may satisfy
the requirements of this final rule. If a carrier develops and conducts
enhanced CRM training that includes additional instruction and
facilitated discussion specifically designed to provide PICs with the
necessary leadership and command skills, that carrier may meet the
requirements under part 121 subpart N related to leadership and command
training. The FAA will consider the training aids, devices, methods,
and procedures used by the carrier as well as the content of the
carrier's enhanced CRM training to determine whether the enhanced CRM
training meets the requirements for leadership and command training.

J. Leadership and Command Training and Mentoring Training for SICs
Serving in Operations That Require Three or More Pilots

    In the NPRM, the FAA explained that it was considering requiring
leadership and command training and mentoring training for SICs that
serve as SIC in an operation that requires three or more pilots who are
required by Sec.  121.432(a) to be fully qualified to act as PIC of
that operation (except for operating experience). The FAA sought
comment on:
    (1) Whether the PIC leadership and command training should be
included in the qualification requirements for pilots serving as the
SIC in an augmented flightcrew; \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ An augmented flightcrew is a flightcrew that consists of
more than the minimum number of flightcrew members required by the
airplane type certificate to operate the airplane to allow a
flightcrew member to be replaced by another qualified flightcrew
member for inflight rest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Whether mentoring training should be included in the
qualification requirements for pilots serving as the SIC in an
augmented flightcrew;
    (3) Whether providing training in only one of the new subject areas
(i.e., only leadership and command training or only mentoring training)
would reduce the effectiveness of the training for these SICs; and
    (4) Whether providing training in only one of the new subject areas
(i.e., only leadership and command training or only mentoring training)
would reduce the effectiveness of the requirement for the SIC in an
augmented flightcrew to be fully qualified to act as PIC.
    A4A, American, and UPS argued that there should be no requirement
for leadership and command and mentoring training for pilots serving as
the SIC in an augmented crew. They stated that the PIC is there as the
leader on the flight and is available to deal with requirements
associated with leadership and command. They also stated that there
should not be an expectation on the flight deck that anyone will mentor
other than the PIC. A4A, American, and UPS noted that leadership and
command training and mentoring training can be mutually exclusive so
that one topic could be taught without any reduction in the SIC's
effectiveness if the other topic is not taught.
    Delta Air Lines commented that a full PIC command course should not
be required for SICs. However, Delta stated that fundamentals of
command training within established chain of command may be
constructive.
    ALPA stated that all SICs performing in augmented operations should
receive the PIC leadership and command training and mentoring training.
ALPA believed that SICs being trained in only one of the subjects would
reduce the effectiveness of the SIC training and potentially their
ability to be fully qualified to act as PIC in augmented operations.
    Since 1970, Sec.  121.432(a) has stated that a pilot who serves as
SIC in an operation that requires three or more pilots must be fully
qualified to act as PIC of that operation. In the 1970 Training
Programs final rule, the FAA indicated that the qualification
requirements for the assigned SIC in a crew of three or more were not
limited to one particular aspect of PIC qualification, and that the
provision was intended to cover broader PIC qualification
requirements.\23\ The FAA's

position has not changed. Therefore, the FAA has determined that SICs
who serve in an operation that requires three or more pilots must
complete leadership and command training to be fully qualified to act
as PIC of that operation. As described in the NPRM, the purpose of
leadership and command training is to provide the skills necessary to
manage the crew, communications, workload, and decision-making in a
manner that promotes adherence to SOP. Since these SICs may be required
to act as PIC while the assigned PIC is taking an inflight rest break,
the FAA has determined these SICs need the same leadership and command
skills. The FAA notes that, in accordance with Sec.  121.401, these
SICs will not be required to repeat the leadership and command training
when they upgrade to PIC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 35 FR 84, 87 (Jan. 3, 1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has determined these SICs do not need to complete mentoring
training to be fully qualified to act as PIC of an augmented operation
under Sec.  121.432(a). As described above, the FAA is requiring
mentoring training for all PICs serving in part 121 operations to
establish the mentoring environment recommended by the MLP ARC. As
further explained in the NPRM, the FAA has determined the increased
experience requirements of the Pilot Certification rule together with
the mentoring training requirement of this rule ensures every newly
hired pilot is paired, on every flight, with an experienced pilot who
can serve as a mentor. See 81 FR at 69919. Because the PIC of the
augmented flight can serve as this mentor, an SIC who serves in an
operation that requires three or more pilots would not ordinarily be
expected to serve as a mentor to other pilots. Moreover, unlike with
leadership and command skills, the PIC's mentoring responsibilities
during an augmented operation would not ordinarily be interrupted
merely by an inflight rest period.

K. Pilot Professional Development Committee (Proposed Sec.  121.17)

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to add a requirement for certificate
holders conducting operations under part 121 to establish and maintain
a pilot professional development committee (PPDC) to develop,
administer, and oversee a formal pilot mentoring program. Additionally,
the FAA proposed to require the PPDC to meet frequently enough to
accomplish the objectives of the committee, but at least once a year.
Further, the FAA proposed that the PPDC must consist of at least one
management representative and at least one representative of the air
carrier's pilots. The FAA proposed that the management representative
must (1) have at least one year of experience serving as a PIC in part
121 operations, and (2) be qualified through training, experience, and
expertise relevant to the PPDC's responsibilities. Along with the NPRM,
the FAA drafted an AC that provided attributes for a PPDC to consider
to develop, administer, and oversee a formal pilot mentoring program.
The FAA included a copy of this document in the docket for this
rulemaking and sought comments.
    The FAA also sought comment on whether a PPDC and a formal pilot
mentoring program are necessary in light of the FAA's proposal to
require all PICs to complete mentoring training, including recurrent
mentoring training. Although addressed in the ``PIC Mentoring
Training'' discussion, by providing training on mentoring to all PICs,
all newly hired SICs would be paired with a pilot who is prepared and
has been trained to instill and reinforce the professionalism, skill,
and knowledge expected of all pilots serving in part 121 operations.
    AABI agreed with establishing a PPDC, the minimum committee
composition, and the minimum meeting requirements. The NTSB strongly
supported the proposed PPDC. Several individuals, many identified as
college students, agreed with the mentoring program and believed it
would provide benefits such as improving CRM and communications between
pilots, aiding the progression of new pilots, and providing good
experience for mentors.
    A4A, American, Jet Blue, and UPS contended the necessity and role
of the PPDC are limited considering mentoring training requirements and
processes for reporting issues. A4A, American, and UPS also stated that
the need for a PPDC would vary depending on factors at the airline such
as size, maturity, pilot hiring parameters, training quality, and
management capability.
    A4A and Jet Blue stated that some of the items listed for the PPDC
to consider may fall under management responsibilities. A4A, UPS, and
Jet Blue stated that the draft AC must clearly highlight the difference
between the role of the PPDC and that of airline management.
    A4A, American, UPS, and Jet Blue also noted that several airlines
already have joint committees with union/pilot representation and
believed that the limited oversight proposed for the PPDC could readily
be performed by these existing committees.
    Jet Blue further argued that some of the proposed language may
cause conflicts of interest in certain phases of the collective
bargaining process as defined by the Railway Labor Act.
    ALPA emphasized that it is a statutory mandate for the FAA to
require a PPDC and a formal long-term mentoring program as well as
mentoring for new hires during every flight. ALPA stated that the
proposal did not address many issues regarding the PPDC and a formal
long-term pilot mentoring program, including: Selection and deselection
of mentors; whether the mentors will be volunteers or will hold paid
positions; impact on part 117 duty time due to mentoring; mentor
qualifications; mentor initial and recurrent training; frequency and
method of communication; how mentors will be assigned to new hires;
mentor burn out; uncooperative new hires; length of mentoring; record
keeping; minimum topics for discussion; boundaries for mentoring; roles
and responsibilities of the pilot union; consequences of a mentor not
adhering to the program guidelines and responsibilities; and regular
feedback.
    The FAA also received several other comments concerning the roles
and functions of the proposed PPDC, its composition and meeting
requirements, its interplay with existing labor-management structures,
and the potential undue burden and costs associated with PPDC
development and administration. In addition, the comments included
recommendations on requirements for formal mentoring programs, the
qualifications of mentors, and the scope of the mentor-mentee
relationship.
    The FAA agrees with some air carrier commenters that, as proposed,
the PPDC could create uncertainty between the role of the PPDC and the
regulatory operational and management responsibilities of the air
carrier. The FAA has determined that a formal pilot mentoring program
cannot function independently from the operation of the air carrier.
The development, administration, and oversight of a formal pilot
mentoring program would impact many other aspects of the operation of
the air carrier, such as pilot duty and rest, training, recordkeeping,
``hiring'' of mentors, and funding for the program. In accordance with
U.S.C. 44701(b) and (d), the FAA may prescribe minimum safety standards
for air carriers in consideration of the duty of an air carrier to
provide service with the highest possible degree of safety in the
public interest. Therefore, the responsibility for the safe operation
of the air carrier, including the pilot mentoring program, ultimately
remains with the air carrier.

    Additionally, the FAA agrees that the need for a PPDC is limited
because all PICs are required to complete mentoring training.
    Lastly, in January 2015, the FAA issued the Safety Management
Systems for Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations for Certificate
Holders final rule (SMS).\24\ The SMS final rule was in response to (1)
section 215 of Public Law 111-216 that directed the FAA to require all
part 121 air carriers to implement an SMS, (2) NTSB recommendation A-
07-10 for the FAA to require all part 121 air carriers to establish an
SMS, and (3) International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annex 6,
in which member states agreed to establish SMS requirements for air
carriers. SMS is a comprehensive, process-oriented approach to managing
safety throughout an organization. An SMS includes an organization-wide
safety policy; formal methods for identifying hazards, controlling, and
continually assessing risk and safety performance; and promotion of a
safety culture. When systematically applied, SMS provides a set of
decision-making tools that air carriers can use to improve safety. SMS
stresses not only compliance with technical standards but also
increased emphasis on the overall safety performance of the
organization. In accordance with the SMS final rule, air carriers must
have implemented an SMS that meets the requirements of 14 CFR part 5 no
later than March 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 80 FR 1308 (Jan. 8, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has thoroughly considered the MLP ARC recommendations in
context with the SMS final rule, the PIC mentoring training required by
this final rule, as well as the comments submitted in response to this
rulemaking, and the FAA has determined that it would not be feasible or
achievable for the PPDC to develop, administer, and oversee an
effective formal pilot mentoring program. The FAA has determined that
the goals of improving pilot airmanship, decision-making, and
professionalism at each air carrier can be achieved through the PIC
mentoring training required by this final rule and the use of each air
carrier's SMS. The FAA is not adopting the proposal for the
establishment of a PPDC.

L. Pilot Recurrent Ground Training Content and Programmed Hours (Sec.
121.427)

    The FAA proposed to remove from the pilot recurrent ground training
requirements, certain foundational knowledge elements that are no
longer necessary in light of the maturity of air carrier training
programs and the increase in pilot experience and qualification.\25\
The FAA further proposed a one hour reduction in the required minimum
programmed hours for pilot recurrent ground training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ To implement the proposed amendments to recurrent ground
training content for pilots, the FAA proposed revisions to Sec.
121.427(b), that separate the recurrent ground training requirements
by training population. Additionally, the FAA proposed to remove
from Sec.  121.427(b), the reference to Sec.  121.805 because of the
requirement in Sec.  121.415(a)(3) to complete Sec.  121.805
training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA did not receive any comments regarding the proposed changes
to pilot recurrent ground training content and programmed hours.
Therefore, these changes are adopted as proposed.

M. Part 135 Operators and Part 91 Subpart K Program Managers Complying
With Part 121, Subparts N and O

    In the NPRM, the FAA explained that some part 135 operators and
part 91K program managers use pilot training and qualification programs
that comply with subparts N and O of part 121. However, the FAA
explained that some of the proposed revisions to part 121 in the NPRM
were not compatible with all part 135 and 91K operations because of
differences between the requirements for minimum flight crew and pilot
certification. Therefore, for part 135 operators and fractional
ownership program managers who use a part 121 subparts N and O training
and qualification program, the FAA proposed to retain the existing
upgrade curriculum requirements and to limit the applicability of the
leadership and command and mentoring training to PICs serving in
operations that require two or more pilots. The FAA further explained
that the remaining proposed amendments to subparts N and O of part 121
would apply to these other operators and program managers. See 81 FR at
69923.
    NetJets requested that the final rule specifically note that the
proposed OF requirement not apply to part 135 on-demand certificate
holders or part 91, subpart K fractional ownership program managers
that choose to comply with part 121 subparts N and O training and
testing requirements. NetJets stated that few of its aircraft are
equipped with a flight deck observer seat and would qualify for the
deviation in proposed Sec.  121.432(d).
    The FAA agrees that the requirement for OF should not apply to part
135 operators or part 91K program managers that choose to comply with
part 121 subparts N and O because the airplanes used in these
operations are generally too small to accommodate a flight deck
observer seat. Additionally, Public Law 111-216 and the associated MLP
ARC recommendations are specifically directed at part 121 air carriers.
Therefore, as adopted in Sec. Sec.  91.1063(b) and 121.435(a) part 135
operators or part 91K program managers that choose to comply with part
121 subparts N and O are not required to comply with OF.
    NetJets stated that in accordance with Sec.  135.3(c), the
operating experience required by Sec.  121.434 is not applicable to
NetJets because Sec.  135.3(c) provides that certificate holders
conducting part 135 operations who comply with part 121 subparts N and
O requirements, instead of the part 135 subparts E, G, and H
requirements, may choose to comply with the operating experience
requirements of Sec.  135.244 instead of the requirements of Sec.
121.434. NetJets believed that, because a proficiency check of a visual
inspection using pictorial means is certified by a check pilot, it is
unnecessary to certify the pilot's proficiency a second time before the
pilot completes operating experience.
    As proposed in Sec.  121.434(b)(3), if pictorial means was used to
conduct the preflight visual inspection during the proficiency check,
the pilot must demonstrate proficiency on at least one complete visual
inspection of a static airplane before the completion of the operating
experience required by Sec.  121.434. The FAA did not propose any
changes to Sec.  135.244. Therefore, that requirement would only apply
to a part 135 operator who complies with part 121 subparts N and O and
chooses to comply with Sec.  121.434. If the part 135 operator chooses
to comply with Sec.  135.244 instead, the requirement for the pilot to
conduct the visual inspection of a static airplane during the operating
experience does not apply.
    The proposals to retain the existing upgrade curriculum
requirements and to limit the applicability of the leadership and
command and mentoring training to PICs serving in operations that
require two or more pilots are adopted in the final rule for part 135
operators and fractional ownership program managers who use a part 121
subparts N and O training and qualification program.

N. Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Conforming Changes

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed changes to part 121 subparts N and O
and appendices E and F to reflect current terminology with respect to
the use of flight simulators and other training devices. Specifically,
references to visual simulators (Level A FFS) and

advanced simulators (Level B, C, and D FFS) were proposed to be removed
and updated to reflect current terminology and additionally, all
references to simulation technology that no longer exists were removed.
    American agreed with the proposed FSTD conforming changes,
including the proposed change to amend Appendices E and F to allow
pictorial means for the conduct of the preflight visual inspection.
    Delta Air Lines commented that in both proposed Appendix E and
proposed Appendix F, the maneuver/procedure categories and descriptive
terminology do not match related categories and description in
accordance with 14 CFR part 60, Tables A1B and B1B (Table of Tasks vs.
Simulator/FTD Level). Delta also noted that in proposed Appendix E and
proposed Appendix F, the ``FTD'' column does not reflect the maneuvers
for which Flight Training Devices (FTDs), specifically level 7 FTDs,
can be certified for flight training and proficiency checking as
qualified in part 60, Tables A1B and B1B.
    The FAA agrees with Delta's comment that the maneuvers and
procedures in Appendix E and Appendix F do not directly align with the
tasks listed in part 60 Tables A1B and B1B and also do not fully
address all of the FFS and FTD levels that are currently defined in
part 60. Since the time the tables in Appendix E and Appendix F were
originally written several years ago, other device levels within the
``FFS'' and ``FTD'' categories have been defined in the simulator
qualification standards, and these tables in part 121 no longer reflect
the current capabilities of all device levels which may be qualified
for use in training under part 60. While the FAA agrees that Appendix E
and Appendix F do not capture the capabilities of all of the available
FSTD levels as currently defined in part 60, the FAA concludes that
conducting extensive changes to these appendices in the final rule
would exceed the scope of this rulemaking. The FAA has initiated a
separate rulemaking to align the pilot training tasks and authorized
FSTD levels used in part 121 training programs to the technical FSTD
qualification standards that are defined in part 60.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------