[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30232-30284]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12800]

Vol. 83

Wednesday,

No. 124

June 27, 2018

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Aviation Administration

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

14 CFR Parts 1, 60, 61, et al.

Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot Certification,
Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 /
Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 1, 60, 61, 63, 65, 91, 121, 135, and 141

[Docket No.: FAA-2016-6142; Amdt. Nos. 1-73, 60-6, 61-142, 63-41, 65-
58, 91-351, 121-381, 135-140, 141-20]
RIN 2120-AK28

Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot
Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rulemaking relieves burdens on pilots seeking to obtain
aeronautical experience, training, and certification by increasing the
allowed use of aviation training devices. Use of these training devices
has proven to be an effective, safe, and affordable means of obtaining
pilot experience. This rulemaking also addresses changing technologies
by accommodating the use of technically advanced airplanes as an
alternative to the use of older complex single engine airplanes for the
commercial pilot training and testing requirements. Additionally, this
rulemaking broadens the opportunities for military instructor pilots or
pilot examiners to obtain civilian ratings based on military
experience, expands opportunities for logging pilot time, and removes a
burden from sport pilot instructors by permitting them to serve as
safety pilots. Finally, this rulemaking includes changes to some of the
provisions established in an August 2009 final rule. These actions are
necessary to bring the regulations in line with current needs and
activities of the general aviation training community and pilots.

DATES: This rule is effective July 27, 2018, except for the amendments
to Sec. Sec.  61.31(e)(2) and (f)(2), 61.129(a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii) and
(j), 61.197, 61.199, 61.412, 61.415, 91.109, and appendix D to part
141, which are effective August 27, 2018; the amendments to Sec. Sec.
61.1 (amendatory instruction 10 revising the definition of ``Pilot
time''), 61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.57(c), 61.159(a), (c), (d), (e),
and (f), 61.161(c), (d), and (e), 135.99, and 141.5(d) which are
effective November 26, 2018; and the amendments to Sec. Sec.  61.3,
63.3, 63.16, 91.313, 91.1015, 121.383, and 135.95, which are effective
December 24, 2018.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcel Bernard, Airmen Certification
and Training Branch, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 55 M Street SE, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20003-3522;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents

List of Abbreviations Frequently Used in This Document
I. Executive Summary
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Discussion of the Final Rule
    A. Aviation Training Devices
    1. Definition of Aviation Training Device
    2. Instructor Requirement When Using a Full Flight Simulator,
Flight Training Device, or Aviation Training Device To Complete
Instrument Recency Experience
    3. Instrument Recency Experience Requirements
    B. Second in Command Time in Part 135 Operations
    1. Airplane Requirements
    2. Part 135 Flight Instructors
    3. Logging Requirements
    4. Miscellaneous Comments on the SIC PDP
    5. Effective Date and Implementation
    C. Instrument Recency Experience for SICs Serving in Part 135
Operations
    D. Completion of Commercial Pilot Training and Testing in
Technically Advanced Airplanes
    1. Definition of Technically Advanced Airplane
    2. Amendment to Aeronautical Experience Requirement for
Commercial Pilots
    3. Amendments to Commercial Pilot and Flight Instructor
Practical Test Standards
    E. Flight Instructors With Instrument Ratings Only
    F. Light-Sport Aircraft Pilots and Flight Instructors
    1. Sport Pilot Flight Instructor Training Privilege
    2. Credit for Training Obtained as a Sport Pilot
    G. Pilot School Use of Special Curricula Courses for Renewal of
Certificate
    H. Temporary Validation of Flightcrew Members' Certificates by
Part 119 Certificate Holders Conducting Operations Under Part 121 or
135 and by Fractional Ownership Program Managers Conducting
Operations Under Part 91, Subpart K
    I. Military Competence for Flight Instructors
    J. Use of Aircraft Certificated in the Restricted Category for
Pilot Flight Training and Checking
    1. Flights Necessary To Accomplish Work Activity Directly
Associated With the Special Purpose
    2. LODAs for Training and Testing for Certification
    3. Economic Burden
    4. Operations for Compensation or Hire
    5. Exemptions
    6. FAA Interpretation of Sec.  91.313
    K. Single Pilot Operations of Former Military Airplanes and
Other Airplanes With Special Airworthiness Certificates
    L. Technical Corrections and Nomenclature Change
IV. Discussion of Effective Dates for Rule Provisions
V. Advisory Circulars and Other Guidance Materials
VI. Section-By-Section Discussion of the Final Rule
VII. 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
VIII. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
    D. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
IX. Additional Information
    A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
    B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

List of Abbreviations Frequently Used in This Document

AATD--Advanced aviation training device
AC--Advisory Circular
ATD--Aviation training device
ATP--Airline transport pilot
BATD--Basic aviation training device
CFI--Certificated flight instructor
FFS--Full flight simulator
FTD--Flight training device
FSTD--Flight simulation training device
ICAO--International Civil Aviation Organization
IFR--Instrument flight rules
IPC--Instrument proficiency check
LOA--Letter of authorization
LODA--Letter of deviation authority
MFD--Multi-function display
NPRM--Notice of proposed rulemaking
PFD--Primary flight display
PIC--Pilot in command
SIC--Second in command
TAA--Technically advanced airplane
VFR--Visual flight rules

I. Executive Summary

    On May 12, 2016, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) titled ``Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot
Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions.'' \1\
In the

NPRM, the FAA proposed amendments to reduce or relieve existing burdens
on the general aviation community. Several of the proposed changes
resulted from suggestions from the general aviation community through
petitions for rulemaking, industry/agency meetings, and requests for
legal interpretation. The proposed changes would have increased the use
of aviation training devices (ATDs), flight training devices (FTDs),
and full flight simulators (FFSs); expanded opportunities for pilots in
part 135 operations to log flight time; allowed an alternative to the
complex airplane requirement for commercial pilot training; and
permitted pilots to credit some of their sport pilot training toward a
higher certificate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 81 FR 29720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 summarizes the provisions proposed in the NPRM, the changes
being made to those provisions in this final rule, the Code of Federal
Regulations sections affected, and the total cost savings (benefits)
for a 5-year analysis period. All of the provisions in this rule are
either relieving or voluntary. For those provisions that are relieving,
no person affected is anticipated to incur any costs associated with
the relieving nature of the provision. The FAA assumes that as these
provisions are relieving, all persons affected will use the provisions
as they will be beneficial. For those provisions that are voluntary,
persons who wish to use the new provisions will do so only if the
benefit they would accrue from their use exceeds any cost they might
incur to comply with the new provision.

                          Table 1--Summary of Proposed Provisions and Changes From NPRM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Significant
          Provision             Summary of NPRM    changes from         14 CFR Sec.  Sec.       Summary of costs/
                                   provision           NPRM                  affected               benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Aviation Training Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instructor requirement when    Remove the        No longer         61.51(g)...................  2016$-$12.5M.
 using an FFS, FTD, or ATD to   requirement to    describes the                                 PV = Present
 complete instrument recency.   have an           training                                       Value.
                                instructor        devices as                                    PV-3%--$11.4M.
                                present when      ``approved''.                                 PV-7%--$10.3M.
                                accomplishing
                                flight
                                experience
                                requirements
                                for instrument
                                recency in an
                                FAA-approved
                                FFS, FTD, or
                                ATD.
Instrument recency experience  Reduce frequency  Allows any        61.57(c)...................  2016$-83.1M.
 requirements.                  of instrument     combination of                                PV-3%--$76.1M.
                                recency flight    aircraft, FFS,                                PV-7%--68.2M.
                                experience        FTD, or ATD to
                                accomplished      satisfy the
                                exclusively in    instrument
                                ATDs from every   recency
                                two months to     requirements.
                                every six        No longer
                                months.           describes the
                               Reduce number of   training
                                tasks and         devices as
                                remove three-     ``approved''.
                                hour flight
                                time
                                requirement
                                when
                                accomplishing
                                instrument
                                recency flight
                                experience in
                                ATDs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Pilot Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second in command for part     Allow a pilot to  Adds the option   61.1; 61.39(a); 61.51(e),    Minimal Cost
 135 operations.                log SIC flight    to use a single-  (f); 61.159; 61.161(c),      Savings--Not
                                time in a         engine turbine-   (d), (e); 135.99(c), (d).    Quantified.
                                multiengine       powered
                                airplane in a     airplane in an
                                part 135          approved SIC
                                operation that    PDP.
                                does not         No longer
                                require an SIC.   requires the
                                                  PIC to be a
                                                  part 135 flight
                                                  instructor.
                                                 Adds crew
                                                  pairing
                                                  requirements to
                                                  ensure the PIC
                                                  is qualified
                                                  and has
                                                  completed
                                                  mentoring
                                                  training.
                                                 Allows a pilot
                                                  to log SIC time
                                                  obtained in
                                                  part 91
                                                  operations
                                                  conducted in
                                                  accordance with
                                                  the certificate
                                                  holder's OpSpec.
                                                 Allows pilots to
                                                  credit SIC time
                                                  logged under a
                                                  SIC PDP toward
                                                  the specific
                                                  flight time
                                                  requirements
                                                  for ATP
                                                  certification.
Instrument recency experience  Remove the        Allows any        135.245....................  Minimal Cost
 for SICs serving in Part 135   reference to      combination of                                 Savings--Not
 operations.                    part 61 in Sec.   aircraft and                                   Quantified.
                                  135.245(a)      FSTD to satisfy
                                and add the       the SIC
                                current           instrument
                                instrument        recent
                                experience        experience
                                requirements in   requirements.
                                Sec.             Includes an
                                61.57(c)(1) and   option for part
                                (2) to new Sec.   135 SICs to
                                  135.245(c).     reestablish
                                                  instrument
                                                  recency.

Completion of commercial       Allow TAA to be   Includes a        61.1; 61.129(a)(3)(ii),      2016$-$3.1M.
 pilot training and testing     used to meet      general           (j); appendix D to part     PV-3%--$2.8M.
 in technically advanced        some or all of    definition of     141 61.31(e) and (f).       PV-7%--$2.6M.
 airplanes (TAA).               the currently     TAA in Sec.
                                required 10       61.1, and
                                hours of          relocates the
                                training that     TAA
                                must be           requirements
                                completed in a    from the
                                complex or        proposed
                                turbine-powered   definition to
                                airplane for      new Sec.
                                the single        61.129(j).
                                engine           Revises the
                                commercial        proposed
                                pilot             requirements
                                certificate.      for TAAs to
                                TAA could be      accommodate
                                used in           existing and
                                combination       new technology.
                                with, or         Allows a person
                                instead of, a     to use any
                                complex or        combination of
                                turbine-powered   turbine-
                                airplane to       powered,
                                meet the          complex or
                                aeronautical      technically
                                experience        advanced
                                requirement and   airplanes to
                                could be used     satisfy the
                                to complete the   training
                                practical test.   requirement.
                                                 Clarifies that
                                                  the option to
                                                  use a TAA
                                                  applies to all
                                                  commercial
                                                  pilot
                                                  applicants for
                                                  a single-engine
                                                  class rating
                                                  (land and sea).
                                                 Adds an
                                                  exception to
                                                  Sec.   61.31(e)
                                                  and (f) to
                                                  allow a
                                                  competency
                                                  check under
                                                  part 135 to
                                                  meet the
                                                  requirements
                                                  for training in
                                                  complex or high
                                                  performance
                                                  airplanes
                                                  facilitating
                                                  PIC operations.
                                                 In Notice N
                                                  8900.463, Use
                                                  of a Complex
                                                  Airplane During
                                                  a Commercial
                                                  Pilot or Flight
                                                  Instructor
                                                  Practical Test,
                                                  the FAA
                                                  implemented a
                                                  policy change
                                                  that allows any
                                                  single engine
                                                  airplane to be
                                                  used for the
                                                  commercial
                                                  pilot and
                                                  flight
                                                  instructor
                                                  practical tests.
Flight instructors with        Remove the        Requires an       61.195(b), (c).............  Minimal Cost
 instrument ratings only.       requirement       instrument only                                Savings--Not
                                that instrument   instructor to                                  Quantified.
                                only              possess an
                                instructors       airplane
                                have category     category
                                and class         multiengine
                                ratings on        class rating on
                                their flight      his or her
                                instructor        flight
                                certificates to   instructor
                                provide           certificate
                                instrument        when providing
                                training.         instrument
                                                  training in a
                                                  multiengine
                                                  airplane.
Sport pilot flight instructor  Allow a sport     Allows sport      61.412; 61.415(h);           Minimal Cost
 training privilege.            pilot only        pilot             91.109(c).                   Savings--Not
                                instructor to     instructors to                                 Quantified.
                                provide           receive the
                                training on       training
                                control and       required by
                                maneuvering       Sec.   61.412
                                solely by         in an ATD.
                                reference to     Allows
                                the flight        instrument only
                                instruments       instructors to
                                (for sport        provide the
                                pilot students    training and
                                only).            endorsement
                                                  required by
                                                  Sec.   61.412
                                                  to sport pilot
                                                  instructors.
Credit for training obtained   Allow a portion   Allows all        61.99; 61.109(l)...........  2016$-$14.0M.
 as a sport pilot.              of sport pilot    training                                      PV-3%--$13.3M.
                                training to be    received from a                               PV-7%--$12.3M.
                                credited for      sport pilot
                                certain           instructor to
                                aeronautical      be credited
                                experience        towards a
                                requirements      higher
                                for a higher      certificate or
                                certificate or    rating.
                                rating.          Allows training
                                                  received from a
                                                  sport pilot
                                                  instructor on
                                                  the control and
                                                  maneuvering of
                                                  an aircraft
                                                  solely by
                                                  reference to
                                                  the instruments
                                                  to be credited
                                                  towards a
                                                  private pilot
                                                  certificate,
                                                  provided the
                                                  sport pilot
                                                  instructor
                                                  satisfies Sec.
                                                   61.412.
Include special curricula      Allow part 141    No changes......  141.5(d)...................  Minimal Cost
 courses in renewal of pilot    pilot schools                                                    Savings--Not
 school certificate.            to count FAA                                                     Quantified.
                                approved
                                ``special
                                curricula''
                                course
                                completions
                                (graduates of
                                these courses)
                                toward
                                certificate
                                renewal
                                requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                Other Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporary validation of        Allow a           Adds language to  61.3; 63.3; 63.16;           Minimal Cost
 flightcrew members'            confirmation      also allow part   91.1015(h); 121.383;         Savings--Not
 certificates.                  document issued   91, subpart K     135.95.                      Quantified.
                                by a part 119     program
                                certificate       managers to
                                holder            issue temporary
                                authorized to     verification
                                conduct           documents.
                                operations
                                under part 121
                                or 135 to serve
                                as a temporary
                                verification of
                                the airman
                                certificate and/
                                or medical
                                certificate
                                during
                                operations
                                within the
                                United States
                                for up to 72
                                hours.
Military competence for        Allow the         Revises           61.197; 61.199.............  Minimal Cost
 Flight Instructors.            addition of a     reinstatement                                  Savings--Not
                                flight            requirements to                                Quantified.
                                instructor        accurately
                                rating based on   reflect the
                                military          process by
                                competency to     which a
                                ``simultaneousl   military
                                y qualify'' for   instructor
                                the               pilot acquires
                                reinstatement     an additional
                                of an expired     aircraft rating
                                FAA flight        qualification.
                                instructor       Provides
                                certificate.      military
                                                  instructor
                                                  pilots two
                                                  options for
                                                  reinstatement,
                                                  consistent with
                                                  the
                                                  reinstatement
                                                  requirements
                                                  for civilian
                                                  holders of
                                                  expired flight
                                                  instructor
                                                  certificates.
Restricted Category Aircraft   Allow an          Removes proposed  91.313.....................  Minimal Cost
 type training and testing      operator to       requirement                                    Savings--Not
 allowances.                    request and       that personnel                                 Quantified.
                                obtain a letter   receiving
                                of deviation      flight
                                authority to      crewmember
                                conduct           training in
                                training and      special purpose
                                testing and       operations be
                                other directly    employed by the
                                related           operator
                                activities for    providing the
                                employees to      training.
                                obtain a type    Specifies that
                                rating in a       relocation
                                restricted        flights include
                                category          delivery and
                                aircraft.         repositioning
                                                  flights.
Single Pilot Operations of     Allow pilots to   Revised to        91.531.....................  Minimal Cost
 Former Military Airplanes      operate certain   accommodate the                                Savings--Not
 and Other Airplanes with       large and         new airplane                                   Quantified.
 Special Airworthiness          turbojet-         certification
 Certificates.                  powered           levels adopted
                                airplanes         in the part 23
                                (specifically     final rule.
                                former military
                                and some
                                airplanes not
                                type
                                certificated in
                                the standard
                                category)
                                without a pilot
                                who is
                                designated as
                                SIC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

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

III. Discussion of the Final Rule

    On May 12, 2016, the FAA published a NPRM proposing a variety of
provisions intended to provide relief from regulatory burdens to the
general aviation community, commercial pilots, military flight
instructors, and those using new technology in aviation. The FAA
proposed changes in 12 different subject areas to 14 CFR parts 61, 63,
91, 121, 135, and 141.
    The FAA received and considered a total of 100 comments to the
NPRM. Commenters included 63 individuals, 15 aviation-related
companies, and 12 aviation-related organizations. Several commenters
provided more than one comment. The majority of commenters supported
various proposed provisions, and many recommended changes to the
proposed rule language. While there was opposition to some provisions,
no commenters opposed the NPRM in its entirety.
    Because of the specific nature of each provision, the FAA discusses
each provision separately.

A. Aviation Training Devices

    This final rule amends the regulations governing the use of
aviation training devices (ATDs). As stated in the NPRM,\2\ the FAA
approves ATDs for use in pilot certification training under the
authority provided in 14 CFR 61.4(c). Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 60 governs the qualification of flight
simulation training devices (FSTD), which include full flight
simulators (FFSs) levels A through D and flight training devices (FTDs)
levels 4 through 7. As discussed in the following sections, the FAA is:
(1) Adding a definition of ATD in Sec.  61.1; (2) removing the
requirement for an

instructor to be present when a pilot accomplishes his or her
instrument recency in an FFS, FTD, or ATD; and (3) amending the
regulations to allow pilots to accomplish instrument recency experience
in ATDs at the same interval allowed for FFSs and FTDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 81 FR at 29723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Definition of Aviation Training Device
    The FAA proposed to define ATD as a training device, other than a
FFS or FTD, that has been evaluated, qualified, and approved by the
Administrator.\3\ The FAA proposed to add this definition to Sec.  61.1
to differentiate ATDs from FFSs and FTDs qualified under part 60 and to
establish that an ATD must be evaluated, qualified, and approved by the
Administrator to be used to meet aeronautical experience requirements
under part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prior to this final rule, an ATD was defined in FAA guidance
but not in the regulations. AC 61-136A defines ATD as a training
device, other than a FFS or FTD, that has been evaluated, qualified,
and approved by the Administrator. This final rule codifies the
definition in Sec.  61.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received 3 comments on the proposed definition of
``aviation training device.''
    The Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) concurred with
the proposal. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA),
however, recommended removing the words ``evaluated'' and ``qualified''
from the proposed definition because they are redundant with
``approved'' and because the FAA may, at times, only need to
``approve'' a previously approved ATD model.
    The FAA is retaining the terms ``evaluated'' and ``qualified''
because the evaluation and qualification of an ATD are important parts
of the approval process. An ATD is evaluated and qualified before it is
approved under Sec.  61.4(c).\4\ Evaluating and qualifying ATDs
validates their effectiveness for successful training. In response to
AOPA's comment regarding previously approved ATD models, the FAA finds
that defining an ATD, in part, as ``evaluated, qualified, and
approved'' will not adversely affect the use of ATD models that have
been previously approved. Unlike FSTD which must be individually
qualified under part 60, the FAA has permitted the use of ATDs that
have been produced identical to the model evaluated, qualified, and
approved utilizing a standard letter of authorization (LOA) for over 12
years. After the FAA provides initial approval of a specific model,
that approval covers production of additional identical models by the
manufacturer. However, the FAA reserves the right to re-evaluate any
ATD used to meet pilot certification or experience requirements.\5\
Additional conditions and limitations in the LOAs explain that any
changes or modifications made to the ATD that have not been approved in
writing by the General Aviation and Commercial Division may terminate
the LOA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See AC-61-136A, FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices
and Their Use for Training and Experience (November 17, 2014).
    \5\ See FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 11, Ch. 10, Sec. 1, Para. 11-10-
1-19 Inspector Oversight (explaining how the jurisdictional FSDO may
conduct an inspection or surveillance of any FAA-approved ATD
located within its geographical area that an owner or operator uses
to satisfy experience or training requirements for pilot
certificates or ratings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An individual commenter asked the FAA to clarify whether the
definition eliminates the basic ATD and advanced ATD categories
described in Advisory Circular (AC) 61-136. The individual also asked
the FAA to update the related guidance and advisory materials with this
clarification.
    The ATD definition does not eliminate the qualification of an ATD
as basic or advanced. The FAA is adding a general definition of ATD to
Sec.  61.1 to differentiate ATDs from FFSs and FTDs qualified under
part 60 and to establish that an ATD must be evaluated, qualified, and
approved by the Administrator. The FAA will continue to provide
guidance in AC 61-136, as amended, to qualify an ATD as basic or
advanced. Comparatively, the definition in part 1 for a FTD does not
delineate qualification levels.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 14 CFR part 1 defines ``flight training device'' as a
replica of aircraft instruments, equipment, panels, and controls in
an open flight deck area or an enclosed aircraft cockpit replica. It
includes the equipment and computer programs necessary to represent
aircraft (or set of aircraft) operations in ground and flight
conditions having the full range of capabilities of the systems
installed in the device as described in part 60 of the chapter and
the qualification performance standard (QPS) for a specific FTD
qualification level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes that current regulations in parts 61 and 141
expressly differentiate instrument training time allowances for
``basic'' verses ``advanced'' ATDs.\7\ FAA Order 8900.1, Volume 11,
Chapter 10, Section 1, Aviation Training Device also describes
different allowances for basic and advanced ATDs. The FAA provides an
LOA for each training device that specifies the level of approval
(i.e., basic or advanced) for the ATD and the allowable credits,
thereby mitigating any concern about understanding the different
allowances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 14 CFR 61.65(h)(2)(i), 141.41(b), and appendix C to part
141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is adopting the definition of ATD in Sec.  61.1 as
proposed.
    In commenting on the ATD definition, AOPA noted that the definition
of flight simulation training device (FSTD) is inconsistent between
part 1 and part 60. AOPA recommended revising the part 1 definition to
conform with the part 60 definition by adding the word ``full'' before
``flight simulator.''
    The FAA is adopting AOPA's recommendation, which is consistent with
the FAA's proposal to replace the words ``flight simulator'' with the
words ``full flight simulator'' wherever they appear in the sections
the FAA determined needed to be revised.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 81 FR at 29745.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Instructor Requirement When Using a Full Flight Simulator, Flight
Training Device, or Aviation Training Device To Complete Instrument
Recency Experience
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Sec.  61.51(g) by revising
paragraph (g)(4) and adding a new paragraph (g)(5) to allow a pilot to
accomplish instrument recency experience when using a FFS, FTD, or ATD
without an instructor present, provided a logbook or training record is
maintained to specify the approved training device, time, and the
content as appropriate.\9\ Under the proposal, a pilot would still have
been required to have an instructor present when using time in a FFS,
FTD, or ATD to acquire instrument aeronautical experience for a pilot
certificate or rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Prior to this final rule, Sec.  61.51(g)(4) required a pilot
accomplishing instrument recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD
to have an authorized instructor present to observe the time and
sign the pilot's logbook. The FAA notes that a pilot who performs
instrument recency in an aircraft, however, is not required to have
an instructor present to observe the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received 27 comments, 9 from organizations and 18 from
individuals. The majority of commenters overwhelmingly supported the
proposal noting various benefits, including reduced costs for pilots,
less time commitment, reduced airspace use and congestion, increased
number of instrument current pilots, and increased pilot proficiency
and safety. Several commenters noted how the use of FFSs, FTDs, and
ATDs enhances training by allowing more opportunities to practice
important skills and experience a variety of approaches, conditions,
and equipment failures.
    As stated in the NPRM,\10\ because instrument recency experience is
not training, the FAA no longer believes it is necessary to have an
instructor present when instrument recency experience is accomplished
in an FSTD

or ATD. The FAA is therefore removing the requirement for an authorized
instructor to be present when a pilot accomplishes his or her
instrument recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD, as proposed. The
FAA is, however, slightly revising the proposed rule language by
removing the word ``approved'' because an FFS or FTD used to satisfy
Sec.  61.51(g)(5) is qualified, not approved, by the National Simulator
Program under part 60.\11\ Furthermore, Sec.  61.51(g)(4) retains the
requirement for an authorized instructor to be present in an FSTD or
ATD when a pilot is logging training time to meet the aeronautical
experience requirements for a certificate or rating.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 81 FR at 29724.
    \11\ FFSs and FTDs are qualified by the National Simulator
Program under part 60. FFSs and FTDs are subsequently approved by a
principal operations inspector (POI) or training center program
manager (TCPM) for use in a training program. When an FFS or FTD is
used outside of a training program, an FFS or FTD is not approved by
the FAA; it is only qualified by the National Simulator Program
under part 60. Therefore, not all FSTDs used to satisfy Sec.
61.51(g)(5) will be approved. ATDs are approved by letter of
authorization from AFS-800, The General Aviation and Commercial
Division.
    \12\ 14 CFR 61.51(g)(4), 61.65, 61.129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with instrument recency experience accomplished in an aircraft,
Sec.  61.57(c) requires the pilot to log the required tasks in his or
her logbook and Sec.  61.51(b) requires certain information to be
logged, including the type and identification of the FSTD or ATD.\13\
Additionally, Sec.  61.51(g)(5) requires the pilot to maintain a
logbook or training record \14\ that specifies the training device,
time, and content. The FAA therefore emphasizes the importance of
clearly documenting in one's logbook the type and identification of the
FFS, FTD, or ATD used to maintain recency and a detailed record of the
specific tasks completed.\15\ For ATDs, the FAA recommends retaining a
copy of the FAA Letter of Authorization (LOA) for the ATD used because
the LOA contains the type and model of the ATD that must be documented
in the pilot's logbook.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(iv).
    \14\ Although recent flight experience is not training, the
required maneuvers may be accomplished as part of a training
program. As such, the experience may be logged in a training record
rather than a logbook.
    \15\ 14 CFR 61.51(b) and (g)(5). For ATDs, the type and
identification of the device will be the manufacturer name and
model, which is identified on the LOA for the ATD approval. All
qualified FFSs and FTDs will have an FAA identification number.
    \16\ The FAA notes that FFSs and FTDs are not issued LOAs.
Rather, an FFS or FTD is issued a Statement of Qualification (SOQ),
which will contain the FAA identification number. 14 CFR 60.15(g).
The SOQ must be posted in or adjacent to the FSTD. 14 CFR
60.9(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), National Air
Transportation Association (NATA), Redbird, Society of Aviation and
Flight Educators (SAFE), and four individuals, who identified as either
pilots or instructors, generally commented that bringing FFS, FTD, and
ATD instrument recency requirements in line with the requirements when
using an actual aircraft makes sense. These commenters indicated that
if a pilot can be trusted to log instrument recency in an aircraft
without an instructor present, then he or she should be trusted to do
the same in an FFS, FTD, or ATD.
    Four commenters expressed concern, however, that there is potential
for falsification of logbook entries by pilots if they are not
supervised when using an FFS, FTD, or ATD to satisfy instrument recency
requirements. To reduce the risk of falsification, one individual
recommended that FAA require the simulator to produce a flight track
and log all pilot activities and actions during the simulator session.
The commenter recommended that the flight school keep this
documentation, and the pilot retain a copy of this simulator session to
support the logbook entry to satisfy the instrument recency experience
requirement.
    Because instructor supervision is not required when a pilot
satisfies the instrument recency experience in an aircraft,\17\
similarly, it should not be required when a pilot satisfies the same
instrument recency experience in a FFS, FTD, or ATD. A pilot must
perform and log the required tasks regardless of whether the tasks are
accomplished in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD.\18\ As several
commenters noted, pilots who satisfy the instrument recency experience
in an FFS, FTD, or ATD should be trusted in the same fashion as those
pilots who satisfy the requirements in an aircraft. While there is a
potential for falsification in both scenarios, the FAA finds that the
current penalties for falsifying pilot logbooks and records, which
include suspension or revocation of one's airman certificate, are a
sufficient deterrent to falsifying the logging requirements.\19\ The
FAA notes that falsifying a logbook entry would also be a criminal
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.\20\ Given the deterrence that is currently
in place for the falsification of records, the FAA finds it unnecessary
to require instructor supervision when a pilot satisfies the instrument
recency experience in an FFS, FTD, or ATD. Furthermore, the FAA is not
requiring the FFS, FTD, or ATD to produce a flight track and log pilot
activities as proof of performing the required tasks for maintaining
instrument recency; nor is the FAA imposing more stringent
recordkeeping requirements on the flight schools who own such FFS, FTD,
or ATDs or on the pilots who use the FFS, FTD, or ATD to maintain
instrument recency. These suggestions are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ As discussed further in this section, the purpose of the
instrument recency experience requirement is to ensure the pilot
maintains his or her instrument proficiency by performing and
logging the required instrument experience. A pilot who accomplishes
instrument recency experience is already instrument-rated.
Therefore, the FAA expects pilots accomplishing the instrument
recency experience to already be at an acceptable level of
proficiency.
    \18\ 14 CFR 61.57(c)(1).
    \19\ 14 CFR 61.59.
    \20\ Sec. 1001 prescribes penalties for falsification offenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    American Flyers and several individuals asserted that using an FFS,
FTD, or ATD to satisfy instrument recency requirements, particularly
without an instructor present, is not comparable to operating an
aircraft. The individual commenters noted that with FFSs, FTDs, or
ATDs, there is no spatial disorientation, nothing truly unexpected, no
other aircraft, no equipment problems, no approach changes, no
interaction from air traffic control, no threat to life, and rules can
be violated. Two individuals noted that an instructor could introduce
some of these variables in an FSTD or ATD. One individual recommended
the FAA require a flight instructor to introduce real-world scenarios
in an ATD as part of the instrument recency requirements.
    The FAA finds that satisfying instrument recency experience
requirements in an FFS, FTD or ATD is as beneficial as satisfying the
requirements in an aircraft regardless of whether an instructor is
present. FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs are specifically designed to allow a
person to replicate and execute instrument tasks just as they would in
an aircraft. The FAA qualifies FFSs and FTDs under 14 CFR part 60, and
the FAA evaluates, qualifies and approves ATDs under the authority
provided in 14 CFR 61.4(c) using specific standards and criteria
described in AC 61-136 (as amended) as one means of compliance.
Additionally, the FAA accomplishes on site functional evaluations of
ATDs verifying that they successfully emulate instrument tasks
accurately.\21\ The FAA further notes that the regulations do not
require a pilot to experience the variables mentioned by the commenters

as part of the required tasks for maintaining instrument recency.\22\
The variables identified by the commenters consist of conditions and
events that are more specific to training, a practical test, or an
instrument proficiency check.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 11, Ch. 10 Aviation Training Device,
Sec. 1 Approval, Oversight, and Authorized Use Under 14 CFR parts 61
and 141.
    \22\ 14 CFR 61.57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters, including the Lancair Owners and Builders
Organization (LOBO), stated that having an instructor present in the
FSS, FTD or ATD improves the pilot's proficiency. A few individuals
stated that a pilot may need additional training and not realize it
without an instructor present. However, one individual asserted that if
a pilot has obtained a certificate after completing the minimum hours
with an instructor and remains current, there is no requirement for
additional training.
    Section 61.57(c) requires a pilot to perform and log minimum tasks
to maintain instrument recency; Sec.  61.57(c) does not impose training
or proficiency requirements. An instrument-rated pilot has already
demonstrated his or her proficiency during a practical test with an
examiner. The purpose of the instrument recency experience requirement
is to ensure the pilot maintains his or her instrument proficiency by
performing and logging the required instrument experience. Therefore,
the FAA expects pilots accomplishing the instrument recency experience
to already be at an acceptable level of proficiency. The FAA
recommends, however, that a pilot seek additional training if he or she
is uncomfortable with his or her performance of the required tasks
under Sec.  61.57(c).
    LOBO recommended requiring pilots to complete an annual instrument
proficiency check with an instrument flight instructor.
    The FAA requires an instrument proficiency check only when a pilot
has failed to meet the recent instrument experience requirements for
more than six calendar months.\23\ The recommendation to require an
instrument proficiency check every year is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking and unnecessary if the pilot is maintaining his or her
instrument recency in accordance with the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 14 CFR 61.57(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two individuals asserted that there is no cost savings when one
takes into account the cost of a crash, including the cost of a human
life, property damage, and medical treatment for survivors.
    For the reasons stated above, the FAA disagrees with the assertion
that removing the requirement for an instructor to be present in an
FSTD or ATD will result in a decrease in safety. Pilots may accomplish
the required tasks under Sec.  61.57(c) in an aircraft in actual
instrument conditions without an instructor present. Allowing pilots to
accomplish the same tasks in an FSTD or ATD without an instructor
present does not reduce the level of safety.
    LOBO questioned the accuracy of the FAA's estimates of cost
savings, noting that the FAA may be overestimating the number of pilots
that use an FFS, FTD, or ATD, to maintain instrument recency. LOBO
claimed that although the percentage of pilots who possess instrument
ratings is quite high, non-scientific polling by AOPA indicates many of
them are not instrument current. LOBO noted that the FAA estimated that
removing the requirement for a flight instructor to be present would
generate a total savings of $10.6 million (present value), or $2.4
million annually, all other factors remaining the same. Given there has
been no polling of the U.S. pilot population for training, experience,
etc. by the FAA since 1990, LOBO questioned the accuracy of these
estimates.
    The Regulatory Evaluation in the NPRM estimated that implementation
of this rule provision would result in present value cost savings of
$10.6 million over a five-year period at a 7 percent discount rate.
Because the FAA does not require pilots to report instrument experience
data and capturing such data is difficult if not impossible, the FAA
made a conservative estimate of the cost savings. This is a
conservative estimate because it reflects that a significant number of
pilots do not maintain instrument recency in general. The FAA estimated
the number of pilots who might benefit from this rule provision by
starting with the total number of instrument rated pilots in the United
States as of June 30, 2015. This was 305,976 instrument rated pilots.
This number included airline transport pilots (ATPs). However, under
Sec.  61.57(e), pilots employed by part 119 certificate holders
conducting operations under part 121 or part 135 are excepted from the
instrument recency experience requirement in Sec.  61.57(c). As of June
23, 2015, the FAA estimated that 104,424 air carrier pilots were
excepted. This left 201,552 instrument rated pilots that could
potentially benefit from this rule provision. Of these pilots, the FAA
estimated that only approximately 50 percent (100,776) were maintaining
their recency. Of this group, the FAA estimated that only 25 percent
(25,194) used an FFS, FTD, or ATD for recency and would potentially
benefit from this rule provision. At an average instructor rate of $24
per hour for an estimated 4 hours per year, the FAA estimated that it
would cost about 2.4 million dollars per year for 25,194 pilots to
complete the recency requirement. These estimates indicate that only
12.5 percent of instrument rated pilots (excluding air carrier pilots)
would benefit from this rule provision. The FAA finds this to be a
reasonably conservative estimate.
    Furthermore, FAA notes that LOBO did not provide any alternative
estimates, LOBO relied on non-scientific polling from AOPA, and LOBO
failed to provide any substantiated statistics. The FAA believes new
Sec.  61.51(g)(5) will significantly reduce cost to the public. As
described in the NPRM, the FAA believes that new Sec.  61.51(g)(5) will
likely increase the public's use of FFSs, FTDs or ATDs and notes that
the majority of comments supported this conclusion. Because the FAA is
adopting Sec.  61.51(g)(4) and (5) as proposed and no alternative
estimates were provided, there will be no change to the NPRM
methodology used for this estimate.
    As a general matter, the FAA notes that ATDs allow programming and
practice of many instrument situations, scenarios, and procedures. The
current capabilities of ATDs, FTDs, and FFSs allow an instrument rated
pilot to program and successfully practice simulated low visibility
weather conditions, multiple approaches in a shorter period of time,
emergency procedures, equipment failures, and other various flight
scenarios that cannot necessarily be accomplished in an aircraft
safely. Allowing the use of ATDs, FTDs and FFSs without the requirement
(and therefore the cost) of having an instructor present can result in
more pilots being better prepared. This benefit could include executing
flight scenarios they may not normally experience when accomplishing
instrument recency in an aircraft, or in locations where they do not
normally fly, or when practicing emergency procedures that are likely
too dangerous to accomplish in an aircraft. This includes the unique
capability of practicing identical instrument approach procedures to an
airport the pilot may not have otherwise flown to before.
    Other than removing the term ``approved'' from the proposed rule
language, as explained above, Sec.  61.51(g)(4) and (5) remain
unchanged from the proposal.

3. Instrument Recency Experience Requirements
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Sec.  61.57(c) to allow
pilots to accomplish instrument experience in ATDs at the same 6-month
interval allowed for FFSs and FTDs.\24\ Additionally, for pilots who
opt to use ATDs exclusively to accomplish instrument recency
experience, the FAA proposed to no longer require an additional 3 hours
of instrument experience and additional tasks to remain current.\25\
The FAA also proposed to allow completion of instrument recency
experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Prior to this final rule, Sec.  61.57(c)(3) required
persons using an ATD to establish instrument experience to complete
the required tasks within the preceding 2 calendar months. Persons
using an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or a combination, however, were
required to establish instrument experience within the preceding 6
calendar months. 14 CFR 61.57(c)(1) and (2).
    \25\ Prior to this final rule, for persons using an ATD for
maintaining instrument experience, Sec.  61.57(c)(3) required an
additional 3 hours of instrument experience and two unusual attitude
recoveries while in a descending, Vne airspeed condition and two
unusual attitude recoveries while in an ascending, stall speed
condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ten commenters, including Redbird, American Flyers, and Eagle
Sport, supported the proposal without change noting the anticipated
cost savings that may encourage pilots to stay current, the ability for
ATDs to enhance skills and improve proficiency, and the simplified rule
language that will facilitate compliance.
    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and an individual
commented that ATDs are much more advanced than they were at the time
of the 2009 final rule, and that with these advances, it makes sense to
allow the use of ATDs to meet instrument recency requirements in the
same manner as with FFSs, FTDs, or aircraft.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA believes that the current design
and technology of ATDs has advanced and provides a greater opportunity
for the advancement of instrument skills and improved proficiency, as
well as a wider range of experiences and scenarios, which justifies
their increased use in Sec.  61.57(c)(2). This is also reflected in the
final rule, ``Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot
Certification,'' published on April 12, 2016,\26\ which increased the
ATD credit allowances for instrument rating certification requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Final Rule, ``Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot
Certification,'' 81 FR 21449 (Apr. 12, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA, General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Society of
Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE), and one individual asked the FAA
to revise the proposed rule language to expressly allow a pilot to meet
the requirements for instrument recency experience in any combination
of aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD.
    While the FAA stated in the NPRM that a pilot would be permitted to
complete instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft,
FFS, FTD, or ATD, the proposed rule would not have expressly allowed
this. The FAA is therefore adding language to proposed Sec.
61.57(c)(2) to expressly state that a person may complete the
instrument recency experience in any combination of aircraft, FFS, FTD,
or ATD. Furthermore, consistent with the changes made in Sec.
61.51(g)(5), the FAA is removing the word ``approved'' from proposed
Sec.  61.57(c)(1) because an FFS or FTD used to satisfy Sec.
61.57(c)(1) is qualified, not approved, by the National Simulator
Program under part 60.
    Two individuals opposed the provision. One individual believed that
experience in an ATD cannot replicate that of an actual aircraft
because piloting an aircraft involves many unexpected elements and
stresses not present in an ATD. The other individual asserted that the
instrument recency requirements are bare minimums and do not
demonstrate proficiency, and that requiring more flight time would
result in fewer accidents.
    The FAA disagrees with requiring a pilot to accomplish the
instrument recency experience in an aircraft. The FAA has allowed the
instrument recency tasks to be accomplished in an FFS, FTD, or ATD
since 2009.\27\ The FAA did not propose to change the allowance of an
ATD to satisfy instrument recency experience. Rather, given the
technological advancements that have occurred in ATDs since 2009, the
FAA proposed to align ATD use to the 6-month task completion interval
and the required tasks consistent with FSTDs and aircraft. As
previously explained in section III.A.2. of the preamble, ATDs are
specifically designed to allow a person to replicate and execute
instrument tasks just as they would in an aircraft. Therefore, the FAA
finds that an ATD adequately replicates an aircraft for purposes of
maintaining instrument recency. Section 61.57(c) does not require a
pilot to experience variables and additional stressors that one may
experience in an aircraft to maintain instrument recency. The FAA
recognizes the importance of familiarity with these conditions and
events; however, they are more attributable to training. An instrument-
rated pilot maintaining instrument recency under Sec.  61.57(c) has
already accomplished the required instrument training and has already
demonstrated his or her proficiency during a practical test with an
examiner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Final Rule, ``Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School
Certification,'' 74 FR 42500, 42516-42517 (Aug. 21, 2009) (amending
Sec.  61.57(c) to allow the use of aviation training devices, flight
simulators, and flight training devices for maintaining instrument
recent flight experience).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the FAA disagrees with the comment that requiring more
flight time in an aircraft will result in fewer accidents. The FAA
finds that allowing a pilot to accomplish instrument recency
requirements in an ATD or FSTD encourages more pilots to remain
instrument current and provides the necessary experience to enable safe
operation of an aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC).
As the FAA explained in the final rule, ``Aviation Training Device
Credit for Pilot Certification,'' \28\ the FAA believes that training
in FSTDs and ATDs in combination with training in an aircraft
reinforces the necessary pilot skill to rely solely on the flight
instruments to successfully operate an aircraft in IMC. This mitigates
any reliance on postural senses, sounds, or feelings that can otherwise
lead to loss of control. The FAA further described that training
devices do not require motion to be approved and that training devices
cannot completely train the pilot to ignore certain erroneous sensory
perceptions, but pilots develop this skill during the flight portion of
their instrument training. Consistent with the final rule, ``Aviation
Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification,'' \29\ the FAA believes
that instrument experience accomplished in ATDs is an effective
procedural review and reinforces the necessary skills to properly
interpret the aircraft's flight instruments, allowing successful
operation of an aircraft in IMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 81 FR at 21456 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Lancair Owners and Builders Organization (LOBO) asserted that
the FAA did not make a safety case to reduce the recency requirements.
LOBO believed that the NPRM did not explain how this proposed provision
would improve safety, and that to do so, the FAA needs more
information, which was not presented. LOBO claimed the FAA should
gather data regarding the following: How many instrument pilots are
instrument current; how many pilots use an instrument proficiency check
to maintain recency; how many pilots use an FFS, FTD, or ATD to
maintain instrument recency; how many of those

pilots that use an FFS, FTD, or ATD to maintain instrument recency have
been involved in an aircraft accident while flying under instrument
flight rules; and how many more instrument rated pilots would maintain
proficiency if the proposal were implemented. LOBO pointed out that
AOPA polling indicates the average general aviation pilot is flying
less than 100 hours per year. LOBO indicated that its own data
indicates their average member is flying approximately 50 hours per
year in a Lancair. Given these statistics, LOBO questioned whether
instrument proficiency is possible for pilots who fly so few hours
annually. LOBO also questioned whether reducing recency requirements
for low activity instrument pilots would affect accident rates. Based
on all of these comments, LOBO recommended the FAA research general
aviation pilot training and experience, including instrument recency
training methods, to better understand the impact on general aviation
safety--positive or negative--of the NPRM.
    The FAA is aligning the requirements for accomplishing instrument
experience in an ATD with the requirements for accomplishing instrument
experience in an FSTD or aircraft. Prior to this final rule, a person
accomplishing instrument recency experience in an aircraft, FFS, FTD,
or a combination, was required to, within the preceding 6 months, have
performed: (1) Six instrument approaches; (2) holding procedures and
tasks; and (3) intercepting and tracking courses through the use of
navigational electronic systems. Persons accomplishing instrument
recency experience exclusively in an ATD, however, were required to
have performed, within the preceding 2 months, the same tasks and
maneuvers listed above plus ``two unusual attitude recoveries while in
a descending Vne airspeed condition and two unusual attitude
recoveries while in an ascending, stall speed condition'' and a minimum
of three hours of instrument recency experience. This final rule amends
Sec.  61.57(c) to allow pilots to accomplish instrument experience in
ATDs by performing the same tasks required for FSTDs and aircraft, and
at the same 6-month interval allowed for FSTDs and aircraft.
    While the data sought by LOBO would be useful, it does not
currently exist.\30\ However, based on the12 years of experience the
FAA now has evaluating and approving ATDs and the significant
advancements in ATD technology, the FAA has no reason to believe the
rule change would result in a decrease in safety. As explained in the
NPRM, the FAA imposed more stringent instrument experience requirements
on pilots satisfying instrument recency in ATDs because, in 2009, ATDs
represented new technology. The FAA finds that significant improvements
in current ATD technology have made it possible to allow pilots to use
ATDs for instrument recency experience at the same frequency and task
level as FSTDs. The FAA believes this rule change is further supported
by the recent ATD rule published on April 12, 2016, which recognized
ATD capabilities and increased the ATD credit allowances for instrument
rating certification requirements. Furthermore, in 2014, the FAA
revised AC 61-136A, ``FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices and
Their Use for Training and Experience'' to include stricter approval
criteria for ATDs. The FAA also revised FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 11,
Chapter 10 ``AVIATION TRAINING DEVICE'', Section 1 ``Approval,
Oversight, and Authorized Use Under 14 CFR parts 61 and 141,'' to
improve FAA surveillance and oversight for the use of ATDs and to
otherwise ensure their proper use. The stricter approval criteria and
increased FAA oversight for ATDs ensures they are qualified and capable
for pilots to successfully accomplish the instrument tasks described in
Sec.  61.57(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The FAA referenced two studies in the final rule titled
``Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification,'' which
was published on April 12, 2016, that supported the use of
simulation for flight training. 81 FR 21449. See Kearns, Suzanne
``The Effectiveness of Guided Mental Practice in a Computer-Based
Single Pilot Resource Management (SRM) Training,'' Ph.D.
Dissertation (Capella University 2007); Carretta, Thomas R., and
Dunlap, Ronald D., ``Transfer of Training Effectiveness in Flight
Simulation: 1986-1997,'' United States Air Force Research Laboratory
(1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to LOBO's concerns about the proficiency of low
activity instrument pilots, as previously stated, instrument-rated
pilots have already demonstrated proficiency during their practical
test. Instrument proficiency is considered ongoing unless one fails to
maintain instrument recency in the previous 12 calendar months. In that
scenario, one would be required to complete an instrument proficiency
check (IPC) in accordance with Sec.  61.57(d) to exercise instrument
rating privileges. While instrument-rated pilots may have a low number
of annual flight hours, so long as they are complying with the
instrument experience and instrument proficiency check requirements,
they may exercise their instrument rating privileges. The FAA did not
propose to change these requirements; any change to these requirements
in this final rule would be out of scope.
    Lastly, the FAA does not find that aligning the instrument
experience requirements in an ATD with the instrument experience
requirements in an FSTD or aircraft will result in an increased
accident rate. Rather, this ATD allowance should lower the accident
rate by allowing pilots to regularly practice instrument tasks and
maneuvers in a hazard free environment. The FAA believes that new Sec.
61.57(c)(2) will increase the opportunities for pilots to maintain
recency, reduce cost, and generally promote maintaining instrument
recency.
    The Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA) provided
several recommendations concerning FTDs, including expanding the
allowable instrument recency experience, training, and limited checking
elements from FFS to include Level 3 and 4 FTDs; allowing credit for
circling approaches in Level 3 and 4 FTDs with sophisticated, wide-
angle visual systems but no motion system; and expanding the allowable
credit in FFSs with the motion system turned off. RACCA further
recommended reviewing current FAA FTD and simulator approval protocols
to make them simpler and less labor-intensive for the FAA, operators,
and contract training providers.
    The FAA is not adopting RACCA's recommendations because they are
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    As discussed above, the FAA is adding language to the proposed
provision to make clear that a person may complete the instrument
experience in any combination of an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD. Other
than this additional language, Sec.  61.57(c)(2) remains unchanged from
the NPRM.

B. Second in Command Time in Part 135 Operations

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to amend Sec.  135.99 by adding
paragraph (c) to allow a certificate holder to receive approval of a
second in command (SIC) professional development program (SIC PDP) via
operations specifications (Ops Specs) to allow the certificate holder's
pilots to log SIC time in operations conducted under part 135 in an
airplane or operation that does not otherwise require a SIC.\31\ As
explained in the NPRM, the FAA believes that a comprehensive SIC PDP
will provide

opportunities for beneficial flight experience that may not otherwise
exist and also provide increased safety in operations for those flights
conducted in a multicrew environment. The FAA proposed requirements in
Sec.  135.99(c) for certificate holders, airplanes, and flightcrew
members during operations conducted under an approved SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Prior to this final rule, a person serving as SIC in a part
135 operation could log SIC time only if more than one pilot was
required under the type certification of the aircraft or the
regulations under which the flight was being conducted. 14 CFR
61.51(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA also proposed changes to certain logging requirements to
enable the logging of SIC time obtained under a SIC PDP. The FAA
proposed to revise Sec.  61.159(c)(1) to contain the requirements for
logging SIC pilot time in an operation conducted under part 135 that
does not require an SIC by type certification of the aircraft or the
regulations under which the flight is being conducted. The FAA proposed
to revise the aeronautical experience requirements of Sec. Sec.  61.159
and 61.161 to allow a pilot to credit SIC time logged under an SIC PDP
towards the total time as a pilot requirements. The FAA also proposed
to revise the definition of pilot time in Sec.  61.1, the prerequisites
for practical test in Sec.  61.39(a)(3), and the logging requirements
of Sec.  61.51(f) to reflect the allowance for SICs to log flight time
in part 135 operations when not serving as required flightcrew members
under the type certificate or the regulations.
    Airlines for America (A4A) and two individuals supported the
proposed SIC PDP without change. They noted the benefits of mentoring,
crew resource management training, and the overall experience gained by
accumulating more flight time in a complex environment.
    Several commenters suggested changes to proposed Sec. Sec.  135.99,
61.159 and 61.51, which are discussed below.
1. Airplane Requirements
    In the NPRM, proposed Sec.  135.99(c)(2) would have required the
aircraft operated under an approved SIC PDP to be a multiengine
airplane.
    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Baron Aviation
Services, National Air Transportation Association (NATA), Regional Air
Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA), Tradewind Aviation, and two
individuals commented that single-engine turbine-powered airplanes
should be included for use in an SIC PDP. These commenters asserted
that single-engine turbine-powered airplanes are equal to or more
complex than certain multiengine airplanes. These commenters indicated
that high performance single engine turbo-propeller airplanes such as
the Pilates PC-12, Socata TBM 700, and Cessna Caravan can provide more
beneficial flight experience and training for an SIC than other general
aviation operations. RACCA, Tradewind Aviation, and one individual
explained that these types of airplanes can provide applicable
experience using ``glass cockpit'' and flight management systems in
real-world IFR, weather, cross-country, and night flight in an airline-
like environment.
    Further, AOPA, RACCA, and one individual stated the SIC PDP would
provide opportunities for pilots to gain flight hours. As proposed,
these flight hours could be used toward an airline transport pilot
(ATP) certificate. Increasing the types of aircraft permitted to be
used for an SIC PDP would provide even more opportunities for this
professional growth.
    In light of these comments, the FAA is revising proposed Sec.
135.99(c)(2) to allow multiengine airplanes or single-engine turbine-
powered airplanes to be used in an approved SIC PDP. In Public Law 111-
216, Congress directed the FAA to ensure applicants for an ATP
certificate have received flight training, academic training, or
operational experience that will prepare the pilot to, among other
things, function effectively in a multi-pilot environment, in adverse
weather conditions, and during high altitude operations, and to adhere
to the highest professional standards. The FAA finds that pilots can
obtain the operational experience described in section 217 of Public
Law 111-216 using either a multiengine airplane or a single-engine
turbine-powered airplane under an approved SIC PDP. The FAA is revising
proposed Sec.  135.99(c)(2) accordingly.
    The FAA is adopting the proposed requirement for the airplane to
have an independent set of controls for the second pilot flightcrew
member, which may not include a throwover control wheel. The FAA also
notes that the equipment and independent instrumentation requirements
for the second pilot in Sec.  135.99(c)(2)(i) through (viii) remain
unchanged from the proposal.32 33
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ A cockpit voice recorder (CVR) is not required for
operations conducted under an approved SIC PDP. In accordance with
Sec.  135.151, no person may operate a multiengine, turbine-powered
airplane or rotorcraft having a passenger seating configuration of
six or more and for which two pilots are required by certification
or operating rules unless it is equipped with an approved CVR that
meets certain requirements. However, the FAA notes that an operation
under an approved SIC PDP is not considered an operation for which
two pilots are required by operating rules.
    \33\ The FAA notes that the airplane is still required to comply
with the equipment requirements of Sec. Sec.  135.89 and 135.157, as
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Part 135 Flight Instructors
    In the NPRM, proposed Sec.  135.99(c)(4) would have required the
assigned PIC in an operation conducted under an approved SIC PDP to be
an authorized part 135 flight instructor for the certificate holder.
    Bemidji Aviation Services, NATA, and RACCA did not support proposed
Sec.  135.99(c)(4), asserting that there is no rationale to support the
requirement for the PIC to be a qualified part 135 flight instructor.
Bemidji noted that training PICs to be flight instructors would be time
consuming and of little value because a new SIC under an SIC PDP will
be in need of mentoring and real-world experience, rather than the type
of training a part 135 flight instructor provides. Bemidji further
contended that this requirement indicates that revenue flights are
training flights rather than operations as a crew. However, Bemidji
stated it would support certain crew pairing requirements. NATA
believed that this requirement could limit operators from implementing
a SIC PDP. RACCA stated that requiring the PIC to be a part 135 flight
instructor is not necessary; however, initial operating experience (OE)
under supervision by a flight instructor, additional line checks, or
other intermittent quality assurance verifications are appropriate.
RACCA stated that it appeared the FAA's intent was, from SIC initial
qualification until the SIC was qualified to serve as PIC in part 135,
an SIC logging flight time under an SIC PDP would be required to fly
with a PIC who was a part 135 flight instructor. RACCA believed that
the ``professional development'' element of the SIC PDP needs to be
concentrated in the initial training, checking, and OE phases and that
once the SIC has successfully completed that portion, he/she can
continue to gain experience having completed that part of the program
except for a possibility of more frequent quality assurance checks or
proficiency checks in operators' programs than otherwise required for
SICs in part 135. However, RACCA also stated the SIC flight time in
revenue operations under the mentoring and supervision of an
experienced part 135 PIC is more directly applicable to further career
flying than hours in the following types of operations, which are
currently acceptable: VFR flight instruction, pipeline patrol, banner
towing, traffic watch flying, and light sport flying. RACCA further
asserted that because the SIC PDP is restricted to less risky cargo
operations, this requirement only increases complexity and cost without
any risk mitigation

benefit.\34\ One individual asserted that a low time pilot could
benefit under the supervision of a seasoned PIC while receiving real-
world experience in a crew environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ RACCA's comments on this issue were submitted as to the
regulatory evaluation. However, the FAA has included the comments
here because they are related to the proposal and not specifically
the cost/benefit analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon review of these comments submitted by Bemidji, NATA, RACCA,
and individuals, the FAA has decided to withdraw the proposed
requirement for assigned PICs in a SIC PDP to be qualified part 135
flight instructors. Under this proposed requirement, every operation
conducted under an approved SIC PDP would have been required to have a
qualified part 135 flight instructor assigned as the PIC. This proposed
requirement was intended to create the appropriate training and
mentoring environment to enable the proposed SIC PDP to support the
Congressional directive and provide an effective method to acquire
experience for ATP certification. In the NPRM, the FAA explained that
the experience gained from working with and learning from a part 135
flight instructor in a crew configuration would have provided valuable
experience. However, commenters suggested alternatives to the
requirement for the PIC to be a part 135 flight instructor. Upon review
of these suggestions, the FAA has determined that a combination of
these alternatives will be an equally effective method to support the
Congressional directive while ensuring these SICs are gaining valuable
experience for ATP certification.
    The FAA agrees with Bemidji, RACCA, and the individual commenter
that a new SIC needs mentoring and real-world experience.\35\ The FAA
finds this objective could be accomplished by requiring the assigned
PIC to have a certain amount of experience and mentoring training,
rather than requiring him or her to meet the full training and
qualification requirements for a part 135 flight instructor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Section 135.99(c)(3) contains the requirements for a pilot
serving as SIC under an approved SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In new Sec.  135.99(c)(4)(i) and (ii),\36\ the FAA is including
crew pairing requirements for flights conducted under an SIC PDP. Prior
to assignment as a PIC in an operation conducted under an SIC PDP, the
PIC must complete mentoring training and have minimum experience at
that certificate holder. The mentoring training must include techniques
for reinforcing the highest standards of technical performance,
airmanship, and professionalism. Part 135 regulations require pilots to
complete recurrent training to ensure that pilots 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. The FAA expects that PICs serving in an
approved SIC PDP will use mentoring skills regularly and consequently
these skills are less susceptible to degradation. Therefore, the FAA
has determined that recurrent mentoring training must be completed at
least every 36 calendar months. The FAA will include recommended topics
for mentoring training in a new Advisory Circular (AC 135-43) on
obtaining authorization of an SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Section 135.99(c)(4) contains the requirements for a pilot
assigned to serve as PIC under an approved SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated by commenters, mentoring should be provided by an
experienced PIC. For mentoring to be effective, the FAA believes that
the mentor (i.e., the PIC) must have a minimum level of experience and
knowledge of the certificate holder's operations. Therefore, prior to
assignment as a PIC in an operation conducted under an SIC PDP, the PIC
must have been fully qualified to serve as a PIC for the certificate
holder for at least the previous six calendar months. The FAA believes
that in six months, the PIC would have conducted numerous flights with
various environmental and operational factors which would have allowed
the PIC to effectively consolidate his/her knowledge and skills of
operations at that certificate holder. Certificate holders should
encourage PICs serving in an operation conducted under an SIC PDP to
provide observations and comments to be used in the data collection and
analysis process.
    As proposed in the NPRM, Sec.  135.99(c)(1)(iii) requires the
certificate holder with an approved SIC PDP to establish and maintain a
data collection and analysis process that will enable the certificate
holder and the FAA to determine whether the professional development
program is accomplishing its objectives. Regarding RACCA's
recommendations for initial OE, additional line checks, or other
intermittent quality assurance verifications, the FAA agrees these
types of events could be valuable components of an effective data
collection and analysis process. In addition to the recommendations
from RACCA, there may be other suitable methods to obtain relevant data
for the data collection and analysis process. Therefore, the FAA will
include RACCA's recommendations in the new Advisory Circular as
possible data collection methods. The FAA notes that the data provided
to the FAA by the certificate holder may be de-identified. The FAA
further notes that records used for the data collection and analysis
process will still be subject to record requirements, such as the Pilot
Records Improvement Act of 1996 (PRIA).\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 49 U.S.C. 44703(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, contrary to RACCA's statement, the SIC PDP is not
restricted to cargo-only operations. Except as provided in Sec.
135.99(d), any part 135 operator meeting the requirements of Sec.
135.99(c) may voluntarily choose to seek approval of an SIC PDP.
Section 135.99(d) prohibits certificate holders who are authorized to
operate as a basic operator, single PIC operator, or single pilot
operator from obtaining approval to conduct an SIC PDP.\38\ Section
135.99(d) remains unchanged from the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ As further explained in the NPRM, these certificate
holders--either by regulation or deviation--are not required to
develop and maintain manuals that describe the procedures and
policies to be used by the flight, ground and maintenance personnel.
14 CFR 135.21. Additionally, these certificate holders are not
required to establish and maintain an approved pilot training
program under Sec.  135.341 or employ certain management personnel
under Sec.  119.69. Because of the limited size and scope of these
certificate holders' operations, the FAA does not believe that they
would provide the environment necessary to foster an SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements for certificate holders in Sec. Sec.
135.99(c)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) also remain unchanged from the
proposal. However, because the FAA is withdrawing the proposed
requirement for assigned PICs to be qualified part 135 flight
instructors, the FAA is also withdrawing proposed Sec.
135.99(c)(1)(iv), which would have required flight instructor
standardization meetings.
    The FAA further notes that the requirements for persons serving as
SIC in Sec.  135.99(c)(3)(i) through (iv) remain unchanged from the
proposal.
3. Logging Requirements
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise Sec.  61.159(c) to set
forth the requirements for logging SIC pilot time in a part 135
operation that does not require an SIC by type certification of the
aircraft or the regulations under which the flight is being conducted.
Proposed Sec.  61.159(c) would have allowed a commercial pilot to log
SIC pilot time toward the hours of total time as a pilot required by
Sec. Sec.  61.159(a) and 61.160, provided the SIC pilot time was
obtained in part 135 operations conducted under a SIC PDP in accordance
with Sec.  135.99 and the PIC certified in the SIC's logbook that the

SIC pilot time was accomplished under Sec.  61.159(c). The FAA also
proposed that the SIC pilot time obtained pursuant to Sec.  61.159(c)
may not be logged as PIC time even if the SIC were the sole manipulator
of the controls and may not be used to meet the aeronautical experience
requirements in Sec.  61.159(a)(1) through (5) (e.g., cross-country
flight time, night flight time).
    RACCA suggested the FAA allow a pilot to use the time logged under
a SIC PDP toward the more specific flight time requirements for ATP
certification set forth in Sec.  61.159(a)(1) through (5), instead of
only the 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot required by Sec.
61.159(a). RACCA asserted that there is little quantifiable difference
in the value of experience between aircraft that require a two pilot
crew and aircraft authorized to utilize a two pilot crew in specific
circumstances. RACCA further asserted that experience obtained by a
properly trained and checked SIC is more directly applicable to IFR
complex airplane operations and subsequent career flying than hours in
the following types of operations, which are currently acceptable: VFR
flight instruction, pipeline patrol, banner towing, traffic watch
flying, and light sport flying.
    In response to RACCA's comments, the FAA is revising proposed Sec.
61.159(c) to allow pilots to credit time logged under a SIC PDP not
only for total time as a pilot, but also toward the specific flight
time requirements for ATP certification set forth in Sec.  61.159(a)(1)
through (4) (e.g., cross-country flight time, night flight time, flight
time in class of airplane, and instrument flight time). Under the
proposal, the time logged under a SIC PDP would have counted toward the
flight time requirements to serve as a PIC in part 135, which are
located in Sec.  135.243. Section 135.243 categorizes the flight time
requirements the same as Sec.  61.159(a). Because the SIC time logged
under the SIC PDP may be used toward the total time, cross-country
time, instrument time, and night time requirements of Sec.  135.243,
the FAA finds that it should also count toward the same categories of
flight time under Sec.  61.159(a). However, as explained below, the FAA
maintains that the PIC flight time requirements in Sec.  61.159(a)(5),
including the PIC cross-country flight time and PIC night flight time,
must be met as a required pilot flightcrew member.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ As proposed, the FAA is revising Sec.  61.159(a)(5) to
clarify that to credit SIC time toward the 250 hours of PIC flight
time required by paragraph (a)(5), the SIC must be a ``required''
flightcrew member performing the duties of PIC while under the
supervision of a PIC. Under a SIC PDP, the SIC is not a required
flightcrew member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the FAA maintains in the final rule that a SIC logging
flight time under Sec.  61.159(c) is not permitted to log this flight
time as PIC time even when he or she is the sole manipulator of the
controls. If the SIC time were to count toward the requirements of
Sec.  61.159(a)(5), a pilot could meet the ATP aeronautical experience
requirements and transition to a part 121 SIC position directly from a
SIC PDP, without serving as a part 135 PIC--which was not the FAA's
intent. As explained in the NPRM, the FAA intended for Sec.  61.159(c)
to promote an environment in which a pilot's career follows a
progression within part 135 that includes the pilot serving as a PIC in
part 135 operations before transitioning to an SIC position in a part
121 operation. The FAA finds that allowing the SIC time to be used only
toward the total time as a pilot requirements of Sec.  61.159(a) and
the specific flight time requirements of Sec.  61.159(a)(1) through (4)
is consistent with the proposal's objective. A pilot may use the time
accrued under a SIC PDP to meet the time requirements of Sec.  135.243
to serve as a PIC under part 135; then, as a required flightcrew member
in part 135, that pilot may accrue the required PIC airplane time for
an ATP certificate before transitioning to a part 121 operation.
    Consistent with the changes to proposed Sec.  61.159(c), the FAA is
also revising proposed Sec.  61.161(c) to allow pilots to credit time
logged under a SIC PDP toward both the total time as a pilot required
by Sec.  61.161(a) and the specific flight time requirements for ATP
certification set forth in Sec.  61.161(a)(1), (2), and (4) (e.g.,
cross-country flight time, night flight time, and instrument flight
time), except for the specific flight time that must be obtained in a
helicopter.
    Upon further review, the FAA has decided to also allow SIC flight
time to be logged during part 91 flight operations (e.g., repositioning
flights) conducted for the certificate holder when the operation is
conducted in accordance with the certificate holder's operations
specification for the SIC PDP. The FAA has determined that these part
91 flights share similar characteristics to the part 135 flights, such
as multi-pilot environment, adverse weather conditions, and high
altitude operations. The FAA has determined that if the certificate
holder conducts these part 91 flights in a similar manner to its part
135 flights, these part 91 flights can provide beneficial flight
experience for the SIC while also increasing safety in these part 91
flights. Furthermore, to log SIC flight time during a part 91 flight
operation conducted for the certificate holder under an approved SIC
PDP, the requirements of Sec.  135.99(c) must be satisfied. Therefore,
the aircraft is still required to have an independent set of controls
for the SIC, which may not include a throwover control wheel, and the
minimum necessary equipment and independent instrumentation for the
second pilot.\40\ These equipment and instrumentation requirements
ensure that the SIC will be actively engaged as a pilot flying and
pilot monitoring in both VFR and IFR conditions while conducting an
operation under part 91 for the certificate holder. The flight time and
duty period limitations and rest requirements in subpart F of part 135
will also still apply. Additionally, the pilot serving as PIC in a part
91 flight operation under an approved SIC PDP must be qualified and
trained in accordance with Sec.  135.99(c)(4). The FAA finds that a
pilot may obtain the operational experience described in section 217 of
Public Law 111-216 during part 91 flights conducted for a certificate
holder when the operation is conducted in accordance with Sec.
135.99(c) and the certificate holder's operations specification for the
SIC PDP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 14 CFR 135.99(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the FAA is revising the proposed
amendments to Sec. Sec.  61.159(c) and 135.99(c) to allow the logging
of SIC flight time in operations conducted under parts 91 and 135,\41\
provided the flight operation is conducted in accordance with the
certificate holder's operations specification for the SIC PDP.\42\ The
FAA notes that to ensure the part 91 flights under an SIC PDP are
conducted in a similar manner to part 135 flights, the operations
specification for the SIC PDP will include specific requirements for
these part 91 flights such as use of SOP, operational control, and
recordkeeping.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The FAA is also revising proposed Sec.  61.51(e)(5) and
(f)(3) and the definition of ``pilot time'' in Sec.  61.1 to reflect
this allowance.
    \42\ The FAA is adding new Sec.  61.159(c)(2), which requires
the flight operation to be conducted in accordance with the
certificate holder's operations specification for the second-in-
command professional development program. Consequently, proposed
paragraph (c)(2) is now paragraph (c)(3), and proposed paragraph
(c)(3) is now paragraph (c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RACCA and AOPA both recommended additional revisions to proposed
Sec.  61.159(c)(1). AOPA asserted that the FAA's proposed change to
Sec.  61.159(c)(1) eliminates the ability of a required SIC to use
logged SIC flight

time toward the total time requirement for an ATP certificate in Sec.
61.159(a). RACCA recommended the FAA revise the former language of
Sec.  61.159(c)(1)(iii) to ensure a required SIC can log flight time
toward the total time requirements for an ATP certificate in Sec.
61.159(a).
    Revisions to proposed Sec.  61.159(c)(1) are not needed to allow a
required SIC to log flight time toward the requirements for an ATP
certificate in Sec.  61.159(a). Section 61.51(a) establishes the
requirement for persons to document and record training and
aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate
or rating under part 61. Section 61.51(f)(2) allows a person to log SIC
flight time when that person holds the appropriate category, class, and
instrument rating and more than one pilot is required under the type
certification of the aircraft or the regulations under which the flight
is being conducted. Further, Sec.  61.1(b) defines pilot time as
including time in which a person serves as a required flightcrew
member. Collectively, these regulations allow flight time logged as a
required SIC to be used toward the aeronautical experience requirements
for an ATP certificate as delineated in Sec.  61.159(a). Therefore, the
FAA is not revising proposed Sec.  61.159(c)(1), as recommended by
commenters, because the former language in Sec.  61.159(c)(1), which
allowed a person to credit SIC flight time toward the total time
requirements in Sec.  61.159(a), was redundant and unnecessary.
    The FAA notes that proposed Sec.  61.159(c) would have contained
logging requirements for both SICs and flight engineers, similar to
former Sec.  61.159(c). Upon further reflection, the FAA has decided to
restructure Sec.  61.159(c), (d) and (e) for clarity. The FAA is
relocating the flight engineer logging requirements, which were
formerly in Sec.  61.159(c)(2) and (3), to Sec.  61.159(d). Thus, Sec.
61.159(c) will contain only the SIC logging requirements under the SIC
PDP. The FAA is redesignating former Sec.  61.159(d) as Sec.  61.159(e)
and former Sec.  61.159(e) as new Sec.  61.159(f).
    In addition to proposed Sec.  61.159(c), the FAA proposed to revise
the definition of ``pilot time'' in Sec.  61.1 and the logging
requirements in Sec.  61.51(f) to reflect the allowances for SICs to
log flight time in part 135 operations when not serving as required
flightcrew members under the type certificate or regulations. The FAA
also proposed to revise Sec.  61.39(a)(3) to require a pilot who has
logged flight time under the SIC PDP to present a copy of the records
required by Sec.  135.63(a)(4)(vi) and (x) at the time of application
for the practical test. Due to the reorganization of proposed Sec.
61.159(c), the FAA is referencing Sec.  61.159(c), instead of Sec.
61.159(c)(1), in the definition of ``pilot time,'' and in Sec. Sec.
61.51(f)(3) and 61.39(a)(3). Other than updating the cross-reference to
Sec.  61.159(c), the definition of ``pilot time'' and the revisions to
Sec. Sec.  61.51(f) and 61.39(a)(3) remain unchanged from the proposal.
    The FAA also proposed to revise the logging requirements of Sec.
61.51(e) to allow the part 135 flight instructor serving as PIC in an
operation conducted under an approved SIC PDP to log all of the flight
time as PIC flight time even when the PIC is not the sole manipulator
of the controls. As previously explained, the FAA is withdrawing the
proposed requirement that the assigned PIC be a part 135 flight
instructor. The FAA is therefore revising proposed Sec.  61.51(e) to
reflect the requirements the FAA adopted in Sec.  135.99(c).
Accordingly, Sec.  61.51(e)(5) now allows a commercial pilot or airline
transport pilot to log all flight time while acting as an assigned PIC
of an operation conducted in accordance with an approved SIC PDP that
meets the requirements of Sec.  135.99(c).
4. Miscellaneous Comments on the SIC PDP
    RACCA noted that the regulatory evaluation accompanying the NPRM
stated ``This proposal would provide an additional option for
commercial pilots seeking to meet the minimum aeronautical experience
requirements for the ATP certificate while also providing a strong
foundational experience for a developing professional pilot. For a
commercial pilot to utilize this option, an operator would have to meet
the additional requirements proposed in the NPRM. Any operators, who
chose to do so, would expect their benefits to exceed their costs.''
RACCA believed this statement implies an additional, optional training
requirement for the SIC to count flight time under the SIC PDP toward
the ATP experience requirements. RACCA noted that there is no
requirement for an ATP certificate in part 135 cargo-only operations
and therefore additional training for an ATP certificate imposes an
economic burden by requiring training not applicable to the operation
for which the SIC is being qualified.
    Neither the NPRM, nor the regulatory evaluation, proposed to
require ATP training for an SIC to be able to log flight time under an
SIC PDP. The statement in the regulatory evaluation was referencing the
proposed new option for commercial pilots to log flight time under an
SIC PDP to meet the minimum experience requirements for the ATP
certificate. The proposed requirements for the SIC PDP did not include
ATP training. A certificate holder is not required to have an SIC PDP.
The FAA emphasizes that an SIC PDP is voluntary and would impose no new
requirements on certificate holders conducting operations under part
135 if they choose not to seek approval of an SIC PDP. Any certificate
holders who choose to have an SIC PDP would expect the benefits of the
SIC PDP to exceed their costs of the SIC PDP.
    One individual opposed the proposed SIC PDP, indicating the
proposal was a money-making scheme that does not consider the negative
consequences. This individual cited previous negative experience with
non-required pilots in the right seat of the aircraft stating these
unqualified non-essential pilots caused distractions for the PIC.
Additionally, this commenter did not agree that a non-required SIC
should be able to log flight time equal to the PIC unless the type
certification requires an SIC.
    Without additional information, the FAA cannot address the specific
circumstances presented by the individual commenter. However, the SIC
PDP requires pilots assigned as a non-required SIC to meet the same
training and qualification requirements as a required SIC. More
specifically, Sec.  135.99(c)(3) requires the assigned SIC to meet the
SIC qualifications in Sec.  135.245, the flight time and duty period
limitations and rest requirements in subpart F of part 135, and the
crewmember testing and training requirements for SIC in subparts G and
H of part 135.\43\ The FAA notes that these requirements remain
unchanged from the proposal. The FAA concludes that any concerns about
unqualified pilots have been alleviated. Additionally, the FAA notes
that although these non-required SICs will be able to log SIC flight
time under an SIC PDP, there are restrictions. As described in the
section on logging flight time, even if the SIC is the sole manipulator
of the controls, the SIC cannot log PIC time. Additionally, pilots who
use time logged under an SIC PDP to meet the aeronautical experience
requirements for an ATP certificate will have a limitation on their
certificate indicating that the pilot does not meet the PIC
aeronautical experience requirements of the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The assigned SIC is also required to meet the hazardous
material training requirements in subpart K, if applicable.

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

5. Effective Date and Implementation
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the amendments to Sec. Sec.
61.39, 61.51(e) and (f), 61.159(a) and (c), 61.161, and 135.99(c)
regarding logging flight time as a second in command in part 135
operations would be made effective 180 days after publication of any
final rule associated with the NPRM. In the NPRM, the FAA acknowledged
that these provisions affect part 119 certificate holders conducting
operations under part 135 and will take more coordination and review by
both certificate holders and the FAA.
    The FAA recognizes, however, that the coordination and review
timeframe will vary among certificate holders. Certain certificate
holders' manuals and training programs may already include some of the
components of an SIC PDP, such as SOP for conducting operations with a
two pilot flightcrew, approved SIC training curriculums, and approved
CRM training for operations with a two pilot flightcrew. In these
instances, the FAA anticipates the development of the remaining
components of an SIC PDP to take less time than for certificate holders
who must develop all components of an SIC PDP.
    Therefore, in the final rule, the amendments to Sec. Sec.  61.39,
61.51(e) and (f), 61.159(a) and (c), 61.161, and 135.99(c) will be
effective 150 days after publication of this final rule. This change in
effective date will allow certificate holders and pilots to benefit
from these provisions sooner than proposed, provided the certificate
holder has developed all components of an SIC PDP and the certificate
holder's principal operations inspector (POI) has authorized use of the
SIC PDP in the certificate holder's operations specifications. The FAA
notes that review and acceptance or approval of the various components
of an SIC PDP by the certificate holder's POI is still required prior
to authorization in the operations specifications. As such, certificate
holders should plan accordingly to allow sufficient time for FAA
acceptance or approval.
    As previously discussed, Sec.  135.99 allows a certificate holder
to obtain authorization of an SIC PDP, which will be granted via a new
operations specification (A062). To be eligible for approval of a SIC
PDP, a certificate holder must be authorized to conduct IFR operations
with a multiengine airplane or a single-engine turbine-powered
airplane, that meets the aircraft, equipment, and instrumentation
requirements of Sec.  135.99(c)(2). In accordance with Sec. Sec.
135.323 and 135.325, the certificate holder must submit a revised
training program to the POI for approval. The revised training and
qualification program must include (1) curricula for SICs that will
serve in an SIC PDP, (2) curricula for PICs that will serve in an SIC
PDP to include mentoring training and CRM training for two pilot flight
crew operations, (3) curricula for flight instructors that will conduct
the training of PICs and SICs in an SIC PDP, and (4) curricula for
check pilots that will conduct the checking of PICs and SICs in an SIC
PDP. In accordance with Sec. Sec.  135.21 and 135.23, the certificate
holder must also submit a revised manual to the POI for acceptance,
which must include (1) standard operating procedures for operations
with a two pilot flight crew, (2) duties and responsibilities of an
SIC, and procedures to comply with the crew pairing requirements of
Sec.  135.99. The certificate holder must also submit procedures for
the data collection and analysis process required by Sec.
135.99(c)(1)(iii). The POI will review the documentation submitted by
the certificate holder. Once the documentation meets the requirements
for approval or acceptance, as applicable, the POI may authorize the
SIC PDP via a new operations specification. The FAA will be issuing a
new Advisory Circular to provide more detailed guidance to certificate
holders on obtaining authorization of an SIC PDP.

C. Instrument Recency Experience for SICs Serving in Part 135
Operations

    Prior to this final rule, Sec.  135.245(a) required a person
serving as second-in-command (SIC) in a part 135 operation conducted
under IFR to ``meet the recent instrument experience requirements of
part 61.'' The FAA proposed to remove the reference to part 61 in Sec.
135.245(a) and move the current instrument experience requirements in
Sec.  61.57(c)(1) and (2) to new Sec.  135.245(c). As explained in the
NPRM,\44\ it is more appropriate for the express requirement for
instrument recency experience to be listed in part 135 rather than by
reference to another rule part.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ NPRM, ``Regulatory Relief: Aviation Training Devices; Pilot
Certification, Training, and Pilot Schools; and Other Provisions,''
81 FR at 29725.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received comments from two organizations regarding this
provision. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) and
General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) recommended the FAA
revise proposed Sec.  135.245(c) to allow a pilot serving as SIC in a
part 135 operation to use a combination of aircraft and FSTD to meet
the proposed instrument recency requirements.
    The FAA did not intend to foreclose the option of using a
combination of aircraft and FSTD to accomplish SIC instrument recent
experience requirements. The FAA is adding language to proposed Sec.
135.245(c)(2) to clarify that a combination of aircraft and FSTD may be
used.
    AOPA also recommended that the FAA withdraw proposed Sec.
135.245(c) and retain the current Sec.  135.245(a) language to enable
persons serving as SIC in a part 135 operation under IFR to use ATDs
for instrument recency. Because Sec.  61.57(c)(3) and (4) allow the use
of ATDs to satisfy instrument recency requirements in part 61, AOPA
believed the requirements of current Sec.  135.245(a) may be satisfied
by the use of ATDs. AOPA also believed that, rather than eliminating
the use of ATDs for SICs serving in part 135, the FAA should add a
limitation to specific Letters of Authorization (LOA) if the use of a
particular ATD is not appropriate.
    As noted in the NPRM, the FAA does not permit the use of ATDs to
satisfy flight training, checking, and recency requirements in part
135. In accordance with Sec.  61.4, the Administrator may approve an
ATD for specific purposes. The FAA has never issued a LOA authorizing
an ATD to be used to meet the qualification requirement of Sec.
135.245.\45\ The FAA acknowledges the confusion created by referencing
part 61 in Sec.  135.245(a).\46\ The reference to ``recent instrument
experience requirements of part 61'' in Sec.  135.245 refers to Sec.
61.57(c)(1) and (2) and (d). Therefore, the FAA is clarifying the SIC
qualification requirements by including the express requirements of
Sec.  61.57(c)(1) and (2) and (d) in Sec.  135.245(c) and (d) and by
eliminating the reference to part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Advisory Circular AC 61-136A, FAA Approval of Aviation
Training Devices and Their Use for Training and Experience, explains
that the FAA will issue an LOA which will specify the part 61 or
part 141 provision(s) for which the specific ATD is approved for
use. Further, the AC states that pilots may use ATDs in accordance
with the LOA to meet the aeronautical experience requirements of
part 61.
    \46\ See Legal Interpretation to Mr. Gerald Naekel from Mr.
Donald P. Byrne, Assistant Chief Counsel (June 18, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AOPA also recommended that the FAA withdraw the proposal in Sec.
135.245(c)(2) for an instructor to be present when a part 135 SIC
conducts instrument recency in a FSTD. AOPA noted that, when the FAA
modified the instrument recency requirements for part 61 in 2009, the
FAA indicated that it did not want to require an instructor to be
present when using an approved

training device, but the change was not reflected in the regulatory
language.\47\ If the FAA's intent had been implemented, AOPA asserted,
an instructor would not currently need to be present for a SIC in a
part 135 operation to maintain instrument recency in a FSTD. AOPA
stated that the FAA has failed to explain why an instructor must be
present for SICs in a part 135 operation, but not for all other pilots
maintaining compliance with part 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Legal Interpretation to Mr. Terrence K. Keller, Jr. from
Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Aug.
6, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIC instrument experience requirements were added to part 135
on October 10, 1978, when the FAA published the ``Regulatory Review
Program: Air Taxi Operators and Commercial Operations'' final rule,
which substantially revised the requirements for operations under part
135.\48\ In the final rule, the FAA stated that the primary objective
was to upgrade the level of safety by providing passengers traveling on
a flight conducted under part 135 with a level of safety comparable to
part 121, considering the differences between the operations. Further,
the FAA stated that the final rule upgraded training, testing, and
proficiency requirements to ensure that passengers on aircraft operated
under part 135 are flown by well qualified crewmembers. Specifically,
the FAA stated that, ``[s]ection 135.245 not only contributes to
raising the level of safety in part 135, but also enhances crewmember
qualifications.'' \49\ The FAA's position has not changed; operations
under part 135 require a higher level of safety than operations under
part 91 including a higher level of crewmember qualifications than
required under part 61. Consistent with the higher level of safety
required for part 135 operations, the FAA is retaining the requirement
for an instructor to observe the tasks and iterations conducted in an
FSTD. The FAA notes that this requirement has been relocated to Sec.
135.245(c)(2)(iii). However, the FAA is no longer using the term
``authorized instructor'' as proposed in the NPRM. The term
``authorized instructor'' is defined in Sec.  61.1; it is not defined
in part 135. Therefore, for consistency with part 135 requirements, the
FAA is revising proposed Sec.  135.245(c)(2)(iii) to clarify that the
tasks and iterations must be observed by a flight instructor qualified
under Sec.  135.338 or a check pilot qualified under Sec.  135.337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Final Rule, ``Regulatory Review Program: Air Taxi Operators
and Commercial Operations,'' 43 FR 46742 (Oct. 10, 1978).
    \49\ 43 FR at 46773.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon further consideration, the FAA has decided to also include the
instrument proficiency check (IPC) requirements of Sec.  61.57(d) in
Sec.  135.245. Because a person who fails to satisfy the instrument
experience requirements of Sec.  61.57(c) for more than six calendar
months may reestablish instrument recency only by completing an IPC in
accordance with Sec.  61.57(d), the FAA finds that the reference to
``recent instrument experience requirements of part 61'' in Sec.
135.245 referred to the instrument experience requirements of Sec.
61.57(c)(1) and (2) and the IPC requirements of Sec.  61.57(d). The FAA
recognizes that proposed Sec.  135.245 did not include the option to
reestablish instrument recency through an IPC. However, the FAA did not
intend to eliminate this option for SICs in part 135. The FAA intended
only for proposed Sec.  135.245 to list the express requirements for
instrument recency rather than reference the requirements of another
part. Because the express requirements for instrument recency includes
the IPC requirements of Sec.  61.57(d), the FAA is including the IPC
requirements in new Sec.  135.245(d). However, to avoid confusion with
Sec.  135.297, which contains separate and unique instrument
proficiency check requirements for PICs, the FAA is not using the term
``instrument proficiency check'' in Sec.  135.245(d). Instead, the FAA
is using the term ``reestablish instrument recency'' for SICs.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Consistent with the technical amendment to Sec.  61.57(d),
which is explained in section III.L. of this preamble, the FAA is
not using the term ``practical test standards'' in the regulatory
text of Sec.  135.245(d). Rather, for the reasons explained in
section III.L., the FAA is codifying in Sec.  135.245(d) the areas
of operation required to reestablish instrument recency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA notes that Sec.  135.245(a) and (c)(1) remain unchanged
from the proposal.

D. Completion of Commercial Pilot Training and Testing in Technically
Advanced Airplanes

    Prior to this final rule, a pilot seeking a commercial pilot
certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating was required to
complete 10 hours of training in either a complex or turbine-powered
airplane.\51\ In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to add a definition of
technically advanced airplane (TAA) to Sec.  61.1 and amend the
training requirements to allow a pilot seeking a commercial pilot
certificate with an airplane single-engine class rating to complete the
10 hours of training in a TAA instead of a complex or turbine-powered
airplane. In addition to these regulatory changes, the FAA proposed to
revise the practical test standards for commercial pilot applicants and
flight instructor applicants seeking an airplane category single engine
class rating to allow the use of a TAA on the practical tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 14 CFR 61.129(a)(3)(ii) and appendix D to part 141.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA received 35 comments on these proposed changes. Twenty-
seven commenters generally supported the proposal. LOBO and 6
individuals did not support the proposal. One individual commenter did
not opine, but asked for clarification regarding the definition of TAA.
The following sections respond to these comments.
1. Definition of Technically Advanced Airplane
    The FAA proposed to define ``technically advanced airplane'' in
Sec.  61.1 based on the common and essential components of advanced
avionics systems equipped in an airplane, including a primary flight
display (PFD), a multifunction flight display (MFD) and an integrated
two axis autopilot. The FAA proposed that a TAA must include a PFD that
is an electronic display integrating all of the following flight
instruments together: An airspeed indicator, turn coordinator, attitude
indicator, heading indicator, altimeter, and vertical speed indicator.
Additionally, the FAA proposed that an independent MFD must be
installed that provides a GPS with moving map navigation system and an
integrated two axis autopilot.\52\ The proposed definition of TAA would
have applied to permanently-installed equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The MFD may also include additional capabilities such as
depicting weather, traffic, terrain, navigation aids and airport
information, but these capabilities would not have been necessary to
meet the proposed definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GAMA suggested the FAA work with industry in refining the
definition of TAA to ensure that it is appropriately flexible to
accommodate future technologies.
    The FAA recognizes that the proposed definition would have been too
prescriptive. As explained throughout this section, the FAA has revised
the proposed language in response to industry's concerns to make it
more flexible and accommodating of new technologies. Furthermore, the
FAA recognizes that the definition of TAA would have inappropriately
embedded requirements, which may have inhibited future technologies
from falling under the definition of a TAA.\53\ The FAA is

therefore revising the definition of TAA in Sec.  61.1 to contain a
more general description of a TAA. TAA is now defined as an airplane
equipped with an electronically advanced avionics system. The FAA is
relocating the requirements regarding what a TAA must contain to Sec.
61.129 by adding new paragraph (j). The FAA is also adding language to
Sec.  61.129(j) to allow the FAA to authorize the use of an airplane
that may not otherwise meet the requirements of a TAA. This additional
language is intended to provide flexibility by allowing the FAA to
accommodate future technologies that do not necessarily meet the
confines of the regulatory requirements for a TAA in Sec.
61.129(j).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ If the FAA were to adopt requirements in the definition of
TAA, the FAA would not be able to grant an exemption from those