[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 195 (Friday, October 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69908-69948]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23961]

Vol. 81

Friday,

No. 195

October 7, 2016

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Aviation Administration

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

14 CFR Parts 61, 91, 121, et al.

Pilot Professional Development; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 195 / Friday, October 7, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61, 91, 121, and 135

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0504; Notice No. 16-06]
RIN 2120-AJ87

Pilot Professional Development

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to modify the
requirements primarily applicable to air carriers conducting domestic,
flag and supplemental operations to enhance the professional
development of pilots in those operations. The proposal would require
air carriers conducting domestic, flag and supplemental operations to
provide new-hire pilots with an opportunity to observe flight
operations (operations familiarization) to become familiar with
procedures before serving as a flightcrew member in operations; revise
the upgrade curriculum; provide leadership and command and mentoring
training for all pilots in command (PICs); and establish Pilot
Professional Development Committees (PPDC). This proposal is responsive
to a statutory requirement for the Federal Aviation Administration to
convene an aviation rulemaking committee (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 these recommendations. The proposal also
includes a number of additional conforming changes related to flight
simulation training devices and second in command (SIC) pilot training
and checking, and other miscellaneous changes. The FAA believes that
this proposed rule would mitigate incidents of unprofessional pilot
behavior which would reduce pilot errors that can lead to a
catastrophic event.

DATES: Send comments on or before January 5, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0504
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Sheri Pippin, Air Transportation Division (AFS-
200), Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8166; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 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 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).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 14 CFR 121.542 has commonly been referred to as the sterile
cockpit rule. (46 FR 5500, January 19, 1981) Throughout this NPRM,
it will be referred as the sterile flight deck rule consistent with
updated terminology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document

AC Advisory Circular
ACSPT ARC Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training Aviation Rulemaking
Committee
ARC Aviation Rulemaking Committee
ATP Airline Transport Pilot
ATP-CTP Airline Transport Pilot Certification Training Program
CAMI FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRM Crew Resource Management
FFS Full Flight Simulator
FSTD Flight Simulation 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
PIC Pilot in Command
PDSC Professional Development Steering Committee
PPDC Pilot Professional Development Committee
PTS Practical Test Standards
SAFO Safety Alert for Operators
SIC Second in Command
THRR ARC Flightcrew Member Training Hours Requirement Review
Aviation Rulemaking Committee
91K Part 91, subpart K

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
    C. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
    A. Statement of the Problem
    B. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations
    C. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216)
    D. Related FAA Actions
    E. Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership and Professional
Development Aviation Rulemaking Committee (MLP ARC)
III. Discussion of the Proposal
    A. Applicability, Effective Date, and Compliance Date
    B. Operations Familiarization (Sec.  121.432(d))
    C. PIC Leadership and Command Training
    D. PIC Mentoring Training
    E. SIC to PIC Upgrade (Sec. Sec.  121.420 and 121.426)
    F. Training for Pilots Currently Serving as PIC (Sec.  121.429)

    G. Recurrent PIC Leadership and Command and Mentoring Training
(Sec. Sec.  121.409(b) and 121.427)
    H. Leadership and Command Training and Mentoring Training for
SICs Serving in Operations That Require Three or More Pilots
    I. Pilot Professional Development Committee (Sec.  121.17)
    J. Pilot Recurrent Ground Training Content and Programmed Hours
(Sec.  121.427)
    K. Part 135 Operators and Part 91 Subpart K Program Managers
Complying With Part 121, Subparts N and O
    L. Flight Simulation Training Device (FSTD) Conforming Changes
    M. SIC Training and Checking Conforming Changes
    N. Other Conforming and Miscellaneous Changes
IV. 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
V. 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
VI. Additional Information
    A. Comments Invited
    B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    Although the overall safety and reliability of the National
Airspace System (NAS) demonstrates that most pilots conduct operations
with a high degree of professionalism, a problem still exists in the
aviation industry with some pilots acting unprofessionally and not
adhering to standard operating procedures, including the sterile flight
deck rule. The National Transportation Safety Board (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 (October 14, 2004) and Colgan
Air, Inc. flight 3407 (February 12, 2009).
    The Colgan Air accident focused public and Congressional attention
on multiple aspects of air carrier training requirements, including
issues pertaining to pilot leadership and command and mentoring. The
accident also raised questions about pilot adherence to the sterile
flight deck rule.
    The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-216), was enacted following the Colgan Air
accident. Section 206 of Public Law 111-216 directed 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. Accordingly, 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.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action

    This rulemaking proposes to modify requirements for air carriers
and pilots operating under part 121 to enhance the professional
development of part 121 pilots. The proposed requirements would most
affect air carrier training for pilots in command. The proposed
requirements would also affect air carrier qualification for newly
employed pilots. Additionally, this proposed rule would require air
carriers to establish and maintain a pilot professional development
committee to develop, administer, and oversee formal pilot mentoring
programs. Table 1 provides additional detail regarding the proposed
amendments.

                 Table 1--Summary of Proposed Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Proposed provision              Summary of proposed provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations familiarization for new-  Operations familiarization
 hire pilots (Sec.   121.432(d)).    must include a minimum of 2
                                     operating cycles. A new-hire pilot
                                     completing operations
                                     familiarization must occupy the
                                     flight deck observer seat.
Upgrade training curriculum          Upgrade ground and flight
 requirements (Sec.  Sec.            training requirements have been
 121.420 and 121.426).               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           All pilots currently
 mentoring ground training for       serving as PIC must complete ground
 pilots currently serving as PIC     training on leadership and command
 (Sec.   121.429).                   and mentoring.
                                     The Administrator may
                                     credit previous training completed
                                     by the pilot at that air carrier.
Recurrent PIC leadership and         PICs must complete
 command and mentoring training      recurrent leadership and command
 (Sec.  Sec.   121.409(b) and        and mentoring ground training every
 121.427).                           36 months.
                                     Recurrent Line-Oriented
                                     Flight Training (LOFT) must provide
                                     an opportunity for PICs to
                                     demonstrate leadership and command.
Pilot professional development       Air carriers must establish
 committee (PPDC) (Sec.   121.17).   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.
Pilot recurrent ground training      Pilot recurrent ground
 content and programmed hours        training has been aligned with the
 (Sec.   121.427).                   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 91       Part 135 operators and part
 Subpart K Program Managers          91 subpart K (91K) program managers
 Complying with Part 121, Subparts   complying with part 121 subparts N
 N and O.                            and O would continue to use the
                                     existing upgrade curriculum
                                     requirements and the proposed
                                     leadership and command and
                                     mentoring training would only apply
                                     to PICs serving in operations that
                                     use two or more pilots.

Flight Simulation Training Device    Part 121, subparts N and O
 (FSTD) Conforming Changes (Part     and appendices E, F, and H are
 121, subparts N and O and           updated as follows:
 appendices E, F, and H).           (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 appendices E and F
 Conforming Changes (Part 121        are updated to align with the
 appendices E and F).                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.
Other Conforming and Miscellaneous   Pilot transition ground
 Changes.                            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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Costs and Benefits

    The FAA believes the proposed rule would generate safety benefits
and address both the statutory requirement for this rulemaking and the
NTSB recommendations. Additionally, the proposed rule contains cost
saving benefits to operators of $72 million over a 10-year period based
on changes to ground training in this proposal that are possible due to
changes already implemented in the Pilot Certification and
Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations final rule (the
Pilot Certification rule) (78 FR 42324, July 15, 2013).\2\ These
changes would lead to a reduction in the time required to complete
recurrent and upgrade training and would not compromise safety. When
discounted using a 7 percent discount rate, the proposed rule would
result in cost saving benefits of $46 million over a 10-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ RIN 2120-AJ67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates that the proposed rule would result in costs to
operators of approximately $68 million over a 10-year period. When
discounted using a 7 percent discount rate, the proposed rule would
result in costs of $47 million over a 10-year period. In undiscounted
terms, benefits in future years outweigh costs; however, when
discounting benefits using the 7% discount rate, future benefits do not
outweigh upfront costs.
    The benefits and costs, by provision, of the proposed rule are seen
in Table 2 below.

                                       Table 2--Net Benefits by Provision
                            [7% Present value, millions of 2013 dollars, 2015-2024] *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Compliance
                Provision                          Cost saving benefits                costs       Net benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recurrent Ground Training (Sec.           $34.424...............................              $0         $34.424
 121.427).
Upgrade Ground Training (Sec.   121.420)  $11.839...............................               0          11.839
New-Hire SIC Operations Familiarization   Not Quantified........................           2.855          -2.855
 (Sec.   121.432(d)).
Upgrade Training (Mentoring, Leadership,  Not Quantified........................           6.304          -6.304
 and Command) (Sec.  Sec.   121.420 and
 121.426).
One-Time and Recurrent PIC Training       Not Quantified........................          37.037         -37.037
 (Mentoring, Leadership, and Command)
 (Sec.  Sec.   121.409(b), 121.427 and
 121.429).
PPDC Annual Meeting (Sec.   121.17).....  Not Quantified........................           0.572          -0.572
Recordkeeping...........................  Not Quantified........................           0.006          -0.006
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  46.263................................          46.774          -0.511
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table values have been rounded. Totals may not add due to rounding.

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    As recognized by the NTSB, the overall safety and reliability of
the NAS demonstrates that most pilots conduct operations with a high
degree of professionalism.\3\ Nevertheless, a problem still exists in
the aviation industry with some pilots acting unprofessionally and not
adhering to standard operating procedures, including the sterile flight
deck rule.\4\ 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,\5\ Inc., flight 3407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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'').
    \4\ 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'').
    \5\ 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 .5
effective mitigation, Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers
and Aircraft Dispatchers with a .2 effective mitigation, the Pilot
Certification Rule with a .2 effective mitigation, and Safety
Management Systems for Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations
Certificate Holders with a .05 effective mitigation.

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

    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 standard operating
procedures, 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 SIC to 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 5
nautical miles northeast of the airport. The 2 pilots, 2 flight
attendants, all 45 passengers aboard the airplane, and 1 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, although the
Colgan Air crew resource management (CRM) training was consistent with
Advisory Circular (AC) 120-51E, Crew Resource Management Training, it
only included 5 slides that addressed command, leadership, and
leadership styles. 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 Colgan Air accident focused public and Congressional attention
on multiple aspects of air carrier training requirements, including (1)
whether air carriers were providing PICs with the appropriate training
to successfully execute the required PIC responsibilities while
exhibiting effective leadership to promote professionalism and
adherence to standard operating procedures, (2) whether pilots have
access to individuals, such as more experienced pilots, who could serve
as mentors, and (3) pilot adherence to the sterile flight deck rule.
    The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-216), enacted August 1, 2010, included 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 directed 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 a 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 completed its work and 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 \6\
and the Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In early 2010, the FAA published an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) entitled New Pilot Certification
Requirements for Air Carrier Operations (75 FR 6164, February 8,
2010) asking for input on current part 121 pilot eligibility,
training, and qualification requirements for SICs. In July 2010, as
a result of the public response to the ANPRM, the FAA chartered the
First Officer Qualification ARC (FOQ ARC). The FAA subsequently
asked the FOQ ARC to consider the provisions in Sec. Sec.  216 and
217 of Public Law 111-216 in developing its recommendations. The FOQ
ARC submitted its recommendations to the FAA in September 2010. The
FAA issued the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements
for Air Carrier Operations NPRM on February 29, 2012 (77 FR 12374).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal 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 rule; (4) the Qualification,
Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule (78
FR 67800, November 12, 2013),\7\ and (5) the current part 121 PIC role
and responsibilities. This comprehensive analysis resulted in this
proposal that 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
believes that this proposed rule can be effectively implemented by air
carriers and would mitigate unprofessional pilot behavior which would
reduce pilot errors that can lead to a catastrophic event.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 NPRM applies to pilots only.

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

B. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommendations

    This proposed 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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``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.
     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.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This recommendation supersedes NTSB Safety Recommendation
A-07-8: Work with pilot associations to develop a specific program
of education for air carrier pilots that addresses professional
standards and their role in ensuring safety of flight. The program
should include associated guidance information and references to
recent accidents involving pilots acting unprofessionally or not
following standard operating procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of
2010 (Public Law 111-216)

    Paragraph (a)(1) of section 206 of Public Law 111-216 directed the
FAA to convene an ARC to develop procedures for each part 121 air
carrier to take the following actions:

    (A) Establish flight crewmember mentoring programs under which
the air carrier will pair highly experienced flight crewmembers who
will serve as mentor pilots and be paired with newly employed flight
crewmembers. Mentor pilots should be provided, at a minimum,
specific instruction on techniques for instilling and reinforcing
the highest standards of technical performance, airmanship, and
professionalism in newly employed flight crewmembers.
    (B) Establish flight crewmember professional development
committees made up of air carrier management and labor union or
professional association representatives to develop, administer, and
oversee formal mentoring programs of the carrier to assist flight
crewmembers to reach their maximum potential as safe, seasoned, and
proficient flight crewmembers.
    (C) Establish or modify training programs to accommodate
substantially different levels and types of flight experience by
newly employed flight crewmembers.
    (D) Establish or modify training programs for second-in-command
flight crewmembers attempting to qualify as pilot-in-command flight
crewmembers for the first time in a specific aircraft type and
ensure that such programs include leadership and command training.
    (E) Ensure that recurrent training for pilots in command
includes leadership and command training.
    (F) Such other actions as the aviation rulemaking committee
determines appropriate to enhance flight crewmember professional
development.

    Accordingly, as directed by section 206, the FAA convened the MLP
ARC to address procedures in these areas.
    Section 206 of Public Law 111-216 also requires the FAA to issue an
NPRM and final rule based on the ARC recommendations. It further
specifies that leadership and command training must include instruction
on compliance with flightcrew member duties under Sec.  121.542, the
sterile flight deck rule.
    Finally, section 206 of Public Law 111-216 requires the FAA to
establish a streamlined review process for part 121 air carriers that
had, in effect on August 1, 2010, the programs described above. Under
the streamlined review process, the FAA must expedite approval of
programs that it determines meet the requirements in the final
rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Existing Sec.  121.405 provides the process by which a
certificate holder must seek approval of its training program.
Therefore, the streamlining of the review process would take place
under the framework of this provision and be managed by the
principal operations inspector (POI) responsible for approval of an
air carrier's training program. The FAA will provide guidance to
POIs on this process upon publication of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the requirements in section 206, Public Law 111-216
also contains a number of related requirements for rulemaking, which
have resulted in the following rulemaking initiatives: Pilot
Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations
(secs. 216 and 217); Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and
Aircraft Dispatchers (secs. 208 and 209); Safety Management Systems for
Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations Certificate Holders (sec.
215); and Pilot Records Database (sec. 203). The FAA also determined
that amendments to FSTD qualification and evaluation standards in part
60 were necessary to support the provisions in the Qualification,
Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule and
initiated a rulemaking to address this issue.
    In 2013, the FAA issued the Pilot Certification and Qualification
Requirements for Air Carrier Operations final rule and the
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers
final rule. In 2015, the FAA issued the Safety Management Systems for
Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations Certificate Holders final
rule (80 FR 1308, January 8, 2015).\12\ In 2016, the FAA issued the
Flight Simulation Training Device Qualification Standards for Extended
Envelope and Adverse Weather Event Training Tasks final rule (81 FR
18178, March 30, 2016).\13\ The Pilot Records Database rulemaking
initiative is in development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ RIN 2120-AJ86.
    \13\ RIN 2120-AK08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pilot Certification rule includes a number of changes that
increase the knowledge, qualification, and experience of pilots serving
in part 121 operations. Notably, the Pilot Certification rule requires
all pilots serving in part 121 operations to hold an airline transport
pilot (ATP) certificate with a type rating and requires pilots to
complete a minimum of 1,000 hours of relevant operational experience
prior to serving as a PIC in part 121 operations. Additionally, the
Pilot Certification rule requires pilots, who will serve in part 121
operations, to complete the ATP-CTP prior to ATP certification.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The ATP-CTP provides foundational knowledge and
competencies to prepare a pilot to enter an air carrier training
program. It is designed to bridge the gap between a pilot who holds
a commercial pilot certificate and a pilot eligible to operate in an
air carrier environment. The ATP-CTP provides academic and simulator
training in essential subject areas, such as aerodynamics,
automation, adverse weather conditions, air carrier operations,
transport airplane performance, professionalism, and leadership and
development.

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

    Public Law 111-216 also required the FAA to establish a task force
and multidisciplinary expert panels, in addition to the MLP ARC, to
further examine existing training program requirements and develop
recommendations for improvements. Therefore, the FAA established the
following ARCs:
     Stick Pusher and Adverse Weather Event Training ARC (sec.
208 of Pub. L. 111-216) to study and submit to the Administrator a
report on methods to increase the familiarity and improve the response
of flightcrew members on stick pusher systems, icing conditions, and
microburst and windshear weather events.
     Flightcrew Member Training Hours Requirement Review ARC
(THRR ARC) (sec. 209 of Pub. L. 111-216) to assess and make
recommendations to the Administrator on the best methods and optimal
time needed for flightcrew member training in part 121 and 135 air
carrier operations; the best methods for flightcrew member evaluation;
best methods to allow specific academic training courses to be credited
toward the total flight hours required to receive an Airline Transport
Pilot certificate; and crew leadership training.
     Air Carrier Safety and Pilot Training ARC (ACSPT ARC)
(sec. 204 of Pub. L. 111-216) to evaluate best practices in the air
carrier industry and provide recommendations on air carrier management
responsibilities for flightcrew member education and support,
flightcrew member professional standards, flightcrew member training
standards and performance, and mentoring and information sharing
between air carriers.

D. 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). The
FAA recently 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. This rule is intended to ensure that
certain non-essential activities do not contribute to the challenge of
task management on the flight deck or a loss of situational awareness
due to attention to non-essential tasks. (Prohibition on Personal Use
of Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck final rule, 79 FR 8257,
February 12, 2014) \15\ (The FAA monitors compliance with this rule
during the conduct of enroute inspections.) Training on Sec.  121.542
is currently required during initial and recurrent ground training for
all flightcrew members.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ RIN 2120-AJ17.
    \16\ See Sec. Sec.  121.415(a), 121.419(c) and (d), and
121.427(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 27, 2003, the FAA issued Advisory Circular (AC) 120-
71A, Standard Operating Procedures for Flight Deck Crewmembers. This AC
stressed that safety in commercial operations depends on good crew
performance founded on clear, comprehensive, and readily available
standard operating procedures.
    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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NTSB Safety Recommendation A-06-7: Direct the principal
operations inspectors of all 14 CFR part 121 and 135 operators to
reemphasize the importance of strict compliance with the sterile
flight deck rule. This recommendation was issued after Corporate Air
flight 5966 struck trees on final approach and crashed short of the
runway at the Kirksville Regional Airport, Kirksville, Missouri,
fatally injuring the PIC, SIC, and 11 of the 13 passengers on
October 19, 2004. The airplane was destroyed by impact and a post-
impact fire. The NTSB determined that the pilots' failure to make
standard callouts contributed to the accident, and the pilots'
unprofessional behavior during the flight and their fatigue likely
contributed to the pilots' downgraded performance. The NTSB issued
several safety recommendations in response to this accident,
including A-06-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\18\ Accordingly, the FAA recommended that certificate holders
consider training for management personnel and crewmembers on the
hazards associated with positioning flights and PINC principals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Positioning flights include nonrevenue flights, flights to
pick up passengers, and ferry flights for maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Accordingly, the FAA recommended
to Directors of Safety and Directors of Operations that specific
policies and training be provided to ensure that distractions in the
flight deck are minimized.
    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 and dispatcher resource management (DRM) training for
aircraft dispatchers. (60 FR 65940 December 20, 1995) \19\ In this
final rule, the FAA stated that the objective of CRM and DRM training
was to teach flightcrew members, flight attendants, and aircraft
dispatchers to effectively use all available resources (e.g. hardware,
software, and human resources) to achieve safe and efficient flight
operations. Coincident to the final rule, the FAA 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, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ RIN 2120-AC79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 addresses 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.

E. Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership, and Professional
Development Aviation Rulemaking Committee (MLP ARC)

1. Background
    On September 15, 2010, the FAA established the MLP ARC as required
by Public Law 111-216. The MLP ARC membership consisted of
representatives from the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Air
Transport Association (ATA) (now known as Airlines for America),
Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA), National Air Carrier
Association (NACA), National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI),
Regional Airline Association (RAA), and the University Aviation
Association (UAA).
    The Administrator tasked the MLP ARC with developing
recommendations to submit to the FAA for rulemaking consideration.
Specifically the MLP ARC considered and addressed the topics as
required by section 206(a)(1) of Public Law 111-216 and as specified in
the ARC charter. The MLP ARC presented its report and recommendations
to the FAA on November 2, 2010 (``Report from the MLP ARC'').
    NACA filed a dissenting report to the MLP ARC recommendations,
asserting that the recommendations were too prescriptive and did not
provide sufficient scalability for smaller airlines. A copy of the
Report from the MLP ARC, including NACA's dissenting report, has been
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
2. Summary of Recommendations and Dissenting Views
a. Mentoring Programs
    Based on section 206(a)(1)(A) of Public Law 111-216, the FAA asked
the MLP ARC to consider and address flightcrew member mentoring
programs. In response to this tasking, the MLP ARC recommended the
creation of two mentoring programs: Long-term career mentoring and
flightcrew mentoring. The long-term career mentoring would be
accomplished by a relationship between a prot[eacute]g[eacute] pilot
and a highly experienced senior pilot. Flightcrew mentoring would be
facilitated by the short-term relationship between every PIC and SIC
prot[eacute]g[eacute] that occurs naturally with each crew pairing. The
MLP ARC also recommended that career mentors be paired with
prot[eacute]g[eacute] pilots at the following career milestones: (1)
New-hire pilots during their first year following initial hire, (2)
operational transitions, and (3) PICs during their first year following
upgrade to PIC. Additionally, the MLP ARC recommended that flightcrew
mentors submit a prot[eacute]g[eacute] report to the career mentor for
every crew pairing with a new-hire pilot during the new-hire pilot's
first year.
    To support FAA analysis of the MLP ARC recommendations related to
mentoring, the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI), Human
Factors Research Laboratory, reviewed mentoring research literature to
(1) assess the benefits of mentoring as it was related to improving
pilot airmanship, aeronautical decision-making, and professionalism,
(2) assess effectiveness of mentoring programs across a range of
occupations, and (3) make recommendations regarding the development of
mentoring programs, the selection and training of mentors, and the
expected benefits to mentors and prot[eacute]g[eacute]s. CAMI developed
a report of the research review and recommendations in a document
titled ``Determining the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Aircraft
Pilot Mentoring Programs May 2015'' (Report from CAMI). The FAA notes
that although the report identifies some limitations in the mentoring
research, the report does provide several mentoring program
recommendations based on the available literature. The FAA has provided
a copy of this report in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The FAA agrees with certain elements of the MLP ARC recommendations
pertaining to flightcrew member mentoring programs and is proposing PIC
mentoring training. However, the FAA does not agree with the MLP ARC
recommendation for career mentors and the associated recommendation for
PICs to submit a report to the career mentor after every crew pairing
with a new-hire pilot. These recommendations do not allow for the many
air carrier-specific factors that must be considered in the
development, administration, and oversight of a formal pilot mentoring
program. Further, the Report from CAMI identified factors such as air
carrier culture, goals and objectives as important to the development
of a mentoring program. See Report from CAMI at p. 20, 21, 30 and 46.
The FAA agrees with NACA's recommendation that flexibility must be
allowed in the development of a formal pilot mentoring program. The
FAA's proposals regarding PIC mentoring training and a formal pilot
mentoring program are addressed in further detail in the portion of the
document titled ``III. Discussion of the Proposal, D. PIC Mentoring
Training'' and ``III. Discussion of the Proposal, I. Pilot Professional
Development Committee (Sec.  121.17).''
b. Professional Development
    Based on section 206(a)(1)(B) of Public Law 111-216, the FAA tasked
the MLP ARC to consider and address procedures to ``Establish flight
crewmember professional development committees made up of air carrier
management and labor union or professional association representatives
to develop, administer, and oversee formal mentoring programs of the
carrier to assist flight crewmembers to reach their maximum potential
as safe, seasoned, and proficient flight crewmembers.'' In response to
this tasking, the MLP ARC recommended the creation of a Professional
Development Steering Committee (PDSC) at each air carrier to meet at
least quarterly. The MLP ARC stated that ``[h]aving in place positive
programs that continually develop and cultivate professionalism will,
in the ARC`s view, have a profound impact on safety, standardization,
professional ethics, and integrity.'' To this end, the MLP ARC further
stated that ``the 14 CFR should provide specific guidance on the
responsibility of each air carrier's professional development
programs'' and outlined objectives for all stakeholders (i.e., the air
carrier, the pilots and the industry). See Report from the MLP ARC at
p. 7.
    The MLP ARC recommended that the PDSC's responsibilities include
areas such as professional development, pilot mentoring, and certain
pilot training subjects. A number of additional areas of PDSC
responsibility contemplated by the MLP ARC fall within the purview of
air carrier management (e.g., the hiring process and development of the
training program) or are outside of the scope of the tasking (e.g.,
share de-identified data with industry and academia).
    In connection with the tasking to consider flightcrew member
professional development committees, the MLP ARC also recommended the
creation of a full-time part 119 professional development position
dedicated solely to the professional development program at the air
carrier. Further the MLP ARC recommended that the individual who holds
this position meet the following qualifications: (1) Hold an ATP
certificate; (2) have at least 3 years of experience as a part 121
pilot; (3) hold a bachelor's degree; and, (4) be qualified through
training, experience and expertise. The MLP ARC also recommended that
the PDSC consist of leaders of flight operations management and pilot
representatives, such as from the pilots' union, and focus on career

professional development programs specific to the air carrier.
    NACA dissented from the recommendation to require a part 119
management official to head the PDSC although it concurred that a
professional development position is important. NACA explained that new
and smaller airlines commonly employ personnel who fulfill multiple
management responsibilities (e.g. a small airline's director of safety
may also serve as director of security). Further, NACA noted that the
qualifications for the part 119 management official recommended by the
MLP ARC do not relate to professional development, mentoring, or
leadership qualifications.
    The FAA agrees with certain elements of the MLP ARC recommendations
pertaining to the creation of a professional development steering
committee to develop, administer and oversee a formal pilot mentoring
program. Consistent with the MLP ARC recommendations, the FAA
recognizes the importance of both management and pilot participation in
a committee focused on pilot professional development. However,
regarding management qualifications, the FAA's proposal balances the
MLP ARC recommendations with NACA's dissent. The FAA proposes to
require the management representative who serves on such a committee to
have certain qualifications to capture relevant operational experience,
but is not required to be a part 119 management official. This
component of the FAA's proposal is addressed in further detail in the
portion of the document titled ``III. Discussion of the Proposal, I.
Pilot Professional Development Committee (Sec.  121.17).''
c. Establish or Modify Training Programs To Accommodate Substantially
Different Levels and Types of Experience
    Based on section 206(a)(1)(C) of Public Law 111-216, the FAA asked
the MLP ARC to consider and address ``Methods to establish or modify
training programs to accommodate substantially different levels and
types of experience.'' The MLP ARC recommended amendments to the part
121 training content requirements for indoctrination training as the
most appropriate means by which to address this tasking.
    The MLP ARC recommended that indoctrination training address three
broad subject areas: (1) An overview of air carrier management and the
pilot union (as applicable); (2) flight operations; and, (3)
professional development. The MLP ARC provided a summary of content for
each of the three subject areas, noting some degree of overlap with
current training content requirements in part 121. The MLP ARC further
recommended that part 121 indoctrination training should allow the
training to be tailored to each air carrier's equipment and operational
environment.
    NACA provided a dissenting view with respect to the MLP ARC's
indoctrination training recommendations. NACA does not believe the MLP
ARC recommendations fulfill the intent of the tasking because the MLP
ARC recommended increasing indoctrination training to cover a wider
range of topics but did not allow for training to be adjusted for
specific pilot groups and assumed all pilot indoctrination training
classes are conducted in a similar fashion.
    The FAA agrees with the intent of the recommendations to strengthen
pilot indoctrination training but has not included amendments to basic
indoctrination training in this proposal. The FAA does not believe that
the recommended approach to accommodate different levels and types of
experience is necessary because of the recent changes to part 121 air
carrier pilot certification requirements and the redundancy with other
existing training requirements.
    The Pilot Certification final rule, issued after the MLP ARC
developed its recommendations, requires all pilots in part 121
operations to hold an ATP certificate and a type rating. Further,
recognizing pilots come from various backgrounds, the rule requires ATP
applicants to complete an ATP-CTP that addresses the potential
knowledge gap between a commercial pilot certificate and an ATP
certificate. This prerequisite eligibility requirement for an ATP
certificate (the ATP-CTP) provides foundational knowledge in many
subject areas, including air carrier operations, leadership and
command, professional development and crew resource management (CRM).
Thus, the Pilot Certification rule requirements raise the baseline
knowledge and experience level for pilots prior to serving at an air
carrier.
    Additionally, as acknowledged by the MLP ARC, much of the content
suggested for indoctrination training is currently required by part 121
(e.g., hazardous materials training (subpart Z), icing subjects (Sec.
121.629), weight and balance (Sec.  121.419)). In addition, some of the
recommended content, such as security training, is required by other
federal agency regulations (e.g., aircraft operator's security program
training required by the Transportation Security Administration (49 CFR
1544.233)).
    The FAA also agrees with the MLP ARC recommendation that
indoctrination training should be tailored to the air carrier's unique
operational environment. Currently, Sec.  121.415(a)(1)(iii)-(iv)
requires indoctrination training to include contents of the air
carrier's certificate and operations specifications, and appropriate
portions of the air carrier's operating manual. Therefore, the FAA
expects that individual air carrier's indoctrination training
curriculum is already tailored to its environment in accordance with
the existing regulatory requirement in Sec.  121.415(a)(1).
    Further, the MLP ARC recommended the inclusion of industry best
practices in an Advisory Circular (AC) or a standard training template
pertaining to indoctrination training. Since this proposal does not
include amendments to basic indoctrination, the FAA has not developed
an AC specific to basic indoctrination. However, on March 16, 2010, the
FAA published InFO 10002 Industry Best Practices Reference List which
provides a comprehensive list of resources available for use in the
development of training curriculums.
    The MLP ARC also recommended that the PDSC should develop special
indoctrination training for all pilots when special events occur in the
life of the air carrier, such as mergers or acquisitions, to ensure
that all pilots operate from a standard operating procedure. The FAA
does not agree with the recommendation to require the PDSC to develop
special indoctrination training for special events because current
regulations already require air carriers to provide training for
special events. Section 121.415(g) requires air carrier training
programs to include ground and flight training, instruction, and
practice, as necessary to ensure pilots qualify in new equipment,
facilities, procedures, and techniques. Thus, an air carrier involved
in a merger or acquisition is already required to provide training, as
necessary, to ensure all pilots are operating from a standard operating
procedure.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 3, Chapter 34, Section 1 for
guidance to inspectors regarding mergers and acquisitions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the FAA has not included the MLP ARC recommendations for
amendments to indoctrination training in this proposal, the FAA has
proposed a requirement for operations familiarization. This component
of the FAA's proposal is addressed in the portion of the document
titled, ``III. Discussion of the Proposal, B.

Operations Familiarization (Sec.  121.432(d)).''
d. Enhancements To Upgrade Training To Include Leadership and Command
Training
    Based on section 206(a)(1)(D) of Public Law 111-216, the FAA asked
the MLP ARC to consider and address enhancements to upgrade training to
include leadership and command. In response to this tasking, the MLP
ARC discovered there is wide variation among part 121 air carriers
regarding leadership and command training for new PICs. The MLP ARC
stated that current part 121 training requirements are ``not written in
such a manner to ensure that new captains will receive a comprehensive
education on subjects which are foundational to command, leadership,
and professionalism.'' See Report from the MLP ARC at p. 22. The MLP
ARC recommended that part 121 air carriers should develop and implement
a leadership and command course for all SICs attempting to qualify as
PIC for the first time in a specific aircraft type.
    The MLP ARC recommended that this leadership and command course be
developed as a training event separate from the normal upgrade
syllabus. Additionally, the MLP ARC recommended that the course consist
of a minimum of 32 hours of in-person facilitated class discussion
separated into two segments; the first segment to be completed prior to
upgrade training and the second segment to be completed between 6 and
18 months after the completion of PIC operating experience.
    NACA opposed the prescribed 32 hours of in-person, facilitated
training. NACA did not oppose leadership and command training, but
stated 32 hours of training for one topic was extreme and costly. NACA
also stated that each air carrier should be allowed to develop a
leadership and command course that best suits that air carrier's needs.
    In addition to the MLP ARC, two other ARCs subsequently considered
leadership and command training. The ACSPTARC determined that
leadership and command courses varied among air carriers and
recommended rulemaking and associated guidance to implement leadership
and command training for new PICs. The THRR ARC also considered
leadership training for all PICs, including the MLP ARC recommendations
in this area. The THRR ARC stated that current upgrade training ``does
not necessarily provide education to the new PIC on his or her
leadership role.'' The THRR ARC also stated that ``Crew Resource
Management training, required for all air carriers, contains some
elements of the desired leadership training, but is not designed to aid
the PIC in assuming a leadership role in the aircraft and the air
carrier as the training envisioned by this ARC would.'' See Report from
the THRR ARC at p. 17. The THRR ARC agreed with the MLP ARC to require
leadership and command training for SICs attempting to qualify as PIC
for the first time in a specific aircraft type. The THRR ARC also
agreed with the MLP ARC that this course should be separate from
current upgrade training requirements and consist of two segments.
However, the THRR ARC disagreed with the MLP ARC recommendation for a
minimum of 32 hours of training. The THRR ARC recommended using an
instructional system design (ISD) process which would allow each air
carrier to determine the training time. The THRR ARC was also concerned
that a prescribed minimum training time would not address scalability
concerns of small air carriers.
    Additionally, the THRR ARC concurred with the MLP ARC that a
facilitated discussion was a key component of a leadership and command
course. However, the THRR ARC stated that additional items in a
leadership and command course may be suitable for distance learning.
    The FAA agrees with the MLP ARC and THRR ARC recommendations to
require leadership and command training for all SICs attempting to
qualify as PIC for the first time in a specific aircraft type but does
not agree with the recommendation that leadership and command training
should be separate from the upgrade syllabus. Further, the FAA believes
that the MLP ARC recommendations for a specific minimum number of
training hours and in-person training are unnecessarily prescriptive.
The FAA agrees with the THRR ARC and NACA positions pertaining to the
necessity of flexibility in the development of leadership and command
training. Accordingly, the FAA is proposing a comprehensive revision to
the SIC to PIC upgrade training requirements to include leadership and
command training in a performance based curriculum. The FAA's proposals
regarding PIC leadership and command training and upgrade training are
addressed in further detail in the portion of the document titled
``III. Discussion of the Proposal, C. PIC Leadership and Command
Training'' and ``III. Discussion of the Proposal, E. SIC to PIC Upgrade
(Sec. Sec.  121.420 and 121.426).''
e. Enhancements to Recurrent Training To Include Leadership and Command
Training
    Based on section 206(a)(1)(E) of Public Law 111-216, the FAA asked
the MLP ARC to consider and address enhancements to recurrent training
to include leadership and command. In response to this tasking, the MLP
ARC determined that there is no current regulatory requirement for
leadership and command training in recurrent training. The MLP ARC
recommended that part 121 air carriers enhance recurrent training by
integrating leadership and command components into the various forms of
recurrent training (e.g. distance instruction, classroom, FSTD
briefing, and FSTD training). The MLP ARC recommended that the
leadership and command components that an air carrier incorporates into
annual recurrent training as emphasis items be determined by the PDSC,
with all components being included in recurrent training at least once
during a 4-year cycle. Further, the MLP ARC recommended that special
emphasis be given to sterile flight deck procedures.
    The FAA agrees with the MLP ARC recommendation to include
leadership and command in recurrent training and also agrees that the
delivery of recurrent leadership and command training may be
accomplished through a range of methods. However, the FAA does not
agree with the MLP ARC recommendation regarding the frequency for
recurrent leadership and command training. Since leadership and command
skills are used regularly, during every flight, and therefore are less
susceptible to degradation, the FAA does not believe it is necessary to
require leadership and command training annually. Further, the FAA does
not agree with the MLP ARC recommendation that the PDSC should
determine the content of the training. Development of training
curriculums is the responsibility of air carrier management. This
component of the FAA's proposal is addressed in further detail in the
portion of the document titled ``III. Discussion of the Proposal, G.
Recurrent Leadership and Command Training and Mentoring Training
(Sec. Sec.  121.409(b) and 121.427).''
f. Other Actions That May Enhance Professional Development
    Based on section 206(a)(1)(F) of Public Law 111-216, the FAA asked
the MLP ARC to consider and address ``Other actions that may enhance
crewmember professional development.'' The MLP ARC made

three recommendations in this area: (1) Enhancements to knowledge tests
and practical test standards (PTS); (2) bachelor's degree for pilots in
part 121 operations; and (3) leadership and command training for pilots
currently employed.
Enhancements to Knowledge Tests and PTS
    The MLP ARC stated ``that in order to ensure that an ATP pilot
applicant at any part 121 air carrier has a foundational knowledge of
the concepts of professional development, leadership, and command; the
PTS requirements for the Commercial, Flight Instructor, and ATP
certificates should incorporate these elements into the written,
practical, and/or oral portions of pilot certification.'' See Report
from the MLP ARC at p. 29.
    The FAA agrees with the intent of the recommendation to ensure ATP
applicants at a part 121 air carrier have the foundational knowledge of
professional development, leadership and command. However, the FAA does
not agree with the recommended approach of amending the PTS because the
FAA believes the Pilot Certification rule addressed this
recommendation.
    As previously discussed, the Pilot Certification rule, issued after
the MLP ARC developed its recommendations, requires all pilots in part
121 operations to hold an ATP certificate and a type rating. Further,
the Pilot Certification rule requires ATP applicants to complete an
ATP-CTP that provides foundational knowledge in leadership and command,
professional development, and CRM. Additionally, as stated in the Pilot
Certification rule, the ATP-CTP course topics will be incorporated into
the ATP knowledge test. See 78 FR at 42368.
Bachelor's Degree for Pilots in Part 121 Operations
    The MLP ARC recommended that pilots hired by part 121 air carriers
be required to have a minimum of a bachelor`s degree or equivalent
military flight training. NACA provided a dissenting view that many
highly qualified and experienced applicants may be eliminated due to
this requirement. NACA believes each carrier should be able to set its
own hiring qualifications.
    As indicated in the 2012 Pilot Source Study, there was no
difference in the completion rate of a part 121 air carrier's training
program between pilots with a bachelor's degree and pilots without a
bachelor's degree.\21\ Although the Pilot Source Study did indicate
pilots with at least an associate degree in aviation had a higher
completion rate of part 121 air carrier training programs, the FAA
believes each air carrier should have the flexibility to set its own
hiring requirements for higher education. Therefore, this proposal does
not include a requirement for part 121 pilots to have a bachelor's
degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The 2012 Pilot Source Study is available in the docket for
this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leadership and Command Training for Pilots Currently Employed
    The MLP ARC recommended that each air carrier`s PDSC develop a
process or training program to ensure that all PICs are qualified in
the principles of the entire leadership and command program. In
addition, the MLP ARC recommended that each air carrier's PDSC develop
a process or training program that ensures all pilots at an air carrier
understand the entire professional development and mentoring programs.
    The FAA agrees with the intent of the recommendation to ensure all
PICs have completed the air carrier's training in leadership and
command and is proposing a requirement for all current PICs to complete
leadership and command training equivalent to the leadership and
command training in the air carrier's upgrade ground training. However,
the regulatory framework for part 121 training program designates the
development of an approved pilot training curriculum as the exclusive
responsibility of air carrier management, not a committee such as the
PDSC. This component of the FAA's proposal is addressed in the portion
of the document titled, ``III. Discussion of the Proposal, F. Training
for Pilots Currently Serving as PIC (Sec.  121.429).''
    Finally, the FAA agrees with the intent of the recommendation to
ensure all pilots at an air carrier understand the professional
development and mentoring programs. However, the FAA believes this
recommendation is the responsibility of each air carrier's Pilot
Professional Development Committee (PPDC) in developing, administering,
and overseeing a formal pilot mentoring program. Therefore, this
proposal does not include a separate requirement to address this
recommendation.

III. Discussion of the Proposal

A. Applicability, Effective Date, and Compliance Date

    This proposal affects operators that train and qualify pilots in
accordance with part 121 and therefore primarily affects certificate
holders conducting part 121 operations. Certificate holders that
conduct operations under part 121 may train and qualify pilots in
accordance with the provisions of current subparts N and O or under an
Advanced Qualification Program (AQP) in accordance with subpart Y of
part 121. AQP allows for an alternative method for training and
evaluating pilots based on instructional systems design, advanced
simulation equipment, and comprehensive data analysis to continuously
validate curriculums. Requirements of subparts N and O that are not
specifically addressed in the certificate holder's AQP continue to
apply to the certificate holder and to the individuals being trained
and qualified by the certificate holder. See Sec.  121.903(b). Although
the proposed rule does not make any changes to subpart Y, after the new
subparts N and O training requirements become effective (60 days after
publication of a final rule in the Federal Register), certificate
holders that use AQP would have to review their training curriculums to
make sure they address the new subparts N and O requirements before the
proposed compliance date (24 months after the effective date).
    Additionally, the proposal affects some certificate holders
conducting part 135 commuter operations.\22\ Further, operators
conducting operations under 91K or under part 135 authorized to
voluntarily comply with subparts N and O of part 121 may also be
affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all of the proposals in this NPRM, the FAA is proposing an
effective date of 60 days after publication of a final rule in the
Federal Register. However, the FAA is proposing 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, as indicated in the regulatory
text. Under this proposal, all PICs would have to complete leadership
and command and mentoring training no later than the compliance date.
The FAA expects that the delayed compliance date would allow sufficient
time for air carriers to revise training curriculums, receive FAA
approval of those curriculums, train the instructors who would conduct

the training, and provide this training to all PICs.
    In addition, although compliance with the revised upgrade
curriculum requirements would not be required until 24 months after the
effective date, the FAA proposes to provide flexibility by allowing
those air carriers that choose to comply earlier to do so. The proposed
revisions to Sec. Sec.  121.419 and 121.424 would allow an air carrier
to include in its approved training program either the existing upgrade
curriculum or the revised upgrade curriculum until the compliance date.

B. Operations Familiarization (Sec.  121.432)

    Currently, a pilot newly employed by an air carrier may serve as a
pilot in part 121 operations without first observing actual operations
conducted by the air carrier. The MLP ARC, however, recommended that
all pilots complete one or more observation flights before beginning
service with a part 121 operator as one of a number of revisions to air
carrier indoctrination training. The MLP ARC identified observation
flights as providing a valuable introduction for new-hire pilots to an
air carrier's operations and company procedures. The MLP ARC explained
that, ``[t]hese flights should be used as an integral part of the
indoctrination training process helping to reinforce information
learned during training and ease the transition to line operations.''
See Report from the MLP ARC at p. 17.
    The FAA is aware that some air carriers already recognize the
benefit of these flights and currently require operations
familiarization flights for newly employed pilots. Additionally, the
ACSPT ARC also identified observations flights as a best practice in
use at several air carriers. The ACSPT ARC indicated that observation
flights allow a new-hire pilot to be better prepared to serve in line
operations because the pilot would have gained familiarity with typical
line operations ``without becoming task saturated in the control seat
of a new, unfamiliar environment.'' See Report from the ACSPT ARC at p.
37.
    The FAA agrees with the MLP ARC recommendation for observation
flights and proposes to add a requirement for newly employed pilots to
complete operations familiarization before beginning operating
experience and serving as a pilot in part 121 operations for the air
carrier.\23\ See Sec.  121.434. The operations familiarization must
include at least two operating cycles \24\ during part 121 operations
conducted by the air carrier. During the operating cycles, the newly
employed pilot must occupy the flight deck observer seat and use a
headset that allows the newly employed pilot to listen to the
communications between the required flightcrew members and air traffic
control. The proposed operations familiarization may occur in any
airplane type operated by the air carrier in part 121 operations
because the FAA believes that each air carrier's processes are similar
among airplane types. Operations familiarization during or soon after
the completion of basic indoctrination training would provide newly
employed pilots with an opportunity to observe from the flight deck in
a real world environment, the unique characteristics of the air
carrier's operations and the specialized processes learned during basic
indoctrination training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The FAA clarifies that a person completing conversion
training after serving as a flight engineer for the air carrier is
not a ``newly employed pilot.'' This person is completing training
to serve in a new flightcrew member duty position but is not ``newly
employed'' by the air carrier.
    \24\ Section 121.431(b) defines operating cycle as ``a complete
flight segment consisting of a takeoff, climb, enroute portion,
descent, and a landing.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to achieve the operations familiarization goals, the FAA
believes that a minimum of two operating cycles are necessary to
provide the newly employed pilot with sufficient exposure to an air
carrier's operations and processes. During each flight, the newly
employed pilot may observe different operational events, processes and
briefings (e.g., types of departures and arrivals, airports, ramp
operations, checklist sequences, varying weather, and navigation
methods). In addition, two operating cycles may allow the newly
employed pilot to observe two different flight crews, as well as a
complete round trip.
    The FAA expects each pilot completing operations familiarization to
remain on the flight deck and in the observer seat for takeoff and
landing as well as during the en route portion of the flight. These
pilots may, however, leave the flight deck to attend to physiological
needs, and during long haul operations, for reasonable rest breaks.
    Finally, the FAA recognizes that certain airplanes used in part 121
operations do not have an observer seat in the flight deck. Therefore,
the proposed rule provides a process for an air carrier to request a
deviation from the operations familiarization requirements to meet the
learning objectives through another means.

C. PIC Leadership and Command Training

1. General Description and Objectives
    Although the MLP ARC and the ACSPT ARC reported that some air
carriers provided leadership and command training, the current part 121
training requirements do not specifically require air carrier training
programs to include leadership and command instruction. 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
standard operating procedures. Accordingly, an air carrier's leadership
and command training should include subjects such as leadership
characteristics, types of leaders, leadership strategies, roles of a
leader, leadership styles, command responsibility and authority, sound
decisions and awareness.
    Consistent with the MLP ARC recommendation to ensure all PICs are
qualified in the principles of leadership and command, the FAA is
proposing to require all PICs serving in part 121 operations to
complete leadership and command training. Specifically, the FAA is
proposing 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 is also proposing 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 FAA has drafted an AC containing guidelines for the development
of leadership and command training and provided a copy of this document
in the docket for this rulemaking. The FAA seeks comment on this draft
AC.
2. Distance Instruction
    Although the MLP ARC recommended facilitated in-person training for
leadership and command, this proposal does not place restrictions on
distance instruction as long as the leadership and command training
objectives can be satisfied. The FAA believes that the MLP ARC and THRR
ARC recommendations for a facilitated discussion during leadership and
command training can be accomplished either in-person or with existing
technology. Moreover, the proposal for leadership and command training
is not

limited to ground training. The FAA has proposed that leadership and
command must be demonstrated during the flight training portion of the
upgrade curriculum and during recurrent LOFT. The FAA seeks comment,
however, on whether restrictions on distance instruction are necessary
to ensure the effectiveness of the leadership and command components of
PIC training. The FAA asks commenters to specify 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.

D. PIC Mentoring Training

    The FAA proposes 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 mentoring research
literature indicates that mentor training is one of the most important
and agreed upon elements for effective mentoring. See Report from CAMI
p. 22 and 23. The proposed mentoring training would include techniques
for instilling and reinforcing the highest standards of technical
performance, airmanship, and professionalism in newly employed pilots.
By providing mentoring training to all PICs serving in part 121
operations, the opportunity exists for a PIC to mentor an SIC during
each duty day. Accordingly, the benefits of SIC mentoring would be
maximized by requiring all PICs to complete mentoring training.
    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 has included mentoring
skills in upgrade ground training because it complements the other
related PIC ``soft skills'' (i.e., leadership and command and CRM). The
FAA believes that collectively these ``soft skills'' would enhance
pilot professionalism. Further, all current PICs would also be required
to complete the PIC upgrade ground training on mentoring skills to
create a comprehensive and consistent mentoring environment.
    The FAA has developed a draft AC that provides guidelines for
developing and implementing mentoring training for PICs and provided a
copy of this document in the docket for this rulemaking. The FAA seeks
comment on this draft AC.
    In addition, this proposal leverages the experience requirements
required by the Pilot Certification rule for all PICs serving in part
121 operations. The Pilot Certification rule raised the experience
requirements for all PICs serving in part 121 operations by requiring
at least 1,000 hours of air carrier experience.\25\ Therefore, the FAA
believes the increased experience requirements of the Pilot
Certification rule together with this proposal would ensure every newly
employed pilot is paired, on every flight, with an experienced pilot
who can serve as a mentor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Section 121.436(a)(3) requires a pilot in command serving
in part 121 operations to have 1,000 hours as second in command in
part 121 operations, pilot in command in operations under Sec.
91.1053(a)(2)(i), pilot in command in operations under Sec.
135.243(a)(1), or any combination thereof.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Currently, subpart N and appendix E of part 121 allow pilots who
have previously qualified as SIC on an airplane type to complete
upgrade training to qualify as PIC on that same airplane type. See
Sec. Sec.  121.400(c)(3), 121.415, and 121.433(a)(2). The upgrade
training requirements in subpart N and appendix E of part 121
presuppose that upon entering the upgrade curriculum, the pilot holds
only a commercial pilot certificate with a multi-engine land class
rating and no type rating on that airplane. As a result of this
presupposition, the upgrade training requirements are focused on
developing the technical knowledge and skills necessary to hold an ATP
certificate and type rating for that airplane. However, the current
role served by an SIC in part 121 operations as well as the current SIC
qualification requirements no longer support this foundation for
upgrade training requirements.
    The historic division of responsibilities between the PIC and SIC
has advanced over time from a flight deck environment where the PIC
typically served as the pilot flying and the SIC typically served
exclusively as the pilot monitoring. As this progression occurred,
throughout various rulemakings, the FAA has amended the training,
qualification, and experience requirements of SICs to recognize this
advancement in SIC responsibilities. In the current air carrier
environment, both the PIC and SIC share pilot flying and pilot
monitoring responsibilities. Thus, in the Pilot Certification rule the
FAA determined that it was appropriate to require an SIC to train to
the same level of airplane handling and proficiency as the PIC by
obtaining an airplane type rating. See 78 FR at 42354. As a result,
with the Pilot Certification rule, the FAA elevated the qualifications
of all SICs.
    With the changes put in place by the Pilot Certification rule, all
SICs serving in part 121 operations must now hold an ATP certificate
and type rating for the airplane in which they serve. Additionally, a
pilot must have a minimum of 1,000 hours of air carrier experience to
serve as a PIC. This means that SICs will have already demonstrated
technical mastery of the airplane at the ATP certificate level when
they begin upgrade training. Therefore, the FAA is proposing revised
upgrade training requirements to account for this evolution in SIC
qualification and experience requirements. The following 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.
1. Performance-Based Curriculum
    The FAA is proposing a performance-based upgrade curriculum. The
proposal removes 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 refocuses 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 continues
to include rare, but high-risk scenarios. The FAA believes this
approach would continue to allow air carriers to develop a robust
upgrade curriculum specific to their operations and airplane types, and
provides the opportunity for air carriers to more effectively target
PIC-specific responsibilities and duties.
    Consistent with existing upgrade curriculum requirements, the
proposal does not specify a minimum number of training hours. However,
because the FAA has removed the requirement to train the entire range
of Sec.  121.419 subjects and appendix E tasks in upgrade training, the
FAA believes 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.

2. Revised Upgrade Curriculum Requirements
a. Seat Dependent and Duty Position Maneuvers and Procedures
    The proposed upgrade ground and flight training must include seat
dependent maneuvers and procedures as well as duty position maneuvers
and procedures. 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. For example, in some airplane
types, the tiller used to steer the airplane while taxiing on the
ground is only accessible from the left seat. In these airplane types,
upgrade training must include the maneuvers and procedures for taxiing
from the seat in which the operator expects the PIC to serve.\26\ The
number of seat dependent maneuvers and procedures would vary among air
carriers due to variations in the design of airplane types; some
airplane types may not have any seat dependent maneuvers and procedures
while other airplane types may have several.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Duty position maneuvers and procedures include tasks specified by
the airplane manufacturer, air carrier, or the Administrator, as PIC or
SIC only tasks. For example, some air carrier procedures specify that
only the PIC may perform a circling approach. In this instance, upgrade
training must include the maneuvers and procedures for circling
approaches. Additionally, certain maneuvers and procedures require
coordinated action between the PIC and SIC to accomplish the maneuver
or procedure. For these maneuvers and procedures, the air carrier's
standard operating procedures will specify who (SIC or PIC) performs
each step of the maneuver or procedure. For example, during engine
start, the PIC may perform the communication and coordination with the
ramp personnel while the SIC physically turns the switch to engage the
engine starter. In this instance, upgrade training must include engine
start to train the pilot on the PIC required actions. The duty position
procedures and maneuvers would vary by airplane type and air carrier.
However, it is expected that all air carriers would have some duty
position procedures, such as completion of weight and balance or
variations of pre-flight, engine start, taxi and post-flight duties.
b. Leadership and Command and CRM
    Under this proposal, upgrade ground training must include
leadership and command, as well as CRM. CRM training includes decision
making, authority and responsibility, and conflict resolution. The
proposed upgrade flight training must include scenario-based training
structured to incorporate CRM and leadership and command. The purpose
of this scenario-based training is to provide the pilot with an
opportunity to use these ``soft skills'' learned in ground training in
a realistic flight environment.
    Scenario-based training should address specific training objectives
based on technical and soft skills. As such, the scenario-based
training may consist of full or partial flight segments and would
necessarily vary, depending on the training objectives. Examples of
scenarios include, but are not limited to, mechanical malfunctions,
passenger medical events, changing weather, or security concerns. An
effective scenario would provide an opportunity for the PIC to identify
available resources, obtain information from those resources, analyze
that information, apply decision-making techniques, and communicate and
coordinate with ATC, the aircraft dispatcher, and other crewmembers, as
appropriate. The FAA believes this scenario-based training would ensure
the effective integration of these ``soft skills'' with technical
skills.
c. Mentoring
    The proposed upgrade ground training must include mentoring, to
include techniques for instilling and reinforcing the highest standards
of technical performance, airmanship, and professionalism in newly
employed pilots.
d. Low-Altitude Windshear and Extended Envelope Flight Training
    The proposed 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.
e. Additional Flight Training
    The proposed upgrade curriculum also 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 (SMS), 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).\27\ For
example, an air carrier may be authorized by FAA to conduct operations
using lower than standard takeoff minima. As a condition of this
authorization, each PIC must have completed training in the duty
position for the applicable takeoff minima authorized for the air
carrier.\28\ Therefore, in this instance, upgrade training must include
takeoff maneuvers using the lower standard minima authorized for the
air carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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.
    \28\ Operations specification C078, IFR Lower Than Standard
Takeoff Minim, 14 CFR part 121 Airplane Operations--All Airports
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, 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. For example, a carrier authorized to conduct circling
approaches may determine that the circling approach maneuver is
required during upgrade flight training due to the altered visual
references available to the pilot from the left pilot seat.
3. Upgrade Proficiency Check Requirements
    To ensure a proficient PIC, the FAA proposes to revise the waiver
provisions for a Sec.  121.441 proficiency check completed after
upgrade ground and flight training. Section 121.441 allows a person
conducting a proficiency check to waive certain maneuvers if, among
other requirements, the pilot has ``within the preceding six calendar
months, satisfactorily completed an approved training program for the
particular type airplane.'' This waiver authority is premised on the
requirement for the pilot to demonstrate proficiency in all maneuvers
and procedures specified in appendix E during flight training. Since
the proposed upgrade training requirements do not require pilots to
complete all maneuvers and procedures in appendix E during training,
proficiency must still be demonstrated for all maneuvers and procedures
in appendix F during the proficiency check completed after upgrade
training. Accordingly, the waiver provisions in Sec.  121.441 and

appendix F would no longer be appropriate for the proficiency check
completed after upgrade training. The waiver provisions for recurrent
proficiency checks and proficiency checks after completion of initial,
conversion, or transition training are unchanged.
4. Effect of Revised Upgrade Curriculum on Recurrent Training
    To serve as a pilot in part 121 operations, a pilot must
satisfactorily complete recurrent ground and flight training within 12
calendar months preceding service as a pilot. See Sec. Sec.  121.427
and 121.433(c). In order to track when this training is due, industry
practice is to assign the pilot a ``base'' month; the month when
recurrent training is due. A pilot may have a different base month for
ground training and flight training. An air carrier may change a
pilot's base month (i.e., reset it to an earlier month in the 12-month
recurrent interval) if the air carrier ensures that the pilot has met
all requirements of recurrent training. Satisfactory completion of a
qualification curriculum may provide an air carrier with an opportunity
to reset a pilot's base month if the qualification curriculum includes
the recurrent training requirements.
    Under this proposal, 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.
The proposed upgrade requirements continue to meet the recurrent flight
training requirements of Sec.  121.427. However, under this proposal,
an air carrier may not reset a pilot's base month for recurrent ground
training based upon a pilot's satisfactory completion of the proposed
upgrade ground training because the proposed upgrade curriculum
requirements do not include all the subjects required by Sec.  121.427
for recurrent ground training.
    As is the case today, a pilot's base month for recurrent ground
training may only be changed upon completion of upgrade ground training
if the air carrier's upgrade curriculum includes all recurrent ground
training requirements of Sec.  121.427.\29\ The FAA is aware that some
carriers designed their upgrade curriculums to include all recurrent
ground training requirements to change the pilot's base month while
other carriers designed their upgrade curriculums to only include the
upgrade ground training requirements without a change to the pilot's
base month. Therefore, the FAA expects the change to upgrade ground
training to have a minimal impact on recurrent training because air
carriers may continue to design their upgrade curriculums in the same
manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 19, Section 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As discussed previously, the MLP ARC recommended that air carriers
qualify all PICs in the principles of leadership and command. The MLP
ARC also recommended the creation of a mentoring environment by
training all PICs on mentoring skills. Consistent with these MLP ARC
recommendations, the FAA is proposing 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 believes 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 in Sec.  121.429. The MLP ARC
and the ACSPT ARC reported that some air carriers have voluntarily
provided leadership and command training to PICs. See Report from the
MLP ARC at p. 22 and Report from ACSPT ARC at p. 10.
    Therefore, the FAA proposes 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 seeks
comment on the proposal to allow credit for previously completed
training at that air carrier, specifically:
    (1) Whether and to what extent air carriers are already providing
leadership and command training and/or mentoring training for current
PICs as described in the draft ACs included in the docket for this
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 should the FAA consider in
determining whether all or part of the requirements have been met with
previous training; and
    (5) What criteria and documentation should the FAA consider in
determining whether a PIC completed all or part of the previous
training at that air carrier.

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

    Consistent with the MLP ARC recommendation for enhancing recurrent
training, the FAA proposes to require recurrent training on leadership
and command for all PICs serving in part 121 operations. The FAA also
proposes to require recurrent training on mentoring skills for all PICs
serving in part 121 operations.
    The purpose of recurrent training is to ensure that flightcrew
members remain competent in the performance of their assigned duties.
The FAA has previously recognized that the necessary frequency for
recurrent training is not the same for all subject areas and tasks. For
example, most flight training tasks are required at least every 12
months, however, extended envelope flight training tasks are only
required every 24 or 36 months.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Sec. Sec.  121.423 and 121.427.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MLP ARC recommended that recurrent training include selected
items from leadership and command training every year with all
components being included at least once during a 4-year cycle. However,
the FAA does not believe that it is necessary to require leadership and
command training to be completed on an annual basis. Rather, the FAA
believes the appropriate frequency for recurrent leadership and command
and mentoring training is at least once every 36 months because these
skills are used regularly, during every flight, and therefore are less
susceptible to degradation. Therefore, the FAA proposes to require
recurrent ground training on leadership and command and mentoring for
PICs every 36 calendar months.
    Currently, air carriers may substitute LOFT that meets the
requirements of Sec.  121.409, for the recurrent proficiency check
requirement specified in Sec.  121.441. LOFT is flight training
conducted in an FFS using real-time scenarios of complete flight
segments that address normal, non-normal, or emergency procedures and
provides training in CRM. The FAA proposes to modify the existing
recurrent LOFT scenario requirements in Sec.  121.409. Specifically,
the FAA proposes that the LOFT scenario must provide each PIC an
opportunity to demonstrate leadership and command. This proposed
amendment to recurrent LOFT is consistent with the proposal for upgrade
flight training to include scenario-based training that

incorporates leadership and command skills. Additionally, it would
provide an opportunity for the PIC to practice the integration of
leadership and command skills with technical skills. The proposed
requirement to include leadership and command skills during recurrent
LOFT does not place any additional FFS time burden on air carriers who
substitute LOFT for recurrent proficiency check requirements because
the requirement can be met during the ordinary course of any LOFT that
is currently part of an air carrier's training program. However there
may be some burden due to the need to amend an air carrier's training
program. This burden has been reflected in the information collection
requirements that are discussed in Section IV Regulatory Notices and
Analyses, E. Paperwork Reduction Act.

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

    The FAA's proposal to provide leadership and command training and
mentoring training to PICs is consistent with the rulemaking
requirements in Public Law 111-216. However, the FAA has long
recognized 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 (except for operating experience).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Sec.  121.432(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the current requirement for the SIC serving in an
augmented flightcrew to be fully qualified to act as PIC, the FAA is
considering including the requirements for leadership and command
training and mentoring training in the requirements for these SICs.\32\
Accordingly, the FAA seeks comment on the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 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 in-flight rest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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;
    (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.

I. Pilot Professional Development Committee (Sec.  121.17)

    Public Law 111-216 and the MLP ARC report suggest that air carriers
can maximize the benefits of the existing pilot operating rules and
pilot training and evaluation through formal pilot mentoring programs.
Accordingly, the FAA proposes 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.
    The FAA's proposal to require each certificate holder conducting
part 121 operations to establish a PPDC is based on the premise that
the PPDC must consider the attributes of the carrier itself in order to
design a mentoring program. The mentoring research literature indicates
one mentoring program approach will not necessarily fit all air
carriers and it is important that the goals and objectives of the
mentoring program are firmly tied to the air carrier's culture. See
Report from CAMI pp. 20, 21, 30 and 46. Therefore, to develop,
administer, and oversee a formal pilot mentoring program, the FAA
believes the PPDC would need to consider many factors, including the
air carrier's size and scope of operation (e.g., number of pilots,
number of aircraft, number of operations, types of operations, and
locations of operations), unique organizational culture, and unique
hiring and advancement practices. For example, the pilots at a smaller
air carrier with few bases of operation may have more frequent
opportunities for ``in person'' mentoring during the course of a duty
day than pilots at a larger air carrier with numerous bases and pilots.
Alternatively, pilots at larger air carriers may utilize technology
(e.g. video conferencing) to create mentoring opportunities. These are
just two examples of why the FAA believes the parameters for a formal
pilot mentoring program must be designed by the PPDC for each air
carrier.
    The FAA proposes to require the PPDC to meet frequently enough to
accomplish the objectives of the committee. Although the MLP ARC
recommended quarterly meetings, the FAA believes that the same factors
would affect the frequency of meetings. For example, the PPDC at a
small carrier with limited hiring and advancement may not need to meet
as frequently as at a larger carrier in order to accomplish and sustain
the same mentoring program objectives. However, the FAA expects that in
order for the PPDC to be effective, the committee must meet at least
once a year. The FAA further notes that an air carrier may take
advantage of existing labor-management collaborative initiatives and
incorporate the PPDC into an existing committee structure.
    The proposal includes minimum staffing requirements for the PPDC.
Specifically, the FAA proposes that the PPDC must consist of at least
one management representative and at least one representative of the
air carrier's pilots. The FAA believes that mentoring programs at each
air carrier would realize the most benefit by including the perspective
and participation of both the air carrier's management and its pilots.
    The FAA used the term management representative to mean any person
who has been designated to represent management's perspective on pilot
mentoring. The FAA does not believe that it is necessary to require a
part 119 management official to oversee the committee. Therefore, to
account for the varying sizes and organizational structures of part 121
air carriers, the FAA proposal specifies qualification requirements for
the management representative who serves on the committee instead of
adding a requirement for a new part 119 management official to serve
this purpose.
    The proposal requires at least one management representative who
serves on the carrier's PPDC to (1) have at least 1 year experience
serving as a PIC in part 121 operations, and (2) be qualified through
training, experience, and expertise relevant to the PPDC's
responsibilities. The specific qualifications for the management
representative are intended to capture relevant operational experience
and do not include the MLP ARC recommendation for a bachelor's degree
because a highly qualified and experienced person could be eliminated
with this requirement.
    The FAA has developed draft guidance pertaining to a PPDC and the
development, administration, and oversight of a formal pilot mentoring
program. The FAA seeks comment on this draft guidance which can be
found in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The FAA also seeks comments on whether a PPDC and a formal pilot
mentoring program is necessary in light of the FAA's proposal to
require all PICs

to complete mentoring training, including recurrent mentoring training.
Although addressed in full in the ``PIC Mentoring Training'' discussion
in this preamble, by providing training on mentoring to all PICs, all
newly employed 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.

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

    Currently, Sec.  121.427 specifies the minimum content and training
hours for pilot recurrent ground training. The minimum content
requirements include instruction in the subjects required for initial
ground training.
    Prior to the Pilot Certification rule, Sec.  121.419 contained
pilot initial ground training requirements applicable to all pilots in
part 121 operations. However, the Pilot Certification rule resulted in
different initial ground training requirements for pilots who have
completed the ATP-CTP.
    The Pilot Certification rule created new prerequisite certification
training (i.e., the ATP-CTP) and experience requirements that pilots
must now achieve before starting initial training at an air carrier.
The ATP-CTP requirements include ground training in general knowledge
areas for airplanes and environments relevant to air carrier
operations. As a result, the ATP-CTP establishes a foundational
knowledge base that additional airplane type-specific and air carrier-
specific qualification training is built upon when a pilot completes
training at an air carrier.
    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.\33\ As a result of the revisions to the required
initial ground training subjects for pilots who have completed the ATP-
CTP, the Pilot Certification rule also reduced the minimum programmed
hours for this revised initial ground training by 10 hours. See Sec.
121.419(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ For example, the ATP-CTP must include instruction on
transport category aircraft performance. As indicated in AC 61-138
Airline Transport Pilot Certification Training Program, instruction
on transport category aircraft performance should include an
introduction to air carrier weight and balance systems. Therefore,
for pilots who have completed the ATP-CTP, the Pilot Certification
rule revised the initial ground training requirements to remove
``principles of weight and balance'' and focus the training on the
air carrier's specific method for determining weight and balance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the FAA revised the initial ground training subjects, the FAA
did not address the effects of this change on recurrent ground
training. Since the required content of recurrent ground training is
based, in part, on the content of initial ground training, the content
of recurrent ground training may also be reduced for pilots who have
completed the revised initial ground training requirements. For these
pilots, the recurrent ground training requirement to include initial
ground training is satisfied by including only those initial ground
training subjects in Sec.  121.419(b). Currently, recurrent training
for pilots who have not completed the ATP-CTP must continue to include
those initial ground training subjects in Sec.  121.419(a). However,
there is no basis for differentiating recurrent ground training
requirements based on different initial ground training requirements.
    In the time since the part 121 recurrent training requirements were
established, the qualification, experience, and training requirements
for all pilots in part 121 operations have significantly increased; the
latest changes resulting from both the certification standards from the
Pilot Certification rule and the additional knowledge and skill
requirements required from the Qualification, Service, and Use of
Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule. Further, air carrier
training programs have also evolved in their maturity such that the
general knowledge elements are no longer necessary to support the
objectives of recurrent training.
    Accordingly, the FAA proposes to remove from the 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. This
creates a single standard for recurrent ground training
requirements.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ To implement the proposed amendments to recurrent ground
training content for pilots, the FAA proposes revisions to Sec.
121.427(b), that separate the recurrent ground training requirements
by training population. Additionally, the FAA proposes 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the proposed reduction in recurrent ground training content,
the FAA further proposes a reduction in required minimum programmed
hours for pilot recurrent ground training. Although the FAA does not
require a specific amount of minimum time for each particular subject,
after comparing the subjects required during recurrent ground training
prior to and after the Pilot Certification rule, the FAA believes that
a one hour reduction in required minimum programmed hours for pilot
recurrent ground training is appropriate. Accordingly, the FAA proposes
to further amend Sec.  121.427 by reducing by one hour the minimum
programmed hours required annually for pilot recurrent ground training.
    Notwithstanding this proposal, pilots must still complete recurrent
extended envelope ground training and the associated programmed hours.
Also, in addition to the annual minimum programmed hours, the FAA
proposes that PICs must complete leadership and command and mentoring
training every 36 months.

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

    In addition to air carriers conducting part 121 operations, some
additional operators use pilot training and qualification programs that
comply with subparts N and O of part 121. Those operators include the
following:
     Operators conducting commuter operations with airplanes in
which the airplanes' type certificate requires two pilots are required
by Sec.  135.3(b) to comply with the training and qualification
requirements in subparts N and O of part 121 instead of the
requirements in subparts E, G, and H of part 135.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 14 CFR 110.2 definition of commuter operation.
    Commuter operation means any scheduled operation conducted by
any person operating one of the following types of aircraft with a
frequency of operations of at least five round trips per week on at
least one route between two or more points according to the
published flight schedules:
    (1) Airplanes, other than turbojet-powered airplanes, having a
maximum passenger-seat configuration of 9 seats or less, excluding
each crewmember seat, and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds
or less; or
    (2) Rotorcraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Operators conducting part 135 operations authorized to
voluntarily comply with the training and qualification requirements in
subparts N and O of part 121 instead of the requirements in subparts E,
G, and H of part 135.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See Sec.  135.3(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Fractional ownership program managers conducting
operations under subpart K of part 91, authorized to

voluntarily comply with the training and qualification requirements in
subparts N and O of part 121 instead of the requirements in 14 CFR
91.1065 through 91.1107.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------